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

There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#111

Post by jwdunne »

ac2u wrote: post #97
jwdunne wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is enough evidence out there to show they treated people they worked with less than well. Are you saying that Steve Jobs wasn't a dick to his staff and to the board? Are you saying that trying to stage a coup in the workplace isn't a dickhead move?

I think you're arguing past the point a little. From what I've read, what got him booted out was Apple hemorrhaging money and the board wanting to keep the Apple II gravy train going and Jobs disagreeing. My point is that questionable behavior didn't oust him initially compared to it being a fundamental disagreement over the direction of the company. I'm sure the behavior didn't help, but if they were still making mo…

The final straw was Jobs trying to oust John Scully. John Scully said me or him. Board went with Scully. The point is that a lot of his actions that directly let up to that made him a dick. In Jobs case, his destructive behaviours didn't help the bottom line.

Being a dick screws over motivation, colleague happiness/satisfaction, increases turnover, etc. These things have an economic cost. Being a dick can cost your workplace lots of money.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#112

Post by ThomPete »

fenomas wrote: post #91
ThomPete wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that but it's not a thing it itself. It's a concept which we use to describe certain abilities in humans but there is no IQ sitting somewhere. While EQ is definitely close to be "fraudulent" it's still sitting on a gradient with EQ being the best model we have when externally accessing someones mental abilities but it's not a thing, it's a human construct.

This is a bit like saying there's no such thing as the color red, it's just an arbitrary label for certain wavelengths of light. Why claim "there's no such thing as" something just because it's a human construct?

Because it matters. There is no red you cant meassure red we will never experience red axactly the same way. One of the biggest mistake humans make is thinking that experience or qualia is what it represents itself as. Its important to understand that we simulate a reality not the reality.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#113

Post by tnzn »

cbcoutinho wrote: post #60
nmca wrote: post #27

He quotes an interesting sounding stat - "In fact, if you could choose to be born at the 95th percentile for wealth, or the 95th percentile for IQ, you would be more successful at age 40 as a consequence of the latter choice." Does anyone know the source?

Restricting your analysis to the US, research indicates that IQ is actually more beneficial than your parents socioeconomic status in determining future success. Here's some small articles touching on the subject http://spartanideas.msu.edu/2015/04/04/income-wealth-and-iq/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/would-y...

It's not exactly what it does say. Firstly for some reason the original research link is broken. Secondly (from your own source):

"Nonetheless, for the teens and young adults of the late 1970s, the economy seems to have been, in at least some meaningful sense, a meritocracy. Now about that catch. The unfortunate truth is that, more often than not, the rich kids are the smart kids. For many years now, the single biggest gap in American education has been between the well-to-do and the poor. Thanks to the resources their families can pour into parenting, wealthy students start out academically ahead the day they walk into kindergarden, and stay ahead through their high school graduation day."

Lastly I'll add that it only took white non hispanics into account.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#114

Post by fenomas »

ThomPete wrote: post #112
fenomas wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit like saying there's no such thing as the color red, it's just an arbitrary label for certain wavelengths of light. Why claim "there's no such thing as" something just because it's a human construct?

Because it matters. There is no red you cant meassure red we will never experience red axactly the same way. One of the biggest mistake humans make is thinking that experience or qualia is what it represents itself as. Its important to understand that we simulate a reality not the reality.

It matters how, specifically? If one person says there's no such thing as red, and another disagrees, there's no physical, observable thing about the universe that they disagree about. They're not disputing how light functions or how vision works, etc; they only disagree about which set of words should describe the whole state of affairs. Disagreements like that strike me as profoundly unimportant.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#115

Post by ThomPete »

fenomas wrote: post #114
ThomPete wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it matters. There is no red you cant meassure red we will never experience red axactly the same way. One of the biggest mistake humans make is thinking that experience or qualia is what it represents itself as. Its important to understand that we simulate a reality not the reality.

It matters how, specifically? If one person says there's no such thing as red, and another disagrees, there's no physical, observable thing about the universe that they disagree about. They're not disputing how light functions or how vision works, etc; they only disagree about which set of words should describe the whole state of affairs. Disagreements like that strike me as profoundly unimportant.

It matters because it will influence how we think about the world, what our premises are. Claiming there is red "out there" vs saying red is a construct in our brain leads to two very different understandings of the world. Its unimportant in many cases but important in some very important ones like how does our brain work and what is reality.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#116

Post by ZenoArrow »

c06n wrote: post #50
ZenoArrow wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "You can test it yourself: Read 2 random digits. Immediately repeat them. Then do that for 3, 4, and so on. There will be a number (typically between 5 and 7) when you cannot repeat the sequence without error anymore. There you have it: A measure for mental capacity." Not really. Almost anyone can get better at games like that without expanding their mental capacity. Here's a selection of well established tricks fo…

You seem to be confused about what a measurement is. It is defined as mapping numbers on empirical phenomena. This is not a matter of Psychology, this is the definition everyone uses. So, yes, "memory span" is a measurement of mental capacity: Following a clear procedure, it assigns numbers to a construct we call "short term memory capacity". What you argue against is the validity of the measurement, which is another…

> "You seem to be confused about what a measurement is. It is defined as mapping numbers on empirical phenomena. This is not a matter of Psychology, this is the definition everyone uses."

I have no problem with that. My problem is with how that measurement is used in wider society. I'll explain further later in this comment.

> "So, yes, "memory span" is a measurement of mental capacity: Following a clear procedure, it assigns numbers to a construct we call "short term memory capacity"."

