I.Q. Validity

Author: Analgesic.Spectre

Posts

Total: 44
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Smithereens
You might be thinking of epigenetics.

Ok, either way, IQ abilities is correlated to our nutrition. Sleep is correlated to IQ abilites. Etc so on and so on.

Nutrition and sleep affect all functions of humans.

9 days later

Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Rightist tend to focus on the former, leftist on the latter. 

Oh? I'd sure like to see some subtantiaton for this one 😏
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Smithereens
For an individual an IQ test result doesn't mean much, but in large populations we see trends and correlations that are very useful for scientific study

I kind of get what ur trying to say, but am a little confused. If for an individual it doesn't mean much, then how can it mean something for a group, if those groups are comprised of, well, individuals? 
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
Black people are more likely to be rapists, but if you're talking to one black guy you have no way of knowing if hes a rapist or not because that statistic is an aggregate statistic. Similarly, when IQ tends to associate with success, you can still pick out individuals who are hugely successful despite their IQ. You won't notice it on an individual level as correlations only appear when you sum thousands of cases. 
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Smithereens
So if a woman knew that 98,000 out of 100,000 people who were convicted after date raping someone were actually guilty, and 2,000 were innocent, it would be irrational for her to apply that aggregate statistic to an individual case and refuse to go on a date with a convicted date rapist?
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
No, because 98/100 correlation is over 0.9 r^2 in terms of pearson's coefficient, implying a causal relationship. IQ is a standard normal distribution with high variance so your example is irrelevant. 
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Smithereens

Black people are more likely to be rapists, but if you're talking to one black guy you have no way of knowing if hes a rapist or not because that statistic is an aggregate statistic.

You won't notice it on an individual level as correlations only appear when you sum thousands of cases. 
You were making the point that aggregate statistics don't apply to individual cases, which I thought was a bad argument because in that hypothetical case it does. Any observed relationship between two groups exists on a sliding correlation scale. So it's not irrelevant, because it's a direct contradiction to an inaccurate sweeping claim. A Japanese person, for example, who is charged with educating Australian aborigines or bushmen who are hunter-gatherers will certainly notice a difference in intelligence on a personal level. This is because  the correlation necessarily indicates an increased chance of any aboriginal persons being less intelligent on the individual level. Just using the standard IQ curve, to do some quick head math, at least 84% of the Japanese would be over 90, and at least 84% of the aborigines would be under 80. That goes beyond being noticeable, in many cases it would be a real barrier to the communication of many complex ideas.

The degree to which the deviation sticks out completely depends on the gap between the groups to which each individual belongs to and the nature of the distribution curve, and in some situations highly-tuned risk averse behavior is rational, even to small perceived differences, because of low-frequency, high-impact events. It's why people often feel uneasy being alone with strangers, or cross the street if they see a young man in a bad area of town at night. Maybe there's only an infinitesimal chance that you could be killed. But if literally everything is riding on that chance, it rightly has an outsized impact on decision-making.

10 days later

Mhykiel
Mhykiel's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
0
2
Mhykiel's avatar
Mhykiel
0
0
2
-->
@drafterman


--> @Analgesic.Spectre

In fact, I.Q. predicts income and educational achievement (things which, I hope we can agree, are indicators of intelligence)

Not only that, but I.Q. is the best predictor of educational level, occupational level and income level (again, more indications of intelligence).
And if we don't agree that those are indicators of intelligence?

+1

"So I concluded that wisdom is better than might, but a poor man's wisdom is despised; no one ever listens to his advice."
NET Bible
Ecclesiastes 9:16

11 days later

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Smithereens
IQ is a psychometric for g factor, which accounts for around 30-50% of variance between different cognitive skills. The other 50% variance is not accounted for by the g factor. If you claim g factor is a true measure of "intelligence" you're about 50% correct, which is exactly how much predictive validity you have to work with.

Intelligence theories use factor models and IQ is one of them. the g factor is the most broad and is only apparent after dimentionality reduction. Each IQ test has subsets that all items load onto, and each loading itself loads onto the g factor with pretty high strength. As with all factor reductions, a lot of variance is sacrificed in the process. Anyone who claims the g factor is the only predictor of intelligence doesn't understand factor analysis. It's merely the most obvious predictor. A scree plot however would show you that the sum of the next dozen strongest factors summed together wouldn't match the eigenvalue of the g factor, so it's clearly the only factor worth using. 

In short, IQ is a measure of g factor, g factor is the correlation of performance between unrelated cognitive tests, and the g factor accounts for up to 50% of the variance in performance. For an individual an IQ test result doesn't mean much, but in large populations we see trends and correlations that are very useful for scientific study. 
Well stated.

You might find this interesting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk



20 days later

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
 I.Q. predicts income and educational achievement (things which, I hope we can agree, are indicators of intelligence) better than parental socioeconomic status. Not only that, but I.Q. is the best predictor of educational level, occupational level and income level (again, more indications of intelligence). Surprisingly, I.Q. even beats 'grades' as a predictor of educational level. The average sample size for the groups is approximately 97,000:
I think IQ is an excellent indicator of intelligence, I don't know about the whole educational level or occupational level corresponding to intelligence. Maybe I'm biased because I am a bit of an outlier. When I would take the more reliable IQ tests in school and by several psychologists who wondered what the fuck was wrong with me, I would usually score between 160 and 165. I usually don't mention the number publicly and I certainly would never tell anybody in my offline life what it is. Here the worst you can do is doubt me or call me a liar. In my personal life it can intimidate people for whatever reason.

My educational level is probably the lowest on the site. 9th grade is my highest level of education. I had to drop out of school to raise my siblings who I got custody of when I was emancipated at 16. I always have panic attacks when I start rapidly rising the ranks at work, and quit in a way that ensures I burn all my bridges. So I'm at a job only making 50,000 a year. I get the feeling that most the people visiting this site either make 6 figures or will shortly after finishing school.

Granted, I was despite the high IQ also considered learning disabled as a kid, but how exactly does a 165 IQ lead to never making it past the 9th grade and never achieving even mediocre financial success? I know some of my bosses have to have like 2 digit IQs as well by how they run their business, so high IQ is certainly not correlated with their positions.

25 days later

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Wylted
I think IQ is an excellent indicator of intelligence, I don't know about the whole educational level or occupational level corresponding to intelligence. Maybe I'm biased because I am a bit of an outlier...
Yes, you're an outlier. 

In my personal life it can intimidate people for whatever reason. 
I can understand wanting to suppress this in the workplace, but your private life shouldn't be marred by withholding information from those who you can trust.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Why would I trust anyone. Lol
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Wylted
The inability to trust anyone leads to never being able to connect with people intimately/personally, which is quite a cold existence, not to mention a fearful one. At least, that's my opinion, but i think it's sufficiently self-evident to agree with.

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Come to think of it, I do have a hard time connecting with people, and a lot of social anxiety. I wonder if that is related.