> We aren't talking about the relation between IQ and academic performance (although that is also clearly established to be significant). We're talking about th

> We aren't talking about the relation between IQ and academic performance (although that is also clearly established to be significant). We're talking about the relationship between IQ and ACT/SAT scores. What is the practical difference? > I certainly don't "need" it to be true - things are either true or they aren't, and needing or wanting differently doesn't change that. You are confusing truth for fact. Truth is where you hang your belief. To be clear this is the basis of the APA's opinion on the matter: http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFiles/IQ_Neisser2.pdf http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFiles/IQ_Neisser2.pdf and the APA suggests there is only about a 81% alignment between IQ and academic/test performance. A 50% alignment, when there are only 2 items to compare, is random guess. All opinions that test results correlate with performance are, either directly or indirectly, rooted in Lewis Terman's famous work on IQ which has been disqualified many times. His research wasn't even good and failed in his own assessment over a longitudinal study. Yet, people still follow this garbage. EDIT: May this serve as some food for thought: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/200909/the-truth-about-the-termites https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/2009...