←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
iq_throw_123 ◴[] No.35518554[source]
Imagine that, 150 years ago or whenever, some clever soul had decided to make a written test to measure niceness, and called the test score Niceness Quotient. And the first version sucked, but some other folks iterated on it and over time the test was improved until it correlated pretty well to the sorts of things you would think that niceness would correlate to. 150 years of progress later, we'd have a whole field of Niceometry and researchers trying to isolate sub-areas like charity, friendliness, etc, and trying to suss out an underlying factor of general amiability, and the whole thing would be so well embedded in to the culture that almost no one remembers that "nice" is just a regular word with no objective or scientific definition, and that we measure it with a written test not because that's a good way to measure niceness but because we can't find a better way.
replies(2): >>35519437 #>>35520589 #
QuiDortDine ◴[] No.35519437[source]
This is a terrible analogy, IQ tests measure something real and objective called the g factor : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Also, intelligence tests are but a tiny part of psychology, I would hardly call it a "whole field".

replies(2): >>35519683 #>>35522444 #
iq_throw_123 ◴[] No.35519683[source]
> IQ tests measure something real and objective called the g factor

Sure, and NQ tests do too, because look how well graciousness correlates with cheerfulness! That can't be an accident, can it?

Less snarkily, a better analogy would be athletic ability. Suppose you take a bunch of people and measure how fast they can run, how well they can shoot free throws, and how far they can throw a football. Will the results be correlated? Of course, some people are more athletic than others. Does that mean there's a quantity called 'athleticism' that we can objectively measure with a number? No; and not because all people are equally athletic, but because you're trying to take a squishy subjective English language word and pretend it's a scalar value.

> I would hardly call it a "whole field".

The problem isn't the size of the field, it's that academics work within their field, they don't refute it. There's a very uncomfortable result about IQ tests that a generation of psychologists have tried to explain away, and I maintain that the reason they haven't succeeded is because they are institutionally incapable of saying, "Hey, maybe this is pseudoscience."

replies(4): >>35519789 #>>35519954 #>>35520727 #>>35528164 #
1. runarberg ◴[] No.35528164[source]
Thankfully I believe this is changing. Stephen Jay Gould is among the top cited authors within psychology despite not being a psychologist. The psychologists Gould criticized are slowly dying of (e.g. Arthur Jensen) or being fired in disgrace (e.g. Richard Lynn). A new generation of psychologist aren’t picking up their theories, and a new generation of policy makers are distancing them self from IQ science (e.g. the SAT was renamed for this purpose).

I think psychologists have spent enough ink on this non-sense and correctly moved on. It is now up to historians to talk about how damaging this theory truly was, and what the motivation was of policy makers that believed in this pseudo-science. Gould did a terrific job doing exactly that, and a more recent work of Angela Saini Superior: The Return of Race Science is another powerful account of this history, although she is not as optimistic about the state of affairs as I am.