5 ms·

Ah, yes, the IQ test; the universal, unbiased gauge of intellect across all cultures.

by dgsii 7mo ago

jeremyjh 7mo ago
It isn't that, but it is one of the strongest predictors of success in the US military.
- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 7mo ago
  It loses its signal once you reach triple digits. You don't want someone with <80 but it tells you nothing about someone with 120 or 160.
  - jeremyjh 7mo ago
    They eliminate the bottom third of applicants by ASVAB score which would mean an IQ of 93 if it translated exactly (ADVAB to IQ and SAT is only about 0.8 correlation). That is the minimum to get in to do any job at all for a minimum enlistment contract. So to talk about statistically significant career success predictors you would have to get into the low three digits, just looking at nothing but the math of IQ distributions. A cut-line of 80 would only drop the bottom 9% of the general population.
  - alecco 7mo ago
    I call BS. From my extensive anecdata: No amount of education, experience, and grit can turn a 100 IQ person into Einstein. IQ is a massive multiplier.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - hirvi74 7mo ago
      Do we even know what turns someone into an Einstein? The sheer reason you even mention Einstein is because he was beyond exceptional. There have been millions of people to walk the face of this planet with astronomical IQs, but there has only been a handful of Einsteins, von Neumanns, Eulers, Mozarts, etc.. So few that the uttering of the names of these individuals carries strong meaning. It's also worth noting that none of these individuals ever took an IQ test. Their genius is entirely recognized through their work. Which again raises the question of what exactly IQ testing and what IQ is adding to our understanding of exceptional ability. It appears that over a century of research in psychometrics has demonstrated nothing we already could not infer. We do not need some boring puzzle test to tell us someone with Down syndrome will not be a Nobel Prize winner. Nor do we need some boring puzzle test to tell us that von Neumann or Mozart had godlike childhood abilities and could maybe make large contributions for humanity.
- hirvi74 7mo ago
  Compared to what though? Also, how is success in the military even defined? Highest rank? Most years served? Least injuries? The highest body count? Lowest double-digit APR% on 2018 Mustang with a rebuilt title?
  - jeremyjh 7mo ago
    You can learn about these things by following the links given by the GP of my comment and reviewing the studies they reference. The other strongest criteria of success was the time of their two-mile run (at their specific age of enlistment).
    - hirvi74 7mo ago
      I read the links, and the answers are still unsatisfactory. Here is the abstract from the original paper: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1989.69.1.263 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1989.69.1.2... > The purpose of this research was to assess how well success in early combat training was predicted by scores on a test of general intelligence It seems this research pertains to early combat training and not broad, post-training success in one's military career. Not to mention the research is essentially predicting test performance from test performance. I imagine the same predictions can be made about one's two-mile run and one's three-mile run. > Analysis indicated that intelligence test scores AND run time significantly predicted success, each adding to the prediction provided by the other. Which is not surprising. It shows that intelligence is just one of the multiple contributing factors. Being exceptionally tall is essential in the NBA, but being exceptionally tall, alone, is insufficient to make it to the NBA.
- dgsii 7mo ago
  Sure, but what has that got to do with “IQ is also highly heritable?” which, in this context, suggests intelligence is something innate and biological, rather than recognizing an IQ test as a gauge skewed by culture and socioeconomic status.
  - jeremyjh 7mo ago
    Well, that was a different reference in GP's post. You can go read it. Heritability is definitely a thing, but far from the only thing and it isn't simple Mendelian inheritance - there are many components to intelligence that reflect differently in gene transfer and so while you can see a correlation in specific individuals and their immediate ancestors there are lots of exceptions and its probably a mirage - if seen at all - in any large demographic. See my other comment on the problems with eugenics in this thread.
    - tptacek 7mo ago
      I'm trying to understand your comment. You write: "heritability is definitely a thing". I think I agree? What thing is it you're saying heritability is?
  - rayiner 7mo ago
    Attacking IQ test is like vaccine denialism. People don’t like the fact that requiring individuals to cooperate can enhance health outcomes for the group as a whole. Similarly, people don’t like the idea that some individuals are just born smarter than other individuals.
    - hirvi74 7mo ago
      > People don’t like the fact that requiring individuals to cooperate can enhance health outcomes for the group as a whole. I am not certain where you are deriving this claim from. > Similarly, people don’t like the idea that some individuals are just born smarter than other individuals. Nor this claim, as well. I have had many discussions on the topic of IQ, and I have never once seen anybody ever argue that there is no variance in human intelligence. There is a large range of variance in every human attribute. That is not the focus of the debate. Rather, most of the debate seems to be surrounding the construct validity of IQ. Statistical validity != construct validity.

