5 ms·

> This means our concept of IQ > is likely inherently flawed. Equally flawed, taking one outlier as evidence of something inherent.

by nzjrs 9y ago

DoreenMichele 9y ago
FWIW, I have studied the space some. I was Director of Community Life for The TAG Project for a bit. http://tagfam.org/ http://tagfam.org/ The last time I had this argument in a big way with people telling me I had no clue what I was talking about, some forum I belonged to was having a heated argument because they had the habit of posting ridiculous tests, like "What kind of dog are you?", and someone had posted an online IQ test and things were getting pretty ugly (in part because a lot of people felt it was scoring them too low). I stated up front that it likely only went up to 140, then took the test to shut people up and scored a 140. I had training in test taking in my high school gifted classes, so I tend to do well on such tests. But, whatever.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  They aren't saying your wrong about IQ tests. Pointing out one outlier isn't proof that it is flawed. Plus, this study doesn't care if IQ tests are a good way to rate intelligence, people who score well on them also are more likely to suffer disorders.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Mensa does not actually base membership exclusively on IQ tests, so your assertion doesn't accurately reflect the content of the study. There are other ways to get into Mensa, such as submitting your SAT scores. I was coached in gifted classes on how to take the SAT. Is it any wonder I did better than average? Should we not expect kids with training in test taking to perform better than those without, generally speaking? If we are going to discuss some correlation between supposed high IQ and various disorders, is it meaningless to talk about how one ascertains IQ and what on earth that even means? I think it is not terribly different from asking "What color is your aura?" but I am quite sure that if I went around asking that on HN (or, you know, posting articles about auras, chakras, etc), it would be flagged to death. Yet, IQ is equally invisible. You cannot look at someone and say "brown hair, 6 feet tall, IQ of 145." That just isn't a thing.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      The article begins by labeling standardized tests of intelligence as IQ tests, I was following that definition. The correlation is between people who do well on the tests and disorders. It could be that more preparation for the tests, the SAT classes for example, leads to both of these results. Auras have no repeatable way of being measured. IQ tests show something, even if labeling that intelligence is wrong.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        Auras have no repeatable way of being measured. IQ tests show something, even if labeling that intelligence is wrong. There are people who claim to see auras. How is this different from people trained in administering IQ tests? The average person is just taking the word of some test taker that it means thus and such. At some point, you simply have to trust the person telling you something. Even when people use machines -- and IQ tests are not measurable by machines like MRIs -- the person has to read the output. How do we know they weren't high on LSD that day? I mean, this is veering into territory of "Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly," * but I am being sincere here. I intend to step away from this particular thread because I don't think people think I am posting in good faith, or being sincere. So there is probably no good that can come from trying to further engage in discussion of a matter that I have thought a lot about and think is a serious issue. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuangzi_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuangzi_(book)
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        >How is this different from people trained in administering IQ tests? Repeatability, you can do the test multiple times and expect similar results. Not identical, and outliers exist, but similar. I am not a fan of current IQ tests as a measure of intelligence. I am not trying to change your mind, nor do I doubt you believe these things. This article is careful to distinguish intelligence from IQ test results, and the link is interesting without trusting IQ tests. What bothered me the most was using the Feynman example without anything scientific in your argument.
- nzjrs 9y ago
  For a smart person you sure missed my point. You could have just conceded that you jumped too far from too few data, but whatever.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikestew 9y ago
    Perhaps your point was poorly made such that even a smart person couldn’t figure it out.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

> This means our concept of IQ > is likely inherently flawed. Equally flawed, taking one outlier as evidence of something inherent.

by nzjrs 9y ago

> This means our concept of IQ > is likely inherently flawed. Equally flawed, taking one outlier as evidence of something inherent.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

FWIW, I have studied the space some. I was Director of Community Life for The TAG Project for a bit. http://tagfam.org/ http://tagfam.org/ The last time I had this argument in a big way with people telling me I had no clue what I was talking about, some forum I belonged to was having a heated argument because they had the habit of posting ridiculous tests, like "What kind of dog are you?", and someone had posted an online IQ test and things were getting pretty ugly (in part because a lot of people felt it was scoring them too low). I stated up front that it likely only went up to 140, then took the test to shut people up and scored a 140. I had training in test taking in my high school gifted classes, so I tend to do well on such tests. But, whatever.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
They aren't saying your wrong about IQ tests. Pointing out one outlier isn't proof that it is flawed. Plus, this study doesn't care if IQ tests are a good way to rate intelligence, people who score well on them also are more likely to suffer disorders.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Mensa does not actually base membership exclusively on IQ tests, so your assertion doesn't accurately reflect the content of the study. There are other ways to get into Mensa, such as submitting your SAT scores. I was coached in gifted classes on how to take the SAT. Is it any wonder I did better than average? Should we not expect kids with training in test taking to perform better than those without, generally speaking? If we are going to discuss some correlation between supposed high IQ and various disorders, is it meaningless to talk about how one ascertains IQ and what on earth that even means? I think it is not terribly different from asking "What color is your aura?" but I am quite sure that if I went around asking that on HN (or, you know, posting articles about auras, chakras, etc), it would be flagged to death. Yet, IQ is equally invisible. You cannot look at someone and say "brown hair, 6 feet tall, IQ of 145." That just isn't a thing.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    The article begins by labeling standardized tests of intelligence as IQ tests, I was following that definition. The correlation is between people who do well on the tests and disorders. It could be that more preparation for the tests, the SAT classes for example, leads to both of these results. Auras have no repeatable way of being measured. IQ tests show something, even if labeling that intelligence is wrong.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      Auras have no repeatable way of being measured. IQ tests show something, even if labeling that intelligence is wrong. There are people who claim to see auras. How is this different from people trained in administering IQ tests? The average person is just taking the word of some test taker that it means thus and such. At some point, you simply have to trust the person telling you something. Even when people use machines -- and IQ tests are not measurable by machines like MRIs -- the person has to read the output. How do we know they weren't high on LSD that day? I mean, this is veering into territory of "Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly," * but I am being sincere here. I intend to step away from this particular thread because I don't think people think I am posting in good faith, or being sincere. So there is probably no good that can come from trying to further engage in discussion of a matter that I have thought a lot about and think is a serious issue. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuangzi_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuangzi_(book)
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        >How is this different from people trained in administering IQ tests? Repeatability, you can do the test multiple times and expect similar results. Not identical, and outliers exist, but similar. I am not a fan of current IQ tests as a measure of intelligence. I am not trying to change your mind, nor do I doubt you believe these things. This article is careful to distinguish intelligence from IQ test results, and the link is interesting without trusting IQ tests. What bothered me the most was using the Feynman example without anything scientific in your argument.
nzjrs 9y ago
For a smart person you sure missed my point. You could have just conceded that you jumped too far from too few data, but whatever.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mikestew 9y ago
  Perhaps your point was poorly made such that even a smart person couldn’t figure it out.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]