Most active commenters
  • kulahan(5)
  • IshKebab(4)

←back to thread

University of Cambridge Cognitive Ability Test

(planning.e-psychometrics.com)
101 points indigodaddy | 12 comments | 30 Aug 25 17:20 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
geekamongus ◴[30 Aug 25 19:06 UTC] No.45077163[source]▶
"The entire test will take about an hour to complete."

Doesn't that skew things? That is a lot of time a lot of people don't have.

replies(3): >>45077264 #>>45079276 #>>45084053 #
kulahan ◴[30 Aug 25 19:22 UTC] No.45077264[source]▶
No, not in any way. Ability to be present for a test does not have any bearing whatsoever on cognitive ability, nor does any test on the planet account for whether or not the taker is present.
replies(3): >>45077311 #>>45077407 #>>45077515 #
IshKebab ◴[30 Aug 25 19:54 UTC] No.45077515[source]▶
> Ability to be present for a test does not have any bearing whatsoever on cognitive ability

The irony of making such a big mistake while discussing cognitive ability...

replies(1): >>45077537 #
1. kulahan ◴[30 Aug 25 19:57 UTC] No.45077537[source]▶
Please tell me how having a free period in your schedule causally makes you smarter.
replies(3): >>45077593 #>>45078179 #>>45079353 #
2. jon_adler ◴[30 Aug 25 20:06 UTC] No.45077593[source]▶
A smarter approach would be to run an experiment and look at what the data says. Just because you cannot think of any doesn’t make it so.
replies(1): >>45079965 #
3. IshKebab ◴[30 Aug 25 21:31 UTC] No.45078179[source]▶
It doesn't. The fact that the IQ test takes a lot of time means that generally only people who want validation of their high IQ will be motivated enough to take the test.

"Test your fitness with this 1 hour workout! ... Hmm our totally unbiased test shows that everyone is really fit."

See? Unbiased sampling is really hard but an hour long test means you're not even trying. (Which tbf they might not be.)

replies(2): >>45079824 #>>45079935 #
4. QuadmasterXLII ◴[31 Aug 25 00:49 UTC] No.45079353[source]▶
continues to be ironic
replies(2): >>45079946 #>>45079969 #
5. brookst ◴[31 Aug 25 02:31 UTC] No.45079824[source]▶
“Test your mountain climbing ability by summiting K2!” Hey wow turns out 70% of the population can summit K2!
6. kulahan ◴[31 Aug 25 02:53 UTC] No.45079935[source]▶
That’s true of every test, right? Is there a single test where unmotivated people do well?

And an hour is a pretty reasonable ask of most people. How long do you think studies usually take?

replies(1): >>45080851 #
7. ◴[31 Aug 25 02:55 UTC] No.45079946[source]▶
8. ◴[31 Aug 25 02:59 UTC] No.45079965[source]▶
9. kulahan ◴[31 Aug 25 02:59 UTC] No.45079969[source]▶
Oh man you are lost lol
10. IshKebab ◴[31 Aug 25 06:29 UTC] No.45080851{3}[source]▶
> And an hour is a pretty reasonable ask of most people.

lol no. Most people are not going to spend an hour doing an IQ test. 5 minutes? Sure. Look at how many people here are commenting about it - and HN has a very high concentration of people that love IQ tests.

> That’s true of every test, right?

You can reduce this bias by either making the test a lot shorter (5 minutes) or paying or forcing people to take it (e.g. tests in school don't suffer from this bias).

replies(1): >>45082360 #
11. kulahan ◴[31 Aug 25 11:29 UTC] No.45082360{4}[source]▶
I don't think you're ever going to get anything that isn't totally useless out of a 5 minute IQ test, and I have no idea why you'd think HN has a high concentration of people that like IQ tests? I mean, maybe conceptually?

Anyways, asking for an hour of someone's time is fine. I really don't believe that dumb people would, for some reason, be particularly short on time. Maybe you're right that we won't get a fantastic sample of people working 4 jobs at once with 8 children at home.

replies(1): >>45083022 #
12. IshKebab ◴[31 Aug 25 13:29 UTC] No.45083022{5}[source]▶
> I don't think you're ever going to get anything that isn't totally useless out of a 5 minute IQ test

Depends what you're trying to learn, but yeah it would be difficult. That's not really relevant to whether hour-long tests are biased due to their length though.

> I have no idea why you'd think HN has a high concentration of people that like IQ tests?

Because it's full of programmers and geeks who value intelligence and generally think of themselves as more intelligent than the average person. This is really obvious IMO.

> I really don't believe that dumb people would, for some reason, be particularly short on time.

I never said they would. I said that they would be unlikely to invest that free time in an hour long IQ test.