6 ms·

Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. The social sciences are a dumpst

Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. The social sciences are a dumpster fire.

asveikau 7y ago
> Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. Can you explain very specifically what you are talking about? Because otherwise, I will be honest, I see unspecified complaints of social political inconvenience and my initial read is just to assume that you have some problem with women or minorities.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Or maybe a problem with men.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  >> Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. >> The social sciences are a dumpster fire. > Can you explain very specifically what you are talking about? IQ is probably the single most trustworthy finding in psychology/sociology. In a field where even core studies don't tend to get replicated (this is changing slowly and grudgingly), it has survived decades of replication and attacks. Given the political self identification of the professors in the field (over 99% progressive), it seems reasonable to assume that the political beliefs of the faculty contribute to the skepticism that the field, and academia more broadly, have of IQ.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    I am not steeped in this concept, but it strikes me that IQ can be totally replicable of the same biases, year after year. Meanwhile, what are you going to do with that information? I'd be a little disappointed to see it suggested that you can reduce an individual human to a number and make decisions affecting people's lives. Have you not had life experiences where the person with the highest test scores, most amount of praise, recognition, money, earning power, etc., is actually a comparatively ill-equipped human for some task? This intuition should make us skeptical of drawing too many conclusions from such metrics.
    - emiliobumachar 7y ago
      "what are you going to do with that information?" Restricting chemicals proved to lower IQ springs immediately to mind.
      - nordsieck 7y ago
        > "what are you going to do with that information?" > Restricting chemicals proved to lower IQ springs immediately to mind. Iodized salt is an example of a successful global health program that effectively did just this, but in reverse (promoted a IQ protective chemical).
      - asveikau 7y ago
        That's an interesting one, because you can say that IQ is a flawed metric or misguided concept, but also agree that (random example) childhood lead exposure lowers IQ therefore let's reduce it. If the metric has any validity at all you can get good outcomes with this even if some details are wrong or imprecise.
        brlewis 7y ago
        Yes, just as you could draw conclusions about chemical exposure that increases or decreases jump-rope ability. If you use the metric in the right context it's fine.
        terryschiavo22 7y ago
        I think the takeaway is that IQ is not comparable between individuals, but is comparable between points in time of one individual.
        asveikau 7y ago
        It seems to me this is actually of an example of it used in aggregate, removing pollutants across whole populations, rather than on the individual. I might also sooner say the lesson is if you can unambiguously use the metric to lift people up, that's good. You still have to be very careful about what that means.
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    FWIW https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39 https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
    - scarmig 7y ago
      Taleb is unreadable. I have to wipe my forehead of the vituperative spittle after every paragraph. Cosma Shalizi has a much better critique, although it too has some flaws: http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html
      - war1025 7y ago
        I've largely stopped following Taleb, mainly because he seems to have taken "don't be a pushover" and misconstrued it to mean "be an ass". He has some good points though.
        icebraining 7y ago
        I find him much less of an ass in interviews, at least those with Russ Roberts (of Econtalk), whom he likes.
      - barry-cotter 7y ago
        If by some flaws you mean the same logic proves barometric pressure does not exist. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2019/p_a_statistical_myth.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2019/p_a_statistical_myth... > Anyone following Nassim Taleb's dissembling on IQ lately has likely stumbled across an argument, originally created by Cosma Shalizi, which purports to show that the psychometric g is a statistical myth. But I realized that based on this argument, not only is psychometrics a deeply flawed science, but so is thermodynamics!
