G-factor of intelligence

The study of human intelligence is one of the most controversial topics in psychology.
Briefly, intelligence can be best described as the ability to deal with cognitive complexity. In
the 20th century, researchers discovered that all tests of mental ability ranked individuals in
about the same way. The purpose of this essay is to briefly explain and evaluate the
evidence of a g-factor of intelligence.
Regardless of the cognitive domain that is measured (verbal fluency, mathematical skills,
etc.), people who do well on one kind of test tend to do well on others, and people who do
poorly, generally do so. This overlap suggests that all such tests measure some global
element of intellectual ability, besides specific cognitive skills. This general factor of
intelligence reflects certain basic qualities necessary to perform all kinds of problems. In the
last decades, scientists have been trying to isolate this general factor (abbreviated g) from
other aspects of intelligence. In order to statistically extract g, a factor analysis is performed:
this determines the minimum number of underlying dimensions necessary to explain a
pattern of correlations among measurements; it is usually found that a single factor explains
30-50% of the outcome’s variance.
First of all, no general factor has been found in the analysis of personality tests. But, as
Spearman observed, a general factor does emerge from analysis of mental ability tests,
findings that were confirmed later by leading psychologists such as Jensen and Carroll. As
Gottfredson (1998) notes, the g-factor explains the majority of individual differences,
regardless of what cognitive ability is assessed, or the way the test is administered
(written/oral, individually/group setting, etc.). Furthermore, it was found that g is relatively
invariant across various racial and cultural groups.
Second of all, many pieces of factor analysis research confirmed a hierarchical model of
mental abilities. Carroll (1993) puts g at the apex in this model, with more specific aptitudes
at successively lower levels. Furthermore, despite that g itself describes mental aptitude
rather than accumulated knowledge, a person’s store of knowledge tends to correspond
with his or her g level.
Third of all, some sceptics argue that even if such a global entity exists, it has no intrinsic
functional value and becomes important only to the extent that people treat it as such: for
example, by using IQ scores to sort, label and assign students and employees. Although IQ
tests can indeed be misused, research showed that general mental ability predicts job
performance. In fact, in very complex jobs, general intelligence is a much better predictor of
performance than any other personal trait, such as education and experience. For example,
a longitudinal study conducted in the 1980s found that general mental ability correlated
strongly with technical proficiency among military police and medical specialists; moreover,
the civilian sector revealed the same pattern.
All in all, it is generally accepted by psychometric researchers that individual differences in
all complex mental tests are positively correlated, and that a hierarchical factor model
dominated by g at the apex is the best representation. Ultimately, the fact that g has a
positive correlation with conventional measures of success (academic achievements, job
performance, etc.) and is cross-culturally consistent may count as strong evidence of its
existence.