>>13821790>There is no gene for intelligenceCorrect, there are thousands of them, its polygenic.
>Intelligence itself isn't even clearly definedIts in the dictionary retard. Also IQ is clearly defined, if you wasn't to argue IQ =/= Intelligence, go do that but no one cares, You can still just as easily compare IQ (specifically the psychometric not some abstract idea of intelligence) with performance with various tasks and make meaningful predictions.
>Who's smarter? World's best go player or worlds best chess player?Same logic applies elsewhere. Who is more athletic, a powerlifter or a basketball player? No correct answer because we're comparing specialised abilities, yet objectively we can identify that some people can build muscle faster, have more efficient nervous systems, are more coordinated etc. The existence of specialised abilities dose not disprove the existence of general abilities, in the case of sporting ability and mental capacities, the specialized abelites actually are dependent on underlining general abilities. People that are generally better at math, are also generally better articulated, generally have better memories, are generally better academically, are better at chess, and probably better at GO too. This implies that there is a general ability (general intelligence) that is engaged when preforming each task, otherwise performance in ostensibly orthogonal mental tasks wouldn't correlate with each other.
