What is the difference between convergent and concurrent validity?
It is a bit confusing, they are very similar, to the point where they're used interchangeably in some contexts. To some degree, they're often doing the same things in practice but coming from different perspectives in which validity can be assessed; the distinction between construct and criterion validity that you note (you can also see that the contrasts cover different domains; concurrent vs predictive and convergent vs divergent). There are some subtle differences involved in this though. Concurrent validity typically is done with the 'gold standard' test of the construct (e.g. if you're proposing a new test of intelligence, you'd compare it to an IQ test or Raven's matrices; one which is *the* test of that trait), and you would do it at the same time (hence, concurrent). Essentially, you want to be able to say that your new test measures the trait as well as the established one, but does something better like being easier to administer or shorter. Convergent validity doesn't emphasise the timing as much, nor the comparison with the 'gold standard' test. You might come across the idea that the tests compared should be *maximally different methods* though. This means that you should make the method of testing itself as different as you can from the one you're comparing it too (e.g. don't compare a pen and paper test of intelligence to another pen and paper test of intelligence). The emphasis is on different methods linked by the theory, so it's less about showing that the Weschler IQ test correlates with the Stanford-Binet IQ test, and more about showing that an IQ test correlates with academic performance (because it should given the theory underlying what intelligence is).
How do internal validity and external validity differ?
Internal validity talks about how adequate your design is for arguing a causal relationship*. It's a matter of how thorough the design is in taking into account stuff like confounding variables and any other “noise” that might weaken its capacity of giving a verifiable causal relationship. But the more thorough the design, the more context-specific it tends to be. It is internal because its critical criteria to be met are encoded into the research design, like variable selection and parsing (dependency/independecy), bias control and etc. In other words, it cares about being very, very good in explaining why something happens in a certain context.External validity, on the other hand, bothers itself with the generalizability of the results — its potential to be applied to other contexts. So a generalizable result would have to be context-independent or context-sensible enough to avoid being applicable to only a handful of subjects. External validity is much more a matter of sampling than internal validity, so the usual solutions to this problem address the sample representativeness.I hope you see that there is a conflict of interests in these concepts, so usually researchers have to judge a trade-off between internal and external validity, but some who have enough funding and expertise can use novel designs that try to account for both concepts.*A causal relationship is not the same thing as an association, but there is an association at play. This is the flip-side of the adage “correlation does not imply causation”.
Can we truly define who is intelligent? Or what intelligence is?
Can we truly define who is intelligent? Or what intelligence is? I probably asked this question a million times. Could it be that I am not intelligent? Then again...It's like trying to describe what virtue is. There are so many definitions. It's not like a solid that has a definite shape. Even a solid doesn't have a definite shape. There is no perfect shape in this world. Do you know what I mean, if yes, answer my question please. In some environments I appear very intelligent and others I don't. How can I find out how intelligent I am?
What is the difference between inductive and deductive criminal profiling?
A deductive "argument is one in which the arguer claims that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true" (Hurley, 2003, p. 31). Deductive criminal profiling is "a method that describes, and bases its inferences on, the behavioral evidence in a particular case, or a series of cases" (Turvey, 2001, p. 682). "Inductive reasoning involves broad generalizations or statistical reasoning, where it is possible for the premises to be true while the subsequent conclusion is false" (Turvey, 2001, p. 686). Inductive criminal profiling is "any method that describes, or bases its inferences on, the characteristics of a typical offender," derived from "broad generalizations, statistical analysis, or intuition and experience" (p. 686). In an inductive argument, "the arguer claims that it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true" (Hurley, 2003, p. 31).
What is more valid, a grammatically correct question or one that is less grammatically correct but more intelligent and honest?
I like John's answer, and Jim has introduced an interesting--and I think correct--idea of this being a false dilemma. There is no inherent contradiction between these two characteristics: that is, they are not mutally exclusive. One can have a grammatically correct sentence that is intelligent and honest. A grammetically less correct question that is more intlelligent and honest, can be made to be grammtically correct without destroying the power of the question. It would be rare for one to have to make a choice between the two. Like so many of these questions that deal with the relative value of two or more items, I find that providing context gives me the most meaning and the greatest ability to apply answers. A choice like the one proposed in this question might come about in the case of a journalist who has collected a number of direct quotes for an article he or she is writing. It is time in the process to select a quote--in the form of a question--to support an idea or further a rhetorical purpose within the piece. Because these are direct quotes and editing them could pose a threat to journalistic integrity, a choice between the grammatically correct and incorrect may have to be made, and the criteria of being more intelligent and honest probably should trump the interests of grammar. The context will give direction in most cases. If you are a writer, however, and your editor has rewritten one of your questions to make it grammatically correct, but you feel that the edit has gutted the meaning, intelligence, and honsety of the question, then quibbling over which is more important wastes your time and that of your editor. Take the challenge and rewrite that intelligent and honest question in correct grammar with power and professionalism.