JonahSinick comments on Social class amongst the intellectually gifted - LessWrong

6 Post author: JonahSinick 02 June 2015 11:02PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (60)

Comments (60)

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

Comment author: JonahSinick 03 June 2015 05:19:47PM 1 point [-]

Huh? No, it's not hard at all. Besides it's not like something prohibits you from using, y'know, numbers on LW.

It's hard to convey the quantitative effect sizes as encoded in our intuitions: they're not stored in our brains as numbers.

What's all this backsliding into vagueness and the very very low bar of "anything"?

:D. The threshold that I'm trying to clear is "get readers to think seriously about whether or not developing strong proficiency with a quantitative subject would be good for those intellectually gifted people who they know (possibly including themselves), based on the considerations that I raise.

I have no idea whether you should try to develop strong proficiency in a quantitative subject: there's so much that I don't know about you and your situation, so I'm not going to try to make an argument on that front. What I have to say is actionable only with a lot of individual-specific context that I don't have. I'm trying to present information that individuals can use to help them make decisions.

Comment author: Lumifer 03 June 2015 05:25:32PM 1 point [-]

quantitative effect sizes as encoded in our intuitions

I don't understand what that means.

get readers to think seriously about whether or not developing strong proficiency with a quantitative subject would be good for those intellectually gifted people who they know (possibly including themselves), based on the considerations that I raise.

Cool. That's an entirely reasonable position which can be discussed. Now these "considerations" that you raise, can you make them more coherent and explicit as well? Then the discussion can proceed about whether they are valid, whether there are more considerations which support them or, maybe, counterbalance them, etc.

Comment author: JonahSinick 03 June 2015 05:32:08PM *  1 point [-]

I don't understand what that means.

I mean, e.g. that your brain doesn't have a numerical answer to the question "What's the probability that I'll get into a car crash if I drive to work tomorrow morning?" - it has information that can be used to derive a numerical answer, but the number itself isn't there.

Yes, I need to make the considerations more coherent and explicit. Thanks for the feedback.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit