Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6)
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year
Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
Fees: None (Free)
Volume Numbering: 12
Issue Numbering: 2
Section: A
Theme Type: Idea
Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”
Theme Part: 30
Formal Sub-Theme: None.
Individual Publication Date: February 15, 2024
Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2024
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Word Count: 4,372
Image Credits: Bob Williams.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Bob Williams is a Member of the Triple Nine Society, Mensa International, and the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry. He discusses: a background in nuclear physics, interest in intelligence, and the transformation of Fort Langley due to the influence of Trinity Western University; retirement in 1996 as a pivotal moment for deeper exploration of human intelligence, access to scientific resources and the internet for furthering studies, and involvement with the International Society for Intelligence Research since 2003; shifts to definition of intelligence, critique of the APA’s definition and suggestion of alternatives, emphasis on the importance of psychometric g and the role of genetics and environment in intelligence; addresses misinterpretation of the Flynn Effect, explanation of its non-relation to genuine intelligence increases and citation of examples of IQ decline in developed nations, challenge to the notion of environmental improvements enhancing intelligence; touches on political and social ramifications of intelligence research, impact of “woke” culture on academic freedom and dismantling of programs for gifted students, sharing of personal anecdotes from interactions with notable researchers; comments on enduring relevance of “The Bell Curve,” contributions to the field, and global variability of the Flynn Effect, concluding with insights into genetics of intelligence and challenges facing contemporary intelligence research.
Keywords: Cultural Shifts, Dysgenics, Education, Environmental Factors, Flynn Effect, Genetics, Heredity, Intelligence, IQ Tests, Nutrition, Psychometric g, Research, Retirement, Social Intelligence, Technology.
Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re back with a Mr. Bob Williams, retired super smart guy! Former nuclear physicist and participant in interviews on IQ and intelligence in In-Sight Publishing and republished in Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society. Most of my best friends as a 13-year-old into the present have been near-retired or retired people, I grew in an artsy, intellectual town called “the village” also known as Fort Langley. It is different now. The Evangelical Christians from Trinity Western University have, more or less, made the place wealthier, tiny bit snooty, and much more glossy. Yet, they call the place, still, “the village.” Too each their own, Fort Langley, when I grew up, was a retirement place, a quietude. So, retired people are the best people in my opinion! Do you find yourself having more time to pursue interests in retirement?
Bob Williams: I retired when I was young, in 1996, and regard that move to be one of the best of my life. Since I have a lot of interests, having more time has enabled me to spend more of it with these interests and to both enjoy them and to improve my expertise in them. My interest in human intelligence began in the early 90s, when I was working in Washington, DC (Department of Energy – Senior Technical Advisor). Having a scientific library there (this was when we still used MicroFiche for research) gave me access to some papers that I would have otherwise found difficult to obtain. When I retired, I had more time to study this new passion, which was aided by increasing electronic access to resources and ultimately to the newly available internet. I joined the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) in 2003 and started attending its conferences in 2004. This opened a new world of access… directly to the people who were writing the papers and books I had been reading.
Jacobsen: The American Psychological Association in “Intelligence” defines intelligence, in an adaptation from the Encyclopedia of Psychology, as follows:
Intelligence refers to intellectual functioning.
Intelligence quotients, or IQ tests, compare your performance with other people your age who take the same test. These tests don’t measure all kinds of intelligence, however. For example, such tests can’t identify differences in social intelligence, the expertise people bring to their interactions with others.
There are also generational differences in the population as a whole. Better nutrition, more education, and other factors have resulted in IQ improvements for each generation.
Given their use of the Encyclopedia of Psychology, I will use this as a resource, too. Jensen is deceased; Flynn is dead. Many larger names in intelligence research’s history are passed. I do not know if significant changes or developments have occurred within the field of research of general intelligence. However, the institutions devoted to psychology have been changing norms and mores, which, in turn, adapts the empirical frameworks’ orientation: what is emphasized more, what is emphasized less. Does this definition seem adequate for a beginning definition of intelligence?
Williams: Before I get to your question near the end, I think it is worth arguing a bit with the APA definition of intelligence. It is not totally off, but I don’t think it is as good as these:
The best definition:
intelligence = psychometric g
The most cited:
Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings–“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.
source: Linda Gottfredson – Mainstream Science on Intelligence; The Wall Street Journal; December 13, 1994 — signed by 52 intelligence scholars.
My favorite is Carl Bereiter’s clever definition:
“Intelligence is what you use when you don’t know what to do.”