Perhaps you're misunderstanding why I'm hammering on the 'capacity' angle. When someone is tested as having an IQ of 200, the collective understanding of that number is that it's a number that's more or less fixed (outside of illness or old age). If someone gets an IQ test score of 200 one day they're not expected to get a score of 150 another day. Whether that's accurate from a scientific point of view or not, that's how it's seen within society at large.

So, from that more general perspective, capacity is seen as total capacity. It's this I have an issue with, not how it's used within academic journals. I've never taken a formal IQ test, so this isn't a personal issue for me, I only object on the point that a model with a single metric can describe total mental capacity.

> "A measurement is essentially a model of something, so by definition it reduces something complex to something more simple so that we can study it."

Fine, but are we measuring the human or the model? Let's say I design a competing model of human intelligence that only loosely overlaps with IQ but still has the potential to predict future success. At this point, do we need a new model that can encompass both? Does the existence of this competing model make it clearer that each approach has limitations? If you don't want to get into discussions about the above, why do we measure intelligence in a fixed way but not other human traits? Why isn't there a formal model describing capacity for love? What gives us the confidence to simplify one trait to a model but not others? Is it because we have faith in the testability of those models? Isn't then the foundation of the model a style of questioning that promotes reproducible results? How do we choose the subset of potential questions that best capture the full range of intelligence?

> "EQ was the work of a journalist who did not have the background in Psychology to understand that there never was a shortfall to begin with. Differential and personality psychology has been working for decades on these topics. EQ has added no insights."

Perhaps there wasn't a shortfall in the world of psychology, but there was a perceived shortfall in public discourse. I think this is the crux of our disagreement, you're approaching IQ from the scientific angle, I'm approaching IQ in terms of how its used outside of science. Scientists should be the authority in how the model is measured, but that model doesn't solely have an impact in the scientific community, it has also become a cultural touch point representing intelligence. Whether that is an appropriate use of IQ or not is up for debate, and for all its flaws I see EQ as a way of furthering that debate.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#117

Post by fenomas »

ThomPete wrote: post #115
fenomas wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters how, specifically? If one person says there's no such thing as red, and another disagrees, there's no physical, observable thing about the universe that they disagree about. They're not disputing how light functions or how vision works, etc; they only disagree about which set of words should describe the whole state of affairs. Disagreements like that strike me as profoundly unimportant.

It matters because it will influence how we think about the world, what our premises are. Claiming there is red "out there" vs saying red is a construct in our brain leads to two very different understandings of the world. Its unimportant in many cases but important in some very important ones like how does our brain work and what is reality.

Nonsense. If A says "there's no such thing as red, because it's a human construct", and B says "there is such a thing as red, because human constructs are things", that disagreement doesn't stem from different premises about the world. There's no experiment one can imagine where A and B would predict different results.

It's just two different ways of using the word "thing" - each as valid as the other. Either party could switch to the other's viewpoint without changing anything about how they see the world, they'd simply be defining a word differently.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#118

Post by MagnumOpus »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #35
mpweiher wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm...you realize that he (a) explains ad nauseam and (b) cites relevant research. So how is this "blind acceptance"? Whereas you don't appear to be an authority, made a fairly broad claim ("so much wrong..."), explained nothing and cited...crickets.

If we're going to do proof by paper (always dangerous in psychology, but never mind), consider this about IQ: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/ The evidence that IQ predicts success is dubious, and certainly not settled. I also consider him wrong about EQ, although for more anecdotal reasons: I have known people who can read individuals and social situations with extraordinary skill, make astonish…

I've read the paper you provided, and it doesn't have a single professional point to make against IQ tests, the g factor, their predictive ability and correlation on job performance or anything else really.

Rather than rigorously discussing on what is technically wrong with the corpus of evidence and how it could be improved, she throws and regurgitates FUD in so many areas that it is nigh-impossible to address them all.

Thanks for wasting fifteen minutes of my life, OtherHobbes.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#119

Post by ThomPete »

fenomas wrote: post #117
ThomPete wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters because it will influence how we think about the world, what our premises are. Claiming there is red "out there" vs saying red is a construct in our brain leads to two very different understandings of the world. Its unimportant in many cases but important in some very important ones like how does our brain work and what is reality.

Nonsense. If A says "there's no such thing as red, because it's a human construct", and B says "there is such a thing as red, because human constructs are things", that disagreement doesn't stem from different premises about the world. There's no experiment one can imagine where A and B would predict different results. It's just two different ways of using the word "thing" - each as valid as the other. Either party c…

If one believe it's a human construct and the other doesn't and they decide to study science based on that they will end up with very different results. Furthermore depending on how you understand the world you will be encouraged or discouraged from pursuing various paths.

So no it's not just about defining it differently it's about whether you believe red is "out there" or whether it's "in your mind" if you can't see why that's important then that's your problem not mine.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#120

Post by ThomPete »

Scaevolus wrote: post #7
ZenoArrow wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you accept there's no EQ then why not apply the same logic to IQ? They're both based on the same false assumption that you can describe mental capacity with a number. It's not the same with BMI, which is about setting out guidelines for a healthy weight. That is something that's more appropriate to describe numerically.

IQ and BMI are strong predictors of income and disease. As the linked post describes, EQ is ill-defined, and lacks predictive power over any particular outcome.

No they are not strong indicators of income. They are indicators of skills currently in need by society at large. But go back 400 years and IQ was not the primary predictor for that and my guess is that it won't be in the future either.
Post reply on HN