= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Konkvistador comments on Theoretical "Target Audience" size of Less Wrong - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (59)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes.