5 ms·

I dunno, this is probably the best-case for IQ, to be honest. Remember kids, IQ was developed to predict which children would perform best in school so that th

I dunno, this is probably the best-case for IQ, to be honest. Remember kids, IQ was developed to predict which children would perform best in school so that they could be streamed, and that's what it's best at. I don't think that the author is abusing statistics here at all, as the variance explained by IQ on grades is always pretty large (in psychology, 35% explained is super, super good), and if I really cared (i.e. you reply and ask for this) I could probably dig up another few datasets that show the same or higher association.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
You are welcome to do so if you have the time. To be honest though, I'm not sure what that would achieve. I don't think that these kinds of claims can be seriously supported by a discussion in the format of an online message board, no matter how many links and datasets we throw at each other.
vsskanth 6y ago
I'm an engineer and if I present any model with an R2 of 0.35 it would be flat out rejected because it would be worse than random chance and they won't use the model to make decisions. Assuming the R2 here is indeed correct how do you use this to make real life hiring or admission decisions ? Just weight it at 35% ? What do you do for the other 65% then ?
- api 6y ago
  Social sciences are called “soft” for a reason.
  - vsskanth 6y ago
    Why (asking seriously). I am not doubting the validity of the correlation. I just want to know how one can use this info properly.
    - api 6y ago
      I was simply agreeing with the parent that the standard for evidence in the social sciences is a lot weaker than would be acceptable in physics, chemistry, etc.
      - free_rms 6y ago
        Necessarily weaker, though. You can't break out an electron microscope and numerically confirm observations about emergent outcomes from a billion individuals with their own psychologies. Either we allow for "softer" observations/experiments or we throw up our hands and give up.
- ploika 6y ago
  What do you mean by worse than random? R-squared is a measure of variance explained, not binary prediction accuracy.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > if I present any model with an R2 of 0.35 it would be flat out rejected because it would be worse than random chance If I was interviewing an engineer that said something like this, I wouldn't hire them. It's somewhat unclear what you even think "random chance" means in a regression context.
- username90 6y ago
  > R2 of 0.35 it would be would be worse than random chance Any model with non-zero R2 is better than random guessing.
mcguire 6y ago
"IQ was developed to predict which children would perform best in school so that they could be streamed..." I believe it was developed to predict those which would perform worse so they could be further examined for specific issues and extra help.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  You are correct, I misremembered.
- ahazred8ta 6y ago
  "(in 1904) The French Ministry of Education asked these researchers to develop a test that would allow for distinguishing mentally retarded children from normally intelligent, but lazy children." -- Binet developed it out of an earlier concept of 'mental age', the average ability level of a child aged so many years and months.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago

You are welcome to do so if you have the time. To be honest though, I'm not sure what that would achieve. I don't think that these kinds of claims can be seriously supported by a discussion in the format of an online message board, no matter how many links and datasets we throw at each other.

vsskanth 6y ago

I'm an engineer and if I present any model with an R2 of 0.35 it would be flat out rejected because it would be worse than random chance and they won't use the model to make decisions. Assuming the R2 here is indeed correct how do you use this to make real life hiring or admission decisions ? Just weight it at 35% ? What do you do for the other 65% then ?

api 6y ago
Social sciences are called “soft” for a reason.
- vsskanth 6y ago
  Why (asking seriously). I am not doubting the validity of the correlation. I just want to know how one can use this info properly.
  - api 6y ago
    I was simply agreeing with the parent that the standard for evidence in the social sciences is a lot weaker than would be acceptable in physics, chemistry, etc.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      Necessarily weaker, though. You can't break out an electron microscope and numerically confirm observations about emergent outcomes from a billion individuals with their own psychologies. Either we allow for "softer" observations/experiments or we throw up our hands and give up.
ploika 6y ago
What do you mean by worse than random? R-squared is a measure of variance explained, not binary prediction accuracy.
whimsicalism 6y ago
> if I present any model with an R2 of 0.35 it would be flat out rejected because it would be worse than random chance If I was interviewing an engineer that said something like this, I wouldn't hire them. It's somewhat unclear what you even think "random chance" means in a regression context.
username90 6y ago
> R2 of 0.35 it would be would be worse than random chance Any model with non-zero R2 is better than random guessing.

mcguire 6y ago

"IQ was developed to predict which children would perform best in school so that they could be streamed..." I believe it was developed to predict those which would perform worse so they could be further examined for specific issues and extra help.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
You are correct, I misremembered.
ahazred8ta 6y ago
"(in 1904) The French Ministry of Education asked these researchers to develop a test that would allow for distinguishing mentally retarded children from normally intelligent, but lazy children." -- Binet developed it out of an earlier concept of 'mental age', the average ability level of a child aged so many years and months.