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

331–340 of 400 posts

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#331

Post by repolfx »

leereeves wrote: post #313
dragonwriter wrote: post #308

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. 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 hypoth…

Greater male variability isn't a hypothesis, is it? It's clear in the data from longitudinal IQ studies, or so I thought. It's more a fact than a hypothesis.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#332

Post by repolfx »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #311
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.

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.

I would be fascinated to know the IQ scores of all the US presidents, but I assume no such dataset exists.

Being the president would seem to be a good example of a form of success in which IQ would not be that important relative to other personality attributes, like understanding what people want and how to (re)phrase it well, persistence, bravery, being able to spot strategic mistakes of opponents etc. It's not clear any of these attributes would be classically considered "intelligence" in the IQ sense, but they're all clearly valuable for politicians to have.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#333

Post by commandlinefan »

mikemotherwell wrote: post #40
waterhouse wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wiki says that the average IQ of MDs, JDs, and PhDs is 125.[1] That is pretty far away from 70. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Other_ac...

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…

> we use IQ to select for success, then say IQ is correlated with success.

We don’t, though. The most financially successful people in the world are sports stars, movie stars, and business owners, none of whose success has anything to do with IQ scores. He bangs on IQ, but nobody actually uses IQ to select for anything – it’s actually prohibited by law in the US (https://www.britannica.com/event/Griggs-v-Duke-Power-Co). We do use SAT scores to determine admission to college, and SAT scores correlate pretty well with IQ scores, though, so I guess he’s indirectly complaining about SAT scores being used for college admissions? There’s nothing particularly new about this, though – people have complained for eons that measuring people’s test scores only tracks how good they are at taking tests. The problem is, true or not, tests are the only objective way we’ve ever come up with to figure out if somebody actually knows something.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#334

Post by commandlinefan »

golemiprague wrote: post #106
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…

If anything it is the opposite, IQ measure whatever it measures, the problems is that some people don't want to accept the correlation to other things, for example to the rate of success in academic studies. So you can ignore those correlations as much as you want and put millions into educating people with low IQ but it doesn't and won't help. You try to shame people for looking at the clear data and coming to concl…

Yeah, he’s not even harping on any specific IQ test – he seems to be rejecting any attempt to assign a quantifiable, objective measure to intelligence in general. Ultimately, in spite of having a lot of sources, he ends up saying that intelligence shouldn’t be measured because we might not like what we find.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#335

Post by commandlinefan »

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…

Yeah, that’s what I got out of the article – IQ isn’t perfect, therefore it should be rejected completely and not replaced with anything.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#336

Post by blablabla123 »

> Mensa members: typically high “IQ” losers in Birkenstocks.

Nice article.

IQ is actually the best measure yet found to see how well people can succeed in life. There used to be some craze about EQ, but that is actually pseudo-scientific stuff invented and monetized by book authors.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14940184

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#337

Post by aptwebapps »

blablabla123 wrote: post #336

> Mensa members: typically high “IQ” losers in Birkenstocks. Nice article. IQ is actually the best measure yet found to see how well people can succeed in life. There used to be some craze about EQ, but that is actually pseudo-scientific stuff invented and monetized by book authors. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14940184

Yeah, I'm hope I'm not missing out, but the beginning of the article was too aggressive for me to bother with the rest.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#338

Post by feanaro »

diminoten wrote: post #319
feanaro wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have read the submission, but have you? Did you somehow miss the complete absence of substance in it? Which part of it should have me convinced? That Taleb said so and did so emphatically? That you are now repeating it emphatically?

Please remain civil and refrain from calling me ignorant. I have read the submission and disagree with its (lack of) argument.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#339

Post by feanaro »

vmh1928 wrote: post #317
feanaro wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I vehemently agree, as a careful reading of my previous comment tells.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#340

Post by jeena »

repolfx wrote: post #330
lordlimecat wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He addresses that, the issue is that you aren't identifying "performance" but rather "performance in the sort of test taking environment that exists at school". His entire point is that, while IQ may identify good, obedient candidates for BS jobs, it is not broadly applicable as anything like a general metric for life.

Does anyone use it like that though? Isn't he arguing with a straw man? Who is using IQ to allocate funding to pop singers? IQ scores aren't used that much and only ever for predicting success of jobs where success is easily measurable (which is what Taleb seems to mean by "obediency-based BS jobs").

Yeah they do, I've seen https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php linked in discussions about if Germany should welcome refuges from Africa for example. And the gist was that while getting Asian high achievers is a net win for the country, letting refuges from Africa is, because of the linked map, a loss for the country.
Post reply on HN