(my earlier post should have said "the notion of [unitary] intelligence [not IQ] is conceptually not well-defined").
> So to use a cliche: IQ measures book smarts, but not
> street smarts. (There are many types of practical,
> everyday intelligence that people use in our society
> that are not accurately measured by IQ score. However,
> if you want to know who's going to succeed in
> academic settings, IQ is a relevant predictor.)
if one were to use entrance testing as a substitute for IQ, then even the above may not be the case: boys do better than girls (iirc) in these tests, but girls do better at college. is it because girls are book-smarter? or because they don't spend so much time in frat parties? or did the girls do worse than boys in the tests because they were intimidated by them in such a stressful/competititve activity? what is the measure of doing better in academia? average grades? or do we count the fact that more scientists with ground-breaking theories are men? or is that because men steal the glory (as in the watson-crick affair)?
i am not against any claim that any trait is inheritable. nor am i necessarily against IQ tests and such. i was responding in specific to calvin ostrum's post regarding jensen's response to gould. as i mentioned in one of my responses, it is possible gould is wrong, but i did not believe the argument provided established that, or was even in the direction of establishing that.
--ravi