4 ms·

That argument is like "economy" vs. "individual". When I wrote "there is no such thing as IQ" I mean (as stated?) that this is not a concrete thing, but a summa

That argument is like "economy" vs. "individual". When I wrote "there is no such thing as IQ" I mean (as stated?) that this is not a concrete thing, but a summary measure of many things. Of course it exists, it just doesn't represent a (single) concrete thing. The growth rate of the economy, maybe, comes to mind. Of course averages work fine when you look at the grander things, but they are useless when looking at individuals. So sure, IQ "works" in that sense, for "big picture stats". It's not good for individuals. (Necessary additional comment: Looking at more than one individual is not "looking at an individual", but it again is "statistics".) If you only want to place "the best" on average, going for "IQ" is enough. If you want to match each one (individually, not by global average - in which case after hiring by IQ you just place them anywhere) to the appropriate job it isn't. The distribution of skills under a given IQ score can be very different. > IQ is an imperfect predictor of many outcomes. A person who scores very low > on a competently administered IQ test is likely to struggle in many domains. > However, an IQ score will miss the mark in many individuals, in both directions. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/what-do-iq-tests-test-interview-with-psychologist-w-joel-schneider/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/what-do-...

nabla9 10y ago
> IQ is an imperfect predictor of many outcomes. It's _very_ often the best single predictor. As the article you quote puts it: >IQ is an imperfect predictor of many outcomes. A person who scores very low on a competently administered IQ test is likely to struggle in many domains. However, an IQ score will miss the mark in many individuals, in both directions. If IQ test misjudges 5-20% of applicants, it's still hell of a predictor.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  > it's still hell of a predictor. I think I had already responded to that. The question is "on what level" and "what for". See my previous response. I wrote "If you only want to place "the best" on average, going for "IQ" is enough. If you want to match each one (individually, not by global average - in which case after hiring by IQ you just place them anywhere) to the appropriate job it isn't." It's the same as arguing for racial profiling because "it works". Well it does! If you don't care about people (individuals) but only about peoples.

nabla9 10y ago

> IQ is an imperfect predictor of many outcomes. It's _very_ often the best single predictor. As the article you quote puts it: >IQ is an imperfect predictor of many outcomes. A person who scores very low on a competently administered IQ test is likely to struggle in many domains. However, an IQ score will miss the mark in many individuals, in both directions. If IQ test misjudges 5-20% of applicants, it's still hell of a predictor.

Noseshine 10y ago
> it's still hell of a predictor. I think I had already responded to that. The question is "on what level" and "what for". See my previous response. I wrote "If you only want to place "the best" on average, going for "IQ" is enough. If you want to match each one (individually, not by global average - in which case after hiring by IQ you just place them anywhere) to the appropriate job it isn't." It's the same as arguing for racial profiling because "it works". Well it does! If you don't care about people (individuals) but only about peoples.