/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11613976]

>Some psych*logists come up with pseudoscientific concepts around the 1900's, such as IQ tests, MBTI personality tests and shit.
>Despite psych*logy being a literal unscientific meme half of the time, these tests are taken seriously.
>Companies use shit like this to sort employees. Even schools sometimes.

Why is the world so prone to use pseudoscience when it benefits their stupid schemes? How do we teach people not to fall for the false teachings of psych*logists?

[Anonymous No.11614001]

>>11613976
MBTI isn't used for academic research, Big Five is. Also, IQ is fit for purpose [see literate], Nassim "The LARPer" Taleb has been thoroughly debunked:
> https://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-06-16-talebiq/

[Anonymous No.11614030]

if you give people questions there ends up being at least 5 variables shown by factor analysis.
you can then rank order people in these variables to say whether they are low or high in each, which is useful because these variables have useful correlations in the real world. none more obvious than in recruitment. 80% of the variance in income level can be explained by IQ and conscientiousness.
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openess

[Anonymous No.11614034]

>>11614001
Is this supposed to be taken seriously?

[Anonymous No.11614044]

>>11613976
>>11614001
I also took this excerpt from Richard J. Haier's [1] book:
>The neuroscience of intelligence [2]
For you, picture related.
[1]:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Haier
[2]:
>https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/neuroscience-of-intelligence/F1A9A3B6EE6C39C0D8859EA4F55DB80F

[Anonymous No.11614047]

>>11614030
Also, openness correlates with IQ. Showing a relatedness.

[Anonymous No.11614049]

>>11614030

The fact you found a set of image puzzles that weakly correlates with income (see the shitshow "fit" at >>11614034) does not mean you found a way to describe "intelligence".

Also, importantly:
If people expect this to be real, they might act as if it is, which might in turn make it real. It's sort of how Technical Analysis works in the stock market. It's pure bullshit, astrology level, but if enough people believe it and follow it, it starts making sense.

[Anonymous No.11614056]

>>11614049
Lmao, see here >>1161404, you contrarian. IQ tests can even predict a persons neurotype. Now good enough for you? Of course not, you already have preconceived notions.

[Anonymous No.11614061]

>>11614049
>>11614056
Should be >>11614044, it didn't link properly.

[Anonymous No.11614068]

>>11614049
you should read this book.
There is nothing that can be measured that doesn't strictly abide a correlation or distribution.

You putting significance on human characteristics vs any other measurable characteristic is a subjective bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law#Examples

[Anonymous No.11614071]

>>11614068
>this book
forgot pic

[Anonymous No.11614082]

>>11614049
>The fact you found a set of image puzzles that weakly correlates with income...
Don't act like that's the only thing, you disingenuous hack, it also correlates with things like job performance, successful task completion, like locate intersection on a street map and talent.
Picture related.

[Anonymous No.11614091]

>>11613976

>Some psych*logists come up with pseudoscientific concepts around the 1900's, such as IQ tests,

>be french psychologist
>come up with education readiness assessment for grad school children as requested by government.
>Suddenly a few years later some asshurt eugenist burger takes said readiness assessment and Frankensteins it into the modern IQ test cause he hates non-whites.
>have name tarnished and your field of psychometrics labeled racists even though you just wanted to help some french kids

Alfred Binet had a hard life.

[Anonymous No.11614113]

>>11614091
Oh fuck off, you self-flagellating prick. IQ is more than just some pseudoscientific concept. Oh look, yet more correlations! Cope more, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11614268]

>>11614034
I love how IQtards don't have an answer to this.
In the end their know their pseudoscience is based only on wishful thinking

[Anonymous No.11614284]

>>11614268
>Naysayer not even bothering to look at the article properly, cherrypicks bit that only addresses IQ in relation to income, totally ignoring jobs that don't require a decent IQ, but still pay a lot, like nightclub owner, or for an extreme example, like the Kardashians.
>Proceeds to then ignore the other much more significant correlations and arguments posted in the thread.
>Still posts like he has a fucking leg to stand on.
Seriously, get off of /sci/, you are even more pseud than the morons who base their entire identity around such metrics you lambaste, ironic.

