←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
femiagbabiaka ◴[] No.35518528[source]
IQ is useless: https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-....
replies(1): >>35518836 #
crabkin ◴[] No.35518836[source]
IQ will be seen in a 100 years the same way phrenology is now.
replies(1): >>35519592 #
runarberg ◴[] No.35519592[source]
It already is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

replies(1): >>35520262 #
ryan93 ◴[] No.35520262[source]
Weird that that whole book is spent arguing against guys who worked like 120 years ago instead of confronting the voluminous modern work. "Of all the book's references, a full 27 percent precede 1900. Another 44 percent fall between 1900 and 1950 (60 percent of those are before 1925); and only 29 percent are more recent than 1950. From the total literature spanning more than a century, the few "bad apples" have been hand-picked most aptly to serve Gould's purpose." https://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html
replies(2): >>35520758 #>>35520778 #
1. femiagbabiaka ◴[] No.35520778[source]
The modern work is even worse than the old in many respects, which is impressive to be honest. It doesn’t stop those self assured of their own genius from picking signal from noise of course. So much ink spilled for nothing.