Geoffrey MillerVerified account

not sure what the relevant point here is; can you spell it out?

The narrow point I tried to make is that I don't think existing IQ tests are generally good measures of cognitive ability (which you seemed to imply), because cultural background knowledge has a clear influence on IQ test performance, as the linked thread shows.

Every single person in the IQ testing business would love to become rich and famous by inventing an IQ test that is just as predictively valid as the IQ tests we have today but in which blacks do as well as whites. But after 50+ years of trying, nobody has come close.

People who don’t see IQ difference among people, races, particular occupations, just don’t get out much. Call it what you need to call it. People are not equal in abilities. Some dumb. Many average smart. Few really smart. And it don’t change much after the womb exit.

What if IQ tests are crap at measuring real abilities? Why do you care so much about IQ anyway? Did you read something somewhere that fit with your worldview and now you feel emboldened by the science of it?

What if IQ tests are not crap? What if after 115 years of research, they are about as useful as anything psychologists have come up with? Why do you care so much about putting down IQ anyway? Did you read something that fit with your worldview so you like the pseudoscience?

I'm willing to change my mind! What happened was that I started to look at the *primary* studies and some of the raw data. And then my lab bought some IQ tests to see for ourselves. If more people saw HOW their supposed intelligence was being measured they'd be critical too.

Did you get certified to administer the WAIS? How many times have you administered it? You do realize that psychometricians care more about predictive validity than about face validity of tests? Sounds like your objections are based on face validity, which is irrelevant.