4 ms·

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/

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?

chrisco255 7y ago
I don't think it's a perfect measure but it's the best we've got. No other psychological measure has the predictive power of IQ tests. The key to a good experiment is it's predictive capacity. IQ tests are very good predictors of reading comprehension, academic outcomes, and economic outcomes. If a weather forecast 5-20 years into the future were to hit the mark 80-90% of the time we would call that a great model.
- codesushi42 7y ago
  If said model only predicted whether it will rain or not. But not really. You pulled those numbers out of the air, and they aren't very descriptive. Will someone with a 140 IQ fair better academically and economically than someone with 130 90% of the time? 140 vs 100, sure. But as the # of standard deviations converges, it's less meaningful. And there are still other covariant factors you are failing to consider, as mentioned before.
  - bena 7y ago
    The point is that no matter which way you slice it, IQ stands out. On average, people raised in poor environments who have higher IQ do better than people raised in poor environments with lower IQ. More likely to be more upwardly mobile, more likely to be more whatever. And on average, people raised in good environments who have higher IQ do better than people raised in good environments who have lower IQ. If you're a person of color, on average, you're going to do better if you have a higher IQ than if you have a lower IQ. Same if you're a woman. And 140 vs 130 is a bit unfair. You're talking about looking for meaningful differences between less than 2% of the population as compared to less than 0.1% of the population. And just because there are diminishing returns with something like IQ, doesn't make it useless.
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      And 140 vs 130 is a bit unfair That wasn't the point. I would say the same for 100 and 110. Some MENSA members in this thread seem very attached to their scores.
      - bena 7y ago
        100 and 110 you might see more differences in the aggregate. That's the other thing, you do have to look at the whole. Because there is likely overlap. But the trend of note is that IQ tracks through it. If you sort people by earning potential, you'll find that as average income goes up, so does average IQ. When you sort by health outcomes. As average healthiness goes up, so does average IQ. Even the outcomes that are colloquially contrasted with intelligence actually correlate well. In other words, if you sorted people by EQ, you'll find that better average EQ means better average IQ. IQ is the aspartame of psychology. So maligned that it's been probably studied more than other things. And just like aspartame is perfectly fine, IQ does what it says on the tin.
        codesushi42 7y ago
        It is an indicator. Not a rule. 100 vs 140 will be a very strong indicator. 100 vs 110 will not; I would not trust 110 to yield a better outcome 80-90% of the time, as GP claimed. Which is why the comparison of IQ scores at that coarseness is plain silly.

chrisco255 7y ago

I don't think it's a perfect measure but it's the best we've got. No other psychological measure has the predictive power of IQ tests. The key to a good experiment is it's predictive capacity. IQ tests are very good predictors of reading comprehension, academic outcomes, and economic outcomes. If a weather forecast 5-20 years into the future were to hit the mark 80-90% of the time we would call that a great model.

codesushi42 7y ago
If said model only predicted whether it will rain or not. But not really. You pulled those numbers out of the air, and they aren't very descriptive. Will someone with a 140 IQ fair better academically and economically than someone with 130 90% of the time? 140 vs 100, sure. But as the # of standard deviations converges, it's less meaningful. And there are still other covariant factors you are failing to consider, as mentioned before.
- bena 7y ago
  The point is that no matter which way you slice it, IQ stands out. On average, people raised in poor environments who have higher IQ do better than people raised in poor environments with lower IQ. More likely to be more upwardly mobile, more likely to be more whatever. And on average, people raised in good environments who have higher IQ do better than people raised in good environments who have lower IQ. If you're a person of color, on average, you're going to do better if you have a higher IQ than if you have a lower IQ. Same if you're a woman. And 140 vs 130 is a bit unfair. You're talking about looking for meaningful differences between less than 2% of the population as compared to less than 0.1% of the population. And just because there are diminishing returns with something like IQ, doesn't make it useless.
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    And 140 vs 130 is a bit unfair That wasn't the point. I would say the same for 100 and 110. Some MENSA members in this thread seem very attached to their scores.
    - bena 7y ago
      100 and 110 you might see more differences in the aggregate. That's the other thing, you do have to look at the whole. Because there is likely overlap. But the trend of note is that IQ tracks through it. If you sort people by earning potential, you'll find that as average income goes up, so does average IQ. When you sort by health outcomes. As average healthiness goes up, so does average IQ. Even the outcomes that are colloquially contrasted with intelligence actually correlate well. In other words, if you sorted people by EQ, you'll find that better average EQ means better average IQ. IQ is the aspartame of psychology. So maligned that it's been probably studied more than other things. And just like aspartame is perfectly fine, IQ does what it says on the tin.
      - codesushi42 7y ago
        It is an indicator. Not a rule. 100 vs 140 will be a very strong indicator. 100 vs 110 will not; I would not trust 110 to yield a better outcome 80-90% of the time, as GP claimed. Which is why the comparison of IQ scores at that coarseness is plain silly.