reliv3 comments on "Superior" level

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

Good point. Ultimately this leads me to question the existence of some fixed quality of intelligence. People are growing, adapting, and learning through their lives, so a fixed number defining general intelligence is likely a moot concept.

On top of the prior point lies another major issue with any sort of "general intelligence" test: defining "general intelligence". Intelligence comes in many forms: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential intelligence, and more. The IQ test does not test all forms of intelligence.

This being said, It is likely impossible to test all forms of intelligence in one test; and even if we could create this test, how would this test handle differently abled people. For example, a completely blind person would fail the visual intelligence portion every time (for obvious reasons).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (11 children)

IQ is highly correlated with life outcomes like income, life expectancy, employment, and crime. Maybe it doesn’t measure “intelligence,” but it measures something which appears to be very important for modern society. There are undoubtedly different forms of intelligence which are not measured by an IQ test.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

This is a good point to bring up, but this correlation is still being debated: the causal connection between the IQ test and the correlation is unclear, and there is debate on whether the correlation is being constructed through bad data or analysis techniques. Because of this, no one can confidently claim whether IQ tests predicts good job performance, employment, etc.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4557354/

[Skip to the conclusion at the end to get the tldr, since this is a long scientific publication]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the study. I agree on all points. This is the challenge with sociological research: it is unethical to conduct controlled studies. We will never have controlled IQ research. The study suggests we continue to perform better quality primary research, and I fully agree. Until then, as per the data in the study, the correlative evidence remains compelling. At least as far as sociological research goes.

I tend to think this research is more compelling and useful at the macro level. We should bear in mind that the correlative coefficient between IQ and income is only between 0.2 and 0.4. There are many other factors which also impact outcomes.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Yeah but I'm pretty sure the relative wealth/affluence of the neighborhood you grew up in is significantly more strongly correlated with overall life outcomes, and is also cross correlated with IQ itself, broadly, over many societies and locales.

Which would indicate that focusing on 'IQ' is a red herring, and to a significant degree becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy... not to mention gives rise to an ultimately false notion of a meritocratic society, when the reality is much, much closer to 'its who you know, not what you know', a nepotistic society.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Yeah but I’m pretty sure the relative wealth/affluence of the neighborhood you grew up in is significantly more strongly correlated with overall life outcomes

That is, surprisingly, incorrect. A meta-analysis by Strenze (2007) showed that the predictive power of IQ is slightly stronger than that of parental socio-economic status (SES) (Table 1). Specifically, IQ measured before age 19 outdoes parental SES in predicting future educational attainment, occupational status, and income after age 29 (see “best studies” on Table 1). In other words, if you want to predict an adolescent’s success in adulthood along a given metric of success (e.g., income, educational attainment, or occupational status), it is more useful to know that adolescent’s IQ than to know the success of their parents along that same metric. In the conclusion of the analysis, Strenze (page 416) argues that this would be unexpected if the predictive power of IQ could be attributed primarily to its association with parental SES:

Despite the modest conclusion, these results are important because they falsify a claim often made by the critics of the “testing movement”: that the positive relationship between intelligence and success is just the effect of parental SES or academic performance influencing them both (see Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Fischer et al., 1996; McClelland, 1973). If the correlation between intelligence and success was a mere byproduct of the causal effect of parental SES or academic performance, then parental SES and academic performance should have outcompeted intelligence as predictors of success; but this was clearly not so. These results confirm that intelligence is an independent causal force among the determinants of success; in other words, the fact that intelligent people are successful is not completely explainable by the fact that intelligent people have wealthy parents and are doing better at school.*

The meta-analysis does find that parental SES also correlates significantly with the future outcomes of the child. However, because youth IQ and parental SES are correlated, it is possible that some unspecified portion of the predictive power of youth IQ is due to its correlation with parental SES (or vice-versa). To get a more precise estimate of the effects of youth IQ (independent of parental SES), we need to estimate the predictive power of IQ after controlling for parental SES.

Success is undoubtedly multi-factorial. Who you know is important. So is parental educational achievement, access to nutritional food, an absence of violence in the home, IQ, etc.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4749462/

Here is a more recent meta-analysis from 2015 that concludes that the genetic additive effect on total outcomes is significant and distinct from the SES...

But only in the US.

In Europe, Australia, elsewhere, the genetic additive effect is statistically insignificant.

(IE, SES is the dominant factor)

This meta-analysis of published and unpublished data provided clear answers to our three questions.

First, studies from the United States supported a moderately sized Gene × SES interaction on intelligence and academic achievement (a′ = .074; Fig. 1).

