Just noticed this thread, so I am unaware of what may have prompted it. But, I do agree that the so-called Intelligence Quotient is so limited in scope so as to be almost useless in measuring any real capacity for learning or aptitude.
Over the decades, the tests a have been redefined because of the way the questions were worded - and the subjects asked about. Obviously, a non-white from a foreign country, not speaking English, little school education wouldn't fare well on a test prior to the 60's/70's. And they didn't - bias was found, and tried to be corrected.Thank you, waiting, for that insight. But still. . . the whole concept, as well as its implimentation is flawed.
The aboriginal tribesman can "smell" rain in a cloud twenty kilometers away or distinguish between dozens of poisonous or non-poisonous roots and some who are poisonous fresh, but innocuous after drying. How quickly his offspring pick up these skills may well determine their capacity to learn.
And what about the wide variance in aptitude? Would it surprise you to know that Wehrner Von Brahn had trouble keeping his shoes tied?
TMS