5 ms·

It's strongly correlated with outcomes in life and better than any psychological test we have. Your IQ is correlated with your parents' IQ. But so is your soci

It's strongly correlated with outcomes in life and better than any psychological test we have. Your IQ is correlated with your parents' IQ. But so is your social status, physical appearance and wealth. IQ is not independently responsible, and it's covariant with other heritable traits.

chrisco255 7y ago
It's trivial to study the effect of IQ independent of socioeconomic background. You can segment your study based on these factors. You can also look at outcomes among siblings. IQ is strongly correlated independent of all these factors. It's been studied for over 100 years. It's been sliced every way you can think of.
- codesushi42 7y ago
  Says you. But in reality what you're claiming as undeniable truth is actually debatable, and there are plenty of studies to the contrary.
  - chimi 7y ago
    Says the research. In response to your point a few posts up about explaining correlations with IQ being the parents influence, IQ is also correlated to social mobility. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3248886/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3248886/ "Childhood IQ and achieved education level were significantly and independently associated with upward mobility between the ages of 5 and 49-51 years. Only education was significantly associated (positively) with upward social mobility between 5 and 25 years, and only childhood IQ (again positively) with upward social mobility between 25 and 49-51 years. Childhood IQ was significantly negatively associated with downward social mobility. Adult height, childhood housing conditions, adverse events in childhood and sex were not significant determinants of upward or downward social mobility in this cohort."
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      Nope. https://heckmanequation.org/resource/i-q-isnt-everything/ https://heckmanequation.org/resource/i-q-isnt-everything/ Stop falsely claiming that your "facts" are irrefutable.
      - seventhtiger 7y ago
        No one has claimed those facts are irrefutable. They are claiming that they simply haven't been refuted yet. I can tell you exactly how to refute those studies. Perform a controlled scientific study that disproves those results. Let me tell you, if you really believe in it, you could be a superstar academic and you sell a lot of books. Disproving such a large body of research would be a big achievement, especially one as unpopular as IQ.
        codesushi42 7y ago
        No one is arguing that IQ is invalid. It is not the be-all-end-all metric of intelligence and success, nor is it as accurate as people make it out to be. It measures a narrow spectrum of intelligence.
        seventhtiger 7y ago
        Treat IQ as a blackbox. It doesn't matter what people think it measures or what it actually measures. Those things are psychological not psychometric. So let's consider it psychometrically: 1. Does it measure something? Yes it does. This something is consistent across time as people's IQs do not vary dramatically. It is "stable". So whatever it measures is not spurious. 2. Ok so we measure an actual thing. Is the thing it measures distinct? Yes it is. It's been controlled for against every conceivable variable like education, socioeconomic background, and family health. Whatever it is measuring, it is definitely an independent thing, not a representation of something else. 3. Is the real independent thing we're measuring even important? Maybe it's just like fingerprints, real but essentially random and inconsequential. It turns out it correlates with all kinds of things. It acts as a predictor in all kinds of outcomes. It is the strongest predictor available in psychometry. If you could only administer one test to a subject, testing this thing is the most revealing test. So, regardless of what IQ is, we know what it isn't. We know it isn't fake, unimportant, random, or a combination of other factors. This is deeply unpopular and goes against many people's core beliefs about society and education, but the science is well-founded. It can be refuted but it has to be refuted with science, not quotes, metaphors, and anecdotes.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    It's not just me. It's 100+ years of psychological evidence. It is the strongest psychological test we have. The military uses similar concepts in the AFQT to determine suitability for recruitment and advancement for certain positions. The military has been using concepts like this since World War I, where it was important to scale up a military quickly. Our survival depended on having smart people with disparate educational backgrounds (remember the U.S. was much more rural and less educated than today) in the right places, rapidly. How do you do this without IQ tests? 'One study on nine groups of soldiers differing in job and reading ability found a correlation of .96 between the AFQT and reading achievement (Sticht, Caylor, Kern, & Fox, 1972)... Another study obtained reading scores for 17-year olds for those same ethnic groups and dates (Campbell et al., 2000) and found a correlation of .997 between reading scores and AFQT scores.' [1] 'Cognitive ability tests taken at age 11 correlate 0.81 with national school examinations taken at age 16.' [2] Note that .96 and .81 are huge correlations. These results have been replicated across 100+ years of psychological research across cultural boundaries and across multiple disciplines. Can you make up for lower IQ with higher work ethic? Yes, but like a shorter than average NBA player, you're going to be at a disadvantage. By no means does the existence of shorter than average NBA players suggest that you should expect shorter than average men to be just as likely to succeed as taller than average men. --- [1] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED101297.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED101297.pdf [2] https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-educational-achievement.pdf https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence...
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      Sure, because what did society do before IQ tests? Surely because they've been around for that long, they must be flawless. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fund... “It has always seemed to be odd that we like to call the human brain the most complex known object in the Universe, yet many of us are still prepared to accept that we can measure brain function by doing a few so-called IQ tests,” Dr Highfield said. I wonder, what is your opinion on Murray's and Herrnstein's The Bell Curve?
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    > there are plenty of studies to the contrary. This is the point in the discussion where you should be rolling out some supporting evidence.
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      Ok. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+problem+with+iq+tests https://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+problem+with+iq+tests

chrisco255 7y ago

It's trivial to study the effect of IQ independent of socioeconomic background. You can segment your study based on these factors. You can also look at outcomes among siblings. IQ is strongly correlated independent of all these factors. It's been studied for over 100 years. It's been sliced every way you can think of.

