5 ms·

Correct. IQ isn't an effective measurement of intelligence as is typically stated. It is (at best) a measurement of learning disabilities.

by jppope 2y ago

tptacek 2y ago
I think this would be more accurate without the "at best"; I think IQ is widely considered to be a useful diagnostic measure, misapplied to prediction in generalized populations.
smj-edison 2y ago
I think IQ is useful in aggregate (for example, a finding that exposure to local toxins reduces a cities' performance on IQ by 10 points), but not useful an an individual level (e.g. you have an IQ of 130, so we can say with certainty you will earn $30,000 more per year). It's similar with MRI scans of ADHD: they find brain differences at a large scale, but you can't use a MRI to diagnose ADHD.
liontwist 2y ago
It’s a pretty good measurement of your ability to play logic games and fast pattern match. I’m sure we agree that doesn’t constitute “intelligence”, but it’s more than disability.
- mjburgess 2y ago
  Individual test-retest variability is high. It's only a valid measure of anything much below 100. Consider a test of walking speed which each time you take it gives results of (2, 3, 6, 2, 3, 5, 7, 3) etc. -- does this measure some innate property of walking speed? No. Yet, if it were < 1, it would measure having a broken foot.
  - liontwist 2y ago
    Lots of research disagrees with you indicating it’s measurable and rigid throughout most of your life.
    - mjburgess 2y ago
      The entire field of psychometrics is pseudoscience, as is >>90% of research with the word "heritability" in it. The levels of pseudoscience in these areas, statistical malpractice, and the like is fairly obscene. Nothing is reproducible, and it survives only because academia is now a closed-system paper mill where peer citation is the standard of publication and tenure. A discussion of statistical malpractice is difficult on HN, consider how easily fooled these idiots are by statistics. Researchers motivated to get into psychology are not rigorous empirical statisticians, instead they are given stats GUIs into which they put data and press play. These are the most gullible lot you'll ever find in anything called science. The world would be better off if a delete button could be pressed on the whole activity. It's a great tragedy that it continues.
      - liontwist 2y ago
        If it was really “pseudoscience” you would present the experiment that demonstrates it’s obviously false rather than name calling (asserting a label with a negative connotation). The reality is not so clear and you have to contest with decade long studies in support. Maybe those studies have flaws, but it’s not a vacuum. I have already stated I don’t believe IQ is intelligence.
        mjburgess 2y ago
        There is no experiment which proves its false. This is the problem with pseudoscience, it's "not even wrong". Psychometrics presents summaries of data as if they are properties of reality. As-if taking a mean of survey data meant that this this mean was a property of the survey givers. This applies only in extremely controlled experiments in physics, and even then, somewhat rarely. All one has to do to show the entire field is pseudoscience is present a single more plausible theory than "mean of data distribution = innate property", and this is trivially done (eg., cf. mutualism about intelligence).
        liontwist 2y ago
        You’re softening your position, you agree it exists and is testable, you just disagree with the interpretation of those results. > is present a single more plausible theory A minority support for a workable theory is quite a bit different state of affairs than “false science” which the word implies. It’s a form of name calling. > There is no experiment which proves it’s false. This is the problem with pseudoscience, it's "not even wrong". In other words it’s lost popularity in certain academic circles, but not because of overwhelming new evidence. > This applies only in extremely controlled experiments in physics, I agree, which is why you can’t casually dismiss developed psychological theories as if they are from a crank, and you are enlightened.

Correct. IQ isn't an effective measurement of intelligence as is typically stated. It is (at best) a measurement of learning disabilities.

by jppope 2y ago

Correct. IQ isn't an effective measurement of intelligence as is typically stated. It is (at best) a measurement of learning disabilities.

tptacek 2y ago

I think this would be more accurate without the "at best"; I think IQ is widely considered to be a useful diagnostic measure, misapplied to prediction in generalized populations.

smj-edison 2y ago

I think IQ is useful in aggregate (for example, a finding that exposure to local toxins reduces a cities' performance on IQ by 10 points), but not useful an an individual level (e.g. you have an IQ of 130, so we can say with certainty you will earn $30,000 more per year). It's similar with MRI scans of ADHD: they find brain differences at a large scale, but you can't use a MRI to diagnose ADHD.

liontwist 2y ago

It’s a pretty good measurement of your ability to play logic games and fast pattern match. I’m sure we agree that doesn’t constitute “intelligence”, but it’s more than disability.

mjburgess 2y ago
Individual test-retest variability is high. It's only a valid measure of anything much below 100. Consider a test of walking speed which each time you take it gives results of (2, 3, 6, 2, 3, 5, 7, 3) etc. -- does this measure some innate property of walking speed? No. Yet, if it were < 1, it would measure having a broken foot.
- liontwist 2y ago
  Lots of research disagrees with you indicating it’s measurable and rigid throughout most of your life.
  - mjburgess 2y ago
    The entire field of psychometrics is pseudoscience, as is >>90% of research with the word "heritability" in it. The levels of pseudoscience in these areas, statistical malpractice, and the like is fairly obscene. Nothing is reproducible, and it survives only because academia is now a closed-system paper mill where peer citation is the standard of publication and tenure. A discussion of statistical malpractice is difficult on HN, consider how easily fooled these idiots are by statistics. Researchers motivated to get into psychology are not rigorous empirical statisticians, instead they are given stats GUIs into which they put data and press play. These are the most gullible lot you'll ever find in anything called science. The world would be better off if a delete button could be pressed on the whole activity. It's a great tragedy that it continues.
    - liontwist 2y ago
      If it was really “pseudoscience” you would present the experiment that demonstrates it’s obviously false rather than name calling (asserting a label with a negative connotation). The reality is not so clear and you have to contest with decade long studies in support. Maybe those studies have flaws, but it’s not a vacuum. I have already stated I don’t believe IQ is intelligence.
      - mjburgess 2y ago
        There is no experiment which proves its false. This is the problem with pseudoscience, it's "not even wrong". Psychometrics presents summaries of data as if they are properties of reality. As-if taking a mean of survey data meant that this this mean was a property of the survey givers. This applies only in extremely controlled experiments in physics, and even then, somewhat rarely. All one has to do to show the entire field is pseudoscience is present a single more plausible theory than "mean of data distribution = innate property", and this is trivially done (eg., cf. mutualism about intelligence).
        liontwist 2y ago
        You’re softening your position, you agree it exists and is testable, you just disagree with the interpretation of those results. > is present a single more plausible theory A minority support for a workable theory is quite a bit different state of affairs than “false science” which the word implies. It’s a form of name calling. > There is no experiment which proves it’s false. This is the problem with pseudoscience, it's "not even wrong". In other words it’s lost popularity in certain academic circles, but not because of overwhelming new evidence. > This applies only in extremely controlled experiments in physics, I agree, which is why you can’t casually dismiss developed psychological theories as if they are from a crank, and you are enlightened.