The IQ debate, a conclusion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.พ. 2025
- Just to show, in conclusion to my article "IQ is a pseudoscientific swindle", that psychologists arguing with it proved that IQ doesn't explain up to 99.5% of things it is supposed to explain. It's not my data, but theirs that they did not interpret correctly.
/ iq-is-largely-a-pseudo...
![Nassim Taleb - The TRUTH About Employment [w/ Russ Roberts]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OF0t-1T02ro/mqdefault.jpg)
Habibi, where have you been long time no see
Since linear regression maximizes the models explanatory power for the sample, would it be correct to think about the value of how much of the variance is NOT explained by the model as the lower limit?
In other words, for this sample e.g above IQ 120, AT MOST ~0.5% of the variance is explained by a linear regression model
Excellent!
In that moment, are you not taking the output of the linear model to evaluate the accuracy of the same model? Isn't that a biased view? It might be a rough estimate, but coud just as well be 5% or 0.05%, no?
@@philk.6034
The bigger mistake is taking a sample collected with a very spezialized purpose (comparing medium, above average and even more above average IQs) with each other, to make general claims about the IQ debate. This is mostly IQ 100 to 120. 130 are only present as outliers. Below 80 are virtually non-existent. It's a small fraction of the bell curve and not able to end the debate on IQ.
If you look at the entire curve (including IQ based disabilities and geniusses) you get VERY different results.
It's almost as if he hand-picked this study to make a point. And he might even have done so while being aware that it is bullshit.
Thx@@Chiungalla79
Thank you for fighting the good fight, mr Taleb !
I will never understand the sheer arrogance and ignorance of these people who seem to think that if you were able to spot some arbitrary patterns on an IQ test and that if were able to generate mindless permutations of a set like a computer would, then you are obviously able to spot every other pattern in the world much faster than a person who scored lower than you on an IQ test. What worries me is that a lot of these people are psychologists and cognitive scientists and that a lot of these people seem to be gaining more and more authority in society on the matter of intelligence. For instance, in my home country, psychologists can unilaterally decide if you are fit enough both cognitive wise and personality wise in order to become a judge. It does not matter how well you do exams which involve solving concrete problems of law : if you fail to do well on one of their mindnumbing ”cogntiive tests”, then they will fail you.
psychologists are mind colonialists using humanist language.
Hey NNT, thanks for your books and these videos. They’ve been really helpful to develope my thinking and shape my thoughts 🙏
This man is a monument in every sense of the word!!! I deeply admire his courage, his ethics, his philosophy of life, his intelligence, and his personality. He is the kind of MAN we wish there were more of!
❤❤❤so happy to see you again 🥰😘
In The Age of Gnosis, where knowledge as propositions as measured by some test is the highest value, this is the highest heresy.
Great to see you again Prof Taleb. I Appreciate your videos. ¡Mil gracias!
I am grateful for your books. Thank you for your time and insights 🙏🏻
It'd be funny if you compared IQ tests to the use of finger-digit ratios in studies - given the latter has also been used as a biomarker for almost everything.
The number of people in science, often in psychology, talking about correlation of 0.1 in the broad scientific literature is really shocking. I'd say the Pearson measure of correlation means nothing at all unless it is above at least 0.8, but that's controversial.
Grazie Professore e bonni auguri per l’anno nuovo.
Very persuasive. People in social sciences are constantly getting super excited about statistically significant effects that have no practical effect. Most substantial impact here seems to relate to educational attainment, which is interesting but not really an end in itself.
My girlfriend is non rational but wins all the arguments, what is her IQ?
what is yours? arguing with your gf..
@@lorenzom7237 I imagined it was 100 because its a nice round number
100+. She wins all arguments against any men, but there may be women more intelligent than your girlfriend. But you will not be capable to grasp the nature of her IQ nor be able to compare between women's IQ
btw: the IQ was invented by men. I think it is as useless as measuring properties of god with logical proofs...
whatever yours is +1
@@sneeuwballa 😂 Very nice.
