IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle • Hacker News Board

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#361

Post by james_s_tayler » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #35

barrkel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ is definitely not a good measure of value, contribution, quality of thought. I think it's probably correlated, and for some contributions may be a gating factor, but I've seen plenty of smart people examining the wrong things, for sure. Meta-analysis of focus doesn't seem to come free with IQ. I think it's a skill.

A guy I know—who basically spends his time around high-IQ kids, seems to be on speaking terms with several Fields Medalists, and has closely studied the lives of lots of great scientists and mathematicians—says that great achievement comes from three ingredients: (a) mental horsepower (roughly measured by IQ); (b) taste, an aesthetic sense that helps one decide to work on the right things or investigate the right hyp…

This.

It seems like it boils down to IQ, trait conscientiousness and the randomness inherently present in a complex, dynamical system.

I think people understimate or ignore the randomness aspect because you can't measure the way in which it contributes. But it's such an important factor. Randomness can generate circumstances that push and pull people at all ends of the distribution in all different directions. That not a trivial thing.

The detractors seem to want to focus on "well it's not a perfect predictor". Right. And you're not going to get one in a complex, dynamical system such as this.

But in case you were looking for some model that paints a roughly accurate picture in broad strokes, here's one we prepared earlier.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#362

Post by LordDragonfang » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #129

LordDragonfang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Focussing on "affirmative action" feels uncomfortably close to the exact kind of dog whistling this article criticized up front. As I understand it, most colleges have been using some form of linear regression model on many factors to filter admissions in a way that maximize returns (i.e. alumni donations) for decades now. Surely there is other evidence which shows that if SAT scores were actually a poor heuristic of…

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…

The article linked (you did actually open that before replying to me, right?) extensively talks about race, and affirmative action is intrinsically linked to it.

Also, I don't know if you're ignorant as to what a dog whistle is, or you're being purposefully obtuse, but "affirmative action" is extremely common talking point among actual racists, because it's a politically acceptable way to disparage racial minorities without directly using the word race; a dog whistle is a term that racists use to make racist commentary that's intended to make it clear to other racists that they're talking about race while still providing plausible deniability (i.e. accusing the other person of being the one to bring up race, when that was the topic from the beginning). "Affirmative action" is an extremely common dog whistle.

So, are you unaware of what a dog whistle is, or are you blowing the whistle?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#363

Post by Bender » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

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.

Not to mention, narcissistic sociopaths that rise to high positions of power because of confidence, hubris and taking a cavalier approach on life. Not all of them are genius.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#364

Post by james_s_tayler » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #249

geezerjay wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need all three. Actually, you don't. It may help to be gifted on all three, but work ethics makes up for any deficit in intellectual potential. For example, MENSA membership does not correlate with intellectual elites in any research field, but you'd be hard pressed to find a leading researcher who doesn't have a strong work ethic.

> For example, MENSA membership does not correlate with intellectual elites in any research field It's mostly because MENSA membership is interesting for very small fraction of intelligent people. If everyone applied to mensa, 150 mln people would get in while only less than 150 thousand are actually in mensa. Even if every member of intelectual elite was above mensa threshold only 1 in 1000 would be in mensa. It's h…

Yeah, you actually have to investigate two things

1) why people desire to actually become a member of Mensa in the first place

2) the population of people who are eligible for membership (2% of the whole population) yet are not members.

On cursory inspection it would seem if you just talked about the top 2% of the distribution you would likely get a different answer than if you just talked about the people who felt the need to self- select into the MENSA organization.

Ok, so what about the selection bias itself? What would drive you to join MENSA? If you were already "accomplished" to some degree that you felt satisfied with why would you necessarily feel the need to say "I'm in the smart people club". Yes, you've already visibly demonstrated that. So what if you haven't demonstrated that but you find everyone around you mildly maddening to deal with because they just don't get it. Well... you might be inclined to join the smart people club and find some interesting people to hang out with.

Makes sense to me.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#365

Post by belorn » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

goldcd wrote: post #352

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…

Hold on, I'm a lefty - and don't particularly like that brush you're tarring me with. Now before we go on, I do agree with some of your points. The results we observe are driven by many factors and individual choice is one of them. I object to 'positive discrimination' and the like as it's personally unfair. However, I do have that deep troubling feeling that there is bias all over the place. I'll just go with gender…

Lets imagine you do a human study that measure the incentives and disincentives of seeking high income job, based on gender. What would the results be?

How does society treat men who do not prioritize work income in life vs men who prioritize work income over other aspects in life.

How does society treat women who prioritize other aspect of life over work income vs women who prioritize work income?

After measuring that and how high the amplitude is, we can rather easily see the building blocks of the pay gap.

To take a bit of data from Sweden, a man who is in the bottom 50% of the income pool has less than half the probability of having children of his own. Increased income has a very strong correlation with fathering children. For women this is the opposite with fewer children at higher income, but the amplitude is significant smaller than for men. The difference in children between high income and low income women exist but is comparable small.

If we could align those incentives so they point in the same direction and with the same amplitude then those two children, one male, one female, would likely end up with the same income later in life.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#366

Post by kazinator » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

The thing is, that people who have high IQ can answer the test questions with ease. They don't have to "muster sterile motivation." That's the perspective of someone daunted by the testing, and thus of lower IQ.

"Anything too hard for me requires lifeless academics capable of sterile motivation, and anything easier is for idiots. I'm sitting precisely at the perfect intelligence level myself; neither idiot, nor starchy, impractical academic!"

> "When someone asks you a question in the real world, you focus first on “why is he/she asking me that?"

In this case, why is this blog writer asking me to believe that the IQ has low value? The "no brainer" hypothesis is that he tried and didn't score very well.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#367

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

mike00632 wrote: post #238

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…

The leftist position isn't that everyone is inherently equal but that everyone should be valued equally and afforded equal opportunity regardless of their race/gender/ability. The idea of an "IQ" measure is too close to the idea of measuring inherent value, which shouldn't be contingent on things like how much nutrition you had as a child. Furthermore, the idea of "IQ" could be considered dangerous because it often s…

[deleted]

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#368

Post by kazinator » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

mike00632 wrote: post #238

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…

The leftist position isn't that everyone is inherently equal but that everyone should be valued equally and afforded equal opportunity regardless of their race/gender/ability. The idea of an "IQ" measure is too close to the idea of measuring inherent value, which shouldn't be contingent on things like how much nutrition you had as a child. Furthermore, the idea of "IQ" could be considered dangerous because it often s…

Well, the leftist position is that everyone is equally capable of producing economic value beneficial to the collective state, and should be given those opportunities to do that.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#369

Post by wtracy » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

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 :)

Again, "shock humor" and satire are antithetical to "cutting through the bullshit".

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#370

Post by narrator » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

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…

Taleb is using the idea that in order to create a world where, barring extreme circumstances, such as birth defects and disease, people are of roughly equal ability we have to pretend that, baring extreme circumstances, all people are of roughly equal ability and attack any information that points out anything to the contrary. The idea being that by believing a reality is true and attacking anything that contradicts that belief we can make it true.