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

41–50 of 400 posts

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#41

Post by hyperpallium »

diminoten wrote: post #7
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…

At this point I would accept it if someone told me that 100% of what I perceive as "smarts" when interacting with someone is explained by confidence and other learned social behaviors.

The smartest people I've known almost never come across as smart when interacting with them.

Perhaps the most easily observed indicator of smarts is humility. The learned learn.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#42

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> the author is setting up a straw man

As a former options trader, this is Taleb in a nutshell. He builds and attacks straw men for popular consumption. (The one time he tried running a hedge fund, it failed ruinously.)

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#43

Post by amasad »

whymauri wrote: post #8

Maybe I'm dumb, but why is "performance fat-tailed"? It was kinda left as an exercise to the reader, but maybe someone has insight. The article got a bit edited, but I'm still not getting it.

In other words it's pareto distribution. Most of the scientific citations goes to the 1% of scientists. Most of the success in business goes to the 1% of companies/entrepreneurs.

In Taleb's words: we live in extremistan.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#44

Post by soufron »

pcurve wrote: post #18

Wow. So much hatred in this. Iq is just one of many ways to measure certain aspects of aptitude. No institutions are shortsighted enough to place strong emphasis solely on IQ test. This is why college admissions take other data points into equation because sat and act scores are highly correlated to Iq.

Well, most of his argument is that it measures nothing, at least not more than let's say... astrology. IQ is pseudoscience. And people using it are wrong - whether they place a strong emphasis on it, or only a little one.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#45

Post by soufron »

llamaz wrote: post #29
6nf wrote: post #13

Ugh ok, another 'IQ is worthless but I have no alternative' article. What's the point?

Do you need an alternative to criticise a measure? The alternative is to place less emphasis on IQ tests and focus on other qualities.

And other tests that actually measure something that exists.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#46

Post by gweinberg »

xupybd wrote: post #36

I have no way to navigate this, I've heard psychologists claim that IQ is the most well proven concept in the social sciences. Now this guy comes along saying the complete opposite. Anyone have any advice on how to weight this up and figure out what the truth is?

There's no contradiction between "IQ is largely bullshit, especially at the high ends" and "IQ is the most well proven concept in the social sciences".

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#47

Post by soufron »

hyperpallium wrote: post #41
diminoten wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I would accept it if someone told me that 100% of what I perceive as "smarts" when interacting with someone is explained by confidence and other learned social behaviors.

The smartest people I've known almost never come across as smart when interacting with them. Perhaps the most easily observed indicator of smarts is humility. The learned learn.

Could you expand with examples?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#48

Post by maroonblazer »

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…

Aren't most standardized tests - SAT, ACT, GRE, etc - essentially IQ tests? We don't call them that, but they're testing cognitive ability nonetheless.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#49

Post by 6nf »

llamaz wrote: post #29
6nf wrote: post #13

Ugh ok, another 'IQ is worthless but I have no alternative' article. What's the point?

Do you need an alternative to criticise a measure? The alternative is to place less emphasis on IQ tests and focus on other qualities.

What ‘other qualities’ should (for example) the US Army test for if not IQ?

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#50

Post by 6nf »

soufron wrote: post #45
llamaz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you need an alternative to criticise a measure? The alternative is to place less emphasis on IQ tests and focus on other qualities.

And other tests that actually measure something that exists.

Like what tests?
Post reply on HN