[devwastaken]

IQ statistics is pseudo science. Therefore we can dismiss the study out of hand. Soft sciences need to be able to prove their underlying methodologies, and have so far largely failed to do so. They rely on shifting around numbers and cherry picking data to get specific outcomes.

[gameman144]

> IQ statistics is pseudo science.

The correlation between IQ and general intelligence is one of the more reproducible results in psychology. Is there a different usage of IQ that you're doubting, or are you doubting that correlation itself?

[nebulousthree]

This doesn't really inspire confidence given the recent reproducibility crises.

[gameman144]

Wait, but the IQ/intelligence link is reproducible.

Are you just saying that "most reproducible" is a low bar? (If so, that makes sense.)

[nebulousthree]

Yes, sorry for the lack of clarity. I mean in the same way that infinity+1 > infinity is a trivial difference and only technically true.

[defrost]

Just as something to ponder, this caught my eye:

> The correlation between IQ and general intelligence is one of the more reproducible results in psychology.

and raises the question;

How do you measure | rank 'general intelligence' in a reliable and reproducable manner fully independantly of IQ measures in order to claim a correlation

.. there's just a smattering of chicken and egg there.