Talk:J. P. Guilford

message: It would be cool to find out what is his first name! -- Vald 19:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: I find this quotation by Carroll problematic:
:::"Guilford's SOI model must, therefore, be marked down as a somewhat eccentric aberration in the history of intelligence models; that so much attention has been paid to it is disturbing, to the extent that textbooks and other treatments of it have given the impression that the model is valid and widely accepted, when clearly it is not."
If it has received so much attention and textbooks treat it as widely accepted, Carroll's claim that it isn't seems not to have that much merit. In the passage in question he claims that there are several analyses of Guilford's work showing that it is invalid, but one cannot conflate validity (which is not a rarefied popularity contest) and acceptance (which is). I haven't read the whole of Carroll's book (just the pages around this quote on google books). Could someone clarify what Carroll's evidence of non-acceptance is, so that we can surround the quote with more context? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for asking the specific question on acceptance of Guilford's hypothesis. I'll remember to look for information about that as I dig into  sources. Just as a quick response here, my impression of the literature is that Guilford's approach was mentioned often in textbooks until CHC theory really took hold, but hardly elaborated by anyone but Guilford himself. But I'll double-check the sources to make sure about that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not challenging the statement that Guilford's model is not widely accepted. I just think the quote as inserted lacked explanation, and appeared to be contradictory. It looks better now that there is another source. Can I ask why you put the Jensen objection above the one by Carroll? It would seem to make more sense to place the general objections to Guilford's methods before specific pro-g factor opinions.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you can go from specific to general or the other way round. I don't think it makes much difference whether we mention Jensen or Carroll first.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation by Carroll