"Intelligence" is one of my favorite examples of Reification - a cluster of concepts that were grouped together into a single word to make communication easier, and as a result is often falsely thought of as a single concept, rather than an abstract collection of several separable ideas.
Knowledge of relevant facts, algorithmic familiarity, creativity, arithmetic capabilities, spatial reasoning capabilities, awareness and avoidance of logical fallacies, and probably dozens of others are all separable concepts that all could reasonable be described as intelligence, but that correlate with each other to an unknown degree, and the effects of which can be observed in [near] isolation.
While intelligence remains useful as a word, it is a troublesome one.
IQ is no less troubling. It measures only a small fraction of the skills that could be described as intelligence. In addition, it appears to measure significantly more than just intelligence, with variation as big as 20 points being subject to cultural, or unknown environmental factors. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1987-17534-001
One problem I remember reading about was the "odd item out" style of question historically found in many IQ tests - four objects were presented, and subjects were supposed to decide which one didn't belong. Unless 3 out of the 4 objects were identical, this task is ambiguous - and one anthropologist [citation needed] found that different cultures can have a different generally accepted "correct answer" to such a question.
TL;DR "Intelligence" isn't only vague, but it is an abstract combination of many semi-correlated skill-sets IQ on the other hand is a well-defined test, but it is not free of bias. It measures only a subset of what we would call "intelligence", and really only reliably predicts how well someone will do on future IQ tests.
This post is to raise a question about the demographics of rationality: Is rationality something that can appeal to low-IQ people as well?
I don't mean in theory, I mean in practice. From what I've seen, people who are concerned about rationality (in the sense that it has on LW, OvercomingBias, etc.) are overwhelmingly high-IQ.
Meanwhile, HPMOR and other stories in the "rationality genre" appeal to me, and to other people I know. However I wonder: Perhaps part of the reason they appeal to me is that I think of myself as a smart person, and this allows me to identify with the main characters, cheer when they think their way to victory, etc. If I thought of myself as a stupid person, then perhaps I would feel uncomfortable, insecure, and alienated while reading the same stories.
So, I have four questions:
1.) Do we have reason to believe that the kind of rationality promoted on LW, OvercomingBias, CFAR, etc. appeals to a fairly normal distribution of people around the IQ mean? Or should we think, as I suggested, that people with lower IQ's are disposed to find the idea of being rational less attractive?
2.) Ditto, except replace "being rational" with "celebrating rationality through stories like HPMOR." Perhaps people think that rationality is a good thing in much the same way that being wealthy is a good thing, but they don't think that it should be celebrated, or at least they don't find such celebrations appealing.
3.) Supposing #1 and #2 have the answers I am suggesting, why?
4.) Making the same supposition, what are the implications for the movement in general?
Note: I chose to use IQ in this post instead of a more vague term like "intelligence," but I could easily have done the opposite. I'm happy to do whichever version is less problematic.