Do you have one in particular in mind? Most people who talk about IQ tests with any knowledge refer to either Stanford-Binet or WAIS/WISC. Both are very comprehensive. If you've never taken a real IQ test or researched this, what you think you know lacks substance.
There are a lot of theories about intelligence and testing intelligence. The most generally accept (in a sense of plurality, it's pretty far from consensus) is Cattell's concept of generalized intelligence (g), split into both fluid intelligence (Gf, roughly the ability to learn) and crystallized intelligence (Gc, sort of accumulated knowledge and thinking skills). Gardner's theories of multiple intelligences are also quite interesting.
Your dismissal of IQ is popular with people who don't score well on IQ tests, but not among people who are actually involved in psychometrics. Modern IQ tests are sophisticated and they hold up well from the perspectives of standardization, validity, and reliability. Results are consistent with Cattell's theories. I'm sure you learned all this if you took an introductory psychology class. I think you're trying to have a twenty-year-old argument that has been discredited for almost that long.
There is the caveat, however, that IQ tests have difficulty accounting for abilities like creativity. They can also distort at the upper range. It's very hard to test someone like Marilyn vos Savant.
|