Or if IQ is less real than IQ-ists think it is, then it is plausibly strongly caused by SES and education. See?
I'm not even saying you're wrong (I think you are, but I don't have to defend that argument). I'm just saying the level of epistemic certainty you kicked this subthread off with was unwarranted. You know, "most reliable metrics in psychology" and all that.
I don't see how your argument puts my initial argument into doubt, tbh. If IQ isn't real but SES-and-education are, well then SES-and-education is the thing that you pick up at a glance. I'm not sure that the specific construction of causation here matters.
But also sure, I tend to assert my opinions pretty strongly in part to invite pushback.
All I'm saying is that "most reliable metrics in psychology" is less a mic drop than that sentence would make it sound. The arrows of causality here are extremely controversial --- not politically, but scientifically.
Sure, that's fair. I kinda wish the topic wasn't politicized so we could just get scientists to hash it out without having to ask "is that a scientific conclusion or do you think it would be politically disadvantageous to come to another answer".
My own view is "IQ is real and massively impactful", because of the people I've read on the topic, my understanding of biology, sociology and history, and my experience in general, but I haven't kept a list of citations to document my trajectory there.
I'm not even saying you're wrong (I think you are, but I don't have to defend that argument). I'm just saying the level of epistemic certainty you kicked this subthread off with was unwarranted. You know, "most reliable metrics in psychology" and all that.