Ah, yes, the IQ test; the universal, unbiased gauge of intellect across all cultures.

by dgsii 7mo ago

Ah, yes, the IQ test; the universal, unbiased gauge of intellect across all cultures.

jeremyjh 7mo ago

It isn't that, but it is one of the strongest predictors of success in the US military.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 7mo ago
It loses its signal once you reach triple digits. You don't want someone with <80 but it tells you nothing about someone with 120 or 160.
- jeremyjh 7mo ago
  They eliminate the bottom third of applicants by ASVAB score which would mean an IQ of 93 if it translated exactly (ADVAB to IQ and SAT is only about 0.8 correlation). That is the minimum to get in to do any job at all for a minimum enlistment contract. So to talk about statistically significant career success predictors you would have to get into the low three digits, just looking at nothing but the math of IQ distributions. A cut-line of 80 would only drop the bottom 9% of the general population.
- alecco 7mo ago
  I call BS. From my extensive anecdata: No amount of education, experience, and grit can turn a 100 IQ person into Einstein. IQ is a massive multiplier.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - hirvi74 7mo ago
    Do we even know what turns someone into an Einstein? The sheer reason you even mention Einstein is because he was beyond exceptional. There have been millions of people to walk the face of this planet with astronomical IQs, but there has only been a handful of Einsteins, von Neumanns, Eulers, Mozarts, etc.. So few that the uttering of the names of these individuals carries strong meaning. It's also worth noting that none of these individuals ever took an IQ test. Their genius is entirely recognized through their work. Which again raises the question of what exactly IQ testing and what IQ is adding to our understanding of exceptional ability. It appears that over a century of research in psychometrics has demonstrated nothing we already could not infer. We do not need some boring puzzle test to tell us someone with Down syndrome will not be a Nobel Prize winner. Nor do we need some boring puzzle test to tell us that von Neumann or Mozart had godlike childhood abilities and could maybe make large contributions for humanity.
hirvi74 7mo ago
Compared to what though? Also, how is success in the military even defined? Highest rank? Most years served? Least injuries? The highest body count? Lowest double-digit APR% on 2018 Mustang with a rebuilt title?
- jeremyjh 7mo ago
  You can learn about these things by following the links given by the GP of my comment and reviewing the studies they reference. The other strongest criteria of success was the time of their two-mile run (at their specific age of enlistment).
  - hirvi74 7mo ago
    I read the links, and the answers are still unsatisfactory. Here is the abstract from the original paper: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1989.69.1.263 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1989.69.1.2... > The purpose of this research was to assess how well success in early combat training was predicted by scores on a test of general intelligence It seems this research pertains to early combat training and not broad, post-training success in one's military career. Not to mention the research is essentially predicting test performance from test performance. I imagine the same predictions can be made about one's two-mile run and one's three-mile run. > Analysis indicated that intelligence test scores AND run time significantly predicted success, each adding to the prediction provided by the other. Which is not surprising. It shows that intelligence is just one of the multiple contributing factors. Being exceptionally tall is essential in the NBA, but being exceptionally tall, alone, is insufficient to make it to the NBA.
dgsii 7mo ago
Sure, but what has that got to do with “IQ is also highly heritable?” which, in this context, suggests intelligence is something innate and biological, rather than recognizing an IQ test as a gauge skewed by culture and socioeconomic status.
- jeremyjh 7mo ago
  Well, that was a different reference in GP's post. You can go read it. Heritability is definitely a thing, but far from the only thing and it isn't simple Mendelian inheritance - there are many components to intelligence that reflect differently in gene transfer and so while you can see a correlation in specific individuals and their immediate ancestors there are lots of exceptions and its probably a mirage - if seen at all - in any large demographic. See my other comment on the problems with eugenics in this thread.
  - tptacek 7mo ago
    I'm trying to understand your comment. You write: "heritability is definitely a thing". I think I agree? What thing is it you're saying heritability is?
- rayiner 7mo ago
  Attacking IQ test is like vaccine denialism. People don’t like the fact that requiring individuals to cooperate can enhance health outcomes for the group as a whole. Similarly, people don’t like the idea that some individuals are just born smarter than other individuals.
  - hirvi74 7mo ago
    > People don’t like the fact that requiring individuals to cooperate can enhance health outcomes for the group as a whole. I am not certain where you are deriving this claim from. > Similarly, people don’t like the idea that some individuals are just born smarter than other individuals. Nor this claim, as well. I have had many discussions on the topic of IQ, and I have never once seen anybody ever argue that there is no variance in human intelligence. There is a large range of variance in every human attribute. That is not the focus of the debate. Rather, most of the debate seems to be surrounding the construct validity of IQ. Statistical validity != construct validity.