i think a major problem along elites and pseudo intellectuals is the degree to which even liberal people have tacitly accepted IQ as real science and don’t treat anyone who bases their arguments on IQ being real science as having self-discredited.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
i know very few actual intellectuals who think that IQ tests or similar devices measure intelligence. it's solely among pseudointellectuals (and, of course, racists) that this viewpoint has any meaningful traction
Related is the belief that racism is just prejudice and not the belief in the science of racism where race exists and isn't just a social construct, and I unfortunately think this underpins too much of where we are today.
Please do an episode on IQ with sections covering its use in social science vs. popular media. Maybe with Scott Alexander as a guest? (barely know him but I see him mentioned a lot and seems a prominent online figure)
like with scott alexander for example. to my mind anyone who treats IQ seriously should have to defend that proposition right there and then. and it should be a lengthy debate. i am not going to argue with you about your other ideas if you require me to accept IQ as legitimate science.
Heh yeah I was chatting with some high school kids about the SATs and they griped that it’s a poor measure of intelligence. If teenagers get it, adults have no excuse.
And SATs are a particularly galling example because there are books and classes *about how to take the SATs*! They contain no additional knowledge to answer SAT questions, just skills for *how to take the test*. Taking a test is its own separate skill independent from knowledge or talent
Not directly to your (good) point, but ironically, SAT's were developed to reduce anti-Jewish bias. And SAT's never pretended to be about intelligence. It just tries to measure how well you will do in college. That's it. And in that small little area, it's pretty good.
They _say_ that it's about aptitude, but the SAT's score range of 400-1600 score range (throughout most of its history) gives the game away. There's no reason you choose that score range unless you're trying to correlate to IQ.
And since it's the most widely taken - and, hence, gamed - everyone discounts that it's an IQ test because we know a) people's scores improve markedly with training and practice b) it has to be rebalanced every generation c) all the data we have shows that it tilts affluent mainstream white.
Middle-class white kids view SAT prep as standard these days. No shame on them. But I remember some guy 50 years ago, having no idea what he was doing and taking it with a hangover. Different times.
and i don’t mean that ill refuse to engage with you. i mean that even if the point of our debate is some other topic, as soon as you bring up IQ, i am going to stick with that subject until you admit you’re promoting pseudo-science. i am not going to move on. it’s not just an opinion you have
if i were talking with someone about public policy and they started basing their recommendations off of their views on astrology — i would not just let that pass. i’d bring the conversation to screeching halt and demand clear answers about why they think their belief in astrology isn’t crank shit
i see it being true or false as mostly irrelevant because individual differences in psychology are at best a psychiatric/social work subject instead of a public policy issue
public policy is about the behavior of large populations and many attempts to scale up microfoundational psychological issues to public policy (like behavioral economics) have mixed at best results
Comments