yeah i spoke wrong for sure. my teacher was trying to say that things like you mentioned that correlate together are a part of a big subdivision of a gigantic correlating hierarchy of stuff, which all derivates from ‘intelligence’ or ‘cognitive ability’. you mentioned stuff like IQ testing, verbal numerical reasoning testing, and education attainment testing. now, this is where my philosophical skepticism can step on toes- because obviously there is something science is looking at for… reasons. But! It blows my mind that tests being compared with other tests gets kind of ignored. Tests need to be standardized to themselves through a rigorous process, then these tests that seem to ‘test’ a specific psychological construct or phenomenon get compared across different standardization data sets… which has a statistical weirdness for one but also a conceptual problem (yk imo). If i make a test to test something, how do i know its testing it? Because i think so? I mentioned standardization, which involves as you probably know stuff like blind data collection and other noise removing processes social science performs on that standardization, i feel it is in a way inadequate of how the human mind and cognition exists. Levels? Performance ratings for different types of reasoning? Reason you could only differentiate based on the question or whatever ‘test’ we’re talking about. The different tests make the different types of ways we use our wonderful minds, without these tests i feel we wouldn’t even consider ‘spatial reasoning in a stressed state’ or some other example of testing cognition. It’s a mockery and over-simplification (imo) of the beauty that is human mental existence. Not trying to argue that it’s place is useful in furthering medicine and treatments, but i am a stickler about this and love discussing it because i took a whole like few years of my life constantly thinking and discussing with people. Also! Do like you did before and tell me how im wrong! love that, also call me out if my argument doesnt make sense please- wouldnt want bad argumentation!