= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Superintelligence Reading Group 3: AI and Uploads - 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 (138)
Yes, but leplen's point is that the construction doesn't map directly to reality. An 'IQ score' is not calculated by lining everyone up by raw score and determining where they fall; we create a mapping from raw scores to IQ from a reference distribution, and then compare people's scores to the distribution.
As you might expect, the IQ tests start to lose statistical validity as you go further and further into the extremes. How well can we differentiate a person of 175 IQ and 190 IQ with our current tests? Not nearly as well as we can differentiate a person of 95 IQ and 110 IQ.
And the biological model of what makes people score particular ways on IQ tests looks normally distributed from afar, but is that true everywhere? Obviously not in certain cases (think of stuff like Down's), and so possibly not so in the upper extreme, as well.