5 ms·

This post reads like a polemic and not something to be digested as science (note calling it a 'pseudoscientific swindle' and the ad hominem attack on Murray at

This post reads like a polemic and not something to be digested as science (note calling it a 'pseudoscientific swindle' and the ad hominem attack on Murray at the start). There seems to be a bi-modal reaction to the IQ measurement problem. It's either a real meaningful and effective measure of intellectual capacity. Or, people try and discredit the whole idea and label anyone that explores it a racist or otherwise posses a shallow understanding of the science. The real problem is that it has some validity so it can be used to argue for and against all sorts of things that are really not justified by the science. However, if we ignore IQ as a valid research subject and line of inquiry we'll be doing ourselves a disservice. We need to follow that thread even if we don't like where it leads.

feanaro 8y ago
This is really well put together and I think you hit the crux of the problem. Regarding Taleb's post, I've heard a hard time reading it because it is so over the place and seems to contain many parts which aren't related to the topic at hand but simply appeal to emotion. As an example, I fail how this has anything to do with the IQ being a useful measure: > To do well in life you need depth and ability to select your own problems and to think independently. He constructs an argument that IQ doesn't predict anything related to the "real" life and "real" problems. Furthermore, he claims IQ scores are only correlated with the lower end of intelligence. He says > It measures best the ability to be a good slave. But then he supplies a figure where training success is but one of the things showing a correlation with IQ, with others including job performance, creativity and leader effectiveness, with decreasing degree of correlation. In fact, the figure shows the higher the complexity of the job, the more success at it is correlated with IQ (a moderate but certainly significant correlation of about 0.5). I think he means to manipulate the reader's emotion here by equating high IQ = being a good sheep. But how does this figure show anything but the exact opposite of his argument?
Traster 8y ago
I completely agree with you about the unproductive nature of this article, and the fact that there are two lines of extremists both pro and anti and it has absolutely become part of the identity politics of the right (and reactionary left). However, there's some real discussion on the effectiveness of IQ as a measure and its shortcomings. Vox is a great example of this, they published some highly critical articles after Sam Harris had Murray on his podcast. They point to good specific points which are problematic with IQ - particular when IQ is used as an argument for particular policies rather than information. Unfortunately even when there are specific points raised and proper meat to the discussion it still devolves into vitriolic shit flinging. Really the lesson to learn from this is how political tribalism can work to totally destroy the ability of society to have an honest discussion on a topic.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
commandlinefan 8y ago
Yeah, that’s what I got out of the article – IQ isn’t perfect, therefore it should be rejected completely and not replaced with anything.

feanaro 8y ago

This is really well put together and I think you hit the crux of the problem. Regarding Taleb's post, I've heard a hard time reading it because it is so over the place and seems to contain many parts which aren't related to the topic at hand but simply appeal to emotion. As an example, I fail how this has anything to do with the IQ being a useful measure: > To do well in life you need depth and ability to select your own problems and to think independently. He constructs an argument that IQ doesn't predict anything related to the "real" life and "real" problems. Furthermore, he claims IQ scores are only correlated with the lower end of intelligence. He says > It measures best the ability to be a good slave. But then he supplies a figure where training success is but one of the things showing a correlation with IQ, with others including job performance, creativity and leader effectiveness, with decreasing degree of correlation. In fact, the figure shows the higher the complexity of the job, the more success at it is correlated with IQ (a moderate but certainly significant correlation of about 0.5). I think he means to manipulate the reader's emotion here by equating high IQ = being a good sheep. But how does this figure show anything but the exact opposite of his argument?

Traster 8y ago

I completely agree with you about the unproductive nature of this article, and the fact that there are two lines of extremists both pro and anti and it has absolutely become part of the identity politics of the right (and reactionary left). However, there's some real discussion on the effectiveness of IQ as a measure and its shortcomings. Vox is a great example of this, they published some highly critical articles after Sam Harris had Murray on his podcast. They point to good specific points which are problematic with IQ - particular when IQ is used as an argument for particular policies rather than information. Unfortunately even when there are specific points raised and proper meat to the discussion it still devolves into vitriolic shit flinging. Really the lesson to learn from this is how political tribalism can work to totally destroy the ability of society to have an honest discussion on a topic.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

commandlinefan 8y ago

Yeah, that’s what I got out of the article – IQ isn’t perfect, therefore it should be rejected completely and not replaced with anything.