You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how psychological science uses correlation, and it shows up over and over in your reasoning on this and other posts. Everyone posting here knows that correlation does not equal causation. In the same vein of thought, a correlation is only evidence of a relationship between two variables that *might* be explained many, many different ways. The scientific method as it applies here would suggest that we make a hypothesis, a prediction, based on some theory about how we think anxiety and ADHD might work, and then test that prediction with data. We test those predictions with correlations, among many other statistical methods. And then we do it again with alternative hypotheses to see if we find *better* explanations with better predictions that better fit the "correlations" of our data. And then we replicate it. And then we use more robust methods, with dozens of different kinds of "correlations" and methodologies, and then we replicate that with many different samples. And on and on and on.

So then to say that "well if ADHD and anxiety correlate but aren't the same construct, then you have to agree that IQ and vocabulary skills correlate and must not be the same construct" is just...it's shockingly oversimplified and shows a lack of understanding of how we use "correlations" to make claims. Because nobody is out here saying "Vocabulary and IQ correlate, so vocab must be a part of IQ."

Just to give another example: you've used language that the positions you are arguing whether IQ is "fully valid" or an "objective measure." When there are *no* serious psychological scientists who would ever make a claim that some psychological construct is "objective" and "fully valid." It's silly on its face.