After over a century of psychometric research in cognitive abilities and intelligence, what do we have to show for it? Whose life has actually improved for the better? Have the benefits from such research, if any, outweighed the amount of harm that has already been caused?
"arbitrarily defined concepts like cognitive ability or intelligence" correlate very well with objective metrics like educational attainment and income.
>the amount of harm that has already been caused?
Like what?
There are studies that empirically measure drop change cognitive ability from lead poising, oxygen deprivation, sleep deprecation, post-burnout, environment distraction, noise pollution, temperature, aging, drug and alcohol use during puberty, smoking, school teaching style, etc. etc.
Notable is that these are either population metrics or compare each individual with themselves. This is what IQ and other similar tests were meant for. Comparing one person with another is nonsensical and a flawed use of these metrics.
This is where where IQ has fallen and become a rather bad metric. People are familiar with the problems scewing results. IQ test performance and education level is highly correlated, which is supposed to be compensated for in the final score. But poor education quality in certain regions make the statistics easily used to argue quite unsavory ideas.
A great part of science breakthroughs is mostly made by people who just want to know more, for the sake of knowing more.
Yes, for the purposes of that research. Why would a comparison between two people be a flawed use case? Do you just mean the colloquial use and understanding of IQ is flawed?
I.e. if you have an IQ below 85 you can't even sweep up the floor for the army
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
Over two different people, so many factors affect the score that making the claim "one person is more intelligent than the other" is statistically unsound without a massive score difference. This is even ignoring that a full IQ test involves FAR more than the usual online logic puzzles people tend to know, yet still have these flaws.
so yes; > colloquial use and understanding of IQ is flawed.
That is a perversion of the purpose and origin of these tests, and a core reason why ICAR tries to replace IQ tests with a wider set of different logic puzzles without any established "aggregate score" metric for people to abuse.
Last time I passed a job interview, on several rounds of interview not one was about general intelligence, or general knowledge, or general anything. It was about my ability to solve the kind of problems they were solving and I had some experience solving. Last time I failed a job interview it was because of a bad culture fit.
I have not looked at the numbers, but I would suspect Ivy league admissions to be more correlated with wealth / geography than possibly anything else, but you probably square that with a belief that intelligence is hereditary as wealth is.
IQ tests measure the ability to solve quickly some abstract problems in an exam-like situation. There is certainly a use case for that, but thinking it captures the whole of "cognitive ability" is like thinking that duolingo captures the whole of litterary.
By the way, anytime one can't understand why $DEBATED_TOPIC is debatable should be an indication that one should switch to a slower though process.
I'm pretty sure if I asked a group of people to invent their own questions I'd get a load of general knowledge questions about music, sports, and popular culture.
I'm not certain I agree. If anything, cognitive tests can be used as a single point of datum, but to my knowledge, no condition can be diagnosed via a cognitive test alone. Of course, I could be mistaken. I wish administered the WAIS-IV on top of many other tests for an ADHD diagnosis.
> They are important to determine exactly what sort of ongoing care and support the person needs in order to thrive.
Interesting, upon my receiving my diagnosis, I was not provided any support nor would I declare I have thrived. Obviously, n = 1. I was merely given the social approval to take pharma-grade speed and thrown back to the wolves.
> It's also not arbitrary—a good cognitive test will give insight into the ability to perform everyday cognitive tasks.
That's the part I believe I am clearly missing. These tests provide insight into the ability to perform everyday cognitive tasks better than one's history of already performing various tasks? It's not as if someone with a perfect SAT score takes an IQ tests and then is met with the sudden reality that they are mentally disabled nor vice versa.
What do these tests tell us that we already do not know? If I want to find someone with high mathematical abilities, then I would administer a math exam. Reading? Reading exam. Chess? Chess tournament. And so on...
The sub-sections of things like the WAIS can be of some value for identifying specific abnormalities or deficiencies, but as you said, is probably of more value clinically to split them out into separate tests/activities rather than to group them all together into an aggregate score. It's a bit like judging athletic ability and skill by BMI and fat percentage rather than just playing an opponent in tennis to find out if they're a good tennis player.