Second, in studies conducted outside the United States (in Western Europe and Australia), the best estimate for Gene × SES magnitude was very slightly negative and not significantly different from zero.

Third, the difference in the estimated magnitude of the Gene × SES effect between the U.S. and the non-U.S. studies was itself significant.

...

Fig 1, Variance vs SES, in the US

(my own commentary: the wealthier you are in the US, the more of a complete crapshoot it is whether or not you are smart or stupid... because IQ doesn't matter for wealthy people.)

...

...the cross-national difference identified does not appear to be an epiphenomenon of cross-national differences in the age ranges examined or the particular intelligence or achievement outcomes measured.

...

Interestingly, as can be seen by comparing Figures 2 and S2, these Gene × Age trends closely parallel the U.S. Gene × SES effect. Genes account for considerably more variation in intelligence both at higher ages and in higher U.S. socioeconomic contexts.

Indeed, both phenomena may reflect a process of increased and accumulated effects of gene-environment transactions with the increased opportunity that comes with both social class and age (Tucker-Drob et al., 2013; Turkheimer & Horn, 2014).

...

Without conducting my own entire study...

My read on this is that the genetic component is much more significant in the US than in other places...

... because the US is significantly more economically stratified, nepotistic, and has a broken education system where rich idiots can get all the education they want, and skate by, but you basically have to be a diligent and lucky genius to escape poverty and the shit-tier education it has bestowed you with.

The noted tendency of age to also be correlated with SES and genetics in the US, is again, imo, explained by our vastly broken healthcare system just literally killing you if you are either poor, or stupid.

If I am not mistaken, we are uh, still trending downward on overall life expectancy, as compared to most other developed countries in this study sample set where life expectancy either was not badly affected by COVID, or was but has since rebounded.

...

But uh yeah, going back to this more recent study... looks like genes have a less meaningful impact than your SES in civilized areas of the world.

Here in the US, we only have downward class mobility, unless you are very, very clever, and continuously lucky, continuously reinvesting those gains from your cleverness into social and financial capital without making any 'bad investments', or ever having any sudden medical or financial disaster happen to you.

Kakistocracy: Rule by the least fit to govern, the worst qualified, the most unscrupulous.

...

Anyway, not to sound like I am directing my venom here at you, I do very much appreciate you bringing an actual comprehensive meta analysis and giving a very good and well reasoned read on it, with caveats. =D

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

My read on this is that the genetic component is much more significant in the US than in other places... because the US is significantly more economically stratified, nepotistic, and has a broken education system where rich idiots can get all the education they want, and skate by, but you basically have to be a diligent and lucky genius to escape poverty and the shit-tier education it has bestowed you with.

Thanks for the study. I will review in more detail. I don't agree with your conclusion here. Greater association between success and IQ, as we see in the U.S., would imply a higher degree of meritocracy. That is, more intelligent people are better able to break through class barriers due to their performance. This study implies that Europe is more hierarchically stratified, and that one's abilities are not enough to make any difference in success. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

The US is unarguably less meritocratic than the amalgamated EU by every possible metric.... unless your conception of a 'meritocracy' is 'you have to be a genius to even stand a chance at doing better than your parents, otherwise, all that matters is how much wealth you were born into.'

...

Class mobility is worse in the US.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/social-mobility-by-country

Less people can actually manage to do better than their parents in the US than the EU (broadly, or aggregated and then adjusted per capita).

Income inequality is worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

The EU is thus less hierarchichal, stratified.

You are also not considering that the aggregated EU has better life expectancy, better levels of functional literacy and lower infant mortality than the US, ie, the 'shared environment' is at a higher baseline.

Not to mention the US's political systems have far, far more corruption by way of corporations and the wealthy being allowed to spend infinite money to lobby and advertise and propogandize for their preferred laws and policies.

Look up the Citizens United cass if you've never heard of if, or maybe observe the now regular, astounding and blatantly corrupt deals and grifts the current fascist regime does on a regular basis.

Or, if you prefer an academic source:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

Thats over a decade old now, its only gotten worse.

...

The conclusions you are reaching fly in the face of obvious, exceptionally well documented facts.

You are wrong.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

The US is unarguably less meritocratic than the amalgamated EU by every possible metric… unless your conception of a ‘meritocracy’ is ‘you have to be a genius to even stand a chance at doing better than your parents, otherwise, all that matters is how much wealth you were born into.’

Okay but then how do you reconcile the study you presented with what you are arguing now? Either the study you cited above is poorly constructed and the results aren't reliable, or what you argue now is incorrect.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

I literally already told you:

Here in the US, we only have downward class mobility, unless you are very, very clever, and continuously lucky, continuously reinvesting those gains from your cleverness into social and financial capital without making any 'bad investments', or ever having any sudden medical or financial disaster happen to you.

