YUUGE RESULT OF 2019: a chimp beats humans at some kind of IQ style tests.— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) January 13, 2020
It is not just IQ: this is the defeat of standardized testing, university admission, school evaluation. They select people good at *some* tests. https://t.co/lcCKE7Z1SO
Be sure to follow the further commentary by Taleb in the remainder of the thread.
I believe this supports my thinking on IQ and the attention factor:
https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2019/02/the-correlation-between-iq-and-success.html
-RW
Only low IQ people believe IQ tests are a perfect test of intelligence. They are tools that can be useful.
ReplyDeleteRW is trying once again to lie to us and tell us that race, IQ, and culture don't matter. Letting in a bunch of low IQ violent Africans would only lead to a more libertarian society according to his views though RW refuses to live in a neighborhood filled with diversity.
ReplyDeleteThis test does nothing to go against IQ measurements in humans. First of all, reation/inspection time tsts are more reliable when they are more complicated up to a point. A chimp would not be able to do any of those test accurately. Second, I am not sure why anybody thinks IQ testing is supposed to predict success in "creative" fields. The correlation between creativity and IQ as described by IQ researches is anywhere from mild to zero. I am not sure why people like Taleb think they are winning an argument about this. It is like he thinks he is winning an argument against them by quoting them Hans Eysenck in his book on intelligence specifically points out that there is a general intelligence factor and several special factors which cannot be reduced to general IQ. "If you want to be an outstanding physicist or astronomer, writer or historian, engineer or architect, you would need in addition to high IQ, special numerical, verbal, or visuo-spatial abilities, respectively" and ""IQ without special abilities is not enough!" (Eysenck, Intelligence: A New Look, p. 107) This book was from 1998. Note that Eysenck was defending more or less what was the standard view of intelligence at the time. I do not think much has changed in this regard since then.
ReplyDelete