6 ms·

The highest score obtainable on an IQ test is achieved by realising it's complete nonsense to project the entirety of human intelligence onto a one dimensional

by mantap 7y ago

The highest score obtainable on an IQ test is achieved by realising it's complete nonsense to project the entirety of human intelligence onto a one dimensional value, and refusing to waste time on it.

LegitShady 7y ago
no, the iq test is used by some groups as a diagnostic to rank order large groups of people for research and other purposes. IQ is itself a basically fluid intelligence - how quickly you learn something compared to the average. In jobs were problems are novel this is an indicator of success. In jobs where tasks are repetitive, it is not an indicator of success. Overall, it one of the strongest if not the strongest statistically backed concept in modern psychology, so if you don't believe IQ means something you should also dismiss all of psychology as unscientific nonsense.
- thrwayxyz 7y ago
  Sounds about right. I have an iq of 80 yet somehow I published papers in physics, maths and computer science and I'm in the 1% of NY income. Psychology is used to keep the working class down and disunited the same way religion was used in times past.
- mantap 7y ago
  IQ is a model. Models never perfectly match the thing they are modelling. In the case of IQ people seem to have forgotten whatever it was that they were trying to model in the first place and it has been promoted way beyond its station to the very definition of intelligence. The result of this is organisations such as Mensa. To me, intelligence means one's capability to contribute to human endeavour, whether it be in mathematics, music, art, writing, or anything else that you can apply your mind to. For example, most people agree that Mozart was a very intelligent individual by virtue of his contributions to music. Sure, IQ means something, it's just that the thing it means is not intelligence. It doesn't capture the amazing breadth of human capability, and intelligence is not an objective measurable property.
  - oska 7y ago
    I agree with your contempt for IQ. On this matter: > In the case of IQ people seem to have forgotten whatever it was that they were trying to model in the first place IQ was originally designed to determine mental development issues, i.e. sub-intelligence, so that those people could be helped. This is flagged by scores below 80. Ranking intelligence by scores above 80 is bunk. Nassim Taleb has written well on this subject [1], if you are interested. [1] https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39 https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
    - LMYahooTFY 7y ago
      ...so he's claiming people conducting statistical analysis for IQ tests don't account for people dying or suffering traumatic brain injury?
      - lliamander 7y ago
        No. Taleb is saying that IQ is only useful for detecting mental deficiencies. He claims that the while having a low IQ is generally predictive of low life success (income, etc.) having a high IQ is not very predictive of having high life success. As others have pointed out, the same can be said of height and success in professional basketball. If you come across a short person, you can practically guarantee they cannot make it in the NBA (i.e. height is a strong predictor). For someone who is very tall, You can't really know from that whether they are a successful pro basketball player (i.e. it is not a strong predictor). This issue here, in both height and IQ, is that people who have more of some capacity have more options. Someone who is smart enough to be a brain surgeon still has the option to be a dish washer. Someone who is only smart enough to be a dish washer does not have the option to be a brain surgeon.
        oska 7y ago
        I understand the point you're making but you risk giving IQ credibility by comparing it to height. Height is a real, physical uni-dimensional measure that has a Gaussian distribution. IQ is a made-up measure that pretends to fit a multi-dimensional, non-physical 'thing' (intelligence) that we have a lot of trouble actually defining, onto a uni-dimensional scale with a modeled Gaussian distribution. It's a fraud. Or at least, in this grossly extended use it became a fraud. Testing people for falling below a certain threshold on a test was an ok diagnostic for mental deficiency. But even there it should have just been one tool among many, not a final arbiter of "general intelligence".
Consultant32452 7y ago
IQ is useful in the aggregate. This is because it correlates so strongly to so many life outcomes. It might be useful if we can one day figure out how to improve IQs. However, it isn't useful on an individual level. An average IQ person can surely work hard and make millions running a business, write a best selling novel, etc. even if statistically they might be less likely to do so.
- LegitShady 7y ago
  IQ is a measure of how fast you learn things. In jobs where problems are novel, high IQ tends to predict success. In monotonous jobs the ability to learn faster doesn't help you. And again, its completely true that IQ does not mean success. The world is full of poor geniuses. but as far as psychology goes, its the best predictor available.

