7 ms·

IQ scores? Really? Should we look at the correlation to phrenology reports and the subjects balance of humours as well?

by devmor 4y ago

AbrahamParangi 4y ago
Are you under the impression that IQ scores don’t measure anything?
- mjburgess 4y ago
  very low IQ scores correlate with ordinary measures of mental performance. Above 100, they're randomly correlated with generic extrinsic measures of performance, and have little test-retest consistency. You can differ as much in your test-retest score as would be the gap between mental retardation and "normal". Above 100, they're mostly a measure of proficiency at taking written tests. In any case, there is no theory of what IQ measures other than by assertion that it measures "intelligence", so there's nothing actually to be said about it. It's a means of extracting apparent patterns in some test answers; there is no scientific theory of what those patterns mean.
  - AbrahamParangi 4y ago
    Extracting apparent patterns in [test answers] is a cognitively difficult task, and is thus a reasonable metric of performing cognitively difficult tasks. Given that this is what we are attempting to measure, it seems completely fine. Pointing out flaws in the test (lack of generality, non-deterministic behavior) is not actually a counter-argument so long as the test correlates with at least some outcomes that we care about. And it does! And this is very reproducible!
    - mjburgess 4y ago
      No no, i mean the psychometrist is the person superstitiously using the fact that answers to their choice of questions correlate, as some measure of something. The claim that IQ tests are "cognitively difficult" is either trivial or unevidenced. Its trivial in the sense that most tasks are "cognitively difficult", that doesnt make them valid measures of cognitive difficulty. It is unevidenced in the sense that there is no theory of what "cognitive difficulty" means that can be tested. My apologies, but IQ tests really are actually pseudoscience. They're a product of a discipline which superstitiously uses GUI-statistical tooling without understanding anything abotu the scientific method, nor the statistical metrics that these tools report. An animal, and its intelligence, is a complex chaotic system whose "cognitition" or "intelligence" is by no means measured by an IQ test. And such a claim is prima fascie ridiculous from any actual biological (ie., theory-building, scientific) study of intelligence.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
User23 4y ago
There’s no replication crisis in psychometry. It’s the highest quality area of psychological research, at least with respect to reproducibility. While there’s room for debate as to what exactly it is that’s being measured, there is none for whether something meaningful at all is being measured. IQ measurements have strong predictive power too for various outcomes, such as educational attainment. A civilization reduction of IQ by nearly 1/3 sigma is absolutely cause for concern.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  Unfortunately little of what you've said is true. IQ only has predictive power at very low scores; above 100 it randomly correlates with, eg., wealth and various other extrinsic objective measures. The only cases where "success" is measured by the profession are circluar, ie., its often claimed Drs/lawyers etc have high IQs, but necessarily so, since they're all filtered based on IQ tests. Psychometry has nothing to replicate, because there are no psychometric theories. It is simply a field which finds patterns in exams it makes up, based on no testable theories, and asserts that these patterns have "some meaning". There isnt anything here to replicate.
  - morsch 4y ago
    If you're saying that lawyers and PhDs all have to score high on what's literally an IQ test, then I don't think that is true. You can become both without ever doing an IQ test, and as such there can be no filtering -- are those even routinely administered? However, to succeed at higher education (and to get into it), especially written tests, you need to be good at some stuff that also means you'll be decent at an IQ test. That means they have some value, though I tend to agree that it means very little overall.
    - mjburgess 4y ago
      All law and medical schools i'm aware of require IQ tests for admission, they're often called "aptitude" or "admissions" tests
logicalmonster 4y ago
Is it your contention that IQ doesn't measure anything? Can you point to all of the scientists, engineers, and mathematicians with IQs under 80?
ren_engineer 4y ago
IQ is the most strongly supported thing in the field of social science/psychology. Way more strongly supported than many of the concepts being used to steer government policy The irony being that tons of social science academics desperately want to prove IQ is bunk and become famous for it, but their failures just keep proving it's legitimacy. If only they tried so hard to disprove their own pet theories
- devmor 4y ago
  IQ as a measurement of general intelligence has been repeatedly called into question and deligitimized with strong evidence by the fields of psychology and sociology for 30+ years for myriad reasons. In fact, most of the continuing proponents for IQ testing take the stance of "We don't have anything better, so we will use it even if it's deeply flawed." This viewpoint is so prevalent that a majority of studies on the subject in the last 10-15 years are skewed towards evaluating alternative testing methods. Here's a small sample of studies showing the different reasons IQ tests fail to measure intelligence: 1. [Fractionating Human Intelligence](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.022) 2. [Commentary on the pitfalls of IQ test standardization in multicultural settings](https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1204011 https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1204011) 3. [What IQ tests really measure.](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171) 4. [The Evils of the Use of IQ Tests ... In First and Second Language Learners](https://www.jstor.org/stable/20205010 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20205010)
  - washadjeffmad 4y ago
    Intelligence quotients are relevant to developing infants. Think about it.
jl2718 4y ago
I would say that the particular importance of the measurement is far less relevant than the repeatability of the measurement. In that regard, because IQ is very repeatable in the mid-range, population effects measured by IQ should be considered as evidence of some effect on the neurological system. Even if IQ is meaningless, this result is still evidence of neurological harm.

