= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Forecasting and recursive Inhibition within a decision cycle - 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 (8)
There is the... traditional methodology: If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?
Noisy, but yes. If people using rationality techniques don't outperform educational attainment matched controls that would be some evidence against them. Of course there is the selection effect of the sort of person who is drawn to rationality techniques vs not. Does the LW census gather income data? Is LW mostly underperformers?
IQ-matched controls would be much better as "educational attainment" is often just a proxy for IQ. You would also need to control for things like age and, relevant to LW, being in grad school.
I was under the impression that the effect of IQ on income mostly disappears once educational attainment is included.
Well, it depends on what you're interested in. Educational attainment and IQ are correlated, so if you control for one, any of the two, the effect of the other one lessens.
I would argue that IQ is more important since it causes the educational attainment and not vice versa.