= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Let them eat cake: Interpersonal Problems vs Tasks - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (568)
It seems much more plausible that at extreme intelligence, the correlation to life outcomes starts to break down. Once you earn enough money to live comfortably, it probably leads to more life satisfaction to spend your time on leisure, rather than earning more, and in particular, the cleverer someone is the more we might expect them to realize that's the tradeoff.
Which is what I said, yes.
I meant that the correlation between life outcomes and intelligence breaks down, but the correlation between intelligence and IQ likely remains strong; it sounded to me like you were questioning the IQ-intelligence link because IQ-life outcome broke down at high IQ levels.
As I said, it was my understanding that the correlation between IQ and life outcomes was well-established, and that IQ tests are designed and adjusted to ensure the correlation remains strong. This is a thing, right?
Thus, the hypothesis that the correlation between intelligence and life outcomes breaks down at high intelligence levels suggests that such adjustment would cease to produce IQ-to-life-outcomes correlation.
(Alternately, this whole system may break down somewhat at high levels anyway - I don't know how much difficulty the relative rarity of really high IQ ratings has introduced.)