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.

ChristianKl comments on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Call For Critiques/Questions - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: Yvain 11 October 2014 06:39AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (269)
Tags: meta

Comments (269)

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

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 October 2014 10:58:30PM *  4 points [-]

Please estimate how many people would have to be in a group of adults, chosen uniformly at random, for you to expect the group to contain one (and only one) person smarter than you.

That depends a lot on the group of adults you use as reference. World population? The population of the country in which you are living? City? Your facebook friends?

I think IQ is much better because there are objective standards. "Smart" is also a word that different people interpret slightly differently. IQ is much more precise.

Comment author: Vaniver 13 October 2014 11:48:34PM 0 points [-]

That depends a lot on the group of adults you use as reference.

Ideally, ethnic Brits, since I believe that's what's typically done for IQ reference distributions.

I think IQ is much better because there are objective standards.

Yes, but people may be better at imagining groups than normal distributions. Just how much unlikelier is 150 than 145?

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 October 2014 01:56:04PM 0 points [-]

Yes, but people may be better at imagining groups than normal distributions.

That would also be interesting to test. Ask both for the IQ and ask for the relative intelligence.

Do well calibrated people perform better on this task?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit