You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Jack comments on Theoretical "Target Audience" size of Less Wrong - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: Louie 16 November 2010 09:27PM

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

Comments (59)

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

Comment author: Jack 17 November 2010 12:13:50AM *  6 points [-]

We need to first establish how likely people in various IQ ranges are to be able to understand the concepts of LW: This is necessarily guestimate but it almost deserves its own debate. We can't just simply say minimum IQ is 120. I think its more accurate way would be to check out literature on what IQ ranges tell us about the likelihood academic success and being good at math (in more quantitative ways that just saying "It helps").

My suspicion is that for a lot of LessWrongers have weirder brains than raw IQ will capture. This is part of why we tend to be underachieving geniuses. I took WAIS III when I was 17 and got a 150 verbal IQ and a 120 performance IQ. That averages to a 135- but that number isn't actually a very helpful predictor of future performance because the two scores are so different. This kind of thing gets labeled a learning disability, they didn't even bother writing down the total on my test results. I suspect a lot of people here also have weird brains with strengths and weaknesses not accurately conveyed by raw IQ.

ETA: Which isn't to say I have a better way of estimating a potential user base.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 November 2010 12:18:43AM *  2 points [-]

I'm quite sure that the average LW brain is weird and agree on the point. I considered proposing rates of highly functional nonneurotypicals to be added as a group aprticularly likley to end up here.

However I hope that you see why I think IQ estimates are very relevant since there are certain concepts necessary here that become very hard to grasp for those with lower IQs.

Comment author: Relsqui 17 November 2010 08:23:18AM 2 points [-]

It seems like previous exposure to relevant material, including but not limited to the math parts of a college education, would be a much more direct benchmark.

Comment author: Jack 17 November 2010 01:07:24PM 3 points [-]

But several of our more productive posters/commenters did little to no college math. That might be a weird exception for philosophers, though.

I'm also not sure college math/science is a sufficiently narrowing criterion.

Comment author: Relsqui 17 November 2010 07:35:23PM 2 points [-]

Well, yes. That was an example; the point I intended and may not have been clear about was that specific content knowledge might be a more accurate way to narrow the set than a quantified measure of general intelligence. There are probably tons of extremely smart people who have never been exposed to the subjects which would make them productive LW contributors.

Comment author: Jack 17 November 2010 12:21:16AM 1 point [-]

Yes.