I really don't see why Epiphany is so obsessed with IQ. Based on anecdotal evidence, there is not much of a correlation between IQ and intellect beyond the first two standard deviations above the mean anyway.

Try reading this response to Slade's suicidal post and you will begin to understand why giftedness is relevant, in a general sense. Gifted people, especially highly gifted people, are very different from most. If you haven't seen that for yourself, then perhaps:

A. You haven't met someone with an IQ like 160 or 180. Those people tend to be very, very different so maybe you are only comparing people with much smaller IQ differences with each other.

B. The people you've met with super high IQs behave in a way that blends in when they're with you and minimize social contact so that you don't notice the differences. The ones that I know tend to do that. They don't just barge into a room and solve unsolvable science problems for all to see. They tend to be quiet, or away hiding in their caves.

C. You never asked the IQs of the smartest people you know and therefore haven't seen the difference.

D. You feel strongly that we should express egalitarianism by treating everyone as if they are all intellectually exactly the same. There's a movement of people who want to believe everyone is gifted, that giftedness does not exist, that it goes away, or that gifted people have some horrible flaw that "balances" them out, that they should be stifled in schooling environments in order to destroy their giftedness so that they're intellectually equal to everybody else, and all kinds of other things. Many people hate inequality and cannot deal with the scientifically proven fact that intellectual inequalities do exist. Wanting to solve inequalities is great, but it's important that we don't deny that intellectual inequalities exist, and it's absolutely, undeniably wrong to stifle a person, especially a child, in the name of "equality". I care a lot about this cause. I hope you read this PDF by developmental psychologist Linda Silverman (I want everyone to read it):

Myths about the Gifted

I have come across more than a handful of people who don't excel in traditional IQ tests, but who are nevertheless very capable of presenting coherent, well-argued insights.

One in six gifted people has a learning disorder. About one in three are creative. Some of them have mental disorders or physical conditions. All three of these can reduce one's IQ score and should be compensated for on an IQ test. Unfortunately, a lot of the IQ tests that are administered (by Mensa for instance) do not include any sort of evaluation for multiple exceptionalities (jargon for when you've got multiple differences that affect learning).

Who cares about the average IQ among members of the LW community as long as we continue demonstrating the ability to engage in thoughtful discussions and generate valuable conclusions?

You missed my point. My point was: "LessWrong may be headed toward cultural collapse so we need some way to determine whether this is a real threat. Do we have numbers? Yes we do. We have IQ numbers." The IQ blurb was a data point for an ongoing discussion on the controversial yet critical topic of whether LessWrong's subculture is dying. My point was not "Oh no, we cannot lose IQ points!"

Let me ask you this: If you were attempting to determine whether LessWrong is headed for cultural collapse, and you knew that the average IQ at LessWrong was decreasing, and you knew that you needed to supply the group with all related data, would you justify omitting that? You would have to include it if you want to be thorough, as it was related. That point is at the top because it's new - most of the other points have been presented before. I couldn't present the IQ data until it had been thoroughly analyzed.

I'm a psychology enthusiast with a special interest in developmental psychology, specifically in gifted adults. When I go to the trouble of thoroughly analyzing some data and sharing information that I gathered while pursuing a main interest of mine, I very much prefer respectful comments in return such as "I don't see the relevance of IQ in this context, would you mind explaining?" as opposed to being called "obsessed". I prefer it even more if the person double checks their own perceptions to clear up any confusion on their own before responding to me.

I have a passion for learning which is not pathological. The term "obsessed" is inappropriate and offensive. Try this: Gwern, one of LessWrong's most prominent and most appreciated members, also has a passion for learning. Check out his website. If you do not appreciate the thoroughness with which he pursues truth - a major element of LessWrong culture - then perhaps it's time to consider whether this is a compatible hang out spot.

If you are vain and think that doing well on an IQ test is a really important way of signalling intellect, then go ahead and keep doing exercises in Mensa practice books, though that would not make you more capable of critical thinking or logical argumentation.

Was your intent to insult me?