this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
56 points (85.9% liked)

Asklemmy

48062 readers
530 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
56
What's it like to have a low IQ? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Justathroughdaway@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

IQ is pseudoscience

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Only if you're naïve about IQ and worship it like God. Here is wikipedia's second paragraph on IQ:

Scores from intelligence tests are estimates of intelligence. Unlike, for example, distance and mass, a concrete measure of intelligence cannot be achieved given the abstract nature of the concept of "intelligence". IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as nutrition, parental socioeconomic status, morbidity and mortality, parental social status, and perinatal environment. While the heritability of IQ has been investigated for nearly a century, there is still debate about the significance of heritability estimates and the mechanisms of inheritance. Current best estimates for heritability range from 40 to 60% of the variance between individuals in IQ being explained by genetics.

None of that stands out to me as particularly controversial, certainly not pseudoscience. Emphasis on second sentence -- it's not a concrete measure of intelligence.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Great response.

The assertion that IQ is pseudoscience, is denying reality. While not an exact measure, it correlates with a lot of other measures of flourishing.

But higher IQ doesn't necessarily mean happier, or better in any way.

I know some extremely (academically) intelligent people. Some are arrogant pricks, others are really pleasant, others still are really awkward and difficult to talk to outside their specific interests.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Well yeah, nothing is guaranteed. It's just a correlation -- higher IQ people tend to have more success. More success doesn't necessarily mean happier. But personally, I would take more success if given the option.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

ChatGDT said I had a 135 IQ, does that mean I’m also a pseudoscientist?

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

All psychology is.

Not saying it isn’t useful before a psych major jumps on me. But the entire field is basically explaining how to cope with a society that is hostile to human nature.

[–] CanadaPlus 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The entire field isn't therapy.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That’s about its only useful contribution.

[–] CanadaPlus 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Mmm, I find it really handy to know that my memories are generated rather than recalled. Sometimes, I remember something that didn't happen, and I know not to be weird and insistent about it. That hiding things from yourself is a really effective way to manage temptation is also not what I would have expected.

I'd actually say that by social science standards psychology has an above average number of applications.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

How to learn better? How to organize teams better? How to write text or make presentations so that it aligns with how the brain best receives information? How to evaluate candidates for a role while minimizing the halo effect and the bandwagon effect? How to nudge people into leaving public spaces cleaner? How to make spaces more attractive for people to spend time in? How to increase adherence to lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise after cancer treatment? How to increase the odds of achieving a task you want to do? How to make computer interfaces easier to use for people, including people with disabilities? You’re saying that psychology has not studied these nor contributed to them?

Yes, there are a lot of problems in the field. But there are also brilliant people cutting through the bullshit and using their findings to improve the world. I’d be more than happy to show you robust findings that the field has gifted the world.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I agree, it's a fairly productive social science, but is there actual evidence that psychology has made an impact in organisation and management?

There's plenty of anecdotes and some hard numbers that suggest management is replete with bullshit artistry. For example, most office managers rely on in-seat time as their only measure of productivity.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I agree that there is plenty of nonsense out there. There are many interventions veiled as "scientific", and most people don't have the ability to lift the veil and recognize the pseudoscience beneath.

Unfortunately, the answer to your question is, partly, no. Psychology has not inoculated the world from pseudoscience. However, the answer to your question is also, partly, yes. There are people who have learned from the most robust evidence in psychology.

To the extent that organization and management adapt to robust findings in psychology, there are many contributions that psychology has made to organization and management.

  • Clear goals. Things like SMART goals, specific goals, vivid goals, implementation intentions, mental contrasting, or otherwise things that help you be clear rather than vague about your goals— all of those tend to have a moderate effect on outcomes.
  • CBT, ACT, and mindfulness. You will probably groan at this, because you have probably had watered down, simplified to the point of being unrecognizable versions of these. At their best, these have shown improvements in the way workers approach their work
  • Psychological safety. You will probably also groan at this, because ironically psychological safety interventions, when done poorly, can make some people feel unsafe. However, the correlational and longitudinal data is quite clear: psychological safety leads to better results. Unfortunately, the experimental evidence has, to my knowledge, stuck to health-related organizations, where not speaking up costs lives. I wonder if there are good studies elsewhere now.
  • Feedback strategies. There have been good experimental studies showing that the way you give feedback can change your organization's capabilities over time. This is similar to psychological safety but arrived at from a different lineage in the literature.
  • Multitasking and task-switching. This one probably goes without saying, because there has been more than extensive research on this. Minimizing distractions, focusing on one thing at a time, having a pull-based workflow…

More broadly, you could look for good resources for Evidence-Based Management.