While IQ is almost certainly highly correlated with high-end performance, IQ fails a metric to explain or, more importantly, to predict top-end individual performance
Not controversial at all; seems like a straightforward application of the law of diminishing returns. If performance in a certain area depends partially on IQ and partially on some other X, then IQ will correlate with performance, but mere high IQ will not be enough to achieve best performance, because when you already have the high IQ, the amount of X becomes the critical factor.
I agree that trying to indirectly calculate IQ of famous dead people is complete bullshit. Talking about values of IQ above 150 doesn’t make sense statistically. Anything using Eistein as an example is automatically suspicious. And “he must have had high IQ, because he was awesome, and we believe high IQ is what makes people awesome” is circular logic.
But we should distinguish between the following statements... 1) People love to make stupid claims about IQ. 2) The concept of IQ is stupid. ...and a good start would be to look at what scientists are saying about IQ, as opposed to what clickbait journals do.
Wrong. For example, Raven’s Progressive Matrices only have one category.
Ok. Fair point. But nearly all intelligence tests use a variety sub-tests. And I think the consensus among psychometricians is that more tests provide a better measure of intelligence.
My point isn’t that IQ is stupid. My goal is to explore its boundaries and limitations.
If you want to explore the concept of IQ seriously, you should find out what people who study that concept seriously are saying. Here are the sources you used in the article:
an article in Business Insider, declaring without evidence that Einstein had an IQ of 205-225;
the first google result for “Magnus Carlsen IQ”;
a made-for-adsense website called “IQ test experts” that provides a free “IQ test” to fish for e-mails.
Would you feel equally qualified to propose your new theory of e.g. quantum physics after doing a similar kind of research?
I suppose that’s a fair criticism. But you have cherry picked these examples. In my defense, I also reference SSC and a 448-page book by Stephen Jay Gould on IQ, which is entirely about the history of psychometrics.
It’s an area of interest, not necessarily an area of expertise. I wrote a post to get feedback and improve my understanding of the topic. I have a richer understanding of the issue than I had two days ago. And so I accomplished what I aspired to do.
Not controversial at all; seems like a straightforward application of the law of diminishing returns. If performance in a certain area depends partially on IQ and partially on some other X, then IQ will correlate with performance, but mere high IQ will not be enough to achieve best performance, because when you already have the high IQ, the amount of X becomes the critical factor.
Wrong. For example, Raven’s Progressive Matrices only have one category.
I agree that trying to indirectly calculate IQ of famous dead people is complete bullshit. Talking about values of IQ above 150 doesn’t make sense statistically. Anything using Eistein as an example is automatically suspicious. And “he must have had high IQ, because he was awesome, and we believe high IQ is what makes people awesome” is circular logic.
But we should distinguish between the following statements...
1) People love to make stupid claims about IQ.
2) The concept of IQ is stupid.
...and a good start would be to look at what scientists are saying about IQ, as opposed to what clickbait journals do.
Ok. Fair point. But nearly all intelligence tests use a variety sub-tests. And I think the consensus among psychometricians is that more tests provide a better measure of intelligence.
My point isn’t that IQ is stupid. My goal is to explore its boundaries and limitations.
If you want to explore the concept of IQ seriously, you should find out what people who study that concept seriously are saying. Here are the sources you used in the article:
an article in Business Insider, declaring without evidence that Einstein had an IQ of 205-225;
the first google result for “Magnus Carlsen IQ”;
a made-for-adsense website called “IQ test experts” that provides a free “IQ test” to fish for e-mails.
Would you feel equally qualified to propose your new theory of e.g. quantum physics after doing a similar kind of research?
I suppose that’s a fair criticism. But you have cherry picked these examples. In my defense, I also reference SSC and a 448-page book by Stephen Jay Gould on IQ, which is entirely about the history of psychometrics.
It’s an area of interest, not necessarily an area of expertise. I wrote a post to get feedback and improve my understanding of the topic. I have a richer understanding of the issue than I had two days ago. And so I accomplished what I aspired to do.
Uhm...