IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

For some technical backbone to this piece,see here. Also 1) Turns out IQ beats random selection in the best of applications by less than 6%, typically 2%, as the computation of correlations have a flaw and psychologists do not seem to know the informational value of correlation in terms of "how much do I gain information about B knowing A" and propagation of error (intra-test variance for a single individual). The psychologists who engaged me on this piece -- with verbose writeups --made the mistake of showing me the best they got: papers with the strongest pro-IQ arguments. They do not seem to grasp what noise/signal really means in practice. Background: "IQ" is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent (with a lot of noise), a form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects -- how good someone is at taking some type of exams designed by unsophisticated nerds.