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

61–70 of 82 posts

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

#61

Post by DemocracyFTW2 »

mkoubaa wrote: post #11
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.

To me this is like saying that if you were lost in Boston and someone gave you a map of Chicago that it's better than nothing.

Well we do know that [all North American cities] look the same so to that extent you can use a map from a different city to find your way.

[all North American cities](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/ym6ms5/a_map_of_ev...)

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

#62

Post by csa »

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…

> IQ is effectively just a measure of test-taking skills.

Omg, no.

Good test taking skills will help someone score close to their theoretical maximum, but you can’t just train someone in test-taking skills and expect them to score at the top of the scale.

I’ve trained people on test-taking skills to great effect, but there is a limit (often significant) on how much these skills can improve a score.

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

#63

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

mjburgess wrote: post #54
P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also don't have an objective measure of "horniness", yet we all know it both exists and that we must make decisions based upon it (either ours or others). Something having an objective measure or not does not invalidate it.

I think we've very good evidence against IQ being a measure of intelligence. But in any case, what we're talking about is the meter-ruler called "IQ" and its use by the most batshit HRish elements of soceity, and the most pseudo-scientific elements of psychology. In a world where major employers are using IQ to guide their hiring practices, we're not talking about a quiz on the back of cosmo. We're talking about a wo…

This is akin to arguing height isn't useful because the NBA makes judgements based upon it.

What the evidence says is that IQ isn't the only factor, just as height isn't the only factor for NBA players. But just like height, IQ makes things a lot easier.

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

#64

Post by maximus-decimus »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #59
maximus-decimus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a dream : I would like to do research and do breakthroughs in the field. Knowing my IQ would let me know if that's reasonable and if I have any kind of shot at it. I know I'm smarter than average, but am I smart enough to be a top scientist? If i'm too stupid to attain my dream and I went for a phd, I would just be wasting my time, my life, my earnings for a dead end. It would be like dedicating your whole lif…

I read a book years ago (forget the name or the author) about an alien species that came to earth and claimed they were in a war and were looking for the single best specimen from each species (1 per planet). The one they settled on was a man in a wheelchair. Through technology they fixed all his ills. They then put him on a ship with all the others and he was immediately attacked. It turned out there was a hierarchy…

Sorry, but I don't find a science fiction book to be an inspiring argument.

Find me a below average height person who made it at the NBA or somebody, anybody, with a below average IQ who got a science Nobel prize and you'll have my attention. But if you have to rely on a pure fantasy novel to find a counter-example, it doesn't give me any confidence in your theory.

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

#65

Post by tgv »

mjburgess wrote: post #42
tgv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The statisticians I knew were only too happy to go along with some ANOVA. They're usually consulted at the start of the study, but rarely co-author.

A lot of psychology is bad research. There's a reason there's a reproduction crisis. Statisticians are to blame for that, too. They've been teaching and using NHST, even though all arguments point away from it.

But statisticians can't fix a bad design, because they rarely know the factors involved, and they can't fix errors in the methods, because they've got no idea about the subject matter. The statistician in your argument comes across as some kind of totem.

> There's nothing there.

There's something there, but since we don't know what, it's best to take it with a grain of salt. However, if even the bloody HR department looks at IQ scores, it gets a lot of attention. And one explanation is that it predicts better than nothing. If you have to choose between two candidates, and one has an IQ of 80 and the other of 120, you know who (on average) who fits best.

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

#66

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

maximus-decimus wrote: post #64
P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read a book years ago (forget the name or the author) about an alien species that came to earth and claimed they were in a war and were looking for the single best specimen from each species (1 per planet). The one they settled on was a man in a wheelchair. Through technology they fixed all his ills. They then put him on a ship with all the others and he was immediately attacked. It turned out there was a hierarchy…

Sorry, but I don't find a science fiction book to be an inspiring argument. Find me a below average height person who made it at the NBA or somebody, anybody, with a below average IQ who got a science Nobel prize and you'll have my attention. But if you have to rely on a pure fantasy novel to find a counter-example, it doesn't give me any confidence in your theory.

> Sorry, but I don't think you can learn anything from allegories, they're not "real life".

there, fixed that for you.

As for the rest ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest_players_in_Na...

The shortest NBA player was 5'3" and played until 2001.

Isaiah Thomas is the shortest player to play in an all-star game at 5'9".

---

But hey, good luck, I'm sure you're smarter than the rest of us and you'll do just fine without allegories.

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

#67

Post by Gordonjcp »

ilyt wrote: post #24
Gordonjcp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I'll bite. 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 f…

Are we talking actual vetted IQ tests or some random webpage/gazette offering "IQ test" ? From what I remember "proper" ones generally don't have that much variance per person

Yes, actual proper IQ tests, intended to find out some parameter or another of my education.

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

#68

Post by mjburgess »

tgv wrote: post #65
mjburgess wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The statisticians I knew were only too happy to go along with some ANOVA. They're usually consulted at the start of the study, but rarely co-author. A lot of psychology is bad research. There's a reason there's a reproduction crisis. Statisticians are to blame for that, too. They've been teaching and using NHST, even though all arguments point away from it. But statisticians can't fix a bad design, because they rarel…

Neither "have" an IQ of anything. They neither "have" a star-sign.

A score of 80 suggests a possible clinical issue with mental retardation. Few such people apply to roles who compete with people at average or above scores.

What is much more the case is people 95-145 "competing" with each other based, effectively, on what star sign they have.

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

#69

Post by 29athrowaway »

tgv wrote: post #26
29athrowaway wrote: post #16

IQ was invented by eugenecists.

I've never heard that say of Binet. But it doesn't matter. Ideas don't inherit morality. It's their application that counts. Pythagoras had some really outlandish ideas. But the formula holds.

I meant Lewis Terman.

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

#70

Post by Jensson »

mjburgess wrote: post #68
tgv wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statisticians I knew were only too happy to go along with some ANOVA. They're usually consulted at the start of the study, but rarely co-author. A lot of psychology is bad research. There's a reason there's a reproduction crisis. Statisticians are to blame for that, too. They've been teaching and using NHST, even though all arguments point away from it. But statisticians can't fix a bad design, because they rarel…

Neither "have" an IQ of anything. They neither "have" a star-sign. A score of 80 suggests a possible clinical issue with mental retardation. Few such people apply to roles who compete with people at average or above scores. What is much more the case is people 95-145 "competing" with each other based, effectively, on what star sign they have.

If IQ didn't matter above 95 then we would expect most STEM professionals to have about 100 IQ since that is the biggest bump on the curve, but that is very far from the case.

The test probably breaks down at some level since it is hard to test higher intelligence, but it seems to me like it is still valid below about 120 IQ.

Post reply on HN