IQ scores? Really? Should we look at the correlation to phrenology reports and the subjects balance of humours as well?

by devmor 4y ago

IQ scores? Really? Should we look at the correlation to phrenology reports and the subjects balance of humours as well?

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

Are you under the impression that IQ scores don’t measure anything?

mjburgess 4y ago
very low IQ scores correlate with ordinary measures of mental performance. Above 100, they're randomly correlated with generic extrinsic measures of performance, and have little test-retest consistency. You can differ as much in your test-retest score as would be the gap between mental retardation and "normal". Above 100, they're mostly a measure of proficiency at taking written tests. In any case, there is no theory of what IQ measures other than by assertion that it measures "intelligence", so there's nothing actually to be said about it. It's a means of extracting apparent patterns in some test answers; there is no scientific theory of what those patterns mean.
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  Extracting apparent patterns in [test answers] is a cognitively difficult task, and is thus a reasonable metric of performing cognitively difficult tasks. Given that this is what we are attempting to measure, it seems completely fine. Pointing out flaws in the test (lack of generality, non-deterministic behavior) is not actually a counter-argument so long as the test correlates with at least some outcomes that we care about. And it does! And this is very reproducible!
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    No no, i mean the psychometrist is the person superstitiously using the fact that answers to their choice of questions correlate, as some measure of something. The claim that IQ tests are "cognitively difficult" is either trivial or unevidenced. Its trivial in the sense that most tasks are "cognitively difficult", that doesnt make them valid measures of cognitive difficulty. It is unevidenced in the sense that there is no theory of what "cognitive difficulty" means that can be tested. My apologies, but IQ tests really are actually pseudoscience. They're a product of a discipline which superstitiously uses GUI-statistical tooling without understanding anything abotu the scientific method, nor the statistical metrics that these tools report. An animal, and its intelligence, is a complex chaotic system whose "cognitition" or "intelligence" is by no means measured by an IQ test. And such a claim is prima fascie ridiculous from any actual biological (ie., theory-building, scientific) study of intelligence.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

User23 4y ago

There’s no replication crisis in psychometry. It’s the highest quality area of psychological research, at least with respect to reproducibility. While there’s room for debate as to what exactly it is that’s being measured, there is none for whether something meaningful at all is being measured. IQ measurements have strong predictive power too for various outcomes, such as educational attainment. A civilization reduction of IQ by nearly 1/3 sigma is absolutely cause for concern.

mjburgess 4y ago
Unfortunately little of what you've said is true. IQ only has predictive power at very low scores; above 100 it randomly correlates with, eg., wealth and various other extrinsic objective measures. The only cases where "success" is measured by the profession are circluar, ie., its often claimed Drs/lawyers etc have high IQs, but necessarily so, since they're all filtered based on IQ tests. Psychometry has nothing to replicate, because there are no psychometric theories. It is simply a field which finds patterns in exams it makes up, based on no testable theories, and asserts that these patterns have "some meaning". There isnt anything here to replicate.
- morsch 4y ago
  If you're saying that lawyers and PhDs all have to score high on what's literally an IQ test, then I don't think that is true. You can become both without ever doing an IQ test, and as such there can be no filtering -- are those even routinely administered? However, to succeed at higher education (and to get into it), especially written tests, you need to be good at some stuff that also means you'll be decent at an IQ test. That means they have some value, though I tend to agree that it means very little overall.
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    All law and medical schools i'm aware of require IQ tests for admission, they're often called "aptitude" or "admissions" tests

logicalmonster 4y ago

Is it your contention that IQ doesn't measure anything? Can you point to all of the scientists, engineers, and mathematicians with IQs under 80?

ren_engineer 4y ago

IQ is the most strongly supported thing in the field of social science/psychology. Way more strongly supported than many of the concepts being used to steer government policy The irony being that tons of social science academics desperately want to prove IQ is bunk and become famous for it, but their failures just keep proving it's legitimacy. If only they tried so hard to disprove their own pet theories

devmor 4y ago
IQ as a measurement of general intelligence has been repeatedly called into question and deligitimized with strong evidence by the fields of psychology and sociology for 30+ years for myriad reasons. In fact, most of the continuing proponents for IQ testing take the stance of "We don't have anything better, so we will use it even if it's deeply flawed." This viewpoint is so prevalent that a majority of studies on the subject in the last 10-15 years are skewed towards evaluating alternative testing methods. Here's a small sample of studies showing the different reasons IQ tests fail to measure intelligence: 1. [Fractionating Human Intelligence](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.022) 2. [Commentary on the pitfalls of IQ test standardization in multicultural settings](https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1204011 https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1204011) 3. [What IQ tests really measure.](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171) 4. [The Evils of the Use of IQ Tests ... In First and Second Language Learners](https://www.jstor.org/stable/20205010 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20205010)
- washadjeffmad 4y ago
  Intelligence quotients are relevant to developing infants. Think about it.

jl2718 4y ago

I would say that the particular importance of the measurement is far less relevant than the repeatability of the measurement. In that regard, because IQ is very repeatable in the mid-range, population effects measured by IQ should be considered as evidence of some effect on the neurological system. Even if IQ is meaningless, this result is still evidence of neurological harm.