5 ms·

> A brilliant mathematician like Terence Tao may still very well consider themselves a dullard when faced with, say, the musical intuition of a piano virtuoso,

by zorga 8y ago

> A brilliant mathematician like Terence Tao may still very well consider themselves a dullard when faced with, say, the musical intuition of a piano virtuoso, or the effortless foresight of a chess grandmaster, or the rapt attention commanded by master storyteller, or the social intelligence of a smooth-talking Jobsian entrepreneur. I'd bet all of those people would score high in IQ. > For these kinds of intelligence, the IQ test is ill-suited That's not what the science tells us. > which is fine as long as we don't conflate IQ with the be-all end-all of intelligence There is only one G. There's little to no evidence in support of the theory of multiple intelligence's; it's not really science, IQ is actual science with lots of evidence to support it.

diminoten 8y ago
> IQ is actual science with lots of evidence to support it. ...did you read the submission? Don't worship science blindly; it's not nearly as black/white as you're framing it to be. IQ can have evidence to support it and still be deeply flawed/incomplete/entirely wrong.
- feanaro 8y ago
  Incomplete, certainly. But entirely wrong? The results still need explaining and the IQ model will surely be at least related to any new, better model, given its ability to produce at least some reliable results.
  - mike00632 8y ago
    Astronomy was replaced astrology but many people still use astrology to inform their beliefs. I doubt that the existence of better science would stop people from using IQ.
    - feanaro 8y ago
      That may very well be, but IQ is still the best we have right now and, more importantly, is much more coherent and reliable than astrology is. The possibility of its use being continued in a lay manner even after we have a better model shouldn't stop us from using it right now. In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge.
      - mike00632 8y ago
        >IQ is still the best we have right now... Is it? Then why don't we use it instead of other tests and metrics? I'm going to echo what other people have said in this thread and say that I've never encountered an IQ test in my academic or professional life among the numerous aptitude measurements. >In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge. The same argument is indeed used against eugenics, human experimentation, and various other sciences which are tangent to ethically challenged practices. For example, gene editing of humans is a scientific practice that could have clear benefit but the potential for misuse (which we've already seen in the recent Chinese gene hacking case) must be considered.
        feanaro 8y ago
        > Is it? Yes, it is, at least I am unaware of other general approaches to measuring general human cognitive ability. > Then why don't we use it instead of other tests and metrics? I'm going to echo what other people have said in this thread and say that I've never encountered an IQ test in my academic or professional life among the numerous aptitude measurements. See this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18805263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18805263. Apparently, this is a cultural thing, in that some countries don't employ this kind of testing, but there are definitely countries where this is not at all infrequent. It is also possible that not all cognitive tests which are (statistically) g-factor-loaded are readily recognizable as an "IQ test" by most people. As was also stated elsewhere in this thread, the SATs test could be considered one such test. > The same argument is indeed used against eugenics, human experimentation, and various other sciences which are tangent to ethically challenged practices. For example, gene editing of humans is a scientific practice that could have clear benefit but the potential for misuse (which we've already seen in the recent Chinese gene hacking case) must be considered. I meant it in a broader sense: why would we use this current state-of-the-art model when we will undoubtedly produce better and more accurate ones in the future? This could be said for physics, pharmacology and any other "unfinished" field, which is all of them.
        diminoten 8y ago

by zorga 8y ago

diminoten 8y ago

> IQ is actual science with lots of evidence to support it. ...did you read the submission? Don't worship science blindly; it's not nearly as black/white as you're framing it to be. IQ can have evidence to support it and still be deeply flawed/incomplete/entirely wrong.

feanaro 8y ago
Incomplete, certainly. But entirely wrong? The results still need explaining and the IQ model will surely be at least related to any new, better model, given its ability to produce at least some reliable results.
- mike00632 8y ago
  Astronomy was replaced astrology but many people still use astrology to inform their beliefs. I doubt that the existence of better science would stop people from using IQ.
  - feanaro 8y ago
    That may very well be, but IQ is still the best we have right now and, more importantly, is much more coherent and reliable than astrology is. The possibility of its use being continued in a lay manner even after we have a better model shouldn't stop us from using it right now. In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge.
    - mike00632 8y ago
      >IQ is still the best we have right now... Is it? Then why don't we use it instead of other tests and metrics? I'm going to echo what other people have said in this thread and say that I've never encountered an IQ test in my academic or professional life among the numerous aptitude measurements. >In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge. The same argument is indeed used against eugenics, human experimentation, and various other sciences which are tangent to ethically challenged practices. For example, gene editing of humans is a scientific practice that could have clear benefit but the potential for misuse (which we've already seen in the recent Chinese gene hacking case) must be considered.
      - feanaro 8y ago
        > Is it? Yes, it is, at least I am unaware of other general approaches to measuring general human cognitive ability. > Then why don't we use it instead of other tests and metrics? I'm going to echo what other people have said in this thread and say that I've never encountered an IQ test in my academic or professional life among the numerous aptitude measurements. See this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18805263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18805263. Apparently, this is a cultural thing, in that some countries don't employ this kind of testing, but there are definitely countries where this is not at all infrequent. It is also possible that not all cognitive tests which are (statistically) g-factor-loaded are readily recognizable as an "IQ test" by most people. As was also stated elsewhere in this thread, the SATs test could be considered one such test. > The same argument is indeed used against eugenics, human experimentation, and various other sciences which are tangent to ethically challenged practices. For example, gene editing of humans is a scientific practice that could have clear benefit but the potential for misuse (which we've already seen in the recent Chinese gene hacking case) must be considered. I meant it in a broader sense: why would we use this current state-of-the-art model when we will undoubtedly produce better and more accurate ones in the future? This could be said for physics, pharmacology and any other "unfinished" field, which is all of them.
        diminoten 8y ago