There is a lot of data on this question, and it flatly contradicts Asimov's claims. IQ scores correlate not only with academic performance but also with job performance as well as others' intuitive impression of how "smart" a person is. That's why the army gives intelligence tests to new recruits: high-IQ soldiers (and mechanics and carpenters) do better, on average, than their low-IQ counterparts. Other types of tests, such as the hypothetical test devised by Asimov's mechanic, either have no predictive power or are predictive only as far as they correlate with g, or general intelligence, which is currently best measured by IQ tests. The physiological basis of g is unknown, but it is highly heritable and correlates with a number of physical variables such as brain volume and myelination.

If you want to learn more about the subject, I suggest this book, which concisely disposes of these and other popular anti-IQ arguments:

http://www.amazon.com/Question-Intelligence-IQ-Debate-Americ...

While this is a fantastic article, I kind of want to disagree with some of the points listed.

IQ tests are standardized in a way that you don't need to be a scholar or academic to know how to solve and/or answer the questions.

Look at it this way, in my opinion, the standard IQ tests of today are moreso a test of how quickly you can learn or adapt and solve, rather than of what knowledge you have.

For example, I bet that a PhD candidate (or just a "genious") would have much less difficulty learning about the insides of a car and how to fix it, than a mechanic would have in getting his PhD or equivalent to that level of knowledge

I find that people with higher than average IQs have more work ethic and learn much more quickly than people who have below average IQs, and I don't think this is a purely coincidental thing.

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination.

— Albert Einstein http://quotationsbook.com/quote/21310/

(and Isaac Asimov had a lot of imagination)

If its his point to claim that intelligence tests are bunk, I'd quibble with the declaration that any person, or even any academic, could make an 'intelligence test' pertaining to their particular field: that's not a test of intelligence, but of mastery, though how quickly one can master, and how widely they can apply that mastery may well be a test of intelligence.

Are intelligence tests tests of mastery in a field? I'd claim not, and I'd go on to claim that they're built by people who study intelligence, without the intention of testing a person's knowledge, as Asmiov claims such tests do.

I think it is a good point that there are different kinds of aptitudes, but I also think this point should be kept in perspective. I think it is misguided when people speak dismissively of IQ, SATs and the like, saying things like "well, all that proves is that you're good at taking those kinds of tests." (I'm not saying the article does this, but I do hear this rather frequently - ironically, usually from people with high IQs. Privilege Guilt?) There is no reason to be dismissive of the immense power of the type of intelligence that handles symbol/abstraction manipulation, particularly in technology.

you can't measure "intelligence" because there is no common definition for it. its a vague term which doesn't map to a single real world phenomenon directly, (e.g. brightness, heaviness, speed etc.) but its a derived value, which maps to a multitude of other derived values (comprehension, reasoning etc.) which are themselves difficult to define and measure. i don't know if a concrete definition would help anyway... i'm sure people would disagree because whatever it would be would conflict with their personal views of intelligence.

Great article.

The fact that a few extra hours of sleep or a big cup of coffee can completely sway the results renders IQ scores almost irrelevant, IMHO.

Great intelligence can be simple. Like caring for others, making informed decisions, asking why, etc.

Intelligence is a desire to learn, plus experience.

Everybody on this site fancies themselves intelligent, prides themseleves and loves flattery. Everybody on this site is an atheist obsessed with evolution who won't admit they are NAZI's.

Read brave new world and chill.

I'll bet you think you'd love to talk with God about evolution, don't you? Be careful what you wish for.

God says... lo pear numbering wilfully informing conquered revenged odours Euodius needed easily experiments harmoniseth sentiment permission shadow temporal confine conversation suppliant charges transforming freeman assented of predestinated syllable encumbrances considerable enact concernment faith vaunt joined chance overboldness leaps balm meek USA ranged namely Take wear restricted underwent Loving viper S skirmishes Vanilla appearing forgiving washing gradually pilgrim style knocked party bottom relaxedly law endeavoured Etexts beseech

Brave New World is Christian: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.h...