YanShen wrote:So what are you saying? That someone with high quantitative IQ can't do math?
What else will you claim? That someone with high verbal IQ can't do reading comprehension?

Nope, pretty sure I didn't say these things either.

Once again, perhaps you can provide a quote?

No? Whistle in the wind...

YanShen wrote:It's sometimes been stated that the top 10% of society, from an intellectual perspective, contribute virtually everything of value. If we want to be even more precise, we might argue that only the top few percent of the IQ distribution make any real scientific contributions to humanity. For instance, Geoffrey Miller has argued that an IQ of roughly 130 is generally the cut-off point required for being able to make original scientific contributions. If one assumes a normal distribution for IQ with a mean of 100 and a SD of 15, this corresponds roughly to the top 2.275% of society at large. The bottom line is quite clear. A few people are carrying the vast majority of society on their backs, allowing them to enjoy the accouterments of modern civilization.

And yet the left frequently despises what it labels as elitism. I struggle mightily to understand this sentiment. When a few people work hard and utilize their intellects, making vastly disproportionate contributions to humanity, shouldn't they be revered rather than scorned? Can someone explain where this source of anti-elitism comes from? Does anyone think that its vastly hypocritical for those on the left to criticize elitism on the one hand, but partake of the fruits of modern civilization on the other?

I know I am late in the game but I just wanted to emphasise two points:
1. It is well known that raw IQ scores have increased over the last several decades. Essentially, this means that while IQ scores are standadized, the population as whole has increased in average IQ over the generations. Having said this it means that many in the bottom 10% now may well have been in quite normal ranges 50 years ago and vice versa. I am interested in why YanShen has decided that it is the standadized score that determines the value of an individual rather than the raw score (or indeed another measure, namely that which an individual has actually contributed to society).

In passing unlike many here, I see value in IQ tests, but only when people are aware of what they are and what they mean. IQ tests are essentially one of the most consistent and strong predictors of academic and occupational achievement we have available (even if the explained variance is relatively moderate at around 25%). It would be wrong to suggest that IQ tests merely measure the ability to take tests. It would be equally wrong however to use the predictive power of IQ to then say this is intelligence. There are a number of claims in the literature relating to the construct validity of IQ in relation to what it is they actually measure (social dis/advantage, adherence to western values, fluid/crystallized intelligence, etc.).

Thommo, you're getting to be annoying. On the one hand, you refuse to equate being able to do difficult math with math/quantative IQ, insisting thta being able to do difficult math requires only being able to do difficult math.

On the other hand, you deny that you would claim that people with high math/quantiative IQs can't do math. You should make up your mind here.

Is doing math related in any way to math/quantitative iQ or not.

YanShen wrote:Thommo, you're getting to be annoying. On the one hand, you refuse to equate being able to do difficult math with math/quantative IQ, insisting thta being able to do difficult math requires only being able to do difficult math.

I just checked back, I may have done this once, but only before you defined what you meant by quantitative IQ and I certainly have not insisted upon it once you defined the term. Unfortunately you had at that stage of the conversation shifted the goalposts from defending what we were discussing - your claim Richard Feynman had a high IQ despite having scored 124 on a standardised IQ test - to a new claim regarding his ability to do maths. This lead to me continuing to respond to the original point, I have now explained that confusion.

There is nothing to discuss on that new point, since you have defined “math IQ” to be ability to do maths then it goes without saying that someone who has high “math IQ” has the ability to do maths. I suggest we terminate this derail and you respond to what I actually said and cut out these misrepresentations.

Thommo, I'll try to explain again. Overall IQ is in general an aggregate of different components. In fact, the entire notion of the g-factor is that it measures the internal correlation between different kinds of cognitive reasoning, abstracting the notion of a generic intelligence factor.

I claimed that Feynman had a high IQ despite having scored a 124 on an IQ test because that 124 was the aggregrate of different components. In particular, the argument offered was that Feynman in all likelihood maxed out the quantitative portion of the test and that had it had a higher ceiling, his overall IQ score wouldve been much higher.