The problem with the APA definition is that it tries to downplay the importance of intelligence and then adds the misleading two sentences at the end. This has been a trend of woke people before the word identified socialism and extreme anti-science rhetoric. Nutrition has not been a factor in developed nations for a long time. The brain needs iron, iodine, and folate to develop properly. These are present in the diets of all developed nations and all but the most backward others. Education does not change real intelligence, it simply provides us with the tools we need to do various cognitive tasks. Intelligence is determined by the DNA we inherit and may be reduced by encounters with the environment (disease, toxins, and head trauma).
Throughout any discussions of intelligence, we must understand that intelligence is about biology and that it is fairly equated to psychometric g. Researchers refer to this as a Jensen Effect, meaning that if something is not observed as a change in g, it is not a Jensen Effect and is not about the essence of intelligence. We will get to a lot of this in relation to the Flynn Effect.
The assumption relating to IQ improvements for each generation is at odds with a substantial amount of data showing that real intelligence has been declining for a long time in virtually all developed nations. The dysgenic effect on intelligence has been extensively reported in scholarly papers and books. Here are three examples of books reporting it:
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.
At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What It Means for the Future, by E. A. Dutton & M. A. Woodley of Menie. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.
Lynn, R. (2011). Dysgenics: Genetic deterioration in modern populations (revised ed.). London: Ulster Institute for Social Research.
The APA definition also wants us to buy into the Multiple Intelligences nonsense that was successfully pushed on laymen and has stuck like molasses. We only need to consider g (or, to a lesser extent, the residuals of broad abilities, after g is factored out) when we are discussing intelligence. Psychometric g accounts for essentially all of the predictive validity of IQ tests and it is only because those tests can be used as proxies for g that they have any real utility.
It is misleading to imply intelligence enhancing environmental factors that simply do not exist. Researchers have not yet found a single thing in the environment that increases intelligence. For at least the past 5 years, we have had some open discussions (ISIR conferences) of the importance of finding a way to increase intelligence. Despite our world class neurologists, geneticists, and psychologists, none claim any means of increasing g, but all agree that it is a desirable goal. Now that we finally know what defines intelligence, the prospects of doing it via genetics seems unlikely until amazing new technologies appear.
The actual question, which I have somewhat evaded, is about changing norms, mores, and the APA definition. My view on the definition is hopefully clear. Norms and mores have become more antagonistic towards researchers, who have had the courage to deal with the relatively short list of deadly topics: differences in intelligence between breeding groups and the sexes, and to a lesser extent the heritability of intelligence. I know researchers who are totally afraid of being connected with any aspect of these three topics. They have seen careers ruined, people losing their jobs, physical threats, physical attacks, vandalism, denied promotions, and speakers being invited to universities only to be shouted down, followed by police escorts to protect them from mobs. Yes, it is serious and nasty.
One of the consequences of the woke culture is that schools for bright students have been abolished or crippled to such an extent that they have been reduced to ordinary schools with names that suggest otherwise. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology has been repeatedly named by U.S. News and World Report as the number 1 high school in the United States. It used testing as a major part of its selection process. The school board eventually reached a woke majority and proceeded to disallow testing for admission. The stated reason was that the board noticed that 68 – 70% of the students were Asian and most of the rest were Whites. So now, students are admitted on the basis of skin color, instead of intelligence. New York effectively has done the same thing, not to one extraordinary school, but to all gifted programs. For more information than you would ever want to read, see this search result:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=new+york+eliminates+gifted+education
This same process is apparently being repeated in other woke states. Bright students have become an embarrassment to school boards. At TJHSST (see above), National Merit finalists were not notified of their success until it was past time for them to apply for related scholarships and to their accomplishment on college applications. The school administration said that they did not want those who were not selected to have their feelings hurt. Then it was found that 14 high schools in Fairfax County did exactly the same thing and that this had been ongoing for ten years! The real reason behind the withholding of the notifications was that most (or all) of the finalists were Asian or White. That is where our norms and mores have gone.
Jacobsen: Implicitly, this definition refers to the Flynn Effect, not coined by James Flynn, but Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in their 1994 book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. How did this mistaken identity of the title, the Flynn Effect, get the attribution?
