How IQ does or doesn't correlate to Go skill

General Go Discussion
41

I believe your argument is not very sound. You’re not giving a reason why IQ would be a good predictor of intelligence, but instead stating that people dislike IQ measurement for being scared to accurately predict one of the most valued virtues in society.

However, it doesn’t make sense that if this test was indeed a very accurate measurement of intelligence, that it wouldn’t be used. Imagine how useful it would be for various types of things to be able to accurately measure intelligence? You could give your job applicants an IQ test and know which one is the smartest, sounds like something people would want to embrace.

The reason why it isn’t used as much in that way, is that IQ tests don’t measure intelligence very accurately. At best they measure the ability to do IQ tests. A test that people can improve on by doing it more often is not a test of intelligence, it doesn’t make sense to me that a person who gets better and better at IQ tests actually becomes more intelligent.

It is not at all safe to say IQ and Go would correlate, just because income, job and school performance correlate with IQ. For one, you would first need data on correlation between Go and income, job and school performance to be able to claim anything like that.

42
43

Reliability and validity
I love this part…

Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes. 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.”

 
Criticism and views
Some good coverage of reasons why the tests are often disputed as a valid testing instruments.

44

I made 3 assumptions
1- High intelligence helps being good at go.
2- High intelligence helps having a good school performance.
3- High intelligence helps having a high income.
We have the data for the correlation between IQ and income which is 15%. We have the data for the correlation between IQ and school performance which is 25%. Since both of them has an association with intelligence and IQ is a measure of intelligence then IQ and go level should have similar correlation.

Statistical data apparently doesn’t count as an argument.

45

I love that part too because I completely agree with it.

46

How is it safe to say? This seems like a personal opinion, based on your analysis of statistical facts that pertain to other areas (i.e. not GO), which you are personally correlating with one another in order to build a foundation for the statement quoted above.

When asked to explain it, you outline that you have made multiple assumptions to reach your reasoning. With that kind of backing, I disagree that “it is safe to say” anything specific about IQ and how it relates to Go.

 

…just about everything it is used for."

I don’t think that anyone will disagree that having a higher IQ is generally more helpful in life. Especially regarding any aspect of mental functioning that involves cognition, analysis, reasoning, deduction, logic, or similarly related cerebral faculties. It works for Go, it works for throwing a ball, it works for math, and so on, and so forth.

 

Alright, lets examine this. You have data for the correlation between IQ and income. And you have data for the correlation between IQ and school performance. How do you make the logical jump; that because of these two areas, that Go should have a similar correlation? Do you have evidence that having a higher income or that performing better in school ensures that you will perform better at Go?

Because if you don’t, these two examples seemingly have zero correlation to Go. This statement is about as sound as me saying “eggs are oval…” and “eggs are white…”, so “eating eggs should help me perform better at Go!”. I could say that, sure. But it is a baseless assumption based on my personal wishes or biases; not conclusive evidence.

 

Since when is statistical data the same as truth? With statistics, one can conclude many “things”, reveal many “facts”, and tell very specific “stories”. I love reading case studies. I read them for pleasure.

If you take the time to read the fine print of most studies, they add these disclaimers that say that the “facts” and “conclusions” made in the study are merely their own interpretations. That while these conclusions have been reached, they acknowledge that if a third party were to review the same data, they may not come to the same conclusions. And they might also dispute the “facts” the study uncovered.

Case studies are used to influence decisions, alter perceptions, to justify financial expenditure into new areas of research, and to legitimately present new science or findings. But rarely are they ever conclusive or definitive. Nor do the scientists or corporations behind them put their name on the line to back them as facts.

These disclaimers pretty much exist to say “We’re sharing this data and our research supports the following conclusions, but don’t hold us to them and we cannot be held liable. So, consider what we’ve found with a grain of salt.”

Statistical data is beautiful and extremely helpful. But I personally feel that it is irrational to interpret statistical data as being equal to irrefutable facts or undeniable truth.

 

I found it quizzical that you say this, because on the one hand you are definitely in support of IQ. But at the same time, you are saying you agree with what I was pointing out. In case there was any misunderstanding, what I am pointing out is that even the best intelligence experts will only give IQ tests a small amount of credit. Specifically, this part:

"On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing… share a common view… and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy.”

