Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T19:24:37.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prior to paradigm integration, the task is to resolve construct definitions of gF and WM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2006

Damian P. Birney*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology (A18), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006Australiahttp://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/staff/damianb/
David B. Bowman*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology (A18), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006Australiahttp://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/staff/damianb/
Gerry Pallier*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology (A18), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006Australiahttp://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/staff/damianb/
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Blair's account, like the intelligence field in general, treats many distinct constructs as if they were practically interchangeable – this is not self-evident. Paradigm integration and rationalization of redundant nomenclature are important for the continued development of understanding. The prior task is to demonstrate where synonymity of constructs across paradigms occurs, and where it fails. We present arguments why this is the case.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006