Nobel winner James Heckman did a lot of work on this [1].

The takeaway is that IQ doesn't matter as much as other attributes (character, learned skills, etc.) in life outcomes.

HN style crows way overvalue IQ style skills when intelligence has multiple dimensions, many of which matter more than IQ.

IQ is effectively just a measure of test-taking skills. That's useful in some areas, but you could see someone like Gengis Khan or Nikola Tesla be incredibly intelligent and a poor test taker.

[1] https://heckmanequation.org/resource/i-q-isnt-everything/

IQ is a fair predictor of achievement in life, though. But there are other predictors too, such as parents' socio-economic status, or geographical location. We wouldn't claim these things measure intelligence, though. IQ is a proxy for intelligence, but one with great shortcomings. Unfortunately, there's no agreed upon definition of intelligence, let alone an operalization, and a way of measuring it. So IQ keeps being used.

> Unfortunately, there's no agreed upon definition of intelligence, let alone an operalization, and a way of measuring it. So IQ keeps being used.

Uhuh.... so this line it's crazy, right?

It's really strange you concede that we have no theory and hence no way of verifying whether an IQ score is a valid and reliable measure of the thing we have no theory of... and yet, you say it is a "proxy for intelligence"

The entire edifice of research which makes these claims is a product of a pseudoscientific use of statistics by amateur statisticians. The vast majority of the results you think exist in the literature are frauds, and often egregious ones at that.

A human being is one of the most complex systems known to exist in nature, and the frauds in psychometrics are very far away from being up to the task of studying them. The greatest minds in applied sciences, matehmatics and statistics would largely throw up their hands at the job of measuring "intelligence" --- that some fools havent, is no good thing.

We all "sort of" recognize intelligence, but it stops there.

> The entire edifice of research which makes these claims is a product of a pseudoscientific use of statistics by amateur statisticians.

That's bollocks. It's just a topic that's too complex. Unfortunately, everybody likes it and draws conclusions from it. Even the HR department. If you would say we should ignore IQ measurements in society, I would agree. But it's not pseudo-scientific use of statistics. Nor all done by amateurs. It might even be more scientific than string theory or dark matter.

Alas, it is. It's severely pseudoscientific.

None have PhDs in statistics. They're all people who got into psychology and were given GUIs by the maths department. Their papers are a symptom of what happens when you press the "ANONVA" button and print the results.

The entire field is an egregious testament to pseudo-intellectual pseudoscience. It's shocking.

There's nothing there. It's unfathomably bad.

The statisticians I knew were only too happy to go along with some ANOVA. They're usually consulted at the start of the study, but rarely co-author.

A lot of psychology is bad research. There's a reason there's a reproduction crisis. Statisticians are to blame for that, too. They've been teaching and using NHST, even though all arguments point away from it.

But statisticians can't fix a bad design, because they rarely know the factors involved, and they can't fix errors in the methods, because they've got no idea about the subject matter. The statistician in your argument comes across as some kind of totem.

> There's nothing there.

There's something there, but since we don't know what, it's best to take it with a grain of salt. However, if even the bloody HR department looks at IQ scores, it gets a lot of attention. And one explanation is that it predicts better than nothing. If you have to choose between two candidates, and one has an IQ of 80 and the other of 120, you know who (on average) who fits best.

Neither "have" an IQ of anything. They neither "have" a star-sign.

A score of 80 suggests a possible clinical issue with mental retardation. Few such people apply to roles who compete with people at average or above scores.

What is much more the case is people 95-145 "competing" with each other based, effectively, on what star sign they have.

If IQ didn't matter above 95 then we would expect most STEM professionals to have about 100 IQ since that is the biggest bump on the curve, but that is very far from the case.

The test probably breaks down at some level since it is hard to test higher intelligence, but it seems to me like it is still valid below about 120 IQ.

We also don't have an objective measure of "horniness", yet we all know it both exists and that we must make decisions based upon it (either ours or others).

Something having an objective measure or not does not invalidate it.

I think we've very good evidence against IQ being a measure of intelligence.

But in any case, what we're talking about is the meter-ruler called "IQ" and its use by the most batshit HRish elements of soceity, and the most pseudo-scientific elements of psychology.

In a world where major employers are using IQ to guide their hiring practices, we're not talking about a quiz on the back of cosmo.

We're talking about a world where business (, uni,...) has outsourced its obligations to fairly consider the merits of individuals to the cult of psychometricians extremely happy to provide astrological justifications for ruining people's lives.

An entire medical establishment has been created by the IQ test, which exists across (at least the west) as a filter on entrants. What strange, bizarre, and often poorly sutied creatures have found themsleves in positions within this establishment?

When one looks around at the society the IQ test has created, one should be aghast. Why, so often, are nurses better than doctors? (etc. etc.)

