Taleb is wrong about IQ (2019)(jsmp.dk)
jsmp.dk
Taleb is wrong about IQ (2019)
https://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-06-16-talebiq/
205 comments
Certainly we can admit that it is true that "Taleb is wrong about [several] IQ [claims]"?
The article makes no attempt to make any analysis about differences in wealth or education. It is VERY SPECIFICALLY addressing some of Taleb's claims about IQ and is VERY SPECIFIC that that is the goal.
The article makes no attempt to make any analysis about differences in wealth or education. It is VERY SPECIFICALLY addressing some of Taleb's claims about IQ and is VERY SPECIFIC that that is the goal.
If we're being charitable we can say that the core thrust of Taleb's point remains unchallenged, while the details he quantified are either wrong or lacking in sufficient rigor to be refuted. The author makes good points, but realistically it's a fool's errand trying to disprove tweets using a litany of R^2 incantations.
There are important caveats to what the author's done here:
1. Taleb's real point is that IQ is mostly useful for avoiding (extreme) incompetence rather than selecting for competence. Taleb constructed his argument using statistics which are either incorrect or underspecified, which invites the kind of analysis the author made. But that also means the author isn't substantially engaging with what Taleb means, because Taleb is abrasive and doesn't care to be specific.
2. You should be skeptical of any statistical analysis which leads with Pearson's r (or Spearman's rho, or whatever correlative measure) or the associated R^2. It is a top line measure which is useful but incomplete. You may miss out on the nonlinear relationship or nonperiodic relationship entirely, either of which could hold most of the variance. There are also many ways in which the variance of two things can be associated without there being a predictive relationship. Simply stated: as a statistician would tell you, if all we needed was R^2 then there would be no papers, only abstracts.
A little bit of statistics can be a dangerous thing. I'm not defending Taleb per se; rather I'm saying that both sides are arguing past each other and we probably shouldn't draw a conclusion from either.
There are important caveats to what the author's done here:
1. Taleb's real point is that IQ is mostly useful for avoiding (extreme) incompetence rather than selecting for competence. Taleb constructed his argument using statistics which are either incorrect or underspecified, which invites the kind of analysis the author made. But that also means the author isn't substantially engaging with what Taleb means, because Taleb is abrasive and doesn't care to be specific.
2. You should be skeptical of any statistical analysis which leads with Pearson's r (or Spearman's rho, or whatever correlative measure) or the associated R^2. It is a top line measure which is useful but incomplete. You may miss out on the nonlinear relationship or nonperiodic relationship entirely, either of which could hold most of the variance. There are also many ways in which the variance of two things can be associated without there being a predictive relationship. Simply stated: as a statistician would tell you, if all we needed was R^2 then there would be no papers, only abstracts.
A little bit of statistics can be a dangerous thing. I'm not defending Taleb per se; rather I'm saying that both sides are arguing past each other and we probably shouldn't draw a conclusion from either.
> If we're being charitable we can say that the core thrust of Taleb's point remains unchallenged, while the details he quantified are either wrong or lacking in sufficient rigor to be refuted.
It seems we could put this a little stronger, as the article claims to refute all the quantifiable evidence for the core point. As far as I can tell, it does so.
It seems we could put this a little stronger, as the article claims to refute all the quantifiable evidence for the core point. As far as I can tell, it does so.
Euhm, the jsmp post certainly seems more rigorous than Taleb, not less.
I also don't understand how your first point works. It contradicts itself. Look, either statistics (because this is a problem with statistics, not with IQ specifically) can predict individuals or not. So either IQ is useful in classifying both success and failure. Or it can't be used for either. Generally using statistical values for predicting individual success or failure is, first, very unreliable in the individual case, and second, not considered "just", for good reason. If you statistically show a group of 10 people has a 90% chance of being criminal, it is considered impossibly hard to pick out the innocent from among them using statistics. Therefore the correct way to respond to statistics is to group people by IQ bands, not to give specific individuals advantages (which, granted, is often done). Of course, this will magnify differences over time, which you may not consider socially just.
Your second argument essentially states that "measures that don't take time into account ... don't take time into account". It is wrong insofar that IQ usually does take time (time since birth) into account, but nothing else. That's not a coincidence, that's because they tried other factors and they didn't matter, but obviously a tautology is always right. The point is wrong because it's useless, not because it's untrue. There are many other factors that could be evaluated against IQ, and there has been a ton of research that did so, and never found much correlation.
And frankly, it boils down to this: "being good at X" correlates across X. That's to a large extent what IQ is. Everybody has seen that incompetence extends beyond any individual skill an individual might or might not have. Research shows that competence does too. It makes sense to some extent: having exceptional skill at one particular thing allows you to advance quicker when it comes to other skills. When those skills are related this is considered "trivially true" (e.g. learning piano to learn violin quicker), but what's harder to see is that this is in reality almost universally true, and this is in fact what our school system turns out to be based upon. Skills you learn in school aren't generally meant to be generally useful, but to allow you to learn "real" skills that can't be effectively learned in school much faster.
I also don't understand how your first point works. It contradicts itself. Look, either statistics (because this is a problem with statistics, not with IQ specifically) can predict individuals or not. So either IQ is useful in classifying both success and failure. Or it can't be used for either. Generally using statistical values for predicting individual success or failure is, first, very unreliable in the individual case, and second, not considered "just", for good reason. If you statistically show a group of 10 people has a 90% chance of being criminal, it is considered impossibly hard to pick out the innocent from among them using statistics. Therefore the correct way to respond to statistics is to group people by IQ bands, not to give specific individuals advantages (which, granted, is often done). Of course, this will magnify differences over time, which you may not consider socially just.
Your second argument essentially states that "measures that don't take time into account ... don't take time into account". It is wrong insofar that IQ usually does take time (time since birth) into account, but nothing else. That's not a coincidence, that's because they tried other factors and they didn't matter, but obviously a tautology is always right. The point is wrong because it's useless, not because it's untrue. There are many other factors that could be evaluated against IQ, and there has been a ton of research that did so, and never found much correlation.
And frankly, it boils down to this: "being good at X" correlates across X. That's to a large extent what IQ is. Everybody has seen that incompetence extends beyond any individual skill an individual might or might not have. Research shows that competence does too. It makes sense to some extent: having exceptional skill at one particular thing allows you to advance quicker when it comes to other skills. When those skills are related this is considered "trivially true" (e.g. learning piano to learn violin quicker), but what's harder to see is that this is in reality almost universally true, and this is in fact what our school system turns out to be based upon. Skills you learn in school aren't generally meant to be generally useful, but to allow you to learn "real" skills that can't be effectively learned in school much faster.
> So either IQ is useful in classifying both success and failure.
No, statistical relationships are not symmetric in general. You shouldn't expect equal absolute predictive power for events two sigma from the mean in opposite directions if the random variable doesn't have a normal distribution. IQ is normally distributed, but many obvious and conventional measures of success are clearly not.
> Your second argument essentially states that "measures that don't take time into account ... don't take time into account".
This isn't what I'm intending my argument to "essentially state". My second argument is just that drawing conclusions from "top line" statistics like R^2 is dangerous and potentially misleading.
No, statistical relationships are not symmetric in general. You shouldn't expect equal absolute predictive power for events two sigma from the mean in opposite directions if the random variable doesn't have a normal distribution. IQ is normally distributed, but many obvious and conventional measures of success are clearly not.
> Your second argument essentially states that "measures that don't take time into account ... don't take time into account".
This isn't what I'm intending my argument to "essentially state". My second argument is just that drawing conclusions from "top line" statistics like R^2 is dangerous and potentially misleading.
Do note also that IQ is normally distributed only by design. There is no convinsing evidence that I have seen for any cognitive ability being normally distributed, let alone general intelligence—however they define it.
Usually cognitive abilities have a step skew to the right. And even IQ fails the sniff test for normal distributions as you can imagine that the difference between 70 and 100 is far greater then the difference between 100 and 130.
Usually cognitive abilities have a step skew to the right. And even IQ fails the sniff test for normal distributions as you can imagine that the difference between 70 and 100 is far greater then the difference between 100 and 130.
What does statistics predicting individuals mean? It is well-studied, well-established, and hopefully uncontroversial that adult men are several inches taller on average than adult women.
I can use that information to predict a wide variety of things with very high confidence, but I can’t use it to tell you how tall any individual human will become. That doesn’t make it wrong nor useless.
I can use that information to predict a wide variety of things with very high confidence, but I can’t use it to tell you how tall any individual human will become. That doesn’t make it wrong nor useless.
Exactly that: statistics may tell you in any group of adults, 60% of the men will be taller than the women. It doesn’t tell you anything about which ones will be.
> It is VERY SPECIFICALLY addressing some of Taleb's claims about IQ and is VERY SPECIFIC that that is the goal.
Not sure this is the case at all. The conclusion states:
> Conclusion
> All the claims from the article that I looked at, that can be interpreted as something specific and tested in a real data set, turned out not to be correct.
It's true that Taleb's article is a bit of a rant, in his specific style, and that it might not get its quantitative claims precisely right. However, I think that his core points are valid and that the current paper, by focusing on relatively minor quantitative claims, doesn't actually provide relevant counter-arguments.
Not sure this is the case at all. The conclusion states:
> Conclusion
> All the claims from the article that I looked at, that can be interpreted as something specific and tested in a real data set, turned out not to be correct.
It's true that Taleb's article is a bit of a rant, in his specific style, and that it might not get its quantitative claims precisely right. However, I think that his core points are valid and that the current paper, by focusing on relatively minor quantitative claims, doesn't actually provide relevant counter-arguments.
Following the scientific method, you need to make testable claims for your hypothesis to hold any merit. All testable (well, quantifiable) claims made by Taleb have been shown to be wrong here. This means whatever proposals Taleb makes are either unfalsifiable or wrong, both of which are not very useful for advancing scientific understanding.
To be clear, not following the scientific method does not mean your hypothesis must be wrong. But to convince the community at large, that's what you should do.
To be clear, not following the scientific method does not mean your hypothesis must be wrong. But to convince the community at large, that's what you should do.
A number of Taleb's testable claims not addressed by the author:
- Let us return to the point of the correlation test-retest. Unlike measurements of height or wealth, which carry a tiny relative error, many people get yuugely different results for the same IQ test (I mean the same person!)
- National IQ is a Fraud. From engaging participants (who throw buzzwords at you), I realized that the concept has huge variance, enough to be uninformative. [...] Some people use National IQ as a basis for genetic differences: it doesn’t explain the sharp changes in Ireland and Croatia upon European integration, or, in the other direction, the difference between Israeli and U.S. Ashkenazis.
- If, as psychologists show (see figure) MDs and academics tend to have a higher “IQ” that is slightly informative (higher, but on a noisy average), it is largely because to get into schools you need to score on a test similar to “IQ”. The mere presence of such a filter increases the visible mean and lower the visible variance.
> But to convince the community at large, that's what you should do.
I don't agree. I don't think that only scientific (or at least scientific-looking) arguments should be considered valid. Why would that be the case? There are a lot of empirical observations that we can draw useful knowledge from, without resorting to mathematical theories and quantifiable experiments. Not to mention that science itself is far less of a rigorous field than it may seem at first sight.
- Let us return to the point of the correlation test-retest. Unlike measurements of height or wealth, which carry a tiny relative error, many people get yuugely different results for the same IQ test (I mean the same person!)
- National IQ is a Fraud. From engaging participants (who throw buzzwords at you), I realized that the concept has huge variance, enough to be uninformative. [...] Some people use National IQ as a basis for genetic differences: it doesn’t explain the sharp changes in Ireland and Croatia upon European integration, or, in the other direction, the difference between Israeli and U.S. Ashkenazis.
- If, as psychologists show (see figure) MDs and academics tend to have a higher “IQ” that is slightly informative (higher, but on a noisy average), it is largely because to get into schools you need to score on a test similar to “IQ”. The mere presence of such a filter increases the visible mean and lower the visible variance.
> But to convince the community at large, that's what you should do.
I don't agree. I don't think that only scientific (or at least scientific-looking) arguments should be considered valid. Why would that be the case? There are a lot of empirical observations that we can draw useful knowledge from, without resorting to mathematical theories and quantifiable experiments. Not to mention that science itself is far less of a rigorous field than it may seem at first sight.
> Why would that be the case? There are a lot of empirical observations that we can draw useful knowledge from, without resorting to mathematical theories and quantifiable experiments.
Because we humans are excellent at convincing ourselves of seeing or believing things that are simple untrue[0]. It turns out that numbers - while they can still be messed with knowingly or unknowingly - are a very useful tool for not only combating your own biases but also convincing others that our conclusions avert these.
Empirical observations are certainly immensely useful - for forming a hypothesis. If the hypothesis can successfully predict certain non-trivial effects, that elevates it over hypotheses that cannot do so.
> I don't think that only scientific (or at least scientific-looking) arguments should be considered valid.
As I said, arguments can be valid without being scientific. But mere human perception is a very fallible thing to build research, results and, eventually, policy on.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Because we humans are excellent at convincing ourselves of seeing or believing things that are simple untrue[0]. It turns out that numbers - while they can still be messed with knowingly or unknowingly - are a very useful tool for not only combating your own biases but also convincing others that our conclusions avert these.
Empirical observations are certainly immensely useful - for forming a hypothesis. If the hypothesis can successfully predict certain non-trivial effects, that elevates it over hypotheses that cannot do so.
> I don't think that only scientific (or at least scientific-looking) arguments should be considered valid.
As I said, arguments can be valid without being scientific. But mere human perception is a very fallible thing to build research, results and, eventually, policy on.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
> I don't see any investigation of whether IQ can be altered through nurture (which I think it can)
IIRC, one thing that we have studied pretty thoroughly, is that IQ — that is, the number IQ tests spit out — goes up when people are under the effects of stimulant drugs during the test. (Even neurotypical people, whose executive functioning is just fine without such drugs.)
