Viliam_Bur comments on Does anyone know any kid geniuses? - Less Wrong

9 Post author: Solvent 28 March 2012 12:03PM

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

Comments (66)

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

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 29 March 2012 11:51:31AM *  4 points [-]

Contacting people with high IQs is generally a good thing, but without additional structure it can easily become a signalling fest. Intelligence is just a capacity of the brain, not a strategy to use it well. It would be like Mensa -- a lot of smart people, most of them doing nothing important.

And -- although I am not completely sure about this -- I suspect that speaking about top 0.1% IQ is methodologically nonsense. It literally means "one in a thousand", so the proper test would require calibrating on tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of randomly selected children of the same age, repeating every few years. In my estimate, a probability that someone paid the costs of such calibration is much lower than a probability that someone used a standard IQ test mixed with a customized hocus-pocus, especially because most people don't understand the difference. (If this is true, then the whole thing was a signalling fest since the very beginning. But it still can be mined for useful contacts.)

Comment author: James_Miller 29 March 2012 02:11:30PM *  2 points [-]

so the proper test would require calibrating on tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of randomly selected children of the same age, repeating every few years.

I think this effectively happens with the tests that Davidson relies on because so many children take them.

See also.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 29 March 2012 02:27:44PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for the links. Now I would tell they are doing it very seriously.

It still leaves some space for metodological doubts, for example being in "top 0.1% at least in one of three or four subcategories" is not the same as being in "top 0.1%" generally. But I respect them for using only the existing serious tests and not developing their own (as e.g. many self-proclaimed high-IQ societies do).