Taleb dunking on IQ “research” at length. Technically a seriouspost I guess.

  • lobotomy42@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll go one further: “intelligence” as conceived by “IQ” is a mostly meaningless concept and the word, when used in everyday English, mostly just means “agrees with me”

  • Custoslibera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It was disappointing to see Veritasium not applying much critical analysis to IQ testing in his video.

    He really should of downplayed it’s significance more.

    • hrrrngh@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t even want to watch that video because I know I’m going to get annoyed by it. Veritasium’s video on self-driving cars was so awful, it was enough for me to just sort them into the Sketchy Pop-Sci YouTube Channels bucket for good. I’ve heard that their videos on electricity and that one physics bet were also pretty shaky.

  • The big problem with IQ is that it’s horribly misapplied. It’s a predictor for how you will do in education. That is all it was designed to do and all it has ever been validated for. It does that ok, not great but well enough to be statistically significant. It has some reasonable use in identifying extreme outliers (the roughly 5% of people more than 2 standard deviations from the mean) which is useful for getting the roughly 2.5% of people more than 2 standard deviations below the mean the additional resources and care they need. There are no other valid community uses for IQ and for the vast majority of people it’s a meaningless number. It unfortunately found a place in pop culture and in business and government recruitment when realistically it’s use should have always been limited to research and selective clinical/educational applications (identifying people that need extra resources). Mass testing is undisputably a waste of resources because of how little useful information it generates and the high risk of misuse of basically meaningless results of the 95% that are within the normal range.

    • corbin@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget its other use: corralling high-IQ children into Talented & Gifted programs. Gotta stigmatize them early. (It’s okay, I’m allowed to joke about this; I maxed out an IQ test as a child and was shoved into T&G for grade school.)

    • Saizaku@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hi, could you perhaps elaborate a bit on the racist history of the bell curve? I’m well aware of the racist history of IQ, but I don’t even have an inkling of what that’s referring to in the context of the bell curve. It’s just the graph of a normal distribution, is this referring to some weird application of it to some racist shit?

      PS: I know you’ve attached a video with info on it and me asking might be kinda dumb. However, I saw it’s 2+hrs and I don’t have the time to watch it right now but I’m still interested.

      • WittyProfileName2 [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I feel that my comment was a little ambiguous.

        The Bell Curve mentioned isn’t the graph distribution, but rather the book by the same name that uses misrepresented data from IQ tests to push the idea that there is a genetic factor that makes black people inherently less intelligent than anyone else.

        Sorry for any misunderstandings.

  • abraham_linksys@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Smart people talk about ideas or hobbies or whatever it is they’re focused on.

    Dumb people talk about their IQ and how it means whatever half baked conclusions they decide to jump to.

  • FReddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    IQ is a relatively recent construct.

    My father (b. 1913) was one of the children chosen to calibrate the Stanford Binet IQ test after it moved from Europe to Stanford University.

    Having a high IQ didn’t make much difference for an alcoholic manic depressive attorney who could insult you in English, French, German, and Arabic.

    He became an embezzler who lost everything and ended up dying in my one-year-old daughter’s bedroom after his last wife threw him out.

    A few days before he died, he seemed to confess to murdering his first wife.

    IQ may predict other things than it was designed for.

      • maol@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        it hasn’t but it has been promoted as a predictor of success in education, work and life. The Bell Curve famously claimed that higher IQ people were more likely to finish education, stay in work, stay out of prison and stay married.

  • gerikson@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Side note, I know Taleb is widely appreciated, but man this is some badly written stuff. Is all his stuff like this? I realize blog post != book, but c’mon, some pride in craftmanship is in order.

    • Phil@awful.systemsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, he needs an editor. But the relentless dunking on IQiots is worth the verbiage imo.

      • Phil@awful.systemsOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        High-end stats is kind of Taleb’s thing, so he gets to be as insufferable as he likes dunking on IQiots imo.

  • willsitting2@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What books(ideally books pls) would you guys recommend to anyone caught up in IQ stuff? Especially for people outside the US? Ignore if wrong place to ask this, my bad there.

  • TinyTimmyTokyo@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is good:

    Take the sequence {1,2,3,4,x}. What should x be? Only someone who is clueless about induction would answer 5 as if it were the only answer (see Goodman’s problem in a philosophy textbook or ask your closest Fat Tony) [Note: We can also apply here Wittgenstein’s rule-following problem, which states that any of an infinite number of functions is compatible with any finite sequence. Source: Paul Bogossian]. Not only clueless, but obedient enough to want to think in a certain way.

    Also this:

    If, as psychologists show, 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. Probability and statistics confuse fools.

    And:

    If someone came up w/a numerical“Well Being Quotient” WBQ or “Sleep Quotient”, SQ, trying to mimic temperature or a physical quantity, you’d find it absurd. But put enough academics w/physics envy and race hatred on it and it will become an official measure.

    • corbin@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unlucky 10000: There is an EQ, or emotional quotient, and I was given an EQ test in high school (like age 17-18, don’t remember exactly). Fortunately, it was just done for fun by a lone teacher, but I could see it becoming popular in a future school system.

      • lobotomy42@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This shit is just as bad, frankly. The quest to quantify and then rank All The Things is inherently dangerous.

        • corbin@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah, they’re okay with it because it reinforces their belief that a person is either high-empathy or low-empathy, with higher EQ being better. In general, conservatives love standardized tests and grades, because it grants the appearance of merit, which is essential for meritocracy.