221–230 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average college professor did their PhD at an ivy league school and everyone said exactly what you're saying about them their whole lives. A professor job is extremely competitive.
Fair’nuff. Not worth arguing about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair’nuff. Not worth arguing about.
It just sounds like you're describing almost the ideal outcome for this person as a failure. They're actually incredibly successful if they've got tenure at a good American college.
I apologize for being unclear.
There are no such thing as 210 IQ. It correlates to 7.3 sigma, meanwhile 7-sigma event has a probability of approximately 1 in 390 billion. We only have 8 billion humans on Earth. These absurd claims about IQ is almost evidence that the claimant are nowhere close. For starters, any IQ tests are not going to be normalized to that range because it is impossible to normalize to that range as there are 0 realistic sample…
We only have 8 billion people on Earth _today_. Over 100 billion have lived through history, they say. Also just because it's statistically unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen. All else being equal, the very first human is just as likely to have had 210 IQ as the one born this morning.
What is the biggest problem: that smart people achieve too little, or that dumb people achieve too much?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What makes something funny? Usually, it's by subverting someone's predictions. And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy? > You have to explain a phenomenon better than the truth to convince someone of your lie. This is so often not true I would argue it's generally false . A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for ac…
> And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy? There's surely more to comedy than subverting expectations. Someone else who cares more about comedy in particular can figure that out for themself, but surely I gave enough of the general idea to make it clear how you could go about measuring the intelligence necessary for comedy. > A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Som…
This seems to imply that intelligence only exists in deliberate, conscious thought. Do you think that's true?
Second, revolving conflicts is not the same thing as getting into them, so it's unclear why bring that up at all.
See also: "Major IQ differences in identical twins linked to schooling, challenging decades of research" [1] [2] I.e. the idea that IQ is some innate fixed quality has evidence against it. It seems obvious that this is the case, given that people get their children tutors so they can do better at IQ tests to get into schools... [1] https://www.psypost.org/major-iq-differences-in-identical-tw... [2] https://www.scienc…
> The authors note some limitations to their work. The group with “very dissimilar” education contained only 10 twin pairs. While this represents all such published individual data from the last century, it is a small sample size
Thanks, the study is interesting, but needs further research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly not sure if this is a bit, it's so on-the-nose... Taking it at face value, you are literally claiming to know precisely what intelligence is? You would be the first to know if so. You should probably publish quickly before someone steals your definition! In your post is demonstrated one of the deep mysteries of intelligence: How can a smart person make such a dumb assertion? (I'll give a hint: consider that…
I think Solomonoff beat me by about 70 years, and Wissner-Gross & Freer by about 10 years. Even if I had something novel to publish in this area, I think I would rather do something like solve ARC-AGI and make a lot of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As World's Highest IQ Record Holder, I expect #BITCOIN is going to $220,000 in the next 45 days. > I will use 100% of my Bitcoin profits to build churches for Jesus Christ in every nation. > “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Luke 1:37) Something tells me maybe he doesn't actually have an IQ of 276.
Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults?
“Top out” can be interpreted many ways. It depends on how they are used.
Modern tests are fairly accurate up to 2sd (70-130). The tests start wavering in accuracy between 2sd and 3sd (55-70 and 130-145).
Over 3sd, and the only thing one can confidently say is that the examinee is most likely lower or higher than 3sd (55 and 145). The tests just don’t have enough data points to discriminate finely beyond those thresholds.
Let me further say that, on the high end, there are very few jobs for which I would make any selection decision based on how high an IQ score (or proxy thereof) is over 130. There are other variables, many of which are easier to measure, that are better predictors of success.
All of this doesn’t even take into consideration that there is relatively more type II error/bias in IQ results — that is, there are plenty of people who score less than their theoretical maximum (e.g., due to poor sleep the previous night), while there are relatively fewer people who score much higher than their theoretical maximum.
Nassim Taleb's book starts out as self indulgent, self aggrandizing nonsense. It's basically summed up as "probability won't help you when something happens that hasn't happened before". You don't say, what an incredible insight for the first 40 pages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're an entrepreneur, you also have to do a bunch of things that are more social than smarts High social aptitude is "smarts". It has arguably been more central to our evolution, survival, and even advancement than "book smarts".
It would be highly surprising if it was any different, given that books have not been around long enough for us to begin to adapt to their existence in an evolutionary manner. They'll be long gone before we could have.