A test, ANY TEST, claiming to make prediction of X must be accompanied by two metrics: sensitivity (detection of X) & specificity (exclusion of non X). Without those two metrics we would have no medical tests. Only BS. Exactly like the IQ-test literature: BS pseudoscience.
Statistical correlations (if not faked) often linked to high sensitivity / low specificity. It looks impressive… with no value. Example: we find students that excelled in math in Africa had a pencil. No pencil = awful at math. So, pencil is the secret of a math genius!
The second problem is tautological correlation. If you measure how much you can run in 60 seconds, when you’re 10 years old, it may be correlated with survival in the special forces at 20 years old. Why? Cause the context is almost tautological: physical exercise.
The same with IQ and a system were education & finance are becoming more abstract and complex. The same root causes that increase excellence in processing visual/abstract/verbal information (school, academy, video games) are pushing up the IQ, a measure also devised by academics.
Tautological correlation gives the impression of “discovery” of causality. It’s an illusion. IQ-test doesn’t even define the “X” that it predicts, let alone sensitivity or specificity of X. I’m not persuaded it’s is a test, in stat terms.