Oh you misunderstood me; I wasn't making any claims about what you said, I was only pointing out the logical conclusion that measuring acquired skills is not measuring intelligence, it would only be measuring effort & interest. I'm trying to point out why the training part of IQ or intelligence is the far less interesting part. The more trainable it is, the more nobody cares. What many people want to know is what's the
capacity for intelligence; what's the ceiling on training. Think about it: the single most valid and important use case for intelligence testing is deciding how to adapt the educational curriculum for children.
BTW I'm not the one repeatedly bringing up the 20% thing, I'm trying to drop it.
You are arguing that intelligence is primarily trained and not primarily a physical trait, no? You did make a claim about a two orders of magnitude intelligence difference between IQs of 180 and 100, right? You seem to agree that "intelligence" is a combination of genetics and training, is that correct? And you believe the variance in IQ scores is mostly due to training and not genetics, or what?
This is somewhat going in circles now. I've agreed multiple times that IQ scores are somewhat trainable, and you're ignoring the facts that 1) it's only a little bit trainable not a lot, and 2) that people generally tend to have a stable IQ measurement over their lifetime (adults moreso than kids), and 3) that the goal of IQ tests is to try to factor out training to some degree, which is why it used to divide by age and now measures only rank. Cultural bias was a huge a valid criticism of earlier IQ tests, and they've taken steps to avoid relying on knowledge.
I'd certainly love to hear a more interesting argument or any evidence at all for you two orders of magnitude claim, but I can accept you're telling me your opinion and not something defensible. What we have agreed on is that IQ doesn't measure intelligence, it measures rank. One way or another, that fact could fully explain the outcome of the article we're commenting on.
> Child prodigies beat adults at chess, at maths, at programming, you name it.
FWIW, that's not really true in any meaningful way, and to some degree it contradicts what you're saying about training intelligence. The child outliers are not beating the adult outliers. Some children can outperform the average adult, but what has that got to do with anything? Some adults can also outperform the average adult. If children are outperforming adults, and they've had less training time, then how do you explain the superior performance? What is a naturally gifted child prodigy, if not evidence of physical traits?