There are about 5-10 studies on IQ this decade alone but, it's five am. I just rolled over and posted the first one I found

As I hate that "cite your sources shit," when the OG person asking never cited anything

@RoflTank

I distinctly remember in Uni IQ being pushed away.

Basically it is like measuring height in terms of basketball.

It's a good metric but, it doesn't mean just cause someone is short they aren't a good basketballer

Again, the standard IQ test measures different intelligences.

It's not the go to test anymore. They use a lot more tests including IQ to get intelligence.

Yes

What tests?

*generalized* IQ is no longer the bar

I know about scanning

I don't know of any other test.

Studying a child/person from childhood to adulthood. Standard IQ test. Scanning. Etc.

About three ways I know of.

It's like how big brain niggas can be so fucking dumb

^

Because they might be book smart but have no common sense

Booksmart you mean

Ah

Yep

Which is something a standard IQ test shows

Or how gang bangers got street smarts but they are retarded monkeys

Well, the proper battery of separate tests

Anyways the point isn't that IQ tests are wrong. I still feel they are useful regardless what feminist unis say

I just feel studying someone should take in more data and be more well rounded

I mean IQ works well in regards to African nations lmao

I think the point here is that we still need to do a LOT more research.

Also have you seen how big IQ test niggas can somehow (rarely) shit up the asvab or SATS

Or fail a logic test they have never encountered before

I dunno. Regardless of the study I posted my personal feelings are IQ still generally works for most purposes

But establishment atm is pushing IQ as wrong and racist

So what I've gathered from this data is that brain scanning is better for detecting intelligence and that intelligence is comprised of several components rather than being unitary. None of this really conflicts with IQ being one of the best ways to measure general intelligence and certainly does not undermine the idea of intelligence being mostly heritable.

http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf

It's a supplement

I think this is probably the most conclusive paper on the topic.

My argument isn't IQ is flawed like Uni's are pushing

My argument is it should be used with other methods

Which is that intelligence measured by IQ is a very good predictor of economic outcome.

Ie a battery of tests

IQ. Brain scanning. Practical tests etc.

I don't disagree, but I don't see how this conflicts with the idea of 'g' being mostly heritable.