...

It is entirely possible for the IQ coefficient of life SES status to be higher in the US than in the EU, and for overall social class mobility to be better in the EU.

These are in no way contradictory.

If 10 out of 100 people of say >115 IQ in the US do better in life than their parents...

But 30 out of 100 people of >105 IQ in the EU do better in life than their parents...

Then the EU has better overall social class mobility, and IQ is less strongly correlated with SES improvement, than in the US.

This is literally what a statistics teacher would call a 'trivial' example, because of how basic and obvious it is.

...

Measuring the factors that go into SES shifting is completely different from measuring how many people SES shift.

How many people do a thing?

...is not the same question as...

What kind of people do a thing?

...

Honestly, if you don't understand that this is possible, that this is an entirely non contradictory scenario...

Then its pretty clear you do not have any sufficient training in statistics, that you are not actually capable of having a meaningfully informed opinion on any of this.

It would take me too long to teach you, and I am used to being paid for my time when it comes to using my Econ degree with a specialization in Econometrics.

Go take a Kahn Academy course or sign up at your local community college or something.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Here in the US, we only have downward class mobility, unless you are very, very clever, and continuously lucky, continuously reinvesting those gains from your cleverness into social and financial capital without making any ‘bad investments’, or ever having any sudden medical or financial disaster happen to you.

The studies you cite in your second comment don't support this. They show less class mobility in both directions.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago*

My... second comment?

What does that mean?

My second reply to you?

My second reply in this whole thread?

If you're talking about the thing I most recently linked from Cambridge...

... 2 of 3 of those links were not even academic studies, just amalgamated data sets.

...

Again, you're not getting the basic concept.

How many people are upwardly or downwardly mobile... is not the same thing as which kind of people are downward or upwardly mobile, what factors play into that to what degree.

The Cambridge study mentions the former and proposes an explanation for this.

The 2016 study looks at the latter and attempts to explain that.

I am saying that, of that lower upward and downward mobility in the US from the Cambridge study... the only people who can move up are exceptionally smart, and the only people that move down are exceptionally dumb.

Whereas in the EU, you do not need to be as extremely smart or dumb to move up or down socially, thus it occurs more often.

...

I am sorry, but again, you clearly do not understand statistics to have a meaningful discussion on this, please, I am not trying to merely insult you, please actually learn statistics so that you can actually have a useful opinion on this topic that you clearly care about.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

On top of the prior point lies another major issue with any sort of "general intelligence" test: defining "general intelligence". Intelligence comes in many forms: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential intelligence, and more. The IQ test does not test all forms of intelligence.

This, a million times this.

Intelligence is not simply a thing like an INT stat in an rpg game that just generally makes you more cognitively capable and/or knowledgeable with just consistently broad applicability.

Theres a ton of research that's gone into how to actually teach children and people things that suggests... sure, there is to some extent a broad cognitive ability, but there is also a huge multidimensional component, more domain specific element to different levels of aptitude with different kinds of thinking.

...

Like, me, I'm autistic.... innately good at clear cut and logical things, innately terrible at anything approaching fuzzy logic, like socializing.

I had to put a massive amount of effort into learning that... people often don't literally mean what they literally say, how intonation works, how context works in social situations...

... whereas I excelled at learning how to read and write and do math, how to do logic and critical thinking, apply frameworks of thinking across different fields of knowledge, memorize knowledge sets from books or what not.

Kinesis intelligence? Eh, I'd say I'm decent at it naturally, but that's been greatly augmented by 10+ years of Karate, a bit of shooting range practice, learning the basics of a few instruments... but I'm no where near as 'body' or 'dexterity' intelligent as many others I've met.

...

Anyway, yeah, theres a lot of interesting empirical research nowadays that shows different areas of the brain being more or less engaged in certain kinds of activities, and then trying to basically reverse engineer how all that works, but its enormously complicated.

Also: Epigenetics is a thing.

Nature gives you your DNA... but Nurture changes which parts of it are more used, more activated.

Its all enormously more complex than reducing a person down to a single number.

Oh right and the other big one: implicit cultural bias in the IQ tests themselves. I think this is (somewhat?) less of a problem in actual legit IQ tests these days, but for a very, very long time, it was a huge problem that just resulted in basically scientific racism.

...

tl:dr;

anyone who is boasting about their IQ without a gazillion caveats is doing the dunning-krueger thing, overestimating their actual cognitive abilities.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent