"IQ" measures an inferior form of intelligence

[Kumorii]

Well, SAT is a knowledge test, not an intelligence test.

People tend to use degrees and grades interchangeable with intelligence though. So he's not wrong that people already uses metrics for "intelligence". One of the reasons why IQ gets a bad rap is due to misusing it and intelligence in general.

We don't need IQ measurements. We need compassion.

You can have both.

[haxartus]

(But yeah, people totally do that. Someone with simply a good memory could easily pass as a genius as far as most people are concerned.)

While it's true that someone really dumb can get good grades by just putting in a ridiculous amount of effort, this typically doesn't happen that much. If you get someone with perfect grades, I say over 90% of the time they will be well above average in intelligence.

[Kumorii]

Well sure, they can do that, but they're also wrong.

(But yeah, people totally do that. Someone with simply a good memory could easily pass as a genius as far as most people are concerned.)

Indeed they are but that doesn't change the usage of it. Then we also have the fact there are different kinds of intelligence but people tend to conflate them all into a generalized "intelligence".

[Kumorii]

The pedant in me is raging.

Haha, understandable. Up to you if adapt to it or let it consume you

[Danvash]

I hate people who use their IQ as a badge of honor. That being said, IQ exists, and it matters. There is a mountain of documented evidence in support of IQ.

Most of these counterexamples seem to just be speculation and roundabout complaints about prideful people he's worked with.

[Forogil]

I hate people who use their IQ as a badge of honor. That being said, IQ exists, and it matters. There is a mountain of documented evidence in support of IQ.

Most of these counterexamples seem to just be speculation and roundabout complaints about prideful people he's worked with.

True, and he also seems to miss that there is something between predicting everything and nothing; and IQ falls in that gap. (If IQ predicts 40% of variation it also means that it doesn't predict 60% of the variation.)

That's why Taleb, the Intellectual Yet Idiot, complains about IQ-tests - but don't offer any better alternatives.

[Ragedaug]

IQ is a basic, but functional way to quantify one's simple problem solving capacity and ability to acquire the knowledge required for that problem solving.

This is an exemplary case of what happens when you ignore this basic reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000#Aftermath

Basically this. IQ measures problem solving and how quickly you can receive and process new knowledge. So the OP starting with "Guy says IQ measures 'classroom intelligence'" is a silly statement as it's just wrong and you could have started and ended the thread there.

A dedicated person with a low IQ can be much smarter than a lazy person with a high IQ. Having a high IQ isn't going to help you if you are too lazy to read a book or listen in class.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Pretty fucking sure I just said it measures problem solving.

It's also the least accurate though.

[Spectral]

Well, SAT is a knowledge test, not an intelligence test.

It's a bit of both. They're at least moderately well correlated (one citation, r=0.72 after restricted range correction). Given that an employer would be looking at this half a decade or more after taking the test, I'd wager that it's the aptitude they're looking for rather than the specific knowledge. That's fine though, I wouldn't be inclined to get into it too much.

At some point a line has to be drawn between, "This isn't fair to <race>!" and "Just fucking do better instead of bitching."

Preaching to the choir, it's certainly not my doctrine that everyone must be represented equally everywhere at all times. Just saying that if disparate impact doctrine were taken seriously in more settings, there's a lot of testing that would be viewed as racially discriminatory.

- - - Updated - - -

I hate people who use their IQ as a badge of honor. That being said, IQ exists, and it matters. There is a mountain of documented evidence in support of IQ.

Agreed. It's an asset, it's a talent, it makes most things easier, but it's also completely unearned. Graduating college is a hell of a lot easier with a high IQ - why would the IQ itself be a source of pride? It's the equivalent of be proud of being tall without ever actually using it to play basketball or anything.

Most of these counterexamples seem to just be speculation and roundabout complaints about prideful people he's worked with.

To be fair to Taleb, he's got a pretty good point when it comes to trading, which he knows a fair bit about. There are a lot of really high IQ people that fail to use the type of reasoning that leads to anti-fragility (or at least resiliency) in markets and businesses, which is really Taleb's core message in general. He's probably been around a lot of people with IQs of 150 that participated in financial busts in fashions that seem obviously stupid to people that are more risk averse.

[PC2]

IQ is a basic, but functional way to quantify one's simple problem solving capacity and ability to acquire the knowledge required for that problem solving.

