JoshuaZ comments on Muehlhauser-Wang Dialogue - Less Wrong

24 Post author: lukeprog 22 April 2012 10:40PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (284)

Tags: agi

Comments (284)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 24 April 2012 05:40:10AM 0 points [-]

As I explained in the edit, you shouldn't forget about Bell's curve. No evidence for intelligence is good evidence of absence, on the IQ>100 side of normal distribution.

Ah, that's what you meant by the other remark. In that case, this isn't backing up claimed prior proxies and is a new argument. Let's be clear on that. So how valid is this? I don't think this is a good argument at all. Anyone who has read what Luke has to say or interacted with Luke can tell pretty strongly that Luke is on the right side of the Bell curve. Sure, if I pick a random person the chance that they are as smart as Pei Wang is tiny, but that's not the case here.

It is still the case that it is very difficult to move from China to US

There are a lot of Chinese academics who come to the United States. So what do you mean by very difficult?

If we move back 20 years, it is 1992, and Pei Wang has already been a lecturer in China then moved to Indiana University.

He doesn't have his PhD at that point. He gets that at Indiana. I can't tell precisely from his CV what he means by lecturer, but at least in the US it often means a position primarily given for teaching rather than research. Given that he didn't have a doctorate at the time, it is very likely that it means something similar, what we might call an adjunct here. That it isn't a very good demonstration of intelligence at all. Luke has in his time run a popular blog that has been praised for its clarity and good writing. And you still haven't addressed the issue that Luke was never trying to go into academia.

Comment author: semianonymous comment score below threshold [+] (10 children)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 24 April 2012 05:54:11AM 1 point [-]

Ah, that's what you meant by the other remark. In that case, this isn't backing up claimed prior proxies and is a new argument.

New to you. Not new to me. Should not have been new to you either. Study and train to reduce communication overhead.

Sorry if my point was unclear. The point is that this is a new argument in this discussion. That means it isn't one of the proxies listed earlier, so bringing it up isn't relevant to the discussion of those proxies. To use an analogy, someone could assert that the moon is made of rock and that their primary reason for thinking so is that Cthulhu said so. If when pressed on this, they point out that this is backed up by other evidence, this doesn't make revelation from Cthulhu turn into a better argument than it already was.

Exercise for you: calculate expected IQ of someone whom you know to have IQ>x .

This isn't a claim that his IQ as estimated is greater than x+ epsilon, since we can't measure any epsilon > 0. If you prefer, the point is that his writings and work demonstrate an IQ that is on the right end of the Bell curve by a non-trivial amount.

There are a lot of Chinese academics who come to the United States. So what do you mean by very difficult?

Those born higher up social ladder don't understand it is hard to climb below them too.

That doesn't answer the question in any useful way especially because we don't know where Pei Wang's original social status was. The question is whether his coming to the US for graduate school is strongly indicative of intelligence to the point where you can use it as a proxy that asserts that Wang is "dramatically" more intelligent than Luke. Without more information or specification, this is a weak argument.

Comment author: semianonymous 24 April 2012 06:29:37AM * 3 points [-]

My point is that this bell curve shouldn't be a new argument, it should be the first step in your reasoning and if it was not, you must have been going in the other direction. You seem to be now doing the same with the original social status.

I think I have sufficiently answered your question: I find Wang's writings and accomplishments to require significantly higher intelligence (at minimum) than Luke's, and I started with normal distribution as the prior (as everyone should). In any game of wits with no massive disparity in training in favour of Luke, I would bet on Wang.

Comment author: wedrifid 24 April 2012 06:10:56AM -1 points [-]

New to you. Not new to me. Should not have been new to you either. Study and train to reduce communication overhead.

The strength of your position is not commensurate with your level of condescension here. In fact, you seem to be just trying to find excuses to back up your earlier unjustified insults - that isn't something that JoshuaZ training and studying would help you with.

Comment author: semianonymous 24 April 2012 06:46:44AM 0 points [-]

I fail to see how the suggestion that Wang is much smarter than Luke is an insult - unless Luke believes that there can't be a person much smarter than him.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 24 April 2012 02:56:00PM 1 point [-]

If you stand by this statement as written, I'm at a loss for what your starting assumptions about social interactions even look like.

Conversely, if you only meant it as rhetorical hyperbole, would you mind glossing it with your actual meaning?

Comment author: semianonymous 24 April 2012 04:56:36PM * 0 points [-]

I try not to assume narcissist personality disorder. Most people have IQ around 100 and are perfectly comfortable with the notion that accomplished PhD is smarter than they are. Most smart people, also, are perfectly comfortable with the notion that someone significantly more accomplished is probably smarter than they are. Some people have NPD and have operating assumption 'I am the smartest person in the world' but they are a minority across entire spectrum of intelligence. There are also cultural differences.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 25 April 2012 08:15:54AM 1 point [-]

Most people have IQ around 100 and are perfectly comfortable with the notion that accomplished PhD is smarter than they are.

How have you measured their level of comfort with the idea? Do you often tell such people that when they disagree with such an accomplished PhD, that the accomplished PhD is smarter than them? And do they tend to be appreciative of you saying that?

Comment author: semianonymous 25 April 2012 12:37:07PM 0 points [-]

Outside of politically motivated issues (e.g. global warming), most people tend to generally not disagree with accomplished scientists on the topics within that scientist's area of expertise and accomplishment, and to treat the more accomplished person as source of wisdom rather than as opponent in a debate. It is furthermore my honest opinion that Wang is more intelligent than Luke, and it is also the opinion that most reasonable people would share, and Luke must understand this.

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (1 child)

JoshuaZ comments on Muehlhauser-Wang Dialogue - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (284)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (284)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login