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.

Raemon comments on The Singularity Institute's Arrogance Problem - Less Wrong Discussion

63 Post author: lukeprog 18 January 2012 10:30PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (307)
Tags: meta

Comments (307)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Raemon 18 January 2012 11:07:04PM 14 points [-]

I don't know how to address your particular signalling problem. But a question I need answered for myself: I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the SIAI folks being "reasonably good at math and science" and "actually being really good - the kind of good they'd need to be for me to give them my money."

ARE there straightforward tests you could hypothetically take (or which some of you may have taken) which probably wouldn't actually satisfy academics, but which are perfectly reasonable benchmarks we should expect you to be able to complete to demonstrate your equivalent education?

Comment author: abramdemski 19 January 2012 12:57:11AM 1 point [-]

Why shouldn't the tests satisfy academics?

Why not use something like the GRE with subject tests, plus an IQ test and other relevant tests?

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 19 January 2012 03:47:35PM *  10 points [-]

Crackpot Index:

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

I'm not sure, but I think this is roughly how "look, I did great on the GRE!" would sound to someone already skeptical. It's the sort of accomplishment that sounds childish to point out outside of a very limited context.

Comment author: asr 19 January 2012 02:29:13AM *  5 points [-]

There are two big problems with standardized tests.

First, the standard tests are badly calibrated for measuring the high-performing tail of the distribution. Something like 6% of all GRE takers get a perfect score on the math portion. So GREs won't separate good from very good.

Second, aptitude for doing GRE-style or IQ-style math problems isn't known to be a close correlate for real ability. Universities are full of people with stellar test scores who don't ever amount to anything. On the other hand, Richard Feynman, who was very smart and very hard working, had a measured IQ of something like 125, which is not all that impressive as a test score.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 19 January 2012 11:57:51AM 1 point [-]

125???! Sh*t, I've got to start working harder. (source?)

Comment author: billswift 19 January 2012 02:47:29PM 1 point [-]

I don't know a source for the number, but in one of his popular books he mentioned that Mensa contacted him and he responded that his IQ wasn't high enough, which means it was less than 130.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 19 January 2012 03:52:10PM 2 points [-]

Knowing Feynman, This might well have been a joke at their expense.

Comment author: arundelo 19 January 2012 04:42:18PM 10 points [-]

According to Feynman, he tested at 125 when he was a schoolboy. (Search for "IQ" in the Gleick biography.)

Gwern says:

There are a couple reasons to not care about this factoid:

  • Feynman was younger than 15 when he took it [....]
  • [I]t was one of the 'ratio' based IQ tests - utterly outdated and incorrect by modern standards.
  • Finally, it's well known that IQ tests are very unreliable in childhood; kids can easily bounce around compared to their stable adult scores.

Steve Hsu says:

I suspect that this test emphasized verbal, as opposed to mathematical, ability. Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test. [...] It seems quite possible to me that Feynman's cognitive abilities might have been a bit lopsided -- his vocabulary and verbal ability were well above average, but perhaps not as great as his mathematical abilities. I recall looking at excerpts from a notebook Feynman kept as an undergraduate. While the notes covered very advanced topics -- including general relativity and the Dirac equation -- they also contained a number of misspellings and grammatical errors. I doubt Feynman cared very much about such things.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 January 2012 04:22:23PM 4 points [-]

Knowing Feynman, This might well have been a joke at their expense.

It is a joke at their expense. The question is whether he based it on a true premise.

Comment author: Karmakaiser 19 January 2012 03:47:43PM 0 points [-]

125 is the average IQ of a Ph.D. I'm not sure what the IQ is for specific domains so I can't say if that is incredibly low for a Physics Ph.D.

Comment author: Raemon 19 January 2012 01:58:23AM 2 points [-]

Why shouldn't the tests satisfy academics?

Because people aren't rational and it's silly to pretend otherwise?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit