Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: blashimov 22 October 2015 07:14:10PM 1 point [-]

Do we have a basic financial literacy category? It's perhaps well known to most LW-ers but I know we get the occasional aspiring rationalist high school / early college student and this stuff really isn't taught in school.

Comment author: ColbyDavis 15 September 2014 08:12:13PM *  4 points [-]

This confuses me a little since the vast majority of the funds they invest in are Vanguard ETFs. Maybe you mean >something more specific that I'm missing?

Haha, ok. So you can just go buy a Vanguard target-date retirement fund and let the fund's internal structure take care of the asset allocation for you, or you can go talk to somebody at Vanguard who will either give you some straightforward advice about how to build your own portfolio for a one-time fee or build your portfolio for you for an ongoing fee, or go to Betterment where they will build you a portfolio out of Vanguard funds, or you can build it yourself using some of the insights you gleaned from this article. All of these are reasonable solutions.

Comment author: blashimov 27 January 2015 08:02:39PM 1 point [-]

So what I'm getting is that if I already am investing in Vanguard, and being reasonable, the added value of betterment if any isn't worth my time? This is what I was trying to figure out today.

Comment author: blashimov 21 November 2014 06:48:39PM 10 points [-]

I have taken the survey, including all questions.

Comment author: blashimov 15 April 2014 04:29:12PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: Terdragon 01 December 2013 06:10:03AM 1 point [-]

Is there anywhere I can read an explanation of (or anyone who can explain) the distinction between "Atheist but spiritual" and "Atheist and not spiritual"?

Comment author: blashimov 01 December 2013 04:35:52PM 2 points [-]

My understanding, you might believe in some continued life after death, something about human souls, any sort of supernatural things, but not believe in a personified interacting deity who gave humans orders like worship me, do this/that etc., nor be a deist who thinks there is such a being but doesn't give orders for some reason.

Comment author: blashimov 01 December 2013 04:33:42PM 11 points [-]

All the extra credit questions!

Comment author: blashimov 27 September 2013 09:46:26PM 0 points [-]

You might repeat Intelligence Amplification here, as I was confused until I read the previous post links.

Comment author: Moss_Piglet 25 September 2013 03:14:41AM 3 points [-]

Hmm. I'm not 95% confident of then number I gave, but I haven't been able to turn up anything disconfirming.

I did a bunch of research on the heritability of IQ last year for a term paper and I repeatedly saw the claim that university students tend to be 1sd above the local population mean, although that may not apply in a place with more liberal admissions practices like the modern US. More research below, and I'll edit in some extra stuff tomorrow when my brain isn't fried.

Some actual data here (IQs estimated from SAT scores, ETS data as of 2013)

Surprisingly, at least looking at science / engineering / math majors, it looks like people are smarter than I would have guessed; Physics majors had the highest average at 133 with Psychology majors pulling up the rear with 114, and most of them are clustered around 120 - 130. For someone who deals with undergrads, that is frankly shockingly high.

Outside of the sciences, even the "dumbest" major, social work, managed a 103 and a lot of the popular majors are in the 105-115 range. Another big surprise here too; Philosophy majors are really damn bright with a 129 average, right up under Math majors. Never would have guessed that one.

Still, it's obvious that the 115-120 figure I gave was overly optimistic. Once I look at some more data I will amend my initial post so that it better reflects reality.

Comment author: blashimov 26 September 2013 03:02:03PM 2 points [-]

Naive hypothesis: Given the Flynn effect, and that college students are younger than the general population, could that explain the difference? That Coscott's conditional "If US citizens between 18 and 24 are representative of the entire population in terms of IQ" is false?

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 25 September 2013 02:25:32AM 4 points [-]

No, that is a mere assertion (which may or may not be true). If they claimed that he is wrong because he is engaging in motivated reasoning, then that would be ad hominem.

Comment author: blashimov 26 September 2013 02:56:59PM 0 points [-]

Wait, what? This might be a little off topic, but if you assert that they lack evidence and are drawing conclusions based on motivated reasoning, that seems highly relevant and not ad hominem. I guess it could be unnecessary, as you might try to focus exactly on their evidence, but it would seem reasonable to look at the evidence they present, and say "this is consistent with motivated reasoning, for example you describe many things that would happen by chance but nothing similar contradictory, so there seems to be some confirmation bias" etc.

Comment author: blashimov 26 September 2013 02:50:50PM 1 point [-]

View more: Next