[Mika]

Flipside: Two thumbs up!

[General Battuta]

        Regardless of the usability of the "IQ" concept, I think there are good uses for comparative scores. Now could you be more specific to what you mean about "societal questions" that aren't being addressed?

    Well for instance, when you say:

    "If these studies are correct, one would actually expect men to outnumber women in top research academia."

    the fact that that's not true indicates that there may be some questions about or society that we are not discussing or we might not be focusing on finding the right questions to ask or answers to say.

Actually I agree with UT here, I suspect that IQ is a pretty ****ty measure of intelligence and that the well-known variance changes between men and women are probably in part social. Also I think it's a little strange to believe that very high intelligence is required for presence in top research academia; it's not really about being smart.

UT's still dodging all the previous points raised against him though, that's pretty disappointing.

[Flipside]

Original topic cleaned and unlocked as requested. Please try to keep it civil.

[General Battuta]

It's missing most of the actual discussion recently.

To repost, picking up where we left off before that little interruption:

Actually I agree with UT here, I suspect that IQ is a pretty ****ty measure of intelligence and that the well-known variance changes between men and women are probably in part social. Also I think it's a little strange to believe that very high intelligence is required for presence in top research academia; it's not really about being smart.

[StarSlayer]

It's missing most of the actual discussion recently.

To repost, picking up where we left off before that little interruption:

Actually I agree with UT here, I suspect that IQ is a pretty ****ty measure of intelligence and that the well-known variance changes between men and women are probably in part social. Also I think it's a little strange to believe that very high intelligence is required for presence in top research academia; it's not really about being smart.

It's been triple split, that convo exists here

[General Battuta]

It's missing most of the actual discussion recently.

To repost, picking up where we left off before that little interruption:

Actually I agree with UT here, I suspect that IQ is a pretty ****ty measure of intelligence and that the well-known variance changes between men and women are probably in part social. Also I think it's a little strange to believe that very high intelligence is required for presence in top research academia; it's not really about being smart.

It's been triple split, that convo exists here

NOT ANY MORE D:

[Flipside]

I think I've got it sorted now, merging topics took me a minute to figure out. I've split out Battutas first post to the second thread and merged it into this thread so Battuta did not double post, he simply posted his response before I could merge the topics, but there should be at least a moderate level of consistency now.

I'm now going to take some Nurofen.

Edit: I suppose I could add Kosh's post to this thread as well and that would cover it, but right now, after having to clean up that mess, it can wait.

[Mustang19]

For my part I think IQ is a generally accurate measure of potential. A high IQ doesn't guarantee ability but someone with an average IQ is going to have a really hard time winning a Nobel Prize.

[Unknown Target]

For my part I think IQ is a generally accurate measure of potential. A high IQ doesn't guarantee ability but someone with an average IQ is going to have a really hard time winning a Nobel Prize.

You don't have to be very smart to help people and promote peace...and I believe that recognizing that is the real intent of the Nobel Prize.

[MP-Ryan]

Actually I agree with UT here, I suspect that IQ is a pretty ****ty measure of intelligence and that the well-known variance changes between men and women are probably in part social. Also I think it's a little strange to believe that very high intelligence is required for presence in top research academia; it's not really about being smart.

For my part I think IQ is a generally accurate measure of potential. A high IQ doesn't guarantee ability but someone with an average IQ is going to have a really hard time winning a Nobel Prize.

Trying to trace back through this conundrum of threadlocksplits has proven difficult, but this seems to be the most logical point of entry.  Thus,

IQ is a meaningless measure of intelligence, though less so now than in the past.  However, modern IQ tests are still cross-culturally useless and the true characteristics of intelligence, which haven't been adequately defined in the testing, may not even be measured.  Considering a lot of psychology and biology has a great deal of difficulty determining even what intelligence IS, I have a lot of trouble with the notion that we can measure it objectively with a written (or oral) test.

As it is, IQ tests (generally speaking) can measure fairly accurately where (geographically) you were raised, what social "class" you belong to, some aspects of your morality, and the combined effects of how good your education was, your engagement was, and your memory is.  It also depends on the quality of the test - I've scored anywhere from 116 to 140ish, with the "most reliable" score at 126, but in all cases it was fairly evident that the test incorporates the biases of the test designer.  It's an utterly worthless number.

[General Battuta]

Agreed. It's tempting to draw correlations between IQ and success, but if IQ is actually tapping social concepts which contribute to success as much as intelligence does (and if you measure successful people and find high IQ), you're just weaving a knot of confounds that renders your conclusion pretty meaningless.

[Mustang19]

Trying to trace back through this conundrum of threadlocksplits has proven difficult, but this seems to be the most logical point of entry.  Thus,

IQ is a meaningless measure of intelligence, though less so now than in the past.  However, modern IQ tests are still cross-culturally useless and the true characteristics of intelligence, which haven't been adequately defined in the testing, may not even be measured.  Considering a lot of psychology and biology has a great deal of difficulty determining even what intelligence IS, I have a lot of trouble with the notion that we can measure it objectively with a written (or oral) test.

