Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 129 posts

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#81

Post by ac2u »

jgh wrote: post #80
ac2u wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a cheap, intellectually-bankrupt addition to the conversation if you don't add anything to back it up. It's hard to believe you wrote it in any sort of good faith.

Oh please, these guys go on parroting IQ and "race-realism" as if it weren't intellectually bankrupt itself. The guy's apparent obsession with IQ is suspicious enough, not to mention any time I hear about Jordan Peterson it's in the context of alt-right nonsense. Edit: to make this relevant to the conversation - a white nationalist has a dog in the race when it comes to the idea that "IQ is above all else". IQ has lo…

Where in the link is "race-realism" mentioned?

"These guys", who are you talking about?

It seems to me like you took one look at the guys name and decided you were going to leave a "here be dragons" style comment to sully the conversation. The only problem is that your comment came across as lazy.

You might not like certain followers that you may have come across, you might even be right about them, but it's cheap and nasty to lump someone in with such a disgusting accusation (and done so casually) based on that rather than his own words.

I doubt you'd like to be held to account if someone of questionable character liked a blog post of yours and then someone else plastered you with an identity because of it.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#82

Post by jgh »

ac2u wrote: post #81
jgh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please, these guys go on parroting IQ and "race-realism" as if it weren't intellectually bankrupt itself. The guy's apparent obsession with IQ is suspicious enough, not to mention any time I hear about Jordan Peterson it's in the context of alt-right nonsense. Edit: to make this relevant to the conversation - a white nationalist has a dog in the race when it comes to the idea that "IQ is above all else". IQ has lo…

Where in the link is "race-realism" mentioned? "These guys", who are you talking about? It seems to me like you took one look at the guys name and decided you were going to leave a "here be dragons" style comment to sully the conversation. The only problem is that your comment came across as lazy. You might not like certain followers that you may have come across, you might even be right about them, but it's cheap an…

I edited my comment above to make my point more relevant.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#84

Post by ac2u »

jgh wrote: post #82
ac2u wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in the link is "race-realism" mentioned? "These guys", who are you talking about? It seems to me like you took one look at the guys name and decided you were going to leave a "here be dragons" style comment to sully the conversation. The only problem is that your comment came across as lazy. You might not like certain followers that you may have come across, you might even be right about them, but it's cheap an…

I edited my comment above to make my point more relevant.

I don't see how it's more relevant at all. The posted submission simply makes the argument of invalidating EQ while showing the rigor behind IQ as a general predictor.

You decided to turn that into "some horrible people use this to back up some horrible beliefs, therefore this guy is one of them", and then in your edit you went "here is an example of one of those horrible beliefs".

Not to mention the fact that he specifically addresses in his text that IQ is not the only predictor, just an incredibly strong one. However, nothing you said addresses that. Which makes me think that you either didn't read it, or you hoped that your comment would be enough to influence other people to avoid reading his quora answer for themselves.

You're basically still lumping him in with horrible people just because some horrible people might use a subset of his argument out of context to try to back up shitty beliefs.

It's an incredibly disingenuous practice to take a subset of someone's argument, correlate it with a horrible group of people and their arguments and then try to apply that identity to that person.

Again, you'd be disgusted if someone did it to you.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#85

Post by marcosdumay »

edem wrote: post #59

The "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AZ EQ....." part reminds me of the famous "you can't parse html with regex" answer on StackOverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open...

Wait, it that answer famous for completely ignoring the question and discussing about some completely unrelated problem in a caricature of the SO community, or is it the one famous by the "you can't parse HTML with regexes" line?

Because if it is the one famous by that line, too bad. I always expected that to became famous as an answer about how to parse HTML, not one about how to decide the kind of a tag.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#86

Post by nemo1618 »

jgh wrote: post #80
ac2u wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a cheap, intellectually-bankrupt addition to the conversation if you don't add anything to back it up. It's hard to believe you wrote it in any sort of good faith.

Oh please, these guys go on parroting IQ and "race-realism" as if it weren't intellectually bankrupt itself. The guy's apparent obsession with IQ is suspicious enough, not to mention any time I hear about Jordan Peterson it's in the context of alt-right nonsense. Edit: to make this relevant to the conversation - a white nationalist has a dog in the race when it comes to the idea that "IQ is above all else". IQ has lo…

>IQ has long been used as a reason for, e.g., why there is more poverty in the black community. Why is there more poverty? Simple! Their IQ is low and therefore they're not able to succeed!

Typically the argument isn't whether IQ is a determinant of success; it's whether the observed IQ differences between populations are the result of socio-economic disparity or some inherent racial characteristic. For example, we know that malnourishment (esp. iodine deficiency) and lead exposure are correlated with lower IQ, and malnourishment is also obviously correlated with poverty. But we also know that IQ is highly heritable.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#87

Post by fenomas »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #30
wdroz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, so you can enhance your mental capacity by doing this test again and again. In less than a year I will be a genius!

Sort of reminds me of how it's actually impossible to accurately value real estate. If you measure square footage, people will just fill the building with superfluous Hilbert curves. If you try to measure number of bathrooms or number of bedrooms, people will just make apartment complexes filled with dollhouses. If you try to measure profit(directly or from imputed rent), people will set up fake corporations and pay…

This claim seems backwards. If you tried to determine the value of real estate from an arbitrary metric, then sure, people would game it. But if value is determined by a market, like it is in the real world, surely you can observe the metrics and then use them to predict what value the market will arrive at (independently from your prediction), can't you?

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#88

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

c06n wrote: post #13
wdroz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, so you can enhance your mental capacity by doing this test again and again. In less than a year I will be a genius!

Yes you can greatly enhance it, here is a thorough review of the state of the art: http://www.highiqpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Morrison...

PDF warning, but thanks; that looks useful.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#89

Post by fenomas »

skywhopper wrote: post #68

While I'm certainly willing to accept that "EQ" is unscientific claptrap, coming at this from outside the apparent controversy, this answer is off-putting to me partially because I don't have the context this author assumes (a context which includes enough technical jargon and name drops to make me wonder who exactly this response is written _for_, as presumably academic psychologists are not pursuing professional di…

One presumes he's just coming at the question from his niche. I understood his rant to mean essentially that EQ has no validity as a psychological metric used to predict real-world measures of success, and that IQ is the king of the same.

Within which terms, AFAIK he's correct on both counts. But that doesn't mean he's claiming IQ is the most important thing about a person, he's just saying it's the only psychological metric that's a really strong predictor of certain future events.

(Of course, the questioner probably didn't care about any of this, so I agree that the answer is weirdly off-putting in that sense.)

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#90

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

Bar_Code wrote: post #76

EQ is definitely something that can help one in life, particularly leadership. He is certainly correct that EQ is not scientifically valid. Goleman took the valid work of others and "interpreted" it to create/support EI. It probably should be called a theory, a process, a framework, whatever. After learning about EQ, and practicing it, my leadership abilities took off. I've taught it to dozens of engineers who say th…

Any pointers you could give for those of us looking to learn such things?
Post reply on HN