IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle • Hacker News Board

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#81

Post by taeric » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 4:12 AM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #78

SamReidHughes wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure this parenting advice was based on a psychological experiment that failed to replicate.

You may be right about some particular study, but in general, there is a lot of research around growth mindset, and I have not heard about failures to replicate (though I cannot vouch that they haven't happened): https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/08/no-clarity-around-grow... .

Just Google "psychology replication crisis". Pretty sure it will hit on a lot of this.

Last I heard, which could be outdated, is most of the popular experiments have failed to replicate to a good measure. Odds are, if you just heard of an experiment, it hasn't replicated. Worse, many of the studies were propping each other up. So that when one failed to replicate, it brought the others into question.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#82

Post by harry8 » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 4:15 AM UTC

naniwaduni wrote: post #53

mikemotherwell wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This would only be correct if the SAT were expressly an IQ test, and we selected people based on SAT score for that reason . To put it another way, making this point is kind of like selecting for tall players for a basketball team, then saying weight is correlated with…

Yeah totally, or like selecting for confident people where you tell people who score well on the test that they're super confident.

Tall is an absolute, objective measure of a real thing that exists. IQ is NOT a measure of a thing that exists.

Similar effects can be found throwing dice and ascribing the total to an IQ score, then telling parents, teachers what the poor kid's IQ is as though it were their height. It's insane.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#83

Post by chillacy » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 4:16 AM UTC

naniwaduni wrote: post #53

mikemotherwell wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This would only be correct if the SAT were expressly an IQ test, and we selected people based on SAT score for that reason . To put it another way, making this point is kind of like selecting for tall players for a basketball team, then saying weight is correlated with…

This seems like nit picking, doesn’t really change the patent posters argument.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#84

Post by chillacy » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 4:20 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #67

maroonblazer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, these are some of the tests I work with. Pop culture turned them into a proxy for IQ or Inteligence etc. They're not. The SAT for example is highly targeted towards one specific goal: predicting level of success academically in the first year of college, and only the first year. They make no other primary research claims about the utility of how the test results should be used, and in dealing with them they are v…

The old SAT correlated more with standard iq tests and can be used for admission into MENSA from what I remember.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#85

Post by skywhopper » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 4:22 AM UTC

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…

The fact that there are people who are better performers, communicators, creators, producers, or whatever does not point to the viability of IQ as commonly conceived, nor is it evidence that there could be any single one dimensional scale constructed to measure whatever that quality is. In fact I suspect it’s multiple traits interacting in complex ways that make up the results we attribute to “intelligence”.

The IQ test I have taken as part of a psychometric examination given to me to diagnose ADHD was an interesting experience but unless there are far deeper subjective meta-layers involved, the test itself measured lots of learned skills—including spatial reasoning, memorization, and of all things English vocabulary. There is no way the test that I took could be an unbiased measure of inborn potential.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#86

Post by whymauri » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 4:23 AM UTC

amasad wrote: post #43

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.

Got it, this was helpful as was the answerer below. Thank you guys!

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#87

Post by justtopost » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 4:23 AM UTC

pps43 wrote: post #58

xupybd wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. I don't think you need to define Intelligence with reference to the IQ metric.

Yet IQ test does not measure ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Thats pattern identification and solving, which is the bulk of what most IQ tests are. So, it kinda does.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#88

Post by harry8 » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 4:25 AM UTC

softwaredoug wrote: post #6

Best parenting advice I ever got was to praise children for hard work, and avoid calling them “smart.” Intelligence becomes a stand in for some measure of goodness or social fitness that after a while it’s hard to know what we’re talking about anymore. Further, it’s seen as innate whereas hard work is something anyone can do. Being “smart” implies there’s a set of “un-smart” kids that don’t have the same fitness or g…

One link about such things if anyone cares to read further.

http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#89

Post by casual_slacker » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 4:26 AM UTC

gus_massa wrote: post #62

softwaredoug wrote: post #6

Best parenting advice I ever got was to praise children for hard work, and avoid calling them “smart.” Intelligence becomes a stand in for some measure of goodness or social fitness that after a while it’s hard to know what we’re talking about anymore. Further, it’s seen as innate whereas hard work is something anyone can do. Being “smart” implies there’s a set of “un-smart” kids that don’t have the same fitness or g…

> Being “smart” implies there’s a set of “un-smart” kids that don’t have the same fitness or goodness You don't like the implications of this, but is it true? I'd never play soccer as good as Messi, even if I'd practice every day in my life for many hours. Do you think that everyone has the same innate ability to play soccer? You can replace the example with any sport/music/whatever you like. Do you think that intell…

It exists, but I see those as edge cases. Compared to when someone is asking "am I smart enough", they are really asking if they can move from where they are now, to just a bit higher, the answer is usually "yes". At that level, innateness is irrelevant to those who succeed, and a self-fulfilling prophecy (at least in part) for those who don't.

Re: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

#90

Post by sgjohnson » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 4:27 AM UTC

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?

Psychology is a pseudoscience per se.