Talk:J. P. Guilford

Untitled

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

His name is Joy.

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

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)

Quotation by Carroll

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)

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)

I wrote the section based on what can be read of Carroll's book online and on Jensen's discussion of Guilford in The g Factor. Jensen says that Guilford's model "proved to be an unconvincing and short-lived challenge--one might say pseudo-challange--to g theory. Carroll's summary of the SOI model fairly represents the viewpoints of most present-day researchers in this field: 'Guilford's SOI model must, therefore, be marked down as a somewhat eccentric aberration etc.'"

Citing Alliger (1988)[1], Jensen says that the mean correlation between Guilford's supposedly uncorrelated data sets is, after proper corrections, actually .45. Carroll also says that he has reanalysed much of Guilford's data, finding no support for the SOI model. Carroll cites strong criticisms of Guilford from a number of prominent psychometricians.

Carroll, Jensen, Horn, and others have also taken Guilford to task for using a technique known as targeted orthogonal rotation, where factors are defined before the data are analysed. Guilford assumed a priori that the SOI model is correct, and analysed data from that perspective.

Nicholas Mackintosh's 1998 book "IQ and Human Intelligence" is also very dismissive of Guilford (p. 214-215):

The largest number of factors is the 120 proposed by Guilford (1967) and later expanded to 150 (Guilford, 1982). For Guilford, each 'factor' is defined by the execution of a particular kind of operation on a particular kind of product with a particular kind of content. [...] Although Guilford has claimed to be able to devise independent tests of most of these independent factors, his account has not commanded wide assent. The most devastating critique was provided by Horn and Knapp (1973), who showed that Guilford's factorial procedures, when applied to his test data, provided just as strong support for randomly generated factorial theories as they did for Guilford's own theory. Brody (1992) and Carroll (1993) provide more detailed, but not much more sympathetic, accounts of Guilford's theory.

Guilford's theory is highly convoluted and implausible, and I haven't seen it defended in any recent journal articles or books. I see no reason to think that Jensen, Carroll, Mackintosh, Brody and others are not correct when they say that the SOI model has little support among experts, but if you have some recent source that suggests otherwise, please cite it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Do not move. Secondary sources refer to him as J.P. Gilford. Churn and change (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

---

J. P. Guilford → Joy Paul Guilford – Why sticking to initials? J. P. sounds androgynous to me. Using "Joy Paul" makes more sense; how common is J. P.? How sources use her name is irrelevant, as birth name is more disambiguous than J.P. --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Secondary sources refer to him as J.P. Guilford (this is actually not all that uncommon in psychology—few even know the full name of its #1: B.F. Skinner).
  • The American Psychological Association site which lists his presidential address (1950) has his name as J. P. Guilford.
  • The psi-chi award for best undergraduate research named after him is called the J.P. Guilford award
  • Science magazine calls him (or in that publication he called himself) J.P. Guilford. Try the search J.P. Guilford and then the search Joy Paul Guilford. There are just two hits for the latter, both from 1944.
  • Search on NY Times. J.P.Guilford returns 9 entries for the psychologist (amid other results). A search for Joy Paul Guilford returns 1 entry, from 1933, on the first 5 search-result pages.
  • Searching at springerlink.com, J.P.Guilford returns several entries, including the obituary in Psychometrika (a source useful for us). Neither Joy P. Guilford nor Joy Paul Guilford return any relevant entries in the first 3 pages or so (the 4th page returned two hits for the complete name in two non-English articles).
  • The psycnet/psycinfo database (the standard place for psychology article abstracts). A search for "Joy Paul Guilford" in the "Any field" column, with no restrictions, returned 5 entries, of which one was valid. That was the obituary in American Psychologist, and the title of the obituary was J.P. Guilford. Searching for "Joy Paul Guilford" also returned just the obituary (the 'Guilford' part matched). Searching for "J.P. Guilford" returned all his articles etc.

We are required to use a person's name the way secondary sources use it. In this case, both academic and general publications use the name "J.P. Guilford." We follow that lead. Churn and change (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Churn and change's comprehensive argument. "J. P." is the clear common name and the statement in the nomination that "How sources use her name is irrelevant" is blatantly incorrect. Jenks24 (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose He's generally referred to as J.P.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose How reliable sources use her name is not only not irrelevant, it's the most relevant factor in determining an article name: "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." First Light (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Contrary to what some editors seem to think, J. P. Guilford was a man, despite his first name. See here:[2]--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.