Article says, 'This one metric is too broad, so we need three metrics for it to be a more useful assessment'.
Facepunch reads, 'This one metric is too broad, so IQ is meaningless and scientists are full of shit'.
It's not the same at all.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38907608]Its the beginning of the toppling of it.[/quote]
how much do you want to bet
[quote]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.[/quote]
maybe back in like the 1920s but believe it or not they've moved on a lot since then. the gold standard for IQ testing these days are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices]raven's matrices[/url] combined with other reasoning-heavy tasks. they don't rely on stuff you've learned at all, that's how they're made culture-fair.
[quote]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.[/QUOTE]
erm when most people say "success" they mean earning money and rising through the socioeconomic ranks. plus it's a myth that money can't buy happiness, you just have to spend it right (which one would intuitively expect smarter people to be better at, given they're good at proxies such as delayed gratification).
[QUOTE=Swilly;38907608]Its the beginning of the toppling of it.[/QUOTE]
hedging me bets for now
ITT: Uppity fucks who act like they know as well at scientists but probably have no fucking degree whatsoever.
Actually, that's just Facepunch in general.
"HIV FOUND TO HELP IN FIGHTING OFF CANCER!"
Fagposter69 posts: I knew it! The asldkfsld strands and the lakerhwlge receptors on the lkdhfeklf cancers are totally matched. I knew this all along!"
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("dumb trolling/chill out" - postal))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38910504]ITT: Uppity fucks who act like they know as well at scientists but probably have no fucking degree whatsoever.
Actually, that's just Facepunch in general.
"HIV FOUND TO HELP IN FIGHTING OFF CANCER!"
Fagposter69 posts: I knew it! The asldkfsld strands and the lakerhwlge receptors on the lkdhfeklf cancers are totally matched. I knew this all along!"[/QUOTE]
Because the only way you can know anything is with a degree in that field. Got it.
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38910504]ITT: Uppity fucks who act like they know as well at scientists but probably have no fucking degree whatsoever.
Actually, that's just Facepunch in general.
"HIV FOUND TO HELP IN FIGHTING OFF CANCER!"
Fagposter69 posts: I knew it! The asldkfsld strands and the lakerhwlge receptors on the lkdhfeklf cancers are totally matched. I knew this all along!"[/QUOTE]
You don't need a degree to be good at something!
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38910504]ITT: Uppity fucks who act like they know as well at scientists but probably have no fucking degree whatsoever.
Actually, that's just Facepunch in general.
"HIV FOUND TO HELP IN FIGHTING OFF CANCER!"
Fagposter69 posts: I knew it! The asldkfsld strands and the lakerhwlge receptors on the lkdhfeklf cancers are totally matched. I knew this all along!"[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah I remember you.
You still have to give me a source on that "porn causes rape" thing.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38911519]Oh yeah I remember you.
You still have to give me a source on that "porn causes rape" thing.[/QUOTE]
Wow you're a fucking idiot.
Does this mean we won't see any more threads like, "Scientist says people with political ideology A are inherently smarter than people with political ideology B"?
[QUOTE=Bradyns;38903449]Work smart, not hard.[/QUOTE]
I work hard.
I'm a porn star ^:v:^
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38910504]ITT: Uppity fucks who act like they know as well at scientists but probably have no fucking degree whatsoever.
Actually, that's just Facepunch in general.
"HIV FOUND TO HELP IN FIGHTING OFF CANCER!"
Fagposter69 posts: I knew it! The asldkfsld strands and the lakerhwlge receptors on the lkdhfeklf cancers are totally matched. I knew this all along!"[/QUOTE]
brought to you by the person who thinks germany is an island and banning porn is a good idea
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38911640]Wow you're a fucking idiot.[/QUOTE]
Well you heard Mrs. Moon. You're argument has been defeated Sobotnik.
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38911640]Wow you're a fucking idiot.[/QUOTE]
This has completely and utterly demolished and eviscerated my argument.
