IQ tests reliably measure IQ, where "IQ" is the name of the metric invented to describe what IQ tests measure.

I would argue that The Big Five personality traits is just as reproducible but with a much higher construct validity than IQ. It measures a similar thing in a similar way, in that it's an abstract concept about human psychology (personality and intelligence) that is measured with questionnaires.

There's good science in Psychology, even if the field as a whole is suffering the replication crisis. Some parts of cognitive psychology such as studies in reaction times, memory, and perception are very reproducible. Classic conditioning is a standard in animal training.

Psychology as a whole has a bed reputation, and it has received solid criticism. I think a lot of it has to do with a few high profile frauds, bad translational science (theory to application), perverse publication incentives in academia, and the tendency for non-scientist to use questionable findings to justify their opinions.

It's also one of the most poisoned by history. It has, for instance, been used in eugenics movements and forced sterilizations in the US.

It is influenced by all sorts of factors, from parental income to nutrition.

My family has folks in psych, and they universally regard IQ as "pretty bad, but useful for roughly measuring one form of intelligence".

please refer to the "reliability and validity" section contained herein https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

It's a much more complicated topic than your comment would suggest. The very definition of "intelligence" in regards to the iq test is fuzzy and ill -defined.

Not to mention that Alfie Binet (created the iq test) believed the test itself to be insufficient, and asserted that any true measure of intelligence could not be quantitative.

> most reproducible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect?wprov=sfla1

you must be joking right

That's a very incestious way of looking at it. Psychometrics in itself starts off with an a priori assumption that mental capabilities (and implied, human value) can be measured. One can always introduce another metric, say Integrity-Quotient, and then develop the test for it. Now we not only have this made-up metric, and its corresponding test (look at how objective it is), but now because it can be captured in a number, it is information in the narrowest computational sense. It's reproducibility is irrelevant in this dynamic. The positive trait (integrity) has now shriveled to fit the parameters of the machine.

This type of circularity is willful submission to the algorithm. We reduce the richness of human cognition only so it can be bureaucratized (e.g. tie it to some fiscal benefit like UBI). It is not fair in any humane (as opposed to mechanical) sense.

I have no idea what you could be possibly referring to. IQ is known to be susceptible to practicing the exams. IQ itself is measured w/ different tests that don't necessarily completely agree.

This only tells you in what dire conditions lay psychology and psychometrics.

IQ is only propaganda for an ideology.