= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MTGandP comments on In Defense of Moral Investigation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (78)
I think they do, because an IQ test is a pretty poor measure of general intelligence.
Why do you believe that?
And what, specifically, do you mean by "general intelligence"? Do you mean the same thing that psychometricians do? (i.e. is this a semantic dispute over how to use the english word "Intelligence"?)
I haven't seriously studied intelligence tests or psychometrics, but from what I understand, the best IQ tests only measure certain limited forms of intelligence such as spatial reasoning, working memory, and vocabulary.
And I'm afraid I can't give a very good definition of general intelligence. I have an intuition as to its definition which is hard to describe.
There's a high correlation between many different intelligence tests. That's the point of Spearman's g factor, and why the US army uses things like the ASVAB.
The fact that you haven't studied the topic seriously makes it even more surprising that you hold a position that goes against expert opinion! People are wrong all the time on topics they have studied for years, that should make us even more wary of holding strong opinions on topics we have studied for mere hours!
If you think that intelligence covers A, B, C and D, but that IQ tests only test A and B, find out why! Maybe C is hard to measure directly, but so strongly correlated with A and B that it can be predicted anyway! Maybe after reflection, C doesn't fit in a meaningful definition of intelligence, and is grouped under another heading (like "emotional intelligence"). Maybe the tests actually cover D, but you don't know it because you're basing yourself off tests from the fifties or lame internet tests. Maybe C varies too strongly with time even within the same individual to be worth measuring.
The point is, if an expert believes X, but you wouldn't believe X out of hand, it's more likely that there's a surprising reason for X rather than the expert is wrong.