That seems to imply that they are willing to train you in whatever you need give you prove you have an aptitude. That too isn't the industry standard as near as I can tell, instead it's becoming just enough of an expert to barely get whatever it is you need done without an understanding of best practice before moving onto the next item.

Link to record?

"Shitty proxy" as in "little to no demonstrable correlation whatsoever." Willingness to grind/memorize is about as poor a measure of intellectual ability as one can get. It does show some level of interest/diligence--but perhaps not the best kind.

Do do do do…

What are the issues with IQ tests?

> What are the issues with IQ tests?

They can have cultural or social biases unless very carefully calibrated. Ideally you should be able to take anyone who speaks a reasonable level of English, give them test and have them get a score that matches their intelligence percentile.

In practice, the tests are built for a particular socioeconomic class and type of person. As a trivial example, imagine the test uses the word "yacht" and you give the test to someone who has never culturally been exposed to that word - that person will, on average, score a bit lower than someone who recognizes the word immediately.

Or imagine you give a test using Imperial units to a European who exclusively grew up using Metric (or vice versa). Knowing that three feet are in a yard isn't an intelligence test, it's a test of cultural familiarity.

But these problems are also present in most other selection criteria? E.g., GRE is much easier if all your education and reading was in English. So I wonder if the real issue with IQ tests is actually that the elites can NOT game it as easily.