Putting it bluntly [mistakenly :-)]:

   1.  the IQ people's research methods are shoddy.  There are no statistically valid, long-term, double-bind studies.

 There is more than one valid way of doing studies and those developing IQ tests have used a variety of approaches. So there is debate in an area of studies about people - what a surprise!  

  2.  there is no generally accepted definition of Intelligence

So what ? We recognise many things without being able to give a precise definition of them.  Define "games".  Those developing IQ tests have put forward definitions which are as reasonable as most definitions in the social sciences.

   3.  The highest IQ [See 1, above] does not help if you're dead, by the age of five, from starvation.  Thus, we see the influence of the particular environment.  Once environment is given a role the whole notion of "innate" or "genetically based" Intelligence [See 2, above] as a predictor is meaningless.

This is just silly. Does any serious IQ proponent deny that the environment plays an important role ?

cf.

The task force concluded that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics and that both genes and environment, in complex interplay, are essential to the development of intellectual competence.

Now, if you have any serious criticisms ... :-)


Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.