A record of Spearman's views on
g (and also those of
Godfrey Thomson and
Edward Thorndike) was made in the course of the
Carnegie-sponsored International Examinations Inquiry Meetings. Here, Spearman gives a compact summary of his findings and theory of
g: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 same 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 psychologist
Louis L. Thurstone who argued his own experiments showed that intelligence formed seven primary categories: numerical, reasoning, spatial, perceptual, memory, verbal fluency and verbal comprehension. Thurstone ultimately agreed with Spearman that there was a general factor among ability measures. Subsequently, Raymond Cattell supported a version of the general ability concept theorized by Spearman but highlighted two forms of ability, distinguished by their noegenetic properties:
fluid and crystallized intelligence. As time progressed, Spearman increasingly argued that
g was not, from a psychological point of view, a single ability but composed of two very different abilities which normally worked closely together. These he called "eductive" ability and "reproductive" ability. The former term comes from the Latin root "educere" – which means to "draw out" and thus refers to the ability to make meaning out of confusion. He claimed that to understand these different abilities "in their trenchant contrast, their ubiquitous cooperation, and their genetic interlinkage" would, for the study of "individual differences – and even cognition itself" – be "the very beginning of wisdom." Spearman felt that though
g could be detected in any sufficiently-broad set of cognitive measures, he felt that the tests from which his
g had emerged "had no place in schools" because they "deflected" teachers', pupils', parents' and politicians' attention from the business of education which, as the Latin root of the word implies, should be concerned with "drawing out" whatever talents a student may have. He presented a digest of his views in the entry "Abilities, general and special" in the 14th edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica. Spearman's model was influential, but was also critiqued by others, such as
Godfrey Thomson. In particular the move from a psychological g to a biological g – that is a unitary biological mechanism or mechanisms has remained a matter of active research. Nonetheless, Thomson's disagreements with Spearman had more to do with methodology and epistemology than data or interpretations thereof. It was Thomson who authored Spearman's
biographical memoir for the Royal Society. == Factor analysis ==