The main point is that given the highly skewed nature of Feynman's abilities, his test score stands out as an anomaly of sorts.
It would be inconceivable for someone with a quantitative IQ of 124 to have accomplished what Feynman did. However, this example does raise the point that the math/verbal split is probably one of the relevant issues confronting the validity of a g-factor.

YanShen wrote:Thommo, I'll try to explain again. Overall IQ is in general an aggregate of different components. In fact, the entire notion of the g-factor is that it measures the internal correlation between different kinds of cognitive reasoning, abstracting the notion of a generic intelligence factor.

I claimed that Feynman had a high IQ despite having scored a 124 on an IQ test because that 124 was the aggregrate of different components. In particular, the argument offered was that Feynman in all likelihood maxed out the quantitative portion of the test and that had it had a higher ceiling, his overall IQ score wouldve been much higher.

Right, but the reason that you dismiss his data point is because you've approached it with a different methodology than you approached the other data points.

This is inconsistent and invalidates the method.

How do we know that other people who scored 124 and who you aren't willing to treat as exceptions wouldn't also get a higher score if permitted to be treated as exceptions? Right! We don't know that.

When applying a consistent method Feynman seemingly stands as an exception to your theory. When applying an inconsistent method then we can make no valid statements based upon that method.

If others had taken say the Putnam Exam and scored far lower than Feynman, that would've been one way to distinguish between them. Your argument doesn't negate Feynman's talents. You're merely saying that there might have been others who maxed certain tests and perhaps didn't get the opportunity to achieve something else which would've further distinguished their talents.

YanShen wrote:If others had taken say the Putnam Exam and scored far lower than Feynman, that would've been one way to distinguish. Your argument doesn't negate Feynman's talents. You're merely saying that there might have been others who maxed certain tests and perhaps didn't get the opportunity to achieve something else which would've further distinguished their talents.

The argument was precisely that Feynman was talented and successful but didn't score well on IQ tests.

This was given as an example of someone who contributed a huge amount but wasn't in the top few percent as rated by IQ, which related directly to your claim in the OP and which I asked you to provide evidence towards.

But it's important to point out that a comparable situation in any other area measured by IQ (i.e. not just maths, but verbal reasoning, logical reasoning) could also lead to discrepancies of the same kind, so all candidates (not just those who "maxed" the regular test) would have to be compared across all the available standard and advanced tests in uniform fashion to substantiate the claim in a meaningul way.

yeah but you still miss the point. Feynman scored low on a flawed IQ test, which underestimated his real IQ

Given your political orientation, I would've assumed that you'd would've been quick to embrace the fact that certain IQ tests can in fact be flawed.

YanShen wrote:yeah but you still miss the point. Feynman scored low on a flawed IQ test, which underestimated his real IQ

For fuck's sake, NO. I am not missing this point, I am saying that Feynman and everyone else scored low on a flawed IQ test, which could underestimated their real IQ. They all took the same test and those are the only results we have with which to compare like with like.

YanShen wrote:Given your political orientation, I would've assumed that you'd would've been quick to embrace the fact that certain IQ tests can in fact be flawed.

What is my political orientation?

And yes, I do think that IQ tests suffer a number of flaws which make them interesting and occasionally useful predictors, but ones we should be careful to treat correctly and not ascribe false attributes such as "uselessness" off the back of them.

The other salient point is that professional IQ tests measure out to the extremes in different subsections. The tests administered to public high school students, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, often have relatively low ceilings in each individual subsection.

Damn it Thommo. A flawed IQ test doesn't underestimate everyone's IQ. Do you not see that? It only underestimates their IQ if they exceed the cap percentile on the different subsections.

If the ceiling on a test is too low, and therefore it's flawed, it only underestimates the IQs of the extremely gifted. If you don't brush up against the ceiling, your IQ is more or less adequately measured.

YanShen wrote:Damn it Thommo. A flawed IQ test doesn't underestimate everyone's IQ. Do you not see that? It only underestimates their IQ if they exceed the cap.

I didn't say that. I said:-

Thommo wrote:I am saying that Feynman and everyone else scored low on a flawed IQ test, which could underestimated their real IQ.

See the word "could" in there? See how I'm saying you don't know what the effect on the overall distribution is?

