3 ms·

Sure, but that says more about social science than IQ.

cm2012 3y ago
You can replace social science with "science about predicting people's behavior" if you want. The important thing is that IQ is one of the most powerful predictors of human behavior in science. So few things get proven to have a major effect on outcomes over and over again. You shouldn't just throw that out.
- runarberg 3y ago
  I think IQs usages outside of a very narrow scope of a) psychometrics and b) developmental psychology is very limited, if any to speak of. In developmental psychology it is more often a tool to detect developmental or learning disabilities, and even then many (most?) psychologist prefer individual subtests rather then to assess the whole IQ of the individual, indicating that it is not the IQ it self which is useful, but rather the tests. In psychometrics (which is a scientific dead end IMO) IQ is indeed still popular, but the predicting factor of IQ is more often then not other operationally defined concepts which psychometrisians fight tooth and nail to justify is not circular logic, that IQ is not just predicting IQ. If you think IQ is the best predictor of human behavior, you must not have heard about many more. If you grow up in an english speaking household, you are very likely to speak english fluently in your adulthood. You are much quicker to find Waldo if you’ve done so 10 times in the last 20 min, then on your first attempt (cognitive priming), if you smoke weed you take much longer to find Waldo. If you inhibit your serotonin reuptake in specific areas in your brain, you are much less likely to suffer severe depression. If you reward child with a praise you are much more likely to see this child repeat the behavior then if you punish the child with a shout. These are all pretty powerful and—more importantly—useful predictors in behavioral sciences. IQs predictive power is very limited to a very narrow scope inside psychometrics, we will do just fine throwing it out. There are much better constructs out there (including the SAT).
  - hirvi74 3y ago
    > psychologist prefer individual subtests rather then to assess the whole IQ of the individual, indicating that it is not the IQ it self which is useful, but rather the tests. This aligns with my experiences during my ADHD diagnostic process. Perhaps IQ can be useful to some degree at population levels, but I am not even sure about that -- way outside my area of expertise. I do strongly believe IQ falls apart at an individual level. At least, past a certain extent. I imagine IQ might be a decent predictor of outcomes for an individual if his or her IQ is below one standard deviation of average i.e., (IQ <= 85). I'll even concede maybe up until the point of average. Past average, I question the utility, especially the further one's score increases. Person A has an IQ of 125, and person B hasn't an IQ of 130. Realistically, how much of difference can we expect in life outcomes for these people? How much does each single point actually matter? I've never been able to find a good answer to this either. Another issue I have is that IQ testing seems to be a snapshot of all of one's particular factors and circumstances at that given time. I liken IQ testing to something like hunger testing. I do not believe intelligence is generally a constant value nor is something like hunger. Both are qualitative by nature anyway. I'm sure we could create a "Hunger Quotient" and use it to measure hunger the way we measure intelligence. However, wouldn't one's hunger vary depending on prior circumstances and factors like when the last time one ate, how much one ate, how many calories one has burned since his or her last meal, etc.? I imagine IQ is no different. If I deprived myself of sleep for more than 24 to 48 hours straight and then took an IQ test, then I wouldn't be surprised if my score was significantly lower than taking it when well rested. There are probably damn near infinite amount of factors -- Do you have test anxiety? Do you have any chronic conditions? Any recent, major life stressors? Do you even care about doing well on this IQ test? My point is that IQ can only tell you how "intelligent" you are at that given point in time when you took that exact test. That makes me question the utility of it even more. I understand research tries to control for these types of factors, and that the tests seem to have great reliability when retaken. However, in my experiences, it does not seem like there is any attempt to control for variables in a clinical setting where these test are most often administered... Finally, I would like to mention Lewis Terman's fun experiment which I believe he started in the 1920s where he followed a group of 1500 or so "gifted" children throughout their lives and for the rest of his life. Of the 1500 or so gifted children, while still mostly successfully, apparently none of them went on to become anything noteworthy. However, two children that were not included in the study due to having too low of an IQ, William Shockley and Luis Alvarez, both went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize separately and in separate fields. I'm not saying this proves anything, but I do find it rather funny.

