@This is Linus IQ tests don't tend to measure knowledge so it doesn't work on that front. Older tests would have that as a better argument as they would ask questions like "what links a fox and a chicken" and would only accept answers based on biology education rather than the first-hand experience of country bumpkins. A lot of tests nowadays are non-verbal reasoning questions based on Raven's Progressive Matrices. While I think intelligent people can do better on them, I don't think they really test intelligence. They test more for autistic puzzle enjoyment and some questions have multiple answers which are logically correct in m experience. Of course intelligence is related to puzzle-solving but decision-making irl can be very different to logic puzzles. That raises another point. IQ tests are a great predictor of performance in university admissions tests which are like IQ tests. So, IQ tests are good for things which are like IQ tests. IQ tests however are bad at predicting life success for people with >100 IQ. In other words IQ could be better for measuring unintelligence (learning difficulties/retardation) than intelligence. I'm going to stop here because I can keep rambling
