4 ms·

The title doesn't seem to match up with the article. The point seems to be that IQ is good at predicting intellectual deficits at the low end but bad at predic

by mbell 8y ago

The title doesn't seem to match up with the article. The point seems to be that IQ is good at predicting intellectual deficits at the low end but bad at predicting 'success' above that; further it indicates that IQ is mis-used in this range. This doesn't seem to indicate that IQ is 'pseudoscience', just that it's a misused statistic. Not a real shocker there, almost every statistic is misused by some group.

microcolonel 8y ago
Not to mention, the assumption is that if IQ is not useful for predicting success regardless of circumstance (i.e. whether somebody is employed as an astrophysicist or as a sweatshop seamstress), it must be not useful in all cases. The fact that IQ is a useful metric at the low end of the scale is exactly the hint as to why it's not useful when misused at the high end. That is, the difference between being able to return 100% of balls in tennis at, say, one return every 800ms, is not any greater help when your opponent can only return every 1400ms anyhow. In order for a difference of general cognitive ability to be useful, a cognitive task of sufficient complexity over a sufficiently short period of time must be presented.
flocial 8y ago
In a sense this is much scarier than the controversial IQ strongly correlates with genetics argument. Instead of being "pseudoscientific swindle" it becomes a reliable tool to marginalize people on the lower end based on their test results.
Analemma_ 8y ago
Taleb is saying that if IQs above 100 have no predictive power, then what’s the point in measuring them? It would be like taking a BuzzFeed quiz that tells me my Hogwarts house: a real measurement yielding a reproducible result, sure, but a pointless one and any use of it beyond “Huh, that’s interesting” would be pseudoscience.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Taleb is saying that if IQs above 100 have no predictive power, then what’s the point in measuring them? The whole point of IQ tests is not to identify or rank people who score above 100. The whole point is to identify those who fall well below 100,because that's actually a disability. Look at it this way: some amusement parks feature amusement rides that are only safe to ride if riders can be kept safe by the safety equipment. One way to ensure safety requirements are met is to admit only people taller than a predefined height. That means that a specific metric (height) is used to pick who is able from those who are not. However, that does not mean taller people are better at riding that specific ride, let alone any attraction. The IQ concept serves the same purpose. Those with a low IQ simply struggle to perform some tasks, but above a fuzzy threshold IQ is a meaningless metric to evaluate or predict success.
  - mike00632 8y ago
    >The whole point of IQ tests... I think you're ignoring that the point of IQ for most people and throughout its history is to make statements about racial and/or gender superiority. Most of the posts here seem to focus on the hiring process but the vast majority of the time I hear about IQ it's within the context of a bigoted rant.

by mbell 8y ago

microcolonel 8y ago

Not to mention, the assumption is that if IQ is not useful for predicting success regardless of circumstance (i.e. whether somebody is employed as an astrophysicist or as a sweatshop seamstress), it must be not useful in all cases. The fact that IQ is a useful metric at the low end of the scale is exactly the hint as to why it's not useful when misused at the high end. That is, the difference between being able to return 100% of balls in tennis at, say, one return every 800ms, is not any greater help when your opponent can only return every 1400ms anyhow. In order for a difference of general cognitive ability to be useful, a cognitive task of sufficient complexity over a sufficiently short period of time must be presented.

flocial 8y ago

In a sense this is much scarier than the controversial IQ strongly correlates with genetics argument. Instead of being "pseudoscientific swindle" it becomes a reliable tool to marginalize people on the lower end based on their test results.

Analemma_ 8y ago

Taleb is saying that if IQs above 100 have no predictive power, then what’s the point in measuring them? It would be like taking a BuzzFeed quiz that tells me my Hogwarts house: a real measurement yielding a reproducible result, sure, but a pointless one and any use of it beyond “Huh, that’s interesting” would be pseudoscience.

geezerjay 8y ago
> Taleb is saying that if IQs above 100 have no predictive power, then what’s the point in measuring them? The whole point of IQ tests is not to identify or rank people who score above 100. The whole point is to identify those who fall well below 100,because that's actually a disability. Look at it this way: some amusement parks feature amusement rides that are only safe to ride if riders can be kept safe by the safety equipment. One way to ensure safety requirements are met is to admit only people taller than a predefined height. That means that a specific metric (height) is used to pick who is able from those who are not. However, that does not mean taller people are better at riding that specific ride, let alone any attraction. The IQ concept serves the same purpose. Those with a low IQ simply struggle to perform some tasks, but above a fuzzy threshold IQ is a meaningless metric to evaluate or predict success.
- mike00632 8y ago
  >The whole point of IQ tests... I think you're ignoring that the point of IQ for most people and throughout its history is to make statements about racial and/or gender superiority. Most of the posts here seem to focus on the hiring process but the vast majority of the time I hear about IQ it's within the context of a bigoted rant.