>Intelligence isn't very hard to measure. The methods to test it are quite mature.

On the contrary. A lot of the standard methods are crude and coarse measures of intelligence.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.h...

Good ones (consistent, calibrated) seems to exist but yes, I have read on HN about people being asked about American history under the guise of "IQ test".

That's a pretty bold statement, considering that it's currently unknown whether general "intelligence", or g, even exists.

It's reasonably consistently measurable and has demonstrated correlations with both causative factors and outcomes. You can legitimately question the nature of what is being measured, but it's obviously something real (even if it's a composite).

?

> ... whether general "intelligence", or g, even exists.

I'm talking about the one that is for example measured in standardized IQ tests.

That's a little bit circular, though: "Intelligence is what is measured by an intelligence test."

And he is saying the IQ test measures very little, though the test appears at least to be self-consistent.

> "Intelligence isn't very hard to measure. The methods to test it are quite mature."

Intelligence is a measure of aptitude, but aptitude applies to a broad range of activity, and not all aptitude is numerically quantifiable (in any meaningful sense, at least). For example, two broad categories of intelligence are academic intelligence and emotional intelligence. Excellence in one field does not necessarily transfer to all fields, otherwise socially gifted people would always make the best academic students, and from personal observation I can see this doesn't tie up with reality.

The methods to test intelligence is apparently all there is of it. We know we can make tests that curve-fit to a normal distribution but beyond that, we know nearly nothing of it.