> Oh, just great. You defend the SAT, which measures
> literally _nothing_, because it is crude approximation
> to IQ tests, which measure the mythical "G," utterly
> discredited by all but the true believers (except in
> its orginal role of identifying or ruling out people
> who might need special help), in the forlorn hope that
> other intellectual capacities that we cannot also
> measure are "correlated" with each other, though how
> we know this if we cannot measure them is anybody's
> guess.
Have you mistaken me for Arthur Jensen? I don't consider myself to be a defender of the SAT, although I guess I am if you take "defender of the SAT" to mean one who believes it measures (albeit necessarily crudely and imprecisely), well, something beyond mere class status. My claim that the various problem solving abilities (if you prefer this term to "intellectual capacities") measured by IQ tests do correlate with one another is just a matter of fact; those who are good at finding relations among words on IQ tests also tend to be good at finding relations among shapes on IQ tests (however, such correlations aren't 1/1). Everyday experience leads me to believe that, even if IQ tests are a load of bull, the various intellectual capacities we generally group under the rubric "smartness" do correlate (perhaps weakly) with one another.
-- Luke