[sp]no[/sp]
Forrest Gump proved me wrong way before this study did.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38906058]The "why g matters" paper I showed you disagrees.[/quote]
it's always pretty annoying when you can't even churn out what someone else says into an argument. it's like they expect because it's a video or a paper, it has more validity, when it's just as stupid.
from a quick skim, your paper relates to employment in complex tasks and how those tested by general intelligence tend to do better. except despite all the jargon, that tendency is relatively weak, requires large groups of people to get real results, and could be sorted out better with analysis of each area of intelligence rather than a general iq. it makes an interesting case on why employers should iq test prospective employees, but it certainly doesn't show how iq testing provides an accurate indicator, you yourself say it's unreliable on individuals.
[quote]Oh?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/gouD6.png[/img][/quote]
wow, high school french, you got me, solid proof right there.
while they're hardly accurate tests of each intelligence component, the face they are averages and don't really show if someone did better on one and not another makes it completely irrelevant to the argument. and again, that's what the OP article is about, that kind of variance in the same iq making it even less accurate.
[quote]Did you even look at the other graph I posted? IQ predicts poverty [I]even controlling for education and SES.[/I][/quote]
lol, "predicts".
imma reiterate cos this is going in circles. iq may be shit at assessing real life performance, but when schools base performance off it then obviously people who are better at that will go better, thus those deemed with low iqs won't go as well in school and are more likely to drop out, following me here? now the correlation of those who drop out to those in poverty is significantly higher, way more than general case iq, that's a real predictor. so when you sort people by iq and give those with low iqs a disadvantage, especially when yur paper advocates not employing those with low iqs, you can see how there might be ACTUAL causes rather than putting it all on iq.
[quote]No it doesn't. IQ is relatively static once you get past early to mid-childhood.[/QUOTE]
yeah, just like the guy who was [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_v._Virginia]declared a retard[/url] and couldn't be sentenced to death based on his high school results, lol. [i](this is a quick jab and a joke, please do not post multiple graphs and economics papers disproving it)[/i]
like anything, intelligence can be improved with training. i'm sure you could find plenty of scholarly articles on that, i found plenty with a google scholar search. schooling is by its very nature training, so it follows that further training, especially in a young developmental state should improve this. of course since iq testing is an unreliable predictor in individuals, it's easier to post correlations than give any actual answers to these questions.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38906086]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]
so your argument is an even bigger strawman because rather than seeing if natural talent was better than hard work, you knowingly put the one with both on your side and the one with, in reality neither, on the opposing. great job, real stellar performance.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;38913350]like anything, intelligence can be improved with training.[/QUOTE]
no it cant
iq is pretty much heavily influenced by factors such as genetics and nutrition
do you have proof that you can increase IQ through training?
[QUOTE=Devodiere;38913350]so your argument is an even bigger strawman because rather than seeing if natural talent was better than hard work, you knowingly put the one with both on your side and the one with, in reality neither, on the opposing. great job, real stellar performance.[/QUOTE]
erm, i'm pretty sure that if you looked at the iq scores of ceos and trenchdiggers, you would find ceos iq scores to range higher
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38913687]no it cant
iq is pretty much heavily influenced by factors such as genetics and nutrition
do you have proof that you can increase IQ through training?[/quote]
[url]http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/53/1/1/[/url]
it was like, the first result when i types in "adulthood increase intelligence". you sure you haven't been reading up on eugenics?
[quote]erm, i'm pretty sure that if you looked at the iq scores of ceos and trenchdiggers, you would find ceos iq scores to range higher[/QUOTE]
except that's not the point, that's your strawman to try and make your argument seem better and has no significance at all. how about we take my earlier example that you dismissed, an adult male, college educated, who doesn't work hard and thus, ends up living with his parents. japan even has a whole subculture around hikikomoris, they're certainly not the ditchdiggers of that society, but still fail horribly. why not actually try discussing it rather than being a baby, calling out inaccurate logical fallacies and just going in circles.
but what will facepunchers lie about in threads now? :(
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
oh wait, penis length!
