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

IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

supermemo.guru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

#31

Post by maximus-decimus »

> IQ is remotely relevant to actual intelligence

> IQ is popularly perceived as determined by the genes and unchangeable

> IQ tests have a negative effect on test takers

> IQ is often used in "scientific" racism to promote pseudoscientific social theories

1. They say IQ doesn't measure intelligence because according to them "Intelligence is the ability to solve problems". Well IQ at least claims to do that with its with its fluid intelligence component. Maybe creativity is independent of IQ, and also corresponds to better problem solving skills, but that doesn't change the fact IQ is still a predictor of problem solving skill.

2. If you can prove IQ can be boosted, that would be revolutionary. There's the n-back that improves IQ according to some studies, but that's highly controversial. But in any case, I don't see how not being able to change it makes it a bad measure. Me not being able to make myself taller doesn't make height a bad measure.

3. People not handling well knowing their intelligence doesn't have anything to do whatsoever with IQ being a good or bad measure of intelligence.

4. Again, people using metrics to be racist is an argument against measuring intelligence, not against IQ itself. You could make the same argument about literally any other system measuring intelligence.

A point I find interesting is "school improves IQ". What if the reason we can't seemingly improve people's IQ was because the school system already brought them to their full IQ potential? Maybe when we're trying to increase people intelligence, because we're testing on people already at school, it's like conducting studies on how to get muscular on people who are already maxed out gym bros. It's gonna be very hard to get them more muscular/intelligent if they're already reached max allowed by their body through intense daily workout/schooling.

Re: IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

#32

Post by wesleywt »

the_shivers wrote: post #2

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.

No, it is worst than no measure of intelligence. It gives a false impression of the truth that can hurt the person or people involved. IQ is often used in racist terms, since certain populations in the world do not have the cultural background to pass this arbitary test

Re: IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

#33

Post by the_only_law »

maximus-decimus wrote: post #31

> IQ is remotely relevant to actual intelligence > IQ is popularly perceived as determined by the genes and unchangeable > IQ tests have a negative effect on test takers > IQ is often used in "scientific" racism to promote pseudoscientific social theories 1. They say IQ doesn't measure intelligence because according to them "Intelligence is the ability to solve problems". Well IQ at least claims to do that with its w…

> A point I find interesting is "school improves IQ". What if the reason we can't seemingly improve people's IQ was because the school system already brought them to their full IQ potential?

The hell kinda schools do they have around you? I promise you no school I ever attended even tried to do that. Anyone who had potential had to skirt around the school system.

Re: IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

#34

Post by ilyt »

the_shivers wrote: post #2

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.

Right, but aside from academics, what is the use for the number. Like, sure, it will maybe tell you that person A is better than person B at solving what essentially are logic puzzles, but that's at best tangentially related to most things, even in "intellectual" jobs it's a mix of knowledge, creativity and ability to see correlation plus almost always some social skills too.

Re: IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

#35

Post by tgv »

mjburgess wrote: post #21
tgv wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ is a fair predictor of achievement in life, though. But there are other predictors too, such as parents' socio-economic status, or geographical location. We wouldn't claim these things measure intelligence, though. IQ is a proxy for intelligence, but one with great shortcomings. Unfortunately, there's no agreed upon definition of intelligence, let alone an operalization, and a way of measuring it. So IQ keeps bein…

> Unfortunately, there's no agreed upon definition of intelligence, let alone an operalization, and a way of measuring it. So IQ keeps being used. Uhuh.... so this line it's crazy, right? It's really strange you concede that we have no theory and hence no way of verifying whether an IQ score is a valid and reliable measure of the thing we have no theory of ... and yet, you say it is a "proxy for intelligence" The ent…

We all "sort of" recognize intelligence, but it stops there.

> The entire edifice of research which makes these claims is a product of a pseudoscientific use of statistics by amateur statisticians.

That's bollocks. It's just a topic that's too complex. Unfortunately, everybody likes it and draws conclusions from it. Even the HR department. If you would say we should ignore IQ measurements in society, I would agree. But it's not pseudo-scientific use of statistics. Nor all done by amateurs. It might even be more scientific than string theory or dark matter.

Re: IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

#36

Post by fredgrott »

maximus-decimus wrote: post #31

> IQ is remotely relevant to actual intelligence > IQ is popularly perceived as determined by the genes and unchangeable > IQ tests have a negative effect on test takers > IQ is often used in "scientific" racism to promote pseudoscientific social theories 1. They say IQ doesn't measure intelligence because according to them "Intelligence is the ability to solve problems". Well IQ at least claims to do that with its w…

if you go back to the original goal of IQ tests, it was the measurement of learning progress and it's log tied to age of those under test.

Re: IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

#37

Post by Auracle »

wesleywt wrote: post #32
the_shivers wrote: post #2

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.

No, it is worst than no measure of intelligence. It gives a false impression of the truth that can hurt the person or people involved. IQ is often used in racist terms, since certain populations in the world do not have the cultural background to pass this arbitary test

There are many different types of IQ tests, with different types of questions. Some just use shapes/patterns.

Re: IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

#38

Post by Pigalowda »

the_only_law wrote: post #33
maximus-decimus wrote: post #31

> IQ is remotely relevant to actual intelligence > IQ is popularly perceived as determined by the genes and unchangeable > IQ tests have a negative effect on test takers > IQ is often used in "scientific" racism to promote pseudoscientific social theories 1. They say IQ doesn't measure intelligence because according to them "Intelligence is the ability to solve problems". Well IQ at least claims to do that with its w…

> A point I find interesting is "school improves IQ". What if the reason we can't seemingly improve people's IQ was because the school system already brought them to their full IQ potential? The hell kinda schools do they have around you? I promise you no school I ever attended even tried to do that. Anyone who had potential had to skirt around the school system.

I don't think your statement is disagreeing with his? Your school system elevated the students to the system's IQ upper bound. A different school system or style of education would have a different upper bound.

Re: IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

#39

Post by ilyt »

wesleywt wrote: post #32
the_shivers wrote: post #2

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.

No, it is worst than no measure of intelligence. It gives a false impression of the truth that can hurt the person or people involved. IQ is often used in racist terms, since certain populations in the world do not have the cultural background to pass this arbitary test

Aren't IQ tests supposed to be made culturally/language independent tho ? What would be "cultural" thing on IQ test ? The ones I saw never really had anything aside base-10 numbers. Do you have any examples ?

Re: IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence (2019)

#40

Post by maximus-decimus »

VHRanger wrote: post #9
the_shivers wrote: post #2

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…

But IQ wasn't invented to predict "life outcome", it was invented to find kid's academic potential.

I'm still waiting for somebody to show me a prolific Math Phd with below average IQ. The only counter example I've heard people use it Feynman whose IQ was "only" 125 putting him smarter than "only" 95% of the population.

It rubs me the wrong way when Hawkins says stuff like "IQ is for losers" but then boasts how his physics undergrad degree was so easy for him he was just bored out of his mind (it sure wasn't easy for me). It's the intelligence equivalent of a billionaire saying you just need to work hard to get there, as if that was ever gonna make a difference if you're an Amazon factory worker.

Post reply on HN