Talk:Charles Spearman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment[edit]

Spearman did not study in Leipzig because of the lax requirements but because the University of Leipzig simply was the best university in psychology at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.167.132 (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The following inserted paragraph is almost entirely misleading There was also another co-factor as proposed by Spearman that was special intelligence. The special intelligence was for individuals" who accomplished high success results in the some tests. However, later Spearman introduced group factor that was particular to those correlations that were not a result of factor g or s. His ideas were in 1938 criticized on paper by Louis L. Thurstone a psychologist saying that his experiments show that the correlation of intelligence can be categorized in seven primary categories. These categories were numerical, reasoning, spatial, perceptual, memory, verbal fluency and verbal comprehension. However Raymond B. Cattell in 1963 agreed with the concept theorized by Spearman but put forth his findings about intelligence analyses. His analyses were that intelligence is further subdivided in two divisions known as fluid and crystallized intelligence.[10]

Spearman rarely used the word intlligence. The relationship between general and specific FACTORS is discussed in the quotation above the paragraph. Cattell derived his crystallised and fluid intelligences from factor analyses, not from an examination of the nature of g. More importantly, as Horn (who is usually credited for the Cattell-Horn theory)later pointed out, the terms are entirely misleading. One is not a crystallized version of the other. They are different at birth, have different genetic origins, and predict different things in life.

The paragraph should be deleted.

217.30.113.194 (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

death[edit]

In my sources there are two different dates of death: september 7 and september 17, the latter in the older sources. A lot of Internet-sources use obviously Wikipedia. Is somebody able, to find out what is correct. Markosch from german Wikipedia--217.253.128.42 21:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing[edit]

Spearman's 1927 book is quite enjoyable to read, and full of ideas that have been forgotten by subsequent writers on psychology. 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) 21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Spearman.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Spearman.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)