LessWrong: video games > IQ tests — LessWrong
I agree with the post title, but only because video games have value and IQ tests absolutely do not
IQ tests are notorious for working poorly above ~135, and I’d say they only really work well for -20 to +0 relative to the designers, with a somewhat wider range for teams.
wait so how do the IQ test designers get their IQs tested? if the scouter explodes when it measures your IQ, do you get to design the tests?
Have you played something like Slay the spire? Or Mechabellum that is popular right now? Deck builders don’t require coordination at all but demands understanding of tradeoffs and managing risks. If anything those skills are neglected parts of intelligence.
nice! by the Slay the Spire metric, I’ve got like a 180 IQ. time to dunk on these nerds
(I’m also gonna download Mechabellum cause it looks like entirely my shit. not the first time I’ve ignored all of the “salient” points in a rat post and went straight for the game recommendations)
video games have value and IQ tests absolutely do not
IQ tests have proven to be a good predictor of job performance, health, and likelihood of being convicted for a crime.
The main study for this was the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which took IQ tests and followed the same participants throughout their life. IQ was shown to be a better predictor than family income, and other factors.
Being able to predict job performance has value for companies who want long-term reliable employees. It has value for schools and students so that those struggling can get additional help before bigger problems pop up.
and likelihood of being convicted for a crime.
do you think there are any confounding factors there
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.
There is evidence for the g factor. Research found that performing well on almost any test- verbal, spatial, pattern-recognition, even many specialized tests, predicts a better performance on the rest.
Charles Spearman documented his research, and you can find a lot of info about that online.
Then they made a test that was designed to have a strong correlation coefficient with the other tests, and called that the IQ test.
When actually put to the test in the NSLY, they showed it was a better predictor for many life outcomes than even family income.
This is taught in schools (college level). It’s part of most psychology undergrads to at least cover the basics of his research.
Even before college, many schools do give IQ tests to students to either place them in remedial or advanced classes.
"G" is a statistical artefact in a method that's prone to giving artefacts. It comes from a eugenics driven movement that strives to prove conclusions it already reached. Please, stop with the shoddy, shoddy science.