I have come across more than a handful of people who don’t excel in traditional IQ tests, but who are nevertheless very capable of presenting coherent, well-argued insights. Does it matter to me that their IQ is 132 instead of 139? No. Who cares about the average IQ among members of the LW community as long as we continue demonstrating the ability to engage in thoughtful discussions and generate valuable conclusions?
Another possibility here is that your perceptions of intelligence levels are really off. This isn’t too unlikely as I see it:
I’ve heard reports that people with super high IQs have trouble making distinctions between normal and bright, or even between moderately gifted and mentally challenged. I frequently observe that the gifted people I’ve met experience their own intelligence level as normal, and accidentally mistake normal people for stupid ones, or mistakenly interpret malice when only ignorance is present (because they’re assuming the other person is as smart as they are and would therefore never make such an ignorant mistake).
If the intelligence difference you experience every day is 70 points wide, your perceptions are probably more geared to find some way to make sense of conflicting information, not geared to be sensitive to ten point differences.
As a person who has spent a lot of time learning about intelligence differences, I’d say it’s fairly hard to perceive intelligence differences smaller than 15 points anyway. The 30 point differences are fairly easy to spot. A large part of this may be because of the wide gaps in abilities that gifted people tend to have between their different areas of intelligence. So, you’ve got to figure that IQ 130 might be an average of four abilities that are quite different from each other, and so the person’s abilities will likely overlap with some of the abilities of a person with IQ 120 or IQ 140. However, a person with an IQ of 160 will most likely have their abilities spread out across a higher up range of ability levels, so they’re more likely to seem to have completely different abilities from people who have IQs around 130.
The reason why a few points of difference is important in this context is because the loss appears to be continuing. If we lose a few points each year, then over time, LessWrong would trend toward the mean and the culture here may die as a result.
The reason why a few points of difference is important in this context is because the loss appears to be continuing. If we lose a few points each year, then over time, LessWrong would trend toward the mean and the culture here may die as a result.
Ok, FYI, if you see the words “appears to be” and “if” in my sentences, it means I am acknowledging the ambiguity. If you do not want to annoy me, please wait until I’m using words like “definitely” and “when” or direct your “could not resist” comments at someone else.
If you want to discuss how we may determine the probability of a consistent and continuing downward trend, that would be constructive and I’d be very interested. Please do not waste my time by pointing out the obvious.
If you want to discuss how we may determine the probability of a consistent and continuing downward trend, that would be constructive and I’d be very interested. Please do not waste my time by pointing out the obvious.
(First of all, as I might have already mentioned, I don’t think that the average of (IQ − 132) over all readers is a terribly interesting metric; the total number of active contributors with IQ above 132 or something like that might be better.)
I’d guess that the decline in average IQ is mostly due to lower-IQ people arriving rather than to higher-IQ people leaving (EDIT: applying the intraocular trauma test to this graph appears to confirm that), and the population growth appears to have tapered off (there were fewer respondents in the 2012 survey than in the 2011 one, even though the 2011 one was open for longer). I’d guess the average IQ of readers is decreasing with time as a reversed logistic function, but we’d have to fit a four-parameter curve to three data points to test that.
the total number of active contributors with IQ above 132 or something like that might be better
Actually, a similar concern was brought up in response to my IQ Accuracy comment and Vaniver discovered that the average IQs of the active members and lurkers was almost exactly the same:
165 out of 549 responses without reported positive karma (30%) self-reported an IQ score; the average response was 138.44.
181 out of 518 responses with reported positive karma (34%) self-reported an IQ score; the average response was 138.25.
We could separate the lurkers from the active members and do the analysis again, but I’m not sure it would be worth the effort as it looks to me like active members and lurkers are giving similar answers. If you’d like to do that, I’d certainly be interested in any surprises you uncover, but I don’t expect it to be worthwhile enough to do it myself.
I’d guess that the decline in average IQ is mostly due to lower-IQ people arriving rather than to higher-IQ people leaving (EDIT: applying the intraocular trauma test to this graph appears to confirm that)
The sample set for the highest IQ groups is, of course, rather small, but what’s been happening with the highest IQ groups is not encouraging. The specific graph in question (although I very much doubt that Gwern would intend to make that graph misleading in any way) is just not designed to clearly illustrate that particular aspect of the results visually.
Here are a few things you wouldn’t guess without looking at the numbers:
Exceptionally gifted people used to be 18% of the IQ respondents. Now they are 6%.
The total number of highly and exceptionally gifted respondents decreased in 2012, while normal and moderately gifted respondents increased.
or mistakenly interpret malice when only ignorance is present (because they’re assuming the other person is as smart as they are and would therefore never make such an ignorant mistake)
I’m under the impression that a substantial part of Hanson’s Homo hypocritus observations fall prey to this failure mode.
Is there a name for this failure mode? For clarity: The one where people use themselves as a map of other people and are frequently incorrect. That would be good to have.
Sorry about my tardiness when responding to comments. I don’t visit LessWrong very often. Maybe in future I should refrain from posting comments unless I am sure that I have the time and diligence to participate satisfactorily in any discussion that my comments might generate, since I wouldn’t want to come across as rude.
Another possibility here is that your perceptions of intelligence levels are really off.
After reading and thinking a bit about this comment, I think you might be right, especially regarding the point that gifted people might often
mistakenly interpret malice when only ignorance is present.
I am rather bad at reading other people. I am not diagnosed with any degree of autism, but I am rather socially stunted nevertheless. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I can be socially inept. This self-assessment was the conclusion of many instances where I was informed that I had grossly misunderstood certain social situations or inadvertently committed some kind of faux pas.
