[toasterlovin]

FWIW, IQ is not pseudo-science. The research around IQ is some of the most robust psychological research that exists. In fact, it is one of the few areas of psychology that has basically been unscathed by the replication crisis.

[danans]

The measure is not pseudo-science, but the attempts to draw sweeping conclusions from it at the individual or societal level are pure nonsense.

Ethical psychologists don't consider IQ in isolation the way that pop culture and many in forums like HN do.

[toasterlovin]

You have to engage in some really convoluted thinking to have something like IQ, which significantly predicts a whole bunch of important life outcomes, and somehow convince yourself that it doesn't have sweeping implications at the individual and societal level. It would be like convincing yourself that height had nothing to do with success in basketball. Surely it's not the only important factor, but it makes a huge difference.

[danans]

Why are you so sure that IQ isn't just a useful fiction that masks a large number of underlying factors that we don't fully understand? Why are you so sure that it is the best predictor of success in these fields. Perhaps other traits are equal or better predictors of success in a particular field, like tenaciousness, or conscientiousness, and perhaps IQ doesn't matter as much if one of those aren't present.

Perhaps you have some citations to share?

The comparison to height is quite weak, because height is a far simpler and more objectively verifiable measurement, and the causal mechanism that connects height and success in basketball is plain as day simple: proximity to the hoop.

[toasterlovin]

> Why are you so sure that IQ isn't just a useful fiction that masks a large number of underlying factors that we don't fully understand? Why are you so sure that it is the best predictor of success in these fields. Perhaps other traits are equal or better predictors of success in a particular field, like tenaciousness, or conscientiousness, and perhaps IQ doesn't matter as much if one of those aren't present.

Because the study of human intelligence is a well established scientific discipline with a lot of well-regarded research that replicates and provides explanations of real world phenomena. And it all points to there being this (not yet fully understood) thing called g that is the strongest known predictor of tons of things related to life outcomes.

Here's a blog post by Razib Kahn about an episode of his podcast, The Insight, with guest Stuart Ritchie, a researcher in human intelligence. The podcast episode is a good start.

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/11/the-insight-episod...

[danans]

Thanks for the reference.

FWIW, from the Wikipedia page[1] for g:

"However, critics of g have contended that an emphasis on g is misplaced and entails a devaluation of other important abilities, as well as supporting an unrealistic reified view of human intelligence. "

Interesting discussion all around.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

[mcguire]

Some of the most robust psychological research, as long as you define intelligence as the ability to do well on an IQ test.

[toasterlovin]

IQ significantly predicts real world performance in a bunch of areas.