The "standard model of intelligence" is that a lot of tasks seem to have correlated (not identical) performance, and we can call the primary dimension of this relationship a "G factor", and in turn measure this implicitly with tests designed to have the same measures of correlation.
This man has a delightful british accent, which seems to count for something, but his "what is intelligence" snippet is a gigantic strawman. "You can't compare a composer and a mathematician on the same axis, they're doing different things!" No shit, jackass. What you can do, for instance, is study the relationship between measured mean population IQ and GDP, which tells you it's really important to, eg, fight IQ-lowering dietary deficiencies and heavy element poisoning if you care about helping countries develop. It's incredibly powerful as an aggregate measure.
This man has a delightful british accent, which seems to count for something, but his "what is intelligence" snippet is a gigantic strawman. "You can't compare a composer and a mathematician on the same axis, they're doing different things!" No shit, jackass. What you can do, for instance, is study the relationship between measured mean population IQ and GDP, which tells you it's really important to, eg, fight IQ-lowering dietary deficiencies and heavy element poisoning if you care about helping countries develop. It's incredibly powerful as an aggregate measure.