| |
| ▲ | rixed 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't see what harm these tests are doing, but I don't see the good either. Could you elaborate? | | |
| ▲ | kulahan 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It stratifies people, so anyone in a strata that isn’t the best is azhkchually being harmed by not being rated equally to everyone else. | | |
| ▲ | rixed 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You did not answer my question, which was in good faith; instead you seam to keep using a sarcastic way of discussing that we try to avoid here. | | |
| ▲ | kulahan 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes I did. “Why is this bad” “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. | | |
| ▲ | rixed 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Apologizes gladly accepted.
But maybe my question was not clearly phrased - it was not "Why are tests bad". You contrasted "doing no harm" with "doing good" and I wanted to ask what good have IQ tests done. Because to me the harm is kind of obvious (overinflating the importance of one criteria and ideological agenda) but the good not so much (obviously, I'm not questioning the good of any cognitive ability per see, I'm questioning the good of assigning a numerical value to it and making it a characteristic of some individual). | | |
| ▲ | kulahan 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, I see. A good IQ test would be a good way to help our most promising children get the largest head start. It could help point out adults in your own company that have some type of potential. It could be used for scholarship purposes. Stuff like that. | | |
| ▲ | rixed 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm a bit sceptical that we could discover unsuspected geniuses with IQ tests, but I will concede that it could be useful the other way around: to prove to someone, most liekely ourselve, that one is not often as clever as one believe. :-) | |
| ▲ | hirvi74 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > A good IQ test would be a good way to help our most promising children get the largest head start. 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.) | | |
| ▲ | kulahan 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >If that were true, then why are they not administered to every child? 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. | | |
| ▲ | hirvi74 a day ago | parent [-] | | > We didn't even realize that until recently. How recent? IQ tests have been around for over 100 years. > 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 I do not disagree with this premise, but how would knowing an IQ score materially affect this? People aren't awarded medical degrees, doctorates of law, etc. by IQ alone. One still needs to put forth the effort and motivation to succeed. One's IQ has little predictability when it comes to stress tolerance, motivation, conscientiousness, etc.. > You should see how easy it is to get a basketball scholarship if you're over 7 feet tall. And for good reason. How easy is it? How many people are even over 7ft to begin with? I'm not certain the number is large enough to truly make a difference. Also, I believe academic scholarships should not be awarded for athletics in the first place, but that is a different discussion. > Can't make tall people grow more either. Lionel Messi would disagree. There are also other methods like limb lengthening surgery, which I would strongly not recommend lol. > much easier time with the sport True, but easier != better. In some cases, it may though. > Should we just waste this wonderful natural gift in the name of fairness? Not putting people on a pedestal does not equate to wasting their gift. I believe we should treat the exceptional as normal until they are able to self-actualize. History presents us with a graveyard of childhood prodigies that never amounted to anything in adulthood. After all, the candle that burns twice as bright burns twice as fast. I have asked this throughout this thread, and no one has given me an answer. When people mention 'gifts' people tend to talk about proclivities in typically one domain. Take Von Neumann, for example. He was a mathematical god-like being, but he was not exceptional in musical abilities, art, athletics, etc.. He was allegedly able to multiple/divide two eight-digit numbers in his head at the age of 6. I will ask my question once again: what could IQ test tell us about Von Neumann (which he never took) that we did not already know? Terrance Tao, Einstein, etc.. didn't either. Do you believe they turned out alright? What about Feynman that allegedly scored worse than his sister (125 vs. 128)? Most gifted programs that require an IQ assessment usually require an IQ >= 130. That would mean Feynman would have passed over. Which is precisely my point -- there are a lot of people that do not fit the mold that would be passed over because of some arbitrary point of datum. Lewis Terman also tried this same experiment which took place over decades. None of his "Termites" (his group of 1000s of +130 IQ children) became anything remotely noteworthy. Two children excluded for being too unintelligent won Nobel Prizes in separate fields. No matter what IQ is, one thing is clear -- it ain't everything. | | |