This is one major reason that IQ is considered a separate thing from the g factor.
Essentially, g factor is "trait intelligence", while IQ is "state intelligence."
While IQ might be altered by nurture/environment/situation, g factor cannot be, by definition. g factor is supposed to be what you get down to when you remove all the state-intelligence confounders. That's why it's a more interesting number to study.
-----
To couch IQ vs. g factor in a cute analogy: think of ability scores in Dungeons & Dragons, vs. savings throws in that same game.
g factor is essentially your INT ability score. It's defined at character creation, and it's effectively static (for regular humans; the only things that alter it in the game are supernatural.)
But you don't use your INT ability-score directly for anything in the game. Instead, you use your INT modifier — which has your INT ability-score as its base value, but then aggregates on top all other temporary or semi-permanent bonuses/maluses from magical effects, equipment, etc.
If you do a number of "saving throws vs. INT" at a calibrated difficulty level, and average them together, what you'll get is a measure of your character's current INT modifier, not their INT ability score. Their IQ, not their g factor.
(The analogy is surprisingly even tighter than this: people who go into INT-based classes get a proficiency bonus on their INT modifier, somewhat like people who do lateral-thinking puzzles all day get a proficiency bonus on IQ tests. And there are situational modifiers to difficulty, just like there are confounders in the questions to an IQ test.)
IIRC, one thing that we have studied pretty thoroughly, is that IQ — that is, the number IQ tests spit out — goes up when people are under the effects of stimulant drugs during the test. (Even neurotypical people, whose executive functioning is just fine without such drugs.)
This is one major reason that IQ is considered a separate thing from the g factor.
Essentially, g factor is "trait intelligence", while IQ is "state intelligence."
While IQ might be altered by nurture/environment/situation, g factor cannot be, by definition. g factor is supposed to be what you get down to when you remove all the state-intelligence confounders. That's why it's a more interesting number to study.
-----
To couch IQ vs. g factor in a cute analogy: think of ability scores in Dungeons & Dragons, vs. savings throws in that same game.
g factor is essentially your INT ability score. It's defined at character creation, and it's effectively static (for regular humans; the only things that alter it in the game are supernatural.)
But you don't use your INT ability-score directly for anything in the game. Instead, you use your INT modifier — which has your INT ability-score as its base value, but then aggregates on top all other temporary or semi-permanent bonuses/maluses from magical effects, equipment, etc.
If you do a number of "saving throws vs. INT" at a calibrated difficulty level, and average them together, what you'll get is a measure of your character's current INT modifier, not their INT ability score. Their IQ, not their g factor.
(The analogy is surprisingly even tighter than this: people who go into INT-based classes get a proficiency bonus on their INT modifier, somewhat like people who do lateral-thinking puzzles all day get a proficiency bonus on IQ tests. And there are situational modifiers to difficulty, just like there are confounders in the questions to an IQ test.)
You're right, I forgot about race- I forgot how much of the "controversy" around IQ is about race. A lot is, because many of the people who did the early groundwork on statistical techniques that are used today in extracting conclusions from IQ data were hell-bent on categorising "races" according to their intellectual ability, with the white race usually either at the pinnacle, or close, of the hierarchy and with the "negro" "race" at the very bottom. People like Karl Pearson (of the Pearson correlation coefficient), Francis Galton (who coined the term "eugenics"), Ronald Fisher (head of eugenics at University College London in his time), and others.
But all that and a lot more is discussed in Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasurement of Man, a text to read before reading random posts with graphs on the internets.
But all that and a lot more is discussed in Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasurement of Man, a text to read before reading random posts with graphs on the internets.
> But all that and a lot more is discussed in Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasurement of Man, a text to read before reading random posts with graphs on the internets.
I was actually looking into some of Gould's work just a few days ago; mostly on punctuated equilibria, but The Mismeasurement of Man is on my reading list too :D
I was actually looking into some of Gould's work just a few days ago; mostly on punctuated equilibria, but The Mismeasurement of Man is on my reading list too :D
Taleb’s most incisive claim is that IQ becomes less predictive as you go up the scale, and that it is therefore more useful as a diagnostic of deficiency (<100) than a predictor of genius. It’s sort of like how very low or high levels of certain things on blood tests can predict illness, but not wellness.
I don’t see that claim addressed very well here.
I don’t see that claim addressed very well here.
Did you not read the article or did I misunderstood what was written there? It exactly shows via several statistics that IQ is a good predictor even above the average.
It's been a while since I read (some of) Taleb's arguments, but it's pretty clear to everyone supporting IQ's value in that respect that it displays more of a potential for genius than actual genius. People with high conscientiousness and high IQ are extremely likely to be successful. But there are other factors.
To wit, consider how most famous serial killers have high or very high IQ (120 and above). The reason is simple: you don't get to kill that many people if you're dumb ... because you get caught quickly.
To wit, consider how most famous serial killers have high or very high IQ (120 and above). The reason is simple: you don't get to kill that many people if you're dumb ... because you get caught quickly.
That’s sort of what he is arguing. As you go up from 100, “other factors” become more and more significant and IQ becomes less significant as a predictor of health or success.
Go below 100 though and very low IQs seem to be predictive alone of various poor outcomes.
So it’s more useful as a diagnostic for deficiency than a predictor of exceptionality.
Go below 100 though and very low IQs seem to be predictive alone of various poor outcomes.
So it’s more useful as a diagnostic for deficiency than a predictor of exceptionality.
> I don't see any investigation of whether IQ can be altered through nurture (which I think it can).
Nurture accounts for 20-43% of the differences in adult IQ scores:
"Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Nurture accounts for 20-43% of the differences in adult IQ scores:
"Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
> I don't see any investigation of whether IQ can be altered through nurture (which I think it can).
Invert, always invert.
Looking at 'nurture' as a positive action may not cover all the cases of increased IQ. Generally, yes, I think that investing more time into others is going to increase the IQ score (for many reasons). I think this is a great thing we all should invest in.
However, there is the edge case where a lack of nurture will also increase it. The adversity is overcome and the person becomes more 'IQ-y' as a result. Ramanujan come to mind as a perfect example of a person overcoming large adversity to achieve great status.
These edge cases aren't particularly repeatable, of course, but they are instructive. These people are the very end of the 'long tail' of these statistical constructs and give great insight into what it takes besides pure luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan#Early_life
Invert, always invert.
Looking at 'nurture' as a positive action may not cover all the cases of increased IQ. Generally, yes, I think that investing more time into others is going to increase the IQ score (for many reasons). I think this is a great thing we all should invest in.
However, there is the edge case where a lack of nurture will also increase it. The adversity is overcome and the person becomes more 'IQ-y' as a result. Ramanujan come to mind as a perfect example of a person overcoming large adversity to achieve great status.
These edge cases aren't particularly repeatable, of course, but they are instructive. These people are the very end of the 'long tail' of these statistical constructs and give great insight into what it takes besides pure luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan#Early_life
It's pretty funny that among the discoveries made in the field of psychology IQ is one of the strongest and most maligned at the same time. Meanwhile unreproducible junk is receiving accolades.
IQ isn't a "result." It's just a test whose results were specified to be Gaussian with mean 100 and std dev 15. Whether that is a useful thing is a different consideration.
The fact that you can use so many diverse tests as IQ tests and still get well correlated scores is itself a discovery. So is the fact that those scores correlate with various other life outcomes and that we can't find any lasting intervention (beyond very early childhood) to improve people's IQ. These are all important results about how humans work. It's not just made-up.
Is it though? I bet you get similar correlation with wealth. Many different measures of wealth give correlated scores. People that are born in wealth usually stay wealthy. People that have more wealth generally occupy higher status work.
Sure wealth is an interesting thing to look at societally, but it offers no insight into human psychology.
Sure wealth is an interesting thing to look at societally, but it offers no insight into human psychology.
That argument makes no sense. IQ is something that we have created a scale for, that correlates with lots of life outcomes (as well as being useful in predicting school success, which was the original goal).
Wealth is not a feature internal to an individual, it's something defined by a society/particular social structure and as such, it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare it to IQ (an individual difference variable measured by a test).
Wealth is not a feature internal to an individual, it's something defined by a society/particular social structure and as such, it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare it to IQ (an individual difference variable measured by a test).
> useful in predicting school success, which was the original goal
Wrong. The original goal of IQ testing was to predict which students needed special care. It is still very useful (albeit expensive) metric for that.
I just mentioned wealth here just to demonstrate that just because something correlates and predicts something, it doesn’t make it interesting. We know how wealth is inherited, and how people of wealth are privileged and generally more successful (at least if we measure success the same way as IQ proponents do). We know the mechanics of how wealth works and we know it is more societal then psychological. I took wealth as an example here just to weather the possibility the IQ is correlated and has this predictive power because of similar mechanics, i.e. not descriptive of psychology, but society.
Wrong. The original goal of IQ testing was to predict which students needed special care. It is still very useful (albeit expensive) metric for that.
I just mentioned wealth here just to demonstrate that just because something correlates and predicts something, it doesn’t make it interesting. We know how wealth is inherited, and how people of wealth are privileged and generally more successful (at least if we measure success the same way as IQ proponents do). We know the mechanics of how wealth works and we know it is more societal then psychological. I took wealth as an example here just to weather the possibility the IQ is correlated and has this predictive power because of similar mechanics, i.e. not descriptive of psychology, but society.
> Wrong. The original goal of IQ testing was to predict which students needed special care. It is still very useful (albeit expensive) metric for that.
You are entirely correct, turns out I misremembered.
Wealth is definitely not inherited the same way as IQ, in that it doesn't show any regression to the mean. We also know that adopted children from a lower-IQ family will show an IQ between their birth and adoptive parents, which is again very different from wealth.
I do agree that IQ is not a perfect metric, but can you describe why you think IQ is more reflective of society than anything else?
You are entirely correct, turns out I misremembered.
Wealth is definitely not inherited the same way as IQ, in that it doesn't show any regression to the mean. We also know that adopted children from a lower-IQ family will show an IQ between their birth and adoptive parents, which is again very different from wealth.
I do agree that IQ is not a perfect metric, but can you describe why you think IQ is more reflective of society than anything else?
> Is it though? I bet you get similar correlation with wealth.
Why aren't those two sides of the same coin? I mean, smart people can generally figure out how to accrue and maintain wealth.
Someone will say by way of counter-example that, let's say the Kardashians are not smart. But they seem awfully clever at manipulating their publicity in ways that bring them wealth.
So it really seems to have more to do with whether one has a narrow conception of intelligence as being able to, say, find new theories in QCD or derive relativity, rather than being able to figure out how to accomplish things beneficial to themselves. Which might be D-K in effect, but who knows?
Why aren't those two sides of the same coin? I mean, smart people can generally figure out how to accrue and maintain wealth.
Someone will say by way of counter-example that, let's say the Kardashians are not smart. But they seem awfully clever at manipulating their publicity in ways that bring them wealth.
So it really seems to have more to do with whether one has a narrow conception of intelligence as being able to, say, find new theories in QCD or derive relativity, rather than being able to figure out how to accomplish things beneficial to themselves. Which might be D-K in effect, but who knows?
Note that the purpose of my earlier comment was not to compare wealth to IQ, it was simply to provide an example of a phenomena that both correlates and predicts but is not of interest to explaining human psychology.
That said, if wealth and IQ correlates—which I’m not sure it does—you cannot say which causes which, or even if either causes the other. It is just as plausible that wealthy folks have better training taking tests which will lead to higher test scores in general, including IQ scores.
That said, if wealth and IQ correlates—which I’m not sure it does—you cannot say which causes which, or even if either causes the other. It is just as plausible that wealthy folks have better training taking tests which will lead to higher test scores in general, including IQ scores.
The fact that IQ of biological parents is a much better predictor of kids IQ than their foster parents pretty much invalidates the theory that the causation goes wealth -> IQ.
https://rpadgett.butler.edu/ps320/coursedocs/Richardson-Norg...
https://rpadgett.butler.edu/ps320/coursedocs/Richardson-Norg...
First, lets establish whether there is a correlation between IQ and wealth before we conclude the causation.
Now if you manage to convince me that there is a correlation, twin studies is not enough to convince me of the causation. Twin studies are controversial as they do not provide a random sample and have a number of inherit biases.
And even if you find a way to convince me that the causation is not wealth → IQ, it is still not enough to convince me that IQ causes wealth. You still have to eliminate any third variable that causes both.
This is all after you’ve convinced me that IQ is a useful and interesting metric (see nibling comments), as well as useful and unbiased, all of which is up for debate in academic studies as of yet. Good luck.
Now if you manage to convince me that there is a correlation, twin studies is not enough to convince me of the causation. Twin studies are controversial as they do not provide a random sample and have a number of inherit biases.
And even if you find a way to convince me that the causation is not wealth → IQ, it is still not enough to convince me that IQ causes wealth. You still have to eliminate any third variable that causes both.
This is all after you’ve convinced me that IQ is a useful and interesting metric (see nibling comments), as well as useful and unbiased, all of which is up for debate in academic studies as of yet. Good luck.
>, twin studies is not enough to convince me of the causation. Twin studies are controversial as they do not provide a random sample and have a number of inherit biases.
I wasn't talking about Twin studies. It is a fact that among adopted kids their intelligence correlates almost as much with their biological parents as for non adopted kids. Adopted kids is such a big group that there is no lack of data.
I wasn't talking about Twin studies. It is a fact that among adopted kids their intelligence correlates almost as much with their biological parents as for non adopted kids. Adopted kids is such a big group that there is no lack of data.
I thought it was pretty widely known that there was one. I mean, the article discusses salary vs. IQ and it should be clear that salary ends up correlating with wealth, especially if it accrues over many generations.
> wealth
Assets/wealth is actually pretty uncorrelated with IQ among adults.
Saying that wealth is the same thing as IQ is a conservative position, IMO.
