> Because the IQ is
No, it is just because they have difficulties at the bench.
> how gives we don't measure them by
We'd measure them by all the tests available. Not all test are usable in all circumstances.
No, it is just because they have difficulties at the bench.
> how gives we don't measure them by
We'd measure them by all the tests available. Not all test are usable in all circumstances.
I'll put it in another way. A "gifted kid" can be measured incredibly well on an IQ test, but fail miserably at incredibly normal but very difficult tasks such as consoling someone for their loss and managing family crisis. This is a clear example where an IQ measure doesn't translate to a person being capable of meaningfully changing their environments for good which is one way we define intelligence.
On the other hand saying "the gifted person is highly intelligent/smart just not good at some things" really diminishes the other tasks, because they really are very difficult tasks but are not measured by an IQ test.
Nobody says that the IQ test would "measure intelligence". We know it does test a form of it.
I think the key here is to be wary of measurements that promise to capture the whole of what we consider intelligence (ie what people think of with IQs).
Not being able to deadlift 500kg also signifies the inability to effectively the (physical) environment.
But even here, in your irrelevant example, you are wrong. In practice IQ is highly correlated with emotional skills ("intelligence").
And as we said, the "IQ tests" do not promise that.
> what people think
What people think is very irrelevant to truth - and we just disregard their opinion. It cannot have a weight.
What would be the gain in asking a layman about anything. It just makes no sense.