6 ms·

And there's also probably a big difference between the top 0.01% percent and the top 1%. The difference between the top 1% and top 2% isn't very important for m

And there's also probably a big difference between the top 0.01% percent and the top 1%. The difference between the top 1% and top 2% isn't very important for most types of talent. Being in one of those categories for athletic talent, for instance, wouldn't get you into a professional sports league of any kind.

cm2187 8y ago
True but you are assuming the IQ test is inifinitely precise which I doubt it is. It is only a measure of intelligence.
- jojoo 8y ago
  they are very not precise. Most give a 80% confidence interval of +- 8 Points (or 1/2 STD). Also the different tests measure slightly different types of intelligence/put emphasis on other things. There's only ~0.8 correlation between modern IQ tests.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  I'm not really assuming it's very precise. It's more that there's a huge difference between 99th percentile levels of talent and 99.99th percentile levels of talent. For instance, I am easily better than 99/100 males at basketball. I'm 6'6", reasonably athletic, and I played semi-competitively when I was young. But I am nowhere near being better than 9,999/10,000 males. And no amount of hard work or persistence is going to change that.
  - SiempreViernes 8y ago
    The objection was that you can't reliably tell apart the 99 from the 99.99 percentile with a common IQ test.
    - WorkLifeBalance 8y ago
      The difference between 99th and 99.99th percentile is 1.4 standard deviations, a common IQ test ought to be able to be accurate to that. Otherwise it couldn't measure the difference between 100 and 120 IQ (0 to 1.4z) which it clearly can.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        > a common IQ test ought to be able to be accurate to that Accurate to what, even? The very notion of IQ is fuzzy, so naturally any test trying to measure the value would inherit that fuzziness. The difference between 100 and 120 may be statistically identical to 99 and 99.99, but the practical difference is vastly different. At a certain point, the IQ test is "defeated", and any value above a certain threshold is nose.
      - SiempreViernes 8y ago
        Sorry, I don't understand: how do you know the percentile difference in terms of standard deviations but not know if a test is accurate enough?
        LukeShu 8y ago
        By assuming that it's a normal distribution.
      - gjm11 8y ago
        I don't think your reasoning is valid. A test might be unable to discriminate accurately at the extremes not because it's uniformly too inaccurate but because it doesn't have enough range. Toy model: the test consists of one question that everyone in the top 1% can do and no one in the bottom 99% can do; one question that everyone in the top 2% can do and no one in the bottom 98% can do; ... one question that everyone in the top 99% can do and no one in the bottom 1% can do. This test discriminates very nicely and accurately throughout its range of applicability, but it will do no good at all from distinguishing a top-0.01% person from a merely top-1% person. (Just as a tape measure 2m long will let you compare people very accurately by height provided they're no taller than 2m, but will be much less useful for people taller than that.)
- opportune 8y ago
  Yes, in fact, because it's generally calibrated to the whole human population and is defined on an assumed bell curve, the differences in scores in the outliers are somewhat meaningless
virgilp 8y ago
Well, yes. Comparing top .01% to top 1% is akin to comparing top 1% to general population - NOT akin to comparing top 1% to top 2%. So a big difference should be expected/not surprising at all.
owens99 8y ago
Surprisingly, many findings show there is not. Malcolm Gladwell explains this well in his book Outliers. https://www.honorsociety.org/articles/trouble-geniuses-malcolm-gladwells-outliers-story-success https://www.honorsociety.org/articles/trouble-geniuses-malco... “Gladwell cites studies done by Arthur Jensen that indicate the IQ level needed to successfully attend and graduate from undergraduate college is 115, after which Jensen believe IQ becomes relatively unimportant. For comparison, Albert Einstein, a well-known and commonly agreed upon genius, had an IQ of 150. Studies by Liam Hudson indicate that, ‘a mature scientist with an adult IQ of 130 is as likely to win a Nobel Prize as is one whose IQ is 180.’” He gives the example [paraphrasing from memory] of an individual with an IQ of 170 who was so intelligent it impaired his ability to relate to normal people and hold a job.
- plemer 8y ago
  Gladwell generally badly oversimplifies and mischaracterizes.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - cpsempek 8y ago
    While I agree with the intentions of your comment, it fails to be a persuasive rebuttal. Not saying you’re wrong, just saying a more productive comment would have responded to the specific claims of Gladwell’s in the comment, versus an ad hominem dismissal.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > He gives the example [paraphrasing from memory] of an individual with an IQ of 170 who was so intelligent it impaired his ability to relate to normal people and hold a job. High IQ doesn't do that (in fact, it makes it easier to understand other people, including those of average intelligence, if you are so inclined), though people with high IQ and a problem that does impair their social interactions may be inclined to prefer to attribute the social difficulty to their strength (IQ) rather than some problem. Some of the problems that do that may be loosely correlated with IQ, despite being distinct from it, though.
aetherson 8y ago
There may be a big difference between the top 0.01% of g and the top 1% of g (or there may not). But IQ is only a loss abstraction of g, and it almost certainly lacks the resolution to say how top 1% of IQ and top 0.01% of IQ actually correlate with g. (In contrast, you can be relatively certain that someone in the top 1% of IQ has a higher g than someone with bottom 50% of IQ).