Williams: I will paste in the introduction to my paper on this subject:
The secular rise in IQ scores appeared unexpectedly and has defied explanation. Smith (1942) recorded a gain (in Honolulu) over a 14 year span. Later, Tuddenham (1948) found an increased intelligence when he compared inductee scores for the U.S. Army from World War I and World War II and proposed that the gains might be due to increased familiarity with tests; public health and nutrition; and education [the gains from 1932 to 1943 were 4.4 points per decade.]. He cited a high correlation (about .75) between years of education and the Army Alpha and Wells Alpha tests that he was studying.
The secular gain remained relatively dormant until it was rediscovered by Lynn (1982) while working on a comparison of Japanese and U.S. data. It was then rediscovered again, using American data, by Flynn (1984a,b). The raw score gains did not have a name until Herrnstein & Murray (1994) coined the term Flynn effect in their book The Bell Curve (p. 307). Some researchers choose to refer to the secular gain as the Lynn–Flynn effect, or use an uppercase FL (FLynn effect) for the obvious reason that they feel Lynn has been somewhat slighted by not including his name.
Source: Williams, R. L. (2013). Overview of the Flynn effect. Intelligence, 41, 753-764.
Jacobsen: Flynn, in my interviews with him, firmly believed Murray was not a racist. He was the liberal counter party in this general intelligence and IQ debate. He described the entrance into the debate and the academic as one motivated by liberal leanings. Murray is conservative. Whether consciously or not, with this as a political affiliation, this would affect research questions for Murray, eventually, and the orientation within the research chosen. In this case, the research on IQ. Thus, the split between the liberal orientations and conservative frames on then IQ debates generically tends towards environmentalist versus hereditarian. Although, as Noam Chomsky has noted, it’s trivial to say heredity plays a role in traits. It’s like claiming something was the result of evolution in biological systems, including spandrels, because everything in biology is a result of evolution writ large: All forms of selection. Therefore, if someone claims a trait isn’t hereditary to a minimum degree – a non-zero level, then they’re not part of the serious discussion on attempts to pin down a) a definition of human intelligence and b) measurements for this definition in order to create a functional and repeatedly measurable psychological construct. As the counter party to Murray, it seems natural to assume an ad hominem, especially given the current intellectual climate. Yet, he does not do this. He knows Murray very well as another researcher looking to conclude the opposite of Murray. Furthermore, and to reiterate the point, near the end of his life, he did not see Murray as a racist. What do you make of this claim against Murray?
Williams: I have had the good fortune of knowing both (Flynn and Murray) and to chat with them, sometimes for long times, at the conferences we attended. I have distinct impressions of both and will share my thoughts. I first met Flynn in 2007 in Madrid. I found him to be warm and pleasant to talk to, while behaving differently when he was in front of our group. He had a booming voice and used it to silence people by literally drowning them out. He had a lot of exchanges with Jensen over many years, with both parties remaining respectful of the other. In these exchanges, it is my belief that Jensen was consistently right and Flynn was not. Flynn was totally honest about how his political beliefs came into play, both in relation to his employment woes and in his beliefs about intelligence. Jensen, as a true opposite, looked at data and nothing else. He reported what he found in data and allowed no other factors to distort what was measured and (usually) replicated.
Flynn was respected by lots of big name researchers. I felt that this was not justified and once wrote something to that effect in response to a comment on Roberto Colom’s blog. I was surprised when Roberto asked me if I would write an explanation of my comment for publication on his blog; I did. Those who read Spanish can find my reply here:
For those who would like to see the original reply (in English), use this link:
In my reply, I discussed some of my thoughts on how Flynn approached various topics. He avoided the use of unambiguous terminology, avoided topics that would not support his positions, and even tried to support his ideas by inventing scenarios (magic multipliers, as reported with Dickens) that are not derived from data and which are at odds with the findings of researchers over the past 50 years.
Below are some comments from Linda Gottfredson that are parallel to my impressions.
Flynn’s Fallacies
With characteristic understatement, Flynn says that everything became clear to him when he awoke from “the spell of g” (pp. 41-42). The reader, feeling afloat in a rolling sea of images and warm words, might ask whether he succeeds only by loosing himself from the bonds of evidence and logic. More troubling, his core argument rests on logical fallacies that profoundly misinterpret the evidence. I describe three below. To be fair, they are among the common fallacies bedeviling debates over intelligence testing, and most reflect a failure to appreciate the inherent limitations of psychological tests, including tests of intelligence.
Source: Shattering Logic to Explain the Flynn Effect; Linda S. Gottfredson • November 8, 2007 • Cato Unbound.
