>>21606I should add that Haeier is mostly dealing with the biases and vestiges of an older set of understandings surrounding psychometrics. For example, he still believes in Spearman's G (or G at all), still doesn't understand the limitations of heritability estimates or even the methodological implications thereof, still cites outdated work performance correlations as 'vindications' of construct validity, and most importantly, neither he nor any contemporary psychometricians have ever addressed the most difficult conceptual contentions, namely because they are more philosophical in essence, and psychometricians do not mesh well with critical thought. Nash' Measurement objection, the rule-following paradox, the practice effect paradox, SLODR, the original distribution of intelligence NOT being a bell-curve prior to its contrived re-norming, the very problematic implication present in the fact that, amongst homogenous populations, the less stratification is present, the more closely interlinked the correlation between crystal knowledge becomes with fluid knowledge, thereby problematizing the supposed foundational distinction, the fact that G significantly attenuates once testing 130+ SD takers, and on and on it goes.