Ask HN: Would forcing everyone to know their IQ reduce overall ignorance? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Would forcing everyone to know their IQ reduce overall ignorance?

6 pointsamichail24 comments

As an example, there are many low IQ people who do not think evolution is true. But if they knew that their IQ is low in unequivocal terms, then they might reconsider their opposition to well-established scientific truths.

There would be no requirement to disclose your IQ (e.g., when applying for a job, participating in a debate, etc.). But you can if you want to and it would be socially acceptable behavior to do so.

Moreover, if someone claims to have a certain IQ, then his/her IQ test results would be made public for anyone to check.

View on HN

Okay, let me try to explain why this interesting proposal wouldn't help much with the problem that you mention.

1) First of all, it is very possible for high-IQ persons to have irrational ideas. It happens all the time. Most high-IQ people don't notice when they are being irrational.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stanovich1

The author of the article I have just linked has gathered numerous examples in a very readable and impeccably referenced book

http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog...

that I have had occasion to recommend here on HN before. Read the book at your earliest opportunity if you would like to understand all the barriers to human understanding and rationality besides IQ. You'll learn a lot from the book, particularly numerous cases of high-IQ persons (including members of high-IQ societies) believing things that are false and irrational.

for additional forms of evidence showing that wisdom and correct beliefs are distinct from IQ scores.

2) Second, no one knows his IQ exactly, so no one can pull rank this way. All IQ tests have error of estimation, and no one brand of IQ test will yield the same score for the same individual on every occasion, nor will two different brands of IQ tests necessarily sort the same group of test-takers into the same rank order. Terman (the developer of the first widely used IQ test in the United States, the Stanford-Binet) noted that error of estimation in IQ scores increases as IQ scores are above the mean:

"The reader should not lose sight of the fact that a test with even a high reliability yields scores which have an appreciable probable error. The probable error in terms of mental age is of course larger with older than with young children because of the increasing spread of mental age as we go from younger to older groups. For this reason it has been customary to express the P.E. [probable error] of a Binet score in terms of I.Q., since the spread of Binet I.Q.'s is fairly constant from age to age. However, when our correlation arrays [between Form L and Form M] were plotted for separate age groups they were all discovered to be distinctly fan-shaped. Figure 3 is typical of the arrays at every age level.

"From Figure 3 [not shown here on HN, alas] it becomes clear that the probable error of an I.Q. score is not a constant amount, but a variable which increases as I.Q. increases. It has frequently been noted in the literature that gifted subjects show greater I.Q. fluctuation than do clinical cases with low I.Q.'s . . . . we now see that this trend is inherent in the I.Q. technique itself, and might have been predicted on logical grounds." (Terman & Merrill, 1937, p. 44)

3) Third, a slightly different point from point 2), anyone's IQ can change over the course of life. (Pinneau 1961; Truch 1993, page 78; Howe 1998; Deary 2000, table 1.3). "Correlation studies of test scores provide actuarial data, applicable to group predictions. . . . Studies of individuals, on the other hand, may reveal large upward or downward shifts in test scores." (Anastasi & Urbina 1997 p. 326).

4) The best way to put this method to the test, I suppose, is to ask you which of my opinions you would accept if I could show that I have a higher IQ than you have. How much of a difference would force you to credit my opinions with being true? If the difference in IQ score were slight, would you propose that we each be retested?

5) Anyway, the suggestion, although interesting, is illogical, because what someone's IQ score is has no sure relationship with the truth of a person's beliefs, the adequacy of the person's education on particular matters of fact, or the person's willingness to reconsider opinions based on new evidence.

REFERENCES

Anastasi, Anne & Urbina, Susana (1997). Psychological Testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Deary, Ian J. (2000) Looking Down on Human Intelligence: From Psychometrics to the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Howe, Michael J. A. (1998). Can IQ Change?. The Psychologist, February 1998 pages 69-72.

Pinneau, Samuel R. (1961). Changes in Intelligence Quotient Infancy to Maturity: New Insights from the Berkeley Growth Study with Implications for the Stanford-Binet Scales and Applications to Professional Practice. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Terman, Lewis & Merrill, Maude (1937). Measuring Intelligence: A Guide to the Administration of the New Revised Stanford-Binet Tests of Intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Truch, Steve (1993). The WISC-III(R) Companion: A Guide to Interpretation and Educational Intervention. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Thank you tokenadult - comments like these are why I keep coming back to HN. If only mainstream media would give me this much information on interesting subjects.

