> Willingness to tackle controversial or inflammatory issues despite potential social pushback.
I think avoiding life-ruining pushback factors more into intellectual success than many people realize. I have observed modern day authors approach this challenge in various ways (including some on Substack), from paying lip service to their enemies to explicitly backtracking their previous positions. Some have probably been completely silenced, but it would be harder to identify those.
Well done! I'd been considering an article like this for some time, and this analysis saved me a lot of trouble. Scott has a strong verbal tilt, which makes him good at philosophy (well... for a puny human, anyway), and he has a special interest in social dynamics that allowed him to dominate his particular niche.
But there's just no way anyone who struggles with Calculus I is three standard deviations above the mean, and I have no idea why anyone thinks he's that smart. (No wait I do: the ones who think this are his fans, and the most important characteristic of fans is that they be emotional, not that they be objective.)
Calling it now: Verbal tilt theory has something to do with both the MENSA paradox, IQ fetishism, and IQ denialism. Also likely explains why midwittery only target certain sub-demographics of ~120 humanities degree holders vs ~110 STEM enthusiasts.
I read a lot about IQ being "more a measure of processing power than anything else" lately and don't know where it comes from. (Maybe computer scientists becoming interested in human intelligence?) Information processing tests *are* valuable for measuring mental ability in a way that is largely uncontaminated by Flynn Effects, but it isn't really true that intelligence is, or is primarily, a measure of processing power - particularly insofar as it leads to metaphors like intelligence being a tree with branches that grow further apart; mental abilities remain highly correlated even at high levels of g, and IQ appears to form three clusters (verbal, perceptual, rotation) which don't exactly have processing at their root:
> Willingness to tackle controversial or inflammatory issues despite potential social pushback.
I think avoiding life-ruining pushback factors more into intellectual success than many people realize. I have observed modern day authors approach this challenge in various ways (including some on Substack), from paying lip service to their enemies to explicitly backtracking their previous positions. Some have probably been completely silenced, but it would be harder to identify those.
Research request: what is the estimator formula between the 30 BFI facets and fluid IQ? The MMPI might have too many questions and needs a trim. https://archive.fo/folec https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/new-paper-out-intelligence-and-general-psychopathology-in-the-vietnam-experience-study-a-closer-look
Well done! I'd been considering an article like this for some time, and this analysis saved me a lot of trouble. Scott has a strong verbal tilt, which makes him good at philosophy (well... for a puny human, anyway), and he has a special interest in social dynamics that allowed him to dominate his particular niche.
But there's just no way anyone who struggles with Calculus I is three standard deviations above the mean, and I have no idea why anyone thinks he's that smart. (No wait I do: the ones who think this are his fans, and the most important characteristic of fans is that they be emotional, not that they be objective.)
Calling it now: Verbal tilt theory has something to do with both the MENSA paradox, IQ fetishism, and IQ denialism. Also likely explains why midwittery only target certain sub-demographics of ~120 humanities degree holders vs ~110 STEM enthusiasts.
>rarely culturally unbiased
typo?
verbal/general knowledge tests can be culturally biased against immigrants, though the scores are still vaguely meaningful.
edit: nvm yes it was a typo lol
I read a lot about IQ being "more a measure of processing power than anything else" lately and don't know where it comes from. (Maybe computer scientists becoming interested in human intelligence?) Information processing tests *are* valuable for measuring mental ability in a way that is largely uncontaminated by Flynn Effects, but it isn't really true that intelligence is, or is primarily, a measure of processing power - particularly insofar as it leads to metaphors like intelligence being a tree with branches that grow further apart; mental abilities remain highly correlated even at high levels of g, and IQ appears to form three clusters (verbal, perceptual, rotation) which don't exactly have processing at their root:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Bouchard-Jr/publication/222813540_The_structure_of_human_intelligence_It_is_verbal_perceptual_and_image_rotation_VPR_not_fluid_and_crystallized/links/5ba2c1fea6fdccd3cb649585/The-structure-of-human-intelligence-It-is-verbal-perceptual-and-image-rotation-VPR-not-fluid-and-crystallized.pdf