>>11216208Yes, that's exactly this. IQ is good at making predictions, it was designed to measure g factor, That's how science works, we create hypothesis and test it, IQ was designed as g factor predictor and was tested against reality, that's the point.
Idk about diabetes, but IQ works no mater if you like this or not.
>>11216180IQ is also backed by many studies, it gives results, that's the entire point. We don't understand gravity, yet we know mass attracts mass. Observing something and testing it over and over again doesn't require you to get mechanical explanation.
I think I understand why there is so much denial about this, social implications of IQ are quite severe, but reality is what it is. Back in high school, and middle school, I did know kids who would study for hours, yet never be able to success to truly grasps topics at school. On the other hand there were kids who wouldn't study, who wouldn't study, who would go straight to video games after school or would party all time, yet still be able to get good grades.
Sure studying is important, but different humans have different capabilities. I don't think it's that controversial, one of those differences is intelligence. When did existence of IQ as valid measurement been debunked. Few years ago discussion was pretty much only about of how much is heritable and how much is environmental or cultural. Is it because no one was able to prove that IQ variance between ethnic groups aren't manly genetics.
It would be really nice to tell everyone, just study and you will get as far as you want, but I think anyone who had any kind of social interactions will know that it's not only about working hard, and we need to recognize that there are people who are genuinely trying and them failing is not their fault, and not fault of other people who are supposedly oppressing them.
