"IQ" measures an inferior form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects, meant to select paper shufflers, obedient IYIs.
1- When someone asks you a question in REAL LIFE, you focus first on "WHY is he asking me that?", which slows down. (Fat Tony vs Dr John)
Yuuge survivorship bias.
37 out of 38 PhDs in finance blew up in 1998!
It measures best the ability to be a good slave.
IYIs want to build a top-down world where IYIs have the edge.
David Sloan Wilson joined the debate.
Remember the 1998 blowups.
And the problem is that in academia there is no difference between academia and the real world; in the real world there is.
Which explains why @primalpoly (while an honest resesrcher) can't see where we are coming from.
I've spent 34 years working w/"High IQ" quants. I've rarely seen them survive, not blow up on tail events.
Those high IQ who have survived like @financequant /Renaissance happen to be yuuugely street smart
Or no measure: just a conversation #Lindy. But then psycholophasters are using it like cholesterol, transferring from tails to body.
But put enough academics w/physics envy on it & it will become an official measure.
That's what happened to "IQ".
or, at least
Hence IQ is not a measure, but something for psycholophasters to BS about.
QUIZ: translate the correlation into percentage of the time IQ provides a correct answer there.
Where it's most hyped (*some* jobs) it predicts ~15- 63% of the time, ~10% if you demassage data.
It it were a physical test, wd be rejected.
How P values often fraudulent:arxiv.org/pdf/1603.07532…
Same for g factor
"If IQ isn't a valid concept, no concept in psychology is valid." Sorry but psychology is largely bust.
1) Charlatans with something to sell: without IQ & other *testing* psychologists have little to sell society; there is a vested interest in hacking/massaging the stats & defending the products.
2) Pple who want some races to be inferior.
Note 1: Why is Intelligence = (long term) survival? Because convexity, missed by IQ tests. You want to make those mistakes with small consequences NOT those with large ones. Academics ~ always focus on frequency of error not magnitude. Too Gaussianized. See #antifragile
For IQ idiots too slow:
-If a 70 IQ is certain to fail but a 150 IQ has a significant probability of NOT succeeding, the ASYMMETRY has SEVERE statistical conseq. & "correlation" is BS term.
-If variance is lower at some states & higher at others,"Bell Curve" is an illusion.
I mute/block all pple comparing IQ to a physical measure s.a. height of basketball players.
IQ as presented is NOT a measure.
Reminiscent of risk charlatans insisting on selling "value at risk" & RiskMetrics saying "it's the best measure".
Metrics need to have properties.
Technical note I omitted:
If IQ is Gaussian *by construction* & if performance is fat tailed, then either correlation betw IQ & performance doesn't exist or is uninformational. It will show a finite number *in sample* but doesn't exist statistically.
Charles Murray, @charlesmurray, is responding to these with series of ad hominem attacks (I mean really ad hominem).
I will retaliate by sticking to the science.
A counter by a proponent of IQ w/what "g" offers best: explains ~½ the variance w.r. to academics.
No "science" shd boast a measure that fails ~50%!
Worse: counting circularity, hacking, the measure shd be wrong ~ 80% of the time! This is ... fraud!
Traders get it right away: hypothetical P/L from "simulated" strategies don't count.
"IQ": What goes in people's head or reaction to a screen image doesn't exist (except via negativa). And correlations in psych papers don't count.
- I said psychology was BS because something wrong between 50-100% of the time is the very definition of bul***st (a lie is wrong ~100%).
- Selection of traits "tested" by IQ require predictability of future environment.
- Will put everything in short article.