Murray is more like Jensen, in that he makes his arguments based on data, not politics. Like Flynn, I found Charles to be friendly and very bright. In any technical argument that one might imagine between them, I would expect the sound, accurate, and realistic argument to come from Murray.
Things have changed drastically over the past decade. We used to get updates from Robert Plomin about every 2 years (at ISIR conferences), concerning the search of genes relating to IQ. I recall that he once told us that the SNP chips that they were using could not possibly fail to detect a gene with as much as a 1% effect size–yet there was nothing. Fortunately, genome wide association studies arrived and the missing links appeared. Researchers found that intelligence is defined by tens of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms, not by individual genes. When I asked James Lee (one of the pioneers in this work) how many SNPs were geneticists estimating as defining intelligence, he told me the range was from 10,000 to 40,000. When the genomic data set reached over 1.1 million genomes, researchers found 1,271 SNPs that were associated with high intelligence. The average effect size of these SNPs is 0.01%. Together they can account for 10% of the variance in intelligence
Effects as tiny as these can only be seen when GWA studies reach sample sizes of tens of thousands of cases for disorders such as schizophrenia, or hundreds of thousands of unselected individuals for dimensions like educational outcomes. As GWA studies reached these daunting demands for statistical power, they struck gold. But what GWA studies found was gold dust, not nuggets. Each speck of gold was not worth much, but scooping up handfuls of gold dust made it possible to predict genetic propensities of individuals.
Robert Plomin – Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are, Penguin Books Ltd., 2018, ISBN 9780241282076.
Since individual DNA is set at the moment of conception, estimates of IQ can be made before birth [Using DNA to predict intelligence; Sophie von Stumm, Robert Plomin; Intelligence 86 (2021) 101530], during life, or thousands of years after death. [See Intelligence Trends in Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of Roman Polygenic Scores; Davide Piffer, Edward Dutton, Emil O. W. Kirkegaard; OpenPsych July 2023; DOI: 10.26775/OP.2023.07.21]
Anyone who argues the environmentalist side of the old argument is not living in the present. That story has been told to such an extent that we can safely say that there is not even a scent left to sniff. No environmental effects have been shown to increase g. Even the home environment has been shown to have essentially no impact on intelligence (based on MZA twin studies and adoption studies, including interracial adoption studies). [MZA = monozygotic twins reared apart]. But this goes much further. Stephen Pinker’s very long book The Blank Slate, is an overkill showing that even other behavioral traits are primarily associated with the nonshared environment, not the shared (family) environment.
The last time I saw Jim Flynn was in 2017. Here is one of the pictures I took when he was addressing ISIR:
Image Credit: Bob Williams.
Jacobsen: The basic premise in the argument against The Bell Curve has been one-sided: Charles Murray is a racist. Let’s say, that’s so. Assume the premise, does this have any impact on the foundational presentation of the work?
Williams: The Bell Curve was understated and bulletproof. Herrnstein and Murray went to great lengths to not overstate anything and to document everything they discussed in terms of how intelligence relates to life outcomes. They also wrote personal interpretations of how intelligence would impact our lives in the future and offered ideas as to how to deal with such outcomes. It was always clear when they were giving opinions.
Today we have the benefit of major breakthroughs in brain imaging and genetics. Many issues that were not fully settled in 1994 are no longer subject to argument. Today we have a massive increase in worldwide intelligence studies that are so detailed that it is possible to map IQ variations within nations. In 1994 there were few studies of remote and underdeveloped nations, but that is no longer true. The Bell Curve remains as probably the best and broadest study of how intelligence shows up in the lives of different populations. The idea of first showing 12 chapters of data for non-Latino whites, then showing that the same effects are seen in blacks was brilliant.
Jacobsen: Herrnstein was the math guy. Murray is the social stuff guy. With Herrnstein dead so early as the text gained traction, did this impact the proper interpretation of the full statistical analysis of the work?
Williams: It is unlikely that Herrnstein’s death had any impact on the book. Writing began in spring of 1990. Herrnstein died on September 13, 1994 (less than 2 weeks before publication). Herrnstein was diagnosed with lung cancer in June 1994. I don’t know when he stopped working on the book, but it is fair to say that virtually all of the composition work was done well before he died.
In 2019 ISIR awarded Murray with the Lifetime Achievement Award. During his related speech, he mentioned that, while at MIT, he took every course on data analysis that was offered by the university. He had already decided what he wanted to do as a career and it was not political science. I have no idea how the work was split between Herrnstein and Murray, but I expect that a significant amount of the analytical work was done by Murray.
