3 ms·

You're just repeating yourself and then making hand-waving attacks on scientists. This is the tier of "argument" we hear from anti-vaxxers. Surely you can do be

by User23 4y ago

You're just repeating yourself and then making hand-waving attacks on scientists. This is the tier of "argument" we hear from anti-vaxxers. Surely you can do better than vague ad hominems implying either incompetence or malfeasance? Such claims require evidence. Yes there is a replicability crisis in much of the social sciences. Yes cargo cult science[1] has been a real problem and continues to be. Nevertheless there isn't a replication problem for psychometry. Countless researchers have dedicated their careers to showing that there is, and yet they have all failed to do so. I agree though there is room for improvement. IQ is only a model and we're measuring a proxy for intelligence, not intelligence itself. Still, it's a pretty good proxy, just as grip strength is a pretty good proxy for overall physical strength. There is also high quality replicable research in all those fields you disparage. For example, generally speaking, metabolic ward nutrition research is of high quality. [1] http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

mjburgess 4y ago
There can't be a "replication" problem for IQ. There is no theory of intelligence provided, there are no independent valid and reliable measures of it, and there has been no work to show IQ measures it. The argument is just, "I rekon intelligence has something to do with quizes like this, and look, there are correlations in people's answers!" That's the premise of the entire field. It doesnt have a theory of intelligence, and any even plausible scientifically-grounded theory of intelligence would pretty clearly invalidate IQ as a measure of it. HN isnt a place to give a lecture course on statistics, causal modelling and the scientific method. But the vast majority of people I'm aware of with serious work in those areas, regard this entire field as pseudoscience. It is only researchers within this field who believe otherwise, and they arent professionals.
- User23 4y ago
  > There can't be a "replication" problem for IQ. There is no theory of intelligence provided, there are no independent valid and reliable measures of it, and there has been no work to show IQ measures it. The argument is just, "I rekon intelligence has something to do with quizes like this, and look, there are correlations in people's answers!" Is your claim now that there is no such thing as intelligence? If we accept that premise then sure the whole field is bunk, because you can't measure something that doesn't exist. However I consider such a claim as ludicrous as saying that there is no such thing as strength, so if that's your position then I don't think I have much to learn from you. Meanwhile, the g factor[1] is a theory of intelligence that basically says people who are good at one kind of cognitive task will also be good at other kinds of cognitive tasks. Is that entirely satisfactory? I've already said there's room for improvement. Nevertheless we have to start somewhere, and given the complexity of the array of phenotypes we associate with intelligence the g factor isn't a bad start. > any even plausible scientifically-grounded theory of intelligence would pretty clearly invalidate IQ as a measure of it. This sounds like an easy claim to support. Since you are enthusiastically anti-psychometry I assume you've done the research. What do you mean by "plausible scientifically grounded?" Would you please give a supporting example? > HN isnt a place to give a lecture course on statistics, causal modelling and the scientific method. But the vast majority of people I'm aware of with serious work in those areas, regard this entire field as pseudoscience. It is only researchers within this field who believe otherwise, and they arent professionals. HN is a place for satisfying intellectual curiosity. You would be contributing to the site's reason for existing by giving an abbreviated lecture actually showing that you have a point rather than just appealing to unknown authorities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

by User23 4y ago

mjburgess 4y ago

There can't be a "replication" problem for IQ. There is no theory of intelligence provided, there are no independent valid and reliable measures of it, and there has been no work to show IQ measures it. The argument is just, "I rekon intelligence has something to do with quizes like this, and look, there are correlations in people's answers!" That's the premise of the entire field. It doesnt have a theory of intelligence, and any even plausible scientifically-grounded theory of intelligence would pretty clearly invalidate IQ as a measure of it. HN isnt a place to give a lecture course on statistics, causal modelling and the scientific method. But the vast majority of people I'm aware of with serious work in those areas, regard this entire field as pseudoscience. It is only researchers within this field who believe otherwise, and they arent professionals.

User23 4y ago
> There can't be a "replication" problem for IQ. There is no theory of intelligence provided, there are no independent valid and reliable measures of it, and there has been no work to show IQ measures it. The argument is just, "I rekon intelligence has something to do with quizes like this, and look, there are correlations in people's answers!" Is your claim now that there is no such thing as intelligence? If we accept that premise then sure the whole field is bunk, because you can't measure something that doesn't exist. However I consider such a claim as ludicrous as saying that there is no such thing as strength, so if that's your position then I don't think I have much to learn from you. Meanwhile, the g factor[1] is a theory of intelligence that basically says people who are good at one kind of cognitive task will also be good at other kinds of cognitive tasks. Is that entirely satisfactory? I've already said there's room for improvement. Nevertheless we have to start somewhere, and given the complexity of the array of phenotypes we associate with intelligence the g factor isn't a bad start. > any even plausible scientifically-grounded theory of intelligence would pretty clearly invalidate IQ as a measure of it. This sounds like an easy claim to support. Since you are enthusiastically anti-psychometry I assume you've done the research. What do you mean by "plausible scientifically grounded?" Would you please give a supporting example? > HN isnt a place to give a lecture course on statistics, causal modelling and the scientific method. But the vast majority of people I'm aware of with serious work in those areas, regard this entire field as pseudoscience. It is only researchers within this field who believe otherwise, and they arent professionals. HN is a place for satisfying intellectual curiosity. You would be contributing to the site's reason for existing by giving an abbreviated lecture actually showing that you have a point rather than just appealing to unknown authorities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)