I fully agree. How many IQ effects in studied populations are actually created by the use of IQ tests? Consider how infiltrated IQ-like assessment in throughou

I fully agree. How many IQ effects in studied populations are actually created by the use of IQ tests? Consider how infiltrated IQ-like assessment in throughout society, selecting for doctors, lawyers, postgrads -- military, police, etc. Then consider what data is offered as evidence that IQ 1) exists, and 2) causes observable measures in real-world outcomes. Filtering on the test becomes evidence the test is a measure of anything. The application of "statistics" I dislike the most is where these feedback cycles exist, and large swathes of academia have some extreme responsibility here. Whole fields of gene-traits studies were created over decade+ and then disappeared overnight as actual sequencing took place. All the rigour and splendour of "statistics", and then poof when science was done, it disappeared. Since there are basically no scientific theories of human psychology, society, and the like -- gluing together correlations here should be seen as prima facie absurd. The alternative? Rely on expertise, and build resilience-to-failure into the system and tolerance for higher variability. Human expertise obtained in domain-specific environments is vastly superior to the species correlations of surveys written by idiots who've never done any actual science.