Déjà vu All Over Again: A Unitary Biological Mechanism for Intelligence Is (Probably) Untenable

Nearly a century ago, Spearman proposed that “specific factors can be regarded as the ‘nuts and bolts’ of cognitive performance…, while the general factor is the mental energy available to power the specific engines”. Geary (2018; 2019) takes Spearman’s analogy of “mental energy” quite literally and...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Louis D. Matzel, Dylan W. Crawford, Bruno Sauce
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2020-06-01
Series:Journal of Intelligence
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/8/2/24
id doaj-9189f93c6bac4e17b82db0adb11c5fd5
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9189f93c6bac4e17b82db0adb11c5fd52020-11-25T03:10:52ZengMDPI AGJournal of Intelligence2079-32002020-06-018242410.3390/jintelligence8020024Déjà vu All Over Again: A Unitary Biological Mechanism for Intelligence Is (Probably) UntenableLouis D. Matzel0Dylan W. Crawford1Bruno Sauce2Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USADepartment of Psychology, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USADepartment of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, 17177 Stockholm, SwedenNearly a century ago, Spearman proposed that “specific factors can be regarded as the ‘nuts and bolts’ of cognitive performance…, while the general factor is the mental energy available to power the specific engines”. Geary (2018; 2019) takes Spearman’s analogy of “mental energy” quite literally and doubles-down on the notion by proposing that a unitary energy source, the mitochondria, explains variations in both cognitive function and health-related outcomes. This idea is reminiscent of many earlier attempts to describe a low-level biological determinant of general intelligence. While Geary does an admirable job developing an innovative theory with specific and testable predictions, this new theory suffers many of the shortcomings of previous attempts at similar goals. We argue that Geary’s theory is generally implausible, and does not map well onto known psychological and genetic properties of intelligence or its relationship to health and fitness. While Geary’s theory serves as an elegant model of “what could be”, it is less successful as a description of “what is”.https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/8/2/24intelligenceprocessing speedattentionworking memoryheritability
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Louis D. Matzel
Dylan W. Crawford
Bruno Sauce
spellingShingle Louis D. Matzel
Dylan W. Crawford
Bruno Sauce
Déjà vu All Over Again: A Unitary Biological Mechanism for Intelligence Is (Probably) Untenable
Journal of Intelligence
intelligence
processing speed
attention
working memory
heritability
author_facet Louis D. Matzel
Dylan W. Crawford
Bruno Sauce
author_sort Louis D. Matzel
title Déjà vu All Over Again: A Unitary Biological Mechanism for Intelligence Is (Probably) Untenable
title_short Déjà vu All Over Again: A Unitary Biological Mechanism for Intelligence Is (Probably) Untenable
title_full Déjà vu All Over Again: A Unitary Biological Mechanism for Intelligence Is (Probably) Untenable
title_fullStr Déjà vu All Over Again: A Unitary Biological Mechanism for Intelligence Is (Probably) Untenable
title_full_unstemmed Déjà vu All Over Again: A Unitary Biological Mechanism for Intelligence Is (Probably) Untenable
title_sort déjà vu all over again: a unitary biological mechanism for intelligence is (probably) untenable
publisher MDPI AG
series Journal of Intelligence
issn 2079-3200
publishDate 2020-06-01
description Nearly a century ago, Spearman proposed that “specific factors can be regarded as the ‘nuts and bolts’ of cognitive performance…, while the general factor is the mental energy available to power the specific engines”. Geary (2018; 2019) takes Spearman’s analogy of “mental energy” quite literally and doubles-down on the notion by proposing that a unitary energy source, the mitochondria, explains variations in both cognitive function and health-related outcomes. This idea is reminiscent of many earlier attempts to describe a low-level biological determinant of general intelligence. While Geary does an admirable job developing an innovative theory with specific and testable predictions, this new theory suffers many of the shortcomings of previous attempts at similar goals. We argue that Geary’s theory is generally implausible, and does not map well onto known psychological and genetic properties of intelligence or its relationship to health and fitness. While Geary’s theory serves as an elegant model of “what could be”, it is less successful as a description of “what is”.
topic intelligence
processing speed
attention
working memory
heritability
url https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/8/2/24
work_keys_str_mv AT louisdmatzel dejavualloveragainaunitarybiologicalmechanismforintelligenceisprobablyuntenable
AT dylanwcrawford dejavualloveragainaunitarybiologicalmechanismforintelligenceisprobablyuntenable
AT brunosauce dejavualloveragainaunitarybiologicalmechanismforintelligenceisprobablyuntenable
_version_ 1724656817250762752