News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on How Not to Explain Success. Parent comment

Re:How Not to Explain Success by reitanqild on Monday May 30, 2016 @09:38AM (#11801252)
Good ones (consistent, calibrated) seems to exist but yes, I have read on HN about people being asked about American history under the guise of "IQ test".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Not to Explain Success by s_q_b on Monday May 30, 2016 @11:06AM (#11801635)
That's a pretty bold statement, considering that it's currently unknown whether general "intelligence", or g, even exists.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Not to Explain Success by dragonwriter on Monday May 30, 2016 @12:06PM (#11801914)
It's reasonably consistently measurable and has demonstrated correlations with both causative factors and outcomes. You can legitimately question the nature of what is being measured, but it's obviously something real (even if it's a composite).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Not to Explain Success by reitanqild on Monday May 30, 2016 @11:23AM (#11801715)
?

> ... whether general "intelligence", or g, even exists.

I'm talking about the one that is for example measured in standardized IQ tests.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Not to Explain Success by Terr_ on Monday May 30, 2016 @11:46AM (#11801831)
That's a little bit circular, though: "Intelligence is what is measured by an intelligence test."
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Not to Explain Success by xapata on Monday May 30, 2016 @11:49AM (#11801845)
And he is saying the IQ test measures very little, though the test appears at least to be self-consistent.
[ Parent | on HN ]