Username comments on Open Thread for February 18-24 2014 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: eggman 19 February 2014 12:57PM

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

Comments (454)

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

Comment author: bramflakes 22 February 2014 12:44:40PM *  8 points [-]

The increase in knowledge doesn't even seem worth the sacrifice; we're talking about differences in average IQ between 95, 105, 110, 115. For one such as I, who's got an IQ of 168, this degree of difference seems unimpressive, and, frankly, worth ignoring/not worth knowing.

Come now, you know how normal distributions work. Small differences in means cause over-representation at the extreme ends of the scale. From your IQ I can predict a ~30-40% chance of you being Ashkenazi, despite them being a global minority, just because of a "slightly" higher mean of 110. This is an important thing.

(EDIT: This calculation uses sd=15, which may or may not be a baseless assumption)

Plus, maybe there's a reverse-"Level above mine" effect going on here. The difference between someone at 90 and someone at 110 might not seem big to you, but it might just be your provincialism talking.

(Agreed about the immigration rationalization though)

Comment author: Username 22 February 2014 02:08:25PM 7 points [-]

Come now, you know how normal distributions work. Small differences in means cause over-representation at the extreme ends of the scale. From your IQ I can predict a ~30-40% chance of you being Ashkenazi, despite them being a global minority, just because of a "slightly" higher mean of 110. This is an important thing.

I think we have to be careful with our mathematics here.

By definition IQ is distributed normally. But if we use this definition of IQ then we don't know how IQ is distributed within each population. In particular even if we assume each population is normal, we don't know they all have the same variance. So I think there's little we can say without looking at the data themselves (which I haven't done).

In this instance it might be better to try to measure intelligence on an absolute scale, and do your comparisons with that scale. I don't know how well that would go.

(I'm using the anonymous account (Username and password are "Username" and "password") since I just want to make a statistical point and not associate myself with scientific racism.)

Comment author: [deleted] 22 February 2014 04:49:58PM 2 points [-]

(I'm using the anonymous account (Username and password are "Username" and "password") since I just want to make a statistical point and not associate myself with scientific racism.)

Oh. I always assumed that was a pseudonymous account of one specific individual.

Comment author: Username 22 February 2014 08:39:45PM *  3 points [-]

About 75% of the posts on this account from the past year are from one user (me). I can't decide on a good moniker for a username so I've been putting off creating a main account.

But yes, feel free to use it as a throwaway.

Comment author: Username 22 February 2014 05:26:15PM 3 points [-]

One of the comments it made early on describes it as a "community throwaway account". Plus it has a super-stupid password.

Comment author: bramflakes 22 February 2014 02:45:56PM 2 points [-]

Yeah that's the tricky part that I forgot to add, we don't know the variance. I used sd=15 but for all I know it could be smaller or larger. Edited to amend.