See, the article is not arguing that. The article has nothing against latent variable(s) to account for what we observe as intelligence. What it is against is, misapplication of methodology. The myth is not in a latent variable summarizing intelligence, that may very well exists as admitted by the author. The myth is that g is derived in a meaningful way and explains the correlations in data instead of being a by product of the fact that the data is made to correlate (these days) and is just a measure of the correlation of the tests (now made to correlate). Again, I remain sceptical you read the article in full.
g is not as useful as T, since its ability as an explanatory variable and verification in experimental settings are sorely lacking.
Also, even if a valid concept of a single explanatory variable for intelligence were created, I personally, remain sceptical of the scope of its usefulness considering the space of complexity at hand (humans, genes, environment,...) and likely a lot less profound and far reaching as the insights of Boltzmann. And on the political side, the capacity for damage it would entail could be large - many people's lives could be impacted negatively. So it would have to be wielded carefully, one eugenics movement is enough.
What it is against is, misapplication of methodology.
Yes, and the author rightly points out that latent variables do not exclude the possibility of microstructure. That doesn't mean the use of the latent variables is a "statistical myth", unless you define the term "statistical myth" so broadly as to include temperature and pressure.
g is not as useful as T, since its ability as an explanatory variable and verification in experimental settings are sorely lacking.
This is both undisputed, and unrelated to the author's argument. The difference between our pre-Boltzman understanding of T and our contemporary understanding of g is one of precision. The author's argument was independent of precision, so invoking precision to protect his argument is disingenuous.
You might want to criticize the confidence levels of g. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. But that's not what I'm responding to.
So it would have to be wielded carefully, one eugenics movement is enough.
Not sure about that. The Dor Yesherim organization does such a great job of eugenics, I'd love to see further eugenics movements in other genetically isolated groups.
g is not as useful as T, since its ability as an explanatory variable and verification in experimental settings are sorely lacking.
Also, even if a valid concept of a single explanatory variable for intelligence were created, I personally, remain sceptical of the scope of its usefulness considering the space of complexity at hand (humans, genes, environment,...) and likely a lot less profound and far reaching as the insights of Boltzmann. And on the political side, the capacity for damage it would entail could be large - many people's lives could be impacted negatively. So it would have to be wielded carefully, one eugenics movement is enough.