“Your major assumption is that IQ is a reasonable substitute for intelligence.”-

-“Your major assumption is that IQ is a reasonable substitute for intelligence.”—

Intelligence(“g”, short term memory, information mode, general knowledge, ‘rationality of wants’) + gender bias + psychological factors: (Impulsivity, Aggression, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Worrying) is as close as we need to be to make general statements about groups of people.

There is literally NO evidence that suggests the contrary.

And to further criticize the position, the correspondence between the IQ proxy for intelligence and all other personality factors is high enough that IQ is also a proxy for positive personality traits.

So yes, as a general rule, and when we speak politically we rely entirely on general rules, IQ is a sufficient proxy for demonstrated (existential) intelligence. I think this is a bit of a mistake since it does not demonstrate the problem of personality traits and information model.

We have a pretty good model of intelligence: rational action, creativity, rate of learning. But these two ( factors: verbal and spatial) overwhelm all other variables in causation.

NOW

—“the g factor will account for a smaller proportion of individual differences in cognitive tests scores at higher scores on the g factor.”–

Meaning that as we get smarter we tend to specialize.

As we get ‘dumber’ we tend to get more the same.

CHALLENGES

It appears that western openness to experience is a candidate for western innovation.

It is a mistake not to publish the full set of test data. Particularly personality. ( and autism/solipsism).

Obscuring this information is intentional because it would destroy the universalist mythos.

This is no different from the church suppressing science