Zack_M_Davis comments on Shortness is now a treatable condition - Less Wrong

9 Post author: taw 20 October 2009 01:13AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (110)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 22 October 2009 05:00:36AM 2 points [-]

This pill would put me into the bottom 30% of the population IQ-wise (I'm guessing, does anyone have the actual numbers?

In the scenario as specified, I think you're in the 72nd percentile. The half of the population originally with <100 IQ jumps up to <130 IQ (still below you), and you're still above the people in the 110-130 group who were also denied the drug.

Have you looked at how well the current bottom 30% does?

On an absolute scale, they're doing fine.

Comment author: gwern 23 October 2009 02:48:50PM *  1 point [-]

In the scenario as specified, I think you're in the 72nd percentile.

Hm... OK, I think you're right about that. Being in the 72nd percentile is not nearly as bad as dropping down into the 30s. Rereading the original formulation I see that I assumed that the <110 population would jump up past me, while as specified they would just have a 30 point boost which would put them much nearer me but not past.

On an absolute scale, they're doing fine.

Unfortunately, real humans (such as myself) do not live on absolute scales. This is why we are happier to see our neighbor's salary cut than the both of us receive a raise but his much larger, and this is why self-assessed happiness of nations is only weakly correlated with wealth & not perfectly correlated.