This is an exemplary case of what happens when you ignore this basic reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000#Aftermath

Basically this. IQ measures problem solving and how quickly you can receive and process new knowledge. So the OP starting with "Guy says IQ measures 'classroom intelligence'" is a silly statement as it's just wrong and you could have started and ended the thread there.

A dedicated person with a low IQ can be much smarter than a lazy person with a high IQ. Having a high IQ isn't going to help you if you are too lazy to read a book or listen in class.

Yes ultimately problem solving is the thing it's trying to measure. Which is why IQ exams are a difficult topic and sort of a moving target. Because even though mathematical knowledge never changes, our physical problems can and do change a lot.

Which then leads some people to want to throw all forms of standardized testing out the window. Which I think it's a wrong reaction to the fact that IQ can never be measured, but instead it should just be seen as an imperfect rough approximation. Like all human endeavors, we don't give up on something just because it has flaws.

[Deleted]

whenever someone mentions IQ, I automatically assume they are super autistic.

[Jonnusthegreat]

whenever someone mentions IQ, I automatically assume they are super autistic.

IQ tests usually favor autistic people from my personal experience, so that seems reasonable.

[PC2]

IQ tests measure how good you are at taking IQ tests. Nothing more.

Yes but if the IQ test tests your abstract and physical knowledge then it does necessarily tell you about the total percentage of problems you could solve. It's not perfect, but to say that it has no relation to general problem solving is incorrect.

[Zubacz]

The only people who i see bring up "race IQ" coorelation are people who want to limit peoples rights based on it. But then i ask them a simple question and they block me on twitter " why not make your policies based on IQ instead of simply race if you real concern is not with race but supposed IQ differentials" guess they arent in favor of free speech then. just fascist doing fascist things

Stop making things up. People who want to base jobs on intelligence care for meritocracy. They want the most competent people doing the most competence requiring things. There is a reason Jews occupy a disproportionately high number of high positions in society and why sub-Saharan Africa never developed past tribalism.

Nobody in their right mind wants race-based recruitment, that's why it's only reasonable to accept some races will be less represented in some fields than others.

You want to eqalise things, start with athletes, NBA, football.

Races differ. Deal with it.

[Sinyc]

Guy says IQ measures "classroom intelligence", which is useless for real world stuff. Some people need to focus on real world stuff for their intelligence to show.

He then goes into like 30 more points to prove his point.

There is book smart, and there is street smarts/common sense.

A person can have one, both or neither. I would take someone with the latter 90% of the time. Unless it's a doctor or something else life saving, etc.

[Kelathos]

Guy says IQ measures "classroom intelligence", which is useless for real world stuff. Some people need to focus on real world stuff for their intelligence to show.

He then goes into like 30 more points to prove his point.

Our tests may not catch gifted people who have skipped a formal education, but is it not the only measurement we have at our disposal? We work with the tools we have. We'll catch most people, but not all. It is the best we've got.

[Tic Tacs]

There is book smart, and there is street smarts/common sense.

A person can have one, both or neither. I would take someone with the latter 90% of the time. Unless it's a doctor or something else life saving, etc.

Doctors don't need common sense? Great logic there buddy.

[Sinyc]

Doctors don't need common sense? Great logic there buddy.

Who said they don't? For the most part they are book smart, but obviously need a mix. Maybe get some sleep before commenting so angry next time?

[Tic Tacs]

[Raldazzar]

I know even typing these words is meaningless since it is the internet and nobody will believe anything but I'll give it a shot!

So, when I was 14/15 I had (and still do) massive hand/eye co ordination issues, and I was actually tested to be allowed to do my GCSE's on a laptop. it was THAT bad. and a portion of that testing included an IQ test, several lateral thinking things and various other things (very few to do with my actual handwriting funnily enough) and according to THAT I have a reasonably high IQ of 143. however I can tell you flat out, that is not remotely indicative of intelligence, my wife is FAR smarter than I am, both academically and in the world around us.. I just have the right mind for the kind of testing they were doing. that kind of logical borderline autism kind of way of thinking.. it means sweet fuck all. or if IQ DOES mean something, I feel gypped as mine is broken!

Sidenote, I was approved and I did do my GCSE's on a laptop, felt very isolating as they had those office style partition walls around me to ensure I couldn't be seen by others etc.. jokes on them, I barely passed any! and I played solitaire during English lit.