6 ms·

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

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 8y ago
"what are you going to do with that information?" Restricting chemicals proved to lower IQ springs immediately to mind.
- nordsieck 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
    I think the takeaway is that IQ is not comparable between individuals, but is comparable between points in time of one individual.
    - asveikau 8y 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.
    - dang 8y ago
      We've gotten complaints about this username, and I think I agree with them. Trollish usernames aren't allowed on HN, because they effectively troll every thread they post to. If you email us with a better name, we'll be happy to switch it over for you and unban the account, but I've banned it at least for now.
nordsieck 8y ago
> 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. 1. I'm not saying that people should trust IQ. I'm saying that, to the extent that people trust social science, they should trust IQ more than anything else from the field. 2. There is actually research about what you are talking about[0]: "The upshot of this research is that work sample tests (e.g., seeing if people can actually do key elements of a job -- if a secretary can type or a programmer can write code ), general mental ability (IQ and related tests), and structured interviews had the highest validity of all methods examined (Arun, thanks for the corrections). As Arun also suggests, Schmidt and Hunter point out that three combinations of methods that were the most powerful predictors of job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (in other words, hiring someone smart and seeing if they could do the work), GMA plus an integrity test, and GMA plus a structured interview (but note that unstructured interviews, the way they are usually done, are weaker)." This is not to say that IQ is some sort of guarantee - the correlation is only about 0.5. That being said, it is one of the strongest factors; at a population level, it should not be particularly surprising that IQ would have a strong impact on economic success. ___ 0. https://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/selecting-talent-the-upshot-from-85-years-of-research.html https://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/selecting-ta...
defen 8y ago
"IQ doesn't perfectly predict outcomes" is not a great critique of IQ. No one is arguing that IQ presents an infallible linear ranking of human worth / value / accomplishment. On the other hand, it's extremely unlikely that someone with an IQ of 85 or less will be able to understand complex abstract concepts. That's about 50 million people in the USA.

emiliobumachar 8y ago

"what are you going to do with that information?" Restricting chemicals proved to lower IQ springs immediately to mind.

nordsieck 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  I think the takeaway is that IQ is not comparable between individuals, but is comparable between points in time of one individual.
  - asveikau 8y 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.
  - dang 8y ago
    We've gotten complaints about this username, and I think I agree with them. Trollish usernames aren't allowed on HN, because they effectively troll every thread they post to. If you email us with a better name, we'll be happy to switch it over for you and unban the account, but I've banned it at least for now.

nordsieck 8y ago

> 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. 1. I'm not saying that people should trust IQ. I'm saying that, to the extent that people trust social science, they should trust IQ more than anything else from the field. 2. There is actually research about what you are talking about[0]: "The upshot of this research is that work sample tests (e.g., seeing if people can actually do key elements of a job -- if a secretary can type or a programmer can write code ), general mental ability (IQ and related tests), and structured interviews had the highest validity of all methods examined (Arun, thanks for the corrections). As Arun also suggests, Schmidt and Hunter point out that three combinations of methods that were the most powerful predictors of job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (in other words, hiring someone smart and seeing if they could do the work), GMA plus an integrity test, and GMA plus a structured interview (but note that unstructured interviews, the way they are usually done, are weaker)." This is not to say that IQ is some sort of guarantee - the correlation is only about 0.5. That being said, it is one of the strongest factors; at a population level, it should not be particularly surprising that IQ would have a strong impact on economic success. ___ 0. https://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/selecting-talent-the-upshot-from-85-years-of-research.html https://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/selecting-ta...

defen 8y ago

"IQ doesn't perfectly predict outcomes" is not a great critique of IQ. No one is arguing that IQ presents an infallible linear ranking of human worth / value / accomplishment. On the other hand, it's extremely unlikely that someone with an IQ of 85 or less will be able to understand complex abstract concepts. That's about 50 million people in the USA.