3 ms·

The entire field of Psychometrics is suspect and is a pseudoscience. It came into existence in the early days when ideas from Social Darwinism, Racism and Eugen

The entire field of Psychometrics is suspect and is a pseudoscience. It came into existence in the early days when ideas from Social Darwinism, Racism and Eugenics were mainstream in the Western world. People ascribed an importance factor to traits which they considered successful in their culture/society/environment and then started making universal and general inferences from it without regard to its validity. These were then codified as tests, published and propagated to the detriment of all. Today we know better; Humans are highly adaptable and everything only exists in the context of a specific environmental/cultural/social context. Genetics vs. Epigenetics, Nature vs. Nurture, Nutrition, Economic strata etc. are all inputs when it comes to our "fitness" for a particular task. We play "roles" which are context-dependent from which you cannot generalize to the "whole person". Psychometrics has been called a "Pathological Science" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science This article named The Myth of Measurement brings a bunch of research together to show why - https://paulenglert.com/the-myth-of-measurement/ https://paulenglert.com/the-myth-of-measurement/

concordDance 3y ago
If the field makes testable predictions that prove true then it cannot be a pseudo science. And indeed, one can predict with accuracy better than chance how well someone will perform in a software developer job (for example) from an IQ test. This same test may do less well in predicting the ability to hunt an antelope across the serengeti, but that still wouldn't make psychometrics pseudoscience. Also, if there wasn't a g factor that would be fairly weird, as there are numerous little slightly deleterious mutations one could have that can minorly affect neuronal functioning. You'd genuinely expect there to be a decent correlation here.
- rramadass 3y ago
  When the characteristics that a test is supposed to measure are completely ill-defined (there is no concept of a "Measurable Intelligence" independent of a context, leaving aside biological retardation) they are a measure of nothing definitive and any correlations/predictions are subject to bias and/or randomness. Here is Nassim Taleb; 1) IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle - https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39 https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-... 2) Fooled by Correlation: Common Misinterpretations in Social "Science" - https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and_Misinterpretations_of_Correlation_in_Social_Science_ https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and... 3) Correlation videos - https://nassimtaleb.org/tag/correlation/ https://nassimtaleb.org/tag/correlation/ See also : a) The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2967209 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2967209 b) Pseudoscience and Mental Ability: The Origins and Fallacies of the IQ Controversy. - https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED164662 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED164662
  - User23 3y ago
    Out of curiosity are you espousing that differences in intelligence don't actually exist, or just that we need to come up with better ways to measure them? I wonder how many Fields medalists score one or two standard deviations below average on the Stanford-Binet. If the measure is meaningless then roughly half should, right? Also while I certainly respect Mr. Taleb's insights and the mass market appeal of his punchy authorial persona, based on various writings of his I conclude that he views intelligence very narrowly in the "good at trading options" sense, which coincidentally is an area where he has demonstrated ability. Funny that. And to be fair in my own trading I benefitted quite a bit from his maxim that the first goal is survival. I'd bet that Fat Tony would probably score well above average on an IQ test too, he just wouldn't be caught dead taking one. And I don't blame him; the kind of people who mistake aptitude for achievement are generally insufferable.
    - rramadass 3y ago
      > Out of curiosity are you espousing that differences in intelligence don't actually exist, or just that we need to come up with better ways to measure them? Yes and No to both. Simply put; 1) There is nothing called "General Intelligence" beyond what enables a Human to survive in his/her environmental niche (including cultural/social since we are social animals). Leaving aside obvious biological retardation, if Extraversion/Introversion, Agreeableness/Disagreeableness, etc. enables one to survive, they are equally "Intelligent". Trying to rank these attributes on a ordinal scale and do quantitative calculations on them is nonsense. See Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) for convincing arguments. 2) Humans are highly adaptable and exhibit dynamic behaviour in different contexts. This "role" and hence the "exhibited intelligence" is specific to that context but if that adaptation subsumes the need for another related context then obviously one will be intelligent in both the contexts. For example London Taxi drivers actually grew their hippocampus and became more intelligent in both spatial navigation and memory recall - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memor... 3) We know that gene expression can be influenced by the environment via Epigenetics over generations (see the documentary The Ghost in your Genes). Environment (cultural/social/nutritional/economic) now becomes of paramount importance and thus a person's "fitness" for a role is dependent on Nature, Nurture and his unique Family Past history. He will now be intelligent in certain roles not so in others. 4) Wrong understanding and misuse of Statistical methods in the above scenarios. This is where Taleb's writing/videos help one to separate the wheat from the chaff. - Notes on Taleb's article - https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_swindle https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_... - IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence - https://supermemo.guru/wiki/IQ_is_a_dismal_measure_of_intelligence https://supermemo.guru/wiki/IQ_is_a_dismal_measure_of_intell...
User23 3y ago
Odd then that intelligence psychometrics is far less affected by the replication crisis than the other social sciences. The person that invents a useful intelligence test that doesn't display any politically inconvenient bias is going to make a whole lot of money.

concordDance 3y ago

If the field makes testable predictions that prove true then it cannot be a pseudo science. And indeed, one can predict with accuracy better than chance how well someone will perform in a software developer job (for example) from an IQ test. This same test may do less well in predicting the ability to hunt an antelope across the serengeti, but that still wouldn't make psychometrics pseudoscience. Also, if there wasn't a g factor that would be fairly weird, as there are numerous little slightly deleterious mutations one could have that can minorly affect neuronal functioning. You'd genuinely expect there to be a decent correlation here.

rramadass 3y ago
When the characteristics that a test is supposed to measure are completely ill-defined (there is no concept of a "Measurable Intelligence" independent of a context, leaving aside biological retardation) they are a measure of nothing definitive and any correlations/predictions are subject to bias and/or randomness. Here is Nassim Taleb; 1) IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle - https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39 https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-... 2) Fooled by Correlation: Common Misinterpretations in Social "Science" - https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and_Misinterpretations_of_Correlation_in_Social_Science_ https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and... 3) Correlation videos - https://nassimtaleb.org/tag/correlation/ https://nassimtaleb.org/tag/correlation/ See also : a) The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2967209 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2967209 b) Pseudoscience and Mental Ability: The Origins and Fallacies of the IQ Controversy. - https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED164662 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED164662
- User23 3y ago
  Out of curiosity are you espousing that differences in intelligence don't actually exist, or just that we need to come up with better ways to measure them? I wonder how many Fields medalists score one or two standard deviations below average on the Stanford-Binet. If the measure is meaningless then roughly half should, right? Also while I certainly respect Mr. Taleb's insights and the mass market appeal of his punchy authorial persona, based on various writings of his I conclude that he views intelligence very narrowly in the "good at trading options" sense, which coincidentally is an area where he has demonstrated ability. Funny that. And to be fair in my own trading I benefitted quite a bit from his maxim that the first goal is survival. I'd bet that Fat Tony would probably score well above average on an IQ test too, he just wouldn't be caught dead taking one. And I don't blame him; the kind of people who mistake aptitude for achievement are generally insufferable.
  - rramadass 3y ago
    > Out of curiosity are you espousing that differences in intelligence don't actually exist, or just that we need to come up with better ways to measure them? Yes and No to both. Simply put; 1) There is nothing called "General Intelligence" beyond what enables a Human to survive in his/her environmental niche (including cultural/social since we are social animals). Leaving aside obvious biological retardation, if Extraversion/Introversion, Agreeableness/Disagreeableness, etc. enables one to survive, they are equally "Intelligent". Trying to rank these attributes on a ordinal scale and do quantitative calculations on them is nonsense. See Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) for convincing arguments. 2) Humans are highly adaptable and exhibit dynamic behaviour in different contexts. This "role" and hence the "exhibited intelligence" is specific to that context but if that adaptation subsumes the need for another related context then obviously one will be intelligent in both the contexts. For example London Taxi drivers actually grew their hippocampus and became more intelligent in both spatial navigation and memory recall - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memor... 3) We know that gene expression can be influenced by the environment via Epigenetics over generations (see the documentary The Ghost in your Genes). Environment (cultural/social/nutritional/economic) now becomes of paramount importance and thus a person's "fitness" for a role is dependent on Nature, Nurture and his unique Family Past history. He will now be intelligent in certain roles not so in others. 4) Wrong understanding and misuse of Statistical methods in the above scenarios. This is where Taleb's writing/videos help one to separate the wheat from the chaff. - Notes on Taleb's article - https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_swindle https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_... - IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence - https://supermemo.guru/wiki/IQ_is_a_dismal_measure_of_intelligence https://supermemo.guru/wiki/IQ_is_a_dismal_measure_of_intell...

User23 3y ago

Odd then that intelligence psychometrics is far less affected by the replication crisis than the other social sciences. The person that invents a useful intelligence test that doesn't display any politically inconvenient bias is going to make a whole lot of money.