PROLOG I joined this group after reading through some of the dearths and finding that there were several people posting who were well informed and up to date on the subject of human intelligence. This is an attraction, since it is an exception to the general rule that people in discussion forums bring opinions and nothing else. I have been confronted several times by Evo with comments that were not informative, but which were apparently designed to silence me. When I reviewed her prior comments to other participants, I found that she was combative with them as well. Some of her replies to Moonbear, BV and bobf were amazingly confrontational without containing any information, logic, or analysis. I accept Evo's claims that she really knows about the things she dismisses, but I would like to ask her to tell us about those items without dismissing them, without giving just a link to something that may or may not be helpful, and without ducking the questions. I am sure she will eagerly answer questions, since she previously wrote: "Yes, BV doesn't answer to direct questions." I am sure that Evo will answer to direct questions. Let me add that one contributor to these discussions (screen name "hitsquad") is well informed and has posted comments that are identical to what I would have written about the same issues. This person has addressed the questions pertaining to intelligence with facts that are scientifically valid and known to those who have studied the subject in depth. QUESTIONS FOR EVO Evo wrote: After looking at Evo's prior comments, I was not able to find that the above statement is true. In fact, I found nothing to suggest that her prior comments addressed some of my points at all. My questions pertain to the items Evo sought to dismiss by telling me that she has previously countered each. I have not found any such counter messages. I am also familiar enough with these topics to know that the information I presented is supported by a large body of mainstream psychometric literature and by the most recognized psychometricians throughout the world. So, I will repeat the items that Evo claims she has already countered and ask her for a logical and factual explanation as to how she countered the items. 1 - Intelligence is best represented by _g_. Do you dispute this? If so, please state your case. I am using "intelligence" to mean the cognitive function that pertains to rate of learning, problem solving, and prediction of success in intellectually demanding academic subjects and careers. 2 - Virtually all of the external validity of IQ tests comes from their _g_ loading. Do you agree? If not, state what parts of IQ tests contribute more to their external validity and explain how you arrived at your conclusion. 3 - What we know about _g_ is that it correlates strongly with various physiological conditions: nerve conduction velocity, pH, brain volume (and more specifically we now can see that particular areas of the brain are the actors and that their volumes correlate strongly with _g_), myelination, and information intake speed. Do you wish to dispute these well established facts? Please tell me about each of them, since each is important to intelligence and to the variances in intelligence between population groups. People can and do measure these parameters with considerable accuracy. 4 - These factors influence working memory which is now known (seen the most recent issue of the journal Intelligence) is predicted almost perfectly by _g_. First, I want to know if you have REALLY refuted this item, as you claimed. Did you? If so, have you read the last issue of Intelligence? I get the impression that you are unfamiliar with any of the material from this peer reviewed source, so I find it very difficult to believe that you actually know about the recent study that showed the near perfect prediction of working memory from _g_ measures. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Then tell me how you refuted this very recent finding. 5 - All of the physiological measurements are seen between the population groups that are known to differ in mean IQ scores. How did you refute this? What is your source of information? I would like to suggest that you read all of Jensen's The _g_ Factor as a good source of information. 6 - It is possible to measure _g_ by elementary cognitive tests (which are based on response time chronometrics), with a result that correlates as well with standard IQ tests as those tests correlate with each other. This is a simple fact. I am absolutely amazed that you refuted it. Please tell me how you disputed such a massive amount of psychometric study. As you hopefully know, this has been an area of intense psychometric research for many years and continues to be so. To further your understanding of this topic, I would like to suggest that you read all of Chris Brand's book The _g_ Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications. Please tell me how you countered this entire field of study. 7 - It is likewise possible to determine _g_ by electroencephalography using several different techniques and with similar accuracy. And how did you refute this? Are you familiar with the techniques used to determine _g_ from EEG amplitude measurements? Aside from those, what do you think about the string length correlation? 8 - Both of these techniques are essentially passive, not subject to practice effects, and are totally blind to all social factors. So, you REALLY refuted this one? I find it very hard to believe that anyone would argue that electroencephalography, RT, or IT measurements are influenced by social factors. Where did you find studies that show otherwise????