Editing G factor (psychometrics) (section)

===Other correlates===
{{See also|Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory|Evolutionary aesthetics|Evolutionary linguistics|Evolutionary musicology|Sexual selection in humans|Social selection|Wason selection task}}

The ''g'' factor is reflected in many social outcomes. Many social behavior problems, such as dropping out of school, chronic welfare dependency, accident proneness, and crime, are negatively correlated with ''g'' independent of social class of origin.<ref>Jensen 1998, 271</ref> Health and mortality outcomes are also linked to ''g'', with higher childhood test scores predicting better health and mortality outcomes in adulthood (see [[Cognitive epidemiology]]).<ref>Gottfredson 2007</ref>

In 2004, psychologist [[Satoshi Kanazawa]] argued that ''g'' was a [[Domain specificity|domain-specific]], [[Species-typical behavior|species-typical]], [[Information processing (psychology)|information processing]] [[psychological adaptation]],<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kanazawa|first=Satoshi|author-link=Satoshi Kanazawa|year=2004|title=General Intelligence as a Domain-Specific Adaptation|journal=[[Psychological Review]]|publisher=[[American Psychological Association]]|volume=111|issue=2|pages=512–523|doi=10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.512|pmid=15065920|url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-12248-010}}</ref> and in 2010, Kanazawa argued that ''g'' correlated only with performance on [[Evolution of human intelligence|evolutionarily unfamiliar rather than evolutionarily familiar]] problems, proposing what he termed the "Savanna-IQ interaction hypothesis".<ref name="Kanazawa 2010a">{{Cite journal|last=Kanazawa|first=Satoshi|date=2010-02-16|title=Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent|journal=Social Psychology Quarterly|volume=73|issue=1|pages=33–57|citeseerx=10.1.1.395.4490|doi=10.1177/0190272510361602|issn=0190-2725|s2cid=2642312}}</ref><ref name="Kanazawa 2010b">{{cite journal|last1=Kanazawa|first1=Satoshi|date=May–June 2010|title=Evolutionary Psychology and Intelligence Research|url=http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/AP2010.pdf|journal=[[American Psychologist]]|volume=65|issue=4|pages=279–289|doi=10.1037/a0019378|pmid=20455621|access-date=February 16, 2018|author-link1=Satoshi Kanazawa}}</ref> In 2006, ''[[Psychological Review]]'' published a comment reviewing Kanazawa's 2004 article by psychologists [[Denny Borsboom]] and [[Conor Dolan]] that argued that Kanazawa's conception of ''g'' was empirically unsupported and purely hypothetical and that an evolutionary account of ''g'' must address it as a source of [[Differential psychology|individual differences]],<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Borsboom|first1=Denny|author-link1=Denny Borsboom|last2=Dolan|first2=Conor V.|author-link2=Conor Dolan|year=2006|title=Why ''g'' is not an adaptation: a comment on Kanazawa (2004)|journal=[[Psychological Review]]|volume=113|issue=2|pages=433–437|pmid=16637768|doi=10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.433}}</ref> and in response to Kanazawa's 2010 article, psychologists [[Scott Barry Kaufman]], [[Colin G. DeYoung]], Deirdre Reis, and Jeremy R. Gray published a study in 2011 in ''[[Intelligence (journal)|Intelligence]]'' of 112 subjects taking a 70-item computer version of the [[Wason selection task]] (a [[logic puzzle]]) in a [[social relation]]s context as proposed by [[Evolutionary psychology|evolutionary psychologists]] [[Leda Cosmides]] and [[John Tooby]] in ''[[The Adapted Mind]]'',<ref name="Cosmides & Tooby 1992">{{cite book|last1=Cosmides|first1=Leda|title=The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture|title-link=The Adapted Mind|last2=Tooby|first2=John|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|year=1995|isbn=978-0195101072|editor-last1=Barkow|editor-first1=Jerome H.|editor-link1=Jerome H. Barkow|place=New York|pages=179–206|chapter=3. Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange|author-link1=Leda Cosmides|author-link2=John Tooby|orig-date=1992|editor-last2=Cosmides|editor-first2=Leda|editor-last3=Tooby|editor-first3=John}}</ref> and found instead that "performance on non-arbitrary, evolutionarily familiar problems is more strongly related to general intelligence than performance on arbitrary, evolutionarily novel problems".<ref name="Kaufman et al. 2010">{{cite journal|last1=Kaufman|first1=Scott Barry|last2=DeYoung|first2=Colin G.|author-link2=Colin G. DeYoung|last3=Reis|first3=Deidre L.|last4=Gray|first4=Jeremy R.|date=May–June 2010|title=General intelligence predicts reasoning ability even for evolutionarily familiar content|url=https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Kaufman-DeYoung-Reis-Gray-2011.pdf|journal=[[Intelligence (journal)|Intelligence]]|volume=39|issue=5|pages=311–322|doi=10.1016/j.intell.2011.05.002|access-date=February 16, 2018|author-link1=Scott Barry Kaufman}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kaufman|first1=Scott Barry|date=July 2, 2011|title=Is General Intelligence Compatible with Evolutionary Psychology?|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201107/is-general-intelligence-compatible-evolutionary-psychology|journal=[[Psychology Today]]|publisher=Sussex Publishers|access-date=February 16, 2018|author-link1=Scott Barry Kaufman}}</ref>