Lex, this was well done. For Richard Haier, I would say this. <br>1 I diasagree with your general definition of intelligence. By your definition it simply identifies fitness to the modern society. The fact, then, that testing high on it correlates with lifespan outcomes is consistent here. <br>2. You say that content of test does not matter, yet make no provision for intelligence which is characterized by emotional maturity. I would posit that high IQ is often associated with narrowing into academic success at the cost of moral empathic capacity. This is one example.<br>. There is no sensory test, no musical capacity test, no social functioning test, included in these batteries of IQ tests. Because the tests themselves are part of a cultural framework which itself values specific kinds of intelligence, there is no way to say you have insight into intelligence itself, even if g factor is calculable from those tests. It is missing a,bc,d,e,f factors. <br>3. I highly doubt that any enrichment educational study meant to change basic intelligence could have started early enough, let alone be different enough from the current educational structure to provide a window into education for individuals disadvantaged by the modality of educational content itself. More of the same doesn’t fix qualitative educational problems. That would be a very easy study to botch.<br>4. Let’s take the example of an elephant, capable of complex spatial navigation, long term memory, a rich social structure that honors dead ancestors. How smart are they? You’re not going to be able to use a single one of your iq tests, because the planes of intelligence that are operating in an elephant have a completely different cultural map, language map, and nodes of relevance. An elephant will not test well if you try to. It will appear significantly less smart and fit for society than humans. But it is very likely quite a lot smarter than humans in ways we cannot even fathom and have no test for. Another example would be Octopi. Simply put. There are humans that are so varied in their sort of intelligence that it will not even map onto your test let alone your society. Consistently with this, people of varied intelligence will feel all kinds of social malaise in interacting with a society that doesn’t comprehend their reality whatsoever, and will struggle immensely to perform well at a desk job. <br>5. Schooling produces successful results in homogenization of intellectual ability by not even allowing the creative frameworks possible for out of the box thinking to emerge and be cultivated. <br>6. Testing outcomes are often insincere especially in Schooling. I for example was forced to take the sats, and I put random answers into the entire math section without doing a single calculation. <br> 7. Multiple choice presents fallacies of either-or Thinking which the test taker cannot manually override with a written answer.<br>8. Add a moral development component, a debate component, critical thinking component, color intelligence component, auditory component, and so much more, you will get different Results. <br>9. Putting a time limit on tests to extract processing speed is an absolute guarantee that you will miss every high intelligent slow processing time person (common in twice exceptional). <br>10. There is so much more to gripe about tis broken broken system, but for now I would just encourage folks to not judge your own intelligence according to these characteristics. You may have some unique talent that is practically magical to Others. <br>Things you got right: <br>Yes, intelligence and consciousness are related. Possibly Identical. <br>Side note: I would like a test that continuously asks: what is more beautiful? <br>It is important to note that the ability to be receptive to others thoughts is not the same intelligence factor as the ability to create a new thought. Multiple choice tests, by structure, cannot map creative intelligence.,(reply>), @nehorlavazapalka <br>It is difficult to know what one does not know they do not know! (I’m unclear whether you were referencing the interviewee or my response, if you care to elaborate?),(reply>), DK effect right there.