IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle • Hacker News Board

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#261

Post by haihaibye » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:24 AM UTC

aleph_naught wrote: post #135

waterhouse wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A guy I know—who basically spends his time around high-IQ kids, seems to be on speaking terms with several Fields Medalists, and has closely studied the lives of lots of great scientists and mathematicians—says that great achievement comes from three ingredients: (a) mental horsepower (roughly measured by IQ); (b) taste, an aesthetic sense that helps one decide to work on the right things or investigate the right hyp…

Anecdotally, I would very much agree with this, with an added caveat: there are diminishing returns on mental horsepower after 2 stdevs (e.g. 130 iq). After a certain point obsessiveness separates the wheat from the chaff, by very wide margins. The long-game is underrated.

>> diminishing returns after 130 iq

There's evidence higher IQ leads to better outcomes all the way up the scale.

The graph below shows scores vs outcomes for students scoring in the top 1% of a maths test. It's not flat as your anecdotal caveat would predict:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4b8ThyfDgzs/U29nQEBAQTI/AAAAAAAAE4...

You're 18 times more likely to get a STEM doctorate scoring at the 99.8th percentile vs 99th.

Or a paper linked earlier in the thread: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41038598?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co...

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#262

Post by mike00632 » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:26 AM UTC

6nf wrote: post #49

llamaz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you need an alternative to criticise a measure? The alternative is to place less emphasis on IQ tests and focus on other qualities.

What ‘other qualities’ should (for example) the US Army test for if not IQ?

The US Army has numerous tests and almost none of them relate to IQ. There is the DLAB (Defense Language Aptitude Battery) which measures ability to learn languages, and of course there are the famous (and far more important) physical tests which measure running speed, push-ups and sit-ups.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#263

Post by Traster » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:31 AM UTC

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…

I completely agree with you about the unproductive nature of this article, and the fact that there are two lines of extremists both pro and anti and it has absolutely become part of the identity politics of the right (and reactionary left).

However, there's some real discussion on the effectiveness of IQ as a measure and its shortcomings. Vox is a great example of this, they published some highly critical articles after Sam Harris had Murray on his podcast. They point to good specific points which are problematic with IQ - particular when IQ is used as an argument for particular policies rather than information. Unfortunately even when there are specific points raised and proper meat to the discussion it still devolves into vitriolic shit flinging. Really the lesson to learn from this is how political tribalism can work to totally destroy the ability of society to have an honest discussion on a topic.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#264

Post by mike00632 » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:33 AM UTC

feanaro wrote: post #253

mike00632 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>IQ is still the best we have right now...

Is it? Then why don't we use it instead of other tests and metrics? I'm going to echo what other people have said in this thread and say that I've never encountered an IQ test in my academic or professional life among the numerous aptitude measurements.

>In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge.

The same argument is indeed used against eugenics, human experimentation, and various other sciences which are tangent to ethically challenged practices. For example, gene editing of humans is a scientific practice that could have clear benefit but the potential for misuse (which we've already seen in the recent Chinese gene hacking case) must be considered.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#265

Post by mr_toad » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:35 AM UTC

FakeComments wrote: post #128

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…

I think it’s often understated what you say in your last paragraph: If success has multiple parts with a non-linear relationship (“more than the sum of its parts”), then we’d expect to see decreasing utility for IQ relative to having a strong secondary or tertiary talent — eg, strong leadership skills and EQ, so you can build momentum around your idea. In many senses, this is what we mean by a “well rounded person”.…

Or, more subtly, once you focus on star basketball players, height ceases to be a useful differentiator. Beyond a certain point, increased height will not lead to increased success at basketball.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#266

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:37 AM UTC

andrewingram wrote: post #257

bjoli wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

> I can't see how simple categorisation across 4 axis can be either scientific or unscientific.

If you pick the axis on scientific criteria, then it can be scientific. If you just make them up, then it's not. Myers-Briggs is the latter.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#267

Post by mike00632 » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:38 AM UTC

jf- wrote: post #258

mike00632 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, and almost none of the beliefs on the Left are akin to "everyone is equal in all measurements, therefore IQ is dangerous."

Even Karl Marx acknowledges inherent differences in people when he writes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#268

Post by roel_v » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:39 AM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #55

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…

Hmm... perhaps. But I'm pretty sure that the questions of e.g. the law exam are about laws, and the questions of medical school exams are about anatomy and medicinal procedures—not about the "which shape completes the pattern" puzzles from IQ tests. I'm quite certain they are not given IQ tests. The SAT, meanwhile, asks math and English questions. Is Taleb saying that IQ is a bad metric, or is he saying that these ot…

"But I'm pretty sure that the questions of e.g. the law exam are about laws"

I don't know about mcat, but no, lsat isn't about that at all. It would be weird testing people for the thing they're trying to be admitted to. If you google 'lsat sample questions', it"s trivial to find what sort of thing is beimg tested for. Which is not 'complete the pattern', but closer to that (I would argue) than to substantive law questions.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#269

Post by afpx » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:40 AM UTC

baccheion wrote: post #138

JamesBarney wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The substance isn't much better than the style. He makes substantial claims like IQ is not predictive of performance above 100 which in and of itself could be a whole article. And then just assumes the reader will take his word for it, even though there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

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).

Maybe the high IQ-ers just work harder because there’s higher expectation?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#270

Post by jf- » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:46 AM UTC

mike00632 wrote: post #267

jf- wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, and almost none of the beliefs on the Left are akin to "everyone is equal in all measurements, therefore IQ is dangerous." Even Karl Marx acknowledges inherent differences in people when he writes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

You’re simply wrong. Believing in nurture over nature is a common belief on the left.