And no, you have not established that the only scores to improve will be those of people who exceed the cap in the first test. It is quite possible that other people will also improve their scores having fallen some way short of the cap on the first test.

YanShen wrote:If the ceiling on a test is too low, and therefore it's flawed, it only underestimates the IQs of the extremely gifted. If you don't brush up against the ceiling, your IQ is more or less adequately measured.

Hooray! Now if you can substantiate this you will have addressed one of the points I first made pages ago before we got stuck in this derail.

You state pretty clearly that Feynman and everyone else scored low on a flawed test. That's patently false. As long as someone doesn't brush up against the ceiling, we can know for a fact that their IQ score is more or less accurate.

Do I have to substantiate this piece of reasoning in the same way that I have to prove to you that doing well in math requires quantitative IQ? Or that doing well in reading comprehension requires verbal IQ?

The claim is trivially true. Just think about it.

Do you understand what it means for a test to having a ceiling at the 99th percentile? It means that 1% of the population maxes out on the test. However, you have no way of distinguishing individuals within that top 1%, i.e. distinguishing a 1in 100 individual from a 1 in 1 million.

However, clearly you've distinguished between the bottom 99% of the distribution.

The more difficult a test is, the greater its ability to resolve out to the extremes of the distribution.

Imagine a math IQ test that had just one question.
2+3=?

Basically the entire human population would ace that test and the resulting scores would tell us virtually nothing about the distribution of mathematical talents.

however, replcae that overly simplistic example with something like the SAT math, and you get a much more information distribution of scores.

YanShen wrote:You state pretty clearly that Feynman and everyone else scored low on a flawed test. That's patently false. As long as someone doesn't brush up against the ceiling, we can know for a fact that their IQ score is more or less accurate.

No, that entirely revolves around your interpreting "scored low" as meaning "underperformed" which was not the intent behind the words, but was purely because of some slightly hasty copy pasting on my part. Of course this should be entirely clear from the second half of the sentence which stated "which could underestimate their real IQ." combined with the fact that I have already clarified what I meant.

YanShen wrote:Do I have to substantiate this piece of reasoning in the same way that I have to prove to you that doing well in math requires quantitative IQ? Or that doing well in reading comprehension requires verbal IQ?

What the fuck is up with these personal jibes? Cut it out. That was a direct result of your goalpost shifting and attempts to put words in my mouth, I never said those things and frankly you should retract your insinuations since I asked you to substantiate them more than once already - requests that fell on deaf ears.

YanShen wrote:The claim is trivially true. Just think about it.

No, it isn't. It may be perfectly clear that that's how you want the test to work, or that that's how the ideal-world model of the test works, but that doesn't actually tell us about reality.

YanShen wrote:Do you understand what it means for a test to having a ceiling at the 99th percentile? It means that 1% of the population maxes out on the test. However, you have no way of distinguishing individuals within that top 1%, i.e. distinguishing a 1in 100 individual from a 1 in 1 million.

However, clearly you've distinguished between the bottom 99% of the distribution.

Yes, I absolutely understand that this is how it works in theory. I'm asking you to demonstrate that it's true in practice. Understand?

I have no idea what you're even asking. That's not how it works in theory. That's how it works in practice, because the percentiles are based off of the actual distribution of test scores.

YanShen wrote:I have no idea what you're even asking.

-You are stating that people who did not max out at least one section of an IQ test will not improve their scores if given the opportunity to take the higher level test designed to filter out between high performers.

I am asking what your evidence for this claim is, in reality.

-You are stating that Richard Feynman would have a better relative position in the IQ distribution if his exceptional ability at mathematics were taken into account.

I am asking what evidence you have to support this when other people would also improve their scores if permitted the like for like opportunity, thus altering the distribution.

YanShen wrote:That's not how it works in theory. That's how it works in practice, because the percentiles are based off of the actual distribution of test scores.

The individual tests are standardised, this doesn't mean that they are perfectly standardised with each other. It's a basic principle of conducting a statistical analysis that you have to compare like with like - and you aren't.

You're asserting a lot and refusing to substantiate any detail whatsoever of your claims.

Edit: Double post.