    - adamisom 7y ago
      That piece is emotional AF. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but here is a concrete sign that it is extremely biased "and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests" Ha! Haha! Is Taleb wilfully ignoring that most people work salaried (or wage) jobs?!? Most do not become hedge fund managers, entrepreneurs, independent authors.
  - klank 7y ago
    > IQ is probably the single most trustworthy finding in psychology/sociology. The single most trustworthy finding for ... what though? I don't know what a measurement being "trustworthy" means unless you associate it as an indicator for something else. But you didn't do that.
    - nordsieck 7y ago
      >> IQ is probably the single most trustworthy finding in psychology/sociology. > The single most trustworthy finding for ... what though? I don't know what a measurement being "trustworthy" means unless you associate it as an indicator for something else. But you didn't do that. Literally the next sentence is: >> In a field where even core studies don't tend to get replicated (this is changing slowly and grudgingly), it has survived decades of replication and attacks. I don't know if you think the current academic scientific process is a method of discovering facts about the universe, but if you do, the process of replication and fielding criticism is the process through which scientific findings become trustworthy.
      - firethief 7y ago
        Worthy of being trusted for what?
  - bitwize 7y ago
    Scratch someone who talks up IQ in 2019 and you will find a white-shoe racist. The so-called "reliable" studies proving the trustworthiness of IQ, g, etc. tend to come from crackpots like Richard Lynn and Arthur Jensen, whose arrant racism leads them to conclusions looking for evidentiary support.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      The people who talk up IQ tend to have a high IQ score (not commenting on the validity of IQ, just who the enthusiasts are). I don't think that means they are racist or that their beliefs have anything to do with race. Also, the US military essentially does IQ testing, so I wouldn't say it's just "crackpots". It would be pretty ridiculous to say that a high IQ score offers no useful signal at all.
      - nordsieck 7y ago
        > Also, the US military essentially does IQ testing, so I wouldn't say it's just "crackpots". It would be pretty ridiculous to say that a high IQ score offers no useful signal at all. There is actually an important reason why the US Military does IQ testing: they tried using low IQ troops in Vietnam; it didn't work very well[0]. ___ 0. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1495805484 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1495805484
        PavlovsCat 7y ago
        A short a talk by the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g
      - fwip 7y ago
        In my experience, high IQ racists are the least likely kind to know that they're racist.
        malvosenior 7y ago
        Whether that's true or not (it doesn't match my experience at all), it says nothing about the conjecture that people who believe IQ has merit are racist.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    Well, after you correct for the facts that all the high numbers seem to have the same ability, different cultures are penalized differently by the tests, experience with the tests or even willingness to be tested bias the results a lot, and probably some 100 other large factors that I didn't hear about (because I never looked), it's a highly stable measurement. I'm not sure what it measures, and I don't think anybody is. It is some real phenomenon, because success on some tasks have a high correlation to it (that disappears at high levels). It is also severely overrated by nearly everybody that talks about it.
    - fwip 7y ago
      One person taking multiple IQ tests will see markedly different scores.
- ryanmarsh 7y ago
  ...and now I’m a Nazi? Plenty of other folks picked up on IQ. It’s that obvious of an issue. You realize accusing me of having a problem with women and minorities isn’t helping right?
  - asveikau 7y ago
    Hello friend. I did not call you a Nazi. I asked for some detail and examples, then said what assumptions I start making in the face of vague complaints of political correctness (or dismissal of entire sections of academia based on the same).
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
At least you have a chance of extinguishing it. A tire fire not so much.
sctb 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19851234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19851234.

Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. The social sciences are a dumpster fire.

asveikau 7y ago

> Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. Can you explain very specifically what you are talking about? Because otherwise, I will be honest, I see unspecified complaints of social political inconvenience and my initial read is just to assume that you have some problem with women or minorities.

kortilla 7y ago
Or maybe a problem with men.
nordsieck 7y ago
>> Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. >> The social sciences are a dumpster fire. > Can you explain very specifically what you are talking about? IQ is probably the single most trustworthy finding in psychology/sociology. In a field where even core studies don't tend to get replicated (this is changing slowly and grudgingly), it has survived decades of replication and attacks. Given the political self identification of the professors in the field (over 99% progressive), it seems reasonable to assume that the political beliefs of the faculty contribute to the skepticism that the field, and academia more broadly, have of IQ.
- asveikau 7y ago
  I am not steeped in this concept, but it strikes me that IQ can be totally replicable of the same biases, year after year. Meanwhile, what are you going to do with that information? I'd be a little disappointed to see it suggested that you can reduce an individual human to a number and make decisions affecting people's lives. Have you not had life experiences where the person with the highest test scores, most amount of praise, recognition, money, earning power, etc., is actually a comparatively ill-equipped human for some task? This intuition should make us skeptical of drawing too many conclusions from such metrics.
  - emiliobumachar 7y ago
    "what are you going to do with that information?" Restricting chemicals proved to lower IQ springs immediately to mind.
    - nordsieck 7y ago
      > "what are you going to do with that information?" > Restricting chemicals proved to lower IQ springs immediately to mind. Iodized salt is an example of a successful global health program that effectively did just this, but in reverse (promoted a IQ protective chemical).
    - asveikau 7y ago
      That's an interesting one, because you can say that IQ is a flawed metric or misguided concept, but also agree that (random example) childhood lead exposure lowers IQ therefore let's reduce it. If the metric has any validity at all you can get good outcomes with this even if some details are wrong or imprecise.
      - brlewis 7y ago
        Yes, just as you could draw conclusions about chemical exposure that increases or decreases jump-rope ability. If you use the metric in the right context it's fine.
      - terryschiavo22 7y ago
        I think the takeaway is that IQ is not comparable between individuals, but is comparable between points in time of one individual.
        asveikau 7y ago
        It seems to me this is actually of an example of it used in aggregate, removing pollutants across whole populations, rather than on the individual. I might also sooner say the lesson is if you can unambiguously use the metric to lift people up, that's good. You still have to be very careful about what that means.
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  FWIW https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39 https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
  - scarmig 7y ago
    Taleb is unreadable. I have to wipe my forehead of the vituperative spittle after every paragraph. Cosma Shalizi has a much better critique, although it too has some flaws: http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html
    - war1025 7y ago
      I've largely stopped following Taleb, mainly because he seems to have taken "don't be a pushover" and misconstrued it to mean "be an ass". He has some good points though.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        I find him much less of an ass in interviews, at least those with Russ Roberts (of Econtalk), whom he likes.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      If by some flaws you mean the same logic proves barometric pressure does not exist. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2019/p_a_statistical_myth.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2019/p_a_statistical_myth... > Anyone following Nassim Taleb's dissembling on IQ lately has likely stumbled across an argument, originally created by Cosma Shalizi, which purports to show that the psychometric g is a statistical myth. But I realized that based on this argument, not only is psychometrics a deeply flawed science, but so is thermodynamics!
  - adamisom 7y ago
    That piece is emotional AF. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but here is a concrete sign that it is extremely biased "and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests" Ha! Haha! Is Taleb wilfully ignoring that most people work salaried (or wage) jobs?!? Most do not become hedge fund managers, entrepreneurs, independent authors.
- klank 7y ago
  > IQ is probably the single most trustworthy finding in psychology/sociology. The single most trustworthy finding for ... what though? I don't know what a measurement being "trustworthy" means unless you associate it as an indicator for something else. But you didn't do that.
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    >> IQ is probably the single most trustworthy finding in psychology/sociology. > The single most trustworthy finding for ... what though? I don't know what a measurement being "trustworthy" means unless you associate it as an indicator for something else. But you didn't do that. Literally the next sentence is: >> In a field where even core studies don't tend to get replicated (this is changing slowly and grudgingly), it has survived decades of replication and attacks. I don't know if you think the current academic scientific process is a method of discovering facts about the universe, but if you do, the process of replication and fielding criticism is the process through which scientific findings become trustworthy.
    - firethief 7y ago
      Worthy of being trusted for what?
- bitwize 7y ago
  Scratch someone who talks up IQ in 2019 and you will find a white-shoe racist. The so-called "reliable" studies proving the trustworthiness of IQ, g, etc. tend to come from crackpots like Richard Lynn and Arthur Jensen, whose arrant racism leads them to conclusions looking for evidentiary support.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    The people who talk up IQ tend to have a high IQ score (not commenting on the validity of IQ, just who the enthusiasts are). I don't think that means they are racist or that their beliefs have anything to do with race. Also, the US military essentially does IQ testing, so I wouldn't say it's just "crackpots". It would be pretty ridiculous to say that a high IQ score offers no useful signal at all.
    - nordsieck 7y ago
      > Also, the US military essentially does IQ testing, so I wouldn't say it's just "crackpots". It would be pretty ridiculous to say that a high IQ score offers no useful signal at all. There is actually an important reason why the US Military does IQ testing: they tried using low IQ troops in Vietnam; it didn't work very well[0]. ___ 0. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1495805484 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1495805484
      - PavlovsCat 7y ago
        A short a talk by the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g
    - fwip 7y ago
      In my experience, high IQ racists are the least likely kind to know that they're racist.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        Whether that's true or not (it doesn't match my experience at all), it says nothing about the conjecture that people who believe IQ has merit are racist.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Well, after you correct for the facts that all the high numbers seem to have the same ability, different cultures are penalized differently by the tests, experience with the tests or even willingness to be tested bias the results a lot, and probably some 100 other large factors that I didn't hear about (because I never looked), it's a highly stable measurement. I'm not sure what it measures, and I don't think anybody is. It is some real phenomenon, because success on some tasks have a high correlation to it (that disappears at high levels). It is also severely overrated by nearly everybody that talks about it.
  - fwip 7y ago
    One person taking multiple IQ tests will see markedly different scores.
ryanmarsh 7y ago
...and now I’m a Nazi? Plenty of other folks picked up on IQ. It’s that obvious of an issue. You realize accusing me of having a problem with women and minorities isn’t helping right?
- asveikau 7y ago
  Hello friend. I did not call you a Nazi. I asked for some detail and examples, then said what assumptions I start making in the face of vague complaints of political correctness (or dismissal of entire sections of academia based on the same).

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

At least you have a chance of extinguishing it. A tire fire not so much.

sctb 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19851234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19851234.