>>13481325>If you can learn it, I wouldn’t consider it a valid measure of g.>ability to learn is not gMeasurements of crystallized intelligence are better measurements than fluid intelligence retard.
WMI had a loading of .88 on the g factor
Working memory index is made up of Arithmetic + two purely working memory tests (when the test is actually conducted, one of the other working memory sub tests is omitted, weighing the Arithmetic score more.) Arithmetic primarily measures quantitative reasoning, and working memory and verbal intelligence, both to a lesser extent, If you look at the g loading (of the three WMI subtests) individually, Arithmetic is much more g-loaded then the other two. In other words, WMI is only strongly g-loaded because of the heavy g-loading of quantitative reasoning.
>The results showed that Word Reasoning (Model 10) and Similarities (Model 11) have very low and not statistically significant loadings on Gf (.001 and –.001, respec- tively)Yes, they measure crystallized intelligence, not fluid intelligence (Gf). They still however have a higher g loading then all the visual reasoning tests, and all the fluid intelligence measures besides, arithmetic, which does not use visual reasoning at all.
If you look at the g-loading's of IQ batteries like the Stanford Binnet's, or Woodcock Johnson IQ tests both of which have fully fledged quantitative reasoning indexes (rather than WAIS IV that shoe-horns it into WMI), you will see the same thing, Quantitative ? Verbal >> Visual. I'm not going to spoon feed you sources and read them out to ya, though you probably need it.
If you had better reading comprehension (or looked at the figures) you would have an easier time understanding sources.
