IMO g is purely an abstraction. As long as the rate you learn most things is within a reasonable bound spending more or less time learning/perfecting X impacts the time you spend on Y, resulting in people being generally more or less proficient in a huge range of common cognitive skills. Thus, testing those general skills is normally a proxy for a wide range of things.

LD breaks IQ because it results in noticeably uneven skill acquisition in even foundational skills. Meanwhile increasing levels of specialization reward being abnormally good at a very narrow sets of skills making IQ less significant. The #1 rock climber in the world gets sponsors, the 100th gets a hobby.

▲

WanderPanda 3 days ago | parent [-]

For me it all made sense when I heard that IQ/g-factor basically vanishes in the absence of time pressure (heard if from Richard Haier on Lex).

For a very narrow range of professions, like ATCs, time is absolutely critical but for most it does not really matter that much. Especially in many STEM fields. I think people in a broad IQ range can build abstractions and acquire intuitions about pretty complex matter. From this view-point ability to concentrate for long times, curiosity etc. seem more important than "raw-compute".

"if you value intelligence above all other human qualities, you’re gonna have a bad time" - Ilya

Timeless statement imo, even in the absence of AI

	▲	Jensson 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> For me it all made sense when I heard that IQ/g-factor basically vanishes in the absence of time pressure (heard if from Richard Haier on Lex). That cannot be true as there are valid IQ tests that doesn't have a time component, and people don't all score the same on those. He must have meant something different than you think. For example Raven's matrices was originally an untimed test, how can that be if there is no G-factor in untimed tests?