Here's news for you:
Originally Posted by theplaydrive
Geology is also subject to a long standing debate and there are people who think that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The fact that lay-people uneducated in the particulars of psychometrics and intelligence are debating the issue of how reliable and valid IQ tests are as a measure of intelligence tells us as much about the question as the fact that Young Earth Creationists debate the age of the Earth tells us about the geologic "debate" on the age of the Earth.
There is no debate on IQ tests any longer within the professions that study intelligence. The professionals who deal with these issues day in and day out, in all of the nitty-gritty details, are all on board and even those who have a philosophical axe to grind can't overcome the mountains of evidence which go against their philosophy.
This whole dynamic was the subject of the 1988 book "The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy ."
Most significantly, the literate and informed public today is persuaded that the majority of experts in the field believe it is impossible to adequately define intelligence, that intelligence tests do not measure anything that is relevant to life performance... It appears from book reviews in popular journals and from newspaper and television coverage of IQ issues that such are the views of the vast majority of experts who study questions of intelligence and intelligence testing.
The purpose of their survey was to challenge what they considered to be the media's portrayal of intelligence testing. Their study had three parts:
A questionnaire with 48 multiple choice questions sent to 1020 academics in 1984 (661 replies), reported in Snyderman & Rothman (1987)
An analysis of all coverage of issues related to intelligence tests in major US print and television news sources (1969–1983) conducted by 9 trained graduate students
An opinion poll of 207 journalists concerning their attitudes to intelligence and aptitude tests (119 replies); 86 editors of popular science magazines were also polled (50 replies)
Respondents on average identified themselves as slightly left of center politically, but political and social opinions accounted for less than 10% of the variation in responses.
Snyderman and Rothman discovered that experts were in agreement about the nature of intelligence. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.
Regarding the role of heritability of intelligence almost all (94%) felt that it played a substantial role.
The role of genetics in the black-white IQ gap has been particularly controversial. The question regarding this in the survey asked "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation". According to Snyderman and Rothman, this contrasts greatly with the coverage of these views as represented in the media, where the reader is led to draw the conclusion that "only a few maverick 'experts' support the view that genetic variation plays a significant role in individual or group difference, while the vast majority of experts believe that such differences are purely the result of environmental factors."
I didn't write that the LSAT was a test which strictly measured intelligence, I wrote that it's a good enough proxy for such a test. It gets it right in the broad strokes but because it's a proxy it will get muddled in the fine strokes.