[badestrand]

Real thorough math right there (quotations from your article):

> "[IQ] ends up selecting for exam-takers, paper shufflers, obedient IYIs (intellectuals yet idiots), ill adapted for “real life”."

> "It is at the bottom an immoral measure"

> "If you want to detect how someone fares at a task, say loan sharking, tennis playing, or random matrix theory, make him/her do that task; we don’t need theoretical exams for a real world function by probability-challenged psychologists"

> "Only suckers don’t have that instinct."

This is just a trash article by a bitter science denier. IQ-deniers are for me not much different from anti-vaxxers. Yes, you are free to criticize aspects of the test but there is no denying that people have different thinking speeds, as "immoral" as that fact might be.

[fxtentacle]

I think the article is quite correct with its statement that pure IQ is meaningless.

If you use your intelligence to learn something useful, that is, well, useful.

But if you just have intelligence and don't utilize it towards a purpose, it is useless, like an unused full battery.

[lkjhdcba]

"there is no denying that people have different thinking speeds" -> "IQ is a real, relevant and construct-valid metric"

What is the IQ needed to draw this implication?