Most human beings in any forum, anywhere, will be more obsessed with signaling and other concerns than The Truth—even in a pseudo-anonymous survey—and will be subject to most of the standard cognitive biases that bodybuilders will be, even if to a lesser degree. Being obsessed with The Truth does not mean never lying or exaggerating (or reporting just that one internet IQ test you took that was 1 std dev higher than your real-world test).
If a lot of people actually got scores outside the calibration range of whatever IQ test they took, they could have answered honestly and the resulting numbers still be as bogus as Eliezer suggests.
We had similar data on the survey I ran (which I still need to write up the results of). I don’t know that the numbers past 140 are intelligence-indicative, but I suspect people really did get their reported scores on IQ tests.
Also, in the responses to my survey, people who said they were from the USA were no more or less likely than people who said they weren’t to report scores over 140. Which argues against regional variation in what IQ tests mean. Although I don’t know how consistent the meaning is of IQ tests within the USA; anyone have knowledge, here?
But if so many lied, it would also be a surprising fact, that doesn’t seem to be a better explanation.
It’s only a little more surprising than somebody at an online forum for bodybuilders lying about how much they can bench press.
I take it the reason it’s not equally surprising is that few bodybuilders are as monomaniacally obsessed with The Truth as we are?
Most human beings in any forum, anywhere, will be more obsessed with signaling and other concerns than The Truth—even in a pseudo-anonymous survey—and will be subject to most of the standard cognitive biases that bodybuilders will be, even if to a lesser degree. Being obsessed with The Truth does not mean never lying or exaggerating (or reporting just that one internet IQ test you took that was 1 std dev higher than your real-world test).
If a lot of people actually got scores outside the calibration range of whatever IQ test they took, they could have answered honestly and the resulting numbers still be as bogus as Eliezer suggests.
We had similar data on the survey I ran (which I still need to write up the results of). I don’t know that the numbers past 140 are intelligence-indicative, but I suspect people really did get their reported scores on IQ tests.
Also, in the responses to my survey, people who said they were from the USA were no more or less likely than people who said they weren’t to report scores over 140. Which argues against regional variation in what IQ tests mean. Although I don’t know how consistent the meaning is of IQ tests within the USA; anyone have knowledge, here?
Did you ever write up your results? They would make a valuable addition to the historical data.