From your first link:

"Nevertheless, recent progress in the cognitive science of rational thought suggests that nothing – save for money – would stop us from constructing an “RQ” test."

So extend IQ tests to cover more cognitive function such as rationality. I don't see any problem in that.

That might be a good idea, especially for certain kinds of employment screening, but that could still fail to solve the problem you had in mind in your submission.

Second, no one knows his IQ exactly, so no one can pull rank this way.

The difference in IQ between, for example, well-respected evolutionary biologists and people who don't believe in evolution is probably rather large. So rough IQ estimates are sufficient here.

Third, a slightly different point from point 2), anyone's IQ can change over the course of life.

You can require testing at regular intervals.

IQ only says something about a persons ability to solve a subset of the problems encountered in life. For a scientist, mathematician, programmer and statistician IQ is important. For a politician, leader, teacher and psychologist things like social ability is much more important.

I know high IQ people that are easily tricked by charismatic people, indeed I know a person that is a member of mensa that has been tricked by a charismatic leader.

IQ isn't strongly correlated to a persons ability to deal with life and all it's strange and interesting facets.

If the charismatic people you mention are not of high IQ, people would stop listening to them. In particular, they would probably not disclose their IQ and people would become suspicious of what they say.

That's simply not true. Some charismatic people have a high IQ and some don't. Silvio Berlusconi is certainly charismatic, but he doesn't seem particularly intelligent. The same goes for people such as Simon Cowell and Richard Branson.

Charisma and IQ, while probably somewhat correlated are totally different character traits.

At least my proposal would make low IQ charismatic people a lot less convincing.

High IQ charismatic people may not be all that bad. They would at least more clearly see the consequences of their actions.

My point is that a high IQ doesn't give you extraordinary powers of clarity regarding choices and consequences in life, whether these choices are for yourself or others.

A good case study is Bobby Fischer, one of the best Chess Grandmasters of all time, generally considered a genius and certainly a very high IQ. He was involved with the sect "the church of God", came out with some extremely unfortunate hate comments about Jews that backfired on him, and died in Iceland as a refugee from the US tax system.

I think you're putting IQ on a piedestal where it doesn't belong.

This is a crazy idea, in my honest opinion. IQ tests are not perfect, not should they be used to create a class-ist society ruled by high testers.

Paris Hilton has a 129 IQ and Andy Warhol's was 86. But who contributed more to society?

source http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=4327

Paris Hilton has a 129 IQ and Andy Warhol's was 86.

For the reasons mentioned in the first reply I posted, I categorically doubt statements in the form of "Mr. Smith's IQ is X," favoring statements in the form "Mr. Smith obtained a score of Y on IQ test brand Z on [date of particular occasion]." But I agree with you in disagreeing with the submitted proposal as unworkable.

I'll ignore the question of IQ as it relates to its relevance to anything.

Humans suffer from a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance. It means that if facts contradict what they believe to be true, they will invent reasons why the facts do not matter. In this case, people would claim that IQ is irrelevant, or a tool of elitists, or in violation of God's will, or whatever.

Read The Psychology of Persuasion by Cialdini for some interesting material on this (all backed up by solid studies).

IQ in unequivocal terms ...

Thats your problem right there ...

This would increase overall ignorance by forcibly assigning more importance to IQ than it deserves.

(This is not to say IQ doesn't mean something.)

They don't believe the proof that evolution is true, so why would they believe the proof that their IQ test was true.

There are probably plenty of people who don't believe in evolution that have a high IQ. If you are indoctrinated at a young age into your religion, would your high IQ still mean you would be able to think your way free?

I disagree. People would learn very quickly that IQ has almost no correlation with wealth, happiness, and any other measure of success. Making IQ a public measurement like height, weight or skull bumps would show IQ to be useless as a measure of anything.

... and that would be a Good Thing. Perhaps we should have public IQ measurements then.

"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." -Kurt Vonnegut

The MENSA newsletter used to have a section on Astrology. What more needs to be said about the imperfect correlation of IQ and understanding how the real world works?

Dude, these guys love analogies like: Astrology is to fortune as IQ is to achievement.

This might result in a caste system with numbers.

I couldn't care less about my IQ number and I don't see why anyone else would.

only if it was stamped on their foreheads...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com