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

Comment author: gwern 26 February 2017 02:06:32AM 2 points [-]

A number of LWers signed up (it was posted here) for the BGI high-IQ project; I believe they got copies of their data. As for the project as a whole: Hsu has mentioned some of how it went, including in a podcast last year which I believe got transcribed; basically, BGI made some disastrous strategic decisions in trying to develop & use a genome-sequencing competitor to Illumina and the high-IQ project got orphaned in the chaos, and is largely irrelevant now as similar high-IQ samples turned up nothing special (so the original premise, that either enrichment would increase power dramatically or that rare variants would be found, I forget which, turned out to be wrong) and the regular GWASes like SSGAC+UK Biobank have made much progress & rendered their relatively small sample mostly irrelevant. Hsu sounded moderately hopeful that something might still be finished & published, but hu knows.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 26 February 2017 01:17:41PM *  0 points [-]

So how many 150+ IQ samples did the latest studies have access to?

More generally, what's the equivalent general population sample size for the tail sampled high IQ populations?

Article about the Chinese Study and it's linking up with the SMPY study

Comment author: buybuydandavis 25 February 2017 12:14:05PM 0 points [-]

"We have the tools to do this--we could, for instance, sequence a lot of peoples' DNA, give them all IQ tests, and do a genome-wide association study, as a start."

I remember a few years ago the Chinese offering free genomic scans for the sufficiently intelligent. Did anyone sign up for that? Anyone know of how that story turned out? I assume they weren't going to share that info.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 21 February 2017 12:08:29PM 0 points [-]

I think what Unnamed says is the most important observation:

I'd bet on 6. I have information that the market doesn't have, and my information points to 6 as the answer, so the market is underpricing 6 (compared to how it would price 6 if it had all the information).

Any time you have private information that the market doesn't have you should bet to move the market in the direction of your information. The difficult question is how much you should bet.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 25 February 2017 11:55:36AM *  0 points [-]

What information do they have?

This is the general problem of a mixture of experts when all you have are the predictions but not the information on which the predictions are based (at least for the market). I don't think there is a real answer to that until you input more information into the system.

We want P(side | I_them, I_me)

We have P(side|I_them), P(side|I_me)

The latter don't give the former.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 February 2017 12:49:18PM *  0 points [-]

Any time you have private information that the market doesn't have you should bet to move the market in the direction of your information. The difficult question is how much you should bet.

I don't think that's true. If it would be true I don't think most mutual fund managers would underperform the SAP 500. A mutual manger might get some superficial information about stocks he invests in that take actual research.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 25 February 2017 11:48:57AM 0 points [-]

Mutual fund managers have incentives other than maximizing expectation of price. OPM.

Also, they likely overestimate the value of their privileged information.

Comment author: jimrandomh 22 February 2017 09:56:23PM 0 points [-]

I believe the argument was (or should have been) that immigration increases the GDP of the destination country by more than it decreases the GDP of the origin country, thereby increasing worldwide GDP per capita.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 25 February 2017 11:27:04AM *  0 points [-]

That should be the argument.

But the argument is also made that "GDP goes up" in the context of the immigration debate and nationalism. That is the usual context of the question these days.

From a nationalist perspective of the existing citizens of the country, their GDP may go down when immigrants are allowed into the country, even while the GDP of the aggregate including the new immigrants is higher than the original GDP of the existing citizens.

And of course, the influx of immigrants also affects the distribution of GDP within the existing citizens.

Comment author: Viliam 03 February 2017 09:58:33AM 0 points [-]

I think people in real life are actually doing this kind of thing, but they don't drive in real traffic; instead they go to an empty place, and try e.g. driving between huge empty paper boxes (so that in case of crash nothing serious happens). And I think they don't do it really to learn driving well while drunk, but rather to calibrate themselves about how exactly different levels of being drunk impact their performance.

So, what would be the analogy of the empty paper boxes for LW?

