IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle • Hacker News Board

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#291

Post by zbentley » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #100

softwaredoug wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, as an adult I’m not suddenly going to become a piano virtuoso. Innateness here is a pretty complicated topic. Hard work at an early age probably has a huge part of molding skills we associate with so-called “intelligence”. Was Mozart a genius? Or was he working really hard at being a musician from an early age, and thus just very skilled? Would Mozart succeed if we suddenly had to train him to be a Java…

Mozart was a genius. Ryo Fukui started playing the piano at 22 (accordion at 18), he did alright for himself. Mozart’s dad was a great student and his mother’s father was highly educated too. So my guess is, he’d be able to handle Java. It’s actually easy (in principle) to measure the programming facet of intelligence: CS programs do this with weed-out classes.

These people are outliers. The problem with outliers is that they're so far out of the normal range that it's often difficult/impossible to use outliers' experiences to answer "what causes deviations within the normal range?" Were they gifted from birth? Did they have unique developmental opportunities? Did a radioactive spider bite them just so? We can analyze their lives and experiences, but we often place far too much stock in the facts of that analysis without properly assessing those facts' significance.

Using Mozart & co. as [counter]examples in a discussion about innate potential/intelligence/development is about as useful as using lottery winners to derive recommended savings levels for the general population, or using lightning strike victims to derive recommendations for public safety.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#292

Post by api » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

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…

You could also say it undermines a major tenant of right wing politics too: that wealth is earned. If your wealth results from a genetic lotto ticket, you didn't earn anything. You just got lucky. This could be an argument for wealth redistribution.

If true, strong heritability of ability could undermine much of present day politics.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#293

Post by whitepoplar » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:15 PM UTC

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.

I think the key to becoming smart is believing that you're smart. However one ends up with that confidence varies--testing as "high IQ", going to a good university, learning it from your parents, failing and having something to prove--they all work. If someone truly believes, in their bones, that they can do something and then work like hell to achieve it--I'm betting on that person no matter what the establishment thinks that person capable of.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#294

Post by jamesdmiller » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:24 PM UTC

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…

"He only attacks people who are powerful enough to be able to handle it." He was attacking people who politely participated in that Twitter exchange including me, an obscure college professor. Yes, knowing Taleb I wouldn't have challenged him unless I was ready to be insulted, but still I very much doubt that he looked me up to see how powerful or emotionally stable I was.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#295

Post by jf- » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:26 PM UTC

api wrote: post #292

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 could also say it undermines a major tenant of right wing politics too: that wealth is earned. If your wealth results from a genetic lotto ticket, you didn't earn anything. You just got lucky. This could be an argument for wealth redistribution. If true, strong heritability of ability could undermine much of present day politics.

Potentially, but you would need to define what is meant by earning. Is earning defined by subjective difficulty? Is ability already part of the concept of earning, such that what we find virtuous about earning is in part the capacity to do a thing?

There is also a more fundamental difference between the two propositions, the first is empirically measurable: people have the same or broadly similar potential, or they do not. The second is a value judgement regarding who deserves what, which is ultimately a moral or aesthetic matter. This seems to me somehow more difficult to decide upon and somewhat weaker in its force.

(I upvoted you by the way because I think that’s an interesting point)

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#296

Post by geezerjay » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:29 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #273

geezerjay wrote: post #209

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. 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…

Your comparison is at best skewed. By definition the general populace has on average an IQ of 100. In the US, over 60% of the population has at least some college. The percentage of MENSA members is small. How do MENSA members fare agains the general population with at least some college wrt income?

The fact that this info is not in plain sight nor is even advertised is a clear indicator that the correlation isn't that favourable. In fact, some sources [1] state that the top MENSA eaeners (top 10%) earn over $57k, which is surprisingly low and a fraction of what the average software developer earns (above $100k).

[1] https://www.paysa.com/salaries/american-mensa--member

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#297

Post by jamesdmiller » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:29 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #22

It seems like the author is setting up a straw man representing the IQ test as some omnipresent (or at least somewhat prevalent) test administered widely. He then lambastes it for all its faults (some of his accusations are correct). But the reality is that IQ tests are only very, very rarely used. In fact a career on the periphery of academia, academic testing, and their efficacy in predicting academic success at th…

If you care about what college someone graduated from, you care about something highly correlated with IQ. Indeed, part of the reason why elite colleges are able to command such high prices is that, as you mention, we rarely use formal IQ tests when evaluating people and so graduating from an elite college is the best way that high IQ individuals can signal intelligence.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#298

Post by api » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:29 PM UTC

jf- wrote: post #256

iron0013 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a straw man, sort of akin to asserting that all right leaning people believe that might makes right.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#299

Post by jf- » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

api wrote: post #298

jf- wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a straw man, sort of akin to asserting that all right leaning people believe that might makes right.

Very well, maybe not everyone who would describe themselves as on the left would have this belief, but in my experience it is very common.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#300

Post by api » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

jf- wrote: post #295

api wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could also say it undermines a major tenant of right wing politics too: that wealth is earned. If your wealth results from a genetic lotto ticket, you didn't earn anything. You just got lucky. This could be an argument for wealth redistribution. If true, strong heritability of ability could undermine much of present day politics.

Potentially, but you would need to define what is meant by earning. Is earning defined by subjective difficulty? Is ability already part of the concept of earning, such that what we find virtuous about earning is in part the capacity to do a thing? There is also a more fundamental difference between the two propositions, the first is empirically measurable: people have the same or broadly similar potential, or they d…

I made that argument largely to show the versatility of sophistry. You can take a proposed fact, like strong heritability of ability, and weave many arguments around it.

I have in fact heard people argue for strong socialism on the basis of heritable inequality. This would assume the definition of "earn" as to acquire through individual goal directed action. If most of the ability behind that action was not itself acquired through anything but luck, then this could undermine the notion of a moral claim to outcome.