cm2012 3y ago

You can replace social science with "science about predicting people's behavior" if you want. The important thing is that IQ is one of the most powerful predictors of human behavior in science. So few things get proven to have a major effect on outcomes over and over again. You shouldn't just throw that out.

runarberg 3y ago
I think IQs usages outside of a very narrow scope of a) psychometrics and b) developmental psychology is very limited, if any to speak of. In developmental psychology it is more often a tool to detect developmental or learning disabilities, and even then many (most?) psychologist prefer individual subtests rather then to assess the whole IQ of the individual, indicating that it is not the IQ it self which is useful, but rather the tests. In psychometrics (which is a scientific dead end IMO) IQ is indeed still popular, but the predicting factor of IQ is more often then not other operationally defined concepts which psychometrisians fight tooth and nail to justify is not circular logic, that IQ is not just predicting IQ. If you think IQ is the best predictor of human behavior, you must not have heard about many more. If you grow up in an english speaking household, you are very likely to speak english fluently in your adulthood. You are much quicker to find Waldo if you’ve done so 10 times in the last 20 min, then on your first attempt (cognitive priming), if you smoke weed you take much longer to find Waldo. If you inhibit your serotonin reuptake in specific areas in your brain, you are much less likely to suffer severe depression. If you reward child with a praise you are much more likely to see this child repeat the behavior then if you punish the child with a shout. These are all pretty powerful and—more importantly—useful predictors in behavioral sciences. IQs predictive power is very limited to a very narrow scope inside psychometrics, we will do just fine throwing it out. There are much better constructs out there (including the SAT).
- hirvi74 3y ago
  > psychologist prefer individual subtests rather then to assess the whole IQ of the individual, indicating that it is not the IQ it self which is useful, but rather the tests. This aligns with my experiences during my ADHD diagnostic process. Perhaps IQ can be useful to some degree at population levels, but I am not even sure about that -- way outside my area of expertise. I do strongly believe IQ falls apart at an individual level. At least, past a certain extent. I imagine IQ might be a decent predictor of outcomes for an individual if his or her IQ is below one standard deviation of average i.e., (IQ <= 85). I'll even concede maybe up until the point of average. Past average, I question the utility, especially the further one's score increases. Person A has an IQ of 125, and person B hasn't an IQ of 130. Realistically, how much of difference can we expect in life outcomes for these people? How much does each single point actually matter? I've never been able to find a good answer to this either. Another issue I have is that IQ testing seems to be a snapshot of all of one's particular factors and circumstances at that given time. I liken IQ testing to something like hunger testing. I do not believe intelligence is generally a constant value nor is something like hunger. Both are qualitative by nature anyway. I'm sure we could create a "Hunger Quotient" and use it to measure hunger the way we measure intelligence. However, wouldn't one's hunger vary depending on prior circumstances and factors like when the last time one ate, how much one ate, how many calories one has burned since his or her last meal, etc.? I imagine IQ is no different. If I deprived myself of sleep for more than 24 to 48 hours straight and then took an IQ test, then I wouldn't be surprised if my score was significantly lower than taking it when well rested. There are probably damn near infinite amount of factors -- Do you have test anxiety? Do you have any chronic conditions? Any recent, major life stressors? Do you even care about doing well on this IQ test? My point is that IQ can only tell you how "intelligent" you are at that given point in time when you took that exact test. That makes me question the utility of it even more. I understand research tries to control for these types of factors, and that the tests seem to have great reliability when retaken. However, in my experiences, it does not seem like there is any attempt to control for variables in a clinical setting where these test are most often administered... Finally, I would like to mention Lewis Terman's fun experiment which I believe he started in the 1920s where he followed a group of 1500 or so "gifted" children throughout their lives and for the rest of his life. Of the 1500 or so gifted children, while still mostly successfully, apparently none of them went on to become anything noteworthy. However, two children that were not included in the study due to having too low of an IQ, William Shockley and Luis Alvarez, both went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize separately and in separate fields. I'm not saying this proves anything, but I do find it rather funny.