Probably because IQ, while a poor measure of general intelligence, is a really good proxy measure for socioeconomic status.
Pick almost any measures that you think Define general intelligence and you will see stark differences between a group at 80 iq and 120.
The tests, like the IQ, can flag potential problems that have gone over looked, but beyond that it doesn’t matter if someone runs a 4.3, 4.4, or 4.5 40.
IQ is unscientific nonsense from the 60s that that been overstudied for cultural reasons.
Any time you read it in an article you can substitute it for "socioeconomic reasons". Which is just as unclear but at least it is less of a smokescreen to cast doubt on causality.
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/oh6115/perf...
No one disputes that IQ works, that is not the claim, just as the even more nebulous term "socioeconomic factors" works across wide field s of study. But it is not the best predictor we have.
Not sure what types of propaganda you see in this, or who stands to gain from it. If any, it should be those heavily invested in questionable theories, perhaps even making money from peddling books and courses.
If you really want to argue that IQ is a scientific measurement, start by explaining the scientific process that arrived at the particular method that is broadly used to measure it. Then, if you really want to convince someone, explain what the feedback process looks like that guides the continuing work to improve the measurement process. Because surely there is one, unless you want to argue that IQ is a perfect predictor that could never be improved?
Many things from 60s psychology were quite extraordinary, and as the saying goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Efforts to reproduce these studies have had limited success, to say the least.
Are you claiming that social economic status is a better predictor of spatial Imaging and logic than a direct test of an individual in question?
I am very curious to see those mappings. Can you point to some? I am especially unsure about what said «measures» can be, and if/which theories about them are developed.
Personnel selection research provides much evidence that intelligence (g) is an important predictor of performance in training and on the job, especially in higher level work. This article provides evidence that g has pervasive utility in work settings because it is essen- tially the ability to deal with cognitive complexity, in particular, with complex information processing. The more complex a work task, the greater the advantages that higher g confers in performing it well. Everyday tasks, like job duties, also differ in their level of complexity. The importance of intelligence therefore differs systematically across differ- ent arenas of social life as well as economic endeavor. Data from the National Adult Literacy Survey are used to show how higher levels of cognitive ability systematically improve individuals’ odds of dealing successfully with the ordinary demands of modem life (such as banking, using maps and transportation schedules, reading and understanding forms, interpreting news articles). These and other data are summarized to illustrate how the advantages of higher g, even when they are small, cumulate to affect the overall life chances of individuals at different ranges of the IQ bell curve. The article concludes by suggesting ways to reduce the risks for low-IQ individuals of being left behind by an increasingly complex postindustrial economy.
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatt...
These people Have difficulty with everyday demands like using a phone or address book. May not be able to learn to read bus or train schedules, bank, fill out forms, or use household appliances like a video recorder, microwave oven, or computer. They therefore require assistance from relatives or social workers in the management of their affairs. They can be employed in simple tasks but require supervision.
This is not a matter of effort or exposure. Even with training these people may not be able to acquire these skills over decades.
People with higher IQs simply do not have these challenges to the same degree.
In other words, most measures you might come up with are likely to be strongly correlated with IQ.
A lot of people are very anti-IQ, but frankly they're usually just mediocre humanities mucklers who don't realize or accept that true intelligence requires the ability to do math, even if it's not your specialty or interest (the math geniuses amongst us are almost without exception 95+% in verbal ability).
thats where we are with IQ as well
Perhaps I am misreading your comment.
If you're going to just make stuff up, at least be realistic.
How good you are at thinking about stuff.
Or even if you try thinking about a real problem, you won’t get the right answer because the way to do that is experiments, not thinking about it a lot.
It does not take into account perceptive intelligence, emotional intelligence, and others.
Until there's a new standard, or they see a need to do something different, scientists interested in intelligence are going to stick to measuring IQ.
What we have can and should be discussed and challenged. Not having a complete, new and better solution, doesn't prevent us from pointing at flaws. All the while working on the new thing.
The main fault of Gardner’s theory is that it has no empirical backing of any kind[1], which effects its popularity with Ed schools not at all.
Sternberg’s theory at least actually works. It’s just that it is extra work and complexity for no increase in predictive validity. There’s no way to distinguish it from straight g.
[1]According to a 2006 study, many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, of cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, of non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intellige...
By whom? Previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31376980
I don’t know if any hypothesis in itt/tfa are true or false, but regarding IQ tests I’d like to see much more diversity than stupid boolean ops and rotation over and over.
The thermometer as we know it didn't exist until the 17th century! Although the Chinese seems to have measured temperature with clay pots since at least the 6th century.
The concept of an innate ability to be smart, however, is something else entirely. It is at best a question "I know it when I see it", but where two observers seldom agree.
Compare the concept of "love". It is also an age old idea, a word that exists in all languages and used in conversation every day, but the vain of trying to get observers to agree on it has rightly been a trope for millennia.
The similarities doesn't end there, with books and courses being peddled on the subject of quantifying and scoring it. Very few of these have any scientific ambitions to speak of however, even among the most grandiose of claims.