It is also generally difficult for me to gauge whether specific comments of mine might be construed as passive-aggressive/condescending. When you asked if my intention was to insult you, my response was “No, but I am sorry that you feel that way”. In the past, when I did not know any better, I would have said, “No, and don’t be so sensitive.” As you can imagine, that response usually escalated things instead of calming people down. It is a long and ongoing learning process for me to understand how to react appropriately in social contexts in order to avoid hurt feelings.
In short, it seems like I commit the mind projection fallacy a lot when interacting with other people: If I wouldn’t feel offended by certain ways of phrasing things, I assume that other people wouldn’t either. If I wouldn’t make such an ignorant mistake, I assume that other people wouldn’t either.
The reason why a few points of difference is important in this context is because the loss appears to be continuing.
When you put it like this, I can understand your concern.
Another possibility here is that your perceptions of intelligence levels are really off. This isn’t too unlikely as I see it:
I’ve heard reports that people with super high IQs have trouble making distinctions between normal and bright, or even between moderately gifted and mentally challenged. I frequently observe that the gifted people I’ve met experience their own intelligence level as normal, and accidentally mistake normal people for stupid ones, or mistakenly interpret malice when only ignorance is present (because they’re assuming the other person is as smart as they are and would therefore never make such an ignorant mistake).
If the intelligence difference you experience every day is 70 points wide, your perceptions are probably more geared to find some way to make sense of conflicting information, not geared to be sensitive to ten point differences.
As a person who has spent a lot of time learning about intelligence differences, I’d say it’s fairly hard to perceive intelligence differences smaller than 15 points anyway. The 30 point differences are fairly easy to spot. A large part of this may be because of the wide gaps in abilities that gifted people tend to have between their different areas of intelligence. So, you’ve got to figure that IQ 130 might be an average of four abilities that are quite different from each other, and so the person’s abilities will likely overlap with some of the abilities of a person with IQ 120 or IQ 140. However, a person with an IQ of 160 will most likely have their abilities spread out across a higher up range of ability levels, so they’re more likely to seem to have completely different abilities from people who have IQs around 130.
The reason why a few points of difference is important in this context is because the loss appears to be continuing. If we lose a few points each year, then over time, LessWrong would trend toward the mean and the culture here may die as a result.
http://xkcd.com/605/ http://xkcd.com/1007/
(SCNR.)
Ok, FYI, if you see the words “appears to be” and “if” in my sentences, it means I am acknowledging the ambiguity. If you do not want to annoy me, please wait until I’m using words like “definitely” and “when” or direct your “could not resist” comments at someone else.
If you want to discuss how we may determine the probability of a consistent and continuing downward trend, that would be constructive and I’d be very interested. Please do not waste my time by pointing out the obvious.
(First of all, as I might have already mentioned, I don’t think that the average of (IQ − 132) over all readers is a terribly interesting metric; the total number of active contributors with IQ above 132 or something like that might be better.)
I’d guess that the decline in average IQ is mostly due to lower-IQ people arriving rather than to higher-IQ people leaving (EDIT: applying the intraocular trauma test to this graph appears to confirm that), and the population growth appears to have tapered off (there were fewer respondents in the 2012 survey than in the 2011 one, even though the 2011 one was open for longer). I’d guess the average IQ of readers is decreasing with time as a reversed logistic function, but we’d have to fit a four-parameter curve to three data points to test that.
Actually, a similar concern was brought up in response to my IQ Accuracy comment and Vaniver discovered that the average IQs of the active members and lurkers was almost exactly the same:
We could separate the lurkers from the active members and do the analysis again, but I’m not sure it would be worth the effort as it looks to me like active members and lurkers are giving similar answers. If you’d like to do that, I’d certainly be interested in any surprises you uncover, but I don’t expect it to be worthwhile enough to do it myself.
The sample set for the highest IQ groups is, of course, rather small, but what’s been happening with the highest IQ groups is not encouraging. The specific graph in question (although I very much doubt that Gwern would intend to make that graph misleading in any way) is just not designed to clearly illustrate that particular aspect of the results visually.
Here are a few things you wouldn’t guess without looking at the numbers:
Exceptionally gifted people used to be 18% of the IQ respondents. Now they are 6%.
The total number of highly and exceptionally gifted respondents decreased in 2012, while normal and moderately gifted respondents increased.
I did some analysis here
I’m under the impression that a substantial part of Hanson’s Homo hypocritus observations fall prey to this failure mode.
Is there a name for this failure mode? For clarity: The one where people use themselves as a map of other people and are frequently incorrect. That would be good to have.
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Typical_mind_fallacy
Sorry about my tardiness when responding to comments. I don’t visit LessWrong very often. Maybe in future I should refrain from posting comments unless I am sure that I have the time and diligence to participate satisfactorily in any discussion that my comments might generate, since I wouldn’t want to come across as rude.
After reading and thinking a bit about this comment, I think you might be right, especially regarding the point that gifted people might often
I am rather bad at reading other people. I am not diagnosed with any degree of autism, but I am rather socially stunted nevertheless. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I can be socially inept. This self-assessment was the conclusion of many instances where I was informed that I had grossly misunderstood certain social situations or inadvertently committed some kind of faux pas.
It is also generally difficult for me to gauge whether specific comments of mine might be construed as passive-aggressive/condescending. When you asked if my intention was to insult you, my response was “No, but I am sorry that you feel that way”. In the past, when I did not know any better, I would have said, “No, and don’t be so sensitive.” As you can imagine, that response usually escalated things instead of calming people down. It is a long and ongoing learning process for me to understand how to react appropriately in social contexts in order to avoid hurt feelings.
In short, it seems like I commit the mind projection fallacy a lot when interacting with other people: If I wouldn’t feel offended by certain ways of phrasing things, I assume that other people wouldn’t either. If I wouldn’t make such an ignorant mistake, I assume that other people wouldn’t either.
When you put it like this, I can understand your concern.