Assets/wealth is actually pretty uncorrelated with IQ among adults.
Saying that wealth is the same thing as IQ is a conservative position, IMO.
I wasn’t saying that. I simply provided an example of something that correlates and predicts but is not an interesting psychological phenomena.
> we can't find any lasting intervention (beyond very early childhood) to improve people's IQ
We have, actually! It's just that they've all been implemented already. Iodine supplementation was huge. (Childhood Iodine deficiency results in an adulthood IQ deficit of ~15 points)
The next big IQ improvement looks like it might be iterated embryo selection [0] which is currently possible and will soon be practical, but has a whole host of ethical issues attached to it. (Is it right for the children of the rich to get another advantage like this? (Not a question for the Talebs of the world who think IQ is bunk, but one I'm sure many will be asking) Is throwing away dozens of viable embryos ethical? Are we 'playing god'? And further down the line, is using CRISPR-Cas9 to directly edit the genome of your descendants OK?)
0: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection
We have, actually! It's just that they've all been implemented already. Iodine supplementation was huge. (Childhood Iodine deficiency results in an adulthood IQ deficit of ~15 points)
The next big IQ improvement looks like it might be iterated embryo selection [0] which is currently possible and will soon be practical, but has a whole host of ethical issues attached to it. (Is it right for the children of the rich to get another advantage like this? (Not a question for the Talebs of the world who think IQ is bunk, but one I'm sure many will be asking) Is throwing away dozens of viable embryos ethical? Are we 'playing god'? And further down the line, is using CRISPR-Cas9 to directly edit the genome of your descendants OK?)
0: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection
It gets a bit trivial if you count deficiencies as improving IQ by "correcting" their dose. I would think any simple intervention doesn't really count as improving IQ so much as enabling some latent potential that was already present. We can also ingest less lead or get bashed on the head less, but once everyone's doing that perfectly, we'll still have people with lower IQ that can't be brought up to the level of those with the highest.
There are many findings in psychology more rigorous than IQ. Operant conditioning is the obvious example.
Well IQ is a quantification and operant conditioning is not. I don't see how you can directly compare the rigour of the two when IQ can be used to make quantitative predictions and the other doesn't...
Right, I can name another one after operant conditioning. The stroop effect, and that's it to be honest. Can you supply some more?
Like the entirity of personel selection for many, many years was based on IQ like measures, and it was the base for all of the work ETS have done on standardised testing (item response theory and all that).
Can you explain why you do not believe IQ to be rigorous?
Like the entirity of personel selection for many, many years was based on IQ like measures, and it was the base for all of the work ETS have done on standardised testing (item response theory and all that).
Can you explain why you do not believe IQ to be rigorous?
> Right, I can name another one after operant conditioning. The stroop effect, and that's it to be honest. Can you supply some more?
>Can you explain why you do not believe IQ to be rigorous?
That's a much longer and more complicated argument than what I'm saying, which is simply that IQ is not anywhere near the most essential nor the most studied question in psychology. Classical conditioning is another. Attachment and critical periods in developmental psychology have received a lot of attention. In particular, pretty much any effect which generalizes in a simple and reliable way from humans to animals is easier to experiment on and has a stronger evidence base than IQ: instinctual drift, childhood amnesia, most of the theory of perception, etc.
The actual content and priorities of psychology as a field of scientific research is quite different from the few topics which get debated with unreasonably high frequency on the Internet.
>Can you explain why you do not believe IQ to be rigorous?
That's a much longer and more complicated argument than what I'm saying, which is simply that IQ is not anywhere near the most essential nor the most studied question in psychology. Classical conditioning is another. Attachment and critical periods in developmental psychology have received a lot of attention. In particular, pretty much any effect which generalizes in a simple and reliable way from humans to animals is easier to experiment on and has a stronger evidence base than IQ: instinctual drift, childhood amnesia, most of the theory of perception, etc.
The actual content and priorities of psychology as a field of scientific research is quite different from the few topics which get debated with unreasonably high frequency on the Internet.
Ok, thanks for the explanation.
Full disclosure, I have a doctorate in psychology (but have been out of the field almost a decade now), so am well aware of the "actual" psychological research.
Personally, for my money, IQ lead to the development of most of modern psychometrics, which I think is probably psychology's largest contribution to intellectual knowledge, but that's probably my quant bias showing.
Sure, behaviourism has had a bunch of successes, but it's only necessary for psychology, and definitely not sufficient.
Classical conditioning I'll give you, but I definitely didn't hear much about either instinctual drift or childhood amnesia relative to IQ.
> theory of perception, Which one? are you talking about the information processing model or the gestalt models? I'd probably agree with you on Gestalt, but not on IP (which I think is the steam-engine metaphor of the mind of our time).
I'd agree that it's not the most essential question, but it's definitely one of the most studied.
Full disclosure, I have a doctorate in psychology (but have been out of the field almost a decade now), so am well aware of the "actual" psychological research.
Personally, for my money, IQ lead to the development of most of modern psychometrics, which I think is probably psychology's largest contribution to intellectual knowledge, but that's probably my quant bias showing.
Sure, behaviourism has had a bunch of successes, but it's only necessary for psychology, and definitely not sufficient.
Classical conditioning I'll give you, but I definitely didn't hear much about either instinctual drift or childhood amnesia relative to IQ.
> theory of perception, Which one? are you talking about the information processing model or the gestalt models? I'd probably agree with you on Gestalt, but not on IP (which I think is the steam-engine metaphor of the mind of our time).
I'd agree that it's not the most essential question, but it's definitely one of the most studied.
IQ, however, is the most robust psychometric.
Operant conditioning doesn't seem to have stronger effect size than IQ. Otherwise it would be pretty easy to solve crime, classroom behavior, homework, slackers at work etc. Many people act defiantly when conditioned and do the opposite.
[deleted]
It's depressing how conventional it has become for a relatively intelligent population, like the HN audience, to only know about criticisms of IQ and basically nothing about its positive value. But witness the credulous reception for Taleb's slapdash work in these comments, and the hostility to basic technical criticisms of that work.
If you are interested in knowing about the thing itself, and not just criticisms of the thing, I invite you to pick up, for example, Stuart Ritchie's book https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritc...
And before you get upset about the title, the book is from a survey series called "All That Matters". It's not claiming that _intelligence_ is "all that matters".
If you are interested in knowing about the thing itself, and not just criticisms of the thing, I invite you to pick up, for example, Stuart Ritchie's book https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritc...
And before you get upset about the title, the book is from a survey series called "All That Matters". It's not claiming that _intelligence_ is "all that matters".
> like the HN audience
I think most of the HN audience is well aware of the positive aspects of IQ. It's just that the power structure here protects the vocal minority who espouse solely the negative side. Like so much of media/social media/politics/culture/etc, it's censorship that tips the scale and skews discourse towards the extreme.
I think most of the HN audience is well aware of the positive aspects of IQ. It's just that the power structure here protects the vocal minority who espouse solely the negative side. Like so much of media/social media/politics/culture/etc, it's censorship that tips the scale and skews discourse towards the extreme.
> It's depressing how conventional it has become for a relatively intelligent population, like the HN audience, to only know about criticisms of IQ and basically nothing about its positive value.
What do you consider it's positive values? All I'm aware of is how it's used to judge people. Unless you consider that a positive thing.
What do you consider it's positive values? All I'm aware of is how it's used to judge people. Unless you consider that a positive thing.
Here are just a couple examples:
1. We can quantitatively study environmental factors that influence intelligence. For example, we know that even low concentrations of lead in the blood are linked to lower IQ. Knowing what can hurt our mental abilities allows us to protect ourselves via environmental policy.
2. It's not uncommon that a child who is inattentive at school is high IQ and is understimulated by going at the normal classroom pace. Testing allows identification and targeted enrichment opportunities.
1. We can quantitatively study environmental factors that influence intelligence. For example, we know that even low concentrations of lead in the blood are linked to lower IQ. Knowing what can hurt our mental abilities allows us to protect ourselves via environmental policy.
2. It's not uncommon that a child who is inattentive at school is high IQ and is understimulated by going at the normal classroom pace. Testing allows identification and targeted enrichment opportunities.
What policy changes does Ritchie recommend? I saw a mention of IQ testing for job interviews (and can imagine the kerfuffle if Google or Facebook a test score of 130 before an initial interview).
Taleb tweeted his response, mentioning also this HN topic: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1320433476345176066
You can't win in discussions about IQ for this reason:
A school like Harvard admits rich people who are maybe 1 SD above the mean and poor people who are 3-4 SD above the mean.
It's a form of "achievement laundering". You might be 22 years old and the only remarkable thing about you is that your parents are rich (either they achieved something or their parents achieved something or got lucky or stole or...) You took classes that weren't graded harshly with some really bright kids, and for the benefit of both groups, rich kids and bright kids are blended together so that newspaper commentators and other pundits will look at them with 80/20 vision and think they are looking at a "meritocracy".
A threat to this is that some alumni families have a strong sense of entitlement and insist on their spawn with inferior IQ (and often inferior moral character in general) get admission.
Some of these children benefit a lot from test prep, some benefit a little, other ones can at best make up a story like "I must have skipped a row and put all the right answers in the wrong rows".
So there is a lot of hate for standardized tests and circa 1970-1980 somebody must have hired a public relations agency, done some polling, figured that you couldn't get sympathy for low-IQ rich kids but maybe you could get sympathy for low-IQ black people and that makes it a little easier for people like Stephen J. Gould to get funding to drop what they are doing and write on the topic of "racial bias in IQ testing".
---
Effective political movements usually have a combination of an elite sector that supplies resources and a mass sector that supplies footsoldiers. The elite is too small to win at anything on it's own, and it is next-to-impossible for mass groups to organize in the long term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
---
An interesting phenomenon is that you'll often see something in People magazine to the effect that "(Rosanne Barr|Sylvester Stallone|...) has a 148 IQ" and wonder who it is that trains celebrities to ace this this test:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices
which is has to be, because with just 60 questions, somebody with an IQ > 100 or so should be able to memorize the answers. Maybe you can't really a fault an actor for this because an actor doesn't have to be a genius, they just have to play one on TV.
A school like Harvard admits rich people who are maybe 1 SD above the mean and poor people who are 3-4 SD above the mean.
It's a form of "achievement laundering". You might be 22 years old and the only remarkable thing about you is that your parents are rich (either they achieved something or their parents achieved something or got lucky or stole or...) You took classes that weren't graded harshly with some really bright kids, and for the benefit of both groups, rich kids and bright kids are blended together so that newspaper commentators and other pundits will look at them with 80/20 vision and think they are looking at a "meritocracy".
A threat to this is that some alumni families have a strong sense of entitlement and insist on their spawn with inferior IQ (and often inferior moral character in general) get admission.
Some of these children benefit a lot from test prep, some benefit a little, other ones can at best make up a story like "I must have skipped a row and put all the right answers in the wrong rows".
So there is a lot of hate for standardized tests and circa 1970-1980 somebody must have hired a public relations agency, done some polling, figured that you couldn't get sympathy for low-IQ rich kids but maybe you could get sympathy for low-IQ black people and that makes it a little easier for people like Stephen J. Gould to get funding to drop what they are doing and write on the topic of "racial bias in IQ testing".
---
Effective political movements usually have a combination of an elite sector that supplies resources and a mass sector that supplies footsoldiers. The elite is too small to win at anything on it's own, and it is next-to-impossible for mass groups to organize in the long term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
---
An interesting phenomenon is that you'll often see something in People magazine to the effect that "(Rosanne Barr|Sylvester Stallone|...) has a 148 IQ" and wonder who it is that trains celebrities to ace this this test:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices
which is has to be, because with just 60 questions, somebody with an IQ > 100 or so should be able to memorize the answers. Maybe you can't really a fault an actor for this because an actor doesn't have to be a genius, they just have to play one on TV.
> maybe you could get sympathy for low-IQ black people and that makes it a little easier for people like Stephen J. Gould to get funding to drop what they are doing and write on the topic of "racial bias in IQ testing".
Well, I found The Mismeasure of Man persuasive. I guess you didn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
Well, I found The Mismeasure of Man persuasive. I guess you didn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
> maybe you could get sympathy for low-IQ black people
Is that what you think affirmative action is? Wow.
Is that what you think affirmative action is? Wow.
Case in point, in his book Red Notice, Bill Browder says pretty candidly that he was a poor student, but he was admitted to Stanford because his Grandfather was Chairman of the US Communist Party back in the day.
More recently there has been a bit of scandal related to thinly veiled bribes for admissions involving a few celebrities. Where I went to school, ARAMCO endows the petroleum engineering department. Saudi students tended to sit in a V-formation during exams, with the brightest of them at the tip. Professors all knew what was going on, but you can’t just kick out kids whose sponsor pays your six-figure salary.
Frankly, I don’t think academic credentials are a useful proxy measurement of abilities for the reasons you brought up.
More recently there has been a bit of scandal related to thinly veiled bribes for admissions involving a few celebrities. Where I went to school, ARAMCO endows the petroleum engineering department. Saudi students tended to sit in a V-formation during exams, with the brightest of them at the tip. Professors all knew what was going on, but you can’t just kick out kids whose sponsor pays your six-figure salary.
Frankly, I don’t think academic credentials are a useful proxy measurement of abilities for the reasons you brought up.
What if instead of actors faking the test, we consider it takes high IQ to reach the top 0.5% of any field?
Hard to say; it's actually somewhat rare to see very high IQ's even in leadership to elite positions such as "Sales Manager", CEO, politician, ...
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx
The people around a set like an actor to be "smart" in the following sense: you show up to work and know your lines, the director or somebody else tells you what to do and you don't need to be told again. You need to be a "quick learner" of the random sorts of skills you need to do your work. As an actor you can outperform the person you become because your lines are written for you, so you can put 100% of your effort into everything else.
