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 Open thread, Nov. 02 - Nov. 08, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 02 November 2015 10:07AM

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

Comments (194)

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

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 November 2015 06:40:35PM 4 points [-]

Mathematicians don't give a shit about IQ.

I don't claim that they do.

Clarity speaks of himself as stupid and the fact that he failed to learn python is indication of that. If his IQ is <100, I think that would be a valid ground on which to advice him against seeking a career in machine learning.

That's exactly the purpose for which IQ test were designed.

Comment author: Viliam 05 November 2015 08:22:51AM 1 point [-]

Clarity speaks of himself as stupid

This is only a weak evidence for non-high IQ.

I know a few people who had bad opinion about their IQ, and when I convinced them to take the test, they scored above 130. It's because they believed the stereotype of "high IQ = math prodigy", and they happened to be average at math simply because they focused their lives on something else.

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 November 2015 09:47:17AM 0 points [-]

This is only a weak evidence for non-high IQ.

I haven't implied that it's strong evidence, for me the available evidence was enough to raise the question. The answer to that question matters for whether or not to tell him not to seek a career in machine learning.

I do think that for this purpose the testing that tells him that he's above average in math might be enough.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 05 November 2015 03:49:11PM -1 points [-]

I think it would be useful to taboo "stupid." It is not a useful word.

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 November 2015 09:55:43PM 1 point [-]

Tabooing "stupid" is what asking for IQ is about and why I asked about IQ in this context.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 05 November 2015 10:17:19PM *  -1 points [-]

Except you are not tabooing anything then, you are just substituing "low IQ" for "stupid." The point of tabooing stupid is to get binary classification out of an inherently complicated multidimensional problem.

The request of tabooing in general is a request for more cognitive work.

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 November 2015 11:04:07PM *  3 points [-]

Scoring low on a specific test is something more complex than a label. Changing a vague term with a operationalised term is something that often makes sense for tabooing.

I think you confuse cognitive work with explicitely describing cognitive work. When it comes to speaking about negative features of other people it's worthwhile not to say every negative thing that can be said publically.