IQ tests are incredibly crude. The amalgamate a series of distinct measures of visual, verbal and mathematical reasoning - primarily utilitised based on ease of

IQ tests are incredibly crude. The amalgamate a series of distinct measures of visual, verbal and mathematical reasoning - primarily utilitised based on ease of measurement, rather than completeness of assessment. My undergrad thesis involved developing a neurocognitive battery of tests (to explore cognitive deficits related to diabetes). The array of cognitive modules you can test (and that can be defective) is dizzying. You can score a couple of standard deviations over the median on stanford-binet, but be severely functionally impaired due to anterograde amnesia, unable to speak due to Broca's aphasia, or unable to find your way out of a room due to visual agnosia -- to give some concrete examples. There's also no capacity (due to the pen and paper nature of IQ tests, and the culture bound cognitive aspects they measure) to assess proprioceptive intelligence, musical ability, affective comprehension, explicit or implicit long term memory and numerous other aspects of fluid intelligence that concretely impact an individuals capacity to complete real world 'intelligence' dependent tasks. Performance on IQ tests can be highly dependent on cultural approaches to test taking, and priming effects in IQ testing have withstood the replication crisis. The mathematical aspects of IQ tests are dependent on familiarity with the kinds of operations tested (and unsurprisingly scores increase with practice), and similarly literacy is required for and influences verbal scores. While learning math and acquiring the ability to read and write certainly do have an impact on cognitive function, it would be ludicrous to suggest that the don't depend on latent abilities IQ tests literally can't measure. So while IQ tests certainly have their uses, but to consider them a worthwhile measure of human cognitive capacity, let alone machine intelligence, is extremely dubious.