"according to IQ doubters, knowing how smart I am should
tell you nothing about my IQ. It is as likely to be 50 as 150."
The same poster once proposed a beautiful test of the depth of an IQ denier's beliefs:
You are to be operated on, and have been given a choice between two surgeons. You know nothing about them, save for the IQ of each. Will you choose the surgeon with the lower IQ? What if the difference between them is an entire standard deviation? Two standard deviations? If you truly believe that IQ tests measure nothing - that the result of any such test is essentially a random number - you should happily choose the surgeon with the lower score. If you do not believe it, we are merely quibbling over the accuracy of existing tests.
Moreover, the only way to seriously dismiss the existing IQ tests as hopelessly inaccurate is to borrow tricks from the Creationists' playbook wholesale (as Steven Jay Gould, the patron saint of IQ denial, often did) and close your eyes (and more importantly, those of your audience) to reams of high-quality data.
"Watson was thinking like a scientist. Which is exactly why he was punished. The moral laws of our society dictate that we are not allowed to think scientifically about some issues. Especially not in public."
If IQ is a valid measurement, then why isn't it used to make important decisions? While your surgeon example may be a bit contrived, it raises a valid point: Why haven't you ever considered the IQ of your surgeon? Does anyone even know their surgeon's IQ?
Investors don't seem to care about IQ at all. It wasn't an issue of public consideration during the last presidential election. If it could reliably predict anything, don't you think more people would ask about it? I'm sure there are places where IQ scores are considered (applying to college or Google), but these are the exception, not the rule.
There is generally a difference between people with an IQ of 50 and an IQ of 150. But you don't need a standardized test to see those differences. The problem is that there is very little difference between an IQ of 120 and an IQ of 130. If all IQ is good for is telling the difference between the very intelligent and the learning disabled, then it isn't very useful in daily life.
> But you don't need a standardized test to see those differences.
There is also no need to use a thermometer in laboratory work - we're all equipped with fingers. At least ten measurements' worth, at that.
Indirect measures are useful.
Want to determine which teenagers would make decent electrical engineers? Instead of $500 worth of IQ test (proper IQ tests are administered by private psychologists, who do not work for free) one can use $150,000 worth of college/trial-by-ordeal - a poorer measure of general intelligence, overall. Yet it continues to be the only allowed measure, because IQ tests are Officially Evil.
> there is very little difference between an IQ of 120 and an IQ of 130
On what basis do you say this?
> If all IQ is good for is telling the difference between the very intelligent and the learning disabled
I agree with you that intelligence does exist and it needs to be measured. Measured by the completion of medical school/college, by whatever heavily IQ-correlated traits that investors look at or by a wide variety of indirect measurements or proxy tests.
Intelligence should not by measured by a standardized test. Standardized tests simply do not have a history of predicting success at anything on a micro level. If they did, people would use them. It would be trivial for large employers to pay $500 per employee to have an IQ test taken. And it isn't illegal for them to do so. From the court decision:
"Nothing in the Act precludes the use of testing or measuring procedures; obviously they are useful. What Congress has forbidden is giving these devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance."
The law doesn't say that you can't use IQ tests for anything of economic importance. It says that you can't use them to discriminate. Do you think Google could show that a high score on a general intelligence test bears a demonstrable relationship to successful performance as a software engineer? And if it doesn't...then what good are the test scores?
It is possible that there is a great conspiracy against IQ tests. They could be the best measurement of intelligence, but people just don't like them. It's also very possible that the test scores aren't used in society because are relatively meaningless.
> Standardized tests simply do not have a history of predicting success at anything on a micro level.
This is empirically false. Read about the Longitudinal Study of Youth. Children took tests, grew up, lived their lives. You cannot argue the data out of existence.
> The law doesn't say that you can't use IQ tests for anything of economic importance. It says that you can't use them to discriminate.
There are many practices which are not illegal per se, but put you at dire financial risk liability-wise.
Read about the actual consequences of the precedent set by the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. decision. Talk to a lawyer about whether it can ever be safe to include a traditional IQ test in your company's hiring process. The problems involved in demonstrating "non-discriminatory intent" and "performance applicability" are insurmountable. Unless you have extraordinarily deep pockets, the sheer expense (not to mention PR debacle) of fighting such a lawsuit will sink you before you are at any risk of overturning the precedent.
> It's also very possible that the test scores aren't used in society because are relatively meaningless.
Once again, the falsehood of this statement can be uncovered by anyone who cares to look. We aren't talking about an organized conspiracy here - only a generation's worth of toxic political correctness.
Do you actually believe this dogma?
This Usenet post should be read by all "IQ deniers": http://tiny.cc/F7gxA
"according to IQ doubters, knowing how smart I am should tell you nothing about my IQ. It is as likely to be 50 as 150."
The same poster once proposed a beautiful test of the depth of an IQ denier's beliefs:
You are to be operated on, and have been given a choice between two surgeons. You know nothing about them, save for the IQ of each. Will you choose the surgeon with the lower IQ? What if the difference between them is an entire standard deviation? Two standard deviations? If you truly believe that IQ tests measure nothing - that the result of any such test is essentially a random number - you should happily choose the surgeon with the lower score. If you do not believe it, we are merely quibbling over the accuracy of existing tests.
Moreover, the only way to seriously dismiss the existing IQ tests as hopelessly inaccurate is to borrow tricks from the Creationists' playbook wholesale (as Steven Jay Gould, the patron saint of IQ denial, often did) and close your eyes (and more importantly, those of your audience) to reams of high-quality data.
More references, for those actually interested: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intellig...
And if you want to know the core driving force behind the IQ denialists:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconven...
"Watson was thinking like a scientist. Which is exactly why he was punished. The moral laws of our society dictate that we are not allowed to think scientifically about some issues. Especially not in public."