As many readers here know, Murray has addressed a number of topics in his books and columns. One that is related to The Bell Curve is Facing Reality (2021). I was impressed with his invention of an analytical method to measure eminence–used in Human Accomplishment (2003). He demonstrated that it was accurate by benchmarking the methodology against two sports that have massive amounts of quantitative measures of performance (baseball and golf).
Jacobsen: Is the Flynn Effect continuing or declining, or stagnating globally? My understanding: In some sectors of the world, it is continuing, while, in others, it is stagnating or declining. All at variable rates.
Williams: Yes, you are right. I think it may be helpful to list a number of salient points that apply to the Flynn Effect.
- The FE is not a Jensen Effect. It is not on g and, therefore, is not related to real intelligence. It is possible to select a cause that should be g loaded, but those have not been shown to actually apply. So, we must allow for the possibility that small Jensen Effects will be found in some places and times.
- At the present time, some nations are experiencing gains in IQ test scores; some are finding that their scores are in decline; and others are seeing no changes.
- At any time, when a FE is observed, it does not impact broad and narrow abilities equally. Some may be increasing while others are declining. When the FE was mostly associated with score increases, the gains were more prominent in abstract reasoning test items, while academic test items were decreasing.
- In some nations, there have been score increases, followed by stability, followed by score decreases. There is no evidence that the people in these nations showed increases in real intelligence during positive FE changes nor did they become duller as negative FE changes were found.
- Negative FEs have been reported in Norway, Denmark, Britain, Netherlands, Finland, France, and Estonia. The IQ decline rates, per decade, range from 1.35 to 8.4 IQ points. [See E. Dutton, et al./Intelligence 59 (2016) 163-169]
- The FE has been reported in preschool children, thereby eliminating at least those data from school related causes.
- Some studies have found that the FE was stronger in the low IQ part of the IQ spectrum. Other studies found it mostly in the high IQ range. And other studies found that it was equally evident in all ranges. I think that these inconsistencies are important because they point to artifacts and not group-level changes.
- Jensen commented that the definitive test of whether FE gains are hollow or not is to apply the predictive bias test. This means that two points in time would be compared on the basis of an external criterion (real world measurement, such as school grades). If the FE gains are hollow, the later time point would show underprediction, relative to the earlier time. This assumes that the later group has not been renormed. In actual practice tests are periodically renormed so that the mean remains at 100. The result of this recentering is that the tests maintain their predictive validity, indicating that the FE gains are indeed hollow. If the gains were real and the tests were renormed, people at a given IQ would be getting smarter and this would show up in the predictive validity. [Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.]
- Brand, C. (1996). The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications. Chichester, England: Wiley [The book was withdrawn by Wiley after it was released. The reason was that it accurately addressed differences in the IQs of blacks and whites.] In this book, he noted that a probable cause of the FE was increased guessing. This is now known as the Brand Effect and has been documented in detail from Estonian data that covered 72 years. The Brand Effect can make score gains appear to load on g, when they do not. This happens because the most g loaded test items are the most difficult for low g persons, so they have more guessing and more gains.
- Another indication that FE gains are artifacts was shown by A. Beaujean, who scored National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data using both classical test theory and item response theory. When the superior IRT was used, the gains vanished in some cases and halved in others. This is entirely due to an external artifact and has nothing to do with intelligence.
- Rushton used principal components analysis to show the independence of the FE from known genetic effects. The data showed that the IQ gains on the WISC-R and WISC-III form a cluster. This means that the secular trend is a reliable phenomenon. This cluster is independent of the cluster formed by racial differences (shown by many replications to be differences in g), inbreeding depression scores (purely genetic), and g factor loadings. The secular increase is, therefore, unrelated to g and other heritable measures.
Bibliography
None
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6). February 2024; 12(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/williams-6
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, February 15). Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6). In-Sight Publishing. 12(2).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 12, n. 2, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 12, no. 2 (Spring). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/williams-6.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S “Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 12, no. 2 (February 2024).http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/williams-6.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 12(2). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/williams-6>.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/williams-6>.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.12, no. 2, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/williams-6.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Scott J. Conversation with Bob Williams on General Intelligence Now: Retired Nuclear Physicist (6) [Internet]. 2024 Jan; 12(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/williams-6.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright © 2012-Present by Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing. Authorized use/duplication only with explicit and written permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen. Excerpts, links only with full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with specific direction to the original. All collaborators co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 