I have done a lot of research on this in UK and no one is interested. No one! 57% pass GCSE's 43% don't - fixed. They are deciding who can be a nurse by writing essays on Romeo and Juliet! A nurse earns £36,000 a year, a care assistant £16,000. No political party looks after the unqualified people. You want an increase in the minimum wage - fine. You want to be a nurse sorry no! Care assistants wage goes up to £16,500 and nurses demand a pro rata wage increase to £38,000! The pass mark for an exam is decided after the exam is taken not before to ensure 57/43. Maybe it is 106 out of 240 a pass and 105 a fail. But there is human error in marking giving a 17.8% error rate of an entire grade! A grade!.
The problem with intelligence in general is that there is no one clear definition of what intelligence is. Arguably there can be many types of intelligence.
- Being able to think on your feet can be considered intelligence.
- Being able to take in loads of information in short timespan can be considered intelligence.
- Being able to notice patterns can be considered intelligence.
- Being able to do mental arithmetic well can be considered intelligence.
- Being able to farm wheat well and efficiently can be considered intelligence.
Point being, what is intelligence? Is it the ability to apply knowledge into real life situations? Maybe... and I think that might be the best definition we can have, if we need to have a single definition, but in that case the standard IQ tests absolutely does not measure it.
It's pattern recognition in theory. Ability to understand words and infer the essence of things.
In order you put them, I would say those things are:
Reason, Memory, Intelligence, Reason, Skill, Practical Wisdom
Reason, Skill and Practical Wisdom are quite intertwined but aren't intelligence proper.
I’ve learned a lot, and will no longer be spewing so much nonsense about the utility of such a measure
Good to see you pop back in on TH-cam!
Thanks Nassim for sharing these data. I was randomly fortunate that my college statistics course/lab was superbly taught (by a mathematical psychologist no less, who otherwise studied decision theory) and later was asked to run pre-PC statistics software (BMDP, SAS, SPSS, via VAX/VMS) on essentially non-linearly distributed data, thus always aware of how flimsy to inappropriate many (if not most) social, economic, and some medical research “conclusions” were/continue to be. JBP may not be as driven by political ideology as Murray, et al., but his arrogant misunderstanding of statistics and probability has revived a previously discredited IQ “narrative.” So grateful for your dogged debunking!
Good to see you sir!
Nassim did I understand correctly you are saying it correlates with many other variables but it does not explain those variables?
Indeed, this issue has been solve for a long time... the fact that people care about IQ might say more about those people than their own IQ. The fact that society still cares about IQ says a lot about our society... Amusingly, since the result of a test cannot measure intelligence, I wonder why we use tests to evaluate people in school (Someone else said "never hire an A student unless it is for taking tests")
iq tests gave me good scores but really it did not mean anything till i got off my ass and started to try and use my time effectively that made all the change doing stuff is way more important than some number giving potential imo
beautifully done. and its important to remember that it isnt because “IQ” means nothing, but that the “environment” in which it is expressed is too complex for it (IQ) to exert appreciable effects. in other words, if we lived in an extremely simple pretend world, IQ could have a bigger effect. but the world isnt simple.
Haloo👋NNT, I read your books.
I think the majority of disagreements on this discussion are due to different/subjective definitions of intelligence.
Actually not. It is about psychologists wild claims based on poor data.
@@tinalexmauch2780 I was referring to the topic as a whole, but yeah I see how this video is technically about the misuse of questionable research.
How much does weight 'nepotism' with earning, and occupation?
But why are they divided into iq groups? Do the group above 120 earn the same as the group below 100?
