is a funny guy.

---

Skateboarding is a crime.

However, I will say that I've always had an inherent distrust of intelligence or any such tests.  I just don't see a connection between questions asking me what is similar about a dog and a rabbit, and the broad conclusions drawn by the results that IMO often reflect the test examiner's personal beliefs.

I remember tests in elementary school that noted a bunch of my buddies were way smart and needed special attention.  They received special classes and instruction and etc.  One is now in jail for his drug habit, the other fairly successful but also an alcoholic IMO coping with his parents disappointment in him, several others would probably have an easier time working if their special classes hadn't so instilled in them a sense that they're oh so smart bound to be successful and thus have a hard time with the randomness, lack of constant praise, and general unfairness of everyday work.

I also remember an article a while back about tests used to determine success at university.  One of the people said the only test they knew of that was consistent and predicted success beyond a year or two at school was the question that asked what sex you were.  In general girls do better than boys in the U.S. over the long term.  That was it, their other tests weren't reliable enough to beat it.  Granted that's not an IQ test but man these people are supposed to be pros and they can't beat a simple demographic question....

For me the tests just don't pass the sniff tests and if we can't figure out how to handle the smart people then I'm not sure we know who they are or that much about human intelligence.
____

Whoever reckons these days that it is possible to design an abstract test evaluating intelligence and not to be influenced in the design of these tests by cultural factors wrt. values is an idiot.

. . . based far too deeply in knowledge that is taught/learned; however, I do recognise the inherent difficulty in determining intelligence.

As much as it goes against one of the points of this article (we are getting smarter and smarter by generation), I find that the older generations are/were better at attacking a problem with which they have little familiarity with (taking away factors such as age/education). But to test this thinking outside of the box, dealing with something unfamiliar - it's near impossible. One would almost have to conduct a personal interview, and then conduct listening/reading comprehension tests about subjects the person knew very little about.