[vibrunazo]

Am I the only one who reads these kinds reports and has that impression that today's psychology and biology is less than 0.1% of the way to provide a useful model for intelligence? The best measurement of intelligence that we have today (IQ tests) seem completely worthless for practical purpose compared to what we actually need to know to build solutions on. IQ tests are still too bad to measure actual "intelligence", as defined by our colloquial meaning and practical real-world potential. (as opposed to the official technical definition) Being able to measure people's intelligence would be extremely useful. IQ test results, not so much.

New findings about the impact of genetic vs environmental influences on IQ tests. Is about as useful finding new evidence about genetic vs environmental influences on people's ability to pass a "lick your elbow" test. Why should I care? It sure is interesting, and hey, anything "for science!". But, meh...

[monkeypizza]

How do you explain the fact that when the law allows, companies all over the world give IQ tests to prospective employees? And that studies have shown that IQ is one of the best predictors of job performance?

[mangala]

Your first point would only elucidate a common misconception that IQ tests adequately measure intelligence. As to your second point, what studies are these? (I'd actually be interested)

[avatarlite]

This is a good intro: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatter...

[wtvanhest]

I personally believe IQ is a fairly good predictor of intelligence the way people in (at least American) society think about it. This study attempts to prove that high IQ is good for most jobs. What it doesn’t prove is the high end of the spectrum where someone of 120 IQ compares with someone of 140IQ in extremely high level jobs. My experience is that creativity trumps IQ in most cases where people are considered generally intelligent. The people that really are viewed as most successful typically have a high or very high IQ, but are always very creative.

[perlgeek]

But isn't it fascinating how much we can learn about intelligence even if we rely on crappy metrics like IQ tests?

Just like you can learn a lot about music without having a formal definition of what "good" music is.

[obtu]

IQ is one of those “look for the keys under the streetlight” things. It's for people who really care about intelligence being something measurable as a decimal number. In every study that isn't a meta-study like this one, the tasks that were measured are available and will tell more of the story.

Our minds are modular, studies measuring ability at precise tasks can improve our understanding of it. I wish people didn't try to make silly sweeping statements on nature vs nurture something that science has to care about.

The only justification for this paper is that it is debunking a book that was originally pseudoscience, but the whole discussion that followed that book is flawed for letting that book set the framing that intelligence boils down to one number.