[Anonymous No.11614528]

>>11614044
>>11614047
>>11614056
>>11614061
>>11614068
>>11614071
>>11614082
>>11614284


I demand a single one of you dishonest fucks to reply to this >>11614034

Also, please, PLEASE. Justify any of the shit done in the "pre-processing" (AKA data massaging) stage described in:
https://www.jsmp.dk/files/nlsy_data.html

Also, even with all of this shit all you still get is a very faint possible positive correlation that would probably not be accepted as a significant result in any decent journal. There's a reason this fuck is not giving any of the adjustment metrics. Do you think I was born yesterday or something? This is exactly like when students try to half ass their reports and hide steps.

[Anonymous No.11614545]

>>11614528
>I demand a single one of you dishonest fucks to reply to this >>11614034
I did you blind retard:
>Naysayer not even bothering to look at the article properly, cherrypicks bit that only addresses IQ in relation to income, totally ignoring jobs that don't require a decent IQ, but still pay a lot, like nightclub owner, or for an extreme example, like the Kardashians.

[Anonymous No.11614549]

>>11614528
>>11614545
In other words, it isn't nearly as important as the other correlations that don't have corrupting factors, like societal input.

[Anonymous No.11614557]

>>11614284
I'm OP and I went to take a nap cause i figured no one would reply to this thread anyway. Let me go post by post. I just finished reading this>>11614044, and if this is the average level of argument you're gonna try to use, I'm already upset at the waste of time you're gonna put me through.

The premise that you can test the reliability of SAT scores by college performance is a flawed one, by infinitely many reasons. Only someone with absolutely 0 understanding of statistics, theory of measurements and errors, and basic scientific thinking could say some shit like this with a straight face. Again I wouldn't be surprised to know this was written by a psych*logist.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Haier
OH WOW what a surprise. A psych*logist.

OK so let me break this one down for you step by step, alright?
>Test bias has a specific meaning.
If you are going to treat tests as actual measurements, you should stop using psychological jargon this very second and start using metrological one. Start talking about expanded uncertainties and that kind of shit. This won't happen for 2 reasons:
1 - Because psych*logists would shit their pants if they had to learn actual math and actual proper procedures to apply statistical models/calculate errors and uncertainties.
2 - Because it would probably show how weak and statistically insignificant their shit is.

>If people with high SAT scores consistently fail college course, the test is overpredicting success and it is a biased test.

This is NOT what measurement bias means, and this is NOT what the test is testing for, and this is NOT the first conclusion anyone with half a brain would draw if a group of people with amazing SAT scores failed their classes on college. Only someone desperate to claim intelligence tests are amazing would say something like this. A more normal scientist would check if there is some extenuating circumstance happening in that particular college. Post is too long.

[Anonymous No.11614560]

>>11613976
ENTP chad here. You sound like a salty ISFJ

[Anonymous No.11614567]

>>11614284
Lmao you fuckers circlejerk about how iq predicts everything, including income in every fucking thread. "Now it's cherrypicked because many well paying jobs don't require high iq"?
Stay mad cocksucker

[Anonymous No.11614572]

>>11614560
Not that this should matter but on separate occasions (few years apart) I took those dumb online tests and got INTJ and INTP on each occasion.
As for IQ tests I never took a serious one, but those internet ones everyone takes gave me 138 and 140 in those two separate occasions.
I'm still convinced this shit is probably not much more significant than reading your horoscope.

[Anonymous No.11614611]

>>11614557
Hilarious. I just bothered to read through this diatribe of moronicity and boy, you think you're hot shit, don't you? The funny thing is, within this, you don't actually say WHY any of this is wrong, you just claim it is. Not only that, because the reasoning you for it being wrong is based upon nothing but ad hominem. It's just ad homs, with filler.

[Anonymous No.11614615]

>>11614567
That isn't an argument against any of my other points, in fact, it isn't an argument against my original point. On top of that, it is a strawman, as THOSE AREN'T MY CLAIMS, you dunce.

[Anonymous No.11614631]

>>11614611
>Accuse them of what you do.
Oldest trick in the book.
That entire shit paragraph you posted has 0 data to be refuted. It just claims in broad lines "there's correlations man just trust me and stop saying there aren't". Which incidentally is what you are doing as well.

And my claim that it is misusing concepts of hard sciences for the purpose of shoving some pseudoscience down your throat is substantiated by the very fact he is using those concepts wrong.
Seethe more, psych*.

[Anonymous No.11614635]

>>11614631
>And my claim that it is misusing concepts...
Except you never do anything more to substantiate that than say it.