"IQ" tests should be based on the Raven's Progressive Matrices as it is a universal test that measures pattern recognition. Pattern recognition and speed is what we are really looking at.
hmmm, not sure. I mean I understand why you think that way but might this be a unidimensional pov on that matter, maybe even unnecessarily reductionistic. I see such patterns of thinking all the time. arguments like that go like this: the mechanics of the world can be explained through physics and physics is (basically) nothing other than applied math. applied math is nothing other than pure maths applied. pure maths is nothing other than philosophy applied and applied philosophy is nothing else than applied linguistics, etc. you should see how reductionistic and actually wrong this argumentation is. the problem with such arguments is that ppl simplify things waaaay too much. most things are much more convoluted than that and cannot be broken down. it's certainly not easy to get out of such a loop of thinking since it's recursive but it will eventually lead you nowhere (besides being inaccurate). from a very specified, constructed pov this might be true, but it's not enough to explain everything.
you discard the whole spectrum of abilities. e.g. a highly intelligent, arguably even brilliant friend of mine is incredibly gifted mathematically. however, his linguistic skills are very questionable since he makes very stupid orthographical mistakes, takes more time than usual to read stuff, doesn't have an appropriate vocab for his level of intellect (and age), isn't good at articulating himself well, takes more time than usual to learn languages, etc. you wouldn't capture this relative disability if you'd just test for visual pattern recognition and speed of thought and so on. you'd also may wouldn't notice his "exact" level of giftedness in math as well, etc.
besides, according to spearman's hypothesis, cognitive abilities only become more nuanced with greater intelligence so even slight differences in strata 2-3 abilities (referring to carroll's model and et al.) IQ points make huge differences for the cognitive profile of an individual overall. as long as IQ hasn't been sufficiently understood, we shouldn't speculate abt such stuff (espec. with such lack of scientific rigor).
I hardly think you're a researcher and qualified psychologist to make such claims. keep in mind: I'm not attacking you. as far as I've noticed such behavior usually displays a dunning-kruger effect at play
@@sonicmaths8285 Thanks for your reply but that is not really what I am making a case for here. I am actually a qualified research psychologist, however I am more interested in trauma and addiction than intelligence so feel free to take this with a pinch of salt. What I am trying to say is that we can use certain universal tools to access specific cognitive abilities (pattern recognition and speed) like using Raven's progressive matrices. Spearman and most of the research on general intelligence shows a very strong correlation between all facets of intelligence ('g') and anecdotal examples like your friend don't disprove the rule. Personally I prefer simplicity when at all possible (Occam's razor and K.I.S.S - keep it simple stupid). I would have had a strong tendency to over complicate things years ago and it ends up making the data completely useless. Using the same simple measure on everyone across age, gender, religious, ethnic lines etc. affords us the ability to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
Spend a week doing IQ tests, go do the test & suddenly you're a genius! It's a stupid metric designer for French soldiers centuries ago...
Great video!
IQ alone is not enough to explain why some people are high earners. The degree of motivation and personality should also be considered. Conversely, being a high earner does not indicate a high IQ.
Emotional Intelligence is linked to higher earnings, not IQ. IQ is VERY important regarding educational attainment. For example, I am willing to wager that the vast majority of graduates of tier 1 medical universities have IQs north of 120.
the big five model helps in that regard
If you design a test written in chinese, with some math problems, than it is effectively a test of chinese - not one's ability to do math. Similarly, an IQ test taps very elementary learning ability, before it measures their 'intelligence'. With higher IQ, where individuals are no longer is burdened by elementary learning and the nuisances of sentence-to-sentence interpretation, then they can demonstrate actual (developmental) ability, which is closer to real intelligence. Basically, an IQ test taps mostly the ability to interpret the problem, not an ability to create an answer - the latter is where the real intelligence is.
good stuff nassim
I am curious, what is the percent of medical doctors and Phds in math, physics, chemistry, that have an IQ below 110?
In the West, zero.
