You are grossly misinformed regarding the meaning and current level of understanding of Intelligence, not that it surprises me as most people find the truth on this subject quite offensive. The historical facts you have presented are irrelevant. The findings you are claiming are actually the exact opposite of what has been reported in every legitimate credible source. In some cases in the past the fact that scores on all tests was heavily correlated was not understood because the transformation function between one type of test and it's scoring system and another was not well developed. However it has always been observed that people who do well on one type of IQ test (not knowledge tests) do well on all types of IQ tests.
Do you really want to get into debate about who is better informed?
You appear to be ....unacquainted with two issues in testing - that the distribution of the majority group "abilities" or culture is of overwhelming importanc in standardization of intelligence tests. That means that scores are hopelessly conflated by the unknown contribution of both genetics and environment. Thus, all conclusions drawn from tests that are statistically biased by the the unknown interaction of those two variables are built on the thin air of suspect scores.
The second issue revolves around the twin concepts of Validity and Reliability.
The results that have been obtained from all kinds of IQ tests have shown that scores are correlated across the board for any given person. If you do good on one, you do good on all.
Why would it be interesting that an individuals position in the standardization group is relatively proportional in other test situations with similarly constructed standardization groups?
Furthermore many other significant correlations have been identified with this "general intelligence factor" (or g for short).
Do you understand the difference between correlational research and functional research? Spearman's "G" factor is an artifact of the issue raised regarding the construction of the standardization groups. The circularity of that whole argument about a general factor really awe-inspiring.
Heritability for this measured g factor is around 85%. Environment has a minimal long term impact on intelligence. etc all of this information is readily available on Wikipedia and many other locations.
But you have to understand what you read in Wikipedia. Your statement betrays a total misunderstanding of Heritability. It reflects the common, uneducated, confusion between the genetic term "inheritance" in biology and the statistic H^2 which is an estimate of the relative proportion of variances of genetic factors and environmental factors in describing the total variance in a trait across the entire population. And it is not a %age, it is a proportion.
The formula derives from the proposition that Phenotype (P) = Genotype (G) + Environment (E)
If you consider variance (Var) then the proposition is:
Var(P) = Var(G) + Var(E) + 2 Cov (G,E)
Depending on the sampling procedure, it can usually be assumed that the Covariance = 0.
Heritability is the proportion between the two variances:
H^2 = Var(G) / Var(P)
The number that you mistakenly call a percentage is actually .85 and actually says that the size of the variance of Genotype is .85 of the size (amount) of variance of the Phenotype. It does NOT say that Intelligence is 85% responsible for "G".
What it does say is that there is variability across individuals on whatever the test is measuring ( stated more accurately - on the behavior of individuals responding to items) and that some of that variability is due to some genetic factor or factors, but the phenotype is not completely explained by genetic factors -- there are environmental factors as well.
While the concept of Heritability is a useful measure in Bio-Statistics it is poorly used when the measure whose variance is being estimated is statistically biased by the composition of the sample.
One type of complex reaction time has been shown to have at least as good of a correlation with IQ as any IQ test. A person is simply given a simple mental task such as adding numbers and timed to see how long it takes them to complete. The possibility that the ability to process information quickly is intelligence and the cause of the g factor is perfectly in line with many other things we have seen as well.
Your "simple mental task" is hopelessly confounded by past educational experience. Further, the notion that your mystic "G" is simply reaction time speaks more to my argument than yours.
Vocabulary size is understood to be strongly correlated with g because we are bombarded with so many words and their contexts that the only thing that prevents us from understanding them all is how quickly we can process what is going on before information is removed.
And yet, you have demonstrated that over more than 24 hours you couldn't correctly process "standardization" or "Heritability".
But your notion of vocabulary size and "G" raises an interesting question: How many words do you have for "snow"? Are you half as smart as the Inuit people, one fourth as smart, ....?
But maybe you could just clarify your own position for me: Is "G" simply reaction time, or is it simply vocabulary size, or what?
...2 different people of different intelligences will go through the same experiences and gather completely different vocabulary sizes,
You have hard data to support this?
...and just information in general about everything. Low IQ people frequently make mistakes that other people just consider "common sense". For instance, frequently spilling or dropping food because they do not generalize and learn how to properly secure objects that should not be dropped.
So, now your definition of "G" is manual dexterity? That really is the silliest comment you have made, and you made it without a shred of evidence.