This is akin to arguing height isn't useful because the NBA makes judgements based upon it.

What the evidence says is that IQ isn't the only factor, just as height isn't the only factor for NBA players. But just like height, IQ makes things a lot easier.

"test-taking" is too generic. Puzzle-solving would be more accurate. IQ doesn't do much for test that just require to remember a lot of stuff.

But IQ wasn't invented to predict "life outcome", it was invented to find kid's academic potential.

I'm still waiting for somebody to show me a prolific Math Phd with below average IQ. The only counter example I've heard people use it Feynman whose IQ was "only" 125 putting him smarter than "only" 95% of the population.

It rubs me the wrong way when Hawkins says stuff like "IQ is for losers" but then boasts how his physics undergrad degree was so easy for him he was just bored out of his mind (it sure wasn't easy for me). It's the intelligence equivalent of a billionaire saying you just need to work hard to get there, as if that was ever gonna make a difference if you're an Amazon factory worker.

I've never taken an IQ test, nor will I ever take one.

Am I smarter than the average person? undoubtedly.

But if my IQ is high then I fear I'll avoid doing useful things because they're beneath me. And if my IQ is not high, I fear I'll avoid doing things because they're above me.

There is nothing useful that can come out of knowing your IQ, and as others have said, there's other things that are so much more important. Smart people are unusually good at deluding themselves, for example. They get so used to being right they start to believe if they can rationalize it, it's obviously true and anyone who disagrees isn't as smart.

Having said that, I once made a girl angry in college because I asked the professor if grad school will actually be challenging because undergrad math for me was ridiculously easy.

I think the best way to describe IQ is that it defines your potential (w/i a margin of error), but it's everything else that determines how effectively you use that IQ.

A child with down syndrome will never win a nobel no matter how much they want to or how much effort they put into it. But having an IQ of 160+ will never guarantee you don't end up homeless in a ditch.

I have a dream : I would like to do research and do breakthroughs in the field.

Knowing my IQ would let me know if that's reasonable and if I have any kind of shot at it. I know I'm smarter than average, but am I smart enough to be a top scientist? If i'm too stupid to attain my dream and I went for a phd, I would just be wasting my time, my life, my earnings for a dead end. It would be like dedicating your whole life to being a pro basket-ball player while having no shot because you're 5'10" (taller than average, but not tall enough).

I read a book years ago (forget the name or the author) about an alien species that came to earth and claimed they were in a war and were looking for the single best specimen from each species (1 per planet).

The one they settled on was a man in a wheelchair. Through technology they fixed all his ills.

They then put him on a ship with all the others and he was immediately attacked. It turned out there was a hierarchy and it had to do with physical violence. They wouldn't let you die and all injuries would be healed so it was safe, if painful, to do.

Throughout the book you learn the aliens that came to earth are very logical, by the book, run the numbers.

So this human realizes this and realizes he wants more control so he starts working his way thorugh the hierarchy. he gets to the 2nd highest rank, but cannot beat the highest rank alien, but he keeps trying ... and trying ... and trying. Finally the highest rank alien asks him why, he explains, the highest rank alien steps to the side and gives him the highest rank.

Later on in the story the aliens fighting the war decided the statistical odds weren't there and they were going to let all the worlds where they had gathered specimens be overrun. The crew on this ship with the humans rejected it, overtook the ship, and went to fight on their own. They did well enough on their own to tip the numbers just enough that the aliens fighting the war chose to re-engage.

----

The point here is this. You cannot live life by the numbers, you'll be wrong because it doesn't take into account risk. I know you, and many others, will argue against that, but it's true.

Here's an example: Statistically speaking, you should never cross a busy highway. If your child is on the other side of that highway and in danger, you will 100% do it. Statistics can never take into account the reasons for the risk or the worthiness of the risk.

----

The numbers are lying to you. Yes, there's a line at which you'll never be able to do better, but once you're past that line there's a large margin of error. Don't live your life afraid of that margin of error, embrace it.

Sorry, but I don't find a science fiction book to be an inspiring argument.

Find me a below average height person who made it at the NBA or somebody, anybody, with a below average IQ who got a science Nobel prize and you'll have my attention. But if you have to rely on a pure fantasy novel to find a counter-example, it doesn't give me any confidence in your theory.

> Sorry, but I don't think you can learn anything from allegories, they're not "real life".

there, fixed that for you.

As for the rest ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest_players_in_Na...

The shortest NBA player was 5'3" and played until 2001.

Isaiah Thomas is the shortest player to play in an all-star game at 5'9".

---

But hey, good luck, I'm sure you're smarter than the rest of us and you'll do just fine without allegories.

You've caught me, I'm an allegory hater. Thanks about that NBA player list. Truly inspiring somebody who's 5"3' could play in the NBA.

