Back

Veritasium, a popular science channel on YouTube, released a video just a few days ago explaining what IQ is and how it works:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkKPsLxgpuY

IQ is not properly measured from a random website. If someone announced they have a 200 IQ because of some scam site, that doesn’t mean actual IQ tests are invalid. The problem is with that website, and the gullible test-taker.

Every time I’ve heard someone say IQ tests are meaningless, 100% of the time they admit they’ve never heard of Spearman or the G factor, which would have been covered in a relevant Psychology course at university.

It’s not everything in life, but IQ is real, measurable, and has value in predicting how well someone will do with various challenges in the future.

most of us here have heard of them, know the history of IQ in as much detail as you need to to counter race scientists, and understand perfectly well that it’s largely nonsense, but thanks anyway

Neither the LessWrong post, nor my comment, even touched on race.

understand perfectly well that it’s largely nonsense

There have been studies like the National Longitudinal Study of Youth that showed IQ could predict many different life outcomes.

Do you think that test was fraudulent? Why are you dismissing research that is widely accepted, and published by professional psychologists who have meticulously documented their data?

This entire debate reminds me of the climate change debate: One side that cites research, data, and knows the relevant concepts. Another side who doesn’t ever cite actual research, can’t elaborate on how they got to their conclusion, and dismisses the science without giving any reason.

Here’s the problem: that study DID NOT show that IQ could “predict” anything. It showed a CORRELATION but that’s a totally different thing. You can say that about literally anything in science. Any discoveries come down to observing correlations so much people inferred a causation.

The fact that we can use IQ to predict the average outcomes for a cohort demonstrates that it’s not just a chance correlation.

IQ is not determinative or causative of anything

Then why does the National Longitudinal Study of Youth show that it does?

Even after accounting for race or family income, higher IQ predicts favorable outcomes later in life. For multiple cohorts. Why?

because it is an entirely synthetic metric whose measurement is based on unproven and essentially unprovable theory.

Give a group an IQ test. If you come back later, and a higher score predicted better outcomes, over and over again then you’ve got a good predictive factor.

You, and others, keep saying it doesn’t do this. Yet every time I mention a specific study that does show that, people just ignore it and repeat their original line.

Do you think it’s a big coincidence? Because each new cohort takes the test, and that is followed up later in life, and each time the IQ scores did predict how well people do as a group.

The concept of “Innate General Intelligence” which IQ purports to quantify is the phlogiston of psychology.

The G factor, and the predictive ability of IQ tests is accepted in mainstream universities. Phlogiston was never experimentally verified like IQ has been over and over again.

Again, I’ll say it, even though it’s been ignored each time I’ve asked in this thread: Why are you discounting the NLSY and other studies that show IQ does predict outcomes?

@BernieDoesIt @grumpybozo The mistake is that "correlation does not imply causation" does not imply "correlation does not relate to causation" nor does it imply "correlation is not interesting or useful".

There might be "Innate General Intelligence" or there might not; IQ surely measures *something*, whether that be IGI, or old white man bias, or Keynesian beauty, or just aptitude at standardized test solving.