Comment author: buybuydandavis 08 February 2017 11:53:02PM 0 points [-]

LW is the empty place with the empty boxes are the threads with politics in them.

Though driving isn't the best metaphor. LW is the moot court. Or boxing ring. Or dance floor. Takes two to tango.

We could segregate these things for those who don't feel their up to having a political discussion. Tag a thread with Politics. Don't want to talk politics, don't go into the thread.

Comment author: Elo 03 February 2017 05:14:02AM 0 points [-]

If you practice driving while drunk, you will crash. This will not teach you to drive well (especially if you die). If you practice driving sober, you will get better at driving generally, and also in the domain where you drive drunk. There. analogy fixed. Don't argue over analogies.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 03 February 2017 08:56:45AM 1 point [-]

But driving drunk is not exactly the same skill as driving sober, so that practicing drunk can be expected to improve your skills in driving drunk in ways that only driving sober would not.

Comment author: Viliam 02 February 2017 11:08:18AM 12 points [-]

Debates about discussing politics on LW feel to me like this:

"It is a bad idea to drive drunk."

"How can you say that? There is a huge variation among people with regards to (1) driving skill, and (2) alcohol metabolism. We are the best drivers ever, and we are smart enough to stop driving when we notice that our abilities are impaired."

"Uhm, it sounds a bit like Dunning–Kruger in action, but... a little experiment shouldn't hurt... I guess."


(Loud crash; explosion; sirens wailing in the distance...)

"Uhm, I guess it actually was a bad idea to drive drunk."

Two weeks later.

"Hey guys, let's drink and drive! What could possibly happen? We are the best drivers ever, and smart enough to stop driving when we notice that our abilities are impaired."

"Uhm, you remember what happened the last time?"

"As the smart and rich people say, past performance is not an indicator of future performance. We have learned so much since then, we are the best drivers ever. Also, THE LAST ONE AT THE CROSSING IS A CHICKEN!"

Comment author: buybuydandavis 03 February 2017 04:10:12AM *  1 point [-]

Except by the analogy, we want to be able to drive better, whether drunk or sober. In fact, especially when drunk, because that's where our poor driving causes real disaster elsewhere, as opposed to the relative safety of our test track.

We want to get Less Wrong, except where it would matter the most.

Comment author: DanArmak 02 October 2016 05:48:42PM 0 points [-]

This raises some interesting questions.

If the end result is fraud and bad medicine, whether you regulate more or less, is that a reason to regulate less so money isn't wasted on mandatory fraudulent studies?

Regulation raises the the barrier of entry to selling medicine. Does this reduce the amount of fraud because it's harder to to sell completely untested medicine and there's at least some quality control by the regulator? Or does it increase the amount of fraud because once a drug costs huge amounts of money to develop and approve, companies are less willing to take a loss if they discover the drug doesn't really work, and so lie more?

Comment author: buybuydandavis 03 October 2016 09:30:10AM 0 points [-]

Don't regulate efficiency. Regulate consistency of formulation, at most.

There are plenty of actors interested in efficacy. Really, everyone else involved.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 19 September 2016 06:34:47PM *  6 points [-]

First of all, IQ tests aren't designed for high IQ, so there's a lot of noise there and this would mainly be noise, if he correctly reported the results, which he doesn't.

Second, there are some careful studies of high IQ (SMPY etc) by taking the well designed SAT test, which doesn't have a very high ceiling for adults and giving it to children below the age of 13. By giving the test to representative samples, they can well characterize the threshold for the top 3%. Using self-selected samples, they think that they can characterize up to 1/10,000. In any event, within the 3% they find increasing SAT score predicts increasing probability of accomplishments of all kinds, in direct contradiction of these claims.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 02 October 2016 10:43:37AM 0 points [-]


Did that include being a part of an elite profession?

I think the original article said that smart people accomplished more in a profession, though they were in appropriately excluded.

View more: Next