Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

210 IQ Is Not Enough

taylor.town

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 284 posts

Re: 210 IQ Is Not Enough

#71

Post by bee_rider »

Aperocky wrote: post #34
volkk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. why can't you use historical population? like, the total amount of humans that ever existed? rough google shows around 100billion. seems legit that in the history of humanity, we could pop out someone so intelligent? But I do agree that IQ is probably a decent signal but e…

That one person in our entire history somehow got tested accurately (is that even possible? there isn't any sense or point for any IQ test to even go into that range, because what would you be baselining and verifying the test against?) and is advertising about it? Count me skeptical.

It does bring to mind the concept of history’s smartest person, though:

* Ug, the hunter gatherer

* Definitely could have invented fire-cooking if it didn’t predate homo-sapiens

* Can design novel knots and traps from scratch

* Second best stone knapper in the tribe without even trying (Og is better at knapping but that is all he does)

* Predicts movements of roaming antelopes faster than anyone else, and his extrapolations are accurate for days longer

* Can handle 200 social contacts (this skill is useless because the tribe is only 40 people big).

Re: 210 IQ Is Not Enough

#72

Post by programjames »

voidhorse wrote: post #20
827a wrote: post #4

The "world's smartest man" very recently predicted on X that Bitcoin would hit $220k by the end of the year. [1] Here's the thing: IQ probably doesn't mean much of anything. But it is one of only a handful of ways we have to benchmark intelligence. The training of AI systems critically requires benchmarks to understand gain/loss in training and determine if minute changes in the system is actually winging more intell…

Exactly. We don't have a good definition of intelligence and I don't think we ever will. Like all social concepts, it is highly dependent on the needs, goals, and values of the human societies that define it, and so it is impossible to come up with a universal definition. If your needs don't align with the needs an AI has been trained to meet, you are not going to find it very intelligent of helpful for meeting those…

You're quite literally babbling. If a word has no good definition, it ceases to be a word. All you really mean is you use the word "intelligence" very loosely, without really knowing what you mean when you use it. You just use it to point at a concept that's vague in your head. That does not mean you could not make that concept more precise, if you felt inclined to be more introspective. It also does not mean that the precise idea I think of when I use the word "intelligence" is the same as your idea. But they'll often be close enough or even equivalent mathematically, as long as we both have precise definitions in mind.

Re: 210 IQ Is Not Enough

#73

Post by fn-mote »

The title of the article is obnoxious.

The first part of the article puts down a person whose IQ is in the 140-180 range. If you read about the person, that part makes sense as an opinion.

The second part of the article explains that the person referred to in the title, the alleged 210 IQ, has chosen a middle manager job because it makes them happy.

> I'm trying to tell people that I'm happy the way I am.

The author never explains the problem they have with this person.

Instead, I think the title should be more along the lines of "an IQ of 176 does not make you a good person". I guess people would not engage if the conclusion was obvious? The baiting title is totally misplaced.

Actually, the whole treatment of Kim Ung-yong is even worse than I make out in this comment. I am left with a really negative impression of the author.

Re: 210 IQ Is Not Enough

#74

Post by Retric »

cmiles8 wrote: post #69

IQ and EQ are two different things often not found in the same individual. IQ is being smart enough to know that something is happening. EQ is being smart enough to be able to convince other humans to do something about it. High IQ low EQ folks often struggle in careers and life because they’re “right” but can’t get anything done. The most successful tend to be high-ish IQ but with enough EQ to get things done. Those…

IE and EQ do however positively correlate with each other.

Re: 210 IQ Is Not Enough

#75

Post by zephyrthenoble »

Reading the text of the article, and not just reacting to the title, I do think this article has a kernal of truth to it that resonates with me. It's not really talking about intelligence, but MEASURES, and how individuals contort themselves into what they believe is valuable.

But at the end of the day, we do not have an inherent value. I wonder if people that get hung up on these metrics and what value they seemingly hold either that a person is a whole person, not just some measurement about them. The world's tallest man also has a favorite food, favorite color, and hobbies. He has friends and family. The metric you assigned to him is not the totality of the man.

I say this because recently I've been struggling with work and I feel like I have to say to myself sometimes, I am more than just a source of income and health insurance to my family. To someone who isn't in my situation, it might seem silly, but it has been scary and stressful and in some ways I did say to myself, you have value because you provide. But we have money saved, and are in a stable situation, and I could always find a new job, but my ego assigned value to the job regardless despite my best efforts at pretending that I don't play games with corporations. The stress that keeping a 9 to 5 causes in my mind is entirely self-inflicted by me.

I guess what I'm saying is that I should value other things about myself more highly, or maybe even not value anything about myself if that makes sense. What value is there in in measuring my success, as long as I am honest about my efforts and happiness?

I will never conquer the entire world by 25, or have a billion dollars, so maybe I need to learn to measure less and focus on true personal accountability and happiness instead. Hopefully that's a simple task...

Re: 210 IQ Is Not Enough

#76

Post by fn-mote »

stavros wrote: post #9
827a wrote: post #4

The "world's smartest man" very recently predicted on X that Bitcoin would hit $220k by the end of the year. [1] Here's the thing: IQ probably doesn't mean much of anything. But it is one of only a handful of ways we have to benchmark intelligence. The training of AI systems critically requires benchmarks to understand gain/loss in training and determine if minute changes in the system is actually winging more intell…

> 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.

> Something tells me maybe he doesn't actually have an IQ of 276.

Con artist skill of 276, maybe.

Re: 210 IQ Is Not Enough

#77

Post by nonethewiser »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #49
Aperocky wrote: post #3

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…

That's not really how statistics works. It is not impossible to roll two sixes on a single roll of two dies because it is more likely you won't.

That's right. If the event has a 1 in 390B chance, and there are 8B tries, you would expect to observe the event 2% of the time you conduct the 8B tries. So if you did 8B tries 50 times you would expect it to happen once. And its something higher than 8B - current population isn't the correct sample size.

Re: 210 IQ Is Not Enough

#78

Post by Aperocky »

mr_mitm wrote: post #45
Aperocky wrote: post #3

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…

It's more likely that someone screwed up on the test, or that he cheated somehow. Maybe he's articulate and good at solving logic puzzles, but his Wikipedia article clearly shows that the guy has a screw loose.

You can solve every one of the logic puzzles and it should not give you any score that high, unless it's a specifically designed bogus test to make certain person look and feel good.

It's like saying your regular thermometer returned a reading of 1000C, sure buddy.

Re: 210 IQ Is Not Enough

#79

Post by dahart »

ekianjo wrote: post #12

if IQ tests are designed by people with lower IQ what does it say about high IQ scores?

Why would it say anything? The 100 meter dash wasn’t designed by the fastest 100 meter runner, but it’s still perfectly capable of identifying a winner.

Re: 210 IQ Is Not Enough

#80

Post by BurningFrog »

When I was at Google a long time ago, the hiring criteria were simple: Smart, and gets things done.

A lot of people are smart, but don't get much brilliant work done. Even more people do a lot of work, but aren't very smart about it.

To be a genius with important contributions, you need to have both the brains and the work ethic.

Post reply on HN