I think you may have a different idea of what IQ is than me. I’m simply interested in some way to consider the raw horsepower of a given brain. But it seems like an odd question to leave unanswered, even if you don’t see any benefit to it immediately. Scientists aren’t inherently trying to answer the most useful questions, just the ones they find interesting enough to research.

And hell, maybe it’ll have the opposite effect. Maybe we’ll find that absolute raw horsepower is a worthless metric, because intelligence is simply too complex multifaceted, or maybe it’ll simply turn out to be like BMI, where it’s only applicable to populations of sufficient size. Who knows?

For all I know, true horsepower is the rate at which you form new connections, or the amount of working memory you have, or the efficiency of your brain (less activity for similar tasks).

But that being said, the brain is just the engine. I don’t disagree that the driver makes or breaks it. Of course things like grit and training and emotional stability and socioeconomic status and… matter just as much in terms of how well we can use that engine/brain.

Edit: oh, and to answer your question, I think it was a study in 2012 in Neuron(?) that was considered the death knell for the IQ test as we see it today.

I should also mention that in a perfect world, this test would be more physical than mental - brain scans and metabolic charts or something like that.

> I think you may have a different idea of what IQ is than me. I’m simply interested in some way to consider the raw horsepower of a given brain.

Entirely possible, and if that is all you want to use the metric for, then I have no qualms with that. I just get very leery about using the metrics for policy. In my state, for example, IQ <= 69 immune from death penalty and an IQ >= 70 makes one eligible (assuming a 1st degree murder conviction). I know there has to be a cut-off somewhere, but I do not think the tests are accurate enough to demonstrate a large difference between scores in that range (same on the other tail end too).

> Scientists aren’t inherently trying to answer the most useful questions, just the ones they find interesting enough to research.

Fair enough.

> intelligence is simply too complex multifaceted, or maybe it’ll simply turn out to be like BMI, where it’s only applicable to populations of sufficient size.

I still hold such views despite reading plenty of the research. IQ certainly measures something, but I am not entirely certain we fully understand what we are looking it. Plenty of low/moderate correlates. From what I can honestly tell, it appears that IQ is a great predictor at the speed of which one learns, but coincidentally, that does not predict domain mastery.

For example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... (Though, I do not agree the finds are "significant" -- those r^2 are brutal)

> Of course things like grit and training and emotional stability and socioeconomic status and… matter just as much in terms of how well we can use that engine/brain.

Well, thank you for being rational. It's quite rare these days.

> I think it was a study in 2012 in Neuron(?) that was considered the death knell for the IQ test as we see it today.

Ah! I know which one your talking about. Yes, that was a blow, but I think the field is chugging along just fine.

> this test would be more physical than mental

I have once considered how awesome this would be too. I think Sternberg, a field-famous psychologist, is working on something physical, albeit not in this realm. I believe he wants to create some kind obstacle course/escape room like measurement, if I am not mistaken. I was pay-walled a while back, so I couldn't quite tell what the paper was fully about.