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

IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 133 posts

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

#51

Post by lern_too_spel »

virmundi wrote: post #37
empath75 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that certain races are genetically inferior? Because that really seems like what you are saying. Which sort of proves his point. The people that loudly disagree with him are racists.

You do know how bell curves work, right? Whites are included in that. The trouble with many policies that ignore genetic differences in intelligence is that it ignores science. If you want a modern advanced society, you’ll have to look to your genetics.

> You do know how bell curves work, right?

It seems you don't realize that you're talking about a heavily criticized book instead of a mathematical concept. There is no fixed place for different races to always appear on a plot of IQ distribution.

Koreans were once thought to be stupid. Not anymore. Population level genetic differences in IQ are dwarfed by environmental factors, and many studies have shown this effect: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-bla...

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

#52

Post by empath75 »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #45
jcranmer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even as someone who agreed in large part with the conclusion before coming to this article, I find this virtually unreadable. It's just so full of vindictiveness and pettiness that it loses sight of its argument, and the images and graphs it uses aren't particularly coherent in their framing. > you're saying that people with an IQ of 60 are equally wealthy as those with an IQ of 110? Actually, if I understand his poi…

Two thoughts. Firstly if that's his point, his conclusion should match. Saying there is "no correlation" is a reach. Secondly, I'm not convinced I even believe that point. So is he saying that if I took an IQ test from nobel prize winners they would be equally distributed to a normal population sample (assuming a 100 minimum cutoff)?

Yes, in fact.

http://nautil.us/issue/65/in-plain-sight/your-iq-matters-les...

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

#53

Post by longtom »

badRNG wrote: post #44
longtom wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ is one of the few actually, and maybe THE most robust and measurable dimension in humans that psychology has come up with. Some people are smarter than others and they are expected to rise higher in a (necessarily imperfectly) meritocratic system. The big question is whether the bottom end should starve. I think they should not starve and should have certain minimal living standards met, but they are going to be l…

> IQ is one of the few actually, and maybe THE most robust and measurable dimensions in humans that psychology has come up with. How did you come to that conclusion? That feels like a claim that would be pretty difficult to defend. I think you have far more of an uphill climb to justify that the wealthy/poor divide is largely correlated to intelligence, rather than social systems that advantage/disadvantage certain c…

I'm not saying it is largely determined by it and not claiming there are no injustices, but I'm saying it is not a negligible factor.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

#54

Post by generalpass »

danharaj wrote: post #35
generalpass wrote: post #12

A fine example of an expert in one field believing he is an expert in every field. In reading the section describing psychometricians, he clearly is not actually reading what they publish.

Taleb is an expert in statistics. This is an analysis of the statistics of a metric and the statistical methodology of the field it is part of.

> Taleb is an expert in statistics. This is an analysis of the statistics of a metric and the statistical methodology of the field it is part of.

If he doesn't understand their definitions within their sphere of expertise, how can any analysis of such be valid?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

#55

Post by danharaj »

iratewizard wrote: post #2

This comes off like an angry rant by a person who scored 100 but thinks of himself as highly gifted. IQ as a concept is a useful metric and predictor. Our current "stale" IQ tests still predict criminal behavior more accurately than any sociological theories of crime. It just doesn't predict whether someone will end up in a "menial job" or as a C-level executive.

The author is much better at probability than you. Maybe you're too stupid to notice? Oh? Is insulting you not a good argument? Pot meet kettle.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

#56

Post by karaterobot »

zug_zug wrote: post #3

I can't even bring myself to read this. After perusing and seeing it gets so emotional (bringing up eugenics, morality, etc), I have a hard time believing it's going to be objective. "There is no significant statistical association between IQ and hard measures such as wealth." So... you're saying that people with an IQ of 60 are equally wealthy as those with an IQ of 110? I understand getting frustrated about misappl…

I'm not here to defend a lazily-edited article (you're right, it is), but why respond to the premise with an ungenerous assumption about what you assume he meant, rather than reading the article? Either it's worth discovering if your conclusion is correct, or it's not worth responding to.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

#57

Post by foolrush »

JamesBarney wrote: post #38
foolrush wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

That is an article about eugenics. No one is arguing for eugenics. Eugenics was awful, but just because something was used as a tool for evil does not make it untrue. If I light someone on fire with gasoline this makes it no less useful for fueling a car.

Read it. Learn history. Learn how sociology works.

Nah don’t bother. It’s HN.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

#58

Post by alexandercrohde »

empath75 wrote: post #52
alexandercrohde wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two thoughts. Firstly if that's his point, his conclusion should match. Saying there is "no correlation" is a reach. Secondly, I'm not convinced I even believe that point. So is he saying that if I took an IQ test from nobel prize winners they would be equally distributed to a normal population sample (assuming a 100 minimum cutoff)?

Yes, in fact. http://nautil.us/issue/65/in-plain-sight/your-iq-matters-les...

Sorry, I don't want to read that whole thing. Is there a linked journal article about IQs of nobel winners?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

#59

Post by rcoveson »

jcranmer wrote: post #22
zug_zug wrote: post #3

I can't even bring myself to read this. After perusing and seeing it gets so emotional (bringing up eugenics, morality, etc), I have a hard time believing it's going to be objective. "There is no significant statistical association between IQ and hard measures such as wealth." So... you're saying that people with an IQ of 60 are equally wealthy as those with an IQ of 110? I understand getting frustrated about misappl…

Even as someone who agreed in large part with the conclusion before coming to this article, I find this virtually unreadable. It's just so full of vindictiveness and pettiness that it loses sight of its argument, and the images and graphs it uses aren't particularly coherent in their framing. > you're saying that people with an IQ of 60 are equally wealthy as those with an IQ of 110? Actually, if I understand his poi…

> ...but is pure noise for people of average or above-average intelligence.

Maybe not pure noise. He pointed out in many paragraphs that further to the right of the distribution you would find "nerds", salarymen, and other sorts of boring people that would never write such revolutionary medium articles as this one. People ill-adapted for "real life"; academics and their lot. Oh, and "suckers" who don't have the instinct, "why is he/she asking me that question?"

The impression I got from the article was not that Taleb believes that IQ is useless, but rather that all the ideal people are at the middle of the distribution. Too low and you're genuinely unintelligent. Too high and you're "in on it", one of those "lifeless bureaucrat" metrics-obsessed pocket-protector types.

Post reply on HN