So, are you agreeing that IQ testing is accurate to an unknowable degree? Acknowledging that even the best experts feel that it is only somewhat accurate? Just to be clear, the definition of “some” is being defined here, in an attempt to clarify what “some degree of accuracy” means:

Some

  1. Adjective: being an undetermined or unspecified one

  2. Pronoun: an unspecified number, amount, etc., as distinguished from the rest or in addition

  3. Adverb: Informal. to some degree or extent; somewhat

1 Like
47

Statistically all top players are Asians, so I imagine being Asian helps out a lot.

3 Likes
48

Yes, I concur. The evidence seems to support this :face_with_monocle:. There are statistics that support that a lot of Asians also have High IQ’s… so we might have finally found our evidence for a correlation between Go and High IQ. Being Asian is the secret sauce that brings it all together :scream:!

49

I make 3 assumptions:

  • Being able to walk makes it easier to run a marathon
  • Being able to walk makes it easier to swim
  • Being able to walk makes it easier to take the metro

I have data that says that there is a correlation between being athletic and running a marathon, and data that says there is a correlation between being athletic and being a good swimmer.

Therefore athletic people on average take the metro more often.

I guess the point is that correlation doesn’t imply causality.

1 Like
50

I have given my 3 assumptions for a reason. According to my 3 assumptions go and income are not completely independent of each other. There is a variable that connects them which is intelligence. You could argue that my 3 assumptions were wrong and we could discuss that or you could argue the connection I made is too weak to make a judgement about correlation between go and IQ but you are not addressing my argument(Well, you said correlation seems to be zero but you made that statement without making any attempt to refute my reasoning). You are too busy trying to ridicule and straw-man my position.

I never said it is irrefutable fact. I was simply pointing out the fact that I have basis for my conclusion because you said this:

Being in support of IQ is not the same as thinking that IQ is 100% accurate.

No, but being born in Asia helps a lot. Go is a part of their culture so you are more likely to develop an interest in go if you were born and raised in Asia than if you were born in Europe. There are a lot of Japanese, Korean, Chinese sources which you can learn from. We don’t have that many English sources. The number of pro teachers who speak your language would also be a lot higher if you were born in Asia. So, better teachers would be more accessible to you compared to someone in Europe.
You wanna ridicule my view you go right ahead but at least do it right.
I am out of this discussion. It is really frustrating to argue with people who don’t wanna have a respectful conversation.

51

There might be other reasons why your example conclusion doesn’t work but I will talk about the reason that I spotted at first glance. I am not making a general statement that more intelligent person will be more likely to be better at go. I am saying an intelligent person will be more likely to be better at go than a less intelligent person If they both pursue playing go.See quotation below:

The conclusion “Therefore athletic people on average take the metro more often” is wrong because in your example taking as many metros as possible is not a pursuit. If taking as many metros as possible in a given time was pursuit and if person who can walk wanted to do it then he would be more successful at it than a person who can’t walk. Well of course that is arguable because maybe the person who can’t walk has enough time to get off from one metro and get to the other one until the other metro comes to the station anyway so that walking person is not advantageous in this regard. Which by the way would make your 3rd assumption wrong which is equivalent of my 1st assumption. I don’t see why my first assumption would be wrong and also I don’t see why my reasoning that I make from my assumptions is wrong.
I would appreciate it if you could try to refute my argument using reasoning instead of coming up with a similar model to mine. I as you can see attempted to show that your conclusion was wrong. I also changed your model a bit to argue that one of your assumptions was wrong. This is what you need to do refute my argument. You either have to show that my assumptions are wrong or you need to show that the logic I used to come to my conclusion is wrong.

52

Exactly! But this is how logic works. If an argument “A, B, etc…, therefore C” only works if you put specific A’s, B’s and C’s in it, but breaks down when you swap them for alternatives, then the argument is flawed.

Although it could be true that Go correlates with intelligence (something I would personally find quite likely as well), it is not a consequence of the argument you gave, as I’m trying to show by using the same argument to derive something ridiculous.

So here again, it seems reasonable (and probably is true) that this is a consequence, but it doesn’t make it a logically sound argument. If we change “playing go” with “playing tabletennis” or “eating hamburgers”, it becomes ridiculous. It’s not about the content of the sentence that I have an objection to, it’s about the logical step you seem to make correlating Go to intelligence.

The whole point of doing a questionnaire about IQ and playing Go is to find this correlation. Before you’ve done that, you can’t just assume that they have anything to do with each other.

