11–20 of 52 posts
Lots of hating on IQ. I have nagging thoughts: if IQ doesn't mean anything, they why is it so very, very hard for a perso to score higher on an IQ test in subsequent tests? Its at least measuring 'test achievement'?
Not that I don’t agree with the high level premise, but I hate when people dismiss a hundred years of peer reviewed research generally without doing the peer reviewed legwork to back themselves up.
Lots of hating on IQ. I have nagging thoughts: if IQ doesn't mean anything, they why is it so very, very hard for a perso to score higher on an IQ test in subsequent tests? Its at least measuring 'test achievement'?
Taleb doesn't mean IQ doesn't test something real. He says this "something real" is irrelevant.
I'd much rather see the results of that for a potential job hire than I would want to see their SAT scores, IQ, etc.
Man there are some nasty replies in this thread. Not that I don’t agree with the high level premise, but I hate when people dismiss a hundred years of peer reviewed research generally without doing the peer reviewed legwork to back themselves up.
-Alchemy
-Phrenology
-Humor theory
-Spontaneous generation theory
-Astronomical geocentrism
-Ether theory
-Graphology
-Freudian/Lacanian psychoanalysis
-Astrology
all of them were once respected fields, complete with papers, journals, professorships, exams, etc.
By the way, speaking as someone in academia, you'd be surprised at how little 'peer-reviewed' means in terms of scientific validity. There's plenty of crap in Nature and Science and everyone knows about it.
...wasn't that known for years outside the tiny bubble of psychometricians? They like to go on about how it's the "best predictor" for whatever, forgetting that the absolute prediction itself is pretty lousy even when at its "best" and most of it comes from obvious tail-end cases (people with IQ below 80). There's also evidence from neuroscience [1] that's what's being measured is an higher order artifact from multip…
That is not a tail-end case, it is a huge number of people, about 28 million in the U.S. alone.
Wishful thinking is not a substitute for science, and IQ is (as far as we can tell) a good predictor of general cognitive ability, which is in turn a good predictor of a great number of things. If you think you have something better, we're all ears.
I'm not sure I buy this one. Intelligence is something that is inherently constructive in nature. Your knowledge and problem solving abilities build on themselves as you grow, so I don't think it makes any sense that IQ would stay the same throughout a lifetime.
Not to mention, I can think of many measures that don't fit these criteria. Height, weight, etc.
...wasn't that known for years outside the tiny bubble of psychometricians? They like to go on about how it's the "best predictor" for whatever, forgetting that the absolute prediction itself is pretty lousy even when at its "best" and most of it comes from obvious tail-end cases (people with IQ below 80). There's also evidence from neuroscience [1] that's what's being measured is an higher order artifact from multip…
> most of it comes from obvious tail-end cases (people with IQ below 80) That is not a tail-end case, it is a huge number of people, about 28 million in the U.S. alone. Wishful thinking is not a substitute for science, and IQ is (as far as we can tell) a good predictor of general cognitive ability, which is in turn a good predictor of a great number of things. If you think you have something better, we're all ears.
Disclaimer: Former Mensa member From personal experience it appears that high IQ is a horrible measure of success. On the other hand when you combine high IQ with discipline you can come very far. With all that being said I wish Nassim would provide some actual data instead of anecdotes.
But it's very strong in other areas.
For instance say you have two groups of woodworkers, one group has an average IQ of 90 and another group has an average IQ of 100.
It's a smart bet that the 100 group has more (total) fingers.
"What can we do to help people with 90 IQs live dignified lives?" is a very important question that isn't discussed enough.