5 ms·

...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".
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > 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. I think one of the points of intelligence research is that it seems to confirm intelligence (whatever it is) is largely a unified by a single dimension, even when that wasn't necessarily what was expected by the researchers. > It's a fraud. Or at least, in this grossly extended use it became a fraud. Hardly. IQ testing has been vigorously resisted for decades, and yet continues because of it's utility. But if you're going to take that stance, let me ask you: are you willing to throw out the rest of the social sciences? Because that's the only logical result. IQ research is the gold standard of the social sciences. IQ is fraudulent, then so is the rest. > Testing people for falling below a certain threshold on a test was an ok diagnostic for mental deficiency. It is also useful at the higher end. Not all high IQ people are successfully working in complex jobs, but I expect all people who are successfully working in complex jobs are high IQ.
    - oska 7y ago
      > But if you're going to take that stance, let me ask you: are you willing to throw out the rest of the social sciences? Because that's the only logical result. IQ research is the gold standard of the social sciences. IQ is fraudulent, then so is the rest. No, the 'logical result' is throwing out psychology, which I'm more than happy to do. Would also throw out 90% of economics. Happy to keep descriptive sociology, descriptive anthropology, descriptive human geography, descriptive linguistics, etc.
      - lliamander 7y ago
        The parts you are keeping from sociology, anthropology, etc. aren't really what I would call science. I mean yes, it is knowledge about our world, and useful knowledge at that, but it really doesn't fit into a Baconian framework. I will admit that I'm bearish overall on the social sciences. In science you want to be able to make statements that are both a) general, and b) predictive. In the social sciences, generally what is predictive is not general (i.e. "market research") and what is general is usually not in fact predictive (i.e. "hogwash"). I guess I'm just curious why you think IQ is bunk. IQ researchers, perhaps more than any other discipline, have had to endure a considerable degree of scrutiny. Many objections have been raised, and over the decades they've put a lot of work into empirically addressing those objections.
        oska 7y ago
        > I guess I'm just curious why you think IQ is bunk. I could not put it better or more rigorously than Nassim Taleb, so if you are curious I really do recommend a good read of the piece I linked above (and the technical paper he links at the top of that piece).
        LegitShady 7y ago
        If you can't present an argument as to why you think something, you probably haven't.
        lliamander 7y ago

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".
- lliamander 7y ago
  > 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. I think one of the points of intelligence research is that it seems to confirm intelligence (whatever it is) is largely a unified by a single dimension, even when that wasn't necessarily what was expected by the researchers. > It's a fraud. Or at least, in this grossly extended use it became a fraud. Hardly. IQ testing has been vigorously resisted for decades, and yet continues because of it's utility. But if you're going to take that stance, let me ask you: are you willing to throw out the rest of the social sciences? Because that's the only logical result. IQ research is the gold standard of the social sciences. IQ is fraudulent, then so is the rest. > Testing people for falling below a certain threshold on a test was an ok diagnostic for mental deficiency. It is also useful at the higher end. Not all high IQ people are successfully working in complex jobs, but I expect all people who are successfully working in complex jobs are high IQ.
  - oska 7y ago
    > But if you're going to take that stance, let me ask you: are you willing to throw out the rest of the social sciences? Because that's the only logical result. IQ research is the gold standard of the social sciences. IQ is fraudulent, then so is the rest. No, the 'logical result' is throwing out psychology, which I'm more than happy to do. Would also throw out 90% of economics. Happy to keep descriptive sociology, descriptive anthropology, descriptive human geography, descriptive linguistics, etc.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      The parts you are keeping from sociology, anthropology, etc. aren't really what I would call science. I mean yes, it is knowledge about our world, and useful knowledge at that, but it really doesn't fit into a Baconian framework. I will admit that I'm bearish overall on the social sciences. In science you want to be able to make statements that are both a) general, and b) predictive. In the social sciences, generally what is predictive is not general (i.e. "market research") and what is general is usually not in fact predictive (i.e. "hogwash"). I guess I'm just curious why you think IQ is bunk. IQ researchers, perhaps more than any other discipline, have had to endure a considerable degree of scrutiny. Many objections have been raised, and over the decades they've put a lot of work into empirically addressing those objections.
      - oska 7y ago
        > I guess I'm just curious why you think IQ is bunk. I could not put it better or more rigorously than Nassim Taleb, so if you are curious I really do recommend a good read of the piece I linked above (and the technical paper he links at the top of that piece).
        LegitShady 7y ago
        If you can't present an argument as to why you think something, you probably haven't.
        lliamander 7y ago