Communication Institute for Online Scholarship
Communication Institute for Online
Scholarship Continous online service and innovation
since 1986
Site index
 
ComAbstracts Visual Communication Concept Explorer Tables of Contents Electronic Journal of Communication ComVista

Your file request

Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/06269011.417 hotline item


-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Friday 26 Jun 2009 01:14:17
Date:         Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:11:55 EDT
From:         Charles Stephenson 
Subject: Re: Intelligence
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

-------------------------------1245993115
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steve -- provocative, as always.
 
I don't know much about this, but on the principle that what you test for 
is what you find, is it possible that Spearman's single factor theory, (G), 
and Stephenson's multiple possible intelligences (Q) approach, both are 
plausible representations of reality? 
 
Much can be taught, learned, cultivated, nurtured, over time.
 
I would hate to think that either my father or godfather was totally wrong.
 
Does that particular Spearman approach smack of R methodology? Both R and Q 
are useful, in their places. Have I read that they are the inverse of each 
other, like saying that all time is local, and gravity is relative?
 
Charles Stephenson
**************Stay connected and tighten your budget with a great mobile 
device for under $20. Take a Peek! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1222405996x1201457362/aol?redir=http://www.getpeek.com/aol)

-------------------------------1245993115
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable





Steve -- provocative, as always.
 
I don't know much about this, but on the principle that what you test= for is what you find, is it possible that Spearman's single factor= theory, (G), and Stephenson's multiple possible intelligences (Q) approac= h, both are plausible representations of reality?
 
Much can be taught, learned, cultivated, nurtured, over time.
 
I would hate to think that either my father or godfather was totally= wrong.
 
Does that particular Spearman approach smack of R methodology? B= oth R and Q are useful, in their places. Have I read that they are the inv= erse of each other, like saying that all time is local, and gravity is rel= ative?
 
Charles Stephenson


Stay connected and= tighten your budget with a great mobile device for under $20. Take a Peek!
-------------------------------1245993115--