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

41–50 of 82 posts

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

#41

Post by ilyt »

solardev wrote: post #25
ergonaught wrote: post #14

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…

Are you sure you're not confusing cause and effect? Like maybe your view of "intelligence" is limited to the definition used by IQ tests. That would be kind of unfortunate because it selects for a certain type of test taking ability, mostly related to logic puzzles and spatial manipulation and vocabulary. Those skills might be useful in academic and some professional contexts, but they don't really benchmark the enti…

I did notice it's pretty easy to be perceived intelligent if you just happen to have a bunch of knowledge in the subject you talk about, and shut up in subjects you have no idea

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

#42

Post by mjburgess »

tgv wrote: post #35
mjburgess wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. B…

Alas, it is. It's severely pseudoscientific.

None have PhDs in statistics. They're all people who got into psychology and were given GUIs by the maths department. Their papers are a symptom of what happens when you press the "ANONVA" button and print the results.

The entire field is an egregious testament to pseudo-intellectual pseudoscience. It's shocking.

There's nothing there. It's unfathomably bad.

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

#43

Post by ilyt »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #27

There are two kinds of people in the world - people who believe IQ tests are a useful measure of anything, and intelligent people.

That doesn't make sense. Why there wouldn't be any dumb people that don't believe in IQ tests ?

Not believing in IQ tests (or really in any particular one thing) doesn't make someone intelligent.

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

#44

Post by logicalmonster »

You're never going to get much agreement on IQ as long as a certain type of strong egalitarianism is the prevailing outlook on the world, because the consequences of IQ being important tears apart virtually everything about that.

If IQ actually is reasonably important in some capacity, then it indicates that humans are not fungible and almost everybody would be forced to rewrite all of reality in their heads.

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

#46

Post by mjburgess »

Animats wrote: post #22

That's more a rant than useful information. However, it's a politically popular position in some circles in recent years. Compare Wikipedia in 2015 [1] with Wikipedia today [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligence_quot... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligence_quot...

Personally, via Peterson, I read a lot of the IQ literature and Peterson's arguments around it. I became reasonably convinced of his major claims (namely that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, that heritability is a valid measure of genetic determination, and that IQ is largely heritable). (Incidentally, all these claims are profoudnly false).

Subsequently, I watched a long-form breakdown of IQ and my doubts increased. I then "clicked" IQ into place: for most of my adult life ive been complaining about fMRI, pharam, (AI), etc. -- ie., medical misuse of stats --- and somehow Peterson had lulled me into a false sense of security.

Taleb's article was the nail in the coffin, and I read around the references associated with it. I now place psychometrics firmly in that category of pseudoscience which is "absue of statistics by idiots in lab coats with GUIs".

I expect the culture to be following along with me, if at a long long distance. I think in 2022 "the informed elite" are roughly absorbing the obvious issues with AI, Psychology, etc. and that tradition of statisitcal BS which was clear at least a decade ago.

My "pro-IQ" scepticism was initially agaist people worried about racism, etc. It's very lullying for a sceptic to be confronted by people who dont care about reality that muhc. But this is a trap. IQ is actually BS, and its a shame that the people often most against it are also often very poorly informed.

To address IQ research head-on is a little like like addressing old-testament theological scholarship. The level of understanding of both the field, statistics and the philosophy of science required is very high.

It's a field which florishes, as often with theology, from extremely complex arguments with absolutely insane hidden premesies.

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

#47

Post by Kye »

amusedcyclist wrote: post #10
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.

Changing culture to stop seeing intelligence as some unchangeable fixed thing is probably better than having a bad measure of "intelligence".

Even IQ itself was meant as a way to identify what supports people need to keep up and negate the difference.

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

#48

Post by mjburgess »

maximus-decimus wrote: post #40
VHRanger wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

It was invented as a clinical test of retardation, and the only correlation with IQ and objective independent measures of performance is in the region of very low scores.

Note, that when carear-IQ correlations are brought up it is universally in those populations subject to an IQ test filter who are then shown to correlate with IQ scores (ie., those who take, eg., MCAT, LSAT, ...) --- which, if it isnt clear, is circular.

Average and above IQ shows no correlation whatsoever with, eg., wealth.

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

#49

Post by beckingz »

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…

> 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.

Yeah, the real backlash against IQ is against the implied policy that people think ought to be implemented if IQ is real and determined genetically, as they believe that intelligence is related to moral worth, which raises the question of "what do we do with the worse people if we have a tool that can determine who is a better or worse human."

It's a complex mixup of Equity vs Equality.

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

#50

Post by maximus-decimus »

Pigalowda wrote: post #38
the_only_law wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My argument is that the system is good enough to get the kids to their biological upper bound. Otherwise, we would be able to increase their IQ further through other means, but it seems we just can't.

I don't think the school system is necessarily efficient at it, but kids do spend an insane amount of time in school. I imagine people would reach their athletic upper bound too if they spent 8 hours a day in the gym from the age of 5 to the age of 18.

Post reply on HN