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

IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 400 posts

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#241

Post by mike00632 »

samatman wrote: post #129
LordDragonfang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Focussing on "affirmative action" feels uncomfortably close to the exact kind of dog whistling this article criticized up front. As I understand it, most colleges have been using some form of linear regression model on many factors to filter admissions in a way that maximize returns (i.e. alumni donations) for decades now. Surely there is other evidence which shows that if SAT scores were actually a poor heuristic of…

He didn't bring race into the conversation; you did. Affirmative action is precisely an adjustment of admissions criteria such that ceterus paribus a candidate is more likely to be admitted. Yes, it's based on race, but if it was based on lottery, it would have the same effect: students with lower SAT scores are admitted to schools which otherwise require a certain threshold. That they don't do as well, shows that th…

By focusing all your scrutiny on racial minorities who you suggest didn't get accepted to college entirely on merit instead of other groups, like legacy admissions, then you could be seen as blowing the racist dog whistle.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#242

Post by asabjorn »

michaelt wrote: post #231
samatman wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't bring race into the conversation; you did. Affirmative action is precisely an adjustment of admissions criteria such that ceterus paribus a candidate is more likely to be admitted. Yes, it's based on race, but if it was based on lottery, it would have the same effect: students with lower SAT scores are admitted to schools which otherwise require a certain threshold. That they don't do as well, shows that th…

Has anyone done an equivalent study for legacy admissions?

Data for that is hard to find. Since IQ is at least partially hereditary one would assume that the picture amongst legacy admissions to be at least somewhat different than other forms of social engineering.

That said some people find legacy admissions unfair, but as a person that did not receive that I think it is fine because one of the purposes of any group is to provide advantage to the people in the group. The primary purpose of a long lived entity like an Ivy is to ensure the long term health of the culture that keeps it competitive, which includes providing continuity and a reason to invest for legacy families while also admitting new members from families that can provide mutual value to the entity.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#243

Post by iron0013 »

jf- wrote: post #202
iron0013 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

I’m not sure what this has to do with leftists, as the idea that Taleb is a leftist is absolutely risible. He’s a reactionary egomaniac who thinks all of his ideas are correct simply because they are HIS ideas, and obviously HE can never be wrong

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#244

Post by feanaro »

mgamache wrote: post #229

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 p…

This is really well put together and I think you hit the crux of the problem.

Regarding Taleb's post, I've heard a hard time reading it because it is so over the place and seems to contain many parts which aren't related to the topic at hand but simply appeal to emotion. As an example, I fail how this has anything to do with the IQ being a useful measure:

> To do well in life you need depth and ability to select your own problems and to think independently.

He constructs an argument that IQ doesn't predict anything related to the "real" life and "real" problems. Furthermore, he claims IQ scores are only correlated with the lower end of intelligence. He says

> It measures best the ability to be a good slave.

But then he supplies a figure where training success is but one of the things showing a correlation with IQ, with others including job performance, creativity and leader effectiveness, with decreasing degree of correlation. In fact, the figure shows the higher the complexity of the job, the more success at it is correlated with IQ (a moderate but certainly significant correlation of about 0.5).

I think he means to manipulate the reader's emotion here by equating high IQ = being a good sheep. But how does this figure show anything but the exact opposite of his argument?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#245

Post by geezerjay »

scotty79 wrote: post #224
geezerjay wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

That's true, but that refers to people with a low IQ. Thise with average IQ are quite able to outperform people with a high IQ if they have able to put in the legwork or even simply have an opportunity to improve their performance when some with a higher IQ does not.

The old addage that the brain is like a muscle is very orelevant: it makes no difference if a talented athlete does not train, because that only means he js squandering his talent. Meanwhile, least capable athletes that put in the hours do end up improving their performance and eventually outperform more talented athletes.

Potential means nothing if it's wasted.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#246

Post by mike00632 »

feanaro wrote: post #183
diminoten wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Incomplete, certainly. But entirely wrong? The results still need explaining and the IQ model will surely be at least related to any new, better model, given its ability to produce at least some reliable results.

Astronomy was replaced astrology but many people still use astrology to inform their beliefs. I doubt that the existence of better science would stop people from using IQ.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#247

Post by gaius »

barry-cotter wrote: post #136
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.

The SAT, SSAT, GRE, MCAT, LSAT and GMAT are all glorified IQ tests. They’re used for entrance to selective colleges and graduate programmes. Lots of people will be quite happy to tell you where they went to school and what they studied which is the non-vulgar way of signalling your IQ. Intelligence:Knowns and Unknowns > are used for many purposes, such as selection, diagnosis, and evaluation. Many of the most widely…

I scored very well on the GMAT and it’s really testing how diligently you prepare for it, and that is the predictor of success, not the content of the test itself, IMHO.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#248

Post by mike00632 »

geezerjay wrote: post #160
Analemma_ wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taleb is saying that if IQs above 100 have no predictive power, then what’s the point in measuring them? It would be like taking a BuzzFeed quiz that tells me my Hogwarts house: a real measurement yielding a reproducible result, sure, but a pointless one and any use of it beyond “Huh, that’s interesting” would be pseudoscience.

> Taleb is saying that if IQs above 100 have no predictive power, then what’s the point in measuring them? The whole point of IQ tests is not to identify or rank people who score above 100. The whole point is to identify those who fall well below 100,because that's actually a disability. Look at it this way: some amusement parks feature amusement rides that are only safe to ride if riders can be kept safe by the safe…

>The whole point of IQ tests...

I think you're ignoring that the point of IQ for most people and throughout its history is to make statements about racial and/or gender superiority. Most of the posts here seem to focus on the hiring process but the vast majority of the time I hear about IQ it's within the context of a bigoted rant.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#249

Post by scotty79 »

geezerjay wrote: post #201
toasterlovin wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need all three. Picking the wrong thing to work on wastes all of the time that gets spent because of obsession.

> You need all three. Actually, you don't. It may help to be gifted on all three, but work ethics makes up for any deficit in intellectual potential. For example, MENSA membership does not correlate with intellectual elites in any research field, but you'd be hard pressed to find a leading researcher who doesn't have a strong work ethic.

> For example, MENSA membership does not correlate with intellectual elites in any research field

It's mostly because MENSA membership is interesting for very small fraction of intelligent people.

If everyone applied to mensa, 150 mln people would get in while only less than 150 thousand are actually in mensa.

Even if every member of intelectual elite was above mensa threshold only 1 in 1000 would be in mensa. It's hard to correlate anything with that.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#250

Post by feanaro »

tomhoward wrote: post #227
jdietrich wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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

The problem is that I observe the exact opposite in my environment. Take, for instance, hiring for jobs. People are often hired based on unspecified voodoo like bogus personality tests, years of education or the "feeling" you get about a person from a non-standardised interview, which are methods that have been shown to have a large amount of bias and are unreliable for predicting future job performance.

On the other hand, we have things that have been shown to have positive, moderate-to-high correlation with job performance, such as standardised interviews, standardised job task test (i.e. putting the person in a test situation mimicking the actual job) and IQ tests. In fact, Taleb himself supplies a figure showing this (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/900/1*RlEAvb8KejpEBFWslw...) and half-relies on it to argue that "IQ measures the ability to be a good slave but ignores all of the other implications. Taken together, these tests are an even stronger predictor of job performance. It seems unwise to discard this knowledge based on the kind of emotional drivel that Taleb seems to be displaying here.

Post reply on HN