There is no universally accepted definition of 'practical intelligence', any more than there is a universally accepted definition of 'g'. So right away we're conflicted in that to some people it may measure it accurately because their definitions and warrants are different than yours.
It measures certain traits which relate strongly to potential for certain types of cognitive processes. Rather you personally think those things matter is irrelevant...it doesn't diminish the accuracy or usefulness of the tests or theory for others...especially others who deal with such things and their impacts (such as education) for a living. We don't need a mechanic or grocery bagger to understand or agree with cognitive psychology...we DO need teachers, counselors, therapists, and policy makers to at least acknowledge it however.
Absolutely true. For those things there are other theories being explored (Sternbergs Triarchic, Gardner MI, etc). NONE of that detracts from the existence or use of 'g' however.
You have just demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about the field whatsoever. In fact, it demonstrates EXACTLY that you CAN do other things, and how quickly and easily you will be able to learn them compared to others. The ability to do the tasks on intelligence tests related directly to the ability to perform various cognitive functions required in an infinite number of situations (pattern recognition, mnemonics, spatial awareness and reasoning, logic, communication, etc).
There is also the previous point that there is no set definition of 'practical intelligence', and if there was it certainly wouldn't be set by you or any one person. What you think about what matters ONLY matters to you. What can be demonstrated through scientific study to be generally true of everyone does have merit however. That's how we came up with 'g' in the first place.
Again, what you personally think matters ONLY matters to you personally. You're welcome to feel that way, but others will feel differently, or even the exact opposite. You don't get to disparage or refute their beliefs any more than they can yours. Which is to say, as long as you're fine with other people thinking you're an idiot, or an asshole, then you're free to do the same for them. Just don't think for one second anyone gives a shit if you 'get your way' on anything if that's going to be your attitude.
Albert Einstein had impact on humanity because he was smart. Had he been a moron, he would have made no contribution, even if he wanted to.
'quality of life' is wholly subjective. YOU think paris has a high quality of life, I think it's abysmal and wouldn't wish it on an enemy (loss of privacy, substance abuse, ignorant, terrible friends and family, disdain of the masses, does nothing positive with her life, etc).
Again, I'd say Paris' parents fucked her totally. Materialism isn't a good thing. Disconnect from reality isn't a positive influence.
Again and again you talk about things that are 100% subjective as if they had truth beyond your own mind, but they don't. You are in DESPERATE need of subjective awareness.
Sure I can see where it comes into play. You're a shallow, ignorant egoist that can't understand that other people believe or experience anything different than you do.
And you're right, I"m just as bad. I'm an elitist academic prick who WORSHIPS intellect and knowledge the way an evangelical loves Jesus. The difference is that I try not to project my biases...I don't say 'IQ is absolutely correct and meaningful for everyone'...I say it accurately does what it was intended to do and is useful to the people that know what to do with it. You just come out and say it's bullshit. You'd get better mileage just ignoring the topic completely, or qualifying your responses as entirely subjective (ie I have no use for IQ in my life). Trying to apply objective labels based on subjective bias isn't going to accomplish much.