= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ygert comments on 2012 Survey Results - 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 (640)
Alternate possibility: The distribution of personality types in Mensa/LW relative to everyone else is an artifact produced by self-identified smart people trying to signal their intelligence by answering 'yes' to traits that sound like the traits they ought to have.
eg. I know that a number of the T/F questions are along the lines of "I use logic to make decisions (Y/N)", which is a no-brainer if you're trying to signal intelligence.
A hypothetical way to get around this would be to have your partner/family member/best friend next to you as you take the test, ready to call you out when your self-assessment diverges from your actual behaviour ("hold on, what about that time you decided not to go to the concert of [band you love] because you were angry about an unrelated thing?")
Ok, it's possible that all of the following happened:
Most of the 1000 people decided to lie about their IQ on the LessWrong survey.
Most of the liars realized that their personality test results were going to be compared with Mensa's personality type results, and it dawned on them that this would bring their IQ lie into question.
Most of the liars decided that instead of simply skipping the personality test question, or taking it to experience the enjoyment of finding out their type, they were going to fudge the personality test results, too.
Most of the liars actually had the patience to do an additional 72 questions specifically for the purpose of continuing to support a lie when they had just slogged through 100 questions.
Most of the liars did all of that extra work (Researching the IQ correlation with the SAT and the ACT and fudging 72 personality type questions) when it would have been so much easier to put their real IQ in the box, or simply skip the IQ question completely because it is not required.
Most of the liars succeeded in fudging their personality types. This is, of course, possible, but it it is likely to be more complicated than it at first seems. They'd have to be lucky that enough of the questions give away their intelligence correlation in the wording (we haven't verified that). They'd have to have enough of an understanding of what intelligent people are like that they'd choose the right ones. Questions like these are likely to confuse a non-gifted person trying to guess which answers will make them look gifted:
"You are more interested in a general idea than in the details of its realization"
(Do intelligent people like ideas or details more?)
"Strict observance of the established rules is likely to prevent a good outcome"
(Either could be the smarter answer, depending who you ask.)
"You believe the best decision is one that can be easily changed"
(It's smart to leave your options open, but it's also more intellectually self-confident and potentially more rewarding to take a risk based on your decision-making abilities.)
"The process of searching for a solution is more important to you than the solution itself"
(Maybe intelligence makes playing with ideas so enjoyable, gifted people see having the solution as less important.)
"When considering a situation you pay more attention to the current situation and less to a possible sequence of events"
(There are those that would consider either one of these to be the smarter one.)
There were a lot of questions that you could guess are correlated with intelligence on the test, and some of them are no-brainers, but are there enough of those no-brainers with obvious intelligence correlation that a non-gifted person intent on looking as intelligent as possible would be able to successfully fudge their personality type?
The survey is anonymous and we don't even know which people gave which IQ responses, let alone are they likely to receive any sort of reward from fudging their IQ score. Can you explain to me:
What reward would most of LessWrong want to get out of lying about their IQs?
Why, in an anonymous context where they can't even take credit for claiming the IQ score they provided, most of LessWrong is expecting to receive any reward at all?
Can you explain to me why fudged personality type data would match my predictions? Even if they were trying to match them, how would they manage it?
You know, people do lie to themselves. It's a sad but true (and well known around here) fact about human psychology that humans have surprisingly bad models of themselves. It is simply true that if you asked a bunch of people selected at random about their (self-reported) IQ scores, you would get an average of more than 100. One would hope that LessWrongers are good enough at detecting bias in order to mostly dodge that bullet, but the evidence of whether or not we actually are that good at it is scarce at best.
Your unintentional lie explanation does not explain how the SAT scores ended up so closely synchronised to the IQ scores - as we know, one common sign of a lie is that the details do not add up. Synchronising one's SAT scores to the same level as one's IQ scores would most likely require conscious effort, making the discrepancy obvious to the LessWrong members who took the survey. If you would argue that they were likely to have chosen corresponding SAT scores in some way that did not require them to become consciously aware of discrepancies in order to synchronize the scores, how would you support the argument that they synched them on accident? If not, then would you support the argument that LessWrong members consciously lied about it?
Linda Silverman, a giftedness researcher, has observed that parents are actually pretty decent at assessing their child's intellectual abilities despite the obvious cause for bias.
"In this study, 84% of the children whose parents indicated that they fit three-fourths of the characteristics tested above 120 IQ. " (An unpublished study, unfortunately.)
http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/scalersrch.pdf
This isn't exactly the same as managing knowledge of one's own intellectual abilities, but if it would seem to you that parents would most likely be hideously biased when assessing their children's intellectual abilities even though, according to a giftedness researcher, this is probably not the case, then should you probably also consider that your concern that most LessWrong members are likely to subconsciously falsify their own IQ scores by a whopping 30 points (if that is your perception) may be far less likely to be a problem than you thought?