IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle • Hacker News Board

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#171

Post by feanaro » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 7:39 AM UTC

iron0013 wrote: post #139

mikemotherwell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original tweetstorm and this post aim to show something very specific, namely that IQ misses the mark as a measure of intelligence the further away from IQ 70 one ventures. In other words, stupid is stupid, but smart seems to come in many flavors. The title of the article itself points to this fact, as the word "largely" is inserted. Nassim Nicholas Taleb himself can see the value at the lower levels. If the goal…

The frustrating thing from the perspective of an individual differences researcher is that Taleb is not at all correct about IQ becoming less predictive of performance at higher levels! Studies pretty consistently show that IQ is a valid predictor of performance all the way up the scale, so that, for example, someone with an IQ of 145 is likely to perform (at school, on the job, etc) better than someone with an IQ of…

I'm as surprised as you and I'm glad someone took the time to write that up (I was about to when I saw your comment). I don't understand why someone would call IQ "unscientific" without addressing research showing it to be a good predictor of future performance. Note that this still doesn't invalidate the point that people can be smart in many different ways (yet have the same IQ), which seems like a reasonable position.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#172

Post by DoreenMichele » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 7:40 AM UTC

yourapostasy wrote: post #126

dqpb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll admit I spend probably greater than average time brooding over how dumb most people are. But I don't think this is inherent in those people. I think it's mostly a result of their prior knowledge, sleep, energy level, stress/anxiety, and give-a-shit. I think most people are fundamentally capable of great intelligence.

> I think most people are fundamentally capable of great intelligence. If the real world distribution of IQ closely approximates the Gaussian distribution IQ tests are meant to model, then in the US alone there are about 44 million people in the range from about 70-85. World wide, about 1 billion people in that cohort of 1-2 standard deviations. Even if actual real world results are half of what the models predict, w…

We would likely do better to deal with biomedical issues, like inadequate nutrition and unidentified health issues.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#173

Post by toasterlovin » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 7:41 AM UTC

yourapostasy wrote: post #126

dqpb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll admit I spend probably greater than average time brooding over how dumb most people are. But I don't think this is inherent in those people. I think it's mostly a result of their prior knowledge, sleep, energy level, stress/anxiety, and give-a-shit. I think most people are fundamentally capable of great intelligence.

> I think most people are fundamentally capable of great intelligence. If the real world distribution of IQ closely approximates the Gaussian distribution IQ tests are meant to model, then in the US alone there are about 44 million people in the range from about 70-85. World wide, about 1 billion people in that cohort of 1-2 standard deviations. Even if actual real world results are half of what the models predict, w…

Honestly, at this point we should just focus on getting to genetically engineered solution. It’s really not that far away at this point. All the environment based solutions have extremely small effect sizes and are really expensive.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#174

Post by toasterlovin » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 7:42 AM UTC

pps43 wrote: post #66

barrkel wrote: post #4

IQ is undoubtedly overemphasized by some factions, especially those with an axe to grind and a dog whistle to blow, if it helps them feel less guilty about their position in the world or otherwise rationalizes injustice. OTOH there's definitely a difference between people, people who aren't mentally defective, people that are quick on the uptake, sharp and alert, who adapt to new mental models. IQ might be an unscien…

The point Taleb is making is that IQ works well in the lower half of the distribution, but not in the upper half. Which makes sense, considering that questions for IQ tests are created by people with close to average intelligence. Imagine third-graders writing college-level math tests, or beginner chess players coming up with chess problems to separate masters from grandmasters.

His main problem is that he’s dead wrong.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#175

Post by toasterlovin » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 7:47 AM UTC

tomhoward wrote: post #157

jdietrich wrote: post #56

Frankly, I'm incredibly disappointed in Taleb's recent writing. This article is one of many where the actual point being made is buried beneath unnecessary and divisive ad-hominem attacks. Does the caption "Mensa members: typically high “IQ” losers in Birkenstocks." usefully contribute to a serious, scholarly conversation on IQ? Is it reasonable or fair-minded to immediately tar opponents to your argument as racists,…

It's funny. Normally I place a high value on civility and decency in discourse. But I don't have any problem with this style of communication from Taleb. I think it's because I've read/heard enough of his material over many years, and I understand the game he's playing. He's not cruel, and he means no harm to people personally. Indeed he cares a lot about the general wellbeing of society and individuals, about avoida…

