army1987 comments on Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK? - Less Wrong

39 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 October 2007 09:50PM

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

Comments (526)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: gwern 15 August 2012 05:11:30PM 9 points [-]

Living people with 220+ IQs do exist - you say the words "modern IQ tests" as if the ratio tests were invented in the dark ages. This only changed in recent decades.

Very well then, let us discuss the cases of people recorded to be hundreds of years old by less than modern documentation, like Methuselah as verified by the Book of Genesis. Wait, you don't think people actually live to thousands of years? But you just said we can use datapoints from any kind of test we please!

Whatever cutoff you choose to exclude things like Genesis or scientific results from hundreds of years ago while still including largely obsolete ratio tests, I will shift it slightly to include only better IQ tests. I think this is perfectly legitimate, as one should strive to use the best available data, and regard your 'but old obsolete scores!' as quibbling.

Which is perfectly consistent with them having IQs over 220, if you think about it...

And it's also consistent with IQs over 9000!!! <monocle shatters>

Occam's razor. Use it, love it. The base rate of IQs like 140 are by definition higher than >220.

There are differences that they have that I have not encountered in anyone else. Things stood out.

"But I was so impressed, don't you understand?" You'll pardon me if I ignore some rubbish anecdotes about them seeming like shining special snowflakes.

Why are you bringing up psychopathy? That's totally out of left field. Do you mean to imply that people claiming that IQ are probably psychopaths?

My argument was perfectly clear: brilliant conversation is far from a flawless indicator of intelligence. That you don't understand why I would bring up an example of how this indicator can fail catastrophically or interpret it as implying that...

More fun base-rate reasoning: psychopaths make up 1-2% of the population, and most are great manipulators; the top 1% of the population IQ-wise is sometimes taken as being the genius fragment; even if we assume the 1% IQ are all gifted conversationalists, if all we know about someone is their gifted conversation, we wind up inferring that they are equally or more likely to be a psychopath than a genius!

Comment author: [deleted] 16 August 2012 09:09:56AM 1 point [-]

And it's also consistent with IQs over 9000!!! <monocle shatters>

Upvoted (also) for this.