I have a somewhat high IQ, I'm good at hard math (I'm sure better than Sly Stallone) and abstract thought and my words/minute rate of writing has been legendary at times, but I struggle as an actor.
Stallone's success had to do with the breakout success of his movie "Rocky", which he wrote. That in turn had to do with convincing other people to take a chance on him and his script, and that gets you into a whole interpersonal area where the role of IQ is really controversial.
If I wrote fiction I'd be dangerously tempted to be like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Forward
I am fascinated with how many "Starship(s)" full of ammonia it would take to fill the atmosphere of a small space colony, what you do with the hydrogen and so forth. Stallone is much better at relating to the average person than I am, and that's what makes him a "genius".
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx
The people around a set like an actor to be "smart" in the following sense: you show up to work and know your lines, the director or somebody else tells you what to do and you don't need to be told again. You need to be a "quick learner" of the random sorts of skills you need to do your work. As an actor you can outperform the person you become because your lines are written for you, so you can put 100% of your effort into everything else.
I have a somewhat high IQ, I'm good at hard math (I'm sure better than Sly Stallone) and abstract thought and my words/minute rate of writing has been legendary at times, but I struggle as an actor.
Stallone's success had to do with the breakout success of his movie "Rocky", which he wrote. That in turn had to do with convincing other people to take a chance on him and his script, and that gets you into a whole interpersonal area where the role of IQ is really controversial.
If I wrote fiction I'd be dangerously tempted to be like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Forward
I am fascinated with how many "Starship(s)" full of ammonia it would take to fill the atmosphere of a small space colony, what you do with the hydrogen and so forth. Stallone is much better at relating to the average person than I am, and that's what makes him a "genius".
"That in turn had to do with convincing other people to take a chance on him and his script, and that gets you into a whole interpersonal area where the role of IQ is really controversial."
What? Essentially all of "success" (which IQ is correlated with) involves the "interpersonal area". If IQ isn't strongly related to successful interpersonal relations, something is broken somewhere.
What? Essentially all of "success" (which IQ is correlated with) involves the "interpersonal area". If IQ isn't strongly related to successful interpersonal relations, something is broken somewhere.
Right, but if you were to test for "successful interpersonal relations" you would inevitably produce something culture bound.
There was that time my wife and I got from the airport to the mountains in the Dominican Republic with instructions to use various forms of transport I'd never heard of, ran away from motorcycle taxis, shook hands with a police officer (along with everyone on the bus), walked into what we thought was a bus stop but was really a sports betting establishment, and caught the last bus to Ocoa which was a good thing because the only Spanish I knew I learned from reading half of Don Quixote and shopping at Home Depot -- it would have been awkward to find a hotel and regroup the next day.
A person working across a cultural barrier to do a more complex task over a longer time has similar 'knife edges' to performance which will make everything fraught.
See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_ceiling
"Based on publicly available government statistics, Asian Americans have the lowest chance of rising to management when compared with African Americans, Hispanics and women in spite of having the highest educational attainment."
There was that time my wife and I got from the airport to the mountains in the Dominican Republic with instructions to use various forms of transport I'd never heard of, ran away from motorcycle taxis, shook hands with a police officer (along with everyone on the bus), walked into what we thought was a bus stop but was really a sports betting establishment, and caught the last bus to Ocoa which was a good thing because the only Spanish I knew I learned from reading half of Don Quixote and shopping at Home Depot -- it would have been awkward to find a hotel and regroup the next day.
A person working across a cultural barrier to do a more complex task over a longer time has similar 'knife edges' to performance which will make everything fraught.
See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_ceiling
"Based on publicly available government statistics, Asian Americans have the lowest chance of rising to management when compared with African Americans, Hispanics and women in spite of having the highest educational attainment."
What you are describing there are specific handicaps.
That was my immediate thought, though I would caveat it as "IQ likely has a statistically significant effect on achieving the top successes of any field and therefore we'd expect the top 0.5% to have a higher than average IQ."
Otherwise, it seems like a strange dismissal. For one, the roles that an actor plays, and even the persona they have in public don't necessarily match their private persona where their intelligence might be more evident. For two, while luck and other personality factors surely play a significant role, it would make sense that IQ would be a differentiator amongst any group with similar characteristics.
So among good-looking talented actors/actresses with similar demographics, I'd expect IQ to correlate at least somewhat with their success. It seems odd to think otherwise.
Otherwise, it seems like a strange dismissal. For one, the roles that an actor plays, and even the persona they have in public don't necessarily match their private persona where their intelligence might be more evident. For two, while luck and other personality factors surely play a significant role, it would make sense that IQ would be a differentiator amongst any group with similar characteristics.
So among good-looking talented actors/actresses with similar demographics, I'd expect IQ to correlate at least somewhat with their success. It seems odd to think otherwise.
> It's a form of "achievement laundering".
For sure [1].
But it is actually pretty easy to distinguish these groups of people. Was the person on the Putnam team? Did the person take Math 55 (or Honors Analysis at Chicago)?
You could argue that these are noisy signals because people from unprivileged backgrounds have to do some catching up before they can crush a Math 55.
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/david-e-shaw-college...
For sure [1].
But it is actually pretty easy to distinguish these groups of people. Was the person on the Putnam team? Did the person take Math 55 (or Honors Analysis at Chicago)?
You could argue that these are noisy signals because people from unprivileged backgrounds have to do some catching up before they can crush a Math 55.
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/david-e-shaw-college...
...have to do some catching up before they can crush a Math 55.
A freshmen-only class like Math 55 implies that at least the high school experience was somewhat privileged.
A freshmen-only class like Math 55 implies that at least the high school experience was somewhat privileged.
IQ and university degree still works as a performance predictor in countries where free public university education is better (harder to get, gives more prestige) than private university education, so all the "good" students go to the best public universities (for example in my country - Poland).
There's still some inherited factors (who has better access to tutors at high school and who can move to a different city for 5 years without having to work). But at least you don't have to get a mortgage to afford a degree.
I think it's precisely because of recent communist history (in 1989 99% of population was equally as poor) that the private universities couldn't overtake the public ones. Not enough rich kids to make a whole university out of them - so instead the trick was to pass exams well enough to outcompete the other 49 candidates for a place at the best public universities.
There's still some inherited factors (who has better access to tutors at high school and who can move to a different city for 5 years without having to work). But at least you don't have to get a mortgage to afford a degree.
I think it's precisely because of recent communist history (in 1989 99% of population was equally as poor) that the private universities couldn't overtake the public ones. Not enough rich kids to make a whole university out of them - so instead the trick was to pass exams well enough to outcompete the other 49 candidates for a place at the best public universities.
As far as I know, apart from a few European business schools there are no globally prestigious private universities outside of the US.
What are the European business schools?
Are there any public universities you'd describe as globally prestigious?
Are there any public universities you'd describe as globally prestigious?
Bocconi probably the top one, I think some of the grandes écoles are too.
Outside the US, Oxbridge, ETHZ and NUS would be some examples, where globally prestigious means ~top 20. If you broaden to top 100 there are quite a lot of European/Australian/Canadian/Chinese ones.
Outside the US, Oxbridge, ETHZ and NUS would be some examples, where globally prestigious means ~top 20. If you broaden to top 100 there are quite a lot of European/Australian/Canadian/Chinese ones.
overall, very good comment. one small contention would be that IQ has its limits.
as a high-iq plebe, i've known many patricians. i could crush all of them on school-work, yet most of them would easily best me when it comes to wisdom and life-choices.
in other words, i wouldn't be so sure about whose reputation is being laundered here.
as a high-iq plebe, i've known many patricians. i could crush all of them on school-work, yet most of them would easily best me when it comes to wisdom and life-choices.
in other words, i wouldn't be so sure about whose reputation is being laundered here.
[deleted]
These purported high scores are mostly legit and based on a comprehensive IQ test, not a 60-quesiton memorized matrix test. I dunno where you get that idea from.
If you read the biographies of these high-IQ celebrities, ,s you will see that their non-acting accomplishments generally match with their IQs. They attended prestigious schools, as was the case with Sharon Stone, or tested well , as was the case with James Woods, who attended MIT.
If you read the biographies of these high-IQ celebrities, ,s you will see that their non-acting accomplishments generally match with their IQs. They attended prestigious schools, as was the case with Sharon Stone, or tested well , as was the case with James Woods, who attended MIT.
There is definitely one correlation: People with a measured high IQ defend IQ measurements. People with a measured low IQ don‘t .
In my experience there are basically no people with measured low IQ making good posts on forums. If there were we would see way more people speaking up about it. Throughout my entire life reading posts on many different forums I only saw a single person admit he had below 100 IQ, and he wasn't a good poster.
If IQ didn't matter we would see tons of people say things like "I have an IQ of 85 and still am a software engineer at Google, IQ is total bullshit!", but we don't.
If IQ didn't matter we would see tons of people say things like "I have an IQ of 85 and still am a software engineer at Google, IQ is total bullshit!", but we don't.
Ok, so Taleb's argument was:
> “IQ” is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent (with a lot of noise), a form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects
Right before the conclusion, the author shows us this chart comparing incomes in IQ cohorts: https://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-06-16-talebiq/iq_files/figure...
Maybe it's because I'm not a high-IQ, R-programming brain-genius, but it seems like the low-IQ distribution has a very distinct shape with a low mean and leftward skew, whereas the mid and high-IQ distributions look pretty similar, with a modest advantage to the high-IQ cohort. That seems to confirm Taleb's claim that IQ mostly measures unintelligence, and has a much smaller impact on the higher end.
> “IQ” is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent (with a lot of noise), a form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects
Right before the conclusion, the author shows us this chart comparing incomes in IQ cohorts: https://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-06-16-talebiq/iq_files/figure...
Maybe it's because I'm not a high-IQ, R-programming brain-genius, but it seems like the low-IQ distribution has a very distinct shape with a low mean and leftward skew, whereas the mid and high-IQ distributions look pretty similar, with a modest advantage to the high-IQ cohort. That seems to confirm Taleb's claim that IQ mostly measures unintelligence, and has a much smaller impact on the higher end.
IQ is a measure of how willing you are to do something extremely boring and pointless. A perfect predictor for success in the average office job and education.
Also correlates with lifespan, probability of divorce, crime. All such boring stuff.
PS. I am wondering whether it correlates with the belief in IQ testing itself :)
PS. I am wondering whether it correlates with the belief in IQ testing itself :)
>Also correlates with lifespan, probability of divorce, crime. All such boring stuff.
Yes, doing pointless soul crushing work makes you the money you need to create the next generation of automatons that do the same.
Yes, doing pointless soul crushing work makes you the money you need to create the next generation of automatons that do the same.
For a lack of a better word, your ideas seem really misguided to me.
Describing reality is not disgusting.
So does wealth. Yet I'd hope that people would shudder at school admissions and hiring pipelines that explicitly separate people based on wealth and choose the richest ones.
Tons of schools separate implicitly by wealth simply by charging high tuition and not offering (enough) financial aid to every student who can’t afford it.
You’d be surprised at what lenghts rich people go in order to reduce the tuition or get financial aid for their offspring. The rich are well informed and know how to use all the loopholes..
Yes. And many people agree that's bad. I'm not saying this doesn't happen. I'm saying that "High IQ is correlated with lower crime rates and higher test scores" shouldn't be the end of the discussion when people are arguing that IQ should be used to divide populations in public policy and corporate behavior.
I’d prefer it to be explicit. Would be nicer for the really smart poor kids who just miss the genius level required to get in to a Harvard without being rich.
I’d rather think “if my family had money, I would’ve gotten in” than “I’m just not good enough”.
These silent double standards are a curse. Saying it out loud is the first step to stopping it.
I’d rather think “if my family had money, I would’ve gotten in” than “I’m just not good enough”.
These silent double standards are a curse. Saying it out loud is the first step to stopping it.
I think Raven is fun, but Raven is just 60 questions you can cram on.
I think what you're referring to is conscientiousness, the ability to stick to a task to completion regardless of how exciting it is.
So you can get people with higher intelligence and low conscientiousness being overtaken by less smart people high in conscientiousness who actually finish the task.
My understanding is that with a higher IQ you finish a task quicker . So smarter people tend to get to success quicker but doesn't mean that lower IQ folk are denied successes if both groups have similar levels of conscientiousness.
IQ is not the strongest predictor of success.
So you can get people with higher intelligence and low conscientiousness being overtaken by less smart people high in conscientiousness who actually finish the task.
My understanding is that with a higher IQ you finish a task quicker . So smarter people tend to get to success quicker but doesn't mean that lower IQ folk are denied successes if both groups have similar levels of conscientiousness.
IQ is not the strongest predictor of success.
only if lower iq correlated with longevity. Also success compounds. You want faster compounding.
It would be more accurate to say "Performance on an IQ test" as opposed to "IQ". That's the main criticism I have of IQ.
So if you do well on tests, then you probably would do well on the IQ test as well as tests in school, which means you are more likely to have attained a higher level of educations, which is associated with a higher income.
To actually prove to me that IQ is a thing, you would have to show me that what you call IQ is innate. Meaning that you can't do better on an IQ test if you study, which I don't believe is true. All written tests I have ever taken have tricks or patterns that you can exploit after some practice. And then you'd have to show me that IQ is a better predictor than some other rote test to tease out general test taking ability or ability to sit still.
A lot of people just work off the basis that IQ is a thing that we can measure, which I don't believe to be true, hence the pseudoscientific swindle
So if you do well on tests, then you probably would do well on the IQ test as well as tests in school, which means you are more likely to have attained a higher level of educations, which is associated with a higher income.
To actually prove to me that IQ is a thing, you would have to show me that what you call IQ is innate. Meaning that you can't do better on an IQ test if you study, which I don't believe is true. All written tests I have ever taken have tricks or patterns that you can exploit after some practice. And then you'd have to show me that IQ is a better predictor than some other rote test to tease out general test taking ability or ability to sit still.
