Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This book is both a review and an advocacy of a certain metric for intelligence, hence shows the dire absence of rigor in the field of psychometrics —as well as the disguised racial agenda behind much of these works. I used it for my own technical (and nontechnical) discussions of the flaws in IQ testing. Ritchie produces a remarkable ignorance of the tools he is discussing. A modicum of mathematical sophistication would show the following errors: + He reports that people correlate at 80% with their IQ tests, that is 36% of their variance is due to ... being themselves. It implies a huge error rate in IQ. testing. Yet he missed the consequence on the measurements. + He failed to spot the circularity in the metrics: if people need to be good testers to enter some professions, then there will necessarily be higher IQ metrics for those. This is especially true for job performance in the army that consists in passing tests... Hilariously incompetent! + He missed the problems of transitivity, adding another source of variance: many IQ "measurements" are derivative of something else. + He missed the fact that the “g” factor requires …absence of nonlinearities. In other words, a tool that works disproportionally well for clinical cases of low intelligence would certainly show the illusion of high factor loads. + He missed … the fact that science is about rigor.