[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
1.) Bilingual or complexity of language is correlated positively with intelligence tests, this leads credibility to the belief that intelligence test scores are partially a result of environment.
2.) Stereotyping can move scores upwards or downwards.
3.) People scoring low on intelligence tests are often able to solve the same puzzle in a different context very well.
4.) There is dispute if the thing intelligence tests measure is intelligence. This dispute comes mainly from the artificial intelligence community which thinks the measure is a bad measure of intelligence.
5.) There is views that social skills, creativity and memory should be included for a complete measure of intelligence.
6.) Intelligence measures correlates with education, giving some creedence that education trains logical tests on paper skills.
7.) Advanced software can theoretically solve intelligence tests better than humans, but do not have any form of mental capacity we would call intelligence.
8.) You can't use a intelligence test on a very different culture without changing it, this detracts from its credibility as a general measure unbiased from culture.
9.) You can train yourself in becoming better at intelligence tests simply by doing intelligence tests, does this make you more intelligent?


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for making this list because it helps elucidate a larger point. When we have a huge body of evidence that all of these things can drastically affect "intelligence", why is anybody confident that the underlying issue is actually the genetics? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

We have loads of evidence that cultural/environmental factors manipulate our perceptions and performance on a variety of tasks. We have very little evidence that the genes for skin color should be linked to mental ability. Why assume this is the case? Why is this the default explanation in some of your minds? It seems like a classic case of the fundamental attribution error where you overemphasize the "kind" of person someone is and underestimate the situational effects when looking at an individual's behavior/performance.