IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle • Hacker News Board

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#391

Post by goldcd » Thu, Jan 03, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #388

notSupplied wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believing that all humans are equal and any differences in outcome is the result of discrimination is a caracature of leftist views akin to labelling conservatives "just people out to screw over the poor". My observation is that the biggest chasm between left and right is the burden of proof for discrimination . The left believes discrimination is the basic human condition and one must prove that a decision or proces…

Interesting view I hadn't heard before. Notably, under the left's view, believing a system is just would require proving a negative. Is basically 'guilty until proven innocent'; a recipe for eternal identitarian strife; totally different from how we approach structurally similar questions on other topics.

I'd agree with the OP - I'd never thought about it like that before. My addition to the theory would be that left & right look identify the issue from different perspectives. e.g. You can look at the planet as whole today, and see there are massive disparities - then try to drill down and work out how to fix it holistically. Or, you can look at those immediately around you, sort that out, and hope that all people do this and it will ultimately ripple up.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#392

Post by vtfv » Thu, Jan 03, 2019, 10:41 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…

The left is a spectrum, there are left leaning people, and people who would like to see communism implemented in the United States. For left leaning people, center, and right leaning people equality of opportunity is desirable and will maximize scientific progress, abundance, and quality of life.

What far left people want is equity, which is vastly different and is equality of outcome. They view the world in a very black and white lens in which any endeavor/business/group which doesn't perfectly match population distributions must be inherently racist/sexist/etc because there aren't any differences or preferences between any groups.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#393

Post by ineedasername » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 2:51 AM UTC

jamesdmiller wrote: post #377

ineedasername wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 correla…

"IQ tests simply are not used at any scale that would be required to study such a correlation" I think you are wrong about this. There are a huge number of social scientists who study IQ. Also, IQ tests are very frequently given to children, and to everyone who wants to join the U.S. military.

Edit: I'm speaking from my knowledge of this topic in the US. I'm not ware of practices in other countries.

I'm familiar with the school systems and their on boarding processes for new students in many parts of the country, and am not aware of any pockets that systematically utilize IQ tests.

You're correct about military recruits, but I don't know if their scores are reflective of the general population. Certainly the composition by demographics differ somewhat from the general population, which woild cause me some concern if I were trying to generalize from their IQ tests to the broader population.

However, the context of my comment was about IQ related to elite colleges, and that remains an area where the data is sparse for IQ scores of such students. There simply isn't much if any research being performed these days tying IQ to success in higher education.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#394

Post by tomhoward » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 4:34 AM UTC

wtracy wrote: post #378

tomhoward wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s petty well established that the entire purpose of forms of humour like satire and charicature is to cut through bullshit.

Well then, Mr. Taleb needs to learn how to use satire constructively. We started with what could have been an interesting discussion about the validity of IQ tests, and suddenly it turned into a passive-aggressive discussion about fashion. Now the discussion spans multiple disjoint topics, several of which are emotionally charged. Any good points that might have been there are buried in, well, bullshit.

He knows what he's doing, and if trolling the likes of Stefan Molyneux were considered a worthy pursuit, which it is IMO, he seems to be doing great.

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1081309219377369088

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1081336627664961536

Everyone else would do well to be less defensive. Having a reasoned, sober debate about IQ is a worthy aim, but right now there are highly prominent and influential figures like Molyneux using IQ to justify some horrible ideological positions, and that's the fish Taleb is trying to fry.

Good on him, I say.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#395

Post by catskul2 » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

pps43 wrote: post #360

slavik81 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example describes a lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence.

Yet the same argument can be made for (any specific aspect of) intelligence.

Not really. Many parts of standard intelligence tests are pattern matching. In many cases the patterns can be generated and verified algorithmically and the number of elements as well as time limits are varied. The maker of the test would not necessarily do well on it.

In general, detecting and analyzing an ability does not require the ability that is being analyzed.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#396

Post by zorga » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:54 PM UTC

diminoten wrote: post #372

feanaro wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How can I do anything but call you ignorant when you say things like "did you somehow miss the complete absence of substance in it?" You're not following HN rules by refusing to address the best form of the argument, and when you break rules like that, it makes it hard to stay civil.