Oooh, to be sure they don't call them IQ tests explicitly, but the psychometric capabilities and performance tests they've gotten me to do (mathematical, logical, verbal, reasoning etc) are pretty obviously IQ proxies.
In a cruel and inhumane manner virtually devoid of all empathy and compassion for our planet, the life our planet supports, and for each other? I honestly wish I didn't understand how the world actually functions.
I'd be leery of anyone that claims that the only reason they were able to become a doctor, lawyer, etc. was because of being in a gifted program or something similar.
As far as I am concerned, I firmly believe the truly talented will create their own environment within reason. Take Von Neumann, for example. He was god-like in abilities. I am certain someone of his caliber did not need better educational opportunities in order to be exceptional. The man was, by all accounts, born exceptional.
Also, I am not certain that giving better educational opportunities to the bright is better than giving better educational opportunities to the disadvantaged, but I will admit I am likely too ignorant on this topic to have an informed opinion.
> The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.
The benefits have been huge. The Chinese realized this a thousand years ago when they invented civil service exams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination.
As far as I can tell, their only real purpose in the UK is to try to convince "intelligent" people to give money to MENSA.
Who is more likely to have more time and the means to develop patents? The high income/high intelligence person who pays for others to do various chores, labors, and services for them so that they may focus on their work, or the people deemed unworthy by society who spend their time performing the chores, labors, and services for the high income/high intelligence person?
I believe intelligence alone is worthless, if not dangerous, without altruism and empathy. As I type this very message, somewhere in the world, there are people being torn to shreds, families destroyed, etc. by various contraptions designed by some of the most intelligent people on the planet. While unintelligent people may have less potential to change the world in a positive manner, it is apparent that those same individuals have less potential to change the world in a negative manner, as well.
Whatever potential these children have, I believe it's imperative that we are damn certain those children have the moral and ethical composition deserving of their potential, at least, that is my starry-eyed opinion.
This is actually like one of the primary tricks of the IQ perverts. They'll take literally any test, run the results through a transformation function to get it into their bell curve, and start making claims about how IQ correlate with This-Or-That based on it.
I did not read the comment you're replying to as saying otherwise.
In practice, intelligence tests don’t depend on the specific questions asked. If you let a group of people generate their own items, pool them together, sample randomly, and then rank scores, the same individuals would tend to rise to the top. The high IQ people would cluster toward the top with a correlation of 0.9. This is because people with higher general cognitive ability perform better across virtually any cognitive task, a phenomenon first documented by Spearman (1904) and repeatedly confirmed in psychometrics research (e.g., Jensen 1998; Deary 2012).
You're welcome for me educating you.
So: the people that developed intelligence tests were not psychologists; lies, damned lies and statistics; "pioneering" the idea of using math doesn't mean that people using math today are doing the same thing; whatever the definition of IQ might be is irrelevant because "IQ tests" are not rigorously defined; however precisely IQ is defined is also irrelevant because it's supposedly just a proxy for "g"; psychology is not psychometry and so discarding IQ does nothing to the field of psychology.
Without this educational opportunities would primarily be given to the obviously/observably bright and advantaged children since their parents can afford it.
Putin uses such people as cannon fodder, meat wave attacks
It wouldn't be impossible. The extra resources might not go as far, which makes the program more likely to look like a waste.
> how much evidence supports that better educational opportunities truly manifests into the outcomes we socially desire?
The rate of technological progress we can make as a species is largely dictated by the area under the +2 sigma -> infinity region of the IQ curve. Further adjusted by the amount of those people that we can find and motivate to participate in the economy. As for evidence, the US poaches high IQ people from around the world. You can chalk that up to coincidence if you want.
Do you have a counter-point? You think the army is stupid and you know better? What is your point?
Would you prefer your child have an IQ of 120 or 80? If you have a preference, then you're morally inconsistent and don't even realize it? That must be a frustrating condition to go through life with? At least try to have a nice day in spite of your limitations. It's not your fault, we're all equal in God's eyes.
The Duke Power Company had as many black people in management as the NBA has short players.
