I think it's reasonable to conclude that measuring intelligence isn't valuable enough for all of the negative externalities attached to it given how the world currently is. But then from there it's easy to make the easy jump to saying it's impossible to measure intelligence without those negative externalities, which is probably not true. But if you can't measure intelligence without significant bias, you aren't really measuring it at all, you're just measuring your biases.
Do you have some specific examples of this purported bias?
> Unfortunately some were also very deliberate spins (one notable example being the book The Bell Curve).
Specifically what spin are you referring to?
> I think it's reasonable to conclude that measuring intelligence isn't valuable enough for all of the negative externalities attached to it given how the world currently is.
Insufficiently valuable to whom?
So I think to get everyone on the same page, you have to address that concern in some form, or there will be some people who are always against the idea of measurable intelligence.
It's a reasonable argument, and one I personally tend to lean towards, but you can't meaningfully debate it if you don't have a shared understanding that a general factor does indeed exist.
> For reasons I don't fully understand, there's a lot of folks in the social sciences these day that seem to be waging war on the very concept that you can describe intelligence generally (and IQ tests specifically).
The unfortunate reality is that social sciences are largely corrupted by political activism. Their activities are often prescriptive social engineering that attempt to use their perceived scientific authority rather than actual descriptive science. Put simply, they are saying what they want to be so, rather than what is so.