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

IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 400 posts

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#61

Post by JamesBarney »

jdietrich wrote: post #56

Frankly, 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,…

The substance isn't much better than the style.

He makes substantial claims like IQ is not predictive of performance above 100 which in and of itself could be a whole article. And then just assumes the reader will take his word for it, even though there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#62

Post by gus_massa »

softwaredoug wrote: post #6

Best parenting advice I ever got was to praise children for hard work, and avoid calling them “smart.” Intelligence becomes a stand in for some measure of goodness or social fitness that after a while it’s hard to know what we’re talking about anymore. Further, it’s seen as innate whereas hard work is something anyone can do. Being “smart” implies there’s a set of “un-smart” kids that don’t have the same fitness or g…

> Being “smart” implies there’s a set of “un-smart” kids that don’t have the same fitness or goodness

You don't like the implications of this, but is it true?

I'd never play soccer as good as Messi, even if I'd practice every day in my life for many hours. Do you think that everyone has the same innate ability to play soccer?

You can replace the example with any sport/music/whatever you like.

Do you think that intelligence is special and everybody has the same intelligence level?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#63

Post by xupybd »

gweinberg wrote: post #46
xupybd wrote: post #36

I 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?

There's no contradiction between "IQ is largely bullshit, especially at the high ends" and "IQ is the most well proven concept in the social sciences".

Perhaps but there is once between "IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle" and "IQ is the most well proven concept in the social sciences". Unless you are just taking a dig at the social sciences.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#64

Post by Itsdijital »

i_feel_great wrote: post #14

Q. 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.

I present to you three small companies. All three provide the same type of service. One has an average worker IQ of 80, the next 100, and the last 120.

Which one would you feel most confident in using?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#65

Post by i_feel_great »

Itsdijital wrote: post #64
i_feel_great wrote: post #14

Q. 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.

I present to you three small companies. All three provide the same type of service. One has an average worker IQ of 80, the next 100, and the last 120. Which one would you feel most confident in using?

The one who does best in a 3 month trial.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#66

Post by pps43 »

barrkel wrote: post #4

IQ 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 point Taleb is making is that IQ works well in the lower half of the distribution, but not in the upper half.

Which makes sense, considering that questions for IQ tests are created by people with close to average intelligence. Imagine third-graders writing college-level math tests, or beginner chess players coming up with chess problems to separate masters from grandmasters.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#67

Post by ineedasername »

maroonblazer wrote: post #48
ineedasername wrote: post #22

It seems like the author is setting up a straw man representing the IQ test as some omnipresent (or at least somewhat prevalent) test administered widely. He then lambastes it for all its faults (some of his accusations are correct). But the reality is that IQ tests are only very, very rarely used. In fact a career on the periphery of academia, academic testing, and their efficacy in predicting academic success at th…

Aren't most standardized tests - SAT, ACT, GRE, etc - essentially IQ tests? We don't call them that, but they're testing cognitive ability nonetheless.

No, these are some of the tests I work with. Pop culture turned them into a proxy for IQ or Inteligence etc. They're not. The SAT for example is highly targeted towards one specific goal: predicting level of success academically in the first year of college, and only the first year.

They make no other primary research claims about the utility of how the test results should be used, and in dealing with them they are very up front about the importance of a good all around picture of a student including HS GPA, rigor of courses taken, etc., along with SAT as one of multiple metrics.

I repeat, it is pop culture that has distorted these tests beyond all reasonable correspondence to their actual intent.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#68

Post by nabla9 »

softwaredoug wrote: post #6

Best parenting advice I ever got was to praise children for hard work, and avoid calling them “smart.” Intelligence becomes a stand in for some measure of goodness or social fitness that after a while it’s hard to know what we’re talking about anymore. Further, it’s seen as innate whereas hard work is something anyone can do. Being “smart” implies there’s a set of “un-smart” kids that don’t have the same fitness or g…

Even more generally: talk in terms of what they do, not what they are.

For example: you did something bad vs. you are bad.

This applies to adults as well. Talking in terms of what people are gets the ego involved and people resist or become neurotic. Correcting mistakes or behaviour is much easier than identity.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#69

Post by Itsdijital »

xupybd wrote: post #36

I 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?

There's a lot of good evidence that correlates race and IQ. Even when controlling for as many factors as possible. To the best of our current scientific knowledge, this is a thing.

Obviously this is an excellent source of ammo for racists and likewise those fighting racism see it as a threat. By extension, anyone who speaks of this science must also be racist and the science itself must be wrong because it is racist. And even if it's not wrong, it must be locked in a box, hidden deep in the archives, and never spoken of again. If you're a social scientist and your results come back supporting this, should you publish them, twist them, or burn them?

So it's three powerful forces (racism, equality, and truth) all converging on one extremely hot button topic. It's seems Taleb here is trying to pull out the rug from underneath this perfect quaternity of shit show.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#70

Post by softwaredoug »

gus_massa wrote: post #62
softwaredoug wrote: post #6

Best parenting advice I ever got was to praise children for hard work, and avoid calling them “smart.” Intelligence becomes a stand in for some measure of goodness or social fitness that after a while it’s hard to know what we’re talking about anymore. Further, it’s seen as innate whereas hard work is something anyone can do. Being “smart” implies there’s a set of “un-smart” kids that don’t have the same fitness or g…

> Being “smart” implies there’s a set of “un-smart” kids that don’t have the same fitness or goodness You don't like the implications of this, but is it true? I'd never play soccer as good as Messi, even if I'd practice every day in my life for many hours. Do you think that everyone has the same innate ability to play soccer? You can replace the example with any sport/music/whatever you like. Do you think that intell…

You’re right, as an adult I’m not suddenly going to become a piano virtuoso.

Innateness here is a pretty complicated topic. Hard work at an early age probably has a huge part of molding skills we associate with so-called “intelligence”.

Was Mozart a genius? Or was he working really hard at being a musician from an early age, and thus just very skilled? Would Mozart succeed if we suddenly had to train him to be a Java programmer? Where does the narrow “skill” end and the broader “general intelligence” begin?

I would argue skill is measurable and meaningful, but “intelligence” less so

Post reply on HN