A low-level report:
from http://lesswrong.com/lw/4ul/less_wrong_nyc_case_study_of_a_successful/
Games also represent a very stylized domain within which we can practice >optimizing - rationalists should reliably win more on average or we're doing >something wrong.
At my college I am games-referee of the General Students' Committee, and we game on average once in a week., 4-5 hours. Although I do not count my wins/losses, I get credited as being able to quickly crack the game-mechanic and win overtly often. This could, of course, be because of possibly higher intelligence.
This could, of course, be because of possibly higher intelligence.
It probably is. I don't think learning formal Bayesian reasoning and real-life rationality skills would help much for games, but IQ can be a huge factor.
It might be useful if we fellow LW'ers collect actual big scale success stories of ourself in real world applications. Since we are supposed to win some real life experiences of actual winning would be great.