= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Blackened comments on LessWrong IQ Survey - 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 (56)
Yvain had what I thought was a very thorough discussion in the original thread. If you're unhappy with that, I don't think there's really anything to say but I'm sorry. Because we're not going to get any better data - realistically, any survey you conduct isn't going to get the response rate that the general census did, especially when your tests are going to take a long time. Furthermore, I have no faith that your tests are any better than the one that was given in the census. Lastly, the correlations with SAT and ACT have settled the question to what I feel is a reasonable degree of accuracy, and sitting around talking about how smart we are doesn't send signals to onlookers that I think are in the best interests of LessWrong.
You are either not understanding, or not wanting to understand, the difference between the score on a reliable IQ test and the SAT scores of just the LWers who took a SAT. Obviously, an IQ test is a much better indicator, also SAT is only available for people in the US. Also, the responses I'm getting are already very different from the survey.
JCTI's reliability is verifiable from the link, even though the other test's is not.
Investigating a phenomena is what we are about. I don't see a logically valid reason to not investigate this one, especially if previous data suggests an abnormally high level. This holds true even if the concept of IQ is invalid, as long as it is measurable.
I have said all I wish to on this topic and others are expressing any points I would make. I am now tapping out.