• Scientists Debunk the IQ Myth.
    82 replies, posted
For any wondering where to do the test because article doesnt link: [url]http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/user/login/challenge/2[/url]
Ah, I knew vidya games weren't bad for you. I'm also interested in the "People who frequently suffer from anxiety performed badly on the short-term memory factor in particular." I wonder, do they suffer from anxiety BECAUSE they can't remember anything short term, keep forgetting everything, and getting stressed out, or do they have bad short-term memory BECAUSE they are stressed all the time?
the article is very sensationalist. it talks about the fact that they couldn't find just one region that lit up during [I]g[/I]-loaded tasks as proof that [I]g[/I] wasn't a single thing. well duh - [I]g[/I] is all to do with how performance on different cognitive tasks are correlated with each other. the fact that those different cognitive tasks are handled by different areas of the brain is nothing new at all, so there's no surprise that different bits of the brain would light up during [I]g[/I]-loaded tasks! no one ever claimed that there was an "IQ centre" of the brain. [quote]The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.[/quote] these 3 things are already correlated with [I]g[/I]. I'm not sure what the actual paper says because it's behind a pay wall, but this article is complete tripe. IQ is not going anywhere. [editline]20th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Captain Forever;38903389]Wasn't the IQ test invented by a eugenicist to prove that black people are not as smart as white people[/QUOTE] No. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton]Francis Galton[/url] was a brilliant man who, among other things, was a eugenicist. He also pioneered early forms of intelligence testing, and yes he did talk about both at once. However the racial aspect of IQ tests didn't come until much later. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well[/url] [editline]20th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=stealth_camo;38903415]hard work>natural intelligence any day[/QUOTE] IQ is the single best predictor of future life success.
a single report is not going to overturn a full century of carefully conducted psychometric research
[QUOTE=kenshin6;38903684]Standardized tests are horrible ways to figure out how smart a person is. People tend to excel only in certain areas.[/QUOTE] But that isn't actually true. [editline]20th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=KILLTHIS;38904345]It's good to see this old "myth" debunked. The individuality of a person doesn't automatically make someone dumb - in fact everyone has his strength and weakness and therefore excels at a different subject. I know some people you could call "dumb" but when it comes down to something they're good with they just outsmart a lot of people.[/QUOTE] No they don't. The theory of multiple intelligences has no empirical evidence behind it at all.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38905454]the article is very sensationalist. it talks about the fact that they couldn't find just one region that lit up during [I]g[/I]-loaded tasks as proof that [I]g[/I] wasn't a single thing. well duh - [I]g[/I] is all to do with how performance on different cognitive tasks are correlated with each other. the fact that those different cognitive tasks are handled by different areas of the brain is nothing new at all, so there's no surprise that different bits of the brain would light up during [I]g[/I]-loaded tasks! no one ever claimed that there was an "IQ centre" of the brain.[/QUOTE] yeah, it correlates, that's about it. the problem is when there are multiple defined areas of performance that people can vary significantly with no evident patterns, trying to bring those intangibles to a single value is simplistic garbage. trying to bring it all under a single number may make it easier to claim you're smarter than others, but it is a primitive approximation that tells little about someone's actual abilities.
[QUOTE=stealth_camo;38903415]hard work>natural intelligence any day[/QUOTE] have fun with manual labor
[QUOTE=stealth_camo;38903415]hard work>natural intelligence any day[/QUOTE] which is why the trenchdigger earns more than the stockbroker or ceo of a large manufacturer
[QUOTE=Devodiere;38905568]yeah, it correlates, that's about it. the problem is when there are multiple defined areas of performance that people can vary significantly with no evident patterns, trying to bring those intangibles to a single value is simplistic garbage.[/quote] That's an extremely common criticism, but study after study has shown it to be totally wrong. To be sure, if you give someone a battery of tests that each measure one of 12 types of cognitive tasks, then the combined data of all of those will be more useful than if you just gave someone an IQ test which indirectly measures all 12. Information [I]is[/I] simplified in the process. But to claim that things [I]in general[/I] vary with "no evident patterns" is just not true. [quote]trying to bring it all under a single number may make it easier to claim you're smarter than others, but it is a primitive approximation that tells little about someone's actual abilities.[/QUOTE] Well sure, if you tell me an individual's IQ I can tell you some things about that individual, but they'll be very vague predictions with very wide confidence intervals. IQ is more useful when looking at aggregate groups of people. If you give me a group of people and tell me the median IQ is 120, then I can tell you lots of things about that group.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38905454]I'm not sure what the actual paper says because it's behind a pay wall[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.uwo.ca/its/brain/iqmyth/Hampshire%20Owen%20IQ%20Neuron.pdf[/url] I love university hosting.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;38905568]yeah, it correlates, that's about it. the problem is when there are multiple defined areas of performance that people can vary significantly with no evident patterns, trying to bring those intangibles to a single value is simplistic garbage. trying to bring it all under a single number may make it easier to claim you're smarter than others, but it is a primitive approximation that tells little about someone's actual abilities.[/QUOTE] i believe this single number tells us quite a bit about peoples abilities, given that this number correlates with several things regarding success [img]http://www.iq-tests.eu/images/800-2.png[/img] [url]http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-Practical-validity-800.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38905622][url]http://www.uwo.ca/its/brain/iqmyth/Hampshire%20Owen%20IQ%20Neuron.pdf[/url] I love university hosting.[/QUOTE] <3
I should send this to my cousin. He has an IQ of 180 (supposedly), and is always yelling at people "YOU AREN'T ON MY LEVEL, I'M A GENIUS, MY IQ IS 100 POINTS HIGHER THAN YOURS".
