4 ms·
Fluid intelligence tests are already incredibly unreliable, and this study isn't particularly well done. It's an interesting concept, but I don't feel like the
by m00x 2y ago
Fluid intelligence tests are already incredibly unreliable, and this study isn't particularly well done.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't feel like the authors defend the hypothesis very well.
- dmichulke 2y agoI have difficulties finding anything related to, e.g., CFT and unreliability. Can you suggest an article or overview where this is discussed?
- dimask 2y agoWhat is not well done in this study?
- michaelt 2y agoRunning your intelligence study in the college's psychology building, paying participants in course credits? Calling Raven's Progressive Matrices, a measure of "reasoning about novel problems" when it's far from novel in psychology, and most of your test subjects are psychology students?
- Y_Y 2y agoSee also: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WEIRD https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WEIRD By the way, I think they mean that Raven's Matrices test (somehow) for an ability to reason about problems that are new to the test subject, not that the test itself is new.
- bitshiftfaced 2y agoI bet computer science majors have more of an "unfair" advantage than psych majors. It was hard not to notice how many of the patterns match bit manipulation rules such as not and xor.
- scotty79 2y agoWhat's unreliable about them? I thought that's one of the easiest things in psychology to repeatably measure.