>>14391819>Well that would clearly not be the case given IQ's predicative validity.given an assumption that precludes correlation with more predictive metrics because it is lossy compression of the data - there is nothing to guarantee that a quantifiable proxy for intelligence is necessarily a variable that can even be compared, especially in the context of IQ's implication of being immutable (there is basically only evidence to the contrary, which is completely incompatible with the idea of "intelligence quotient" Murray presents - for one thing, minimal instruction or assistance has lasting positive effects on subsequent test scores, which strongly indicates that what is being "measured" is not so much a representation of "innate intelligence" as it is "what the test taker is thinking while taking the test")
the alternative is, quite literally as it was before some economists did what they like to do and try to naively reduce all available data to a single variable so they can grasp it in their withered brains, to treat intelligence as something we do not yet have sufficient understanding of to reduce to quantifiable metrics, and then seek to improve that understanding
>I don't think you understand what normalising data isi don't think you do, actually - the standardizing of IQ test results assumes a normal curve (that's literally the foundational assumption of the book in the OP and where the phrase "bell curve" comes from). if you don't understand what that does to comparability of datasets between different tests and different test takers if the underlying "value" (should it exist) is not normally distributed then you should probably refresh your understanding of statistical normalization
>your main complaint about IQ that the data is normalised.my main complaint is a shaky premise on absolutely laughable data present in the book. the mathematical foibles that get piled on top of it later just make it worse