[QUOTE=stealth_camo;38903415]hard work>natural intelligence any day[/QUOTE]
Good. Now go chop me some firewood.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;38913350]it's always pretty annoying when you can't even churn out what someone else says into an argument. it's like they expect because it's a video or a paper, it has more validity, when it's just as stupid.[/quote]
erm a paper published in a peer review scientific journal does have more validity
[quote]from a quick skim, your paper relates to employment in complex tasks and how those tested by general intelligence tend to do better. except despite all the jargon, [B]that tendency is relatively weak[/B][/quote]
no it's not
[quote]Estimates of the average validity of g across all jobs in the economy generally range between .3 and .5 (on a scale from 0 to 1 .O), depending on how validities are corrected for unreliability in the criterion and restriction in range on the predictor (Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989).
These estimates are based primarily on studies that used supervisor ratings of job performance. Average validities are yet higher when performance is measured objectively. For example, Hunter (1986) reported that correlations of g-loaded tests with work sample (“hands-on”) performance versus supervisor ratings were .75 versus .47 in a sample of civilian jobs and .53 versus .24 for a range of military jobs. Validities vary widely across different kinds of jobs, from a low of about .2 to a high of .8.[/quote]
[quote]g can be said to be the most powerful single predictor of overall job performance. First, no other measured trait, except perhaps conscientiousness (Landy et al., 1994, pp. 271, 273), has such general utility across the sweep of jobs in the U.S. economy. More specific personality traits and aptitudes, such as extraversion or spatial aptitude, some-times seem essential above and beyond g, but across a more limited range of jobs (e.g., Bat-rick & Mount, 1991; Gottfredson, 1986a). [/quote]
[quote]requires large groups of people to get real results[/quote]
I don't follow? large sample sizes mean that the data is [I]more[/I] useful
[quote]it makes an interesting case on why employers should iq test prospective employees, but it certainly doesn't show how iq testing provides an accurate indicator, you yourself say it's unreliable on individuals.[/quote]
It does show how IQ testing provides an accurate indicator. If those statistics don't then I don't know what would. Furthermore, yes, an IQ score for a specific individual may not tell you all that much, but employers don't just hire one person. They hire lots. Sometimes they hire a group of people at once, sometimes they only hire one person at a time. The way IQ can let you predict things about groups isn't constrained by time - if you hire 600 employees at once or 1 employee a day for 600 days, the info you get from IQs will be just as valid. Then on top of that, you've got the fact that there are many employers. If every employer started hiring based on IQ, people would be much more efficiently sorted into jobs, in the aggregate.
[quote]while they're hardly accurate tests of each intelligence component, the face they are averages and don't really show if someone did better on one and not another makes it completely irrelevant to the argument. and again, that's what the OP article is about, that kind of variance in the same iq making it even less accurate.[/quote]
lel
[quote]Specific Skills or g?
As we begin to explore this issue, the story departs more drastically from the received wisdom. One obvious, commonsense explanation is that an IQ test indirectly measures how much somebody knows about the specifics of a job and that that specific knowledge is the relevant thing to measure. According to this logic, more general intellectual capacities are beside the point. But the logic, however commonsensical, is wrong. Surprising as it may seem, the predictive power of tests for job performance lies almost completely in their ability to measure the most general form of cognitive ability, g, and has little to do with their ability to measure aptitude or knowledge for a particular job.
SPECIFIC SKILLS VERSUS G IN THE MILITARY. The most complete data on this issue come from the armed services, with their unique advantages as an employer that trains hundreds of thousands of people for hundreds of job specialties. We begin with them and then turn to the corresponding data from the civilian sector.
