Ok I managed to dig it up!
E/I | S/N | T/F | J/P (Category)
----------------------------------------------
75/25 75/25 55/45 50/50 (Overall population)
27/73 10/90 75/25 65/35 (Mensans)
15/85 03/97 88/12 54/46 (LessWrongers) *
From the December 1993 Mensa Bulletin.
* The LessWrongers were added by me, using the same calculation method as in the comment where I test my personality type predictions and are based on the 2012 survey results.
Problem: You might want to specify “this year’s survey” in the following line, otherwise people may think that having taken a previous year’s survey means they do not need to take this year’s survey to be counted:
Everyone who took the survey before, your responses are still saved and you don’t have to take it again.
This also explains a lot of things. People regard IQ as if it is meaningless, just a number, and they often get defensive when intellectual differences are acknowledged. I spent a lot of time doing research on adult giftedness (though I’m most interested in highly gifted+ adults) and, assuming the studies were done in a way that is useful (I’ve heard there are problems with this), and my personal experiences talking to gifted adults are halfway decent as representations of the gifted adult population, there are a plethora of differences that gifted adults have. For instance, in “You’re Calling Who A Cult Leader?” Eliezer is annoyed with the fact that people assume that high praise is automatic evidence that a person has joined a cult. What he doesn’t touch on is that there are very significant neurological differences between people in just about every way you could think of, including emotional excitability. People assume that others are like themselves, and this causes all manner of confusion. Eliezer is clearly gifted and intense and he probably experiences admiration with a higher level of emotional intensity than most. If the readers of LessWrong and Hacker News are gifted, same goes for many of them. To those who feel so strongly, excited praise may seem fairly normal. To all those who do not, it probably looks crazy. I explained more about excitability in the comments.
I also want to say (without getting into the insane amount of detail it would take to justify this to the LW crowd—maybe I will do that later, but one bit at a time) that in my opinion, as a person who has done lots of reading about giftedness and has a lot of experience interacting with gifted people and detecting giftedness, the idea that most survey respondents are giving real answers on the IQ portion of the survey seems very likely to me. I feel 99% sure that LessWrong’s average IQ really is in the gifted range, and I’d even say I’m 90%+ sure that the ballpark hit on by the surveys is right. (In other words, they don’t seem like a group of predominantly exceptionally or profoundly gifted Einsteins or Stephen Hawkings, or just talented people at the upper ends of the normal range with IQs near 115, but that an average IQ in the 130′s / 140′s range does seem appropriate.)
This says nothing about the future though… The average IQ has been decreasing on each survey for an average of about two points per year. If the trend continues, then in as many years as LessWrong has been around, LessWrong may trend so far toward the mean that LessWrong will not be gifted anymore (by all IQ standards that is, it would still be gifted by some definitions and IQ standards but not others). I will be writing a post about the future of LessWrong very soon.
I went to the library and it was empty. They said Gwern stopped by for a quick lookup.
The reason I didn’t focus on empathy in my previous comment is because I didn’t see any reason to think that would be useful to you guys. In my view, we have problems that empathy can’t solve. I see now that it would probably be good if I detail some of my empathetic experiences because there’s a need to feel like women care and also explain why empathy can’t solve the problems I listed. So I did both.
I met a really sweet guy on a dating site that I have things in common with and we started having wonderful conversations. Then I started to notice Asperger’s symptoms. Instead of rejecting him immediately, I started giving him information about how he was coming across. We both decided that we were not romantically compatible (for unrelated reasons) but we talked frequently over the next year or so, and I kept giving him information to help him socially. I care about him a lot and it makes me sad to think of him ending up alone, so I helped as much as I could.
I make a point of letting guys know if they make a mistake, with few exceptions. If they seem beyond helping (the occasional crazies), I may back away slowly and vanish. If they send me a message on a dating site that ignores my profile, I ignore them. Otherwise they’ll usually get some type of error message from me. I know they need feedback.
There have been three situations in the recent past where I met someone I really liked, but they made a mistake. In each of these three situations, I pointed out the mistake but kept talking to them because I liked them and was hoping they’d come around (well in one case I was hoping that my initial assessment was wrong). I don’t do this for every kind of mistake. It really depends on what it is. Sometimes I meet someone I really like but I know I can’t save it, so I won’t try (though I usually tell them why I’m not continuing). But if I think there’s a reasonable chance, I’ll try.
