Video games also have potential legal advantages over IQ tests for companies. You could argue that “we only hire people good at video games to get people who fit our corporate culture of liking video games” but that argument doesn’t work as well for IQ tests.
yet again an original post title that self-sneers
> and likelihood of being convicted for a crime.
do you think there are any confounding factors there
EDIT: actually, forget it, you’ve been deleting and reposting to try to promote this stuff, bye now
aw fuck, my baby’s first post defending iq got d-d-d-downvotes! the only high iq move here is to delete and repost it and then post a pop science youtube video that supports my point. that’ll show em who the real @mind in the room is
@dgerard @sneerclub IQ is a metric for how sneaky people are.
The conclusions made about IQ were done after controlling for factors like race and family income, which you would know if you even did a cursory study of the research behind these tests, because you weren’t the first person to ask that. Controlling for confounding variables was always a big part of IQ research.
I’m sure we both know that race and family income will have a big effect on life outcomes, regardless off who you are as a person. To account for that, you can control for both factors and see how IQ impacted life outcomes when those stay the same.
According to the NLSY, a big study often referenced to establish how good IQ is as a predictor, shows that even with a race or income bracket, a higher IQ is linked to better life outcomes.
you know what, I’ll bite
“just for kicks” I’ve run IQ tests at various times in my life, in various states of being (stressed, sick, tired, etc)
the variance I got on the outputs have been up to 40 points wide across many cases.
objective measure it is not.
proxy indicator, very much so.
the shit does not measure what you think it does.
@froztbyte @sneerclub Data point: at one time as a kid it occurred to a school counselor that maybe my grades were evidence that my supposed “potential” based on an earlier IQ test was wrong & that a new more modern version of the Stanford-Binet would reveal my imbecility. The 2nd test came out 60+ points higher than the 1st. That couldn’t be correct, so I ended up taking 2 more tests, both with scores in between but substantially different.
Sure, IQ is real.
@mind @dgerard
IQ tests assume that there is a general intelligence that they’re measuring. That has never been found and if it _had_ then it would be compulsory learning at school.
IQ tests are pretty good for measuring low attainment and problems, that’s what they were designed for.