codesushi42 7y ago
Says you. But in reality what you're claiming as undeniable truth is actually debatable, and there are plenty of studies to the contrary.
- chimi 7y ago
  Says the research. In response to your point a few posts up about explaining correlations with IQ being the parents influence, IQ is also correlated to social mobility. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3248886/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3248886/ "Childhood IQ and achieved education level were significantly and independently associated with upward mobility between the ages of 5 and 49-51 years. Only education was significantly associated (positively) with upward social mobility between 5 and 25 years, and only childhood IQ (again positively) with upward social mobility between 25 and 49-51 years. Childhood IQ was significantly negatively associated with downward social mobility. Adult height, childhood housing conditions, adverse events in childhood and sex were not significant determinants of upward or downward social mobility in this cohort."
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    Nope. https://heckmanequation.org/resource/i-q-isnt-everything/ https://heckmanequation.org/resource/i-q-isnt-everything/ Stop falsely claiming that your "facts" are irrefutable.
    - seventhtiger 7y ago
      No one has claimed those facts are irrefutable. They are claiming that they simply haven't been refuted yet. I can tell you exactly how to refute those studies. Perform a controlled scientific study that disproves those results. Let me tell you, if you really believe in it, you could be a superstar academic and you sell a lot of books. Disproving such a large body of research would be a big achievement, especially one as unpopular as IQ.
      - codesushi42 7y ago
        No one is arguing that IQ is invalid. It is not the be-all-end-all metric of intelligence and success, nor is it as accurate as people make it out to be. It measures a narrow spectrum of intelligence.
        seventhtiger 7y ago
        Treat IQ as a blackbox. It doesn't matter what people think it measures or what it actually measures. Those things are psychological not psychometric. So let's consider it psychometrically: 1. Does it measure something? Yes it does. This something is consistent across time as people's IQs do not vary dramatically. It is "stable". So whatever it measures is not spurious. 2. Ok so we measure an actual thing. Is the thing it measures distinct? Yes it is. It's been controlled for against every conceivable variable like education, socioeconomic background, and family health. Whatever it is measuring, it is definitely an independent thing, not a representation of something else. 3. Is the real independent thing we're measuring even important? Maybe it's just like fingerprints, real but essentially random and inconsequential. It turns out it correlates with all kinds of things. It acts as a predictor in all kinds of outcomes. It is the strongest predictor available in psychometry. If you could only administer one test to a subject, testing this thing is the most revealing test. So, regardless of what IQ is, we know what it isn't. We know it isn't fake, unimportant, random, or a combination of other factors. This is deeply unpopular and goes against many people's core beliefs about society and education, but the science is well-founded. It can be refuted but it has to be refuted with science, not quotes, metaphors, and anecdotes.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  It's not just me. It's 100+ years of psychological evidence. It is the strongest psychological test we have. The military uses similar concepts in the AFQT to determine suitability for recruitment and advancement for certain positions. The military has been using concepts like this since World War I, where it was important to scale up a military quickly. Our survival depended on having smart people with disparate educational backgrounds (remember the U.S. was much more rural and less educated than today) in the right places, rapidly. How do you do this without IQ tests? 'One study on nine groups of soldiers differing in job and reading ability found a correlation of .96 between the AFQT and reading achievement (Sticht, Caylor, Kern, & Fox, 1972)... Another study obtained reading scores for 17-year olds for those same ethnic groups and dates (Campbell et al., 2000) and found a correlation of .997 between reading scores and AFQT scores.' [1] 'Cognitive ability tests taken at age 11 correlate 0.81 with national school examinations taken at age 16.' [2] Note that .96 and .81 are huge correlations. These results have been replicated across 100+ years of psychological research across cultural boundaries and across multiple disciplines. Can you make up for lower IQ with higher work ethic? Yes, but like a shorter than average NBA player, you're going to be at a disadvantage. By no means does the existence of shorter than average NBA players suggest that you should expect shorter than average men to be just as likely to succeed as taller than average men. --- [1] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED101297.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED101297.pdf [2] https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-educational-achievement.pdf https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence...
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    Sure, because what did society do before IQ tests? Surely because they've been around for that long, they must be flawless. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fund... “It has always seemed to be odd that we like to call the human brain the most complex known object in the Universe, yet many of us are still prepared to accept that we can measure brain function by doing a few so-called IQ tests,” Dr Highfield said. I wonder, what is your opinion on Murray's and Herrnstein's The Bell Curve?
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  > there are plenty of studies to the contrary. This is the point in the discussion where you should be rolling out some supporting evidence.
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    Ok. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+problem+with+iq+tests https://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+problem+with+iq+tests