I think it is a good point that there are different kinds of aptitudes, but I also think this point should be kept in perspective. I think it is misguided when people speak dismissively of IQ, SATs and the like, saying things like "well, all that proves is that you're good at taking those kinds of tests." (I'm not saying the article does this, but I do hear this rather frequently - ironically, usually from people with high IQs. Privilege Guilt?) There is no reason to be dismissive of the immense power of the type of intelligence that handles symbol/abstraction manipulation, particularly in technology.
I believe that the problem alluded to in this essay is not so much with the relationship between IQ tests and the value of abstract thinking, but rather the hegemony of such thinking in the modern world. Technical thinking is lauded in a society where production is the dominant measurement of value. This contributes to bias towards a certain type of cerebral intelligence.
Probably. Another factor could be that successful high-IQ people want to claim that their success is mainly due to "chosen" traits like perseverance, rather than lucky genes and/or environmental factors.
Beyond Privilege Guilt, there's a case that people are a great deal more complicated than just a few character stats. High IQ is often taken as a declaration that an individual will succeed, and indeed, on the average, it is, but the average implies a large group, not a specific person.
I'm trying (and doing it poorly) to express that Intelligence isn't the only thing in a person which defines their lives...but even given the static, it will very likely affect the aggregate.
