/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11085749

>>10331829
>>10331834
I've spent the past few hours arguing with some spastic on /lit/ about IQ, because he was trying to say that authors have the same intellectual rigor (they don't).
I don't want to have to have ANOTHER argument here aswell, I, because it is a well established metric used by institutions the government.
Even indirected via g-loaded questions, tasks, etc.
See:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_public_policy#Use_of_cognitive_tests_in_the_United_States_legal_system_and_public_policy
Just don't.

>>10311195
Wrong. Nope. Stop with this disinformation bs. Disagreeing with facts doesn't make them false.
IQs is used as a broad predictor, and is applied as part of an aptitude test by the likes of the CIA.

>>10310835
>>10310913
Reliability and validity:
>Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][56] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points[citation needed]. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][57][58] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[59]
You know where to find the citations.

Other things it predicts too can be found here:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations

>>10300291
And as a useful predictive tool for "success", stop being a denier, studies disagree with your erroneous standpoint. Just because you don't like the idea, doesn't make it invalid:
>See extract.