A lot of people just work off the basis that IQ is a thing that we can measure, which I don't believe to be true, hence the pseudoscientific swindle
> To actually prove to me that IQ is a thing, you would have to show me that what you call IQ is innate.
"Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
"Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
I wasn't talking about innate in the context of heredity. I meant produced by the mind as opposed to experience. I am not convinced that someone can't learn to score better on IQ tests through practice
To actually prove to me that IQ is a thing, you would have to show me that what you call IQ is innate
This does not follow. IQ is a thing because they test children on it without warning and without any prep and their performance on these tasks they’ve never seen before in their lives predicts their performance in school better than many other tests.
You can’t say the same thing about, say, a language test for a child unfamiliar with the language because the kid won’t understand it at all. The IQ test is designed to be as unrelated to experience as possible in order to measure the capacity for abstract thinking and the ability to solve novel problems when you first encounter them.
Since you’re undermining a test of your ability to solve something novel, studying for an IQ test is cheating.
This does not follow. IQ is a thing because they test children on it without warning and without any prep and their performance on these tasks they’ve never seen before in their lives predicts their performance in school better than many other tests.
You can’t say the same thing about, say, a language test for a child unfamiliar with the language because the kid won’t understand it at all. The IQ test is designed to be as unrelated to experience as possible in order to measure the capacity for abstract thinking and the ability to solve novel problems when you first encounter them.
Since you’re undermining a test of your ability to solve something novel, studying for an IQ test is cheating.
There are a number of skills that are based on experience (as opposed to innate) that would greatly help you on an IQ test. The most obvious one is being able to sit still, try hard and follow directions. This may be what you're testing for, which is Taleb's claim about "IQ" being associated with obedience and success in a typical office job
Those are necessary but not sufficient to scoring well on an IQ test. Just as proper nutrition is necessary but not sufficient to growing very tall.
> “IQ is a thing because they test children on it without warning and without any prep and their performance on these tasks they’ve never seen before in their lives”
I believe this is a myth. There are many ways to prep children for this kind of test, and the wealthy in America have access to an early education system that trains children for standardized tests.
I have anecdotal evidence because I have two children who were raised in different countries. My older child did daycare and preschool in Finland, before we moved to USA. My younger child is now three and in private daycare in Manhattan.
In Finnish daycare, three-year-olds spent their days playing. In affluent New York, they are clearly being trained to perform on tests. I’m not exactly happy about that because I believe the Finnish system creates more balanced individuals on average. But I guess I’ll see the results of this experiment firsthand in 5-10 years.
I believe this is a myth. There are many ways to prep children for this kind of test, and the wealthy in America have access to an early education system that trains children for standardized tests.
I have anecdotal evidence because I have two children who were raised in different countries. My older child did daycare and preschool in Finland, before we moved to USA. My younger child is now three and in private daycare in Manhattan.
In Finnish daycare, three-year-olds spent their days playing. In affluent New York, they are clearly being trained to perform on tests. I’m not exactly happy about that because I believe the Finnish system creates more balanced individuals on average. But I guess I’ll see the results of this experiment firsthand in 5-10 years.
Twin studies bear it out quite strongly. Identical twins perform far more similarly on IQ tests then do fraternal twins or non-twin siblings. Identical twins raised in separate households perform extremely similarly to twins raised in the same household. It’s not a myth, it’s just controversial because our society values these abilities so highly.
That doesn’t strike me as anywhere near sufficient evidence that children can’t be trained for IQ tests.
I suspect the test-oriented early education available to wealthy Americans is such a large confounder that it overwhelms innate ability at this point.
I suspect the test-oriented early education available to wealthy Americans is such a large confounder that it overwhelms innate ability at this point.
Children can be trained for IQ tests. Your original claim seems to be much stronger than that. It was my impression that you were asserting that children are trained for IQ tests accidentally, merely by living in an enriched home and school environment.
There is no evidence for that and twin and adoption studies show evidence to the contrary: that adopted children and especially twins raised separately over/underperform their adoptive families and perform similarly to their biological relatives.
The only thing we know that can overwhelm innate ability is crushing poverty and the malnutrition and other extreme stresses that come with it. Otherwise, the effect of home environment on IQ is minimal.
It’s different, of course, with language acquisition. Kids learn more vocabulary the more you speak to them and read to them. Kids with wealthy upbringings can have much more opportunity to acquire language than otherwise. The extent to which that helps with abstract pattern recognition, mental rotation, etc is limited. And we have plenty of examples of kids with logical and spatial reasoning that far exceeds their language skills. It’s such a common phenomenon that we have a name for these kids: nerd.
There is no evidence for that and twin and adoption studies show evidence to the contrary: that adopted children and especially twins raised separately over/underperform their adoptive families and perform similarly to their biological relatives.
The only thing we know that can overwhelm innate ability is crushing poverty and the malnutrition and other extreme stresses that come with it. Otherwise, the effect of home environment on IQ is minimal.
It’s different, of course, with language acquisition. Kids learn more vocabulary the more you speak to them and read to them. Kids with wealthy upbringings can have much more opportunity to acquire language than otherwise. The extent to which that helps with abstract pattern recognition, mental rotation, etc is limited. And we have plenty of examples of kids with logical and spatial reasoning that far exceeds their language skills. It’s such a common phenomenon that we have a name for these kids: nerd.
[deleted]
IQ is a psychometric number derived by a standardized instrument to measure some form of intelligence. "Boring" is a feeling that has as much to do with intelligence as all the other feelings like sad, happy, etc. "Pointless" is a value judgment you're making right here that's extremely subjective, each person can find purpose in their job if they re-frame and tell themselves a better story about it.
I don't think IQ is a perfect predictor for basically anything. It's a very myopic metric that helps explain, but any statistician today is going to use dozens of variables in their model, not just one.
I don't think IQ is a perfect predictor for basically anything. It's a very myopic metric that helps explain, but any statistician today is going to use dozens of variables in their model, not just one.
For some jobs, it matters more than others. I wonder if the data also records profession categories and differences become more clear.
Also IQ is a sub- component for general intelligence. There are so many other factors. Claiming it's useless or useful is pointless. It probably depends on how relevant that sub component is for the role and task at hand and therefore requires a case-based understanding.
It's like claiming that good body strength is useless. For a programmer that's probably true, but for a professional home mover or pyramid builder, results will be different.
Also IQ is a sub- component for general intelligence. There are so many other factors. Claiming it's useless or useful is pointless. It probably depends on how relevant that sub component is for the role and task at hand and therefore requires a case-based understanding.
It's like claiming that good body strength is useless. For a programmer that's probably true, but for a professional home mover or pyramid builder, results will be different.
> Also IQ is a sub- component for general intelligence.
This is the bit that is more important to me and something I dont see in the IQ debates. Some "smart" people are fast learners, others quick witted, some have great memory, others can distill lots of conflicting data, some are great communicators, others just work really hard. One IQ number is supposed to reflect all of that?
This is the bit that is more important to me and something I dont see in the IQ debates. Some "smart" people are fast learners, others quick witted, some have great memory, others can distill lots of conflicting data, some are great communicators, others just work really hard. One IQ number is supposed to reflect all of that?
Yes, this is one of the surprising things about human intelligence, most intellectual/cognitive abilities are positively correlated. Hence the g factor.
Serious Q: I remember taking an IQ test long back and it was a bunch of pattern matching questions. How did they figure out that good performance in this correlates with cognitive abilities that translates to real life intellect at tasks ?
This is a great question! You probably took one of the Raven's matrices, which are a culture-blind test of g (the presumed construct underlying IQ).
Essentially, each new test is normed against the previous tests, so the Stanford-Binet test would have been the first, and then when a new measure is developed, we'd administer both tests to a sample (hopefully many samples) and use the correlation between the tests to determine whether or not or new test worked.
It's not really a great method, but it's the best we've got for most individual difference variables.
Essentially, each new test is normed against the previous tests, so the Stanford-Binet test would have been the first, and then when a new measure is developed, we'd administer both tests to a sample (hopefully many samples) and use the correlation between the tests to determine whether or not or new test worked.
It's not really a great method, but it's the best we've got for most individual difference variables.
I would like to see some intelligence challenges that do not depend on the identity of the test taker. By that I mean that the results would be accepted as equally valid for people, non-human animals, and machines.
If DeepMind developed a system that could ace Raven's Progressive Matrices questions, I don't think that we would say "machines are now as smart as human geniuses." Turing's Imitation Game still seems like a valid challenge to me but is perhaps too stringent. Someone who is not literate in English would fail to convince the questioner even if otherwise intelligent.
"General" human intelligence appears to have a very complicated and particular shape. If there is such a thing as universal intelligence (in the sense that there are universal constants), the boundaries of human intelligence in this space look like a gerrymandered voting district more than a symmetrical geometric object.
If DeepMind developed a system that could ace Raven's Progressive Matrices questions, I don't think that we would say "machines are now as smart as human geniuses." Turing's Imitation Game still seems like a valid challenge to me but is perhaps too stringent. Someone who is not literate in English would fail to convince the questioner even if otherwise intelligent.
"General" human intelligence appears to have a very complicated and particular shape. If there is such a thing as universal intelligence (in the sense that there are universal constants), the boundaries of human intelligence in this space look like a gerrymandered voting district more than a symmetrical geometric object.
The real Turing test is "Get a job as a remote developer and keep it for a year while getting paid". An AI that can reliably do that is what I'd consider general intelligence. If it can't learn how to interact with all the API's and programs you need to complete your tasks such as email, chat, code etc then it is not a general intelligence.
That seems like a strong enough test, but it also seems too strong in that 98% of gainfully employed adults could not pass it.
I'd like to see a test that correlates well with our colloquial notions of human intelligence but that also generalizes to non-humans (including machines). Maybe those are fundamentally incompatible goals. Maybe the outcome of AI research is finding that colloquial notions of intelligence resemble "real" universal intelligence only as closely as the intuitive physics of throwing and catching a ball resembles the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
I'd like to see a test that correlates well with our colloquial notions of human intelligence but that also generalizes to non-humans (including machines). Maybe those are fundamentally incompatible goals. Maybe the outcome of AI research is finding that colloquial notions of intelligence resemble "real" universal intelligence only as closely as the intuitive physics of throwing and catching a ball resembles the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
The Raven tests are so boring that I'm not surprised that people do better under stimulants (mentioned elsewhere in this thread).
I also tend to go off on inner rants like Feynman about round manholes, because the tests do not always seem to have unambiguous solutions.
I also tend to go off on inner rants like Feynman about round manholes, because the tests do not always seem to have unambiguous solutions.
Really? They don't take that long though, I vaguely remember doing the APM in about 30-45 minutes for an assignment.
They do a much better job of getting estimates of IQ which are robust to culture, which was a real problem for the Stanford-Binet ones (and lead to some belief that the IQ of poor black children was lower because they weren't familiar with some of the analogies).
They do a much better job of getting estimates of IQ which are robust to culture, which was a real problem for the Stanford-Binet ones (and lead to some belief that the IQ of poor black children was lower because they weren't familiar with some of the analogies).
Thank you for your explanation
They did not figure it out, the fact that IQ tests as we know today could predict performance in a wide array of tasks was basically an observation coming out of the data.
Many other types of tests were tried for this, because being able to predict people's performances has extremely important implications, but the ones that did not predict anything were forgotten, while the ones that worked, like the current generation of IQ tests, became widely accepted (despite being attacked every now and then by a few researches, as in this case - which is a good thing as we need to make sure our current theories are as good as they can be).
Many other types of tests were tried for this, because being able to predict people's performances has extremely important implications, but the ones that did not predict anything were forgotten, while the ones that worked, like the current generation of IQ tests, became widely accepted (despite being attacked every now and then by a few researches, as in this case - which is a good thing as we need to make sure our current theories are as good as they can be).
The author's argument under the heading, "IQ selection vs random selection" could use some more work. Presently, it supports Taleb's argument presented under the heading, "Correlation only for low IQ."
The example shows that an employer gains a significant improvement (450%) in avoiding candidates two sigma below the mean, with only a minor improvement (16%) in obtaining candidates above the mean. A better example (if it exists) would show a very strong improvement in finding candidates at least one sigma above the mean.
The example shows that an employer gains a significant improvement (450%) in avoiding candidates two sigma below the mean, with only a minor improvement (16%) in obtaining candidates above the mean. A better example (if it exists) would show a very strong improvement in finding candidates at least one sigma above the mean.
IQ metric is not necessary to make this assment, a regular job interview could weed out the two sigma below the mean candidates. I think it’s common sense at this level. On the other hand it really depends on the job. You don’t need a hugh IQ to be a supermarket bagger.
Low IQ people in low responsibility positions don’t pose much risk, I’d actually think high IQ in highly responsible positions may pose a higher risk: think of hiring a high IQ malefic narcissist who would ruin your business just for fun
Low IQ people in low responsibility positions don’t pose much risk, I’d actually think high IQ in highly responsible positions may pose a higher risk: think of hiring a high IQ malefic narcissist who would ruin your business just for fun
I don’t favor giving IQ tests to candidates for private sector employment, but a 16% improvement in candidate outcomes would seem to be massive overall, not minor, for many companies where company outcome is highly correlated with employee performance (SpaceX tech, self-driving tech, EV/battery tech, some areas in many other science disciplines)
[deleted]
If you could control for desire you would get very different data. The Unabomber was extremely smart and extremely interested in not making a lot of money.
Musk,Gates,Jobs,Bezos are extremely smart and extremely interested in changing the world through capitalist endeavors.
Luck would get you just as far as desire, too. For every Gates and Bezos, there are 100's of failed entrepeneurs who may have been just as smart, but for whatever reason (binned as "luck"), their idea fell flat.
