>>935856898
>Better for utility, maybe, not for meaning. Prediction without understanding risks misapplication and false confidence.
Yes, better for utility. How could there be misapplication if you understand what's happening (on a macroscopic level)?
>No, essence referred to what intelligence fundamentally is, not what it correlates with. Correlation does not equal definition.
Right, well, IQ attempts to extrude g, while g is intelligence (I still don't know what YOU mean by "intelligence").
>Weakly, inconsistently. Correlation isn’t coverage
Not, inconsistently (if high g-loaded tests are used).
>IQ doesn’t measure creativity or emotional intelligence meaningfully.
EI doesn't account for anything more than IQ and the big five, see: picrel.
>DIF controls for test-item fairness, not broader test-context effects. Two people scoring the same may still arrive there under unequal conditions, motivation, stereotype threat, cultural framing. The score may be fair; the situation isn’t.
All you're saying is that IQ also measures brain damage (IQ is reduced by negative environmental encounters). Stereo-type threat isn't going to give someone brain damage.