3 ms·

There are many findings in psychology more rigorous than IQ. Operant conditioning is the obvious example.

by scythe 6y ago

lol2143651 6y ago
Well IQ is a quantification and operant conditioning is not. I don't see how you can directly compare the rigour of the two when IQ can be used to make quantitative predictions and the other doesn't...
disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Right, I can name another one after operant conditioning. The stroop effect, and that's it to be honest. Can you supply some more? Like the entirity of personel selection for many, many years was based on IQ like measures, and it was the base for all of the work ETS have done on standardised testing (item response theory and all that). Can you explain why you do not believe IQ to be rigorous?
- scythe 6y ago
  > Right, I can name another one after operant conditioning. The stroop effect, and that's it to be honest. Can you supply some more? >Can you explain why you do not believe IQ to be rigorous? That's a much longer and more complicated argument than what I'm saying, which is simply that IQ is not anywhere near the most essential nor the most studied question in psychology. Classical conditioning is another. Attachment and critical periods in developmental psychology have received a lot of attention. In particular, pretty much any effect which generalizes in a simple and reliable way from humans to animals is easier to experiment on and has a stronger evidence base than IQ: instinctual drift, childhood amnesia, most of the theory of perception, etc. The actual content and priorities of psychology as a field of scientific research is quite different from the few topics which get debated with unreasonably high frequency on the Internet.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Ok, thanks for the explanation. Full disclosure, I have a doctorate in psychology (but have been out of the field almost a decade now), so am well aware of the "actual" psychological research. Personally, for my money, IQ lead to the development of most of modern psychometrics, which I think is probably psychology's largest contribution to intellectual knowledge, but that's probably my quant bias showing. Sure, behaviourism has had a bunch of successes, but it's only necessary for psychology, and definitely not sufficient. Classical conditioning I'll give you, but I definitely didn't hear much about either instinctual drift or childhood amnesia relative to IQ. > theory of perception, Which one? are you talking about the information processing model or the gestalt models? I'd probably agree with you on Gestalt, but not on IP (which I think is the steam-engine metaphor of the mind of our time). I'd agree that it's not the most essential question, but it's definitely one of the most studied.
thotsBgone 6y ago
IQ, however, is the most robust psychometric.
username90 6y ago
Operant conditioning doesn't seem to have stronger effect size than IQ. Otherwise it would be pretty easy to solve crime, classroom behavior, homework, slackers at work etc. Many people act defiantly when conditioned and do the opposite.

There are many findings in psychology more rigorous than IQ. Operant conditioning is the obvious example.

by scythe 6y ago

There are many findings in psychology more rigorous than IQ. Operant conditioning is the obvious example.

Well IQ is a quantification and operant conditioning is not. I don't see how you can directly compare the rigour of the two when IQ can be used to make quantitative predictions and the other doesn't...

disgruntledphd2 6y ago

Right, I can name another one after operant conditioning. The stroop effect, and that's it to be honest. Can you supply some more? Like the entirity of personel selection for many, many years was based on IQ like measures, and it was the base for all of the work ETS have done on standardised testing (item response theory and all that). Can you explain why you do not believe IQ to be rigorous?

scythe 6y ago
> Right, I can name another one after operant conditioning. The stroop effect, and that's it to be honest. Can you supply some more? >Can you explain why you do not believe IQ to be rigorous? That's a much longer and more complicated argument than what I'm saying, which is simply that IQ is not anywhere near the most essential nor the most studied question in psychology. Classical conditioning is another. Attachment and critical periods in developmental psychology have received a lot of attention. In particular, pretty much any effect which generalizes in a simple and reliable way from humans to animals is easier to experiment on and has a stronger evidence base than IQ: instinctual drift, childhood amnesia, most of the theory of perception, etc. The actual content and priorities of psychology as a field of scientific research is quite different from the few topics which get debated with unreasonably high frequency on the Internet.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Ok, thanks for the explanation. Full disclosure, I have a doctorate in psychology (but have been out of the field almost a decade now), so am well aware of the "actual" psychological research. Personally, for my money, IQ lead to the development of most of modern psychometrics, which I think is probably psychology's largest contribution to intellectual knowledge, but that's probably my quant bias showing. Sure, behaviourism has had a bunch of successes, but it's only necessary for psychology, and definitely not sufficient. Classical conditioning I'll give you, but I definitely didn't hear much about either instinctual drift or childhood amnesia relative to IQ. > theory of perception, Which one? are you talking about the information processing model or the gestalt models? I'd probably agree with you on Gestalt, but not on IP (which I think is the steam-engine metaphor of the mind of our time). I'd agree that it's not the most essential question, but it's definitely one of the most studied.

thotsBgone 6y ago

IQ, however, is the most robust psychometric.

username90 6y ago

Operant conditioning doesn't seem to have stronger effect size than IQ. Otherwise it would be pretty easy to solve crime, classroom behavior, homework, slackers at work etc. Many people act defiantly when conditioned and do the opposite.