cm2187 8y ago

True but you are assuming the IQ test is inifinitely precise which I doubt it is. It is only a measure of intelligence.

jojoo 8y ago
they are very not precise. Most give a 80% confidence interval of +- 8 Points (or 1/2 STD). Also the different tests measure slightly different types of intelligence/put emphasis on other things. There's only ~0.8 correlation between modern IQ tests.
toasterlovin 8y ago
I'm not really assuming it's very precise. It's more that there's a huge difference between 99th percentile levels of talent and 99.99th percentile levels of talent. For instance, I am easily better than 99/100 males at basketball. I'm 6'6", reasonably athletic, and I played semi-competitively when I was young. But I am nowhere near being better than 9,999/10,000 males. And no amount of hard work or persistence is going to change that.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  The objection was that you can't reliably tell apart the 99 from the 99.99 percentile with a common IQ test.
  - WorkLifeBalance 8y ago
    The difference between 99th and 99.99th percentile is 1.4 standard deviations, a common IQ test ought to be able to be accurate to that. Otherwise it couldn't measure the difference between 100 and 120 IQ (0 to 1.4z) which it clearly can.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      > a common IQ test ought to be able to be accurate to that Accurate to what, even? The very notion of IQ is fuzzy, so naturally any test trying to measure the value would inherit that fuzziness. The difference between 100 and 120 may be statistically identical to 99 and 99.99, but the practical difference is vastly different. At a certain point, the IQ test is "defeated", and any value above a certain threshold is nose.
    - SiempreViernes 8y ago
      Sorry, I don't understand: how do you know the percentile difference in terms of standard deviations but not know if a test is accurate enough?
      - LukeShu 8y ago
        By assuming that it's a normal distribution.
    - gjm11 8y ago
      I don't think your reasoning is valid. A test might be unable to discriminate accurately at the extremes not because it's uniformly too inaccurate but because it doesn't have enough range. Toy model: the test consists of one question that everyone in the top 1% can do and no one in the bottom 99% can do; one question that everyone in the top 2% can do and no one in the bottom 98% can do; ... one question that everyone in the top 99% can do and no one in the bottom 1% can do. This test discriminates very nicely and accurately throughout its range of applicability, but it will do no good at all from distinguishing a top-0.01% person from a merely top-1% person. (Just as a tape measure 2m long will let you compare people very accurately by height provided they're no taller than 2m, but will be much less useful for people taller than that.)
opportune 8y ago
Yes, in fact, because it's generally calibrated to the whole human population and is defined on an assumed bell curve, the differences in scores in the outliers are somewhat meaningless

virgilp 8y ago

Well, yes. Comparing top .01% to top 1% is akin to comparing top 1% to general population - NOT akin to comparing top 1% to top 2%. So a big difference should be expected/not surprising at all.

owens99 8y ago

Surprisingly, many findings show there is not. Malcolm Gladwell explains this well in his book Outliers. https://www.honorsociety.org/articles/trouble-geniuses-malcolm-gladwells-outliers-story-success https://www.honorsociety.org/articles/trouble-geniuses-malco... “Gladwell cites studies done by Arthur Jensen that indicate the IQ level needed to successfully attend and graduate from undergraduate college is 115, after which Jensen believe IQ becomes relatively unimportant. For comparison, Albert Einstein, a well-known and commonly agreed upon genius, had an IQ of 150. Studies by Liam Hudson indicate that, ‘a mature scientist with an adult IQ of 130 is as likely to win a Nobel Prize as is one whose IQ is 180.’” He gives the example [paraphrasing from memory] of an individual with an IQ of 170 who was so intelligent it impaired his ability to relate to normal people and hold a job.

plemer 8y ago
Gladwell generally badly oversimplifies and mischaracterizes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cpsempek 8y ago
  While I agree with the intentions of your comment, it fails to be a persuasive rebuttal. Not saying you’re wrong, just saying a more productive comment would have responded to the specific claims of Gladwell’s in the comment, versus an ad hominem dismissal.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> He gives the example [paraphrasing from memory] of an individual with an IQ of 170 who was so intelligent it impaired his ability to relate to normal people and hold a job. High IQ doesn't do that (in fact, it makes it easier to understand other people, including those of average intelligence, if you are so inclined), though people with high IQ and a problem that does impair their social interactions may be inclined to prefer to attribute the social difficulty to their strength (IQ) rather than some problem. Some of the problems that do that may be loosely correlated with IQ, despite being distinct from it, though.

aetherson 8y ago

There may be a big difference between the top 0.01% of g and the top 1% of g (or there may not). But IQ is only a loss abstraction of g, and it almost certainly lacks the resolution to say how top 1% of IQ and top 0.01% of IQ actually correlate with g. (In contrast, you can be relatively certain that someone in the top 1% of IQ has a higher g than someone with bottom 50% of IQ).