The idea that psychologists can measure "Occupational Attainment" is ludicrous in the extreme! - Annette
Things like salary and role is quite a huge proxy - they're not checking if one is a really good garbage collector and another is a mediocre banker
Yes because being a doctor versus working at McDonalds is certainly not a valid comparison, amiright
@@foljs5858salary is a very poor metric
Great to see you and your unique ideas👌🙏 from Iran
Thomas Sowell also points to the fact that African Americans between states also vary markedly. I also found this to be highly unlikely that they are less smarter…just look how a Demographic with 14% of the total population just rule the cultural scence (with regards to influence)
Can always count on you to give a new perspective.
What does he mean by "no negative performance"? And is he saying I need an entire village for the 1-3 percent effectiveness of IQ?
No negative performance -> having a high measured IQ does not diminish performance (no negative correlation).
Entire village -> you need very large samples to detect any positive correlation between IQ and performance.
@@offensivearch Reliable performance, error-free, significant, isn't that meaningful?
the IQ test measures intelligence just as good as a test of mental arithmetic measures your mathematical abilities, i.e. very low correlation. I guess the scope of the IQ test is just too broad, "intelligence" can be broken down into many subcategories, e.g. scientific, social, musical, lingual etc. and you can make test for these fields, but even then it will be hard to judge, because there are sub-fields and so on, so the whole business is just a waste of resources and stroking some people's ego. Let actions and achievements speak for a person, not some arbitrary metric.
People are different. Some have great athletic ability. That can be easily measured at puberty. Similarly for intelligence. That doesn't mean that a high IQ individual is more worthy than those with lower IQ. It does mean that the high IQ individual will do well in occupations requiring a high IQ.
👌👌
Taleb has been fighting this battle with their "best" and they cant land a glove on him. Its pretty funny watching them just get crushed. The Ill Beat you with your own data is the best.
Ummm.... I don't quite agree..
IQ basically maps to the Jungian function: Introverted Thinking. It does mean _something_ e.g. aptitude for systems thinking
Thanks Nassim, very interesting. And as far as I know, IQ is heralded as the best metric we haveto measure intelligence!
Si j'ai bien compris, un modèle linéaire n’est pas adapté pour expliquer les données des personnes avec un QI > 120, car il laisse presque toute la variation des résultats (99,5 %) sans explication. Une autre approche serait nécessaire pour mieux comprendre ces données.
> no swearing
Is this AI Nassim Taleb? 🤔
The job market...🎉😊
Thank you!
I have an interesting problem for you to ponder especially in this fine series.
A paper by John O'Quigley at UCL's Department of Statistics:
"Suspected serial killers and unsuspected statistical blunders"
Especially concerning the correlation as causation for deaths of patients in certain hospitals being attributed to nurses via shift patterns.
Small effect sizes (e.g., R^2 = 0.01 to 0.10) are common but can still have practical significance. For example:
A small increase in educational attainment or income can have a meaningful impact on an individual’s quality of life.
At the population level, even small effects can lead to significant differences in outcomes (e.g., higher average income or lower rates of unemployment). Therefore, the small R^2 values reflect the multifactorial nature of life outcomes and IQ still matters! [Do you think this argument is just another attempt to defend the relevance of IQ research, driven by reluctance to admit I’ve spent over 20 years producing research waste? Well, maybe.]
Hi,can somebody please tell me the summary of this video, I did not understand it completely.
Greetings from Beirut, Phoenicia ;)
You made one stupid mistake here. Taking a study with the specialized purpose to find out if higher IQ has negative impacts compared to above average IQ. They did choose their categories to find out if slightly high IQ is better than even higher IQ. Not to end the IQ debate.
IQ isn't very interesting if you compare IQ 110 to IQ 120. But it becomes very interesting when you compare IQ 75 to IQ 125. You did draw conclusions from a limited sample picked to draw very different conclusions. Rookie mistake. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Notice NNN's hard preference - he lives in an average and above average IQ place/(nation) state. Strangly enough he doesn't "live dangerously" in a place like Somalia or Congo. General cognitive ability of the population is of importance in any endeavor. Including having basics like clean water and electicity. See how Rhodesia and South Africa are doing.
