/sci/ - Science & Math

The main argument for IQ being a legitimate scientific measure of intelligence, as far as I understand, is that there is significant correlation between various prominent IQ tests. The implication here is that because performance on one test predicts performance on another test, then these tests must be measuring the same trait and are thus legitimate.

This argument doesn't actually make any sense, when you thinking about it. Let's say I have two intelligence tests. Test 1 measures how fast a musician can play a C major scale. Test 2 measures how fast a musician can play a C minor scale. Clearly, there will be tremendous correlation between the two tests. Does this mean that they are valid measures of intelligence. No, of course not.

The fact that there exists a correlation between two tests has no bearing on their legitimacy as intelligence measures. It simply means that the two tests are measuring something similar. Nothing is said about what that similar thing is.

To demonstrate the legitimacy of an IQ test, one would have to show its correlation with some agreed upon standard of intelligence. Perhaps you could show that people in the high IQ percentiles have a strictly higher percentage of Math Phds or something (this is pretty sketchy in many other ways though). As far as I know, this correlation has not been shown. And furthermore, Math ability is what we are using to measure IQ, then why not simply replace IQ tests with Math tests?

Is IQ really this retarded or am I missing something.

Mine is 119. A level student studying Maths, Physics and Chemistry.

Anybody know any good online IQ tests that don't ask for payment at the end? I just need at least an idea of my IQ range.
>inb4
>IQ doesn't matter
It does to me so shut the fuck up