The title is actually much less extreme than the article. The author basically claims all of psychology is a pseudoscience.
IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
11–20 of 400 posts
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#12IQ is undoubtedly overemphasized by some factions, especially those with an axe to grind and a dog whistle to blow, if it helps them feel less guilty about their position in the world or otherwise rationalizes injustice. OTOH there's definitely a difference between people, people who aren't mentally defective, people that are quick on the uptake, sharp and alert, who adapt to new mental models. IQ might be an unscien…
I'll admit I spend probably greater than average time brooding over how dumb most people are. But I don't think this is inherent in those people. I think it's mostly a result of their prior knowledge, sleep, energy level, stress/anxiety, and give-a-shit. I think most people are fundamentally capable of great intelligence.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#13Ugh ok, another 'IQ is worthless but I have no alternative' article. What's the point?
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#14Q. What is an IQ test? A. A test that measures intelligence.
Q. What is intelligence? A. The thing measured by an IQ test.
Throw this at the next person who mentions IQ to see how intelligent their answer is.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#15So, does this mean that when I read some "genius"'s endless tweeting about how he "has one of the best I.Q.'s" while soandso is a "very low I.Q. individual", that doesn't actually mean anything of substance? Color me surprised!
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#16IQ is undoubtedly overemphasized by some factions, especially those with an axe to grind and a dog whistle to blow, if it helps them feel less guilty about their position in the world or otherwise rationalizes injustice. OTOH there's definitely a difference between people, people who aren't mentally defective, people that are quick on the uptake, sharp and alert, who adapt to new mental models. IQ might be an unscien…
At this point I would accept it if someone told me that 100% of what I perceive as "smarts" when interacting with someone is explained by confidence and other learned social behaviors.
Just to clarify, are you making the claim that everyone has the same mental capacity for thinking/deduction/memory/etc, it's just our perception of that based on various external cues which makes us think these levels exist? Because I would disagree with that statement. Even if I had 50 years of study I would not think on the level of say Terrance Tao.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#17IQ is undoubtedly overemphasized by some factions, especially those with an axe to grind and a dog whistle to blow, if it helps them feel less guilty about their position in the world or otherwise rationalizes injustice. OTOH there's definitely a difference between people, people who aren't mentally defective, people that are quick on the uptake, sharp and alert, who adapt to new mental models. IQ might be an unscien…
The original tweetstorm and this post aim to show something very specific, namely that IQ misses the mark as a measure of intelligence the further away from IQ 70 one ventures. In other words, stupid is stupid, but smart seems to come in many flavors.
The title of the article itself points to this fact, as the word "largely" is inserted. Nassim Nicholas Taleb himself can see the value at the lower levels.
If the goal was to find people that can, say, program, I think IQ works as a perfectly fine metric. If one wants to find someone who can make revolutionary break throughs, possibly less so, but even then, if IQ can exclude 50+% of people, you are onto a good thing.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#18Wow. So much hatred in this. Iq is just one of many ways to measure certain aspects of aptitude. No institutions are shortsighted enough to place strong emphasis solely on IQ test. This is why college admissions take other data points into equation because sat and act scores are highly correlated to Iq.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#19I have been afraid to take an IQ test for the fear of finding out that I am not very smart. In any case, the current hubbub of folks speaking against IQ tests seems to be more of a idealogical reaction to what IQ tests are telling us. OTOH, this guy seems to be legit. Truth is so hard to find these days.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#20IQ is undoubtedly overemphasized by some factions, especially those with an axe to grind and a dog whistle to blow, if it helps them feel less guilty about their position in the world or otherwise rationalizes injustice. OTOH there's definitely a difference between people, people who aren't mentally defective, people that are quick on the uptake, sharp and alert, who adapt to new mental models. IQ might be an unscien…
The original tweetstorm and this post aim to show something very specific, namely that IQ misses the mark as a measure of intelligence the further away from IQ 70 one ventures. In other words, stupid is stupid, but smart seems to come in many flavors. The title of the article itself points to this fact, as the word "largely" is inserted. Nassim Nicholas Taleb himself can see the value at the lower levels. If the goal…
IQ is definitely not a good measure of value, contribution, quality of thought. I think it's probably correlated, and for some contributions may be a gating factor, but I've seen plenty of smart people examining the wrong things, for sure.
Meta-analysis of focus doesn't seem to come free with IQ. I think it's a skill.