FWIW, anecdotal data is also considered a valid diagnostic tool too, and we know how unreliable such information can be.
Also, by populations, do you mean groups of particular types of people or just groups of people in general? If anything, I thought IQ really only had anything close to merit at large population levels. Much of what I have read clearly fails at an individual level.
However, if you are talking about IQ's application in regards to populations like one race vs. another, then yes, I think the pushback is well deserved.
I agree with you about your last statement! I think it's actually a pretty interesting comparable to BMI. BMI: useful epidemiologically, across large populations, but much less useful individually. IQ: much less useful across large populations, but useful as a diagnostic/clinical tool in individual settings.
No, it hasn't. What ever else you want to say about the research results you're describing, "widely accepted in the field" is not a thing you can hope to say about them. The objections scientists have to these kinds of statements is fractally deep.
Claims that politics are preventing genetic and psychometric research also seem to drive practitioners in the field pretty nuts; there is clearly and obviously a ton of this research happening "in the west", it just doesn't say what race science activists want it to.
I owe another thread a deeper answer than this, so I'm keeping this brief.
No, they haven't. The opposite thing has happened (I owe another thread details): as we've shifted to genomics, the estimates have cratered. This isn't an "activist" thing.
You know you're in trouble when people start implying that actual genomic and quantitative psychological research in academic labs is suspect because of "taboos". In fact, since you made that point, and since I really shouldn't be digging into this before responding to the other person I said I would respond to: I'll leave it there.
> IQ is as far as I can tell quite well accepted as a diagnostic tool
Inside certain bubbles, sure, because there's pressing demand to have something quantifiable and sufficient supporters willing to assert its legitimacy.
But good luck taking your test results outside of those bubbles to earn you some opportunity or respect, even if you can say your test was administered to the highest standards by the most respected administrators.
Nobody here will take your results to mean anything. Nobody at your work will take your results to mean anything. The recruiter at some new potential job won't either. The prestigious university you want to attend won't care. Most of your partners and friends probably won't.
Many of them may already have a sense of whether you're "intelligent" or not, either from personal interactions or from other practical indications. But good luck finding somebody of material influence who would hear your IQ score results and change their mind. It just doesn't have that weight.
That's what it means for it not to be treated seriously outside of bubbles. There are supporters that back it, and there are institutions that rely on it, but outside of those very specific places, there's very very little trust in it.
In any bubble where IQ is considered legitimate, just mention that Richard Feynman apparently had a recorded IQ of 124 or so (or Lewis Terman's study of gifted children).
You'd think someone tried to convince those in the bubble that the Earth is flat. In my experiences, I have been met with all kinds of rebuttals like, "The test he took was probably over-weighted in verbal vs. spatial reasoning" or "He probably just blew the whole test off."
No one has a copy of the actual results to my knowledge, but he and his sister (who oddly enough scored higher) verified the story back in the day according to biographers. So, not telling what is the true story.
For the sake of argument, let's assume Feynman's score was indeed accurate. I think it makes people extremely uncomfortable for two reasons:
1. Some individuals with high IQs (IQ >= 130) feel threatened or ashamed by the fact that someone with an high but unremarkable score was capable of truly remarkable contributions to their field.
2. The scores are truly not always accurate or might potentially measure something that isn't intelligence.
If Feynman's score was indeed an inaccurate measurement of his intelligence, then that says more than I need to know about IQ testing.
I mention Feynman because I am in agreement with you:
> Many of them may already have a sense of whether you're "intelligent" or not, either from personal interactions or from other practical indications.
No one would consider Feynman to be unintelligent by any stretch of the imagination. However, at the end of the day, his score truly doesn't matter. Feynman nor anyone else is not remembered because of their intelligence, but rather, his contributions. Besides, exceptional people tend to be, well, exceptional.