by mantap 7y ago

LegitShady 7y ago

no, the iq test is used by some groups as a diagnostic to rank order large groups of people for research and other purposes. IQ is itself a basically fluid intelligence - how quickly you learn something compared to the average. In jobs were problems are novel this is an indicator of success. In jobs where tasks are repetitive, it is not an indicator of success. Overall, it one of the strongest if not the strongest statistically backed concept in modern psychology, so if you don't believe IQ means something you should also dismiss all of psychology as unscientific nonsense.

thrwayxyz 7y ago
Sounds about right. I have an iq of 80 yet somehow I published papers in physics, maths and computer science and I'm in the 1% of NY income. Psychology is used to keep the working class down and disunited the same way religion was used in times past.
mantap 7y ago
IQ is a model. Models never perfectly match the thing they are modelling. In the case of IQ people seem to have forgotten whatever it was that they were trying to model in the first place and it has been promoted way beyond its station to the very definition of intelligence. The result of this is organisations such as Mensa. To me, intelligence means one's capability to contribute to human endeavour, whether it be in mathematics, music, art, writing, or anything else that you can apply your mind to. For example, most people agree that Mozart was a very intelligent individual by virtue of his contributions to music. Sure, IQ means something, it's just that the thing it means is not intelligence. It doesn't capture the amazing breadth of human capability, and intelligence is not an objective measurable property.
- oska 7y ago
  I agree with your contempt for IQ. On this matter: > In the case of IQ people seem to have forgotten whatever it was that they were trying to model in the first place IQ was originally designed to determine mental development issues, i.e. sub-intelligence, so that those people could be helped. This is flagged by scores below 80. Ranking intelligence by scores above 80 is bunk. Nassim Taleb has written well on this subject [1], if you are interested. [1] https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39 https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
  - LMYahooTFY 7y ago
    ...so he's claiming people conducting statistical analysis for IQ tests don't account for people dying or suffering traumatic brain injury?
    - lliamander 7y ago
      No. Taleb is saying that IQ is only useful for detecting mental deficiencies. He claims that the while having a low IQ is generally predictive of low life success (income, etc.) having a high IQ is not very predictive of having high life success. As others have pointed out, the same can be said of height and success in professional basketball. If you come across a short person, you can practically guarantee they cannot make it in the NBA (i.e. height is a strong predictor). For someone who is very tall, You can't really know from that whether they are a successful pro basketball player (i.e. it is not a strong predictor). This issue here, in both height and IQ, is that people who have more of some capacity have more options. Someone who is smart enough to be a brain surgeon still has the option to be a dish washer. Someone who is only smart enough to be a dish washer does not have the option to be a brain surgeon.
      - oska 7y ago
        I understand the point you're making but you risk giving IQ credibility by comparing it to height. Height is a real, physical uni-dimensional measure that has a Gaussian distribution. IQ is a made-up measure that pretends to fit a multi-dimensional, non-physical 'thing' (intelligence) that we have a lot of trouble actually defining, onto a uni-dimensional scale with a modeled Gaussian distribution. It's a fraud. Or at least, in this grossly extended use it became a fraud. Testing people for falling below a certain threshold on a test was an ok diagnostic for mental deficiency. But even there it should have just been one tool among many, not a final arbiter of "general intelligence".

Consultant32452 7y ago

IQ is useful in the aggregate. This is because it correlates so strongly to so many life outcomes. It might be useful if we can one day figure out how to improve IQs. However, it isn't useful on an individual level. An average IQ person can surely work hard and make millions running a business, write a best selling novel, etc. even if statistically they might be less likely to do so.

LegitShady 7y ago
IQ is a measure of how fast you learn things. In jobs where problems are novel, high IQ tends to predict success. In monotonous jobs the ability to learn faster doesn't help you. And again, its completely true that IQ does not mean success. The world is full of poor geniuses. but as far as psychology goes, its the best predictor available.