At this point I would accept it if someone told me that 100% of what I perceive as "smarts" when interacting with someone is explained by confidence and other learned social behaviors.
I'd bet all of those people would score high in IQ.
> For these kinds of intelligence, the IQ test is ill-suited
That's not what the science tells us.
> which is fine as long as we don't conflate IQ with the be-all end-all of intelligence
There is only one G. There's little to no evidence in support of the theory of multiple intelligence's; it's not really science, IQ is actual science with lots of evidence to support it.
...did you read the submission?
Don't worship science blindly; it's not nearly as black/white as you're framing it to be. IQ can have evidence to support it and still be deeply flawed/incomplete/entirely wrong.
The possibility of its use being continued in a lay manner even after we have a better model shouldn't stop us from using it right now. In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge.
Is it? Then why don't we use it instead of other tests and metrics? I'm going to echo what other people have said in this thread and say that I've never encountered an IQ test in my academic or professional life among the numerous aptitude measurements.
>In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge.
The same argument is indeed used against eugenics, human experimentation, and various other sciences which are tangent to ethically challenged practices. For example, gene editing of humans is a scientific practice that could have clear benefit but the potential for misuse (which we've already seen in the recent Chinese gene hacking case) must be considered.
Yes, it is, at least I am unaware of other general approaches to measuring general human cognitive ability.
> Then why don't we use it instead of other tests and metrics? I'm going to echo what other people have said in this thread and say that I've never encountered an IQ test in my academic or professional life among the numerous aptitude measurements.
See this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18805263. Apparently, this is a cultural thing, in that some countries don't employ this kind of testing, but there are definitely countries where this is not at all infrequent. It is also possible that not all cognitive tests which are (statistically) g-factor-loaded are readily recognizable as an "IQ test" by most people. As was also stated elsewhere in this thread, the SATs test could be considered one such test.
> The same argument is indeed used against eugenics, human experimentation, and various other sciences which are tangent to ethically challenged practices. For example, gene editing of humans is a scientific practice that could have clear benefit but the potential for misuse (which we've already seen in the recent Chinese gene hacking case) must be considered.
I meant it in a broader sense: why would we use this current state-of-the-art model when we will undoubtedly produce better and more accurate ones in the future? This could be said for physics, pharmacology and any other "unfinished" field, which is all of them.
Please remain civil and refrain from calling me ignorant. I have read the submission and disagree with its (lack of) argument.
You're not following HN rules by refusing to address the best form of the argument, and when you break rules like that, it makes it hard to stay civil.
Math, music, chess, story telling and social intelligence are all skills, all of which can be improved from a low base. In all of them higher g will be helpful because there’s very little where higher g isn’t helpful. If you want to learn about the science of skill building it’s better known as the study of expertise. K. Anders Ericsson founder the field. He wrote a popular book, Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise
https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp...
If you want the academic treatment there’s a Cambridge Handbook of Expeetise and Expert Performance.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-Han...
If you want to read about how multiple intelligence theory á la Gardner has no empirical support start here.
http://www.faculty.mun.ca/cmattatall/Multiple_Intelligences_...
> Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review
> This article reviews evidence for multiple intelligences theory, the Mozart effect theory, and emotional intelligence theory and argues that despite their wide currency in education these theories lack adequate empirical support and should not be the basis for educational practice. Each theory is compared to theory counterparts in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuro- science that have better empirical support. The article considers possible reasons for the appeal of these 3 theories and concludes with a brief rationale for examining theories of cognition in the light of cognitive neuroscience research findings.
If you want attempts at something that kind of looks like multiple intelligence from people who actually know psychometrics look up the work of Robert J. Sternberg. Criticism below
http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003dissectin...
> Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence
> Sternberg et al. [Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., Snook, S. A., Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press] review the theoretical and empirical supports for their bold claim that there exists a general factor of practical intelligence that is distinct from ‘‘academic intelligence’’ ( g) and which predicts future success as well as g, if not better. The evidence collapses, however, upon close examination. Their two key theoretical propositions are made plausible only by ignoring the considerable evidence contradicting them. Their six key empirical claims rest primarily on the illusion of evidence, which is enhanced by the selective reporting of results. Their small set of usually poorly documented studies on the correlates of tacit knowledge (the ‘‘important aspect of practical intel- ligence’’) in five occupations cannot, whatever the results, do what the work is said to have done— dethroned g as the only highly general mental ability or intelligence.
> Even if I had 50 years of study I would not think on the level of say Terrance Tao.
Yeah you would. Don't deify anyone.
The whole point of that argument is that someone who thinks on the level of Terrance Tao would not be perceived as being as intelligent as Terrance Tao if he had zero years of study, while at the same time someone with 50 years of study who was less gifted would place ahead.
Perhaps the most easily observed indicator of smarts is humility. The learned learn.
When your humble you are curious to learn from others, because you know you don’t know everything and separately you know that almost anyone can teach you something important if you just listen. I think one indicator of humility is empathy in a sense trying to put yourself in their shoes emotionally. A big part of humility when it comes to casual debate is understanding the argument of who your conversing with and finding common ground so that you can relate. In my religion humility is often related in different terminology as “an open heart and mind” where the opposite pride is described as being of “a closed heart and mind”. So, that shows you that it has both a feeling and thinking aspect as described above. Honestly I feel if people were truly and fully humble then we wouldn’t have as much toxicity in online debate like there is spread all across my Facebook feed and in other chat streams all across the internet heck we might even learn a lot more from it too.
By the way one thing humility is not is thinking less of yourself as too often people might think. You can be confident and humble.
In conclusion, humility is a catalyst for learning whereas pride (in this context) just helps you stay where you’re at and stop progressing to further knowledge which may even lead to degradation of knowledge. Of course it’s not binary there is a continuum.
You might also be requesting examples of other issues, that I feel are interesting, of how I know they're smart if they don't act like it; or of how they do act.
I find it self-evident that people who are aware they don't know something will be more likely to learn something than somebody who believes they already know it. But you might be askimg for examples of that.
People who try to display their smarts are focussing on something other than learning. That can be helpful if their goal is to impress potential mates, competitors, opposition, colleagues, employers, investors, customers, clients, audience, readers, followers. It's social conduct, and it's just that it's not helpful for becoming smarter.
I'll give some examples anyway.
Someone who listens to you and watches you like a hawk (somewhat predatory). Someone who easily says "I don't know" because they have a crisp delineation between what they do and don't know, and similarly "you could be right".
In my personal experience, it's incredibly rare to directly experience someone being smart. An example is when I just barely managed to articulate a hazy problem clearly, only to have a smart person solve it without missing a beat.
The issue is (I think) there just aren't that many opportunities for actual smarts to be displayed. For one thing, you have to be confronting a new and difficult problem. And you have to be there. And of course, you have to be less smart than the person, to be able to appreciate it!
Smart people I've known tend to speak slowly.
BTW I'm clearly not speaking as someone supersmart, but as someone who has been the opposite type on occasion!
I'm sure everyone here has run into someone talking about a topic with great confidence, a topic you yourself are actually intimately knowledgeable of, and you realize that they really have no fucking idea what they are talking about.