> That would imply that a person with a high IQ score is uniformly better at every task compared to a person of lower IQ. No it doesn't, that's why I said "ten

> That would imply that a person with a high IQ score is uniformly better at every task compared to a person of lower IQ. No it doesn't, that's why I said "tend to". > On the contrary, it just misleads the educators to the student's real abilities. It ignores and hides the atypical talents that students possess. The test simply doesn't measure atypical talents, so there's no "hiding". That's why I said the test is used to identify people who will face challenges. What happens next has nothing to do with the IQ test and everything to do with other methods of assessment that should be used. Every test has limitations that those applying the test should understand. > That's far too narrow to be identified as an indicator of intelligence That's why it's a (strong) correlation and not a strict equality. Look, jumping height has been empirically demonstrated to be a good predictor of overall athletic performance, and you're coming here and saying that there exist some people without legs that can do more pull-ups than most people with legs. That's all well and good, but that doesn't somehow refute the idea that jumping height is a good predictor of overall athletic performance. It's just a complete red herring. If you happen to encounter someone without legs, then use a different test. People with legs who don't exhibit good jumping heights but are very good at some specific athletic challenge could exist, but they tend to be good only at that specific challenge (and ones that are very, very similar). This is a completely different thing than the general factor of fitness, which is correlated with all sorts of physical abilities, just like general factor g is correlated with all sorts of cognitive abilities.