Remapping intelligence to certain cognitive performance parameters, many of which can be measured in a very metrical and objective way, still tends to produce c

Remapping intelligence to certain cognitive performance parameters, many of which can be measured in a very metrical and objective way, still tends to produce correlations. See Figure 3 of this article: [0] - there is a mix of simple perceptual tasks and more complex reasoning ones, which on the surface appear independent. The paper admits at the end that intelligence isn't one kind of task, but instead many kinds of systems used together. That still doesn't prevent their ability to construct a version of g-factor. And very simple metrics, taken alone, seem to inter-correlate well with IQ scores, like reaction time.[1] This correlation increases with age, suggesting a biological factor in preserving brain integrity that would nullify educational effects of intelligence. If your version of intelligence has nothing to do with cognitive activity I don't know what to tell you. It's true that effectiveness in society might not be correlated with intelligence. That says more about what society rewards and the kind of labor required to get it. And I don't mean to say that society should reward people based off of test scores, that's dumb. Nor should we assortate people based off of pure test scores, also dumb. But I see no real conceptual problems regarding intelligence that doesn't try to conflate intelligence entirely with general effectiveness. There are IQ realists like Steven Hsu that don't do this, placing it on equal importance with conscientiousness [4]. As with height, there are innate and behavioral/developmental components of general effectiveness (I could dope my child with growth hormone to make him taller, or mal-nourish them to go the other way). As with emotional intelligence, being a bastion of full-nurture theorists for behavior that look for non-academic modes of measuring effectiveness, we can get heritability correlates of 0.2-0.4[2], and for psychopathy up to 0.5[3], mediated by biological factors like inherent oxytocin concentrations. It's hard to say you can succeed without without any ability to learn, but there are high paying jobs that involve mainly physical labor (while taking on some mortality risk which can be managed). And there are people who are smart assholes, and other people who are dumb yet compassionate. So I have no problem with accepting the cognitive version of intelligence as with the right attitude there is no anti-social conclusion to risk. Society takes all sorts of people to exist, even if to some extent, the more well-rounded the better. [0] "Fractionating human intelligence", www.owenlab.uwo.ca/pdf/2012%20-%20Hampshire%20-%20Neuron.pdf [1] "The relationship between intelligence and reaction time varies with age", https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617300636 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23302097_A_Behavioral_Genetic_Study_of_Trait_Emotional_Intelligence https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23302097_A_Behavior... [3] https://www.geneticlifehacks.com/psychopath-genes-born-not-made/ https://www.geneticlifehacks.com/psychopath-genes-born-not-m... [4] "Genetics and Intelligence", https://youtube.com/watch?v=62jZENi1ed8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=62jZENi1ed8