5 ms·

If you accept there's no EQ then why not apply the same logic to IQ? They're both based on the same false assumption that you can describe mental capacity with

If you accept there's no EQ then why not apply the same logic to IQ? They're both based on the same false assumption that you can describe mental capacity with a number. It's not the same with BMI, which is about setting out guidelines for a healthy weight. That is something that's more appropriate to describe numerically.

Scaevolus 9y ago
IQ and BMI are strong predictors of income and disease. As the linked post describes, EQ is ill-defined, and lacks predictive power over any particular outcome.
- taneq 9y ago
  If you know Bob is a genius coder, but is guaranteed to creep out a potential client, you're making a prediction based on your assessment of Bob's EQ.
  - ralfn 9y ago
    If Bob doesnt like talking to customers being extra rude or creepy is a sign of intelligence. The article wasnt stating that people dont have more or less or different social skills. But that they currently arent measurable in a scientific way (and likely never will be). The phrase EQ is therefor completely and intentionally fraudulent. Like the word "scientology".
    - clarabrooks 9y ago
      Some months ago, my mom needed money to purchase our apartment but she couldn't afford to get a loan as her credit score was low and this was so painful but luckily enough, after explaining the situation to my friend he introduced me to a very good hacker who then assisted her in boosting her credit score. A problem shared is truly half solved so don't hesitate to contact him cybershiff@gmail.com
- ThomPete 9y ago
  No they are not strong indicators of income. They are indicators of skills currently in need by society at large. But go back 400 years and IQ was not the primary predictor for that and my guess is that it won't be in the future either.
c06n 9y ago
> If you accept there's no EQ then why not apply the same logic to IQ? But that has been done, over and over again. By the established standard of "how to measure mental things", IQ is a very useful concept, while EQ is not. The argument Peterson (and a few others) are making is that there is no incremental validity of EQ compared to other personality traits. That just means that EQ cannot explain more variance than these personality traits + IQ. Therefore, it is a useless concept. (I tend to agree with this argument.) Describing mental capacity with a number is pretty straightforward, actually. You can test it yourself: Read 2 random digits. Immediately repeat them. Then do that for 3, 4, and so on. There will be a number (typically between 5 and 7) when you cannot repeat the sequence without error anymore. There you have it: A measure for mental capacity. If you really think IQ is garbage, how come we can ask people some weird questions, and actually predict based on these questions how successful they will be at age 40? In social science, there are few if any instances where there is such a strong connection between a measure and an outcome.
- wdroz 9y ago
  Cool, so you can enhance your mental capacity by doing this test again and again. In less than a year I will be a genius!
  - c06n 9y ago
    Yes you can greatly enhance it, here is a thorough review of the state of the art: http://www.highiqpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Morrison_Chein2011.pdf http://www.highiqpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Morrison...
    - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
      PDF warning, but thanks; that looks useful.
  - MichaelBurge 9y ago
    Sort of reminds me of how it's actually impossible to accurately value real estate. If you measure square footage, people will just fill the building with superfluous Hilbert curves. If you try to measure number of bathrooms or number of bedrooms, people will just make apartment complexes filled with dollhouses. If you try to measure profit(directly or from imputed rent), people will set up fake corporations and pay themselves outrageous sums of rent. So all of these measures are worthless and it's impossible to value real estate, because they can each be gamed and so are unable to be used to make any predictions.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
factsaresacred 9y ago
> They're both based on the same false assumption that you can describe mental capacity with a number. IQ doesn't purport to "describe mental capacity". It assesses mental capacity and allocates a score. This score is information that can be used to deduce ability, and to the end it serves its purpose perfectly. Decisions based on IQ is another thing entirely.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  What's the point of deducing something if you're not going to do anything with that information? Beyond that, labels are hard for people to get rid of, even those we assign to ourselves. In the effort to categorise everything we grossly limit the potential of the individual. As Kierkegaard put it; "Once you label me you negate me.".

Scaevolus 9y ago

IQ and BMI are strong predictors of income and disease. As the linked post describes, EQ is ill-defined, and lacks predictive power over any particular outcome.

taneq 9y ago
If you know Bob is a genius coder, but is guaranteed to creep out a potential client, you're making a prediction based on your assessment of Bob's EQ.
- ralfn 9y ago
  If Bob doesnt like talking to customers being extra rude or creepy is a sign of intelligence. The article wasnt stating that people dont have more or less or different social skills. But that they currently arent measurable in a scientific way (and likely never will be). The phrase EQ is therefor completely and intentionally fraudulent. Like the word "scientology".
  - clarabrooks 9y ago
    Some months ago, my mom needed money to purchase our apartment but she couldn't afford to get a loan as her credit score was low and this was so painful but luckily enough, after explaining the situation to my friend he introduced me to a very good hacker who then assisted her in boosting her credit score. A problem shared is truly half solved so don't hesitate to contact him cybershiff@gmail.com
ThomPete 9y ago
No they are not strong indicators of income. They are indicators of skills currently in need by society at large. But go back 400 years and IQ was not the primary predictor for that and my guess is that it won't be in the future either.

c06n 9y ago

> If you accept there's no EQ then why not apply the same logic to IQ? But that has been done, over and over again. By the established standard of "how to measure mental things", IQ is a very useful concept, while EQ is not. The argument Peterson (and a few others) are making is that there is no incremental validity of EQ compared to other personality traits. That just means that EQ cannot explain more variance than these personality traits + IQ. Therefore, it is a useless concept. (I tend to agree with this argument.) Describing mental capacity with a number is pretty straightforward, actually. You can test it yourself: Read 2 random digits. Immediately repeat them. Then do that for 3, 4, and so on. There will be a number (typically between 5 and 7) when you cannot repeat the sequence without error anymore. There you have it: A measure for mental capacity. If you really think IQ is garbage, how come we can ask people some weird questions, and actually predict based on these questions how successful they will be at age 40? In social science, there are few if any instances where there is such a strong connection between a measure and an outcome.

wdroz 9y ago
Cool, so you can enhance your mental capacity by doing this test again and again. In less than a year I will be a genius!
- c06n 9y ago
  Yes you can greatly enhance it, here is a thorough review of the state of the art: http://www.highiqpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Morrison_Chein2011.pdf http://www.highiqpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Morrison...
  - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
    PDF warning, but thanks; that looks useful.
- MichaelBurge 9y ago
  Sort of reminds me of how it's actually impossible to accurately value real estate. If you measure square footage, people will just fill the building with superfluous Hilbert curves. If you try to measure number of bathrooms or number of bedrooms, people will just make apartment complexes filled with dollhouses. If you try to measure profit(directly or from imputed rent), people will set up fake corporations and pay themselves outrageous sums of rent. So all of these measures are worthless and it's impossible to value real estate, because they can each be gamed and so are unable to be used to make any predictions.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

factsaresacred 9y ago

> They're both based on the same false assumption that you can describe mental capacity with a number. IQ doesn't purport to "describe mental capacity". It assesses mental capacity and allocates a score. This score is information that can be used to deduce ability, and to the end it serves its purpose perfectly. Decisions based on IQ is another thing entirely.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
What's the point of deducing something if you're not going to do anything with that information? Beyond that, labels are hard for people to get rid of, even those we assign to ourselves. In the effort to categorise everything we grossly limit the potential of the individual. As Kierkegaard put it; "Once you label me you negate me.".