I have no idea what my IQ is. I'd like to take a test to see, but I'm not sure if there are reliable ones hosted on the internet.
[QUOTE=NotMeh;38905578]have fun with manual labor[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38905592]which is why the trenchdigger earns more than the stockbroker or ceo of a large manufacturer[/QUOTE] dats some lovely delusion you got there. stupid people are the peons while smart people, such as myself, are the successful master race. you know why people bring that up, because so many people think just because they're smart, they will automatically be successful and don't work for anything. i'm guessing your in that category, enjoy your mother's basement. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38905604]That's an extremely common criticism, but study after study has shown it to be totally wrong. To be sure, if you give someone a battery of tests that each measure one of 12 types of cognitive tasks, then the combined data of all of those will be more useful than if you just gave someone an IQ test which indirectly measures all 12. Information [I]is[/I] simplified in the process. But to claim that things [I]in general[/I] vary with "no evident patterns" is just not true.[/url][/quote] each individual test which makes up one of the intangibles of intelligence, do they correlate to each other or is it just scattered and you draw an average? it's not just a bit of information, you lose a lot there, all for the sake of coming up with a convenient number that you can generalise people with. [quote]Well sure, if you tell me an individual's IQ I can tell you some things about that individual, but they'll be very vague predictions with very wide confidence intervals. IQ is more useful when looking at aggregate groups of people. If you give me a group of people and tell me the median IQ is 120, then I can tell you lots of things about that group.[/QUOTE] yes, the smart people all listen to bach and drink wine while all the stupid people live in cardboard boxes. even sobotnik's bullshit table has huge blobs where there is little change as long as you're not clinically retarded. you can use these statistics to correlate whatever but the key is how accurate they are compared to other causes, and by the looks of that it seems dropping out of high school would be a far better indicator for poverty and all that shit. of course you drop out of high school because you're stupid, and you're stupid because you dropped out of high school. somewhat touches on the chicken and egg issue here with finding a proper cause rather than vague IQ related reasons, especially given IQ is not static from birth.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;38905752]you know why people bring that up, because so many people think just because they're smart, they will automatically be successful and don't work for anything. i'm guessing your in that category, enjoy your mother's basement.[/quote] Okay? I'm not claiming that every single person with a high IQ will be successful and vice-versa. I'm saying that there is a [I]general tendency[/I] towards that, with a lot of exceptions. How hard is this to understand? [quote]each individual test which makes up one of the intangibles of intelligence, do they correlate to each other or is it just scattered and you draw an average? it's not just a bit of information, you lose a lot there, all for the sake of coming up with a convenient number that you can generalise people with.[/quote] Yes, they do actually correlate to each other. That is the very point of [I]g[/I], which I have said several times already. [quote]yes, the smart people all listen to bach and drink wine while all the stupid people live in cardboard boxes.[/quote] Oh come on. [url]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Why_g_Matters3.pdf[/url] [quote]you can use these statistics to correlate whatever but the key is how accurate they are compared to other causes, and by the looks of that it seems dropping out of high school would be a far better indicator for poverty and all that shit. of course you drop out of high school because you're stupid, and you're stupid because you dropped out of high school. somewhat touches on the chicken and egg issue here with finding a proper cause rather than vague IQ related reasons, especially given IQ is not static from birth.[/QUOTE] Well conveniently, I actually do have some statistics about this very topic. [img]http://i.imgur.com/tZPII.png[/img] [editline]20th December 2012[/editline] [img]http://i.imgur.com/IjElK.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Devodiere;38905752]dats some lovely delusion you got there. stupid people are the peons while smart people, such as myself, are the successful master race.[/QUOTE] this is a strawman and you know it also im p sure that if you did an iq test on ceos and trenchdiggers you would probably find the ceos to have a higher score [QUOTE=Devodiere;38905752]you know why people bring that up, because so many people think just because they're smart, they will automatically be successful and don't work for anything. i'm guessing your in that category, enjoy your mother's basement.[/QUOTE] strawman again listen mate, you can disagree all you want about iq, but the earth goes AROUND the sun