[deleted](1)
The point is: statistically, having above average IQ can give you some advantage. Maybe 5%, maybe 25%. The same advantage can come from many sources, like: be born on the "right" country, have a certain weight, height, skin color, religious belief, economic background, etc.
Think about the USA. The year and city where you're born/raised can outweigh your IQ when trying to predict income, life expectancy, etc.
Think about the USA. The year and city where you're born/raised can outweigh your IQ when trying to predict income, life expectancy, etc.
It is entirely unsurprising and unrelated to me that the year you were born helps predict income.
> The adjusted R2 is 0.356, so IQ explains ~35%.
Ouch... “Explains” is used here in a very strict technical sense whereas I guess Taleb uses it much more roughly (just the statement “between 5-13%” must make you pause).
Ouch... “Explains” is used here in a very strict technical sense whereas I guess Taleb uses it much more roughly (just the statement “between 5-13%” must make you pause).
Yes, and it's somewhat irresponsible for the author to present it this way. Taleb is not being specific that he's talking about variance of performance in his claim. That is only one way to measure the relationship between two things (via covariance and then correlation). But it's not the only way. In fact Taleb's claim is actually underspecified here, so in lieu of rebutting it with a calculation of Pearson's r, the author should try to critique it more holistically.
As it stands, an R^2 of 0.356 is not actually a refutation of Taleb's "5 - 13%". Taleb probably shouldn't have quantified his point without some rigor behind it, but the author's single counterexample doesn't substantively respond to it.
As it stands, an R^2 of 0.356 is not actually a refutation of Taleb's "5 - 13%". Taleb probably shouldn't have quantified his point without some rigor behind it, but the author's single counterexample doesn't substantively respond to it.
Yes, it is a rebuttal. Without further information, you have to assume the default meaning of "explains x%", so Taleb's claim is wrong.
I don't have to assume anything, and to be charitable I'm not going to assume anything. I would afford the author the same charitability. Taleb's point is underspecified and needs further clarification before we can meaningfully engage with it by citing statistics. You risk beating up a strawman by tossing a quick calculation of R^2 at it and saying it's wrong.
Using R^2 this way is like saying someone's wrong in an online debate by citing a logical fallacy. I guess, sure, you successfully rebutted them in a shallow sense. But nothing of value has been achieved (yet). We haven't arrived at a better understanding of the truth.
Using R^2 this way is like saying someone's wrong in an online debate by citing a logical fallacy. I guess, sure, you successfully rebutted them in a shallow sense. But nothing of value has been achieved (yet). We haven't arrived at a better understanding of the truth.
Sure, because the effect cannot be linear, but then Taleb's article loses any merit, and it's 1-0 for JSMP anyway.
Not that I'm defending IQ. I find it a weird measure, and certainly not one in which to base all trust, but it does seem to correlate reasonably with many outcomes. That other factors also have an influence on these outcomes, and that IQ is not purely measuring intelligence, does not discredit it as a (limited) predictor. Taleb's article would be much stronger if he could point at better predictors.
Not that I'm defending IQ. I find it a weird measure, and certainly not one in which to base all trust, but it does seem to correlate reasonably with many outcomes. That other factors also have an influence on these outcomes, and that IQ is not purely measuring intelligence, does not discredit it as a (limited) predictor. Taleb's article would be much stronger if he could point at better predictors.
Ough!
“Without further information “ is too technical to what Taleb is arguing.
“Without further information “ is too technical to what Taleb is arguing.
JSMP:
"...this example is a theoretical use case where using IQ testing is not so useful.
To look at something a little more realistic, let’s say a company wants to avoid people with a performance more than 2 standard deviations below the mean. (Perhaps such employees have a risk of causing large harm, which could for instance be an issue in the military.) And we again compare admitting people at random vs only taking applicants with above average IQ."
[for reference, if using IQ as an indicator for performance, 2 standard deviations below the mean would be 70 IQ]
Taleb: "The argument by psychologists to make IQ useful is of the sort: who would you like to do brain surgery on you/who would you hire in your company/who would you recommend, someone with a 90 IQ or one with 130 is ...academic. Well, you pick people on task-specific performance, which should include some filtering. In the real world you interview people from their CV (not from some IQ number sent to you as in a thought experiment), and, once you have their CV, the 62 IQ fellow is naturally eliminated. So the only think for which IQ can select, the mentaly disabled, is already weeded out in real life: he/she can’t have a degree in engineering or medicine. Which explains why IQ is unnecessary and using it is risky because you miss out on the Einsteins and Feynmans."
[for reference, if using IQ as an indicator for performance, 2 standard deviations below the mean would be 70 IQ]
Taleb: "The argument by psychologists to make IQ useful is of the sort: who would you like to do brain surgery on you/who would you hire in your company/who would you recommend, someone with a 90 IQ or one with 130 is ...academic. Well, you pick people on task-specific performance, which should include some filtering. In the real world you interview people from their CV (not from some IQ number sent to you as in a thought experiment), and, once you have their CV, the 62 IQ fellow is naturally eliminated. So the only think for which IQ can select, the mentaly disabled, is already weeded out in real life: he/she can’t have a degree in engineering or medicine. Which explains why IQ is unnecessary and using it is risky because you miss out on the Einsteins and Feynmans."
“Which explains why IQ is unnecessary and using it is risky because you miss out on the Einsteins and Feynmans."
Einstein and Feynman would certainly not be rejected if you automatically rejected people with below average IQs, so I don’t really get this part of the argument. We have no number for Einstein and a supposed 125 for Feynman but he did extremely well (the best in the nation) on Putnam, so his nonverbal (or at least “quant”) score was likely very high.
Einstein and Feynman would certainly not be rejected if you automatically rejected people with below average IQs, so I don’t really get this part of the argument. We have no number for Einstein and a supposed 125 for Feynman but he did extremely well (the best in the nation) on Putnam, so his nonverbal (or at least “quant”) score was likely very high.
You do risk weeding out those parties: The tests aren't perfect and can give low results from people who are otherwise intelligent. 125 wouldn't pass the above conjectured 130.
A piece of intuition is that if you select a population based on a criteria, the correlation between that criteria and the target in the selected subpopulation is usually greatly diminished, and sometimes reversed.
Imagine you know that being very tall is very good for basketball... so you select very tall people to be players. You will likely find that among the selected players height is not very correlated with performance, or even inversely correlated because your initial selection wiped the correlation out and potentially noise or other effects (like agility) which are correlated with being short begin to dominate the differences within that population.
This also holds for correlated traits-- e.g. if you select very tall players it may wipe out or reverse the correlation shoe-size has with performance.
As a result if you first select people for an intelligence requiring task specific capability and also select for IQ you're likely selecting for noise, and potentially selecting for people who are just really good at taking tests and which weren't actually as good at the task specific capability as a randomly selected person in your first selection would be.
A piece of intuition is that if you select a population based on a criteria, the correlation between that criteria and the target in the selected subpopulation is usually greatly diminished, and sometimes reversed.
Imagine you know that being very tall is very good for basketball... so you select very tall people to be players. You will likely find that among the selected players height is not very correlated with performance, or even inversely correlated because your initial selection wiped the correlation out and potentially noise or other effects (like agility) which are correlated with being short begin to dominate the differences within that population.
This also holds for correlated traits-- e.g. if you select very tall players it may wipe out or reverse the correlation shoe-size has with performance.
As a result if you first select people for an intelligence requiring task specific capability and also select for IQ you're likely selecting for noise, and potentially selecting for people who are just really good at taking tests and which weren't actually as good at the task specific capability as a randomly selected person in your first selection would be.
125 on a high school-administered test might have just meant average verbal ability and a perfect score on nonverbal questions. Presumably you would count the nonverbal section much more when picking candidates for a job in physics.
I agree overall that task-specific selection is better, I was just questioning the example given.
I agree overall that task-specific selection is better, I was just questioning the example given.
When Feynman did his IQ test they still used Age Scale, meaning IQ of 125 meant you are mentally 25% older. So if a 8 year old knows as much as a 10 year old you have IQ 125. It is a pretty bad measure which is why we no longer use it.
So when people say "Feynman had iq of 125" it is very different from someone having 125 IQ today.
So when people say "Feynman had iq of 125" it is very different from someone having 125 IQ today.
I think that as a society we’re missing out on a lot of important findings and advances that would improve people’s lives because the IQ research has become somewhat of a taboo in social science. Linking it to eugenics is especially harmful.
But IQ research has actually been linked with eugenics throughout its history.
So if eugenicists selected for height, then measuring how tall people are would be "linked to eugenics?"
Eugenicists work backwards from a conclusion - that their race is superior. So they look for or invent measures that only their race exhibits. So why would they even measure height? They know other races can be just as tall their own race. So that measure is obviously disqualified.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
By "linked with eugenics" I mean IQ research was used to provide the scientific basis for eugenics policies, including being designed to demonstrate that undesirable groups had lower intelligence.
By "linked with eugenics" I mean IQ research was used to provide the scientific basis for eugenics policies, including being designed to demonstrate that undesirable groups had lower intelligence.
This analysis doesn't engage very well with Taleb's key argument about symmetry. Distilling an R^2 ≈ 0.1 correlation from a massive dataset isn't very good evidence of anything.
But part of the blame rests with Taleb for arranging his arguments in a series of colloquial blog posts with exaggerated claims of both the relevance of this debate to psychology and unjustified speculation about what IQ actually measures — which would never survive peer review. He's invited low-quality debate like this rather than contributing to the development of standards and techniques that could improve the field, maybe out of laziness or just the desire for immediate publicity.
But part of the blame rests with Taleb for arranging his arguments in a series of colloquial blog posts with exaggerated claims of both the relevance of this debate to psychology and unjustified speculation about what IQ actually measures — which would never survive peer review. He's invited low-quality debate like this rather than contributing to the development of standards and techniques that could improve the field, maybe out of laziness or just the desire for immediate publicity.
>> Variance explained by IQ
The author performs a regression on the WLS dataset. I did not know what that is so I followed the links provided:
>> The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) is a long-term study of a random sample of 10,317 men and women who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957.
So, in other words, it is a small dataset that is not representative of most humans on the planet. It is also specifically populated by high school graduates which is likely to introduce some unknown bias to the dataset- and any results drawn from it in particular with regards to IQ.
In short, please don't abuse statistics, or if you do, don't do it in an article that starts by accusing another text of being "just a rant".
The author performs a regression on the WLS dataset. I did not know what that is so I followed the links provided:
>> The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) is a long-term study of a random sample of 10,317 men and women who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957.
So, in other words, it is a small dataset that is not representative of most humans on the planet. It is also specifically populated by high school graduates which is likely to introduce some unknown bias to the dataset- and any results drawn from it in particular with regards to IQ.
In short, please don't abuse statistics, or if you do, don't do it in an article that starts by accusing another text of being "just a rant".
I dunno, this is probably the best-case for IQ, to be honest.
Remember kids, IQ was developed to predict which children would perform best in school so that they could be streamed, and that's what it's best at.
I don't think that the author is abusing statistics here at all, as the variance explained by IQ on grades is always pretty large (in psychology, 35% explained is super, super good), and if I really cared (i.e. you reply and ask for this) I could probably dig up another few datasets that show the same or higher association.
Remember kids, IQ was developed to predict which children would perform best in school so that they could be streamed, and that's what it's best at.
I don't think that the author is abusing statistics here at all, as the variance explained by IQ on grades is always pretty large (in psychology, 35% explained is super, super good), and if I really cared (i.e. you reply and ask for this) I could probably dig up another few datasets that show the same or higher association.
"IQ was developed to predict which children would perform best in school so that they could be streamed..."
I believe it was developed to predict those which would perform worse so they could be further examined for specific issues and extra help.
I believe it was developed to predict those which would perform worse so they could be further examined for specific issues and extra help.
"(in 1904) The French Ministry of Education asked these researchers to develop a test that would allow for distinguishing mentally retarded children from normally intelligent, but lazy children." -- Binet developed it out of an earlier concept of 'mental age', the average ability level of a child aged so many years and months.
You are correct, I misremembered.
I'm an engineer and if I present any model with an R2 of 0.35 it would be flat out rejected because it would be worse than random chance and they won't use the model to make decisions.
Assuming the R2 here is indeed correct how do you use this to make real life hiring or admission decisions ? Just weight it at 35% ? What do you do for the other 65% then ?
Assuming the R2 here is indeed correct how do you use this to make real life hiring or admission decisions ? Just weight it at 35% ? What do you do for the other 65% then ?
> if I present any model with an R2 of 0.35 it would be flat out rejected because it would be worse than random chance
If I was interviewing an engineer that said something like this, I wouldn't hire them. It's somewhat unclear what you even think "random chance" means in a regression context.
If I was interviewing an engineer that said something like this, I wouldn't hire them. It's somewhat unclear what you even think "random chance" means in a regression context.
What do you mean by worse than random? R-squared is a measure of variance explained, not binary prediction accuracy.
> R2 of 0.35 it would be would be worse than random chance
Any model with non-zero R2 is better than random guessing.
Any model with non-zero R2 is better than random guessing.
Social sciences are called “soft” for a reason.
Why (asking seriously).
I am not doubting the validity of the correlation. I just want to know how one can use this info properly.
I am not doubting the validity of the correlation. I just want to know how one can use this info properly.
I was simply agreeing with the parent that the standard for evidence in the social sciences is a lot weaker than would be acceptable in physics, chemistry, etc.
Necessarily weaker, though. You can't break out an electron microscope and numerically confirm observations about emergent outcomes from a billion individuals with their own psychologies. Either we allow for "softer" observations/experiments or we throw up our hands and give up.
You are welcome to do so if you have the time. To be honest though, I'm not sure what that would achieve. I don't think that these kinds of claims can be seriously supported by a discussion in the format of an online message board, no matter how many links and datasets we throw at each other.
> it is a small dataset
10k is definitely large enough to draw conclusions. I think your concern about generalization is much more relevant.
