Steven Pinker is a Bostonian smile.

As for Deresiewiczs pronouncement that SAT is supposed to measure aptitude, but what it actually measures is parental income, which it tracks quite closely, this is bad social science. SAT correlates with parental income (more relevantly, socioeconomic status or SES), but that doesnt mean it measures it; the correlation could simply mean that smarter parents have smarter kids who get higher SAT scores, and that smarter parents have more intellectually demanding and thus higher-paying jobs. Fortunately, SAT doesnt track SES all that closely (only about 0.25 on a scale from -1 to 1), and this opens the statistical door to see what it really does measure. The answer is: aptitude. Paul Sackett and his collaborators have shown that SAT scores predict future university grades, holding all else constant, whereas parental SES does not. Matt McGue has shown, moreover, that adolescents test scores track the SES only of their biological parents, not (for adopted kids) of their adoptive parents, suggesting that the tracking reflects shared genes, not economic privilege.