army1987 comments on Rationality & Low-IQ People - Less Wrong

17 Post author: kokotajlod 02 February 2014 03:11PM

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

Comments (107)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 03 February 2014 03:23:58PM *  12 points [-]

Seeing how common akrasia and all that is on LW, I would go as far as to say that many "normal" people are better at instrumental rationality than the people here. If you look at it from the point of view of instrumental rationality, many things here are probably just a waste of time. They might be useful at some point, but focusing on more practical things will very likely be far more useful.

edit. But this is for an individual, I think LW could be really useful for the society as whole. Raising the sanity waterline and popularizing things like effective altruism will be irreplaceably valuable.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 February 2014 10:17:46PM 0 points [-]

As of the last survey 6.4% of LWers were unemployed; how does that compare with people in the same age group (mean 27.4, st.dev. 8.5, quartiles 22, 25 and 31)?

Comment author: gwern 08 February 2014 11:03:04PM *  2 points [-]

With young people, employment numbers are a little tricky. I think it's better to look at >=25yos with college degrees, for which FRED provides a data series from the BLS where the values range from ~1.4% to ~5.4% and currently is 3.3%. Depending on how you interpret the survey responses (only explicit "unemployed" or non-responses too?), LWers in the same group (>=25yo, with a bachelors or higher degree) seem to have ~5-7%:

R> survey2013 <- read.csv("<http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182368464/lwsurvey/2013.csv>", header=TRUE)
R> age <- survey2013[survey2013$Age>=25,]
R> degree <- function (x) { x!=" " & x!="2 year degree" & x!="High school" & x!="None" }
R> bachelors <- age[sapply(age$Degree, degree),]
R> length(is.na(bachelors$WorkStatus) | bachelors$WorkStatus==" ")
[1] 700
R> sum(!is.na(bachelors$WorkStatus) & bachelors$WorkStatus!=" ")
[1] 691
R> levels(bachelors$WorkStatus)
[1] " " "Academics (on the teaching side)"
[3] "For-profit work" "Government work" [5] "Independently wealthy" "Non-profit work" [7] "Self-employed" "Student" [9] "Unemployed" R> sum(bachelors$WorkStatus=="Unemployed",na.rm=TRUE)
[1] 38
R> sum(bachelors$WorkStatus=="Unemployed" | is.na(bachelors$WorkStatus) | bachelors$WorkStatus==" ")
[1] 47
R> c(38/691, 47/700)
[1] 0.05499 0.06714
R> binom.test(38,691, p=0.033)
Exact binomial test
data: 38 and 691
number of successes = 38, number of trials = 691, p-value = 0.002649
alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is not equal to 0.033
95 percent confidence interval:
0.03921 0.07470
R> binom.test(47,700, p=0.033)
Exact binomial test
data: 47 and 700
number of successes = 47, number of trials = 700, p-value = 6.492e-06
alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is not equal to 0.033
95 percent confidence interval:
0.04975 0.08829

(I wonder if I'm using the best BLS data-series, though; they record a lot of data and there can be subtleties that outsiders don't appreciate.)