3 ms·

It would be more accurate to say "Performance on an IQ test" as opposed to "IQ". That's the main criticism I have of IQ. So if you do well on tests, then you p

by bko 6y ago

It would be more accurate to say "Performance on an IQ test" as opposed to "IQ". That's the main criticism I have of IQ. So if you do well on tests, then you probably would do well on the IQ test as well as tests in school, which means you are more likely to have attained a higher level of educations, which is associated with a higher income. To actually prove to me that IQ is a thing, you would have to show me that what you call IQ is innate. Meaning that you can't do better on an IQ test if you study, which I don't believe is true. All written tests I have ever taken have tricks or patterns that you can exploit after some practice. And then you'd have to show me that IQ is a better predictor than some other rote test to tease out general test taking ability or ability to sit still. A lot of people just work off the basis that IQ is a thing that we can measure, which I don't believe to be true, hence the pseudoscientific swindle

rbecker 6y ago
> To actually prove to me that IQ is a thing, you would have to show me that what you call IQ is innate. "Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
- bko 6y ago
  I wasn't talking about innate in the context of heredity. I meant produced by the mind as opposed to experience. I am not convinced that someone can't learn to score better on IQ tests through practice
chongli 6y ago
To actually prove to me that IQ is a thing, you would have to show me that what you call IQ is innate This does not follow. IQ is a thing because they test children on it without warning and without any prep and their performance on these tasks they’ve never seen before in their lives predicts their performance in school better than many other tests. You can’t say the same thing about, say, a language test for a child unfamiliar with the language because the kid won’t understand it at all. The IQ test is designed to be as unrelated to experience as possible in order to measure the capacity for abstract thinking and the ability to solve novel problems when you first encounter them. Since you’re undermining a test of your ability to solve something novel, studying for an IQ test is cheating.
- bko 6y ago
  There are a number of skills that are based on experience (as opposed to innate) that would greatly help you on an IQ test. The most obvious one is being able to sit still, try hard and follow directions. This may be what you're testing for, which is Taleb's claim about "IQ" being associated with obedience and success in a typical office job
  - chongli 6y ago
    Those are necessary but not sufficient to scoring well on an IQ test. Just as proper nutrition is necessary but not sufficient to growing very tall.
- pavlov 6y ago
  > “IQ is a thing because they test children on it without warning and without any prep and their performance on these tasks they’ve never seen before in their lives” I believe this is a myth. There are many ways to prep children for this kind of test, and the wealthy in America have access to an early education system that trains children for standardized tests. I have anecdotal evidence because I have two children who were raised in different countries. My older child did daycare and preschool in Finland, before we moved to USA. My younger child is now three and in private daycare in Manhattan. In Finnish daycare, three-year-olds spent their days playing. In affluent New York, they are clearly being trained to perform on tests. I’m not exactly happy about that because I believe the Finnish system creates more balanced individuals on average. But I guess I’ll see the results of this experiment firsthand in 5-10 years.
  - chongli 6y ago
    Twin studies bear it out quite strongly. Identical twins perform far more similarly on IQ tests then do fraternal twins or non-twin siblings. Identical twins raised in separate households perform extremely similarly to twins raised in the same household. It’s not a myth, it’s just controversial because our society values these abilities so highly.
    - 6y ago

by bko 6y ago

rbecker 6y ago

> To actually prove to me that IQ is a thing, you would have to show me that what you call IQ is innate. "Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

bko 6y ago
I wasn't talking about innate in the context of heredity. I meant produced by the mind as opposed to experience. I am not convinced that someone can't learn to score better on IQ tests through practice

chongli 6y ago

To actually prove to me that IQ is a thing, you would have to show me that what you call IQ is innate This does not follow. IQ is a thing because they test children on it without warning and without any prep and their performance on these tasks they’ve never seen before in their lives predicts their performance in school better than many other tests. You can’t say the same thing about, say, a language test for a child unfamiliar with the language because the kid won’t understand it at all. The IQ test is designed to be as unrelated to experience as possible in order to measure the capacity for abstract thinking and the ability to solve novel problems when you first encounter them. Since you’re undermining a test of your ability to solve something novel, studying for an IQ test is cheating.

bko 6y ago
There are a number of skills that are based on experience (as opposed to innate) that would greatly help you on an IQ test. The most obvious one is being able to sit still, try hard and follow directions. This may be what you're testing for, which is Taleb's claim about "IQ" being associated with obedience and success in a typical office job
- chongli 6y ago
  Those are necessary but not sufficient to scoring well on an IQ test. Just as proper nutrition is necessary but not sufficient to growing very tall.
pavlov 6y ago
> “IQ is a thing because they test children on it without warning and without any prep and their performance on these tasks they’ve never seen before in their lives” I believe this is a myth. There are many ways to prep children for this kind of test, and the wealthy in America have access to an early education system that trains children for standardized tests. I have anecdotal evidence because I have two children who were raised in different countries. My older child did daycare and preschool in Finland, before we moved to USA. My younger child is now three and in private daycare in Manhattan. In Finnish daycare, three-year-olds spent their days playing. In affluent New York, they are clearly being trained to perform on tests. I’m not exactly happy about that because I believe the Finnish system creates more balanced individuals on average. But I guess I’ll see the results of this experiment firsthand in 5-10 years.
- chongli 6y ago
  Twin studies bear it out quite strongly. Identical twins perform far more similarly on IQ tests then do fraternal twins or non-twin siblings. Identical twins raised in separate households perform extremely similarly to twins raised in the same household. It’s not a myth, it’s just controversial because our society values these abilities so highly.
  - 6y ago