> A definitive reply to most of that outmoded thinking about g can be found in Nisbet's new book,
If you feel that these views are outmoded – give me peer reviewed research articles (not books). I do not have immediate access to books and books are not peer reviewed. The article that I referenced above was written in 2004 – you can find more recent articles in Google Scholar if you want to. I did not see that the above article (or any of the others) have been refuted. I doubt that you can refute thousands of research articles (a lot of them recent) and a discovery that is probably the hallmark of modern psychometrics with a simple reference to a book (calling anything that you oppose “outmoded”).
> Stanovich is very clear on the distinction between "intelligence" (he is a mainstream psychologist in calling "intelligence" what I would simply call "IQ")
Also I think you are confusing “intelligence” with the general intelligence factor (g) (also intelligence does not equal IQ. IQ is just a standardised intelligence test that is fairly well correlated with the g factor). The general intelligence factor is a factor that is common to almost all different tests on intelligence. While the general intelligence factor is immutable other parts of intelligence can be changed by training/learning (i.e. by the environment).
> "intelligence" (he is a mainstream psychologist in calling "intelligence" what I would simply call "IQ") and "rationality," an aspect of human cognition hardly tapped
The purpose of intelligence tests is to test intelligence – not factors such as rationality, emotion and inter-personal skills such as Stanovich's book suggest. The latter are all factors that is undoubtedly environmental and the value of such tests are doubtful to the intelligence debate.