The guy is a fucking primadonna who has built a massive echo chamber around himself by simply ignoring everyone who disagrees with him. It’s pathetically juvenile.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#176

Post by username90 » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 7:48 AM UTC

tomhoward wrote: post #157

jdietrich wrote: post #56

Frankly, I'm incredibly disappointed in Taleb's recent writing. This article is one of many where the actual point being made is buried beneath unnecessary and divisive ad-hominem attacks. Does the caption "Mensa members: typically high “IQ” losers in Birkenstocks." usefully contribute to a serious, scholarly conversation on IQ? Is it reasonable or fair-minded to immediately tar opponents to your argument as racists,…

It's funny. Normally I place a high value on civility and decency in discourse. But I don't have any problem with this style of communication from Taleb. I think it's because I've read/heard enough of his material over many years, and I understand the game he's playing. He's not cruel, and he means no harm to people personally. Indeed he cares a lot about the general wellbeing of society and individuals, about avoida…

> His whole approach designed to cut through bullshit and seek the truth.

This is not the problem, the problem is that most of what he is saying in this article is bullshit veiled behind enough low level math to fool the masses.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#177

Post by diminoten » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 7:48 AM UTC

zorga wrote: post #144

kibwen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather I'd say that "intelligence" in practice is an enormous grab-bag of different skills and qualities, some broad, some specific, some learnable, some inherent. A brilliant mathematician like Terence Tao may still very well consider themselves a dullard when faced with, say, the musical intuition of a piano virtuoso, or the effortless foresight of a chess grandmaster, or the rapt attention commanded by master stor…

> A brilliant mathematician like Terence Tao may still very well consider themselves a dullard when faced with, say, the musical intuition of a piano virtuoso, or the effortless foresight of a chess grandmaster, or the rapt attention commanded by master storyteller, or the social intelligence of a smooth-talking Jobsian entrepreneur. I'd bet all of those people would score high in IQ. > For these kinds of intelligenc…

> IQ is actual science with lots of evidence to support it.

...did you read the submission?

Don't worship science blindly; it's not nearly as black/white as you're framing it to be. IQ can have evidence to support it and still be deeply flawed/incomplete/entirely wrong.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#178

Post by swebs » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 7:48 AM UTC

maroonblazer wrote: post #48

ineedasername wrote: post #22

It seems like the author is setting up a straw man representing the IQ test as some omnipresent (or at least somewhat prevalent) test administered widely. He then lambastes it for all its faults (some of his accusations are correct). But the reality is that IQ tests are only very, very rarely used. In fact a career on the periphery of academia, academic testing, and their efficacy in predicting academic success at th…

Aren't most standardized tests - SAT, ACT, GRE, etc - essentially IQ tests? We don't call them that, but they're testing cognitive ability nonetheless.

No, those are designed specifically to test your level of education. An IQ test would be something like Raven's Progressive Matrices.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#179

Post by feanaro » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 7:49 AM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #82

naniwaduni wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is (in part) Nassim Nicholas Taleb's point: we use IQ to select for success, then say IQ is correlated with success. It is circular reasoning. This would only be correct if the SAT were expressly an IQ test, and we selected people based on SAT score for that reason . To put it another way, making this point is kind of like selecting for tall players for a basketball team, then saying weight is correlated with…

Yeah totally, or like selecting for confident people where you tell people who score well on the test that they're super confident. Tall is an absolute, objective measure of a real thing that exists. IQ is NOT a measure of a thing that exists. Similar effects can be found throwing dice and ascribing the total to an IQ score, then telling parents, teachers what the poor kid's IQ is as though it were their height. It's…

If it is not a real thing, how does it succeed in having an influence over results on a measurement device? Results on cognitive tests have a relatively high test-retest reliability.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#180

Post by feanaro » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 7:51 AM UTC

hhjinks wrote: post #133

mikemotherwell wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Note that IQ tests correlate with SAT scores! That is (in part) Nassim Nicholas Taleb's point: we use IQ to select for success, then say IQ is correlated with success. It is circular reasoning. The more interesting measure is not jobs for which IQ is the main selection criteria to qualify for the training (your examples of MDs, JDs, and PhDs), but things where people create their own impact, lets…

> we use IQ to select for success We do? I have never seen IQ used for anything but online wankery. None of my most skilled coworkers have struck me as people outside the bell curve, and we have never had our IQ test results requested, or even measured in most cases.

You never had a cognitive test administered as part of your job interview?