←back to thread

University of Cambridge Cognitive Ability Test

(planning.e-psychometrics.com)
101 points indigodaddy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.276s | source
Show context
hirvi74 ◴[] 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 #
rayiner ◴[] No.45078303[source]
It’s not an arbitrary concept. It’s reliably measured and correlated with lots of factors we care about: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11683192/iq-testing-intelligen...

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.

replies(1): >>45079988 #
hirvi74 ◴[] No.45079988[source]
A lot of things are correlated. Let me know when causation is determined.

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.

replies(2): >>45080068 #>>45080075 #
1. rayiner ◴[] No.45080075[source]
The breadth of predictability is why it’s such an effective measure. Most tasks involve many different skills, so it’s helpful to have a single measure that’s correlated with a bunch of different competencies. That’s why we use what are essentially IQ tests in everything from assigning jobs in the military (ASVAB) to selecting lawyers (LSAT). There’s tremendous social value in a single test that can scaleably sort through millions of people even if it’s not the most predicative test for a specific problem domain or a specific individual.

Also, IQ predicts chess performance as well: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.h...