Technical details are irrelevant. Your hard preference is the only thing that speaks.
I don't think he disagrees. He's saying above a basic level of competence (i.e. IQ of 100-120), additional IQ doesn't do much for you.
@@ChrisShupe I hardly think it doesn't help you. ofc anything that becomes "abundant" leads to disadvantages as well (or increases the likelihood and degree of it). however, the higher your level of intelligence, the easier, faster and more precise your reasoning and understanding will get. e.g. a mathematician will have a much easier time solving a hard equation, or problem, doing research, etc. the more intelligent he is because it will take less time to understand things (thoroughly) and assist in formulating or thinking abt correct theories, ideas, impact, etc.
Love Nassim...
I recall a study by Simonton et al in the mid 1980ies, stating that in workplaces, there was a positive correlation between the IQ of the leader and the 'perceived leadership' amongst the employees, up to +1.2 SD above the group's mean IQ. Higher IQ than that seemed to punish the 'perceived leadership'. Note that this didn't regard the leader's actual operational success.
As a sidenote, one might add Schopenhauer's advice to intellectually capable men to dumb down in social settings. But he was probably a recluse, so perhaps he was more hypothetical than practical in his advice.
hm, generally I agree.
still, I think schopenhauer was on to smth. it becomes particularly apparent when you talk to average ppl or ppl that are much less intelligent than you are
@ I believe Schopenhauer would've tried to escape people altogether. Avoid what you can avoid, endure what you must endure.
So it virtually doesn’t predict income. Not sure what to make of the occupational attainment correlation because that’s a murky thing to measure. The educational attainment correlation below 120 is decently sized (for social sciences). Would’ve been nice to see what it is for the whole range. But like you said, it’s a bit circular because IQ tests are somewhat similar to standardized exams.
Wow, youre still with us lol, anyway thank you for sharing your intelligent view point.
0:01 3:15
debate Richard Haier or Lee Jussim or stephen hsu or james lee
th-cam.com/video/H_y-MfGIIDw/w-d-xo.html
james lee is an expert
I am not sure why Taleb is on and on about IQ, resorting to selecting one biased and probably useless study as compared to other biased and probably useless studies. Is he contending that there is no such thing as intelligence? Or that it does not vary from person to person, like every other physical attribute? Or is it just the current slate of tests that he does not think are valid? Or perhaps he thinks it's like physical fitness, and can be largely improved with exercise and diet? I mean I suppose there is no reason to think that it can't be subject to environmental factors, but just dissing the concept as false isn't adding to the conversation. Clearly some people are as dumb as a bag of hammers, and others are quite brilliant within their fields. And it does seem to be that there are certain people who can't manage even the most basic improvements. There are some people who just aren't going to pass a calculus course no matter what you do or how much support you offer them, short of destroying the curriculum. There are levels of thought that are clearly beyond some people, although I suppose how much is environmental is up for debate. But what can you do to change the environmental factors after a certain point? It may be like language, in which there is only a certain window for full acquisition (of the first language, second+ languages seem to depend on the acquisition of the first...)
>t. increasingly nervous high IQ coper
"Is he contending that there is no such thing as intelligence?" He clearly answered that question and some of your other questions at the start of the video. Please watch the video carefully before asking stupid questions.
What language is this?
It would have been helpful if he had provided more context--for example, how does intelligence (as measured by IQ) compare as an explanatory factor when compared with other factors such as SES, conscientiousness, motivation/grit, emotional stability, etc.?
Sounds inconclusive.
Black swans have changed to straw men.
Unclear what really is „closed“, but if the whole idea was to subtract r^2 from 1, then it must be something really deep that everyone in science missed for decades 🙄
Debate Murray.
Uuuuuh I have $6 that says your bestie Russ Roberts would strongly disagree
Thank you!