>Most psychologists, I expect, would prefer to talk about intelligence in terms of the subcategories such as crystallized and fluid intelligence, for which ther

>Most psychologists, I expect, would prefer to talk about intelligence in terms of the subcategories such as crystallized and fluid intelligence, for which there is stronger evidence and more readily accessible metrics. (Most IQ tests also spit out these scores as well, but it's the IQ part that is the most widely broadcast). When talking about IQ, i.e. 'g', this incorporates both crystalized and fluid intelligence. So to say that there's stronger evidence for these vs IQ doesn't seem to make any sense.