[...]4) It lacks modern psychometric competence. It was advanced in the 13th Century, to its credit. What are its 5 forms of reliability? How was it validated (a technical statistical term, not a philosophical one)? One IQ test, the most validated, and powerfully predictive test of all time, with 10,000 validation studies itself, was banned because of racially disparate results.
Oh please, just do not cite the "psychometric" thing here! I mean, way too many theorists are critical of the entire psychometric approach, although some others regard it as firmly established. The critics do not dispute the stability of test scores, nor the fact that they predict certain forms of achievement — especially school achievement — rather effectively. They do argue, however, that to base a concept of intelligence on test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability. Psychometric tests are used for many purposes, such as selection, diagnosis, and evaluation. Tests of intelligence itself (in the psychometric sense) come in many forms. By convention, overall intelligence test scores are usuallv converted to a scale in which the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. (The standard deviation is a measure of the variability of the distribution of scores.) Approximately 95% of the population has scores within two standard deviations of the mean, i.e. between 70 and 130. For historical reasons, the term "IQ" is often used to describe scores on tests of intelligence. It originally referred to an "intelligence Quotient" that was formed by dividing a so-called mental age by a chronological age, but this procedure is no longer used.Individuals rarely perform equally well on all the different kinds of items included in a test of intelligence. One person may do relatively better on verbal than on spatial items, for example, while another may show the opposite pattern. Nevertheless, subtests measuring different abilities tend to be positively correlated: people who score high on one such subtest are likely to be above average on others as well. These complex patterns of correlation can be clarified by factor analysis, but the results of such analyses are often controversial themselves. Some theorists have emphasized the importance of a general factor, g, which represents what all the tests have in common; others focus on more specific group factors such as memory, verbal comprehension, or number facility. One common view today envisages something like a hierarchy of factors with g at the apex. But there is no full agreement on what g actually means: it has been described as a mere statistical regularity, a kind of mental energy, a generalized abstract reasoning ability, or an index measure of neural processing speed.