[giantg2]

That's simply not true. The form and function of the tests are fundamentally different. The biggest difference is that you can study for one, but studying for the other is considered cheating. You can see my other comment for further clarification.

[thaumasiotes]

You can respond to facts by saying "that's simply not true", but it's not going to be an effective way of convincing anyone else or of developing a coherent model of the world. The facts are that aptitude tests are psychometrically identical to IQ tests. They have the same characteristics and reveal the same information. Someone's score on an aptitude test as is predictive of their score on an IQ test as their score on an IQ test is.

[giantg2]

What you claim is counter to the intended uses of the tests and their very definitions. One measures innate flgeneral intelligence, whereas the other measures skill or acquired knowledge in a specific area.

Then show me some sources to support your argument, because repeating false statements doesn't further your point either.

https://www.theclassroom.com/intelligence-tests-vs-aptitude-...

[Consultant32452]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

>The many different kinds of IQ tests include a wide variety of item content. Some test items are visual, while many are verbal. Test items vary from being based on abstract-reasoning problems to concentrating on arithmetic, vocabulary, or general knowledge.

The SAT tests abstract reasoning (read a story and answer questions), arithmetic, vocabulary... It's an IQ test.

[giantg2]

Then why doesn't the article list the SAT in with the other dozen or so tests? Nor any other aptitude tests?

Not all standardized tests are IQ tests. Just as not all tests involving reasoning, arithmetic, and vocabulary are not IQ tests.

https://prepexpert.com/sat-to-iq/#

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/04/why-should-...

Mensa considers that scores from after January 31, 1994, "No longer correlate with an IQ test."