The General Intelligence Factor

Despite some popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g, can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life

by Linda S. Gottfredson

No subject in psychology has provoked more intense public controversy than the study of human intelligence. From its beginning, research on how and why people differ in overall mental ability has fallen prey to political and social agendas that obscure or distort even the most well-established scientific findings. Journalists, too, often present a view of intelligence research that is exactly the opposite of what most intelligence experts believe. For these and other reasons, public understanding of intelligence falls far short of public concern about it. The IQ experts discussing their work in the public arena can feel as though they have fallen down the rabbit hole into Alice's Wonderland.

The debate over intelligence and intelligence testing focuses on the question of whether it is useful or meaningful to evaluate people according to a single major dimension of cognitive competence. Is there indeed a general mental ability we commonly call "intelligence," and is it important in the practical affairs of life? The answer, based on decades of intelligence research, is an unequivocal yes. No matter their form or content, tests of mental skills invariably point to the existence of a global factor that permeates all aspects of cognition. And this factor seems to have considerable influence on a person's practical quality of life. Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is the single most effective predictor known of individual performance at school and on the job. It also predicts many other aspects of well-being, including a person's chances of divorcing, dropping out of high school, being unemployed or having illegitimate children [see illustration].

Complete text at http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html

this stuff pains me. for as many years of intelligence research trying to prove the existence of some general, overreaching cognitive ability, seated presumably deep within that famous, but illusory central processing mechanism, there are as many years and as many researchers who recognize intelligence as a mulifaceted, culture-bound concept, not a unitary phenomenon.
as for the iq test, it is perfect for assessing performance on meaningless abstract verbal and (western) logic tasks, leaving out creativity, initiative, curiousity, motivation and all the other real-life elements of social and cognitive functioning.
as far as being the crystal ball of future prediction, i suggest you look to some more meaningful constructs (like social class and/or ses status)

If a tribesman can live out in the bush country of Africa for thousands of years isn't that intelligence? The same holds true for people living in a city, they too have to be intelligent to figure out how to live/survive too.

It depends on what type of intelligence they are seeking. To me, for what it's worth, intelligence tests should be called memorization tests for to pass most IQ tests you have to remember all those answers, if you cannot then your lowered in your scores.

So with that in mind one definition of intelligence is the ability to live within your areas of habitation and to exist for centuries without killing your peoples off.

Isaac: nuenke is already throwing this idea around in the NEO-Eugenics thread in this sub-forum.

This argument seems to be fundamentally flawed. At least for a large part of the document 3 ideas seem to be their general support of the fact that g is not mostly enviornmental.

1. high g equals high intelligence across the board
2. high g equals high score on non knowledge based tests
3. high g equals more efficient brain activity

But all of these are consistent with the possibillity that people can LEARN the abillity to process and organize information better...