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

311–320 of 400 posts

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#311

Post by ilikehurdles »

scotty79 wrote: post #224
geezerjay wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IQ is an EXCELLENT measure of "value, contribution, quality of thought". Actually, it is not. At best, IQ is correlated with intellectual potential. However, having potential is not the same as being able to perform. Even a V8 without gas fails to perform on par with a filled 2-stroke motor.

> 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.

You do find low IQ people in high places — they’re the low IQ people who have inherited wealth and social connections to those places.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#312

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #308
leereeves wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimination without allowing for the possibility these differences are due to different abilities, choices, or desires. And if anyone challenges the belief that all outcomes should be equal, they retreat behind the very different argument you've just made, which near…

> The left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimination without allowing for the possibility these differences are due to different abilities, choices, or desires. No, the left doesn't. On a number of levels; as well as not ruling out the possibility of non-discriminatory causes (while being skeptical of han…

[deleted]

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#313

Post by leereeves »

dragonwriter wrote: post #308
leereeves wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimination without allowing for the possibility these differences are due to different abilities, choices, or desires. And if anyone challenges the belief that all outcomes should be equal, they retreat behind the very different argument you've just made, which near…

> The left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimination without allowing for the possibility these differences are due to different abilities, choices, or desires. No, the left doesn't. On a number of levels; as well as not ruling out the possibility of non-discriminatory causes (while being skeptical of han…

I'm as skeptical as you are of "handwaves", and I'd like to see definitive research into this very important topic. Government intervention should be based on proof, not skepticism or bias.

But the left won't allow research or even discussion of the topic, so we don't know whether IQ, for example, is actually a cause of the unequal outcome in software development.

Merely discussing the greater male variability hypothesis is enough to cause research to be disappeared. [1]

And suggesting that IQ may be unequal between groups is enough to end careers.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#314

Post by n4r9 »

jf- wrote: post #270
mike00632 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact that "the left" commonly advocates gay and trans rights, and tends to believe such traits are inherent, should give you pause for thought...

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#316

Post by ineedasername »

jamesdmiller wrote: post #297
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.

It may be that attending such colleges is highly correlated to IQ; I'm unaware of research on that topic. (as closely as my field is related to that topic, highly elite schools tend to be outliers and aren't in the scope of my own activities)

What I can say somewhat definitively is that any such research would be fairly outdated. IQ tests simply are not used at any scale that would be required to study such a correlation, and so if there are recent studies they'd likely rely on sparse data from a small subset of (possibly self-selected & biased) students.

SAT or other standardized scores are a different matter. But as my other comments in this thread state, those tests are very much not designed and calibrated to measure anything beyond 1st year college success. 1st year success does itself correlate with 2nd year, grad rates, etc., but the signal degrades significantly as time goes on.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#317

Post by vmh1928 »

feanaro wrote: post #287
otalp wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Finding bear poop on the trail is a predictor of bear activity, not a cause of the bear.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#318

Post by coldtea »

iron0013 wrote: post #139
mikemotherwell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original tweetstorm and this post aim to show something very specific, namely that IQ misses the mark as a measure of intelligence the further away from IQ 70 one ventures. In other words, stupid is stupid, but smart seems to come in many flavors. The title of the article itself points to this fact, as the word "largely" is inserted. Nassim Nicholas Taleb himself can see the value at the lower levels. If the goal…

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…

>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 135

He has already addressed that point early on:

"If you renamed IQ , from “Intelligent Quotient” to FQ “Functionary Quotient” or SQ “Salaryperson Quotient”, then some of the stuff will be true."

He also includes a graph of "correlation of IQ with different aspects of job performance" pertaining to that: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/750/1*RlEAvb8KejpEBFWslw...

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#319

Post by diminoten »

feanaro wrote: post #283
mike00632 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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/…

I'll ask again, did you actually read the submission? I get how cliche it is to ask this but you genuinely seem ignorant of the entire basis is this conversation. If you had read the submission, you would know how flawed and useless IQ tests are, and how they reward test taking abilities over intellect.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#320

Post by waterhouse »

roel_v wrote: post #268
waterhouse wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 que…

Fascinating. I didn't realize that was how law school admission worked.

By "law exam" I actually had in mind "the final exam" and whatever other tests you have to pass in order to not be thrown out of the program, once you're already in. (It seems the "bar exam" is not a prerequisite for a JD, though.) I guess the question is, which is more selective: law school admissions, or "who actually gets their degree once they're in law school"? Looks like the latter filter lets about one third through [1], while the former seems to pass one half if you just divide total admissions by total applications [2], although if we care more about "top law schools" I see various Google results saying it's more like 25%. So... reasonably similar-sized filters. Huh.

I also see an article titled "Law Schools With Low LSAT Medians Have Absurd Academic Attrition Rates" [3]. That would seem to support the notion that the LSAT genuinely is testing ability to do well at law, despite being a non-law exam.

[1] https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/l...

[2] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources... , see "JD Applicant/Matriculant Data" for e.g. 2016, which shows 351k applications and 145k acceptances (I had to type in "=SUM(B7:B210)" and "=SUM(C7:C210)" to get those totals)

[3] https://abovethelaw.com/2018/01/law-schools-with-low-lsat-me...

Post reply on HN