No. I'm not so sure I disagree. Maybe somewhat agnostic on your other factors is a better description.
My point is in reference to the book and the conclusion they reached that there was a direct correlation between IQ and what I call societal achievements. The factors you mention were not addressed in the book, as best I recall.
While I fully agree that the factors you mention play a significant role, I have never seen a source that measures them across all societies. That's not to say they don't exist -- only that they are not broadly measured (e.g. SAT is used in less than half the countries in the world).
So, in my mind, I fall back to the book that concludes that there is a direct correlation between IQ and a society's achievements -- which makes it a predictor. To me, anecdotally this is relatively easy to confirm.
You are demanding. Here’s a cross-cultural study of IQ and personality. It finds that the two explain 70 percent of the variation in GDP per capita across countries.
Now, I am going to ask you a logical question:
Let’s say the elite schools admit students on the basis of SAT and high school GPA, both. Then, the mezzanine schools admit student on the same basis, both SAT and high school GPA, from the students not selected by the elite schools.
What do you think is the predictive power of IQ alone in the remaining students, those not accepted by either the elite or mezzanine schools? Basically, high IQ and low GPA students?
Why are you so resistant to the obvious fact that high potential and low effort = loser. In a sense, we might suspect a more culpable loser since they have the potential. But, more often than not, upon investigation you find that there are reasons for their lack of effort, such as personality disorders, addictive disorders, and trauma.
Some schools think they can turn such students (high potential, low effort) around; at least, they’re willing to try if parents or some other third party is willing to pay enough money.
It’s funny, how these things work out. Sometimes we call it the price of genius. Indeed, that some among the most gifted are in some ways dysfunctional is a trope. But, the correlations between IQ and many aspects of personality are simply random. You’re as likely to be pretty and smart; and, pretty and not smart. But, people are fixated on Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe.
Getting back to the topic, are race gaps in IQ genetic, Charles Murray in 2012 used the results of the NAEP to track races gaps. Back then, he saw that the race gap was falling among 4th graders in math. Updating his observation, the gap was 15 percent back in 1990; and was 10 percent in 2019 (I’m avoiding the 2022 figures because of the significant decline). This correlates with my argument that the race gap in IQ is declining and, therefore, cannot be genetic. It’s a result of welfarism.