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

251–260 of 400 posts

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#251

Post by Theodores »

dqpb wrote: post #12
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…

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.

It is the same as with sports, but not all sports.

With modest training people can run the marathon or put in a decent performance on a bicycle. This applies across a large age range, I am sure that there are plenty of seven year old's and seventy-seven year old's that could pedal one hundred miles in a day. Normally none of the do. If you do a charity ride once a year or so then you realise lots do, even with sub-standard bicycles, although the thousands seen on the charity ride event is a drop in the ocean compared to the population at large.

I too believe people are fundamentally capable of great intelligence, I also believe that most people value intellect in others. In Robert McKee's 'Story' he writes about how a good film can raise the intellect of the audience for the duration of the film to that of the script-writers, this can be done in real life too. So intellect is variable, much like athleticism. There are limits, age does not help, Alzheimers is a thing as is a lack of grey matter for learning new stuff.

A lot of 'intellectuals' on TV are charlatans, narrowly clever and with a false impression of how smart they are. It is almost as if they are wheeled out as entertainers. This applies on the left and the right, so you get Slavoj Zizeks and Niall Fergusons on the small screen giving 'intelligence' a bad name.

I quite like the Steve Jobs quote on how TV networks dumb down:

“When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It’s the truth.”

To return to the cycling/marathon analogy, today, like most days and for most people I won't be riding 100 miles on my bike. If I go into town and spend ages waiting to cross the road I will be cursing those lazy car drivers and wondering why they can't ride a bike once in a while.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#252

Post by barry-cotter »

kibwen wrote: post #30
Jedi72 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, are you making the claim that everyone has the same mental capacity for thinking/deduction/memory/etc, it's just our perception of that based on various external cues which makes us think these levels exist? Because I would disagree with that statement. Even if I had 50 years of study I would not think on the level of say Terrance Tao.

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…

There are two interpretations of this, one of which is irrelevant to IQ and psychometrics and the other of which has no evidence despite several people spending most of their career looking for it.

Math, music, chess, story telling and social intelligence are all skills, all of which can be improved from a low base. In all of them higher g will be helpful because there’s very little where higher g isn’t helpful. If you want to learn about the science of skill building it’s better known as the study of expertise. K. Anders Ericsson founder the field. He wrote a popular book, Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp...

If you want the academic treatment there’s a Cambridge Handbook of Expeetise and Expert Performance.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-Han...

If you want to read about how multiple intelligence theory á la Gardner has no empirical support start here.

http://www.faculty.mun.ca/cmattatall/Multiple_Intelligences_...

> Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review

> This article reviews evidence for multiple intelligences theory, the Mozart effect theory, and emotional intelligence theory and argues that despite their wide currency in education these theories lack adequate empirical support and should not be the basis for educational practice. Each theory is compared to theory counterparts in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuro- science that have better empirical support. The article considers possible reasons for the appeal of these 3 theories and concludes with a brief rationale for examining theories of cognition in the light of cognitive neuroscience research findings.

If you want attempts at something that kind of looks like multiple intelligence from people who actually know psychometrics look up the work of Robert J. Sternberg. Criticism below

http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003dissectin...

> Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence

> Sternberg et al. [Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., Snook, S. A., Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press] review the theoretical and empirical supports for their bold claim that there exists a general factor of practical intelligence that is distinct from ‘‘academic intelligence’’ ( g) and which predicts future success as well as g, if not better. The evidence collapses, however, upon close examination. Their two key theoretical propositions are made plausible only by ignoring the considerable evidence contradicting them. Their six key empirical claims rest primarily on the illusion of evidence, which is enhanced by the selective reporting of results. Their small set of usually poorly documented studies on the correlates of tacit knowledge (the ‘‘important aspect of practical intel- ligence’’) in five occupations cannot, whatever the results, do what the work is said to have done— dethroned g as the only highly general mental ability or intelligence.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#253

Post by feanaro »

mike00632 wrote: post #246
feanaro wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That may very well be, but IQ is still the best we have right now and, more importantly, is much more coherent and reliable than astrology is.

The possibility of its use being continued in a lay manner even after we have a better model shouldn't stop us from using it right now. In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#255

Post by mike00632 »

opportune wrote: post #5

Also the people with 180+ IQs that make random lists of “smartest people ever” if you look into it, basically have IQ test taking as a hobby and practice for it to improve their IQ (or rather, ability to take IQ tests). Or they took some test like Stanford-Binet that allows child IQs to reach ridiculous levels if the child happens to develop faster than normal (because of the formula of adjusting a child’s IQ to an a…

In other words: "when a measure become a target it ceases to be a measure"

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#256

Post by jf- »

iron0013 wrote: post #243
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…

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

I never mentioned leftists, I said words to the effect of assuming a blank slate is one of the implicit assumptions of left-leaning world views. Taleb can share such a belief without explicitly being on the left.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#257

Post by andrewingram »

bjoli wrote: post #239
baccheion wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations and schools are biased toward IQs in the 115-125 range, so it is likely predictive of advancement. On the other hand, even higher IQs are associated with greater earnings. Corporations (and schools) are also biased toward Te users (ENTJ, ESTJ, INTJ, and ISTJ) and extrovert + judger types (ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, and ESFJ).

The jung/MB tests are probably the most unscientific drivel that is in wide use. It is insulting to human intelligence that is given any significance at all.

I've often wondered about this, because I can't see how simple categorisation across 4 axis can be either scientific or unscientific. It's just categorisation, it doesn't make predictions.

I enjoy reading the different type descriptions, unlike horoscopes (which are basically barnum phrases) they do seem to describe me with a high degree of accuracy.

Then again, I stopped at this point, and never dived deeper into all that Jungian shadow self stuff which I fully accept started to sound like pseudo-scientific drivel.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#258

Post by jf- »

mike00632 wrote: post #238
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…

The leftist position isn't that everyone is inherently equal but that everyone should be valued equally and afforded equal opportunity regardless of their race/gender/ability. The idea of an "IQ" measure is too close to the idea of measuring inherent value, which shouldn't be contingent on things like how much nutrition you had as a child. Furthermore, the idea of "IQ" could be considered dangerous because it often s…

I think individuals on the left have a variety of beliefs on the subject.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#259

Post by jhbadger »

jrs95 wrote: post #153
baccheion wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations and schools are biased toward IQs in the 115-125 range, so it is likely predictive of advancement. On the other hand, even higher IQs are associated with greater earnings. Corporations (and schools) are also biased toward Te users (ENTJ, ESTJ, INTJ, and ISTJ) and extrovert + judger types (ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, and ESFJ).

Those personality types are a lot more pseudo-scientific than IQ

Yes, the story of Myers-Briggs is really amazing -- how a system developed by two people with no training in psychology just invented a system with no more basis than astrology and convinced the corporate world to use it. There was a recent book "The Personality Brokers" by Merve Emre that tells the story.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#260

Post by black-tea »

People want IQ to be wrong. People like the idea of someone who did bad at school but is still a successful and productive person. Such people surely exist, but successful people overwhelmingly do well at school and have natural aptitude. You can deny it all you like, though.
Post reply on HN