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

271–280 of 400 posts

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#271

Post by afpx »

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…

I received the label of very high IQ-er early on. Yet, I don’t believe that I’m all that smart. I just spend a lot of time in my head thinking about shit. Oh, and I enjoy solving puzzles.

On the other hand, many of my friends are average IQ-ers, and a few are even below average IQ-ers. Yet, I consider some of them to be very smart, and in some ways smarter than high IQ-ers, especially in niche areas (comedy, expression, intuition, communication, trained skills). They just don’t spend a lot of time thinking about shit like I do, and they hate puzzles.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#272

Post by sintaxi »

afpx wrote: post #269
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).

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

Its true that IQ is only one of many important factors that lead to success. However IQ on its own turns out to be an excellent predictor of success and also happens to be easy to measure. Most other traits are extremely difficult to quantify.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#273

Post by barry-cotter »

geezerjay wrote: post #209
barry-cotter wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can’t hack calculus you will never be an Engineering professor, likewise close critical reading and an English professor. That puts a floor somewhere between 115 and 120 IQ on becoming a professor at a decent community college no matter how hard you’re willing to work. I guarantee you MENSA members have higher incomes and educational attainment than non members. I’m equally sure that non-members who are eligib…

> If you can’t hack calculus you will never be an Engineering professor, likewise close critical reading and an English professor. You don't need to score high marks in IQ tests to pass calculus, and there are plenty of fields of research in engineering where a good grasp of calculus is fundamental. Thus, quite obviously you can become an engineering professor eventhough you suck at calculus. > I guarantee you MENSA…

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-of-IQ-scores...

Graph showing 110 is about the minimum, not for understanding calculus well enough to teach it, but for any job as a teacher.

Source article

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1998generali...

The General Intelligence Factor

82% of American Mensa members have a Bachelor’s or higher. Given that that’s double the rate among the general populace I’m just going to presume they make more money without botering to look it up.

https://www.us.mensa.org/learn/about/demographics/

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#274

Post by talebreturns »

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,…

I am very confused.

On one hand people give some credit to IQ yet fail to acknowledge it's not Europeans or American who have highest IQ but the East/Central Asians.

But people from Askenazi Jewish tribe posses even higher IQ.

No one really knows why high IQ originates in that region or specific tribe.

But it's them who made their way to America before Europeans.

Genetic research has proved that the native Americans are genetically Central Asians.

It's safe to assume IQ = superior ability to adapt to your environmental not intelligence.

It helped you survive genocide targeted at you orchestrated by one of most powerful regime of the time.

It helps you survive in the most difficult and diverse terrain.

It helps you walk through the frozen land into completely different climate and terrain, still manage to surive.

IQ is everything which helps you survive in your environment but it doesn't mean that high IQ people are capable of empathising with the large set of population with average IQ. Should these people whoes primary instinct is to surive at any cost themselves be given chance to thinks for others? No we don't think so.

So we shouldn't have high IQ people at top, we should actively select against them.

In modern word as you go farther from the mean, the benefit of IQ decreases till ofc we are hit by an apoclyspe you'll not be able to see what high IQ is capable of.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#275

Post by talebreturns »

JamesBarney wrote: post #61
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,…

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.

Yes, he is correct. IQ is ability to adapt yourself to an environment and not performance.

In an environment where people with higher performance will be killed, higher IQ people will still surive.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#276

Post by afpx »

sintaxi wrote: post #272
afpx wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Its true that IQ is only one of many important factors that lead to success. However IQ on its own turns out to be an excellent predictor of success and also happens to be easy to measure. Most other traits are extremely difficult to quantify.

But, how does one remove the bias introduced by the subject (and their social group) knowing of their high IQ score?

For an objective analysis, wouldn’t some of the low-IQ kids have to believe they are high-IQ and vice versa? That is, how much does the act of labelling someone low or high IQ influence their results?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#277

Post by mr_toad »

Itsdijital wrote: post #64
i_feel_great wrote: post #14

Q. What is an IQ test? A. A test that measures intelligence. Q. What is intelligence? A. The thing measured by an IQ test. Throw this at the next person who mentions IQ to see how intelligent their answer is.

I present to you three small companies. All three provide the same type of service. One has an average worker IQ of 80, the next 100, and the last 120. Which one would you feel most confident in using?

Definitely 120.

But what about 120, 140 and 160? What about 160, 180 and 200?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#278

Post by talebreturns »

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…

The OP you are replying to doesn't seem to get that left never claimed everyone as Equal.

Treating everyone equal is a different topic altogether which isn't bad.

I don't read anything -jt posts, his post are usually ego driven, politically charge, based on false asusmptions to outright lies.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#279

Post by [deleted] »

tomhoward wrote: post #235
wtracy wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His whole approach designed to cut through bullshit and seek the truth. The ad hominem attacks (particularly the "losers in Birkenstocks" remark) in this essay are the exact opposite of that.

Comments like that are included for a kind of shock humour effect. It's mostly satirical and designed to get a rise out of people who will take it seriously and get defensive. But nobody would react if it didn't contain at least a grain of truth :)

[deleted]

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#280

Post by otalp »

feanaro wrote: post #221
otalp wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

To be scientific would require proving a definite causal relationship between IQ and intelligence, while also convincingly proving that intelligence can be measured with a number
Post reply on HN