The Basic Period of Individual Mental Speed (BIP), Underlying IQ
General cognitive ability, underlying IQ, is limited by the channel capacity of short-term memory. Mental power, that means the capacity C of short-term memory (measured in bits of information) is the product of the individual mental speed Ck of information processing (in bit/s), see the following paper by Lehrl and Fischer (1990), and the duration time D (in s) of information in short term working memory, see “Memory Span as the Quantum of Action of Thought” http://www.v-weiss.de/publ9-e.html .
C (bit) = Ck(bit/s) x D (s)
1 BIP is the shortest possible time during which an individual can process 1 bit of information. Hence:
1BIP(ms)= 1000/ Ck(bit/1000ms)
According to the major gene theory of intelligence, the mean mental power C of the genotype with IQ 124 and higher is 140 bit, of the genotype with IQ below 105 is 70 bit, see “The Advent of a Molecular Genetics of General Intelligence” http://www.v-weiss.de/intellig.html
A basic information psychological parameter (BIP) for the
reconstruction of concepts of intelligence
Siegfried Lehrl and Bernd Fischer
Adherents of the Galton paradigm favour the concept that the single parameter ‘speed of information processing’ has a physiological basis and determines complex achievements assessed in intelligence tests as well as social success. These assumptions are supported by inter-individual correlations. Further supporting evidence comes from total measurements where not only the information content of the stimuli is measured but also the time to process them. This reveals an individual constant period during which 1 bit of information is processed. It is called the ‘basic period of information processing’ (BIP), which lasts 1/15 s (= 67 ms) in average adults (IQ 100) and is constant over the ranges from which target stimuli can be drawn and over varying modes of the signs (letters, numbers, musical notes, etc.). In representative samples of adults duration of BIP correlates with global IQ (r = -0.60): We conclude that the BIP of an adult with an IQ of 122 is 50 ms and with an IQ of 78 twice as long (100 ms). We consider BIP to be a physiological and general determinant of intelligence, being measurable at a ratio or even on absolute scale level. Thus, it appears to be suitable as a building unit for reconstructing the rather fuzzy traditional concept of general intelligence.
Volkmar Weiss; Leipzig, April, 15, 2008
Dear Professor Holling:
Cc: Heinz Holling, Miriam Vock, Werner Wittmann, Klaus Oberauer, Heinz-Martin Süß, Ralf Schulze, Oliver Wilhelm
For some years several German speaking colleagues are publishing in English on working memory capacity. From my point of view, these publications are nothing else than a network of plagiarism, contributing nothing new.
We have in Germany a long tradition of research on working memory capacity, based on the fundamental work of Helmar Frank, Siegfried Lehrl and others. It is true, many of the results of these men, denoted by Hans Jürgen Eysenck as the Erlangen school of information psychology, are only available in German. But there are English publications, too, worthwile to be cited in English publications.
You and your colleagues did never cite Frank or Lehrl. But you cannot claim that you are unaware of their work. Since many years I am sending reprints with Lehrl’s papers and emails to anybody publishing in the field of working memory capacity all over the world. This webpage here http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl.html is active since many years. A postgraduate may overlook some important predecessors, but it is the duty of its mentor and professor to give him the necessary hints.
All non-native English speakers have the problem that their publications can be overlooked by native English speakers. However, if this happens on purpose and even in order to produce open plagiarism the scientific community should not play the ostrich.
I myself had to make the usual bad experiences, too. As I was a young man and a citizen of East Germany, since 1973 I published in German a series of very original papers on the population genetics of surnames, written in my spare time and without any funding. Outside Germany there was only one man, who understood German and was at this time active in this field, Professor Gabriel W. Lasker, at this time president of the International Biological Year and editor of “Human Biology”, the Number One in physical anthropology, see http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/lasker_gabriel.html . Lasker decomposed my papers in a series of smaller ones, each of them funded by grants. Lasker did never cite me, and all his basic ideas papers are plagiarism. But even in the obituary above, you can still read: “He is often considered "the father of modern isonymy research," which is the study of human names through generations and geographical distances.”
As I became aware of his plagiarism, I began learning to use English actively and to publish a kind of summary of my work in this field in English, see http://www.v-weiss.de/inbreeding.html . I did sent with some remarks a reprint of this publication to interested colleagues all over the world. Lasker was deeply embarrased, and he sent me a personal letter in which he acknowlegded my priority. But never was something published about this. He even invited me to a conference initiated by him and could be sure that I, as a citizen of a communist state, could never attend such an event.
Any German and French author can add similar, if also not always so drastic, experiences with his English speaking colleagues. Therefore, I am even more disgusted on German colleagues who believe that the ideas of some of their predominantly German publishing colleagues can be exploited on the international scene without any reference and without any fear of ostracism.
Any honest and innovative scientist gives credit to those who credit deserve.
Dr. rer. nat. habil. Dr. phil. habil. Volkmar Weiss
http://www.v-weiss.de/chaos.html (a review and a theory built on the shoulders of Frank and Lehrl)