8 ms·

> There is nothing in the field of psychology with better support than IQ. If you aren't going to accept IQ, then you've entirely tossed out the field of psycho

> There is nothing in the field of psychology with better support than IQ. If you aren't going to accept IQ, then you've entirely tossed out the field of psychology. There is nothing left. Huh. That's quite a bold and incorrect claim. Are you a psychologist?

exfalso 6y ago
Perhaps the word "psychometry" would have been better. There isn't any psychometric test more stable than IQ.
- feanaro 6y ago
  That's a bit better, but confusing the statements "IQ is the most temporally stable psychometric construct" and "IQ is the only valid psychometric construct" is still egregious.
  - rcxdude 6y ago
    I don't read it that way, I think it's meant as 'if you reject IQ, you have raised your standards of evidence so high you must logically reject everything else in psychology/psychometry as well'. It's meant to highlight a contradiction.
    - feanaro 6y ago
      Yes, if interpreted like that, I agree with it. What threw me off was "There's nothing left" part. I see now that I might've misinterpreted the meaning.
- cannabis_sam 6y ago
  How do you define/consider “stable” this specific context?
mudita 6y ago
Let's hear it from a psychologist: "If you don’t buy IQ research, you might as well throw out all the rest of psychology." (Jordan Peterson) https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y?t=2938 https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y?t=2938 For anybody interested in personality research, I warmly recommend this lecture series, by the way. These are the basics, which psychology students learn at university.
- 0x737368 6y ago
  Ah yes, a comment about Jordan Peterson that immediately gets downvoted, despite Peterson being competent in the field and the people that are downvoting this are almost most certainly not. I've noticed this every time his name gets mentioned, and I always wondered why that is. Whenever I'd ask one of his "critics" about what's the issue with him I can't get a good answer. So what is it? Can someone maybe explain to me why is there such animosity towards him? Is it just because he's considered to be a "conservative" by hard leftists(despite mostly being a classic liberal). Have we really reached the point where people will automatically go against somebody just because he's "not one of us", and not even consider the ideas. If so we have a really dark road ahead of us. It is even more disappointing to see this on HN. I expect this sort of hivemind on Reddit and Twitter, but I used to have a higher opinion of the userbase on HN.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    For the record, I didn't downvote your original comment and I don't have any opinion on Jordan Peterson's expertise as a psychologist. But as a public speaker, he is not a "classical liberal" he is a reactionary conservative with a bent for sophism. His views on culture and on the left are simply wrong, obviously so, but they are presented with academic gravitas and conviction. He implies, though is careful to not outright state, that men are superior to women in intellect and rationality, as are white people when compared to black people (though Ashkenazi Jews are even smarter, so he's not racist!). He does often outright state that "Western" culture is superior to other cultures, that Marxism and post-modernism are not the products of "Western" culture, that Hitler was actually a leftist, and many other obvious falsehoods. he conflates marxism and post-modernism, two diametrically opposed views of history and culture (not to imply that they are the only possible ones, of course). In short, he is a conman who rides his (quite real, as far as I've heard!) academic and clinical credentials in Psychology to make it seem that he is an authority worth listening to on other topics; and he tries to sell damaging, reactionary falsehoods on those other topics.
feanaro 6y ago
Thank you for the reactionary downvotes, but how about making an actual argument? (self-reply because I can no longer edit the comment)

exfalso 6y ago

Perhaps the word "psychometry" would have been better. There isn't any psychometric test more stable than IQ.

feanaro 6y ago
That's a bit better, but confusing the statements "IQ is the most temporally stable psychometric construct" and "IQ is the only valid psychometric construct" is still egregious.
- rcxdude 6y ago
  I don't read it that way, I think it's meant as 'if you reject IQ, you have raised your standards of evidence so high you must logically reject everything else in psychology/psychometry as well'. It's meant to highlight a contradiction.
  - feanaro 6y ago
    Yes, if interpreted like that, I agree with it. What threw me off was "There's nothing left" part. I see now that I might've misinterpreted the meaning.
cannabis_sam 6y ago
How do you define/consider “stable” this specific context?

mudita 6y ago

Let's hear it from a psychologist: "If you don’t buy IQ research, you might as well throw out all the rest of psychology." (Jordan Peterson) https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y?t=2938 https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y?t=2938 For anybody interested in personality research, I warmly recommend this lecture series, by the way. These are the basics, which psychology students learn at university.

0x737368 6y ago
Ah yes, a comment about Jordan Peterson that immediately gets downvoted, despite Peterson being competent in the field and the people that are downvoting this are almost most certainly not. I've noticed this every time his name gets mentioned, and I always wondered why that is. Whenever I'd ask one of his "critics" about what's the issue with him I can't get a good answer. So what is it? Can someone maybe explain to me why is there such animosity towards him? Is it just because he's considered to be a "conservative" by hard leftists(despite mostly being a classic liberal). Have we really reached the point where people will automatically go against somebody just because he's "not one of us", and not even consider the ideas. If so we have a really dark road ahead of us. It is even more disappointing to see this on HN. I expect this sort of hivemind on Reddit and Twitter, but I used to have a higher opinion of the userbase on HN.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  For the record, I didn't downvote your original comment and I don't have any opinion on Jordan Peterson's expertise as a psychologist. But as a public speaker, he is not a "classical liberal" he is a reactionary conservative with a bent for sophism. His views on culture and on the left are simply wrong, obviously so, but they are presented with academic gravitas and conviction. He implies, though is careful to not outright state, that men are superior to women in intellect and rationality, as are white people when compared to black people (though Ashkenazi Jews are even smarter, so he's not racist!). He does often outright state that "Western" culture is superior to other cultures, that Marxism and post-modernism are not the products of "Western" culture, that Hitler was actually a leftist, and many other obvious falsehoods. he conflates marxism and post-modernism, two diametrically opposed views of history and culture (not to imply that they are the only possible ones, of course). In short, he is a conman who rides his (quite real, as far as I've heard!) academic and clinical credentials in Psychology to make it seem that he is an authority worth listening to on other topics; and he tries to sell damaging, reactionary falsehoods on those other topics.

feanaro 6y ago

Thank you for the reactionary downvotes, but how about making an actual argument? (self-reply because I can no longer edit the comment)