11–20 of 82 posts
The article doesn't appear to suggest a viable substitute for IQ. It concludes that we should "[measure] what an intellect can accomplish in a lifetime," but this isn't really practical. IQ is not a perfect measure of intelligence, but I think it's better than no measure of intelligence.
There's some youtube videos by Dr. Tod Grande. (I know, sue me.) IQ is about 4% of what makes up your personality. So whatever your intelligence is within a standard deviation, other factors are much more important. TL:DR; it's better to be a track star with a big d*k than a fat genius in a basement apartment.
It’s a hotly debated measure of intellect.
It being better to be a big dicked track star vs a fat genius has nothing to do with IQ as a valid measure of intelligence, or even personality as you were talking about. And is frankly really weird you brought that up.
It's sort of like getting a computer's performance. All sorts of things goes into a measure. Central processing speed, memory, memory access speed, cache size, software optimization and cache build up. I think some people really WANT IQ to be only about central processing speed, but since that's not measurable we're trying to tease out what it is from the end performance metric. But really everything is important to…
Your hypothesis as to what properties minds have, what those properties give rise to, and how IQ tests count as measures *has no scientific backing*. This description of IQ tests is, imv, an extremely unlikely account.
If you want to show IQ scores are measures of these properties, please provide (1) a theory of the mind in which these properties appear as experimental variables; (2) experiments in which these variables are controllable; and (3) evidence that IQ correlates with the expected controlled outcomes.
Note, the above has never been done. Making the assertion that IQ measures intelligence circular. It is simply, asserted.
People who criticize IQ scores as a proxy for intelligence should publish their own IQ score, no? If the author did so, I missed it, which is certainly possible. The not-intentionally-snarky point is that perhaps the author is not "smart enough" to assess this reliably.
The article doesn't appear to suggest a viable substitute for IQ. It concludes that we should "[measure] what an intellect can accomplish in a lifetime," but this isn't really practical. IQ is not a perfect measure of intelligence, but I think it's better than no measure of intelligence.
Nobel winner James Heckman did a lot of work on this [1]. The takeaway is that IQ doesn't matter as much as other attributes (character, learned skills, etc.) in life outcomes. HN style crows way overvalue IQ style skills when intelligence has multiple dimensions, many of which matter more than IQ. IQ is effectively just a measure of test-taking skills. That's useful in some areas, but you could see someone like Geng…
There's some youtube videos by Dr. Tod Grande. (I know, sue me.) IQ is about 4% of what makes up your personality. So whatever your intelligence is within a standard deviation, other factors are much more important. TL:DR; it's better to be a track star with a big d*k than a fat genius in a basement apartment.
IQ doesn’t make up anything of your personality. It’s a hotly debated measure of intellect. It being better to be a big dicked track star vs a fat genius has nothing to do with IQ as a valid measure of intelligence, or even personality as you were talking about. And is frankly really weird you brought that up.
TL:DR; monkey bests fish in tree climbing contest, credits higher IQ.
The article doesn't appear to suggest a viable substitute for IQ. It concludes that we should "[measure] what an intellect can accomplish in a lifetime," but this isn't really practical. IQ is not a perfect measure of intelligence, but I think it's better than no measure of intelligence.
When/how is IQ ever used for good? Everyone I have ever talked to about it who talks about others' IQ intends to use those people for their own selfish purposes. And people I've talked to who talk about their own IQ only ever use it to brag, boast, or otherwise elevate themselves. Neither of these are behaviors that should be encouraged.
It's hardly "scientific evidence", but my personal assessments of "how intelligent someone is" appear to correlate quite well into various "IQ bands" if a score is revealed at some point. That may be a coincidence, or they may be dependent upon some other unknown factor(s), but it does work out in practice. People who criticize IQ scores as a proxy for intelligence should publish their own IQ score, no? If the author…
IQ scores are utterly *worthless* as a measure of intelligence because they only measure one's ability to solve a small set of carefully-chosen puzzles under carefully-controlled conditions. They cannot possibly measure anything realistic about intelligence.
Since you want people who criticise IQ scores to publish theirs, I'll tell you mine. Measured at various points across my education and out of five or six scores, they range from 72 to 160. They can't all possibly be right.
There's some youtube videos by Dr. Tod Grande. (I know, sue me.) IQ is about 4% of what makes up your personality. So whatever your intelligence is within a standard deviation, other factors are much more important. TL:DR; it's better to be a track star with a big d*k than a fat genius in a basement apartment.
> it's better to be a track star with a big d*k than a fat genius in a basement apartment.
Why is that? How easy is it to become a well-endowed track star? How easy is to become a genius? How many geniuses are fat? How many live in a basement? This is just distracting from any point related to intelligence and IQ.