The discussion on general IQ has been raging for a long time and will continue for a long time into the future. The reason is simple. * The tests are obviously

The discussion on general IQ has been raging for a long time and will continue for a long time into the future. The reason is simple. * The tests are obviously flawed and it doesn’t take long to find information confirming the flaws. * The tests are also useful because they can generally be used to predict outcome. * You don’t throw away tools that are useful because they fail in edge cases, you try to fix the tool (they have been trying to remove biases from general IQ tests for a long time) or try to redesign it to be more general (theory of multiple intelligences and tests based on multiple IQs). I also thought it was funny that the guy is using the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to try to prove IQ bullshit since that hypothesis isn’t generally accepted. But hey: 1) nothing “useful” gets discarded, not even if something better comes around 2) people that don’t know about this stuff will misrepresent it because they don’t really understand it P.s.: I thought the paper (Rule of Law and Democracy as Potential Mechanisms) he quoted was rather representative of the type of derivative work you would expect when you just mash together previous research (without checking) to come up with some “research” to get through class. P.P.s: The best example of IQ tests failing I have seen was with a Professor that tried to “control” for a lot of the problems this twitter thread goes into. He used South African university students (so age and not being used to testing isn’t an issue), he payed them for their time (so they didn’t just rush through it) and so on. He managed to close the IQ gap but it still was large enough that he was rather devastated by the results. The “cultural bias free” IQ test failed again.