Daily reminder that most studying techniques are extremely ineffective, and needlessly time consuming. With spaced repetition one can learn 10-100 times more factoids/unit of time when compared to simply studying.
Too bad nobody cares enough to optimize this system.
A new study on IQ and job performance dropped. Sackett's claims are vindicated, AND they fail to find support for the claim that IQ predicts better in "high complexity" jobs.
Paper: We should teach people about IQ
Sasha Gusev: I've read the IQ research literature, and came to the the following conclusions
IQ researchers: NONONONONONO, you haven't published in INTELLIGENCE/PAID, you cannot have an opinion, only IQ researchers can have them.
Oh look, a Harvard professor who has never published a paper on the topic of intelligence, has never taught a course on the topic on intelligence, weighs in on the meaning of IQ. Dude, Gould did it, 40 years ago. He was wrong then, you are wrong now. Bored.
Daily reminder that education increases IQ by about 5 points/year
It's not overestimated due to measurement error as Hansen, Heckman, Mullen 2004 show. Education's effect are also stronger for ppl with lower initial IQ, and there are no diminishing returns
An environmental intervention that reliably increased IQ by 2.5 points would be considered huge, but when you do it with embryo selection it has "limited utility". For example, the benefit of deleading in the USA would be about 2.6 IQ points, but nobody would say that it's not
"IQ tests are among the most reliable, predictive measures in psychology – one of the field's crowning achievements. If IQ isn't a valid concept, no concept in psychology is valid, and we might as well quit and become plumbers or electricians."
New study explains why we don't see significant adoptive parent-adoptee correlations, despite adoption having a huge effect on the mean level of the adoptees' achievement.(it's basically due to noise)
Human behavioral geneticists: "Idk how can people deny the 80%+ heritability of psychological traits, what's next? Blank slatism for animal traits?"
Animal geneticists:
Psychologists when they yap about thing they haven't studies(like genetics): totally fine
Psychologists when non psychologists have an opinion about a psychological measurement: NOT FINE, UNACCEPTABLE
15 year old me was so fooled by Jordan Peterson. I rememeber the time when I was watching his lecture about the link between IQ and profession(which he basically copied from Gottfredson) and being sad because I wasn't in the top x% IQ range for my intended career.
Hbders be like:
-Graham Coop is an incompetent lying academic = bad and biased
-Cremieux is a polymath expert on genetics and psychometrics = good, and honest
Beyond parody really
My twitter/discord DMs be like:
-Doomer HBD guy depressed cuz he has avg IQ
-Confused hbder
-"just asking questions" hbder
-Guy who hates psychometrics
-Psychometrician
-h^2=0 believer
-Ivy league genetics prof
-another psychometrician
-IQ researcher
-failed dox attempt(how???)
I guess this what kids today call "cope"? Also Sackett et al responded to it like half a year ago.
Never trust anons for scientific info, read both perspectives and make up your own mind.
This critique of Sackett et al.'s recent meta-analysis (that claims cognitive ability is a much weaker predictor of job performance than previously thought), shows that Sackett et al.'s analysis is flawed, is conservative by construction, and their results are untenable.
Despite the fact that I will defend the fact that education causes *meaningful*, non hollow IQ gains, i fucking hate the whole schooling system.
I already hated it in elementary school, and continue to do so in college
Writing takes much more time than I thought. This is gonna take a while, I'm tackling heritability rn. I didn't even touch alternative manifold explanations yet, and I'm already at 6k words.
Also I'm quite suprised there are people who want to read my ramblings on this topic.
IDK why people think this is a gotcha. In order to solve this you need to indentifiy, and track the positions of the objects in your working memory. Much easier when you have the words learned to do so.
Also progressive matrices like these have lukewarm g-loadings at best.
Yeah let's just ignore the dozens of quasi experimental studies where there are no concerns wrt to measurement error. The linked study analyzes 1(one) longitudinal(non experimental) study...
Twitter pop-science accounts should be banned from the site, they cause low IQ.
The beneficial effect of higher education on intelligence is significantly lower than previously assumed and levels off after two years of schooling.
The effect of higher education on intelligence has been examined using longitudinal data. Typically, these
Imagine being a geneticist on in 2023. One simple mistake like pointing out why certain PGS analyses are statistically nonsense, and it's over. People with hate-follow you, and hereditarians will write 2k character long fanfictions about your sex life.
A study from Carnegie Mellon University finds that everyone learns at the same rate, although some students have a head start.
A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then they discovered they don't exist
Ok, all you geniuses: who’s a -smart- person’s idea of a smart person? Whose intellectual work and manner of presenting it has earned your respect? Or do we not commit ourselves that way on Twitter?
@NSesardic
It's a term made up by hereditarians because "correlation isn't causation" wasn't catchy enough, so they rebanded it to subtly undermine a whole field. Repackaging basic concepts to seem insightful? Classic move by pseudointellectuals.
"Our assumptions are true"->"Okay they are not true, but they don't affect paremeter estimates"->"Okay they may affect parameter estiamtes even in the real population, but we can detect them"-> The power to detect simple cases is ~0.3, and requires item level or multivariate data
My grandfather just gave me the scoring manual for the Mawi (Hungarian WAIS) along with some case files.
I'm dumbfounded.
My favorite case is a woman who gained like 30 IQ points in 1 hour by being given a placebo for anxiety.
Okay, I'll read The Science of Human Intelligence 2nd edition, and do a thread about it as I read it. This post was the final trigger. Hunt's book(first edition) was the best and most objective textbook on IQ. I hope they didn't mess up the other parts too
Pro tip: if you don't like a certain theory you can just call it a fallacy, and if you say it enough times they'll put it in the opening remarks of a text book!
I thought that people parroting "logical fallacies" were bad, but oh boy.
