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

281–290 of 400 posts

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#281

Post by barry-cotter »

gaius wrote: post #247
barry-cotter wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m sure you did improve. Practice effects exist. They’re also limited. Just as I will get faster if I train to run the 100m or run a marathon you can get better at the GMAT, LSAT etc. But there’s a plateau you hit where you can’t get better. If you try to take someone from 50th percentile to 99th on the GMAT in the majority of cases you will fail. An increase of 0.26 standard deviations isn’t nothing but on the GMAT it’s only ~30 points.

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

Retesting in selection: a meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability.

Previous studies have indicated that as many as 25% to 50% of applicants in organizational and educational settings are retested with measures of cognitive ability. Researchers have shown that practice effects are found across measurement occasions such that scores improve when these applicants retest. In this study, the authors used meta-analysis to summarize the results of 50 studies of practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Results from 107 samples and 134,436 participants revealed an adjusted overall effect size of 0.26. Moderator analyses indicated that effects were larger when practice was accompanied by test coaching and when identical forms were used. Additional research is needed to understand the impact of retesting on the validity inferences drawn from test scores.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#283

Post by feanaro »

mike00632 wrote: post #264
feanaro wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ind…

> Is it?

Yes, it is, at least I am unaware of other general approaches to measuring general human cognitive ability.

> 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.

See this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18805263. Apparently, this is a cultural thing, in that some countries don't employ this kind of testing, but there are definitely countries where this is not at all infrequent. It is also possible that not all cognitive tests which are (statistically) g-factor-loaded are readily recognizable as an "IQ test" by most people. As was also stated elsewhere in this thread, the SATs test could be considered one such test.

> 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.

I meant it in a broader sense: why would we use this current state-of-the-art model when we will undoubtedly produce better and more accurate ones in the future? This could be said for physics, pharmacology and any other "unfinished" field, which is all of them.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#284

Post by sintaxi »

afpx wrote: post #276
sintaxi wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Good question. I suppose to test that you would have to give "placebo" scores to some people to see what impact knowing your score has - if any.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#285

Post by scotty79 »

geezerjay wrote: post #245
scotty79 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Thise with average IQ are quite able to outperform people with a high IQ if they have able to put in the legwork...

Yes, average can beat high with work. But still, high can beat high with work with higher probability than average can.

Average Kalenjin with just few trainings will outrun most average runners even if they were training for years.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#286

Post by talebreturns »

tomhoward wrote: post #157
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,…

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…

If he was posting here on HN, he'd have been banned already because of his conflicting style.

Imagine how many such insightful people who can't help their style and will never post on HN.

Sadly, that makes HN a place where only certain kind of people can post which excludes leagues of Taleb.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#287

Post by feanaro »

otalp wrote: post #280
feanaro wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Why does it have to be causal? A variable can be a real predictor of another without any of them causing the other one (for instance, they may have a common cause). That doesn't mean the predictor is of any less value.

I would say that results on certain cognitive ability tests (i.e. "IQ tests") being at least a moderately good predictor for future performance in certain human activities is a rather well proven fact. For instance, the correlation between an IQ score and future job performance on a job with complex requirements is about 0.5.

Of course, that does not mean the relationship is 1-to-1 and that it is a perfect predictor (which it obviously isn't).

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#288

Post by kinleyd »

tomhoward wrote: post #157
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,…

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…

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#289

Post by zbentley »

toasterlovin wrote: post #169
dqpb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should ask yourself what it would it take to falsify your working hypothesis and then see if there are research results which falsify it.

Longitudinal studies in this area (developmental effects on intelligence) are vanishingly rare. Those that do exist are either extremely limited, ethically suspect, or useless (confounded).

The difficulty in answering "why is person/are people the way they are?" in a rigorous, falsifiable way has brought about the existence of entire disciplines dedicated to qualitative analysis as a means of getting closer to answers without requiring often-impossible rigor.

I think "falsifiable" might be too high a bar for answering these kinds of questions. That doesn't mean we should give up, or presume the null hypothesis: getting to "probable/improbable" in a useful proportion of cases is likely the best we can do.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#290

Post by asabjorn »

mike00632 wrote: post #241
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…

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.

As the other person said you are the one bringing up race, not me.

My comment brought up a data set that could be used to evaluate the claim of the article that iq tests are meaningless for what they claim to measure. This data contradicts this claim.

The inclination of social justice believers to treat all people that look the same as a unit is too simplistic, because there is more variance within such groups than between them. It also fits the definition of racism unlike my comment, and saying someone is defined by their skin color is way beyond dog whistle territory.

If you have a rationale supporting your claim use that, because otherwise we can’t engage in productive discourse. I find it unethical when claims of racism like what you use here is used as a bludgeon tool to force others to accept actions or beliefs that are dogma in social justice while evidence shows it hurts those it claims this helps. Especially when those groups are unchosen, and applied by largely upper middle class and above white social justice activists for their political utility.

Post reply on HN