Two threads about this from last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18756946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18755193
[deleted]
IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
51–60 of 400 posts
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#52Maybe I'm dumb, but why is "performance fat-tailed"? It was kinda left as an exercise to the reader, but maybe someone has insight. The article got a bit edited, but I'm still not getting it.
Taleb is coming from the quant world. A trader can make or lose a lot of money, and that distribution of returns is fat-tailed, as exemplified by 2008 crisis.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wiki says that the average IQ of MDs, JDs, and PhDs is 125.[1] That is pretty far away from 70. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Other_ac...
From the article: > Note that IQ tests correlate with SAT scores! That is (in part) Nassim Nicholas Taleb's point: we use IQ to select for success, then say IQ is correlated with success. It is circular reasoning. The more interesting measure is not jobs for which IQ is the main selection criteria to qualify for the training (your examples of MDs, JDs, and PhDs), but things where people create their own impact, lets…
> That is (in part) Nassim Nicholas Taleb's point: we use IQ to select for success, then say IQ is correlated with success. It is circular reasoning.
This would only be correct if the SAT were expressly an IQ test, and we selected people based on SAT score for that reason.
To put it another way, making this point is kind of like selecting for tall players for a basketball team, then saying weight is correlated with fitness to be on a basketball team. That height and weight are correlated doesn't make this circular reasoning.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#54... but g is the only thing of importance.
The problem with g is that it's a number. Who has higher g, Magnus Carlsen or Terence Tao?
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wiki says that the average IQ of MDs, JDs, and PhDs is 125.[1] That is pretty far away from 70. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Other_ac...
From the article: > Note that IQ tests correlate with SAT scores! That is (in part) Nassim Nicholas Taleb's point: we use IQ to select for success, then say IQ is correlated with success. It is circular reasoning. The more interesting measure is not jobs for which IQ is the main selection criteria to qualify for the training (your examples of MDs, JDs, and PhDs), but things where people create their own impact, lets…
Hmm... perhaps. But I'm pretty sure that the questions of e.g. the law exam are about laws, and the questions of medical school exams are about anatomy and medicinal procedures—not about the "which shape completes the pattern" puzzles from IQ tests. I'm quite certain they are not given IQ tests. The SAT, meanwhile, asks math and English questions.
Is Taleb saying that IQ is a bad metric, or is he saying that these other tests are academic and unrealistic, and then referring to them collectively as IQ tests because the results are correlated? Or something else?
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#56Frankly, I'm incredibly disappointed in Taleb's recent writing. This article is one of many where the actual point being made is buried beneath unnecessary and divisive ad-hominem attacks.
Does the caption "Mensa members: typically high “IQ” losers in Birkenstocks." usefully contribute to a serious, scholarly conversation on IQ? Is it reasonable or fair-minded to immediately tar opponents to your argument as racists, eugenicists and "psychometry peddlers looking for suckers"?
I am uninterested in engaging with the substance of Taleb's arguments here, because the style is so needlessly vicious. I won't be buying Taleb's next book, because I don't want to endorse this kind of debasement of the public dialogue.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#57I have no way to navigate this, I've heard psychologists claim that IQ is the most well proven concept in the social sciences. Now this guy comes along saying the complete opposite. Anyone have any advice on how to weight this up and figure out what the truth is?
Taleb is barely this side of being a troll: he has plenty of interesting tidbits to say and is obviously a smart guy, but read enough of his stuff and he's clearly more focused on generating heat instead of light.
If you read through the article, he's not quite making the claim that one might assume from the headline: which is basically that IQ isn't much of a useful or well-defined metric.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#58Q. 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.
Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. I don't think you need to define Intelligence with reference to the IQ metric.
Yet IQ test does not measure ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#59What a mess. Tweetstorm was easier to follow.
Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
#60I have no way to navigate this, I've heard psychologists claim that IQ is the most well proven concept in the social sciences. Now this guy comes along saying the complete opposite. Anyone have any advice on how to weight this up and figure out what the truth is?
Taleb is barely this side of being a troll: he has plenty of interesting tidbits to say and is obviously a smart guy, but read enough of his stuff and he's clearly more focused on generating heat instead of light. If you read through the article, he's not quite making the claim that one might assume from the headline: which is basically that IQ isn't much of a useful or well-defined metric.
It did seem like a lot of the article was making claims about the motives of IQ supporters. That seemed like a bit of a red flag to me, that this was more about politics than science (not that either exists without the other).
Thanks