4 ms·

IQ is just a metric from taking a standardized test. I don't know why people have a hard time understanding that. It's like being mad about people's SAT scores.

IQ is just a metric from taking a standardized test. I don't know why people have a hard time understanding that. It's like being mad about people's SAT scores. It's not like IQ is even used for anything important, people don't put it on their resumes or anything.

jmauritz 6y ago
I've done a few "aptitude" tests for interviews, and so has people in my closest circle. It seems common across business sectors and taken as a major indicator of employee "success" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
rglullis 6y ago
> IQ is just a metric from taking a standardized test. I don't know why people have a hard time understanding that. It's like being mad about people's SAT scores. Metric for what? That is the point. The main argument as I understand is that "intelligence" is not something one-dimensional that can be measured with a number. If IQ tests were a simple pass/fail filter for detecting some kind of learning disability, sure. The problem is when you have a whole army of people trying to infer something tremendously complex from a single scalar point. > It's not like IQ is even used for anything important, people don't put it on their resumes or anything. Yet, how many psychologists rely on IQ data and IQ "science" to justify their research grants, their books and their consulting fees from companies? How many people parrot Charles Murray to justify their racism with "science"?
- dennis_jeeves 6y ago
  >Metric for what? Metric for capability. Even though imperfect, IQ appears to reasonable good predictor of how capable a person is in learning a new task. The better way is of course to actually tech the person to find out how well he can learn it, which is time consuming. High IQ people can easily learn and do most jobs, low IQ people cannot. >How many people parrot Charles Murray to justify their racism with "science"? Charles Murray just says that races have statistically different IQ. This is different from my understood definition of racism which manifest as: "I will not hire you because you belong to race X"
  - rglullis 6y ago
    Assuming you are right, the metric of capability could still work as a pass/fail filter, and if IQ tests were just that the discussions would be way less controversial. The problem is when you have a whole lot of either naive or malicious people trying to drive this hammer into any and every thing, trying to draw crazy correlations from IQ: drug abuse, income, life expectancy, social status... > This is different from my understood definition of racism which manifest as: "I will not hire you because you belong to race X". Yeah, it would be crazy to hear that from a hiring manager saying that nowadays. But put the veil of science and suddenly it is easy to consistently choose the White with an IQ of 107 over the Hispanic with "only" 98, even though both of them are perfectly capable of doing the job - or to get a plant with 100 new workers and end up with a bias to White/Asian due to a test where they score "statistically higher" but that is completely irrelevant for actual job performance.

jmauritz 6y ago

I've done a few "aptitude" tests for interviews, and so has people in my closest circle. It seems common across business sectors and taken as a major indicator of employee "success" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/

rglullis 6y ago

> IQ is just a metric from taking a standardized test. I don't know why people have a hard time understanding that. It's like being mad about people's SAT scores. Metric for what? That is the point. The main argument as I understand is that "intelligence" is not something one-dimensional that can be measured with a number. If IQ tests were a simple pass/fail filter for detecting some kind of learning disability, sure. The problem is when you have a whole army of people trying to infer something tremendously complex from a single scalar point. > It's not like IQ is even used for anything important, people don't put it on their resumes or anything. Yet, how many psychologists rely on IQ data and IQ "science" to justify their research grants, their books and their consulting fees from companies? How many people parrot Charles Murray to justify their racism with "science"?

dennis_jeeves 6y ago
>Metric for what? Metric for capability. Even though imperfect, IQ appears to reasonable good predictor of how capable a person is in learning a new task. The better way is of course to actually tech the person to find out how well he can learn it, which is time consuming. High IQ people can easily learn and do most jobs, low IQ people cannot. >How many people parrot Charles Murray to justify their racism with "science"? Charles Murray just says that races have statistically different IQ. This is different from my understood definition of racism which manifest as: "I will not hire you because you belong to race X"
- rglullis 6y ago
  Assuming you are right, the metric of capability could still work as a pass/fail filter, and if IQ tests were just that the discussions would be way less controversial. The problem is when you have a whole lot of either naive or malicious people trying to drive this hammer into any and every thing, trying to draw crazy correlations from IQ: drug abuse, income, life expectancy, social status... > This is different from my understood definition of racism which manifest as: "I will not hire you because you belong to race X". Yeah, it would be crazy to hear that from a hiring manager saying that nowadays. But put the veil of science and suddenly it is easy to consistently choose the White with an IQ of 107 over the Hispanic with "only" 98, even though both of them are perfectly capable of doing the job - or to get a plant with 100 new workers and end up with a bias to White/Asian due to a test where they score "statistically higher" but that is completely irrelevant for actual job performance.