3 ms·

This is completely false propaganda. The scientific consensus is completely different. Here[1] some research. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/commen

This is completely false propaganda. The scientific consensus is completely different. Here[1] some research. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/oh6115/performance_on_standardized_assessments_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/oh6115/perf...

xorcist 4y ago
That page lists a number of studies that correlates IQ with a number of other lifestyle factors, and a few that postulates things like "well established in the psychological community". I haven't taken the time to read them thoroughly, but from a glance at the summary not a single one touches on the subject. No one disputes that IQ works, that is not the claim, just as the even more nebulous term "socioeconomic factors" works across wide field s of study. But it is not the best predictor we have. Not sure what types of propaganda you see in this, or who stands to gain from it. If any, it should be those heavily invested in questionable theories, perhaps even making money from peddling books and courses. If you really want to argue that IQ is a scientific measurement, start by explaining the scientific process that arrived at the particular method that is broadly used to measure it. Then, if you really want to convince someone, explain what the feedback process looks like that guides the continuing work to improve the measurement process. Because surely there is one, unless you want to argue that IQ is a perfect predictor that could never be improved? Many things from 60s psychology were quite extraordinary, and as the saying goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Efforts to reproduce these studies have had limited success, to say the least.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Seems like most of the disagreement is about what IQ is a good predictor for and is not. There hasn't been much discussion about defining what people think it is and isn't in this thread. You say it's a bad predictor. A bad predictor of what exactly, in concrete terms? I would argue that it is a good predictor of the things that measures: spatial Imaging, logic, and language skills. Someone could argue that is a poor measure and predictor of empathy and interpersonal skills. They would probably be right. IQ has a definition and domain where it works well, and others where it doesn't. That doesn't mean it is useless. Are you claiming that social economic status is a better predictor of spatial Imaging and logic than a direct test of an individual in question?

xorcist 4y ago

That page lists a number of studies that correlates IQ with a number of other lifestyle factors, and a few that postulates things like "well established in the psychological community". I haven't taken the time to read them thoroughly, but from a glance at the summary not a single one touches on the subject. No one disputes that IQ works, that is not the claim, just as the even more nebulous term "socioeconomic factors" works across wide field s of study. But it is not the best predictor we have. Not sure what types of propaganda you see in this, or who stands to gain from it. If any, it should be those heavily invested in questionable theories, perhaps even making money from peddling books and courses. If you really want to argue that IQ is a scientific measurement, start by explaining the scientific process that arrived at the particular method that is broadly used to measure it. Then, if you really want to convince someone, explain what the feedback process looks like that guides the continuing work to improve the measurement process. Because surely there is one, unless you want to argue that IQ is a perfect predictor that could never be improved? Many things from 60s psychology were quite extraordinary, and as the saying goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Efforts to reproduce these studies have had limited success, to say the least.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Seems like most of the disagreement is about what IQ is a good predictor for and is not. There hasn't been much discussion about defining what people think it is and isn't in this thread. You say it's a bad predictor. A bad predictor of what exactly, in concrete terms? I would argue that it is a good predictor of the things that measures: spatial Imaging, logic, and language skills. Someone could argue that is a poor measure and predictor of empathy and interpersonal skills. They would probably be right. IQ has a definition and domain where it works well, and others where it doesn't. That doesn't mean it is useless. Are you claiming that social economic status is a better predictor of spatial Imaging and logic than a direct test of an individual in question?