That’s what I did, though. An argument is flawless when it holds up in every model, not just in a specific case. It’s the whole point of logic, going back as far as Aristotle and Socrates.

To give another viewpoint of the flaw of your argument: the basic principle it violates, is that it derives a causality from a correlation. You give several statistics about IQ correlating with some property, and jump therefore to the conclusion that IQ correlates with Go. To do this, you assume that IQ is the underlying cause for those properties (good school performance, high income).

However, IQ correlating with either property does not mean that IQ causes said property. For example, IQ is a lot higher in countries with a good education system, high gross average, health care, etc. IQ correlates with developed countries.

So let’s suppose that high IQ is the direct consequence of being rich (it just so happens to be the cause, very weird, unexplainable, but for the sake of the argument, let’s assume so). Then it should be immediate that high intelligence becomes correlated with good school performance and high income, since rich people can afford to go to better schools and of course get better jobs and have a high income.

However, being good at go doesn’t have anything to do with being rich. It has to do with being good at go.

53

That’s simply not correct. I repeat; in order for you to show that my l is not true you have to do at least one of the following:
A- Show that one of my axioms is wrong
B- Show that my reasoning is wrong
C- Show that my axioms and reasoning doesn’t lead to my conclusion.
This is exactly what I did with your model. I showed that your reasoning didn’t account for the fact that taking metro is not a pursuit i.e your reasoning is wrong. Then, I said hypothetically taking metro is a pursuit but in that case one of your axioms might not be correct.
You can’t just change my axioms with wrong axioms and/or my reasoning with wrong reasoning and then say my original model was wrong. That’s in fact not how logic works.

I didn’t make a logical step to correlate go with intelligence. I just assumed it. What I did is I made a logical derivation that IQ correlates with go as IQ is a measure of intelligence.

25% correlation comes from the studies among public primary schools. So, wealth is not a big factor unless of course you suggest that a rich kid automatically has high IQ because he or she is rich.

54

OK, let’s get things straight, because you’re messing up your logic.

  1. Axioms are statements which you regard by definition to be true. You can’t show axioms are “wrong”, since by definition an axiom is true. The word you’re searching for is “premise” or “assumption”
  2. Changing ones premises by alternative premises is used to show that the structure of reasoning is not valid. It’s the basis of formal logic. You don’t show that the content is wrong, but that the form of the argument is wrong.
  3. It’s impossible to show that an argument is wrong without changing the premises if the conclusion is true. Any conclusion that is true follows from anything (since it’s true). Since your conclusion is “IQ correlates with ability in Go”, and this is a statement that we don’t know the truth of, the only way I can show your argument is wrong, is by showing your argument structure is flawed.
  4. To show something is not valid, you give a countermodel: a model in which the conclusion is false, yet the premises are true. This is by definition of what valid means: true under all circumstances (read in all models)

But feel free to keep discussing logic, as it’s basically one of the two things that I find more interesting than Go.

So you assumed go correlates with intelligence? Isn’t that what we’re trying to show? You’re either concluding one of the following based on your assumptions:

  • Go correlates with IQ
  • Go correlates with intelligence
  • IQ correlates with intelligence

I believe that the last one is not really a point of discussion, since we probably all agree here that it does. It’s the first two points that are being discussed.

Then, once again, I probably agree that Go correlates with intelligence. The thing I’m not agreeing with is the way you arrived at that conclusion from your given premises:

Your argument is as follows:

  • IQ correlates with (school performance),
  • IQ correlates with (high income),
  • therefore IQ correlates with (go ability)

And I don’t see any reason why Go is related to school performance or high income, hence I feel that I can swap these two things with other things unrelated to Go, or swap Go for other things unrelated to the first two.

Fact of the matter is that you can’t say whether someone has high IQ because someone is rich, or someone is rich because of high IQ. That’s my point.

55

Perhaps you missed it. I feel that I did address your argument.

Summary

Alright, lets examine this. You have data for the correlation between IQ and income. And you have data for the correlation between IQ and school performance. How do you make the logical jump; that because of these two areas, that Go should have a similar correlation? Do you have evidence that having a higher income or that performing better in school ensures that you will perform better at Go?

Because if you don’t, these two examples seemingly have zero correlation to Go. This statement is about as sound as me saying “eggs are oval…” and “eggs are white…”, so “eating eggs should help me perform better at Go!”. I could say that, sure. But it is a baseless assumption based on my personal wishes or biases; not conclusive evidence.

