3 ms·

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 mea

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.
- codesushi42 7y ago
  Again, no one is arguing that IQ is meaningless. It is less meaningful the closer you are to the middle of the Bell Curve though. And it is not an end-all measurement of human intelligence. 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...
  - seventhtiger 7y ago
    Unfortunately that specific study is notorious for blowing past the peer review process: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2014-haier.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2014-haier.pdf The reviewers shared a 20-point critique of the paper prior to publication that was ignored by the publisher and researchers. In fact, their results clearly showed the existence of a general intelligence until they performed an unnecessary rotation which is mentioned in Appendix B point 7. Whether or not IQ has human meaning, social value, or is the "end-all" are subjective arguments that are not within the scope of IQ study. Statistically we know that so far out of all the psychometric scores that have been invented it is the strongest one. Better measurements will most definitely be invented, but they haven't so far.

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.

codesushi42 7y ago
Again, no one is arguing that IQ is meaningless. It is less meaningful the closer you are to the middle of the Bell Curve though. And it is not an end-all measurement of human intelligence. 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...
- seventhtiger 7y ago
  Unfortunately that specific study is notorious for blowing past the peer review process: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2014-haier.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2014-haier.pdf The reviewers shared a 20-point critique of the paper prior to publication that was ignored by the publisher and researchers. In fact, their results clearly showed the existence of a general intelligence until they performed an unnecessary rotation which is mentioned in Appendix B point 7. Whether or not IQ has human meaning, social value, or is the "end-all" are subjective arguments that are not within the scope of IQ study. Statistically we know that so far out of all the psychometric scores that have been invented it is the strongest one. Better measurements will most definitely be invented, but they haven't so far.