3 ms·

Haven't read the article (it's down) but isn't the best test for proficiency in higher maths that you can actually do higher maths? Why do we need these proxies

Haven't read the article (it's down) but isn't the best test for proficiency in higher maths that you can actually do higher maths? Why do we need these proxies?

thaumasiotes 6y ago
Cost of testing. You can get a good idea of someone's ability to do higher math in an hour with an IQ test. If instead you give them a test of higher math, you'd need to train them to do it first, which would take much, much longer. The added accuracy of that test won't make up for the several-orders-of-magnitude increase in cost.
- ogogmad 6y ago
  Fair enough. But there needs to be evidence that this stuff actually works. I'm reminded of the fact that Richard Feynman didn't have a high enough IQ to get into Mensa.
  - Ballas 6y ago
    Or rather he did not score well enough on their test to get to enter.
  - dunce2020 6y ago
    Sure, but he had an IQ high enough to do physics.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > But there needs to be evidence that this stuff actually works. It is not in short supply.
    - ogogmad 6y ago
      I'm skeptical. What evidence is there?
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Asking questions that imply you've never bothered to read anything about the topic isn't a good way to try to get other people to engage with you. But if you're looking for a brief overview, you could read https://www.amazon.com/dp/1444791877/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1444791877/
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        ogogmad 6y ago
        Evidence that's built on "statistical correlation" is very weak. A correlation coefficient of 0.6 or less is practically non-predictive. The people in this area need to use better mathematics.
  - lordnacho 6y ago
    My guess is at that high cutoff a small number of errors make a big difference to the final score.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    > But there needs to be evidence that this stuff actually works. https://www.gwern.net/docs/www/www1.udel.edu/63a495ef6b79bb4ce508ed205546bcba826e42a5.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/www/www1.udel.edu/63a495ef6b79bb4... Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life Personnel selection research provides much evidence that intelligence (g) is an important predictor of performance in training and on the job, especially in higher level work. This article provides evidence that g has pervasive utility in work settings because it is essen- tially the ability to deal with cognitive complexity, in particular, with complex information processing. The more complex a work task, the greater the advantages that higher g confers in performing it well. Everyday tasks, like job duties, also differ in their level of complexity. The importance of intelligence therefore differs systematically across differ- ent arenas of social life as well as economic endeavor. Data from the National Adult Literacy Survey are used to show how higher levels of cognitive ability systematically improve individuals’ odds of dealing successfully with the ordinary demands of modem life (such as banking, using maps and transportation schedules, reading and understanding forms, interpreting news articles). These and other data are summarized to illustrate how the advantages of higher g, even when they are small, cumulate to affect the overall life chances of individuals at different ranges of the IQ bell curve. The article concludes by suggesting ways to reduce the risks for low-IQ individuals of being left behind by an increasingly complex postindustrial economy.
    - est31 6y ago
      The "not much more than g" era in research has ended. TLDR: cognitive ability is not just a single scalar value. > For several decades, the question of whether measures of specific cognitive ability contributed anything meaningful to the prediction of performance on the job or performance in training once measures of general mental ability were taken into account appeared to be settled, and a consensus developed that there was little value in using specific ability measures in contexts where more general measures were available. It now appears that this consensus was premature, and that measures of specific abilities can make important contributions even if general measures are taken into account. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526477/
- yetanta 6y ago
  Not only that they would have either been using it consistently since they learned it or just learned it. I at one point could do differential equations (linear alg + calc). If you put one of the remedial problems in front of me I would not be able to do it. That info is just 'gone' from 25 years ago. But obviously I can do it. I got an A. I know enough right now to know what to go lookup so I could re-learn it if I needed to.

Haven't read the article (it's down) but isn't the best test for proficiency in higher maths that you can actually do higher maths? Why do we need these proxies?

thaumasiotes 6y ago

Cost of testing. You can get a good idea of someone's ability to do higher math in an hour with an IQ test. If instead you give them a test of higher math, you'd need to train them to do it first, which would take much, much longer. The added accuracy of that test won't make up for the several-orders-of-magnitude increase in cost.

ogogmad 6y ago
Fair enough. But there needs to be evidence that this stuff actually works. I'm reminded of the fact that Richard Feynman didn't have a high enough IQ to get into Mensa.
- Ballas 6y ago
  Or rather he did not score well enough on their test to get to enter.
- dunce2020 6y ago
  Sure, but he had an IQ high enough to do physics.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > But there needs to be evidence that this stuff actually works. It is not in short supply.
  - ogogmad 6y ago
    I'm skeptical. What evidence is there?
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      Asking questions that imply you've never bothered to read anything about the topic isn't a good way to try to get other people to engage with you. But if you're looking for a brief overview, you could read https://www.amazon.com/dp/1444791877/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1444791877/
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ogogmad 6y ago
        Evidence that's built on "statistical correlation" is very weak. A correlation coefficient of 0.6 or less is practically non-predictive. The people in this area need to use better mathematics.
- lordnacho 6y ago
  My guess is at that high cutoff a small number of errors make a big difference to the final score.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  > But there needs to be evidence that this stuff actually works. https://www.gwern.net/docs/www/www1.udel.edu/63a495ef6b79bb4ce508ed205546bcba826e42a5.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/www/www1.udel.edu/63a495ef6b79bb4... Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life Personnel selection research provides much evidence that intelligence (g) is an important predictor of performance in training and on the job, especially in higher level work. This article provides evidence that g has pervasive utility in work settings because it is essen- tially the ability to deal with cognitive complexity, in particular, with complex information processing. The more complex a work task, the greater the advantages that higher g confers in performing it well. Everyday tasks, like job duties, also differ in their level of complexity. The importance of intelligence therefore differs systematically across differ- ent arenas of social life as well as economic endeavor. Data from the National Adult Literacy Survey are used to show how higher levels of cognitive ability systematically improve individuals’ odds of dealing successfully with the ordinary demands of modem life (such as banking, using maps and transportation schedules, reading and understanding forms, interpreting news articles). These and other data are summarized to illustrate how the advantages of higher g, even when they are small, cumulate to affect the overall life chances of individuals at different ranges of the IQ bell curve. The article concludes by suggesting ways to reduce the risks for low-IQ individuals of being left behind by an increasingly complex postindustrial economy.
  - est31 6y ago
    The "not much more than g" era in research has ended. TLDR: cognitive ability is not just a single scalar value. > For several decades, the question of whether measures of specific cognitive ability contributed anything meaningful to the prediction of performance on the job or performance in training once measures of general mental ability were taken into account appeared to be settled, and a consensus developed that there was little value in using specific ability measures in contexts where more general measures were available. It now appears that this consensus was premature, and that measures of specific abilities can make important contributions even if general measures are taken into account. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526477/
yetanta 6y ago
Not only that they would have either been using it consistently since they learned it or just learned it. I at one point could do differential equations (linear alg + calc). If you put one of the remedial problems in front of me I would not be able to do it. That info is just 'gone' from 25 years ago. But obviously I can do it. I got an A. I know enough right now to know what to go lookup so I could re-learn it if I needed to.