Your argument is not even internally consistent.
I am "arguing" (not arguing, simply stating basic facts) that neither Russia nor the USA were giving "IQ tests" to soldiers. Also neither Russia nor the USA are currently giving "IQ tests" to soldiers.
To Wit: I do not think the Army not accepting people who score too low on their entrance exam has anything to do with "IQ".
Also neither I nor my hypothetical child will be taking an "IQ test" (again not actually a defined thing) so having a preference is not a sensible idea.
“Because it stratifies people, which has the effect of saying some people are better than others in some way”.
I’m not being sarcastic towards you, I’m being sarcastic towards people who think this is truly harmful. I apologize - I should’ve made that more clear.
Then again, the same psychologist told me that the discrepancy between my scores was so large that a true FSIQ cannot be used. In a sense, he told me that based on that test, I didn't actually have an IQ that could be accurate measured based on that given test. Apparently, it’s not normal to have almost two SD between some scores...
Being a smart idiot isn't easy work, but someone has to do it.
Also, your Vox link was pay-walled, but nevertheless, I am fairly well versed in some of the data. I have my own archive of research on this topic for what it is worth (not likely much).
Any hoot, the correlations, while positive, are nothing to write home about in my opinion. Sure, IQ might have more breadth of predictably, but it definitely lacks depth of predictably compared to more granular models depending on the domain.
For example, IQ is not a better predictor of chess performance than say a chess tournament.
Regardless, I am still skeptical of a lot of neuroscience research, as well.
I feel that neuroscience often suffers from the same issues that psychology does —- where correlation apparently equates to causation.
So we should determine who to give chess lessons to with chess tournaments? That seems pretty dumb.
There are many times where we don't want to select for current ability but for potential ability, and then a direct test like you suggest is a much worse predictor than IQ is.
Also, IQ predicts chess performance as well: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.h...
That was precisely my point. If little Johnny or Sally need a special education program to properly challenge and educate them, then I hate to break the news to their families, but whatever "it" is, those children don't have "it."
I also find it interesting how "gifted" programs and the like are predominately a Western intervention. To my knowledge, countries like Japan and China do not have "gifted" programs. I am not saying there are not academic and social discrepancies between highly intelligent and the normies, but Western culture does tend to be less community driven than cultures of the two countries I previously mentioned.
> You can chalk that up to coincidence if you want.
I cannot comment about modern times, but I know a certain group of people that I am half descendant from were commonly denied entry into the US during the 1920s - 1950s. However, those same people allegedly had the highest IQ scores on average. At least, historically.
(I am being sarcastic, of course.)
> Without this educational opportunities would primarily be given to the obviously/observably bright and advantaged children since their parents can afford it.
Hell, for any highly intelligent child, I say drop their asses off the public library. The truly smart ones will find their way, and the environmentally gifted will not. We do not need special programs for these kids. Special programs equate to more busy, bullshit work. A high IQ earns one more worksheets and homework. Education, at least in the USA, is rotten to the core. I am not convinced more of it is better. Do not mistake me though, I do not believe more knowledge and wisdom are worthless. I am just saying the education system rarely provides either.
I feel like people miss the echelons of IQ. IQ might have predictability, but the more narrow one focuses, the worse it gets. For example, let's taking programming. Something near and dear to my heart and to many others on this site. If one is capable of learning how to program, then their IQ is clearly sufficient enough to be a programmer. Past that point, I would not be willing to bet that a higher IQ would necessarily translate into a better programmer. It's like being in tall and playing basketball. Being 6'5 is better than being 5'5 in the NBA. However, being 6'7 vs. 6'5 much less advantageous.
If anything, I think we should start highly selecting for more altruistic and empathic children. Intelligence is not exactly uncommon. An IQ of 130 puts one in the 98th percentile. With a world population of 8.142 billion people, that means there are roughly 162.84 million people at or above the 98th percentile. I am not certain there are 162.84 million people out in the world making a big difference.
I am of the opinion that, although there is some generality in IQ tests, they measure only one specific aspect of cognitive ability defined by: abstract + quick.
