3 ms·

IQ doesn't behave like you think it might in fairly uncontroversial situations is part of the problem. For example, have a read about the "Rationality Quotient"

IQ doesn't behave like you think it might in fairly uncontroversial situations is part of the problem. For example, have a read about the "Rationality Quotient" and the surprising conclusion that rationality is poorly correlated with IQ. I'd certainly expect smarter people to be more rational, but it is not so. I think that the treatment of things like time factors and tool use is also somewhat trivialised. Those that play chess will note that excellent Rapid or standard players can be terrible Bullet or Blitz players. Roger Penrose -- nobel prize winning mathematical physicist -- was held back a year on count of his arithmetic being that bad. Yet he is a shockingly good mathematician mostly qua geometrical intuition to which he can convert other things. Who cares, Penrose can just use a calculator. Similarly, I'd say that many IQ tests are just symbolic regression. What if I was brilliant at stating symbolic regression problems, but poor at solving them? Then me + solver would make all the difference, unlike if I was poor at stating them ... And so on.

Tenoke 5y ago
>Roger Penrose.. Showing outliers just proves there are outliers not that the averages are uselesss. >Those that play chess will note that excellent Rapid or standard players can be terrible Bullet or Blitz players. I play chess and those are definitely highly correlated, I suspect at least r of 0.7 especially for those who have put decent time into the different controls.
- usgroup 5y ago
  I didn't mention Penrose because he is an outlier. I mention him as an example where tool use disproportionally effects resultant performance, or conversely as an example of where a specific link in a reasoning chain effects the outcome. I think that is more close to normal than not. I.e. you can often patch people, and they become better at something. Regarding chess, research suggests you're wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1469029219300901 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14690... https://hvandermaas.socsci.uva.nl/Homepage_Han_van_der_Maas/Publications_files/papers/chesspaperfinal3.pdf https://hvandermaas.socsci.uva.nl/Homepage_Han_van_der_Maas/...
  - Tenoke 5y ago
    The correlations in the graph in the second paper were between 0.4 and 0.9 so I'm not sure if I was that wrong.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Tenoke 5y ago

>Roger Penrose.. Showing outliers just proves there are outliers not that the averages are uselesss. >Those that play chess will note that excellent Rapid or standard players can be terrible Bullet or Blitz players. I play chess and those are definitely highly correlated, I suspect at least r of 0.7 especially for those who have put decent time into the different controls.

usgroup 5y ago
I didn't mention Penrose because he is an outlier. I mention him as an example where tool use disproportionally effects resultant performance, or conversely as an example of where a specific link in a reasoning chain effects the outcome. I think that is more close to normal than not. I.e. you can often patch people, and they become better at something. Regarding chess, research suggests you're wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1469029219300901 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14690... https://hvandermaas.socsci.uva.nl/Homepage_Han_van_der_Maas/Publications_files/papers/chesspaperfinal3.pdf https://hvandermaas.socsci.uva.nl/Homepage_Han_van_der_Maas/...
- Tenoke 5y ago
  The correlations in the graph in the second paper were between 0.4 and 0.9 so I'm not sure if I was that wrong.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]