/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6165317
I would argue I was stupid in the category of social cognition and have since learned how to be smarter in that area, now I am on an average level given the data (or maybe enough people just fell to my level given how it is calculated, that's scary). However this introduces the idea of types of intelligence, which at minimum shows a significant flaw in a singular IQ score. This is why we have many other theories that including

the g factor (which was the early form of the IQ system we have now)
the IQ, EQ, SQ values (The EQ and SQ is actually some time part of the test, although it is not used very often any more)
the Gf and Gc (which fits very well with how intelligence changes with age)
the 7 distinct categories of intelligence (which includes body smart, similar to athletic ability) (pic)

just to name some big ones.
Even since ancient times you can find the concept of street smart and book smart under different names. So why do we use such a narrow definition when it clear that there is more to it?