>>11308269>So you admit that 'g' is a purely abstract concept?Yes?
Do you admit that numbers are a purely abstract concept?
>Much like intelligence there is absolutely no physical proof of its existenceWell first of all, intelligence is a phenomenon, not a physical object to be held. As to proof of its existence, are you seriously trying to insinuate that there is nothing that discerns between, say, the mentally retarded and a child prodigy?
And yes, if you're refering to 'g' itself, because it's a statistical measure used to represent a real world phenomenon.
>In fact there is (no?) definition of intelligence universally accepted by psychologists, yet people think we can accurately measure it?Sure, all that matters is the validity of the predictions made with the construct.
Does whatever construct in question predict what it's trying to measure (in this case, performance across a group of subjects that are highly correlated to performance)? Yes? Then the argument over what exactly intelligence is, is irrelevant in the face of the construct serving its purpose.
>The reason why these concepts are so difficult to have faith in is because there's absolutely no way to verify their existenceIts entire point is to predict something based on statistical likelihood. You don't need 'faith'. If the measure does not accurately predict anything, it gets dropped.
>After all, if I were to propose that intelligence were purely a social construct how would you be able to say I am wrong?Because I would then ask you to explain why phenomenologically, we see differences in performance that cannot be explained by anything other than uneven mental capabilities.
1/2
