Which then begs the question, what is IQ actually measuring - something more like innate intelligence, or a fairly big slice of learned, habituated test-taking ability?
Regardless of what underlying trait it's actually measuring, the habituation factory is a big component of its supposed bias - that is, has your background taught you the kind of problem-solving habits that will help you to post the best possible score?
> Which then begs the question, what is IQ actually measuring - something more like innate intelligence, or a fairly big slice of learned, habituated test-taking ability?
> "It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the assertion that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks."
In other words people who are good at these tests are also good at real world tasks. Meaning IQ measures much more than one's ability to pass an IQ test. There are of course many examples of poorly structured IQ tests (including people re-taking the same IQ test and doing better at it the second time around). However a well-structured IQ test presenting novel questions (absent popular culture references and trivia) provides a very good approximation of the g factor in almost all cases. This means high IQ is highly correlated with things like income, unemployment, crime, homelessness, addiction, divorce, and many other objectively measurable life outcomes.
There is room for a philosophical debate about what g factor is, but it is beyond contest at this stage that g factor is real, and IQ almost always does a very good job of measuring it.
It's beyond contest that the g factor is real in part because it's a statistical inevitability in any series of related tests, be they for intelligence or product/market fit in automobiles. It's an exploratory statistic, a hint at underlying causality; it is not a dispositive revelation about the structure of human thought.
Sure: there's a battery of general cognitive tests, and if you smush data sets together a dominant factor will emerge. And?
This is exactly my point. It's tautological to argue that IQ isn't correlated with intelligence. It is, definitionally. You seem to acknowledge this so perhaps I don't understand your original comment.
(I misread your original comment --- no, it's not tautological. It's tautological to say that IQ isn't correlated with IQ test results. "g" has nothing to do with "intelligence" as a construct.)
If IQ tests measure one's ability to do most other cognitively demanding tasks then it's measuring more than the test itself. Whatever you want to call that thing is irrelevant. In sociology and psychology we call that the g factor. The vast majority of people call that intelligence.
That's the tautological argument! Note that I'm not even really engaging with the validity of IQ tests, just the surface logic that you're using. You literally just argued, in effect, that IQ tests measure intelligence because people call them intelligence tests!
That's a semantic point you're making, and I'm not contesting it. To repeat myself, you can call the correlation anything you like. I'm merely explaining that the correlation exists and is incredibly material.
We agree the correlation exists. The incredible materiality of it is what's in dispute. The obvious problem with these arguments is that people point to the correlation and say "see, I'm right about the materiality!".
We have strong data to show that people who score higher on IQ tests also earn more, have higher net wealth, have lower rates of unemployment, higher graduation rates, lower suicide rates, lower rates of addiction, lower rates of crime, lower rates of divorce, lower rates of fatherlessness, lower rates of household abuse, higher rates of home ownership, longer life spans, have better general health on almost every metric, and a host of other positive QoL indicators. I don't see how you could argue that is not material.
Regardless of what underlying trait it's actually measuring, the habituation factory is a big component of its supposed bias - that is, has your background taught you the kind of problem-solving habits that will help you to post the best possible score?