5 ms·

I think the problem is, you can't really quantify something that isn't clearly defined. Intelligence is very badly defined. So IQ is the kind of fundamentally f

I think the problem is, you can't really quantify something that isn't clearly defined. Intelligence is very badly defined. So IQ is the kind of fundamentally flawed science that lends itself very easily to politicization - just like eugenics before it. Leading this area of research is really just a waste of everybody's time - just like leading the 'area' of phrenology. There's lots of interesting scientific work about definable attributes of thinking beings - like problem-solving ability, or memory, or spatial sense. These don't suffer the same 'politics' problem, since their topics are clear and possible to concisely express.

arethuza 9y ago
I've always thought the idea of trying to represent "intelligence" in all of its multi faceted glory with a single number is just plain silly.
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  I've always felt uneasy about the whole concept of IQ but never really been able to put it into words. I think you've hit the nail square on the head here wrt my thoughts on the subject. Thanks!
- iguy 9y ago
  all of its multi faceted glory with a single number Think of this number as the first principal component, generated from all these different things. Talking about it doesn't imply that other directions don't exist. But it's not so strange to work on the leading effect before worrying about sub-leading ones.
  - pasabagi 9y ago
    As a sort of reductio-ad-absurdum, imagine if somebody came up with 'GQ', or 'goodness quotient'. It's absolutely the case you could use a battery of tests to check how likely somebody is to do anti-social behaviour. 'Goodness' is about as conceptually well-defined as intelligence.
    - iguy 9y ago
      Isn't the chinese government working on that? :) But more seriously, yes, to figure out how useful the first component is, you want to know something about how much bigger the first eigenvalue is than the second. For the case of IQ, my understanding is that the answer is "quite a lot". The best studies are from the army testing people and assigning them to roles (and seeing how they do). And it seems pretty hard to come up with tests which are better predictors than IQ. I think the one perpendicular component worth measuring for some jobs is manual dexterity? And eyesight, which is a rare thing anti-correlated with IQ, because of teenage bookworms we think. (That said, note that this isn't the whole population, they set a floor by only accepting reasonably healthy young men etc.)
      - pasabagi 9y ago
        The chinese government is working on it - but they are, at the very least, not convinced it is science. Not to mention, most people are horrified. I don't doubt that IQ, like Social Credit, is a useful administrative tool. However, something being useful from an administrative standpoint does not make it scientific. It also doesn't make it desirable. There are very many things that are absolute inconveniences from an administrative standpoint, that are absolutely necessary from a human one. Rights, basic freedoms, and so on.
        iguy 9y ago
        It doesn't have to be junk science to be morally repugnant. Lots of things would be administratively useful, and aligned with everything we know scientifically, yet evil. This is a great idea, morally: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". But as you know if you've ever watched the Olympics on TV, "created equal" here isn't a scientific fact.
        pasabagi 9y ago
        Absolutely. But equally, something being useful does not make it scientific. The thing about running is, it's very easy to explain what we mean by 'good at running'. It's very hard to describe what we mean by 'intelligence'. When you see a very large number of people convinced of the objectivity of something they can't describe, you normally call it a religion. Being convinced of the objectivity of IQ has many of the same flaws.
- prepend 9y ago
  But it can be useful. I think of it like BMI. Lots of flaws, but the most effective way of measuring healthy weight in populations. IQ is similar. Lots of flaws, but how else do you measure intelligence? There are lots of correlations with IQ. Not using intelligence as a measure is silly. I think it’s just something that uncomfortable, so I like to pretend it doesn’t matter. If I’m starting a software company, it is useful to have a measure of raw intelligent. Not to he exclusion of other characteristics, and maybe not even the most important. But certainly useful data for planning. I do think it’s silly to say the totality of intelligence is represented in a single number. But it can be useful. Like credit score. Lots of flaws, but what is a better measure? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.h...
- DonaldFisk 9y ago
  In general I agree. For any gene, you'd expect those alleles which give their holder an advantage in the environment they inhabit to be passed on to their descendants, including those which influence brain development. But if their environment ever changes, or they're put into a different environment, they might find themselves at a disadvantage compared with those native to their new environment. Environment is important as it determines which traits and which genetic variants are selected for, and genetics is important as it determines which environment people will flourish in. So if you only use a single number to measure intelligence, it it will only be a good predictor for a single environment.

arethuza 9y ago

I've always thought the idea of trying to represent "intelligence" in all of its multi faceted glory with a single number is just plain silly.

SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
I've always felt uneasy about the whole concept of IQ but never really been able to put it into words. I think you've hit the nail square on the head here wrt my thoughts on the subject. Thanks!
iguy 9y ago
all of its multi faceted glory with a single number Think of this number as the first principal component, generated from all these different things. Talking about it doesn't imply that other directions don't exist. But it's not so strange to work on the leading effect before worrying about sub-leading ones.
- pasabagi 9y ago
  As a sort of reductio-ad-absurdum, imagine if somebody came up with 'GQ', or 'goodness quotient'. It's absolutely the case you could use a battery of tests to check how likely somebody is to do anti-social behaviour. 'Goodness' is about as conceptually well-defined as intelligence.
  - iguy 9y ago
    Isn't the chinese government working on that? :) But more seriously, yes, to figure out how useful the first component is, you want to know something about how much bigger the first eigenvalue is than the second. For the case of IQ, my understanding is that the answer is "quite a lot". The best studies are from the army testing people and assigning them to roles (and seeing how they do). And it seems pretty hard to come up with tests which are better predictors than IQ. I think the one perpendicular component worth measuring for some jobs is manual dexterity? And eyesight, which is a rare thing anti-correlated with IQ, because of teenage bookworms we think. (That said, note that this isn't the whole population, they set a floor by only accepting reasonably healthy young men etc.)
    - pasabagi 9y ago
      The chinese government is working on it - but they are, at the very least, not convinced it is science. Not to mention, most people are horrified. I don't doubt that IQ, like Social Credit, is a useful administrative tool. However, something being useful from an administrative standpoint does not make it scientific. It also doesn't make it desirable. There are very many things that are absolute inconveniences from an administrative standpoint, that are absolutely necessary from a human one. Rights, basic freedoms, and so on.
      - iguy 9y ago
        It doesn't have to be junk science to be morally repugnant. Lots of things would be administratively useful, and aligned with everything we know scientifically, yet evil. This is a great idea, morally: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". But as you know if you've ever watched the Olympics on TV, "created equal" here isn't a scientific fact.
        pasabagi 9y ago
        Absolutely. But equally, something being useful does not make it scientific. The thing about running is, it's very easy to explain what we mean by 'good at running'. It's very hard to describe what we mean by 'intelligence'. When you see a very large number of people convinced of the objectivity of something they can't describe, you normally call it a religion. Being convinced of the objectivity of IQ has many of the same flaws.
prepend 9y ago
But it can be useful. I think of it like BMI. Lots of flaws, but the most effective way of measuring healthy weight in populations. IQ is similar. Lots of flaws, but how else do you measure intelligence? There are lots of correlations with IQ. Not using intelligence as a measure is silly. I think it’s just something that uncomfortable, so I like to pretend it doesn’t matter. If I’m starting a software company, it is useful to have a measure of raw intelligent. Not to he exclusion of other characteristics, and maybe not even the most important. But certainly useful data for planning. I do think it’s silly to say the totality of intelligence is represented in a single number. But it can be useful. Like credit score. Lots of flaws, but what is a better measure? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.h...
DonaldFisk 9y ago
In general I agree. For any gene, you'd expect those alleles which give their holder an advantage in the environment they inhabit to be passed on to their descendants, including those which influence brain development. But if their environment ever changes, or they're put into a different environment, they might find themselves at a disadvantage compared with those native to their new environment. Environment is important as it determines which traits and which genetic variants are selected for, and genetics is important as it determines which environment people will flourish in. So if you only use a single number to measure intelligence, it it will only be a good predictor for a single environment.