I find it interesting that you're so sure about your original estimates for the IQ of rationalist public intellectuals. While you're trying to figure out why there's a difference between the average rationalist IQ and that of the more notable rationalist intellectuals, you're taking for granted that your estimates are right. Maybe it's worth considering that your initial guesses might not be as accurate as you think.
Shouldn't you trust high N, consistently-replicated survey data more than quick-and-dirty estimations?
on an individual level they have a standard error of 5-8 points due to unreliability, on the group level there are upward biases (e.g. overreporting) and downwards biases (e.g. regressing to the mean of 100). most are generated using cognitive data (e.g. SAT/GRE scores) which highly correlate with intelligence and information about the individual (e.g. educational attainment, income) is used to avoid unnecessary regression to the mean. i think an average of 135-140 is where the true value of the average rationalist-adjacent public figure is, personally.
currently the only ones i am considering revising are the estimates that take chess ability into account and vitalik's estimate.
You probably don’t know, but 135 is at least the 99’70th percentile, so the difference in intelligence only progresses with increasing IQ, dear author. Let me remind you that there is a difference. In addition, the rationalists in fact did not discover anything new, but that is not their task.
Slow talker, but I don't think he's stupid. Most big podcasters (e.g. Rogan, Chris Williamson, him) intentionally play dumb to relate to the viewer and make the guest more confident.
I find it interesting that you're so sure about your original estimates for the IQ of rationalist public intellectuals. While you're trying to figure out why there's a difference between the average rationalist IQ and that of the more notable rationalist intellectuals, you're taking for granted that your estimates are right. Maybe it's worth considering that your initial guesses might not be as accurate as you think.
Shouldn't you trust high N, consistently-replicated survey data more than quick-and-dirty estimations?
on an individual level they have a standard error of 5-8 points due to unreliability, on the group level there are upward biases (e.g. overreporting) and downwards biases (e.g. regressing to the mean of 100). most are generated using cognitive data (e.g. SAT/GRE scores) which highly correlate with intelligence and information about the individual (e.g. educational attainment, income) is used to avoid unnecessary regression to the mean. i think an average of 135-140 is where the true value of the average rationalist-adjacent public figure is, personally.
currently the only ones i am considering revising are the estimates that take chess ability into account and vitalik's estimate.
You probably don’t know, but 135 is at least the 99’70th percentile, so the difference in intelligence only progresses with increasing IQ, dear author. Let me remind you that there is a difference. In addition, the rationalists in fact did not discover anything new, but that is not their task.
No.
no and no
What this says more is that perhaps IQ isn't actually an indicator of being right. Or successful. Maybe it needs a certain personality to work...
Slow talker, but I don't think he's stupid. Most big podcasters (e.g. Rogan, Chris Williamson, him) intentionally play dumb to relate to the viewer and make the guest more confident.