IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle • Hacker News Board

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#221

Post by feanaro » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:00 AM UTC

otalp wrote: post #215

feanaro wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 posit…

Just because something is a good predictor doesn't make it scientific. There could be a third variable like wealth which needs to be controlled for, but is rarely done in those studies with few exceptions. In those exceptions, it was generally found that wealth of parents played a much bigger role in future success than IQ.

> Just because something is a good predictor doesn't make it scientific.

What does it mean for a thing to be scientific?

> In those exceptions, it was generally found that wealth of parents played a much bigger role in future success than IQ.

You are talking about very long term success. It is somewhat obvious that wealth you are born into should be an important factor for overall success.

I'm talking about shorter term success, like job performance.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#222

Post by shusson » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:01 AM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #211

jdietrich wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've spent any amount of time in education (or you have any faith in the data), then it is patently obvious that there is indeed a set of "un-smart" kids. We can quibble about how big that group is, but they definitely exist. It's not their fault, they just got a bad set of numbers in the polygenetic lottery or were subjected to environmental stresses that caused lasting damage. Pretending that they're smart is…

I rather hope you don't teach kids or anyone else, armed as you would likely be with a set of non-evidential assumptions about their mental development including that of drawing a spurious, simplistic and dangerous parallel between physical disability and mental 'disabilities' as you apply it to the non-clinically-referable population.

> a set of non-evidential assumptions about their mental development

I think if you look at the best evidence we have (IQ), it does support the general idea that there are a set of "un-smart" kids. But that depends on the definition of smart. If you're a teacher of a subject in which IQ is a predictor then why not treat individuals differently?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#223

Post by shusson » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:03 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #137

softwaredoug wrote: post #6

Best parenting advice I ever got was to praise children for hard work, and avoid calling them “smart.” Intelligence becomes a stand in for some measure of goodness or social fitness that after a while it’s hard to know what we’re talking about anymore. Further, it’s seen as innate whereas hard work is something anyone can do. Being “smart” implies there’s a set of “un-smart” kids that don’t have the same fitness or g…

If you've spent any amount of time in education (or you have any faith in the data), then it is patently obvious that there is indeed a set of "un-smart" kids. We can quibble about how big that group is, but they definitely exist. It's not their fault, they just got a bad set of numbers in the polygenetic lottery or were subjected to environmental stresses that caused lasting damage. Pretending that they're smart is…

Yeah, but an education system is optimising to what it is measuring, can we be sure that it's measuring the correct metrics?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#224

Post by scotty79 » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:11 AM UTC

geezerjay wrote: post #199

mikemotherwell wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ is an EXCELLENT measure of "value, contribution, quality of thought". The idea it isn't is weird to me. What IQ fails at is being an ABSOLUTE measure of those things, e.g. John Nash is a genius, but his schizophrenia likely made a lot of what he did and said questionable. Just taking IQ and ignoring other factors would lead you awry. Even then, John Nash came up with the Nash Equilibrium. I think the mistake is th…

> IQ is an EXCELLENT measure of "value, contribution, quality of thought". Actually, it is not. At best, IQ is correlated with intellectual potential. However, having potential is not the same as being able to perform. Even a V8 without gas fails to perform on par with a filled 2-stroke motor.

> However, having potential is not the same as being able to perform.

But having no potential is virtually the same as not being able to perform.

You can find high IQ people in the highest places in human society and in the lowest places. But you don't find low IQ people in the highest places.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#225

Post by asabjorn » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:11 AM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #141

pgeorgi wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Note that IQ tests correlate with SAT scores! IQ tests (of which there are a ton) are regularly calibrated, internationally comparable (there are some reasonably culturally neutral test protocols) and stable while SAT is a US-only metric. Maybe SAT is calibrated to correlate with IQ tests?

The SAT is not calibrated to correlate with IQ tests. Being correlated with IQ tests is an unavoidable consequence of what it is. It’s a high stakes test with limited subject matter meant to measure scholastic aptitude. That will unavoidably be highly g loaded. It’s not culture fair, like Raven’s Matrices, because it assumes you speak English at a native level and have been exposed to a middle school curriculum.

It sounds fair to assume some basic skills for admittance, such as a completed middle school competency level and native level proficiency in the language advanced university level material will be taught in. Any person without those will be severely disadvantaged relative to the peers that don’t.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#226

Post by hkt » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:12 AM UTC

feanaro wrote: post #180

hhjinks wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That seems not to happen in some countries. I've never had one in the UK.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#227

Post by tomhoward » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:13 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #192

tomhoward wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. If that's the case, then why did he expend so many words on matters that were irrelevant to his core thesis? Why not just concisely set out the evidence demonstrating the inadequacy of IQ? >People who have something to hide will respond by getting offended at his tone, rather than simply defending/explaining their ideas on their merits. There is…

Yep, it's a heuristic I observe too.

But heuristics, by definition, are imprecise and subject to exceptions, and in my experience he's one of the exceptions.

> Causing upset or inflaming anger is occasionally necessary to pierce the veil of indifference, but we should do so only with great caution.

I think he does. He only attacks people who are powerful enough to be able to handle it.

And the stuff he talks about is important.

The way IQ testing is revered and misused arguably does great harm to many.

And the stuff he's been banging on about for years - the way governments, big corporate execs, academics and media insiders work together to benefit themselves at the expense of the powerless majority is important, and could well lead to another economic crisis in the next few years - is critically important.

That said, you don't have to listen to him, of course.

But it's worth examining if there's some deeper reason why you find his ideas unpalatable, beyond just tone and style.

My own motivation has been to pay attention to what he says, as he turns out to be right when it matters most, and by applying his ideas about things like stoicism and "anti-fragility", my life has vastly improved.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#228

Post by wahnfrieden » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:13 AM UTC

warp_factor wrote: post #214

jf- wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ is one of those topics which is, unfortunately, inescapably political. If important psychometric traits, like intelligence and personality, are highly heritable, then one of the implicit assumptions of left-leaning points of view is undermined: that everyone is inherently equal, that anyone can achieve anything given the right education, environment and resources. Add to this the fact that we know that other herit…

you are being downvoted but what you are describing is unfortunately exactly what is going on. There is that political push to pretend everyone is exactly equal. Following that doctrine, Every difference would only be to blame on your environment. Over the last couple years, this trend is going over well established scientific proofs. That ideology is getting very dangerous and I think we are getting into a dark age…

You’re painting a picture that every social justice-aware person is pushing for equality, while ignoring calls for equity and how that’s distinctly different.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#229

Post by mgamache » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:15 AM UTC

This post reads like a polemic and not something to be digested as science (note calling it a 'pseudoscientific swindle' and the ad hominem attack on Murray at the start). There seems to be a bi-modal reaction to the IQ measurement problem. It's either a real meaningful and effective measure of intellectual capacity. Or, people try and discredit the whole idea and label anyone that explores it a racist or otherwise posses a shallow understanding of the science. The real problem is that it has some validity so it can be used to argue for and against all sorts of things that are really not justified by the science. However, if we ignore IQ as a valid research subject and line of inquiry we'll be doing ourselves a disservice. We need to follow that thread even if we don't like where it leads.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#230

Post by austincheney » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:16 AM UTC

IQ is largely poorly understood. When measured as a number it is a convergent assignment, which is everybody is measured against a central assessing scheme that doesn't realistically reflect capabilities, competency, or potential.

More valid are divergent tests that measure creativity, response quantity, originality, and problem solving. In other words how unique can the answers get and still be applicable.