In assigning recruits to training schools, the services use particular combinations of subtests from a test battery that all recruits take, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB).23 The Pentagon’s psychometricians have tried to determine whether there is any practical benefit of using different weightings of the subtests for different jobs rather than, say, just using the overall score for all jobs. The overall score is itself tantamount to an intelligence test. One of the most comprehensive studies of the predictive power of intelligence tests was by Malcolm Ree and James Earles, who had both the intelligence test scores and the final grades from military school for over 78,000 air force enlisted personnel spread over eighty-nine military specialties. The personnel were educationally homogeneous (overwhelmingly high school graduates without college degrees), conveniently “controlling” for educational background.24
What explains how well they performed? For every one of the eightynine military schools, the answer was g—Charles Spearman’s general intelligence. The correlations between g alone and military school grade ranged from an almost unbelievably high .90 for the course for a technical job in avionics repair down to .41 for that for a low-skill job associated with jet engine maintenance.25 Most of the correlations were above .7. Overall, g accounted for almost 60 percent of the observed variation in school grades in the average military course, once the results were corrected for range restriction (the accompanying note spells out what it means to “account for 60 percent of the observed variation”).26
Did cognitive factors other than g matter at all? The answer is that the explanatory power of g was almost thirty times greater than of all other cognitive factors in ASVAB combined.[/quote]
[quote]imma reiterate cos this is going in circles. iq may be shit at assessing real life performance, but when schools base performance off it then obviously people who are better at that will go better, thus those deemed with low iqs won't go as well in school and are more likely to drop out, following me here?[/quote]
but that isn't actually what happens at all
[quote]now the correlation of those who drop out to those in poverty is significantly higher, way more than general case iq, that's a real predictor. so when you sort people by iq and give those with low iqs a disadvantage, especially when yur paper advocates not employing those with low iqs, you can see how there might be ACTUAL causes rather than putting it all on iq.[/quote]
neither is this - in fact the very reason the paper was written is that IQ is [I]not[/I] used to sort people in jobs (yet). a judge ruled in the 70s that employers couldn't do that, which is why there are so many other different types of tests that prospective employees can take (even though they're really just a proxy for measuring [I]g[/I])
[quote]like anything, intelligence can be improved with training. i'm sure you could find plenty of scholarly articles on that, i found plenty with a google scholar search. schooling is by its very nature training, so it follows that further training, especially in a young developmental state should improve this. of course since iq testing is an unreliable predictor in individuals, it's easier to post correlations than give any actual answers to these questions.[/quote]
yet again the answer is in the very paper you (didn't) read
[quote]Additional evidence of the causal importance of g is provided by the many un-successful efforts to eliminate or short-circuit its functional link (correlation) with job proficiency. For example, there have been efforts to train the general cognitive skills that g naturally provides and that jobs require-such as general reading comprehension (which is important for using work manuals, interpreting instruc-tions, and the like). Another approach has been to provide extra instruction or experience to very low-aptitude individuals so that they have more time to master job content. Both reflect what might be termed the training hypothesis, which is that, with sufficient instruction, low-aptitude individuals can be trained to perform as well as high-aptitude individuals. The armed services have devoted much research to such efforts, partly because they periodically have had to induct large numbers of very low-aptitude recruits. Even the most optimistic observers (Sticht, 1975; Sticht, Armstrong, Hickey, & Caylor, 1987) have concluded that such training fails to improve general skills and, at most, increases the number of low-aptitude men who perform at minimally acceptable levels, mostly in lower level jobs. [/quote]
[QUOTE=stealth_camo;38903415]hard work>natural intelligence any day[/QUOTE]
People seem to be interpreting this as, "Manual labor is greater than intellectual work," which I doubt he means. After a certain level of intelligence, hard work is vastly more important than relying on innate ability. You'll get absolutely crushed in graduate school, as well as the top levels of your field, if you don't attempt to better yourself. (This doesn't just mean working one or two hours a day, either. If you're pursuing any competitive career you'll have spend a large part of your waking hours practicing and learning.)
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38914130]but what will facepunchers lie about in threads now? :(
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
oh wait, penis length![/QUOTE]
science proves that its not the size of the boat
its the motion of the ocean
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.