Hacker News Reader

Comment by zorga | Hacker News Reader

> A brilliant mathematician like Terence Tao may still very well consider themselves a dullard when faced with, say, the musical intuition of a piano virtuoso, or the effortless foresight of a chess grandmaster, or the rapt attention commanded by master storyteller, or the social intelligence of a smooth-talking Jobsian entrepreneur.

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.

View on HN

> 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.

Incomplete, certainly. But entirely wrong? The results still need explaining and the IQ model will surely be at least related to any new, better model, given its ability to produce at least some reliable results.

Astronomy was replaced astrology but many people still use astrology to inform their beliefs. I doubt that the existence of better science would stop people from using IQ.

That may very well be, but IQ is still the best we have right now and, more importantly, is much more coherent and reliable than astrology is.

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.

>IQ is still the best we have right now...

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.

> Is it?

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.

I'll ask again, did you actually read the submission? I get how cliche it is to ask this but you genuinely seem ignorant of the entire basis is this conversation. If you had read the submission, you would know how flawed and useless IQ tests are, and how they reward test taking abilities over intellect.

I have read the submission, but have you? Did you somehow miss the complete absence of substance in it? Which part of it should have me convinced? That Taleb said so and did so emphatically? That you are now repeating it emphatically?

Please remain civil and refrain from calling me ignorant. I have read the submission and disagree with its (lack of) argument.

How can I do anything but call you ignorant when you say things like "did you somehow miss the complete absence of substance in it?"

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.

He's correct, Taleb is a crank troll, not an expert in the field, and is talking entirely out of his narcissist asshole. There's no solid argument there at all.

You crashed into this comment thread immediately accusing me of not reading the submission without actually stating an argument. If you do have an argument, feel free to present it.

Again, not about me, it's about the argument, and there's a great one in the article itself, as well as throughout the comments here. Stop focusing on me, start focusing on the arguments. If I'm not making a good argument, why are you replying?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com