[lutusp]

> ... without even doing basic research first?

If self-reference were a disease, you would be in an emergency room. You know nothing about me or the research I have conducted, apart from the fact that your argument represents an all-too-common logical error.

> the opinions of ignorant journalists are not really relevant.

> it was strongly criticized by experts in the relevant area.

So, which is it? Did journalists decide, or did experts decide? And do you know why neither of those sources carry weight in science, a field where evidence trumps eminence?

Do you know why I'm playing you along, even though you have nothing to contribute to this discussion? I just want the readers in this forum to see what passes for reasoning among psychologists and their supporters.

[truthteller]

at this point you are just embarrassing yourself with your weird crusade attack "psychologists and supporters". I'm sure most readers in this forum feel intuitively that mental ability can be measured with some accuracy, so I doubt you will convince many people. and anyone who cares to look will find a vast psychometric literature that supports the validity of IQ.

[lutusp]

> I doubt you will convince many people.

I don't need to. The director of the NIMH already agrees with me, and high-level policy changes are under way to permanently change the status of psychiatry and psychology, demote them to the status of astrology. Didn't you get the memo?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s...

> ... anyone who cares to look will find a vast psychometric literature that supports the validity of IQ.

Yes, that works for people suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias, and who can't grasp basic scientific principles. The rest of us will continue practicing science and advocating in favor of neuroscience as psychology's obvious replacement.

IQ testing will become valid only when it is based on science rather than anecdote. Assuming that ever happens.