3 ms·

IQ is regularly being dismissed as a poor measure of intelligence, mainly because it measures intelligence on a linear scale. It does not take into account per

IQ is regularly being dismissed as a poor measure of intelligence, mainly because it measures intelligence on a linear scale. It does not take into account perceptive intelligence, emotional intelligence, and others.

smabie 4y ago
Neither does the word intelligence? Seems fine to me
skybrian 4y ago
It's not enough to say that a multidimensional scale might be a good idea. You have to decide how many dimensions there are, how to measure them, and gain consensus for the new way of doing it. Until there's a new standard, or they see a need to do something different, scientists interested in intelligence are going to stick to measuring IQ.
- xcambar 4y ago
  I read your contribution as "it's good because that's what we have", which I think is a fallacy. What we have can and should be discussed and challenged. Not having a complete, new and better solution, doesn't prevent us from pointing at flaws. All the while working on the new thing.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    Researchers have been looking for a multi-factor theory of intelligence for a long time. People are extremely highly motivated both on a careerist basis and an ideological one to find a better model for intelligence than g/IQ. It’s been tried. The two most famous are Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences and Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory. The main fault of Gardner’s theory is that it has no empirical backing of any kind[1], which effects its popularity with Ed schools not at all. Sternberg’s theory at least actually works. It’s just that it is extra work and complexity for no increase in predictive validity. There’s no way to distinguish it from straight g. [1]According to a 2006 study, many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, of cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, of non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intellige...
voldacar 4y ago
"Emotional intelligence" is not a form of intelligence. It was basically invented out of nowhere by some pop sci person, and since then it seems like its main function is for people whose IQs are not very high to say "well, I have emotional intelligence, ergo I am smart"
- antihero 4y ago
  Funnily enough, all of this shit was made up at some point. IQ is hardly something that is without flaws. It’s all drawing lines in the sand. Intelligence is mainly just learning speed/capacity and pattern recognition/perception. Why is it so strange that this could also apply to the realm of the interpersonal as well as the classical?
annyeonghada 4y ago
>IQ is regularly being dismissed as a poor measure of intelligence By whom? Previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31376980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31376980

smabie 4y ago

Neither does the word intelligence? Seems fine to me

skybrian 4y ago

It's not enough to say that a multidimensional scale might be a good idea. You have to decide how many dimensions there are, how to measure them, and gain consensus for the new way of doing it. Until there's a new standard, or they see a need to do something different, scientists interested in intelligence are going to stick to measuring IQ.

xcambar 4y ago
I read your contribution as "it's good because that's what we have", which I think is a fallacy. What we have can and should be discussed and challenged. Not having a complete, new and better solution, doesn't prevent us from pointing at flaws. All the while working on the new thing.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  Researchers have been looking for a multi-factor theory of intelligence for a long time. People are extremely highly motivated both on a careerist basis and an ideological one to find a better model for intelligence than g/IQ. It’s been tried. The two most famous are Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences and Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory. The main fault of Gardner’s theory is that it has no empirical backing of any kind[1], which effects its popularity with Ed schools not at all. Sternberg’s theory at least actually works. It’s just that it is extra work and complexity for no increase in predictive validity. There’s no way to distinguish it from straight g. [1]According to a 2006 study, many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, of cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, of non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intellige...

voldacar 4y ago

"Emotional intelligence" is not a form of intelligence. It was basically invented out of nowhere by some pop sci person, and since then it seems like its main function is for people whose IQs are not very high to say "well, I have emotional intelligence, ergo I am smart"

antihero 4y ago
Funnily enough, all of this shit was made up at some point. IQ is hardly something that is without flaws. It’s all drawing lines in the sand. Intelligence is mainly just learning speed/capacity and pattern recognition/perception. Why is it so strange that this could also apply to the realm of the interpersonal as well as the classical?

annyeonghada 4y ago

>IQ is regularly being dismissed as a poor measure of intelligence By whom? Previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31376980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31376980