Does that mean these high IQ people don't think IQ exists. It obviously exists. It's a real measure that people use.
It's not like midichlorian count which is a measure from Starwars. Which doesn't exist because it only exists in the movies and doesn't measure something real (the force).
lots of complaints I've heard - can't say one way or the other if there is any salt to them.
I haven't heard the complaint before that IQ is imaginary, that's a new one... I think through reading the exchange I see where the semantics shifted between people's thoughts, I doubt that's what the the poster above you meant - likely they meant a combination of the many complaints to dismiss the general usefulness of IQ tests as a predictor of intelligence.
The complaints I hear about IQ are completely opposite! People dislike standardized exams, including IQ tests, because of their standardization! That is, the need to assess everyone the same way precludes assessment specific to the individual being assessed. Detractors of IQ, insofar as they would like assessment at all, would prefer a more holistic procedure where the characteristics and capabilities of the assessee are analysed with due attention paid to the specific life history of said assessee.
In regards to income, I briefly skimmed the Wikipedia section for IQ and Income, which can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Income
"Highly correlated" would not be the choice of words I use to describe correlations between (0.23 - 0.5).
We, as people, should cherish the contributions of one's intelligence instead of obsessing over an arbitrary, qualitative value painted as a qualitative value like one's potential intelligence.
lol, this range is 0.5 to 0.7 variance explained (R squared) which is an insane value. in typical social studies a correlation of > 5% is considered a major improvement. In finance a correlation or > 1% is considered amazing.
You are either a hyper-intelectual drinking Taleb's kool-aid or simply don't know what you are talking about :D
Also 10% variance explained in social science is considered pretty good (which is depressing, but such is life).
Very far from it. I'm just an idiot with Internet access.
> drinking Taleb's kool-aid
I do agree with some of what he has said about IQ, but I am not well-versed in any of his other writings.
> simply don't know what you are talking about
Perhaps, but I am still not convinced.
If 0.23-0.5 correlation is "very high" then what is 0.7-0.9? Would r >= 0.7 be literal causation at that point for psychologist? (I'm kidding, of course)
Again, I am not saying that a correlation of 0.23-0.5 is statistically insignificant by any means. I just think I needed "very high" to be coupled with "for psychology."
Anyway, I saw an interesting theory once that suggested IQ simply measures motivation and highly motivated people will tend to do better on standardized tests as well as more generally in life.
I believe that IQ exists, but I don't believe it's an effective measure of the things people typically expect from it once you get into average or above average scores.
Leaving aside the problem of the tests themselves and how they're conducted, I suspect that even a "perfect" test wouldn't predict how well a person would manage their life, perform in their job, or contribute positively to society.
At the low end, IQ testing can identify individuals with problems that will certainly cause them difficulties, but a person with a high IQ won't necessarily outperform someone with an average IQ in tasks that aren't IQ tests.
> effective measure of the things people typically expect from it once you get into average or above average scores.
But I don't think that's what IQ is, it's just a measure of a type of assessment relative to other participants. Beyond that, there are strong correlations at various IQ levels on how people perceive certain spatial and logic questions/tasks. IQ does not measure your personality or job performance.