3 ms·

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]

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]