[Anonymous No.11614639]

>>11614635
>Claim: A man is misusing concepts in this text.
>Evidence: Text includes excerpts of man misusing concepts.
>You: REEEEEEEEEEEEE
Is this the fabled low IQ people talk so much about.

[Anonymous No.11614648]

>>11614639
You wanted some data? Here, I got you some data. I just wanted to stall you for a bit, whilst hitting at some more of your sensitive pseudointellectual nerves.
Picture related.

[Anonymous No.11614660]

>>11614648

The funny thing is I had never heard about that Taleb guy being anti-IQ tests, and went to read his points on this and he talks exactly about what I'm saying, even down to problems with uncertainty propagation:

https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
It's amazing the difference it makes to have actually studied a little bit of this shit huh. Wonder if they weren't giving the R2 of all those adjustments because they were fucking 0. L M A O.

As for what you posted, I must insist that you think about the methodology being used. While I read through the image you put there, let me ask you something, OK? Wild hypothetical.

A sizable part of mankind believes in astrology. A sizable part checks their horoscope and knows their signs. Imagine in some country this is very pervasive in the local culture, to the point that everyone, every employer or teacher, will check your date of birth and your horoscope before deciding if they hire you/marry you/whatever. At that point you run some statistics on this country and find out most CEOs are Leos or Gemini or whatever the fuck.

In this hypothetical scenario, can you reasonably assume this means astrology is correct?
As you unpack this question in your head, I hope my point becomes clearer to you.

[Anonymous No.11614666]

>>11614660
Ah, here we go again. Just ignoring it.
>It's wrong... because I say so, dammit! Damn to hell all of those conclusive studies!
I have another reply for Mr. Taleb, and you, if you so insist you are in the same ballpark as him:
>https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=8028
INB4: It's wrong because I say it is! Which you've done with the first thing I posted, then Richard Haier's material and this. All you use is attempted sophistry, cherrypicking, ad hominem and strawmen. You are not someone who argues in good faith.

[Anonymous No.11614686]

>>11614666
Dude fucking read the shit you're making me trudge through. Seriously. So you admitted that the one on income was shit but you tell me "LOOK AT THE OTHER ONES".

And then I go and look at the one for the WLS dataset. Now why your pal there thinks cherrypicking 1 dataset where this "works" is a good idea, that's beyond me. But you know what the worst part is?
His precious dataset, where your precious IQ """"works"""" has an R squared of fucking 0.35.
You are a scientifically illiterate piece of shit if you think this kind of cherry picking, with this bad of a result, would pass a single round of unbiased peer review.
I have reason to believe you are doing this out of ignorance, incompetence, or worst of all, being a psych*logist.

[Anonymous No.11614694]

>>11614686
Called it! Straight away, into:
>It's wrong... because I say so, dammit!
You cannot have read all of that material in the proper depth in that amount of time, you disingenuous fuckhead. Also, no, income correlations aren't "shit" as in completely useless, because a positive correlation does exist. However, there are better metrics without societal influence, some of which I have posted above, and all of which you have just ignored.
Also, IQ has far more grounding than a horoscope, you pretentious gnome, it even has predictive power in terms of neurological structure. But, of course, that's just totally coincidental, despite academic studies.
You have posted no sources, you have posted no solid argumentation, all you have done is offer attempted sophistry, cherrypicking, ad hominem and strawmen. You do not have the foundations to accuse anyone of being "scientifically illiterate", apart from evidently yourself.

[Anonymous No.11614803]

>>11614528
>>11614549
IQ isn't defined by it's relationship to income no one said it was.
https://youtu.be/fjs2gPa5sD0
https://youtu.be/jSo5v5t4OQM

[Anonymous No.11615572]

>>11614034
1) Logarithmic graph giving the illusion of there being a tiny difference
2) Absolutely no source and therefore no way to verify if this is real data
3) No source also means we can't check on the methods of the study.
4) Value to society doesn't necessarily correlate to income.

[Anonymous No.11615574]

>>11615572
Shit just realised it was from the link lol. 1 and 4 still stand though.

[Anonymous No.11615576]

>>11615572
Iq isnt defined by value to society either

[Anonymous No.11616393]

>>11614001
>Big Five is legit science
No it isn’t. Letting people tick boxes is rather loosely correlated to real world behavior. It’s the same as MBTI, but with a more mathematical/statistical facade. Almost all current psychology is throwing validity out of the window in exchange for reliability.