| ▲ | kulahan 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think you may have a different idea of what IQ is than me. I’m simply interested in some way to consider the raw horsepower of a given brain. But it seems like an odd question to leave unanswered, even if you don’t see any benefit to it immediately. Scientists aren’t inherently trying to answer the most useful questions, just the ones they find interesting enough to research. And hell, maybe it’ll have the opposite effect. Maybe we’ll find that absolute raw horsepower is a worthless metric, because intelligence is simply too complex multifaceted, or maybe it’ll simply turn out to be like BMI, where it’s only applicable to populations of sufficient size. Who knows? For all I know, true horsepower is the rate at which you form new connections, or the amount of working memory you have, or the efficiency of your brain (less activity for similar tasks). But that being said, the brain is just the engine. I don’t disagree that the driver makes or breaks it. Of course things like grit and training and emotional stability and socioeconomic status and… matter just as much in terms of how well we can use that engine/brain. Edit: oh, and to answer your question, I think it was a study in 2012 in Neuron(?) that was considered the death knell for the IQ test as we see it today. I should also mention that in a perfect world, this test would be more physical than mental - brain scans and metabolic charts or something like that. | | |
| ▲ | hirvi74 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I think you may have a different idea of what IQ is than me. I’m simply interested in some way to consider the raw horsepower of a given brain. Entirely possible, and if that is all you want to use the metric for, then I have no qualms with that. I just get very leery about using the metrics for policy. In my state, for example, IQ <= 69 immune from death penalty and an IQ >= 70 makes one eligible (assuming a 1st degree murder conviction). I know there has to be a cut-off somewhere, but I do not think the tests are accurate enough to demonstrate a large difference between scores in that range (same on the other tail end too). > Scientists aren’t inherently trying to answer the most useful questions, just the ones they find interesting enough to research. Fair enough. > intelligence is simply too complex multifaceted, or maybe it’ll simply turn out to be like BMI, where it’s only applicable to populations of sufficient size. I still hold such views despite reading plenty of the research. IQ certainly measures something, but I am not entirely certain we fully understand what we are looking it. Plenty of low/moderate correlates. From what I can honestly tell, it appears that IQ is a great predictor at the speed of which one learns, but coincidentally, that does not predict domain mastery. For example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... (Though, I do not agree the finds are "significant" -- those r^2 are brutal) > Of course things like grit and training and emotional stability and socioeconomic status and… matter just as much in terms of how well we can use that engine/brain. Well, thank you for being rational. It's quite rare these days. > I think it was a study in 2012 in Neuron(?) that was considered the death knell for the IQ test as we see it today. Ah! I know which one your talking about. Yes, that was a blow, but I think the field is chugging along just fine. > this test would be more physical than mental I have once considered how awesome this would be too. I think Sternberg, a field-famous psychologist, is working on something physical, albeit not in this realm. I believe he wants to create some kind obstacle course/escape room like measurement, if I am not mistaken. I was pay-walled a while back, so I couldn't quite tell what the paper was fully about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | rasebo 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | bofadeez 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | nostrebored 3 days ago | parent [-] | | And it’s because they found that using people below that threshold for _any purpose, including canon fodder_ has disastrously bad outcomes. | | |
| ▲ | bofadeez 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Around 50 million Americans fall below this threshold and are positively counterproductive for ANY military purpose, no matter how menial, no matter the shortage of recruits. | | |
| ▲ | cutemonster 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > counterproductive for ANY military purpose Putin uses such people as cannon fodder, meat wave attacks |
| |
| ▲ | Avshalom 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We won it against a regime led by a certifiable nutcase who forced many of his smartest citizens to flee the country. Many of them ended up here. | |
| ▲ | bofadeez 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you Russian? | | |
| ▲ | Avshalom 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | bofadeez 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Avshalom 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | bofadeez 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bofadeez 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Avshalom 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | bofadeez 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | aDyslecticCrow 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The goal is to predict if, for example, someone is better suited to sweeping the floors vs working with complex systems. 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. |
|
|
