Just as a point of clarification I think we all have to keep in mind the difference between a reliable result and a valid claim I don t think it would be possible to claim that g is not a reliable result as Bpesta said it s been replicated far too many times to say it s just an artifact The debate is over what this reliable result means e g which theoretical claim about the underlying cause of the effect is valid and that is a complex multi sided yet to be resolved if ever question Frankly I doubt science will have a decent answer to that question until it has a more analytic definition of what intelligence is and being a bit of a developmentalist myself I suspect that that definition will be much more subtle than can be captured by a simple measure like IQ but as it stands the best we are going to be able to do with this section is discuss g in its basics and then lay out various interpretations with proper attributions so that it doesn t look like the section is advocating any one amongst the several competing ideas Ludwigs2