As it is, IQ tests (generally speaking) can measure fairly accurately where (geographically) you were raised, what social "class" you belong to, some aspects of your morality, and the combined effects of how good your education was, your engagement was, and your memory is.  It also depends on the quality of the test - I've scored anywhere from 116 to 140ish, with the "most reliable" score at 126, but in all cases it was fairly evident that the test incorporates the biases of the test designer.  It's an utterly worthless number.

The precise number isn't that important for higher IQs. Even your lowest result puts you a standard deviation above average. What is worth noting is that virtually no doctors for instance are in the below average range of IQ (80-89). IQ may not matter much above a certain point, but for low or borderline IQ you can definitely tell the difference. IQ is also helpful for showing the Flynn Effect and the benefit of improving nutrition and literacy rates.

Agreed. It's tempting to draw correlations between IQ and success, but if IQ is actually tapping social concepts which contribute to success as much as intelligence does (and if you measure successful people and find high IQ), you're just weaving a knot of confounds that renders your conclusion pretty meaningless.

Then that gets into the whole genetic component of IQ debate. But even if IQ is just a number to indicate social predispositions to success it's handy until a better number comes along, even if in practice there are other numbers like GPA that are better correlates for performance in specific endeavors.

[General Battuta]

What is worth noting is that virtually no doctors for instance are in the below average range of IQ (80-89). IQ may not matter much above a certain point, but for low or borderline IQ you can definitely tell the difference. IQ is also helpful for showing the Flynn Effect and the benefit of improving nutrition and literacy rates.

That's not worth noting because there's a directionality problem. If IQ is in fact measuring social factors which make it easy to become a doctor, all that's saying is 'people who are likely to become doctors (and therefore score high on our test of likeliness to become doctors) are likely to become doctors.'

Then that gets into the whole genetic component of IQ debate. But even if IQ is just a number to indicate social predispositions to success it's handy until a better number comes along, even if in practice there are other numbers like GPA that are better correlates for performance in specific endeavors.

Well maybe but if you're feeding your predictor of success into your determinants of success that's a real social justice issue.

[Mustang19]

That's not worth noting because there's a directionality problem. If IQ is in fact measuring social factors which make it easy to become a doctor, all that's saying is 'people who are likely to become doctors (and therefore score high on our test of likeliness to become doctors) are likely to become doctors.'

That would make sense if mentally retarded doctors were just rare, not practically nonexistent. But someone who has trouble learning how to read let alone pass medical school probably isn't going to make it as a doctor for reasons other than their social class. Of course I have no numbers to back this up so whatever.

Well maybe but if you're feeding your predictor of success into your determinants of success that's a real social justice issue.

Definitely, I'll get back to work on writing my bomb threats to Charles Murray. In all seriousness though no one puts their IQ on their resume or college application and in practice it's more of an ego thing for people who happen to be good at taking tests. I don't really see IQ being used as a predictor of success in our society when that information is rarely even provided to employers.

[General Battuta]

Your last paragraph is true, also you are the best poster

[Mustang19]

Thank you. I appreciate your company as well Battuta, you are my favorite person on the internet. But enough e-dickrubbery.

I'm sure there is such a thing as g and genetics influences it, if nothing else having sweet mitochondrial DNA is like menergy for your neuronal ATP production.

[General Battuta]

There's definitely a genetic influence, I'm pretty sure twin studies have borne that out. But it's gonna be hard to pin down until we have a better metric. And there's all sorts of weird **** that could complicate it - it could work like schizophrenia where maybe you could have the markers to be really dumb or really smart but you need an environmental kick to play in.

And it's probably a bit like building a computer too - you could have amazing working memory but a bottleneck somewhere else, so you still end up daft. (for example i am a pretty bright dude but holy **** i lack any common sense)

ed: badduda spull gud

[Mustang19]

There's definitely a genetic influence, I'm pretty sure twin studies have borne that out. But it's gonna be hard to pin down until we have a better metric. And there's all sorts of weird **** that could complicate it - it could work like schizophrenia where maybe you could have the markers to be really dumb or really smart but you need an environmental kick to play in.

None of this contradicts the current understanding of g really for the people who advocate it I don't think. Even the 50-80% genetic contribution111 camp people acknowledge a 50-20% environmental influence, and that more stimulating environments and spread of literacy probably upped IQ over 20th century - while having cravings for lead and thalidomide during pregnancy may provide an environmental kick in the other direction. Now an interesting question is if the recent (past 2-3 decades) decline in measured intelligence and reversal of the Flynn effect is due to natural selection or environmental factors, or if it's just a problem with test validity and means nothing. In any case I decree the dumbing down of the world to be the Mustang effect since no one has jumped on the opportunity to name it after themselves yet.

But sitting down taking a test is a reasonably ****ty measure of g and we may not be able to get accurate measurements until we have the technology to do things like actually map all the brain's dendrites, find differing patterns in these connections, and relate this to intelligence differences. All we can do know is measure the quantity, not quality, of whatever is going on in the brain and this doesn't appear to be useful in predicting intelligence. Until neuroscience advances beyond its current primitive state I will feel qualified making broad statements about something I have no formal education in.

And intelligence and performance are different things. Obviously there are autistics who can play some mean sodoku but aren't the best at conversation. I think of g more as raw processing and memorization capability.

[Kopachris]

Guantanamo -> IQ tests?

[Unknown Target]

Point. Should we change the title of this thread to IQ test debates and create a do over thread for Guantanamo?