[img]http://i.imgur.com/r7ere.png[/img] [editline]20th December 2012[/editline] oh bollocks you broke my automerge ;(
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38905803]Okay? I'm not claiming that every single person with a high IQ will be successful and vice-versa. I'm saying that there is a [I]general tendency[/I] towards that, with a lot of exceptions. How hard is this to understand?[/url][/quote] i understand the general tendency bullshit, but when the success rate is pretty bad compared to other indicators, you have to ask whether you're just jacking yourself off over being smart. [quote]Yes, they do actually correlate to each other. That is the very point of [I]g[/I], which I have said several times already.[/quote] and just like everything else, it correlates pretty poorly. the issue here is simplifying the statistics so much they become useless, and when a group of people can have the same IQ but vastly different scores in everything else, you've reached the useless point. [quote]Oh come on. [url]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Why_g_Matters3.pdf[/url][/quote] i really should start using that sarcasm punctuation mark, no-one can tell an obvious joke from an actual argument and it becomes a little awkward from time to time. [quote]Well conveniently, I actually do have some statistics about this very topic. [img]http://i.imgur.com/tZPII.png[/img][/QUOTE] did you even like, read the rest of that paragraph? for starters there's an obvious causation of dropping out of high school leading to poverty, no need for IQ to explain that. then like i said, when finishing high school increases your IQ you get into a loop of which caused which. in the end you get no real evidence of anything, other than a nice correlating graph with nowhere to go other than EUGENICS (that was a joke). [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38905833]this is a strawman and you know it also im p sure that if you did an iq test on ceos and trenchdiggers you would probably find the ceos to have a higher score strawman again listen mate, you can disagree all you want about iq, but the earth goes AROUND the sun[/QUOTE] aw, isn't that cute, he learned a new word. he missed the complete point of the post but at least he got to feel smart. it's always funny how people who call strawman, make a strawman themselves. rather than discussing someone who works hard to achieve their goals vs someone with natural talent who doesn't try, he immediately moves to the two ends of the spectrum with no real reason other than to make his argument seem better. who's to say the ditch digger worked hard for anything or the CEO didn't try at all? why not compare a college educated arts major to someone who made their own business? oh well, there's always delicious irony. (it is like 1:30 am here, im going to bed and will reply in the morning if you lot are still up for it)
[QUOTE=Devodiere;38906017]i understand the general tendency bullshit, but when the success rate is pretty bad compared to other indicators, you have to ask whether you're just jacking yourself off over being smart.[/quote] The "why g matters" paper I showed you disagrees. [quote]and just like everything else, it correlates pretty poorly. the issue here is simplifying the statistics so much they become useless, and when a group of people can have the same IQ but vastly different scores in everything else, you've reached the useless point.[/quote] Oh? [img]http://i.imgur.com/gouD6.png[/img] [quote]did you even like, read the rest of that paragraph? for starters there's an obvious causation of dropping out of high school leading to poverty, no need for IQ to explain that.[/quote] Did you even look at the other graph I posted? IQ predicts poverty [I]even controlling for education and SES.[/I] [quote][img]http://i.imgur.com/r7ere.png[/img][/quote] [quote]then like i said, when finishing high school increases your IQ you get into a loop of which caused which.[/quote] No it doesn't. IQ is relatively static once you get past early to mid-childhood.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;38906017]rather than discussing someone who works hard to achieve their goals vs someone with natural talent who doesn't try, he immediately moves to the two ends of the spectrum with no real reason other than to make his argument seem better. who's to say the ditch digger worked hard for anything or the CEO didn't try at all? why not compare a college educated arts major to someone who made their own business? oh well, there's always delicious irony.[/QUOTE] except the ceo has natural talent and worked hard (like bill gates or steve jobs) the trenchdigger had no natural talent but worked hard
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38905622][url]http://www.uwo.ca/its/brain/iqmyth/Hampshire%20Owen%20IQ%20Neuron.pdf[/url] I love university hosting.[/QUOTE] As do I, my friend. As do I.
