Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting aside the question of the selection effect (which, frankly, seems like it could only realistically go in one direction, unless you want to propose a plausible mechanism by which people with higher than average IQ are _less_ likely to sit for these standardized exams)... You could also spend 5 seconds Googling the question and find that that this is not exactly an untrod ground in academic literature. The rela…
> This does not mean that they are not strongly correlated to IQ. It does not mean they are related or that they aren’t, which only suggests you are missing the point: selection bias. > You could also spend 5 seconds Googling the question and find that that this is not exactly an untrod ground in academic literature. It has been studied exhaustively. The relation between IQ and academic performance is poor according…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/Frey.pdf
I certainly don't "need" it to be true - things are either true or they aren't, and needing or wanting differently doesn't change that.
"That correlation is better than a random guess but isn’t anything close to alignment."
Do you want to make a more specific claim? Again, the original claim you're attempting to rebut is "Many test scores (e.g. ACT) are heavily IQ/g-predictive." How strong does the effect need to be? Since, again, nobody is claiming that it's 100% predictive, merely a significant factor. Do you want to give me an effect size? Keep in mind the typical social psychology effect size comes out to r usually between 0.15 and 0.3:
https://jenni.uchicago.edu/Spencer_Conference/Representative...