Many psychologists think IQ tests measure not only raw cognitive ability, but also how well someone can operate within the kinds of abstract, analytical environments common in modern societies. The James R. Flynn himself argued something close to this. He believed rising IQ scores reflected a shift toward “scientific” or abstract thinking styles encouraged by modern life.

For example, modern societies constantly train people to:

• classify things into categories,
• interpret symbols and diagrams,
• think hypothetically,
• solve decontextualized problems,
• work with numbers and abstractions.

IQ tests reward exactly those skills.

What IQ tests are good at measuring

IQ tests are fairly good at predicting:

• academic performance,
• certain kinds of job performance,
• speed of learning in formal systems,
• reasoning ability under structured conditions.

Especially this kind of reasoning:

$𝑓(𝑥)=𝑎𝑥+𝑏$

$𝑎$

$𝑏$

Not because linear equations themselves are intelligence, but because manipulating abstract symbols is a core part of what modern cognitive systems value.

What IQ tests may not fully measure

Critics argue IQ tests under-measure or ignore:

• practical wisdom,
• social intelligence,
• creativity,
• emotional judgment,
• moral reasoning,
• cultural knowledge,
• survival skills in non-industrial settings.

Someone highly capable in a traditional farming, hunting, or oral-cultural environment might perform worse on a modern IQ test despite being extremely intelligent in everyday life.

An important distinction

Most researchers still believe IQ captures something real about general cognitive ability (“g”), not just cultural familiarity.

But the way intelligence is expressed — and what societies reward — is heavily shaped by environment and modernization.

So a balanced way to put it is:

IQ measures certain cognitive abilities that modern technological societies strongly value and cultivate.

That’s not exactly the same thing as measuring all forms of human intelligence.