Hacker News Reader

Comment by dlcarrier | Hacker News Reader

I took an IQ test as a high school student, and one of the subtests involved placing a stack of shuffled pictures in chronological order. I had one series in the incorrect order, because I had no understanding of the typical behavior of snowfall. The test proctor said almost everyone she tested mixed that one up, because it doesn't snow in the area where I live.

I have no doubt that IQ tests reproducibly measure the test takers ability to pass tests, as well as to perform in a society that the tests are based on.

I think it's disingenuous to attribute IQ to intelligence as a whole though, and it is better understood as an indicator of cultural intelligence.

I would expect that, for cultures who's members score below average on IQ tests from the US, an equivalent IQ test created within that culture would show average members of that culture scoring higher than average members of US culture.

View on HN

> I would expect that, for cultures who's members score below average on IQ tests from the US, an equivalent IQ test created within that culture would show average members of that culture scoring higher than average members of US culture.

A moment from the show "Good Times" in 1974. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DhbsDdMoHC0 at 1:25

Apparently it's referencing a real test, called the BITCH test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cul...

Also, I forgot how annoying comic relief characters were in sitcoms. They are the opposite of relieving.

in my comment i gave a link to what a fairly large group of university professors, scientists who study, test, and measure intelligence, and what they say they've learned about intelligence. you think you know more, but you don't even investigate or reference what they say, you just think it's the way you think it should be based on ideas you have that you have not tested. not very convincing.

also, cultures don't have iq's, there is no known link to culture.

Raven's Progressive Matrices is often administered. Is that test culturally biased? Does that test measure only ability to take that test and nothing else?

Yes, it’s almost certainly linked to quality of schooling and exposure to those types of problems, amongst other things, see the Flynn Effect.

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

Access to schooling etc can't be the whole story: "black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families".

So IQ is malleable and SES-dependent and GxE interactions are real.

No. The first part of that quote is consistent with any hypothesis (G only, E only, G&E), i.e. cannot distinguish between them.

Puzzle tests have their own problems. They're only effective at measuring puzzles solving abilities when they are novel, so retaking the test would lead to higher scores, and practicing even more so. They also only measure puzzle solving abilities which are necessary in some but not all applied intelligence tasks.

I can't quite find the study but there was one mentioned to me about showing the Ravens progressive matrices test to hunter / gatherer tribes, and they did horribly. But those tribes do geometric pattern recognition on the daily basis during hunting, so the tester tried to modify the base shapes to mimic more "realistic" shapes for hunter gatherers (rather than unusual shapes such as perfect triangle, circles and rectangles, hard to find in nature) and the score normalized to median.

I was told this in context of "cultural psychology" how many tests or psychological observations and metrics poorly translate over culture. (especially when you try to pin it on some success metric)

A fun irony (every part of this scientific question is gnarly as fuck, which can make it interesting to follow) is that the more culturally biased an IQ test is, the more g-loaded it will turn out to be.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24104504/

I think humanity majorly underplays how much success is based on culture. I have a long-held theory that offices don't exist to accomplish work, but to establish social relationships, and that work itself is a secondary product of the office community.

My belief was reinforced when companies switched to remote work, and management at many companies complained that it was difficult to tell who was and wasn't working, when the managers didn't get to watch the workers. Abstracting the social relationship from the results of work will make it easier to judge the work itself, but more difficult to enforce the social relationship. When the abstraction occurred, those who were basing the status of their employees on the social relationship, and not the work output, were especially disadvantaged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com