[QUOTE=Frisk;38905639]I should send this to my cousin. He has an IQ of 180 (supposedly), and is always yelling at people "YOU AREN'T ON MY LEVEL, I'M A GENIUS, MY IQ IS 100 POINTS HIGHER THAN YOURS".[/QUOTE] being generous and assuming he's using the older system where the s.d. = 24, he'd be roughly 1 in 2300. if he's using the newer system (s.d. = 15) he'd be 1 in 33,000 yeah he's probably lying
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38906399]being generous and assuming he's using the older system where the s.d. = 24, he'd be roughly 1 in 2300. if he's using the newer system (s.d. = 15) he'd be 1 in 33,000 yeah he's probably lying[/QUOTE] He's manic schizophrenic. So he could be lying. Or one of Obama's lizard people who's sold their soul to the Illuminati gave him the test.
I think it can be used as a rough guideline, I mean if someone consistently scores really high in IQ tests then yeah they are obviously above average in terms of problem solving and thinking outside the box, but I do really hate it when people brag about IQ or automatically think someone is insanely smart just because they have a high IQ. Someone I know does and he just comes off as a know-it-all, talking as if he knows everything about everything even on subjects he knows very little about and is wrong.
[QUOTE=Block;38903646]Pretty cool. Seems like a nice response to the typical "You play too much video games!"-type of parenting.[/QUOTE] A lot of people do spend too much time playing games.
I'm too worried that if I take an IQ test I'll wind up scoring like a 80 or something.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38905454] IQ is the single best predictor of future life success.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure EQ is. But yeah this thread is full of people jumping the gun (as usual) claiming IQ has been "debunked". Read the article next time.
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;38907428]I'm pretty sure EQ is.[/QUOTE] [quote]Research of EI and job performance shows mixed results: a positive relation has been found in some of the studies, in others there was no relation or an inconsistent one. This led researchers Cote and Miners (2006)[53] to offer a compensatory model between EI and IQ, that posits that the association between EI and job performance becomes more positive as cognitive intelligence decreases, an idea first proposed in the context of academic performance (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The results of the former study supported the compensatory model: employees with low IQ get higher task performance and organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization, the higher their EI. A meta-analytic review by Joseph and Newman[50] also revealed that both Ability EI and Trait EI tend to predict job performance much better in jobs that require a high degree of emotional labor (where 'emotional labor' was defined as jobs that require the effective display of positive emotion). In contrast, EI shows little relationship to job performance in jobs that do not require emotional labor. In other words, emotional intelligence tends to predict job performance for emotional jobs only. A more recent study suggests that EI is not necessarily a universally positive trait.[54] They found a negative correlation between EI and managerial work demands; while under low levels of managerial work demands, they found a negative relationship between EI and teamwork effectiveness. An explanation for this may suggest gender differences in EI, as women tend to score higher levels than men.[50] This furthers the idea that job context plays a role in the relationships between EI, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance. Another interesting find was discussed in a study that assessed a possible link between EI and entrepreneurial behaviors and success.[55] In accordance with much of the other findings regarding EI and job performance, they found that levels of EI only predicted a small amount of entrepreneurial behavior.[/quote] plus EQ is on much more shaky ground than IQ, this bit in particular: [quote]Landy (2005)[36] claimed that the few incremental validity studies conducted on EI have shown that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction of some common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy suggested that the reason why some studies have found a small increase in predictive validity is a methodological fallacy, namely, that alternative explanations have not been completely considered: [QUOTE]"EI is compared and contrasted with a measure of abstract intelligence but not with a personality measure, or with a personality measure but not with a measure of academic intelligence." Landy (2005)[/QUOTE] Similarly, other researchers have raised concerns about the extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions. Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure personality traits.[22] Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI – neuroticism and extroversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety. Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38905465]a single report is not going to overturn a full century of carefully conducted psychometric research[/QUOTE] Its the beginning of the toppling of it. IQ tests are stupid, they're a shitty way to measure intelligence because it does not actually require understanding and reasoning skills, its all about regressing on memories and using them to come with answers. Also, I love how everyone considers IQ a measure of success when its not really success, its a measure of how much money you make which for is good for an industrial society but not a post industrial society where humans now have to attempt to balance happiness with work.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.