Re:IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)
by longtom on Thursday May 07, 2020 @11:08AM
(#23103839)
> in general are not robust
Sure, but they are robust enough to be relevant to everyday life.
> circularly defined
g is circularly defined, which is the nature of how a latent factor is defined. But g also does correlate with school and work performance (around r = .5), so it IS related to everyday life. Though you can only make extreme decisions based on single tests. E.g. you can say they are "likely not gifted" when they score low or "likely not an imbecile" when they score high.
Re:IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)
by paulpauper on Thursday May 07, 2020 @11:48AM
(#23104345)
IQ is probably the biggest success of human psychology as a field. Personalty tests are notoriously unreliable and can be faked (hell, that is what actors do).
IQ is the most robust psychometric (with the Big 5 personality being the only real contender), but that is largely because psychometrics in general are not robust. It's a one-eyed man in the land of the blind kind of scenario.
The first big issue you run into with IQ is that... as far as we understand intelligence in psychology, there isn't a single number that can be reflected as IQ. The closest we come is a "g factor" that influences all other types of intelligence, and is somewhat circularly defined as the correlation between all of the different intelligence metrics.