3 ms·

IQ is largely pseudoscience. It is tied to chess in the same sense it is tied to most other things, as a baseline filter: IQ below 80 means one can hardly do an

IQ is largely pseudoscience. It is tied to chess in the same sense it is tied to most other things, as a baseline filter: IQ below 80 means one can hardly do anything at a high level, beyond that it has almost no meaning.

JamesBarney 7y ago
This is not what any of the science says. IQ is the most studied psychometric in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
- new2628 7y ago
  https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39 https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-... Or a more gentle summary: https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_swindle https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_...
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    Also here's an actual study on chess and IQ. https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2019-vaci.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2019-vaci.pdf > most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests This is the point of the test. That people who do well on this test, do well at their job. >Psychologists do not realize that the effect of IQ (if any, ignoring circularity) is smaller than the difference between IQ tests for the same individual. This is actually evidence that IQ tests are measuring something that is even more predictive. Say I use an MRI and I'm able to predict schizophrenia far better than chance. The argument that the MRI I used was faulty and sometimes returned back false results is not evidence that my test is bogus, but evidence that it's even more powerful because it worked well despite the machine being wonky. > if you want to detect how someone fares at a task, say loan sharking, tennis playing, or random matrix theory, make him/her do that task; we don’t need theoretical exams for a real world function by probability-challenged psychologists This is referencing industrial psychology research. What he's referring to is a work-sample test, and IQ tests are equally predictive. With IQ tests outperforming when the jobs requirements are less defined, and work sample tests outperforming when the job is more defined.(think startup wear many hats lot of on the job learning vs enterprise DBA) He also makes an argument that iq is less predictive of success at higher levels which isn't the case and is based on some bad research. (They measured childhood IQs instead of adult IQs) Most of the article is a collection of strawmen, ad hominems, and just plain weird whatboutism. (just because the high IQ janitors score better than low IQ professors doesn't really tell us whether or not IQ is pseudo scientific)

JamesBarney 7y ago

This is not what any of the science says. IQ is the most studied psychometric in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

new2628 7y ago
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39 https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-... Or a more gentle summary: https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_swindle https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_...
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  Also here's an actual study on chess and IQ. https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2019-vaci.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2019-vaci.pdf > most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests This is the point of the test. That people who do well on this test, do well at their job. >Psychologists do not realize that the effect of IQ (if any, ignoring circularity) is smaller than the difference between IQ tests for the same individual. This is actually evidence that IQ tests are measuring something that is even more predictive. Say I use an MRI and I'm able to predict schizophrenia far better than chance. The argument that the MRI I used was faulty and sometimes returned back false results is not evidence that my test is bogus, but evidence that it's even more powerful because it worked well despite the machine being wonky. > if you want to detect how someone fares at a task, say loan sharking, tennis playing, or random matrix theory, make him/her do that task; we don’t need theoretical exams for a real world function by probability-challenged psychologists This is referencing industrial psychology research. What he's referring to is a work-sample test, and IQ tests are equally predictive. With IQ tests outperforming when the jobs requirements are less defined, and work sample tests outperforming when the job is more defined.(think startup wear many hats lot of on the job learning vs enterprise DBA) He also makes an argument that iq is less predictive of success at higher levels which isn't the case and is based on some bad research. (They measured childhood IQs instead of adult IQs) Most of the article is a collection of strawmen, ad hominems, and just plain weird whatboutism. (just because the high IQ janitors score better than low IQ professors doesn't really tell us whether or not IQ is pseudo scientific)