The people who learn causal inference from racist twitter are the worst.
"conditioning on a collider", "selection effect", "range restriction", "sampling error", all used in the wrong context.
I have to write about 85% of my thesis, code a pacman clone from scratch in a programming language I do not know, design a network architecture, and relearn a semester's worth math for an upcoming exam all by the end of november.
Can anyone recommend good series/anime/whatever?
"Differences in Parenting Behavior are Systematic Sources of the Non-shared Environment for Internalizing and Externalizing Problem Behavior"
Measured home environment once again explains a major part of the E component.
Psychologist
#1
who disagrees with me on IQ: "I know you are super reasonable and knowledgeable on the topic so just thought I would reach out"
Psychologist
#2
who disagrees with me on IQ: "Despite knowing about your bad reputation, I'm still interested in your criticism"
A not often appreciated fact: Psychometricians of his time literally ignored all of his work, the only people who worshipped him were random nonquantitative psychologists.
Racists started worshipped him because of conclusions, not because of his methods.
Just wasted 5 mins of valuable study time by reading a long "debunking" by a HBDer, just to be sure I "wasn't being misled" by the OP's summary. What a surprise, I wasn't.
@davidhughjones
@cremieuxrecueil
In my work, I try to advocate for the UK Biobank model of large germline data collection and broad sharing. Now I have to explain why UKBB participants are being told that second-born kids are destined to marry spouses with "bad genes".
Fun fact Jensen admitted that g/IQ was not predictive of learning speed with practice, but he handwaved it away by making up 2 systems of learning, a "fast" one which encompasses "catching on", and a slow one which is basically long term schooling. Without evidence btw.
Fun fact if you make 2 groups (<90IQ and >110IQ), and then do a MGCFA, measurement invariance fails due to the Spearman's law of diminishing returns.
The only reasonable conclusion is that group means cannot be compared due to the MI violation, IQ differences don't exist.
Of course there is Anki, an open source SRS software. It's amazing, Don't get me wrong, but if we take research seriously, it's very badly optimized.
Supermemo is developed by a genius crank, algorithm is black-box.
Duolingo/memrise are for-profit.
My favorite thing about iq worshippers is that if their models are contradicted by empirical data, then they make up nonexistent methodological psychometric limitations or even straight up reject the fundamentals of psychometrics.
I'm gonna reveal a secret: A person can be smart at topic A, while being dumb at topic B. Even if you accept the g-factor theory of intelligence, which is a cringe take if you're familiar with the data.
It’s funny to me how many people will call an intelligent person dumb, just because they disagree with that person.
If you think you’re smarter than Elon Musk or Ben Shapiro but you work a dead end job after graduating from some crappy college, you’re delusional.
I just gave IQ as an example of ordinal measurement for my stats exam.(I will have to debate the prof for the A if I fucked up even just 1 other question)
I would have thought this was completely uncontroversial. All except a few geniuses who persist in taking math courses reach a point when they say to themselves "I can't understand this no matter how hard I try." Some people reach it in sixth grade; others in high school; others
Change in grades is not heritable, but has a statistically significant shared environmental variance, therefore the hypothesis that "it's just noise" is incorrect
Unironically this.
The hereditarian hypothesis grows weaker everyday if one takes genomic methods seriously.
However the known environmental variables account for a miniscule amount of IQ variation. (except for basic education)
you know what's a doable and great human experimentation? Gifted schools for "low IQ" people.
Find 2000 "low-IQ" people from disadvantaged / discriminated / impoverished communities, give them scholarship to a free 12 years of ultra high quality education and environment
@lu_sichu
Go to Lasker's rpubs, look at his "just one g" meta analysis and search for his take on POT,Kovacs,Conway. Cremieux on twitter acts nice, but he literally think Conways,Kovács are incompetent. He just doesn't say so, because they agree...for now
I'm crying out of laughter.
-56% heritability is in line with 90% heritability(the mean age in this study is 42)
-Hungarian education is meritocratic(the value added by different schools is huge here, unlike in the USA/UK!)
-"SES is noncausal, it's just an indicator of genes"
My bold prediction is that at some point in the near future, most serious thinkers will accept the hereditarian hypothesis as the default hypothesis because the evidence will be overwhelming. At that point, heresy will be mainstream--and most will wonder what the fuss was about.
Behavior genetics association when its members are publishing scientifically inaccurate, sensationalist books: Sleep
BGA when some twitter randos say out loud what the significant amount of its members believe:
real shit, let's create a "Public Science Committee" to combat this
Modern intelligence research still doesn't understand what heritability means. There is a reason why most research is being done by econometricians in the field nowadays.
*claims that interactions are absent*
"I computed the factor scores and compared their 4th order moments, but no I'll not show the results, just trust me"
ok dude.
Many rules in video games are objectively much more complicated than even the hardest High-School level math concepts.
Yet almost every player manages to master them, but only a fraction of students master the hardest math concepts.
Someone explain?
@lu_sichu
My point is not that Conway and POT are wrong btw. My point is that Cremieux is two-faced, and his criticism doesn't make any sense. Also everything Gusev said is correct.
Doesn't it bother the g-men that the Ritchie et al 2015 and Lasker&Kirkegaard studies couldn't extract g as a third order factor because they didn't have enough tests to model second order factors, and therefore the analysis is not on the level of "pure g"?
So let's get it straight:
- IQ doesn't predict learning speed
- IQ doesn't predict how much IQ you gain from an additional year of schooling
-IQ is stable
-Knowledge is stable
-IQ doesn't predict knowledge gain/loss
Phenotype->Environment models make the most sense here.
Greater educational quality always seems to reduce absolute variance. Standardizing these estimates would mistakenly imply that genes are more important in higher quality environments.