For example if you have a test that was just
is 2+3 divisible by 2
...
is 1341+1231 divisible by 2.

the the abstraction in E would be adding the last digits and checking if it's 0, 2, 4, 6, 8

the test doesn't rely on much of C, R, K
finding this abstraction will appear to greatly increase performance if you don't account for it. Often IQ tests boil down to "did you find the abstraction" and the normal distribution comes from the time they found it.

>>17077489
for an example that includes C, R and A, consider the classic 60 question matrix test. Any failure of context (insertion, retrieval, flushing, attention, capacity) will change the performance. e.g. scrolling twitter could blow everything in the test out. Giving a much worse performance, but another proxy could give a vastly higher reported IQ

>>17077485
General cognitive ability shows up on tests designed for it to not show up on (WC&J, BAS, Thurstone's test, CAS, and Sternberg's triachic intelligence data, Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences, etc.). From the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart: "All 861 correlations are positive. Subtests of each IQ battery correlate positively not only with each other but also with the subtests of the other IQ batteries. This is something that the developers could not have planned."

https://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/03/is-psychometric-g-a-myth

Rice (1986, 1989), Thompson et al. (1991), Hayiou-Thomas et al. (2006), and Lemelin et al. (2007) all found high genetic correlations (~0.7) in children (some 4 years old).

Hoekstra (2007) showed the genetic correlation increase from age 5 to 18 was small. Thompson et al. (1985) showed that infants' IQs correlate more with parental g than with specific factors. Cardon (1992) shows that speed loads more onto genetic g than verbal (0.46 vs. 0.87). Petrill (1996, 2002) and Rijsdijk (2002) also found that less culturally dependent factors share more genetic variance with g.

Mutualism predicts gc and gs will positively correlate once g is controlled for, but Gignac (2016) shows they negatively correlate.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616300216

Gignac (2014) showed that ωh is as strong in 2 year olds as it is in 90 year olds.

Shikishima et al. and Panizzon et al. found that the best-fitting model used g.

From Plomin: "It has been proposed that g exists in the brain in the sense that diverse brain processes are genetically correlated. For example, gray and white matter densities in diverse brain regions are highly heritable, substantially intercorrelated across brain regions, and correlated genetically with g."

www.nature.com/articles/4001249.pdf

humanvarieties.org/2014/05/15/research-on-genetic-g-and-differential-heritabilities

If I smash my head with a Ducati on my way to work and I get severe brain trauma, why do clinicians use the WAIS-IQ to gauge my recovery progress?

Why does it always follow a similar pattern with verbal IQ going back to a normal range in a year or two and the fluid portion following by another 2 years or three?

Why was there a 2024 meta study review done re-affirming it's use?

It's fuzzy logic sure, but it just works.