I have to imagine that either you derive a heroic amount of pleasure from feeding trolls, or you place a remarkably low value on signal/noise ratio.

Most people have IQ around 100 and are perfectly comfortable with the notion that accomplished PhD is smarter than they are.

How have you measured their level of comfort with the idea? Do you often tell such people that when they disagree with such an accomplished PhD, that the accomplished PhD is smarter than them? And do they tend to be appreciative of you saying that?

Trust me, it's quite easier to disregard an accusation/insult when you do not include an explicit chain of reasoning. It's harder to not respond to, because it mentally tags you as just 'enemy', but for the same reason it's easier to disregard.

As for "being obtuse", don't confuse civility with obtuseness. I knew you for what you are. I knew that the trolling and the flamebaiting is what you attempted to do, So I knew that any attempts to direct you towards a more productive means of discussion wouldn't be heeded by you, as they were counterproductive to your true goals.

But nonetheless, my suggestion has the benefit of explicitly pinpointing the failure in your postings, to be hopefully heeded by any others that are more honest at seeking to make an actual argument, not just troll people.

It also does not present valid inference.

If you wanted to present the inference, then present it as an inference.

e.g. "more accomplished (and thus I conclude more intelligent)" would have been vastly better than what you did, which was to just present your conclusion in a manner that would inevitably bait others to dispute it/take offense against it.

If accomplishments is the only proxy you use to evaluate their relative intelligence, then it would have been all-around better if you had said "more accomplished" rather than "more intelligent", as it's more precise, less controversial, and doesn't confuse fact with inference.

If you stand by this statement as written, I'm at a loss for what your starting assumptions about social interactions even look like.

Conversely, if you only meant it as rhetorical hyperbole, would you mind glossing it with your actual meaning?

Wang is a far more intelligent person than Luke, sorry, the world is unjust and there is nothing Luke or Eliezer can do about their relatively low intelligence compared to people in the field.

This is both petty and ridiculous - to the extent that Wang's work output can be considered representative of intelligence. Please do not move the discussion to evaluations of pure intelligence. I have no desire to insult the guy but raw intelligence is not the area where you should set up a comparison here.

New to you. Not new to me. Should not have been new to you either. Study and train to reduce communication overhead.

The strength of your position is not commensurate with your level of condescension here. In fact, you seem to be just trying to find excuses to back up your earlier unjustified insults - that isn't something that JoshuaZ training and studying would help you with.

Ah, that's what you meant by the other remark. In that case, this isn't backing up claimed prior proxies and is a new argument.

New to you. Not new to me. Should not have been new to you either. Study and train to reduce communication overhead.

Sorry if my point was unclear. The point is that this is a new argument in this discussion. That means it isn't one of the proxies listed earlier, so bringing it up isn't relevant to the discussion of those proxies. To use an analogy, someone could assert that the moon is made of rock and that their primary reason for thinking so is that Cthulhu said so. If when pressed on this, they point out that this is backed up by other evidence, this doesn't make revelation from Cthulhu turn into a better argument than it already was.

Exercise for you: calculate expected IQ of someone whom you know to have IQ>x .

This isn't a claim that his IQ as estimated is greater than x+ epsilon, since we can't measure any epsilon > 0. If you prefer, the point is that his writings and work demonstrate an IQ that is on the right end of the Bell curve by a non-trivial amount.

There are a lot of Chinese academics who come to the United States. So what do you mean by very difficult?

Those born higher up social ladder don't understand it is hard to climb below them too.

That doesn't answer the question in any useful way especially because we don't know where Pei Wang's original social status was. The question is whether his coming to the US for graduate school is strongly indicative of intelligence to the point where you can use it as a proxy that asserts that Wang is "dramatically" more intelligent than Luke. Without more information or specification, this is a weak argument.

As I explained in the edit, you shouldn't forget about Bell's curve. No evidence for intelligence is good evidence of absence, on the IQ>100 side of normal distribution.

Ah, that's what you meant by the other remark. In that case, this isn't backing up claimed prior proxies and is a new argument. Let's be clear on that. So how valid is this? I don't think this is a good argument at all. Anyone who has read what Luke has to say or interacted with Luke can tell pretty strongly that Luke is on the right side of the Bell curve. Sure, if I pick a random person the chance that they are as smart as Pei Wang is tiny, but that's not the case here.

It is still the case that it is very difficult to move from China to US

There are a lot of Chinese academics who come to the United States. So what do you mean by very difficult?

If we move back 20 years, it is 1992, and Pei Wang has already been a lecturer in China then moved to Indiana University.

He doesn't have his PhD at that point. He gets that at Indiana. I can't tell precisely from his CV what he means by lecturer, but at least in the US it often means a position primarily given for teaching rather than research. Given that he didn't have a doctorate at the time, it is very likely that it means something similar, what we might call an adjunct here. That it isn't a very good demonstration of intelligence at all. Luke has in his time run a popular blog that has been praised for its clarity and good writing. And you still haven't addressed the issue that Luke was never trying to go into academia.