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.

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?

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.

That reply essentially ignores almost every comment I made. I'm particularly curious whether you are in agreement that Pei Wang isn't from a third world country? Does that cause any update at all for your estimates?

There is very little data on Luke and that is a proxy for Luke being less intelligent, dramatically so.

Also, if we go back in time 20 years, so that Pei Wang would be about the same age Luke is now, do you think you'd have an accomplishment list for Pei Wang that was substantially longer than Luke's current one? If so, how does that impact your claim?

Every single proxy for intelligence indicates a fairly dramatic gap in intelligence in favour of Wang

Can you state explicitly what proxies you are using here that you think indicate a dramatic gap?

more intelligent, better educated, and more experienced

2 of these 3 seems to be clearly the case. I'm unsure how you are getting more intelligent. Your point may be valid completely without the intelligence bit in that intelligent people can easily be deeply mistaken about areas they don't have much education, and one sees that not that infrequently. I'm am however curious how you are making the intelligence determination in question.

If you clear away all the noise arising from the fact that this interaction constitutes a clash of tribal factions...

Pei seems to conflate the possibility...

I'm finding these dialogues worthwhile for (so far) lowering my respect for "mainstream" AI researchers...

and so on.

I think it'd be great if SIAI would not lath on the most favourable and least informative interpretation of any disagreement, in precisely the way how e.g. any community around free energy devices does. It'd be also great if Luke allowed for the possibility that Wang (and most other people whom are more intelligent, better educated, and more experienced than Luke) are actually correct, and Luke is completely wrong (or not even wrong).