It was invented as a clinical test of retardation, and the only correlation with IQ and objective independent measures of performance is in the region of very low scores.

Note, that when carear-IQ correlations are brought up it is universally in those populations subject to an IQ test filter who are then shown to correlate with IQ scores (ie., those who take, eg., MCAT, LSAT, ...) --- which, if it isnt clear, is circular.

Average and above IQ shows no correlation whatsoever with, eg., wealth.

> IQ is effectively just a measure of test-taking skills.

Omg, no.

Good test taking skills will help someone score close to their theoretical maximum, but you can’t just train someone in test-taking skills and expect them to score at the top of the scale.

I’ve trained people on test-taking skills to great effect, but there is a limit (often significant) on how much these skills can improve a score.

To me this is like saying that if you were lost in Boston and someone gave you a map of Chicago that it's better than nothing.

It's more like saying "it's better if someone gave you a hand-drawn map of Boston, instead of no map at all".

Well we do know that [all North American cities] look the same so to that extent you can use a map from a different city to find your way.

[all North American cities](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/ym6ms5/a_map_of_ev...)

Changing culture to stop seeing intelligence as some unchangeable fixed thing is probably better than having a bad measure of "intelligence".

Even IQ itself was meant as a way to identify what supports people need to keep up and negate the difference.

I'd disagree. The use of bogus psychometrics is not socially neutral. It's used to filter applications to university courses, jobs, and so on. They make a systematically, imv disasterous, effect on the lives of everyone they come into contact with.

IQ tests are only a clincally valid test of extreme mental deficits. They do not correlate with objective measures of above-average performance, and have created a "metrical culture" with severe unethical concequences.

"IQ is part of a large “nexus” of positively correlated societal outcomes. IQ correlates positively with family income, socioeconomic status, school and occupational performance, military training assignments, law-abidingness, healthful habits, illness, and morality. In contrast, IQ is negatively correlated with welfare, psychopathology, crime, inattentiveness, boredom, delinquency, and poverty."

Indeed, all basically false.

Fit a straight line, find a straight line.

Where IQ scores correlate, it's at the very-low-score end. It doesnt correlate with independent objective performance measures at average-and-above.

The people writing those papers are psychologists, not statisticians, and often the most poorly trained. Most of it is either circular pseudoscience or unreporducible. Indeed, for much of the IQ literature to be "unreporducible" would be a great credit, since it would mean it had a testable thesis -- which, largely, it never does.

The beginning and end of IQ research is, largely, just that straight-line rulers can draw straight lines in any dataset you put them against.

Why do we really need a measure of intelligence? What does this grant us aside from giving people yet another cudgel with which to lord over others, and another way for unfortunate people to feel bad about themselves?

When/how is IQ ever used for good? Everyone I have ever talked to about it who talks about others' IQ intends to use those people for their own selfish purposes. And people I've talked to who talk about their own IQ only ever use it to brag, boast, or otherwise elevate themselves. Neither of these are behaviors that should be encouraged.

Well that's easy: to change education for people based on their abilities. Any specific class can only be educated to the lowest level everyone in the class will support. So you split up classes by IQ, you don't even give more opportunities to the "high-IQ" class. You just split them up. Nothing more.

Generally this is not based on actual IQ test results, but on teachers impressions. And they keep "secret" which is the high IQ class. And if a kid is really motivated to be in the better class, change the kid to the other class (and vice-versa) if at all possible.

Of course this worked better with 15 kids-per-class than with the current 40 kids-per-class education system.

This is doing a lot of good, and has been for decades. Essentially it results in a smarter and more capable society, because people can be educated much closer to the limit of their abilities.

No, it is worst than no measure of intelligence. It gives a false impression of the truth that can hurt the person or people involved. IQ is often used in racist terms, since certain populations in the world do not have the cultural background to pass this arbitary test

Aren't IQ tests supposed to be made culturally/language independent tho ? What would be "cultural" thing on IQ test ? The ones I saw never really had anything aside base-10 numbers. Do you have any examples ?

The most famous example was of black kids who never seen a ruby in their lives in the 50s. But Ruby the name was quite popular. So they got that question wrong. But it is normally used to denigrate Africans who have even less exposure to European norms than African Americans. Despite the genetic diversity of Africans being a lot higher than Europeans, they are often thrown into the same batch of "IQ deficient" groups. None of this is actually scientifically sound.

There are many different types of IQ tests, with different types of questions. Some just use shapes/patterns.

Right, but aside from academics, what is the use for the number. Like, sure, it will maybe tell you that person A is better than person B at solving what essentially are logic puzzles, but that's at best tangentially related to most things, even in "intellectual" jobs it's a mix of knowledge, creativity and ability to see correlation plus almost always some social skills too.