Like others here, since I learned a little more about the MBTI, I've found usefully predicatively, so I keep it in my pocket, always mindful of its limitations.

As for g, WW, I can't follow you there, sorry.

No one can describe it – or agree on a description – no one can accurately measure it or duplicate another's measurement, no one can offer a prediction based on it, no one can tie it in any meaningful way to anatomy or brain function – it's clearly phlogiston, a ghost. It doesn't exist.

I hear Malcolm’s argument but like other commenters, I have been able to use the MBTI with some predictability once I learned a little more about it. So I keep it around but remember its limits. As for g, I can’t go there. No one can adequately describe it, measure it consistently, predict it, or give a theory for it that isn’t prima facie absurd. It’s a ghost; it doesn’t exist.

Like others here, since I learned a little more about the MBTI, I've found usefully predicatively, so I keep it in my pocket, always mindful of its limitations.

As for g, WW, I can't follow you there, sorry.

No one can describe it – or agree on a description – no one can accurately measure it or duplicate another's measurement, no one can offer a prediction based on it, no one can tie it in any meaningful way to anatomy or brain function – it's clearly phlogiston, a ghost. It doesn't exist.

“G” is very likely just a way of the overall or coarse-grained interaction of all the modules — in other words, any general intelligence measurement is looking at the emergent effects and overall efficiency of the cooperating and competing modular subunits.

This perspective is influenced greatly by Marvin Minsky’s “society of mind” theories, and more recent elaborations of a modular perspective, but I’ve seen little that would suggest that a monolithic rather than a modular approach to cognition is called for.