←back to thread

University of Cambridge Cognitive Ability Test

(planning.e-psychometrics.com)
101 points indigodaddy | 7 comments | 30 Aug 25 17:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
hirvi74 ◴[30 Aug 25 19:12 UTC] No.45077200[source]▶
I still do not understand why we are wasting scientific resources trying to stack rank humans on arbitrarily defined concepts like cognitive ability or intelligence.

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?

replies(13): >>45077238 #>>45077239 #>>45077255 #>>45077278 #>>45077284 #>>45077312 #>>45077319 #>>45077343 #>>45077475 #>>45077495 #>>45077558 #>>45077983 #>>45078303 #
gruez ◴[30 Aug 25 19:19 UTC] No.45077239[source]▶
>resources trying to stack rank humans on arbitrarily defined concepts like cognitive ability or intelligence.

"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?

replies(4): >>45077249 #>>45077270 #>>45077368 #>>45077615 #
tshaddox ◴[30 Aug 25 19:23 UTC] No.45077270[source]▶
So is the goal to predict someone’s future income? Or to inform someone of how much money they supposedly should be making based on their test results and the supposed correlation between test results and income? Surely the test results aren’t being used anywhere to actually determine people’s income.
replies(1): >>45077380 #
rasebo ◴[30 Aug 25 19:36 UTC] No.45077380[source]▶
The goal is to predict if, for example, someone is better suited to sweeping the floors vs working with complex systems. Both are useful and respectable jobs but you both want an individual who can actually do it, not someone who just thinks they can, and someone whose capabilities won't be wasted on too simple tasks. These tests are great tools to help you figure out future performances of said individuals, as well as their satisfaction on the job/task. A mismatch will cause impact both for the individual and the company/military unit/etc.
replies(2): >>45077427 #>>45077514 #
bofadeez ◴[30 Aug 25 19:41 UTC] No.45077427[source]▶
The US Army requires a minimum AFQT percentile of 31 for enlistment which, based on standard IQ norms (mean = 100, SD = 15), maps to roughly an IQ of 85 (one standard deviation below mean).

I.e. if you have an IQ below 85 you can't even sweep up the floor for the army

replies(1): >>45077513 #
nostrebored ◴[30 Aug 25 19:53 UTC] No.45077513[source]▶
And it’s because they found that using people below that threshold for _any purpose, including canon fodder_ has disastrously bad outcomes.
replies(2): >>45077630 #>>45078350 #
Avshalom ◴[30 Aug 25 21:58 UTC] No.45078350{5}[source]▶
I mean, a quick look at the flynn effect would indicate that's complete fucking nonsense.

we won ww2 with an army a solid SD below today's 100.

replies(2): >>45079023 #>>45079058 #
bofadeez ◴[30 Aug 25 23:52 UTC] No.45079058{6}[source]▶
Are you Russian?
replies(1): >>45079230 #
1. Avshalom ◴[31 Aug 25 00:25 UTC] No.45079230{7}[source]▶
Well the flynn effect is global so either the russians won ww2 with people an SD below today's mean IQ or the US military thinks that the russian army (that won ww2) circa '40 wasn't even fit for cannon fodder.
replies(2): >>45079588 #>>45079591 #
2. bofadeez ◴[31 Aug 25 01:41 UTC] No.45079588[source]▶
So you're arguing it ws low IQ vs low IQ? Okay... Do you have a point? I understand that you're upset for some reasno.

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.

replies(1): >>45079790 #
3. bofadeez ◴[31 Aug 25 01:42 UTC] No.45079591[source]▶
Flynn effect operates on the assumption that intelligence is a valid and measurable metric, while you previously argued it was not. You selectively do believe in when it affirms your bias? Nice one. You think you know more about this than experts who study it. I see. That's enough of you lol.
replies(1): >>45079686 #
4. Avshalom ◴[31 Aug 25 02:05 UTC] No.45079686[source]▶
No, the Flynn Effect is an observation that raw scores on "IQ tests" have increased over (a far too short period to be attributable to evolution) time and/but IQ is defined as having a median value of 100 . It is not an assumption that intelligence is a measurable metric (redundant) it is an observation that the metric is a shit metric -- particularly over time. It is explicitly a point against "IQ" as a valid and measurable metric.
replies(1): >>45079944 #
5. Avshalom ◴[31 Aug 25 02:25 UTC] No.45079790[source]▶
Good job being incapable of synthesizing both of your perversions into a single post.

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.

replies(1): >>45079874 #
6. bofadeez ◴[31 Aug 25 02:40 UTC] No.45079874{3}[source]▶
If you had to pick 120 or 80, what would it be? You have no preference whether they can read or write? Notice you're cornered logically? Wouldn't you prefer to have a strong opinion based in reason?
7. bofadeez ◴[31 Aug 25 02:55 UTC] No.45079944{3}[source]▶
So now you're pivoting to saying Flynn Effect is just an observation of noise and human error with no meaning. You brought up the Flynn Effect, but you don't think it's meaningful to measure IQ? But you do think time series analysis on IQ is meaningful? You made no attempt at even a reasoned claim that Flynn Effect debunks validity of IQ. It's all patchwork emo stuff going on with u, and u agree grammur policing is a last resort of a broken mind. Not much respond to when you have to twist yourself in a pretzel and then trip over your own arguments on the pivot.