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

71–80 of 400 posts

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#71

Post by flatfilefan »

xupybd wrote: post #63
gweinberg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe he does and it's a right thing to do. Taleb is briefly mentioning the gaping problems of lacking reproducibility of social sciences research.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#72

Post by diminoten »

Jedi72 wrote: post #16
diminoten wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm making no assertion, I'm saying it's not beyond believable that the current "common knowledge" understanding of intelligence is completely wrong.

> Even if I had 50 years of study I would not think on the level of say Terrance Tao.

Yeah you would. Don't deify anyone.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#73

Post by viraptor »

dqpb wrote: post #12
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…

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.

> energy level, stress/anxiety, and give-a-shit. I think most people are fundamentally capable of great intelligence.

This sounds like there's a missing link where "most people are fundamentally capable of higher energy level, less anxiety, more give-a-shit" may not be taken for granted.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#74

Post by flocial »

mbell wrote: post #10

The title doesn't seem to match up with the article. The point seems to be that IQ is good at predicting intellectual deficits at the low end but bad at predicting 'success' above that; further it indicates that IQ is mis-used in this range. This doesn't seem to indicate that IQ is 'pseudoscience', just that it's a misused statistic. Not a real shocker there, almost every statistic is misused by some group.

In a sense this is much scarier than the controversial IQ strongly correlates with genetics argument. Instead of being "pseudoscientific swindle" it becomes a reliable tool to marginalize people on the lower end based on their test results.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#75

Post by akira2501 »

softwaredoug wrote: post #70
gus_massa wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> but "intelligence" less so

I don't think there's any problem measuring intelligence, where we've traditionally run into issues is where we start to make policy or social decisions using this data without understanding it's subtleties.

I think Jordan B Peterson has a good classroom video segment[1] on this problem.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#76

Post by SamReidHughes »

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…

I'm pretty sure this parenting advice was based on a psychological experiment that failed to replicate.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#77

Post by nabla9 »

>If you want to detect how someone fares at a task, say loan sharking, tennis playing, or random matrix theory, make him/her do that task; we don’t need theoretical exams for a real world function by probability-challenged psychologists.

If you want to measure skill and experience, that's good advice.

When you want to measure the ability to solve problems where the individual or nobody has skill or experience yet, you have to measure something like intelligence.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#78

Post by hyperpape »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #76
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…

I'm pretty sure this parenting advice was based on a psychological experiment that failed to replicate.

You may be right about some particular study, but in general, there is a lot of research around growth mindset, and I have not heard about failures to replicate (though I cannot vouch that they haven't happened): https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/08/no-clarity-around-grow....

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#79

Post by taeric »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #76
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…

I'm pretty sure this parenting advice was based on a psychological experiment that failed to replicate.

It saddens me that that seems to be true for damned near all of psychology. :(

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#80

Post by sifoobar »

waynecochran wrote: post #19

I 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.

Maybe you're looking in the wrong place?

The question on my mind is the following: How is blindly trusting science better than blindly trusting the pope or your local shaman? Wasn't the real issue blind trust, rather than who or what?

There's nothing to be afraid of, and no reason to take a stupid test. I had to as part of drafting and I can't see these tests leading anywhere worth going. Maybe ask why being seen as smart is important?

Post reply on HN