My intuition is that cognitive abilities encompass much more than that. Anyone who have ever argued at length with that smart but obtuse engineer who can't tell the forest for the tree will know what I'm refering to. To me, a better test for "cognitive abilities" would also measure how someone is able of nuance, of humor, of seeing things from different perspectives, of introspection, etc, not just solving puzzles that can be described in a couple of sentences.
And I'm not talking about "emotional intelligence" here. To me, E-I is just the other side of that same flawed model that smells too much like modern day phrenology.
United States? It's not quite like that everywhere.
This heavily implies the opposite:
> If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes CAN be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is NOT prohibited.
The problem is you’ve got an indicator that appears to favour white people, and a lack of evidence that the indicator shows anything of relevance to the actual position or job content.
Hypothetically, let’s say you were a racist, a nice easy way to do racist things like “disproportionately hire white people” would be to find some metric which disproportionately favours white people, and then evaluate everyone against that.
If you can prove it’s important for the job, you can discriminate still. For example, a Chinese restaurant can require knowledge of Mandarin, a metric which very likely favours people of Chinese descent. They just have to be able to explain why (e.g.: internal communication is in Mandarin, most of our customers speak Mandarin, etc).
By your logic, we could even declare grandmasters based on IQ scores alone without anyone needing to play. Clearly that misses the point of skill assessment.
History also doesn’t support the claim of potential ability all that well, in my opinion. Lewis Terman’s study tracked high-IQ children across several decades. Many of the children went on to lead ordinary lives and did not reach noteworthy achievements. However, two lower-IQ children that were excluded went on to become Nobel Prize winners. IQ alone does not seem to be a robust predictor of domain mastery.
Why is this myth so pernicious? It comes up a lot here!
It doesn’t even touch the question of whether IQ tests are good measures of cognitive ability, nor does it only include IQ tests as measures of cognitive ability.
Growing up in the South East, USA, there were no such things as Autism, ADHD, etc.. Things have gotten better, I suppose, but I'm in my early 30s, so this wasn't exactly a long time ago either. You know how schools have 'gifted and talented' programs? I was in the 'cursed and talentless' program.
In this thread, you have been nothing but rude, condescending, and snarky to your fellow YC users. So, what gives?
If that were true, then why are they not administered to every child? IQ tests appear to only to the potentially disabled and potential precocious. If a child is already showing signs of precociousness, then what would an IQ test present that was not already observed?
> It could help point out adults in your own company that have some type of potential.
I highly doubt adults at a company have hidden potential that is unknown. Underused? Sure. It's not like the companies have some sort of hidden genius that no one knows about. If one were a genius, it would have likely been apparent far earlier in their life.
> It could be used for scholarship purposes.
Do you really believe we should be awarding scholarships for meritless human attributes? Why not offer scholarships to other human attributes like height, weight, and beauty while we are at it?
That's thing about IQ, according to the research, it's like eye color, skin color, etc.. There isn't a damn thing one can do to change it (positively). So, I am not certain I am comfortable offering scholarships on raw IQ alone. In fact, isn't the entire purpose behind grades, standardized testing, etc.?
(Yes, I am aware the early SAT was a psuedo-IQ test, but that ended in the 80s or 90s, I believe. ACT was never truly comparable to my understanding.)
We've never had a good understanding of what intelligence is, let alone a good test for it. We didn't even realize that until recently.
>I highly doubt adults at a company have hidden potential that is unknown
I think you'd be surprised how economic status can take a brilliant mind and squash it, or a rigid society can take a uniquely thoughtful mind and squash it
>Do you really believe we should be awarding scholarships for meritless human attributes?
You should see how easy it is to get a basketball scholarship if you're over 7 feet tall. And for good reason.
>it's like eye color, skin color, etc.. There isn't a damn thing one can do to change it (positively)
Can't make tall people grow more either. 7' people still have a much easier time with the sport than anyone else.
I guess I don't understand why you think we shouldn't be able to discriminate based on the brain? Should we just waste this wonderful natural gift in the name of fairness? Sounds like more of that "it's more important to do no harm than to do good" garbage.