He's correct, Taleb is a crank troll, not an expert in the field, and is talking entirely out of his narcissist asshole. There's no solid argument there at all.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#397

Post by LordDragonfang » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 2:20 AM UTC

vtfv wrote: post #390

LordDragonfang wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with "dog whistles" is that they can literally be seen in anything, and are a shortcut to labelling someone a racist without any proof, and therefore not engaging with their actual arguments. It's particularly interesting in this case because the youtube link is Thomas Sowell speaking about the negative effects of Affirmative Action and he is a black American, would you say that he is dog whistling for ra…

My main issue is that I was accused of "bringing race into the discussion", when it was already very much a part of the topic of the discussion (which you seem to agree). My points and explanation of dog whistles were aimed at that.

I want to be clear that I never accused the parent of being racist (and I don't have reason to believe he was being so). I just expressed that the specific choice of argument felt similar to rhetoric that racists do use, and that supporting it with non-racial evidence instead might better serve the argument. (I admit to also wanting to encourage readers to think critically about a topic so rife with racial tension on both sides)

>As a society we need to decide if we want to advantage some races over others. In my opinion it makes more sense to advantage people from poor backgrounds then it does based on race...

The justification for making it based on race is that it is a form of reparation to the collective racial communities, especially the black community, that have been negatively impacted by a deliberate effort by the government to keep them in a cycle of poverty (black codes, redlining, etc). The other goal is to have a broader ethnic representation in careers requiring a college-education, which is required to effectively remove the inherent internal prejudices in those circles (see also the push for getting women into STEM, and the backlash that they face upon entering due to the lack of women already there to set in-cultural norms).

An unfortunate side effects is that, taking only AA and diversity initiatives into account, a rich black person will have fewer opportunities than a poor Asian American, due to the already high proportion of East Asians in the relevant areas. That's more an issue of the extremely strong disparity of wealth and power in this country than an actual criticism of AA, however. Controlling for wealth, non-Asian POC will still often have fewer opportunities due the the strong influence of networking and in-group prejudice/bias on your career opportunities (which is one of the reasons that AA and diversity initiatives are required)

That being said, I don't know enough about the actual effects of said policies to judge their effectiveness, since I'm not a sociologist and assessing the real results of a policy with such complicated interactions is difficult. I can only speak confidently to the a priori justifications.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#398

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 09, 2019, 6:26 AM UTC

Traster wrote: post #263

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…

I completely agree with you about the unproductive nature of this article, and the fact that there are two lines of extremists both pro and anti and it has absolutely become part of the identity politics of the right (and reactionary left). However, there's some real discussion on the effectiveness of IQ as a measure and its shortcomings. Vox is a great example of this, they published some highly critical articles af…

[deleted]

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#399

Post by jesssse » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 12:52 AM UTC

wahnfrieden wrote: post #228

warp_factor wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are being downvoted but what you are describing is unfortunately exactly what is going on. There is that political push to pretend everyone is exactly equal. Following that doctrine, Every difference would only be to blame on your environment. Over the last couple years, this trend is going over well established scientific proofs. That ideology is getting very dangerous and I think we are getting into a dark age…

You’re painting a picture that every social justice-aware person is pushing for equality, while ignoring calls for equity and how that’s distinctly different.

Can you share what "equity" means in the context of social justice?

Over the years I have tried to understand what "equity" means. I have been unable to comprehend "equity", despite reading many articles and definitions and listening to many discussions, I do not understand what "equity" is.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#400

Post by asabjorn » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

LordDragonfang wrote: post #397

vtfv wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with "dog whistles" is that they can literally be seen in anything, and are a shortcut to labelling someone a racist without any proof, and therefore not engaging with their actual arguments. It's particularly interesting in this case because the youtube link is Thomas Sowell speaking about the negative effects of Affirmative Action and he is a black American, would you say that he is dog whistling for ra…

My main issue is that I was accused of "bringing race into the discussion", when it was already very much a part of the topic of the discussion (which you seem to agree). My points and explanation of dog whistles were aimed at that. I want to be clear that I never accused the parent of being racist (and I don't have reason to believe he was being so). I just expressed that the specific choice of argument felt similar…

Read: I am not saying you are a racist, you just sound like one.

How is that not just a rhetorical trick for calling someone a racist without having to own up to it?

And your point about opportunity is demonstrably false; groups such as Nigerians do better than even Asians in educational and work achievement. There is also a historical african american upper class that consistently achieve in a similar manner across generations [2]. That should be celebrated, not ignored.

Statistically the african american family has fallen apart since the 60s, with 72% of kids growing up without a father up from 16%. The adverse outcomes of fatherless homes on kids is well known [1], and we should ask ourselves why this has become the normal case if we want the outcome of these groups to improve.

[1] https://www.rallypoint.com/shared-links/larry-elder-social-c...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_upper_class