Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/06269050.936 hotline item

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Friday 26 Jun 2009 05:09:36
Date:         Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:08:19 -0400
From:         "BROWN, STEVEN" 
Subject: Re: Intelligence
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

--_000_C66A0843745Esbrownkentedu_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Charlie,

The Spearman approach not only smacks of R methodology: it is paradigmatic =
of it.  I would not say that Q and R are the inverse of one another; rather=
, that they are incommensurate.  Local time and relative gravity are both o=
bjective, hence, in Q-R terms, belong to R.  By analogy we might say that R=
 is like classical mechanics: Newton was inaccurate; quantum mechanics is m=
ore accurate.  The latter can account for the former, but not the other way=
 around.  The analogy falters with regard to Q and R, which are more incomm=
ensurate than supplementary.  It's not so much that they are both plausible=
 representations of reality so much as representations of different realiti=
es, the one objective, the other subjective.

Steve


On 6/26/09 1:11 AM, "Charles Stephenson"  wrote:

Steve -- provocative, as always.

I don't know much about this, but on the principle that what you test for i=
s what you find, is it possible that Spearman's single factor theory, (G), =
and Stephenson's multiple possible intelligences (Q) approach, both are pla=
usible 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! 


--_000_C66A0843745Esbrownkentedu_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Charlie,



The Spearman approach not only smacks of R methodology: it is paradigmatic =
of it.  I would not say that Q and R are the inverse of one another; r=
ather, that they are incommensurate.  Local time and relative gravity =
are both objective, hence, in Q-R terms, belong to R.  By analogy we m=
ight say that R is like classical mechanics: Newton was inaccurate; quantum=
 mechanics is more accurate.  The latter can account for the former, b=
ut not the other way around.  The analogy falters with regard to Q and=
 R, which are more incommensurate than supplementary.  It’s not =
so much that they are both plausible representations of reality so much as =
representations of different realities, the one objective, the other subjec=
tive.



Steve





On 6/26/09 1:11 AM, "Charles Stephenson" <CWStephenson2008@AOL.COM> wrote:



Steve -- provocative, as always.

 

I don't know much about this, but on the principle that what you test for i=
s what you find, is it possible that Spearman's single factor theory, (G), =
and Stephenson's multiple possible intelligences (Q) approach, both are pla=
usible 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/100122638x1=
222405996x1201457362/aol?redir=3Dhttp://www.getpeek.com/aol> 








--_000_C66A0843745Esbrownkentedu_--