10k is definitely large enough to draw conclusions. I think your concern about generalization is much more relevant.
Basing on 10,000 graduates of Wisconsin high schools in 1957 happens to “control for” (in a by-and-large way) many or most of the confounding influences one would have in a study today or in an area such as, for instance, Maryland or New York City.
To your point about high school grads, though, it is absolutely worth noting that in 1957, “no child left behind” wasn’t a thing.
In 1950, 36% of whites and 13% of blacks over age 25 had a high school diploma.
In 2010, it was 92% and 84%.
Then, graduation was generally a vocational choice by household and student rather than a performance bar. Today, it’s an externalized requirement, largely for the system to be funded: you will be graduated despite yourself.
A few other diffs:
1954: Brown vs. Board of Education desegregation ordered
1951 spending per student: $215 for 155 days of school. 2010: $10,615 for 180 days of school. Average teacher salary then and now: $4K vs. $39K.
1955’s most popular youth book: Charlotte’s Web. 2012: Hunger Games.
To your point about high school grads, though, it is absolutely worth noting that in 1957, “no child left behind” wasn’t a thing.
In 1950, 36% of whites and 13% of blacks over age 25 had a high school diploma.
In 2010, it was 92% and 84%.
Then, graduation was generally a vocational choice by household and student rather than a performance bar. Today, it’s an externalized requirement, largely for the system to be funded: you will be graduated despite yourself.
A few other diffs:
1954: Brown vs. Board of Education desegregation ordered
1951 spending per student: $215 for 155 days of school. 2010: $10,615 for 180 days of school. Average teacher salary then and now: $4K vs. $39K.
1955’s most popular youth book: Charlotte’s Web. 2012: Hunger Games.
>> Basing on 10,000 graduates of Wisconsin high schools in 1957 happens to “control for” (in a by-and-large way) many or most of the confounding influences one would have in a study today or in an area such as, for instance, Maryland or New York City.
I don't understand how selecting a non-representative sub-population controls for anything! Same goes if the data was from Maryland or New York City.
In any case, disentangling confounding factors and isolating the influence of IQ should be the goal of any research (though of course I can't ask that of an "analysis" published on a blog). If a dataset seems to reveal some deep relation between IQ and other outcomes because that dataset is free of confounding factors, that doesn't tell us what happens in the general case, where the confounding factors apply. In other words, there's a danger of finding what one is looking for because one is looking for it where it exists, when the goal of looking is to make sure it exists everywhere.
I don't understand how selecting a non-representative sub-population controls for anything! Same goes if the data was from Maryland or New York City.
In any case, disentangling confounding factors and isolating the influence of IQ should be the goal of any research (though of course I can't ask that of an "analysis" published on a blog). If a dataset seems to reveal some deep relation between IQ and other outcomes because that dataset is free of confounding factors, that doesn't tell us what happens in the general case, where the confounding factors apply. In other words, there's a danger of finding what one is looking for because one is looking for it where it exists, when the goal of looking is to make sure it exists everywhere.
I can't shake the feeling that every discussion of IQ contains motivated reasoning: either someone doesn't want the idea of IQ to be relevant ("I can work hard enough") or because they do want the idea to be true ("Look at how successful I am, I must be special").
Or "look how smart I'am, my race must be better than other races, everyone else is beneath me".
How about people just be humble about how smart they are, and start using their "intelligence" to help others and be a good example.
How about people just be humble about how smart they are, and start using their "intelligence" to help others and be a good example.
> Or "look how smart I'am, my race must be better than other races, everyone else is beneath me".
Yeah it's a super popular trope among racists on the internet.
That said, I find the leftist rejoinder "IQ tests are racially biased" to be pretty unconvincing given that most of the tests are non-verbal. Much better to focus on the large confounding environmental factors than to deny there is any sort of intelligence gap at all.
Yeah it's a super popular trope among racists on the internet.
That said, I find the leftist rejoinder "IQ tests are racially biased" to be pretty unconvincing given that most of the tests are non-verbal. Much better to focus on the large confounding environmental factors than to deny there is any sort of intelligence gap at all.
[deleted]
I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
When I was younger, I would have said that there's no such thing as innate intelligence.
If I'm better than some people at math or programming, that's entirely because they didn't pay attention. Or they didn't spend the same amount of time and effort on it as I did. Or they just aren't being careful, or aren't trying to really understand. They're doing something wrong, or they just don't care enough. That's what I would have said.
It's quite a comfortable view, really: Other people had their fair shot to be exactly where I am. They chose not to put in the time required, or their learning techniques were tactically sub-optimal. I was in school a bit before being nerdy was cool. Others certainly didn't show me any mercy when I was near the bottom of the pecking order in the realm of social interactions or athletics, so why should I go easy on those who are close to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to intellectual achievements or salary comparisons?
We humans play games for status. If you want me to accept that I come out near the bottom of some of those games, it's only fair for me to require you to acknowledge my superiority in others.
But I don't say it anymore.
I've met a number of people who just don't seem to be able to think in certain ways. Who will never be able to be good programmers, no matter how much training they get or how much time they spend.
There might be something innate to intelligence. It has real effects, so it should be measurable.
Is it IQ? I don't know. Let's call it, I don't know, INT (after the D&D stat).
What if there really is such a thing as INT? What if it really is something that people of some races, on average, have a greater amount of than people of other races?
Years ago, I'd have said "Of course that isn't the case, all humans are created equal."
Now I say "I don't know if this is the case. The evidence I'm familiar with is consistent with the possibility, but there are other explanations."
Let's suppose it's a simple physical fact that people of a certain race are (on average) taller. And it's a simple physical fact that (on average) being tall makes you better at basketball.
If you run a basketball team and you want to be successful, you will hire the best players without thinking about their race. And you will end up with a team where people of the tall race are over-represented relative to the population.
Now let's turn it around.
Let's suppose it's a simple physical fact that people of a certain race have (on average) higher INT. And it's a simple physical fact that (on average) higher INT makes you better at programming.
If you run a tech company and you want to be successful, you will hire the best programmers without thinking about their race. And you will end up with a team where people of the higher-INT race are over-represented relative to the population.
The world I observe is compatible with the explanation that people of some races have (on average) lower INT.
To be sure, there are other possible explanations: It could be bad schools, bad peer groups, bad home life. It could be living in older buildings with lead and asbestos leading to health problems that affect the brain.
Heck, there could be bona fide racists out there running tech companies who cackle maniacally as they throw an applicant's perfect resume in the trash simply because they're not a white male.
The point is, if you want to face reality rather than live in a comfortable fantasy, you have to confront the possibility that the racists are right about one thing: It's possible that some races really do have less intelligence than others.
It's just a possibility. But I haven't seen it conclusively disproven. If it's true, what should you personally do? What should we as a society do? I don't know. And it's kind of a terrifying question to ask, really.
Honestly, if it's true, I don't think it would be a truth that American society could handle. We would tear ourselves apart. Maybe that's what's happening now.
When I was younger, I would have said that there's no such thing as innate intelligence.
If I'm better than some people at math or programming, that's entirely because they didn't pay attention. Or they didn't spend the same amount of time and effort on it as I did. Or they just aren't being careful, or aren't trying to really understand. They're doing something wrong, or they just don't care enough. That's what I would have said.
It's quite a comfortable view, really: Other people had their fair shot to be exactly where I am. They chose not to put in the time required, or their learning techniques were tactically sub-optimal. I was in school a bit before being nerdy was cool. Others certainly didn't show me any mercy when I was near the bottom of the pecking order in the realm of social interactions or athletics, so why should I go easy on those who are close to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to intellectual achievements or salary comparisons?
We humans play games for status. If you want me to accept that I come out near the bottom of some of those games, it's only fair for me to require you to acknowledge my superiority in others.
But I don't say it anymore.
I've met a number of people who just don't seem to be able to think in certain ways. Who will never be able to be good programmers, no matter how much training they get or how much time they spend.
There might be something innate to intelligence. It has real effects, so it should be measurable.
Is it IQ? I don't know. Let's call it, I don't know, INT (after the D&D stat).
What if there really is such a thing as INT? What if it really is something that people of some races, on average, have a greater amount of than people of other races?
Years ago, I'd have said "Of course that isn't the case, all humans are created equal."
Now I say "I don't know if this is the case. The evidence I'm familiar with is consistent with the possibility, but there are other explanations."
Let's suppose it's a simple physical fact that people of a certain race are (on average) taller. And it's a simple physical fact that (on average) being tall makes you better at basketball.
If you run a basketball team and you want to be successful, you will hire the best players without thinking about their race. And you will end up with a team where people of the tall race are over-represented relative to the population.
Now let's turn it around.
Let's suppose it's a simple physical fact that people of a certain race have (on average) higher INT. And it's a simple physical fact that (on average) higher INT makes you better at programming.
If you run a tech company and you want to be successful, you will hire the best programmers without thinking about their race. And you will end up with a team where people of the higher-INT race are over-represented relative to the population.
The world I observe is compatible with the explanation that people of some races have (on average) lower INT.
To be sure, there are other possible explanations: It could be bad schools, bad peer groups, bad home life. It could be living in older buildings with lead and asbestos leading to health problems that affect the brain.
Heck, there could be bona fide racists out there running tech companies who cackle maniacally as they throw an applicant's perfect resume in the trash simply because they're not a white male.
The point is, if you want to face reality rather than live in a comfortable fantasy, you have to confront the possibility that the racists are right about one thing: It's possible that some races really do have less intelligence than others.
It's just a possibility. But I haven't seen it conclusively disproven. If it's true, what should you personally do? What should we as a society do? I don't know. And it's kind of a terrifying question to ask, really.
Honestly, if it's true, I don't think it would be a truth that American society could handle. We would tear ourselves apart. Maybe that's what's happening now.
People want life to be fair, and the fact that we are all born with different levels of intelligence disproves that.
Denial of the validity of IQ is one of the main factors that justifies the biggest form of discrimination in existence: discrimination based on intelligence. I was born wealthy, and some people are born homeless, purely based on IQ. This is patently unfair, but you can't address that if IQ isn't real. I think people deny the validity of IQ because they are afraid if IQ is real then our society is structured in a way that is very unfair to people with low IQ.
> People want life to be fair, and the fact that we are all born with different levels of intelligence disproves that.
I think that the way we as humans decide to structure society determines whether life is fair, not natural circumstance.
Just because you are born smart does not mean you are born more deserving.
I think that the way we as humans decide to structure society determines whether life is fair, not natural circumstance.
Just because you are born smart does not mean you are born more deserving.
What does it mean to deserve something? Do short and tall people equally deserve to be in the NBA? Do slow and fast people equally deserve to run in the summer Olympics?
No amount of exercise will give me the garden hoses for veins that someone I know has, but I can still work to reach my own potential. Should I still be given a job that requires holding a jackhammer over my head for 8 hours a day because it's not fair?
Why is it socially acceptable to be taller or stronger or faster, but not to be smarter or more studious?
No amount of exercise will give me the garden hoses for veins that someone I know has, but I can still work to reach my own potential. Should I still be given a job that requires holding a jackhammer over my head for 8 hours a day because it's not fair?
Why is it socially acceptable to be taller or stronger or faster, but not to be smarter or more studious?
> What does it mean to deserve something?
Exactly - "to deserve" is a nonsense notion in these contexts! Tall people in the NBA might lead to a more beneficial outcome (more interesting games?) but it does not arise because tall people are more "deserving" of being in the NBA.
Since we get to choose how to structure the human sphere of the "game" of life, it seems better to optimize for an outcome that is fair, ie. equally attentive of people's moral worth.
If that requires giving more $ to some who are more talented in order to better off everyone, then life does seem fair because our society is structured w.r.t. everyone's benefit.
Exactly - "to deserve" is a nonsense notion in these contexts! Tall people in the NBA might lead to a more beneficial outcome (more interesting games?) but it does not arise because tall people are more "deserving" of being in the NBA.
Since we get to choose how to structure the human sphere of the "game" of life, it seems better to optimize for an outcome that is fair, ie. equally attentive of people's moral worth.
If that requires giving more $ to some who are more talented in order to better off everyone, then life does seem fair because our society is structured w.r.t. everyone's benefit.
Agreed. Debating IQ is a particularly boring fetish and is far too prevalent on forums like HN.
Or, "Look at how special I am; if I'm not successful it must be because I'm being held back."
Imagine how offensive your comment would sound if we were discussing the relatively small percentage of people who experience dyslexia.
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. Is dyslexia directly correlated with measures of success?
Dyslexia is a good use of IQ testing; either you do worse than expected (because of the difficulty reading) or better (compared to your grades) and in either case further investigation could lead to a diagnosis and useful help.
Dyslexia is a good use of IQ testing; either you do worse than expected (because of the difficulty reading) or better (compared to your grades) and in either case further investigation could lead to a diagnosis and useful help.
This is pretty much every discussion of tests in America. Perhaps it's because I'm somewhat in the latter group [though I've never taken an IQ test], but it seems like most commentators are in the former.
I'm from a small town in North Carolina, and without the benefit of an IQ score my boredom in the classroom would have been interpreted as a condition requiring stimulant medication.
Of course these tests may be improved upon, but so far I haven't seen any solutions offered to account for children in my situation if quantitative measures of aptitude are eliminated.
Of course these tests may be improved upon, but so far I haven't seen any solutions offered to account for children in my situation if quantitative measures of aptitude are eliminated.
Previous discussion (150 points, 268 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20555229
[deleted]
The iq_group vs income chart shows a bump in incomes at $150k for IQ’s < 80
This cohort is most certainly comprised entirely of programmers.
This cohort is most certainly comprised entirely of programmers.
When it comes to the template - it totally looks like Distill for R Markdown (https://rstudio.github.io/distill/).
OP is playing with fire. It's quite dangerous to study human intelligence because there's a lot of results that you might accidentally stumble on, which can be mistaken for racism, or worse, be exploited by racists.