I didn’t bother addressing it any further because I felt that the way that you presented your argument was flawed (explained next) and therefore invalid.

 

You are making assumptions. This is a problem, because assumptions are not facts. You are trying to back up your personal belief (high IQ and Go are linked) with assumptions, instead of established facts. You cannot use assumptions, exclusively, as the basis for a logical argument. However, an assumption can be a small part of a logical argument.

Perhaps you are unaware of what the word assumption means. To be clear:

Assumption:

  1. something taken for granted; a supposition (a hypothosis).

  2. arrogance; presumption.

  3. Logic. the minor premise of a syllogism.

Syllogism:

  1. deductive reasoning.

  2. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument.

  3. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.”

 

So you admit that IQ is still a theory and has yet to be proven as definitive fact? That it is fallible and therefore should not be used as a basis for factual arguments? Because if you can admit that the idea of it is flawed, underdeveloped, in need of work, or any other derivative of “this theory is still in the hypothesis testing stage of the scientific method”, then how can you be using IQ to make a point? Your entire argument thus far centers around IQ and the statistics related to IQ research.

 

Being born in Asia increases the likelihood that you are exposed to Go. That you have a chance to learn about it. Being born in Asia has nothing to do with whether a person is likely to develop an interest in Go. Exposure creates awareness and presents a person with the choice of investigating Go further. Nothing more.

 

The nationality of a teacher has no relation to the skill of the teacher. So it really shouldn’t be considered. There are more than enough resources available in English for a person to pursue Go. And pursuit of Go is all that we are discussing here. Whether a teacher is Pro level or whether individuals which to study to reach Pro level, is outside the purview of your argument.

 

Thanks to the internet and English speaking Pro level teachers, this really isn’t a valid concern for those players wishing to study with Pro level Asian origin teachers.

 

I have not tried to be disrespectful towards you. This has never been my intent. I feel that I have delivered very valid counterpoints to the arguments that you are making. If you do not wish to discuss this topic further, I fully respect that.

 

This reasoning is not necessarily true. There are so many different factors that could potentially affect how well a person learns Go. Simply pursuing Go is not enough. What about all the different aspects that are involved in learning Go? Books, Tsumego, Reading (skill), Intuition, Practice, number of matches played, quality of opponents, self review, study partners, teachers, how deeply the person is committed to learning, the level of focus when learning, how deliberately one practices, the diversity of opponents and play styles, the use of AI for training, watching pro matches, studying pro games, etc…

Even if you were to claim that each person studied in the exact same way, for the exact same amount of time, playing against the same opponents, each trying to focus and deliberately study, there will still be variables between each individual (low/average intelligent person vs high intelligence person). Many people throughout history will test low or perform poorly during tests or appear to have learning disabilities/handicaps… and still out perform others who do not have such drawbacks. And what about savants? Or those who naturally seem to understand Go in a way that most players can only dream of. The case you are making is simply to general.

56

From Wikipedia

Shared family environment

Family members have aspects of environments in common (for example, characteristics of the home). This shared family environment accounts for 0.25–0.35 of the variation in IQ in childhood. By late adolescence, it is quite low (zero in some studies).

and from https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc272e.pdf

In my earlier literature review, I concluded that the best evidence implied that doubling parental income was likely to increase cognitive test scores by around 0.10 standard deviations. […]
My updated conclusion is that parental income combined with work requirement may have a nontrivial effect on the cognitive test scores of young children in very poor families.

As a plus a fun fact about IQ from Wikipedia:

Health and mortality

Multiple studies conducted in Scotland have found that higher IQs in early life are associated with lower mortality and morbidity rates later in life.

57

Another fun thing, being born in Asia correlates with high IQ:

58

There are no provable (nontrivial) definitive facts about nature.
And to say a measurement is not 100% accurate is not the same as saying it’s wrong. To acknowledge that the accuracy is only 99.9% is a very important part of the scientific method.

1 Like
59

What about the elemental composition of water? Or that humans do not naturally live to be 500 years old? Technically all science is merely a construct of human observations and understanding. But then again when is a fact but a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

Indeed. But I responded the way that I did as SmallGovernment is unlikely to be purposing 99.9% accuracy. At least, that is my assumption. If I am wrong, and you are claiming 99.9%, please let me know SmallGovernment.