My challenge to folks who are skeptical about IQ tests such as the Stanford-Binet or WAIS-R: Develop your own measure of general cognitive ability and show that it has higher reliability & validity in predicting real-world success. I'll wait.
-
-
Reminds me of smth from
@neilhimself American Gods: "The most accurate map possible would be the territory, and thus would be perfectly accurate and perfectly useless."Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Very well said Mr. Miller!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A hypothetical alternative is irrelevant. There doesn’t need to be one. A physicist could be skeptical of my faster than light spaceship and I wouldn’t have to ask him to build one to prove me wrong. The tests work to the extent they work.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Gonna have to disagree with you on that.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
How on earth can you understand that IQ is either +, - or independently correlated with intelligence, statistical normalization, the coincidence of its successes, that it's a non-cognitive that it does not exist, the binomial distribution of large samples ...
-
The fact that IQ is a relativistic to general population value measure meaning that 70 today is smarter than 70 100 yrs ago. Understand SMPY, Terence Tao and Bayes Theorem. The positive correlation with all positive agentic outcomes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The issue that you’re missing is skin in the game. Even
@nntaleb admits that he himself isn’t as smart without skin in the game. So he’s arguing that iq tests are moot because without skin the game, it’s just a bullshit metric. People behave differently with#skininthegameThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.