Even if you stumble on such facts accidentally, it can very well damage your academic prospects (and sometimes non-academic prospects as well ... in places like Silicon Valley).
Many years ago I had a friend who was studying an unrelated topic at University (he was trying to figure out how to test for future programming aptitude via a purely paper test). He was administering the paper tests to students with no programming experience before their first programming class, and then studying the correlation between various paper tests and final grades in programming projects in courses (including grad courses) over time.
He found some quite good paper tests that correlated quite nicely with future grades on programming projects ... but a faculty advisor pointed out that the results of the paper test were also strongly correlated with some politically sensitive student categories. My friend abandoned the project because when it was pointed out like that, it was quite clear he was producing results that could be exploited to create a selection criteria he was not comfortable with endorsing.
Even if you stumble on such facts accidentally, it can very well damage your academic prospects (and sometimes non-academic prospects as well ... in places like Silicon Valley).
Many years ago I had a friend who was studying an unrelated topic at University (he was trying to figure out how to test for future programming aptitude via a purely paper test). He was administering the paper tests to students with no programming experience before their first programming class, and then studying the correlation between various paper tests and final grades in programming projects in courses (including grad courses) over time.
He found some quite good paper tests that correlated quite nicely with future grades on programming projects ... but a faculty advisor pointed out that the results of the paper test were also strongly correlated with some politically sensitive student categories. My friend abandoned the project because when it was pointed out like that, it was quite clear he was producing results that could be exploited to create a selection criteria he was not comfortable with endorsing.
I find it depressing that you seem to be okay with the suppression of truth which contradicts the reigning ideology.
I'm not opining on whether such suppression is good or bad. I'm just stating its a reality.
I read so many different things about IQ.
It's crap.
It's the only good thing that came from psychology.
If the army uses it, it can't be so bad.
It stays the same, your whole life.
You can train it.
It's right, but it doesn't help you much because if you look at the world, the people with the highest IQ aren't the most successful.
What's right?
It's crap.
It's the only good thing that came from psychology.
If the army uses it, it can't be so bad.
It stays the same, your whole life.
You can train it.
It's right, but it doesn't help you much because if you look at the world, the people with the highest IQ aren't the most successful.
What's right?
Having a high IQ is a tool you can use to get ahead in life. If you have a lot of it, you’ll generally have more choices. If you don’t have it, life will probably be tougher for you. In a similar way in which being ugly or unsocial could mean some doors are closed for you. The essence is that it’s generally an asset you’re born with, and in the increasingly complex world we live in, not having it can be a liability. If you have a good amount of it, count yourself as a lucky one.
I have one question about IQ (or the g if you prefer to make the distinction): So what? What are you going to do with this information?
* IQ is fixed; a test at, say, 16 will give you your intelligence for the rest of your life. (16 is arbitrary because I am uncomfortable with psychological testing of young children, but you can make the argument to roll this back to 6 or 8 if you like.)
* IQ is hereditary.
* Skin color (and ethnicity in general) is correlated with IQ. Sex is correlated with IQ variance.
(Am i missing anything here?)
Here's a clarified from of Kantian categorical imperative: Would you like to live in a society based on those principles? (I forgot to add, "given human history".)
IQ testing is very valuable at the low end, to identify individuals that need some form of help. I, personally, am a little uncomfortable with other policy extensions.
* IQ is fixed; a test at, say, 16 will give you your intelligence for the rest of your life. (16 is arbitrary because I am uncomfortable with psychological testing of young children, but you can make the argument to roll this back to 6 or 8 if you like.)
* IQ is hereditary.
* Skin color (and ethnicity in general) is correlated with IQ. Sex is correlated with IQ variance.
(Am i missing anything here?)
Here's a clarified from of Kantian categorical imperative: Would you like to live in a society based on those principles? (I forgot to add, "given human history".)
IQ testing is very valuable at the low end, to identify individuals that need some form of help. I, personally, am a little uncomfortable with other policy extensions.
The reason why the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence (and even the concept of "intelligence" itself in some cases) is so vociferously denied by many is precisely due to its very important implications for social policy (answers to the "So what?" question). That IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, is rooted in an individual's genetics, and that individuals and ethnic groups vary in their IQ (or average IQ, for the latter), would necessarily have to imply a complete re-evaluation of the interpretation of social inequality, and of the approaches towards mitigating it.
I personally think that this re-evaluation is absolutely necessary, because the current model of social inequality, in which any differences between individuals and groups are attributed to environmental or cultural factors, cannot hope to ever lead to constructive policies aimed towards helping all people - regardless of their genetic potential for intelligence - to achieve their best. Even worse, certain policies which are now being advocated - such as the elimination of standardized testing - are actively harmful.
To answer your categorical imperative: yes, I would much prefer to live in a society where genetic differences in the intelligence potential between individuals and groups is acknowledged, because it would lead to far more sensible social policies which would benefit all - high IQ or low IQ.
Finally, even if you consciously choose not to care about IQ, eventually reality will rear its ugly head and force you to take it into consideration if current social policies cause a lowering of average IQ. If there is such a drift towards a lowering of IQ of the general population, whether through higher reproduction rates of the low IQ segments of the population or immigration, many of the amenities which you take for granted, such as a functioning infrastructure, which can only be supported by a population which is above a certain IQ threshold, will start to deteriorate to such a degree that the IQ problem will become impossible to ignore.
I personally think that this re-evaluation is absolutely necessary, because the current model of social inequality, in which any differences between individuals and groups are attributed to environmental or cultural factors, cannot hope to ever lead to constructive policies aimed towards helping all people - regardless of their genetic potential for intelligence - to achieve their best. Even worse, certain policies which are now being advocated - such as the elimination of standardized testing - are actively harmful.
To answer your categorical imperative: yes, I would much prefer to live in a society where genetic differences in the intelligence potential between individuals and groups is acknowledged, because it would lead to far more sensible social policies which would benefit all - high IQ or low IQ.
Finally, even if you consciously choose not to care about IQ, eventually reality will rear its ugly head and force you to take it into consideration if current social policies cause a lowering of average IQ. If there is such a drift towards a lowering of IQ of the general population, whether through higher reproduction rates of the low IQ segments of the population or immigration, many of the amenities which you take for granted, such as a functioning infrastructure, which can only be supported by a population which is above a certain IQ threshold, will start to deteriorate to such a degree that the IQ problem will become impossible to ignore.
"To answer your categorical imperative: yes, I would much prefer to live in a society where genetic differences in the intelligence potential between individuals and groups is acknowledged, because it would lead to far more sensible social policies which would benefit all - high IQ or low IQ."
By including groups there, are you going so far as to say, without further information, that "Group X statistically has attribute Y and individual Z is in Group X, therefore Z has (or perhaps should be treated as having) attribute Y?
Further, what specific "sensible social policies" would you have in mind? Reproductive assistance for higher-IQ segments? Inhibition for lower-IQ segments? Testing for immigration? What else?
By including groups there, are you going so far as to say, without further information, that "Group X statistically has attribute Y and individual Z is in Group X, therefore Z has (or perhaps should be treated as having) attribute Y?
Further, what specific "sensible social policies" would you have in mind? Reproductive assistance for higher-IQ segments? Inhibition for lower-IQ segments? Testing for immigration? What else?
I would never advocate for treating an individual as anything else than an individual. Just because an individual belongs to group X does not mean, obviously, that he will exhibit the average traits of group X. And of course, there is much overlap between different groups, so it would be illogical to instate policies that target all members of just one group in particular.
All three of the policies you have proposed sound good to me. But I would already be more than satisfied if we stopped the current trends towards trying to "equalize through force".
As a concrete example, right now there is a pressure for many high performing high schools across the USA to drop standardized testing in favor of quotas and lotteries, because of the low enrollment numbers of blacks and hispanics. The justification usually given for this is that, starting from the axiom that all groups are of equal ability on average, the discrepancy in numbers can only be due to some kind of racist bias in the methods of evaluation, namely standardized testing (a theory which is unable to explain the fact that asians are even more overrepresented than whites at those schools). I personally believe that this is a wrong interpretation of the numbers, that the reason for the discrepancy is to a great degree due not to some kind of bias in merit-based admission policies, but due to differences in average ability, and that the inevitable consequence of the lowering of standards which will result from the introduction of quotas and lotteries will be the destruction of the outstanding academic quality of these institutions.
All three of the policies you have proposed sound good to me. But I would already be more than satisfied if we stopped the current trends towards trying to "equalize through force".
As a concrete example, right now there is a pressure for many high performing high schools across the USA to drop standardized testing in favor of quotas and lotteries, because of the low enrollment numbers of blacks and hispanics. The justification usually given for this is that, starting from the axiom that all groups are of equal ability on average, the discrepancy in numbers can only be due to some kind of racist bias in the methods of evaluation, namely standardized testing (a theory which is unable to explain the fact that asians are even more overrepresented than whites at those schools). I personally believe that this is a wrong interpretation of the numbers, that the reason for the discrepancy is to a great degree due not to some kind of bias in merit-based admission policies, but due to differences in average ability, and that the inevitable consequence of the lowering of standards which will result from the introduction of quotas and lotteries will be the destruction of the outstanding academic quality of these institutions.
My understanding of the literature is that IQ generally becomes about fixed as you enter adulthood (early 20s). It's not fixed at 16, it's still subject to a high likelihood of change in one direction or another at that age.
I think the main value of IQ on a societal level, besides identifying individuals that need help, is in recognizing that people just innately have differing abilities and, without any external influence necessary, will have different outcomes. There is a narrative being pushed very hard currently that differences in outcome between groups automatically implies discrimination, and fundamentally it's hard to argue with that logic unless you're able to accept that there are just innate differences between people and groups that cause them to have different abilities and make different choices.
I think the main value of IQ on a societal level, besides identifying individuals that need help, is in recognizing that people just innately have differing abilities and, without any external influence necessary, will have different outcomes. There is a narrative being pushed very hard currently that differences in outcome between groups automatically implies discrimination, and fundamentally it's hard to argue with that logic unless you're able to accept that there are just innate differences between people and groups that cause them to have different abilities and make different choices.
"There is a narrative being pushed very hard currently that differences in outcome between groups automatically implies discrimination, and fundamentally it's hard to argue with that logic unless you're able to accept that there are just innate differences between people and groups that cause them to have different abilities and make different choices."
Perhaps, but that is mostly due to the historical fact that differences in outcome between groups have been caused by discrimination and "innate differences between people and groups" has been the primary argument in favor of such discrimination---with the "differences" being significantly bogus.
As a result, suggestions that the current status quo[1] is right and just on a scientific basis begin to smell of extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.
Don't get me wrong, but historically and, as far as I've seen, current IQ-related policy suggestions seem to come down to that. If IQ research were to determine that Aboriginal Australians had a median IQ of 160, I rather suspect the whole issue would disappear overnight.
Perhaps, but that is mostly due to the historical fact that differences in outcome between groups have been caused by discrimination and "innate differences between people and groups" has been the primary argument in favor of such discrimination---with the "differences" being significantly bogus.
As a result, suggestions that the current status quo[1] is right and just on a scientific basis begin to smell of extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.
Don't get me wrong, but historically and, as far as I've seen, current IQ-related policy suggestions seem to come down to that. If IQ research were to determine that Aboriginal Australians had a median IQ of 160, I rather suspect the whole issue would disappear overnight.
> There is a narrative being pushed very hard currently that differences in outcome between groups automatically implies discrimination
No, not usually automatically, though that's usually the straw man that opponents focus on; the usual actual position is that that is taken as a presumptive cause where there is a clear history of discrimination against the group, and there is not clear evidence that the difference in outcome at issue has a non-discriminatory explanation.
No, not usually automatically, though that's usually the straw man that opponents focus on; the usual actual position is that that is taken as a presumptive cause where there is a clear history of discrimination against the group, and there is not clear evidence that the difference in outcome at issue has a non-discriminatory explanation.
What about the claim that IQ is only useful at the low end where it's a detector for intellectual disability? And the possibility that this may explain most of the correlation between IQ and performance?
Did you read the article? Specifically the section "Correlation only for low IQ"?
I think Taleb still makes a very strong point when you compare the chart shown in this article (which shows very weak linear growth at best) with charts which show income percentiles (which show exponential growth). That's not even going into wealth distribution which is even worse.
Funny how many people believe Taleb’s claims are true even though no ones, including Taleb himself could prove them. On the contrary, at least the author of the article could point out specifically where Taleb’s claims cannot hold water.
Normally I would point out that income doesn't mean much, that we should focus on wealth instead... But the modern global economy is so bubbly that as soon as enough people retire or decide to actually start spending their money, most of that nominal wealth will quickly evaporate and so it's not really meaningful either.
The problem now is that a huge amount people who think of themselves as wealthy are thinking in nominal dollar terms, but there are so many of such people today, and they're so conformist in their investment and lifestyle choices that when they retire (likely all at the approximately same time, in approximately the same way), there is no way that the real economy will be able to support their retirement without driving up salaries/incomes and inflation.
Economic conformity is fragility.
The problem now is that a huge amount people who think of themselves as wealthy are thinking in nominal dollar terms, but there are so many of such people today, and they're so conformist in their investment and lifestyle choices that when they retire (likely all at the approximately same time, in approximately the same way), there is no way that the real economy will be able to support their retirement without driving up salaries/incomes and inflation.
Economic conformity is fragility.
I read something once from Warren Buffett, that for any job, a person needs enough IQ to do it, but more doesn't help, and too much more hurts. And for nearly all jobs that involve working with other people, (including investing), an IQ of 120 is enough. That agrees with the correlation between IQ and income breaking down as IQ increases.
Taleb's original medium post deals with other issues aside from correlation with on-job performance and wealth. Specifically the purported correlation between IQ and race. Therefore, the claim that 'Taleb is wrong about IQ' doesn't seem to follow from the limited analysis provided.