Unclear to me why you put creativity and wisdom in the personality traits bucket. To me they seem to be as much “cognitive capacities” (or generators thereof), as g/intelligence.
On the g->personality thing, IIUC there’s strong support for high IQ correlating significantly with some facets of Opennesss to Experience, especially stuff like willingness to entertain new ideas (very unsurprising), although one can ask here whether it’s about high g influencing personality (or the other way around or a causal fork from some latent...) VS about the cognitive capacity allowing a latent trait of interest in ideas to manifest, where on lower levels of g there would be too much friction.
Yeah, I don’t personally have a principled distinction. What we have, by my lay understanding, is that
Intuitively, there’s things that increase one’s capability in general, and then there’s things that steer / shape what one is interested in / tends to do (extraversion, interests, adventurousness, sadisticness, …).
Intuitively, there’s lots of dimensions of capabilities and somewhat-general factors of capabilities (such as wisdom, empathy, creativity, determination, sanity, cleverness...), which may kinda overlap / shade into being more like steering, especially e.g. curiosity.
But in fact when psychometricians try, mainly what they find is one big blob, g; the subfactorizations they’ve tried don’t explain much more than just g.
g is pretty robust (measurable, transferrable between measurements, test-retest, correlates with life outcomes); other psychometrics are not very robust and not very explanatory of other things.
But I’d like to improve psychometrics for those other things.
Unclear to me why you put creativity and wisdom in the personality traits bucket. To me they seem to be as much “cognitive capacities” (or generators thereof), as g/intelligence.
On the g->personality thing, IIUC there’s strong support for high IQ correlating significantly with some facets of Opennesss to Experience, especially stuff like willingness to entertain new ideas (very unsurprising), although one can ask here whether it’s about high g influencing personality (or the other way around or a causal fork from some latent...) VS about the cognitive capacity allowing a latent trait of interest in ideas to manifest, where on lower levels of g there would be too much friction.
Agreed on both points.
Yeah, I don’t personally have a principled distinction. What we have, by my lay understanding, is that
Intuitively, there’s things that increase one’s capability in general, and then there’s things that steer / shape what one is interested in / tends to do (extraversion, interests, adventurousness, sadisticness, …).
Intuitively, there’s lots of dimensions of capabilities and somewhat-general factors of capabilities (such as wisdom, empathy, creativity, determination, sanity, cleverness...), which may kinda overlap / shade into being more like steering, especially e.g. curiosity.
But in fact when psychometricians try, mainly what they find is one big blob, g; the subfactorizations they’ve tried don’t explain much more than just g.
g is pretty robust (measurable, transferrable between measurements, test-retest, correlates with life outcomes); other psychometrics are not very robust and not very explanatory of other things.
But I’d like to improve psychometrics for those other things.