{"title":"一般智力和表型的定义。","authors":"D. Detterman","doi":"10.1002/0470870850.CH9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From Spearman's famous 1904 paper to Carroll's recent book on factor analytic results from a multitude of studies, there has been one consistent conclusion: 'g', or general intelligence, is the factor that defines the phenotype for intellectual functioning. It is no overstatement to say that g is undoubtedly the most important psychological construct discovered in this century. It predicts more and is implicated in a wider range of behaviour than any other psychological construct. The empirical support for g is extensive and overwhelming. It would seem that g is the perfect phenotypic definition of intelligence. I argue that it is not the perfect phenotype. If we are to understand intelligence, we need to define a new, more elaborate definition of intelligence taking g as the starting place. It must be remembered that g is a statistical abstraction. Current formulations of g are largely silent about the composition of g. I argue that g is actually made of further separable basic cognitive processes and does not represent a single underlying entity. These basic cognitive processes are integrated into a complex system in the brain that makes them difficult to identify. None the less, until these basic processes are identified and related to brain function there are a number of findings that cannot be explained and this will inhibit scientific progress.","PeriodicalId":19323,"journal":{"name":"Novartis Foundation Symposium","volume":"26 4","pages":"136-44; discussion 144-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/0470870850.CH9","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"General intelligence and the definition of phenotypes.\",\"authors\":\"D. Detterman\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/0470870850.CH9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"From Spearman's famous 1904 paper to Carroll's recent book on factor analytic results from a multitude of studies, there has been one consistent conclusion: 'g', or general intelligence, is the factor that defines the phenotype for intellectual functioning. It is no overstatement to say that g is undoubtedly the most important psychological construct discovered in this century. It predicts more and is implicated in a wider range of behaviour than any other psychological construct. The empirical support for g is extensive and overwhelming. It would seem that g is the perfect phenotypic definition of intelligence. I argue that it is not the perfect phenotype. If we are to understand intelligence, we need to define a new, more elaborate definition of intelligence taking g as the starting place. It must be remembered that g is a statistical abstraction. Current formulations of g are largely silent about the composition of g. I argue that g is actually made of further separable basic cognitive processes and does not represent a single underlying entity. These basic cognitive processes are integrated into a complex system in the brain that makes them difficult to identify. None the less, until these basic processes are identified and related to brain function there are a number of findings that cannot be explained and this will inhibit scientific progress.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Novartis Foundation Symposium\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"136-44; discussion 144-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/0470870850.CH9\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Novartis Foundation Symposium\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870850.CH9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Novartis Foundation Symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870850.CH9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
General intelligence and the definition of phenotypes.
From Spearman's famous 1904 paper to Carroll's recent book on factor analytic results from a multitude of studies, there has been one consistent conclusion: 'g', or general intelligence, is the factor that defines the phenotype for intellectual functioning. It is no overstatement to say that g is undoubtedly the most important psychological construct discovered in this century. It predicts more and is implicated in a wider range of behaviour than any other psychological construct. The empirical support for g is extensive and overwhelming. It would seem that g is the perfect phenotypic definition of intelligence. I argue that it is not the perfect phenotype. If we are to understand intelligence, we need to define a new, more elaborate definition of intelligence taking g as the starting place. It must be remembered that g is a statistical abstraction. Current formulations of g are largely silent about the composition of g. I argue that g is actually made of further separable basic cognitive processes and does not represent a single underlying entity. These basic cognitive processes are integrated into a complex system in the brain that makes them difficult to identify. None the less, until these basic processes are identified and related to brain function there are a number of findings that cannot be explained and this will inhibit scientific progress.