I see IQ tests like the NFL combine. A battery of tests to demonstrate ability, but at the end of the day it doesn’t mean a whole lot beyond one’s ability to excel at specific tasks. Sure, someone who runs a 4.4 40 yard dash is fast, but sometimes they end up not having the same “game speed.” Likewise if someone is a genius IQ, but can’t turn that high test score into productivity then what does it matter?
The tests, like the IQ, can flag potential problems that have gone over looked, but beyond that it doesn’t matter if someone runs a 4.3, 4.4, or 4.5 40.
Exactly. And if you look at the candidates that run a 4.3 and those that take 20 seconds, you'll probably notice some really big difference in physicality
That doesn't make IQ a good proxy. There are a dozen proxy values just as good as or better than IQ.
IQ is unscientific nonsense from the 60s that that been overstudied for cultural reasons.
Any time you read it in an article you can substitute it for "socioeconomic reasons". Which is just as unclear but at least it is less of a smokescreen to cast doubt on causality.
That page lists a number of studies that correlates IQ with a number of other lifestyle factors, and a few that postulates things like "well established in the psychological community". I haven't taken the time to read them thoroughly, but from a glance at the summary not a single one touches on the subject.
No one disputes that IQ works, that is not the claim, just as the even more nebulous term "socioeconomic factors" works across wide field s of study. But it is not the best predictor we have.
Not sure what types of propaganda you see in this, or who stands to gain from it. If any, it should be those heavily invested in questionable theories, perhaps even making money from peddling books and courses.
If you really want to argue that IQ is a scientific measurement, start by explaining the scientific process that arrived at the particular method that is broadly used to measure it. Then, if you really want to convince someone, explain what the feedback process looks like that guides the continuing work to improve the measurement process. Because surely there is one, unless you want to argue that IQ is a perfect predictor that could never be improved?
Many things from 60s psychology were quite extraordinary, and as the saying goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Efforts to reproduce these studies have had limited success, to say the least.
Seems like most of the disagreement is about what IQ is a good predictor for and is not. There hasn't been much discussion about defining what people think it is and isn't in this thread. You say it's a bad predictor. A bad predictor of what exactly, in concrete terms? I would argue that it is a good predictor of the things that measures: spatial Imaging, logic, and language skills. Someone could argue that is a poor measure and predictor of empathy and interpersonal skills. They would probably be right. IQ has a definition and domain where it works well, and others where it doesn't. That doesn't mean it is useless.
Are you claiming that social economic status is a better predictor of spatial Imaging and logic than a direct test of an individual in question?
> Pick almost any measures that you think Define general intelligence and you will see stark differences between a group at 80 iq and 120
I am very curious to see those mappings. Can you point to some? I am especially unsure about what said «measures» can be, and if/which theories about them are developed.
Personnel selection research provides much evidence that intelligence (g) is an important predictor of performance in training and on the job, especially in higher level work. This article provides evidence that g has pervasive utility in work settings because it is essen- tially the ability to deal with cognitive complexity, in particular, with complex information processing. The more complex a work task, the greater the advantages that higher g confers in performing it well. Everyday tasks, like job duties, also differ in their level of complexity. The importance of intelligence therefore differs systematically across differ- ent arenas of social life as well as economic endeavor. Data from the National Adult Literacy Survey are used to show how higher levels of cognitive ability systematically improve individuals’ odds of dealing successfully with the ordinary demands of modem life (such as banking, using maps and transportation schedules, reading and understanding forms, interpreting news articles). These and other data are summarized to illustrate how the advantages of higher g, even when they are small, cumulate to affect the overall life chances of individuals at different ranges of the IQ bell curve. The article concludes by suggesting ways to reduce the risks for low-IQ individuals of being left behind by an increasingly complex postindustrial economy.
A little bit more extreme but IQ of 70 to 79 is considered borderline retarded.
These people Have difficulty with everyday demands like using a phone or address book. May not be able to learn to read bus or train schedules, bank, fill out forms, or use household appliances like a video recorder, microwave oven, or computer. They therefore require assistance from relatives or social workers in the management of their affairs. They can be employed in simple tasks but require supervision.
This is not a matter of effort or exposure. Even with training these people may not be able to acquire these skills over decades.
People with higher IQs simply do not have these challenges to the same degree.
The point is not the specific measure and it's theoretical soundness, but that empirically you will see staggering differences in performance from people with different IQ for most measures you may care to use.
In other words, most measures you might come up with are likely to be strongly correlated with IQ.
Pick almost any measures that you think Define general intelligence and you will see stark differences between a group at 80 iq and 120.