211–220 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm just not that bright but I would expect to see a positive correlation between IQ and exceptional chess ability.
I'm assuming he's referring to regression to the mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this Simpson's Paradox, or something else?
Something else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_conclusion_validit... > Restriction of range, such as floor and ceiling effects or selection effects, reduce the power of the experiment, and increase the chance of a type II error.[5] This is because correlations are attenuated (weakened) by reduced variability If you want to try this for yourself, try generating some fake SAT scores: ( a , b ) pairs where a…
Their entire high IQ sample comes from Mensa. So this should be restated something like "Inclination to join Mensa correlates with mental and physical disorder"
There is another possible causation: people with mental disorders tend to have high IQ (whatever it is that IQ actually measures). The blind typically have incredible touch for reading Braille. Some also have incredible hearing. These are not physiological benefits that they get at birth; their coping mechanisms train them.
The most mentally unhealthy people are the ones that are on the lower end, but still within what we expect to function in society.
Source sadly not being verifiable since it is my psychologist wife that works with mental health in school with intelligence testing and extra resources to help those who need it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's really no need; that's exactly what you would expect to see in a thresholded population ("elite players").
Please elaborate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.appliedbehavioranalysisedu.org/is-autism-associa... The very existence of autism calls into question our historical conceptualization of intelligence and IQ testing. I have two ASD sons. They are very bright. They also have some serious personal struggles. So, which is it? Does IQ measure general competence or does it measure something else? Because this latest twist in the conversation seems just ridicul…
I have no idea what you think this is supposed to prove. People with a weird brain condition have weird results on brain tests? >Does IQ measure general competence or does it measure something else? It's an Intelligence Quotient . It measures intelligence. No one said anything about "general competence", whatever that even means. I imagine intelligence is an important part of "general competence" though.
We cannot measure intelligence, since we cant even define it properly (in a way that we attach a measurement unit ot it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the test administered to Feynman only went to 130, as some do, then a test score anywhere close to that, such as 125, can be assumed to have "ceilinged the test." It can be viewed as a floor for the person's IQ, a minimum score suggesting it is at least that high. Thus, Stephen Hsu's assertion that it must have just been a bad test with a low ceiling suggests to me that Mr. Hsu knows a great deal less about IQ tes…
TLDR: Stephen Hsu and I are coming from very different mental models. His mental model asserts that it is very, very important that we keep promoting this elitist intellectual stuff. Note how he has fancy degrees and is important enough to get interviewed, while I remain some big fat nobody, having walked away from my National Merit Scholarship and done the full time homemaker thing for a lot of years, in part becaus…
The only trouble with your theory is that IQ actually does a very good job of predicting how well members of various minorities will do in life. Half a century you could argue the cultural bias hypothesis but it no longer flies. The tests have been updated and taking "culturally biased" questions out actually made minority scores go down (possibly due to lower G loading on those questions).
> The mental model that some kids are inherently more deserving of investment at school because they are smarter
Of course the test would be "what is the marginal benefit of education to this person" a very different question from what is their IQ level.
You just seem to be making stuff up to fit your ideological preconceptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to add, by definition 6σ is one in a billion. It isn’t just “profoundly gifted”, but rather “there are seven of you”.
IQ is a fat tailed distribution. There are way more people in the tails than the test’s definition and morning would suggest.
This is one of the problems with IQ as a measure of intelligence. IQ 150 doesn’t mean doing mental arithmetic faster than IQ 100 by the same margin that IQ 100 beats IQ 50, only that IQ>150 is as rare as IQ<50.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea what you think this is supposed to prove. People with a weird brain condition have weird results on brain tests? >Does IQ measure general competence or does it measure something else? It's an Intelligence Quotient . It measures intelligence. No one said anything about "general competence", whatever that even means. I imagine intelligence is an important part of "general competence" though.
No, this is one of the biggest misundertandings about the IQ tests. It does not measure inteeligence, it measures something which we tagged with the name "IQ". We cannot measure intelligence, since we cant even define it properly (in a way that we attach a measurement unit ot it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> After that age, we just cannot reliably assert that someone's IQ is, say, above 200. To add to all the other criticisms of IQ score, it’s defined to be mean-100-σ-15* — so nobody has an IQ of over 197, and only newborn anenephalactics ever score as low az IQ 3… and perhaps not even then if they score the same as the comatose. * or σ-16, which changes the subsequent statements a little.
IQ is fat tailed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat-tailed_distribution I regret I can’t find anything on Bing but the below but Google’s blocked where I am. https://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2014/10/13/fat-tailed-and-... There are some other cases where it is generally thought that the distribution is normal, but it is not (in real samples). IQ has too many people in both far ends and has a different shaped tail o…
> When current IQ tests were developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less,
IQ itself — not intelligence or even score on an IQ test — is by definition not fat tailed. If a particular IQ test doesn’t produce a normal distribution, that test is wrong.
At least, wrong by the current standard definition of IQ; there have been others, and the very fact that it is flawed means there probably will be a new one in future.