In article <39a2d5aa_3 at news3.prserv.net>,
"Sergio Navega" <snavega at attglobal.net> wrote:
>mejqb at my-deja.com wrote in message <8ntt6n$9bm$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <39a12868_1 at news3.prserv.net>,
> > "Sergio Navega" <snavega at attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> mejqb at my-deja.com wrote in message <8nmnvd$eag$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >> >In article <39885cd9_4 at news3.prserv.net>,
> >> > "Sergio Navega" <snavega at attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> MS wrote in message ...
> >> >> >It sounds like a premature generalization to say that because
> >several
> >> >tasks
> >> >> >activated one area that it validates a g-factor of
intelligence.
> >> >Given the
> >> >> >role of working memory across complex tasks and the importance
of
> >> >> >dorsolateral PFC in working memory, couldn't a working memory
> >> >impairment
> >> >> >account for those findings?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >--
> >> >> >Marcello
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree. Although I'm sympathetic to the concept of general
> >> >intelligence,
> >> >> I don't think we have a specific area of the brain responsible
for
> >> >> it. I think it is premature and somewhat "sensationalistic" to
> >claim
> >> >> to have found such an area.
> >> >
> >> >The notion of a specific area of activity and the notion of a
general
> >> >intelligence factor as propounded in The Bell Curve aren't even
> >> >vaguely related.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure why you bring The Bell curve to the discussion, as it
> >> offers something that's far from what has been discussed here.
> >
> >It would help if you would actually *read* the thread once
> >in a while:
> >
> > "
> > Scientists measuring blood flow to regions of the brain have found
> > that one particular area (the frontal lateral cortex) was
stimulated
> > when performing complex tasks. Even tasks that required a wide
range
> > of cognitive functions did not stimulate numerous regions of the
> > brain, as some scientists predicted. This finding gives credence
to
> > the highly controversial idea of a "g" factor (generalized
> > intelligence), as advocated in The Bell Curve.
> > "
> >
>> That's exactly my point, thank you.
You are very good at seeing almost anything as supporting
whatever point you are pushing at the moment.
> I don't see the relevance of
> bringing The Bell Curve to the question of neural localization of
> general intelligence.
Nobody did that, you dunderhead; it goes the other way. Neural
localization of task performance is being taken (by the authors
of the study) as validation of the ("highly controversial") notion of
"general intelligence" that The Bell Curve rests on. But neural
localization *doesn't* validate this notion, as you seem to
agree. Yet you continue to take the notion of "general intelligence"
as a given. But it is *that* notion, not localization, that is
debatable. Localization is what the study showed; the question
is, what does such localization imply?
--
<J Q B>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
