This kind of response is, in my opinion, anti-academic.

A better response would be too try to find some literature on the subject.

One aspect of IQ is your ability to solve certain kinds of abstract problems. OP asked what if the IQ tests just test your ability to solve certain kinds of abstract problems.

OP's post didn't seem like a genuine academic inquiry but instead a weak emotional attempt to dismiss something they don't like.

Fallacy: Appeal to authority. Besides, obviously they have, which is the reason I said it.

And even further: researchers say that you can study for IQ tests to get a higher score. Presumably general intelligence is not something you can cram for. This is one of the reasons psychologists argue the IQ test is not an accurate system, and may or may not be just testing secondary effects of intelligence (like brain teaser ability).

Of course IQ tests test for secondary effects of intelligence. In what way does that invalidate it? It's important to remember we're talking about population level distributions here. A person could theoretically test well for some form of IQ but actually be a moron. That would mean nothing with regard to the efficacy of the test or validity of IQ in general.

I've had psychology professors tell me their industry is pretty much 'full of shit' ... how much damage has Freud et al done to our understanding of ourselves?