It’s not like I’m not understanding. It’s that there are big problems that no amount of understanding can overcome. Let’s look at each of the big problems I listed for a minute. Please consider that I am not deeming these “problems that understanding will not overcome” for arbitrary reasons. Everyone is naive when they’re young, me included. Due to this, I got to find out the hard way that certain things will doom a new connection and that there’s nothing I can do about it. Here is why they doom new connections:
Bias about incompatibilities and overly optimistic probability estimates
Imagine telling someone that you’re not sure you’re what they wanted, and they just brush it off and want to proceed anyway. If they’re not willing to talk realistically about these things, a few problems result. First, when other people believe we’re more compatible than we are, I find it unacceptable to continue to knowingly allow them to believe that. I feel a sense of responsibility about not leading people on, so this situation is unacceptable to me—I can’t allow it. Second, I have to wonder whether they’re leading me on. If they aren’t willing to really look at a potential incompatibility and give me an honest answer, I may very well end up in a relationship that ends in heartbreak because I thought the person would accept something about me that they couldn’t. If they’re unwilling to face the truth to and make sure to tell me about these things in the beginning, they run a high risk of leading me on by accident. When people feel strongly attracted and that causes them bias like this, it’s really, really hard to get through to them. When I have tried to get through to them, this has resulted in me burning out on trying. Worse, it breaks my trust (I can’t trust them not to lead me on). The combination of not feeling okay with allowing them to be led on, not trusting that they won’t lead me on and being burnt out by trying to wake them up results in an extremely risky situation that is likely to lead to heartbreak for one or both of us. Since there’s no way to get an accurate idea of our compatibility in that situation, if I notice they’re stuck on optimism bias, I quit.
Early Attachment
When people are attached, they act like they need things from me and expect me to fulfill those needs. Rewind to my teenage years when I had trouble saying no: if people acted like they needed things from me, I would try to make them happy. Since I wasn’t doing these things based on a mutually beneficial relationship, I would inevitably burn out—I was trying to meet their needs, but wasn’t getting my own needs met. You run out of juice that way. What’s worse is that when you’re doing something because you feel expected to instead of out of a genuine sense of love and connection, it’s obvious. The result is that they sense this, and they demand more affection to compensate. For that reason, the burnout comes on rapidly. Of course, people who are attached too early don’t see the flaw in being attached too early. If they did, they wouldn’t become attached too early—or maybe they don’t know how to avoid it. It’s for those reasons, I think, that they never seem to go “Yes, I am attached too early.” and take responsibility for their own needs. Instead, when the difference in attachment is noticed, their solution is to try anything they can think of to get me attached, too. We all know how hard it can be to stay rational in emotional situations. We know that relationships are governed by reality the same way everything else is. Therefore we can easily see that it’s both important and difficult to stay rational regarding relationship decisions. Being subjected to somebody you like trying to make you feel attached to them puts you in a risky situation where you’re likely to become irrational and make a relationship decision that explodes later on. Anyone who has experienced the misery of heartbreak can surely imagine how terrifying it is to be in a situation where you’re rational enough to see that it’s likely, but not certain you’ll be strong enough to resist temptation. For that reason, people put in this situation tend to run screaming.
Moving too fast / expectations
The main reason moving too fast is unworkable for me is that it creates expectations I can’t fulfill, and the reason unreasonable expectations are unworkable is because people don’t let you change their expectations—instead, they are judging you by those expectations. For instance, they expect me to have more intense feelings for them than I’m ready for. Being unable to produce these, and unwilling to lie, I must tell them that I’m not feeling as interested as they are. If they really are expecting me to move as fast as they do the reaction I’ve had is that they assume I’m never going to be interested because I’m not intensely interested right away. Then they go into sour grapes mode. Attempting to convince them that I’m not sour would be hard enough in and of itself, but I’d also have to convince them that their expectations were unrealistic. That would come across like whining about being rejected or attempting to circumvent the person’s judgment. When someone rejects me, it’s best to respect their decision—no matter what it was based on—and move along.
I do understand that a lot of guys feel like they’re going to be alone forever. I’ve had those feelings, too. Don’t think that women don’t ever feel that. It’s worse for the guys because of the gender ratio, but it’s not like we can’t relate at all. Finding the right person is hard. I am complicated, and this results in there being a lot of incompatibilities to consider. It’s not easy for me, either.
The truth is, I have no idea how I would ever make dysfunctional behaviors like these work for me in a dating context. It seems ill advised to even attempt to do that, so I won’t. You said “oozing desperation is not a good romantic strategy, but it’s not just due to simple social ineptitude or inexperience.” and what I’m saying is “social ineptitude and inexperience do not just reek of desperation, they make dating broken in ways I can’t work with.” I hope you see the reason why I focused on these things in my post is not because I’m not empathetic but because, from my point of view, the biggest problem is that a lot of guys don’t realize that the things they are doing make the connection unhealthy and dysfunctional.
It seems to be a common attitude that the women need to realize that the guys are having a really hard time just finding the sorts of women they like, let alone getting the practice needed for good social skills. I do realize this. In fact, I do not see the gender ratio problem as being “due to creepers”—to me, that’s just another symptom of a different underlying cause which is nobody’s fault.
It’s actually a very good example of the tragedy of the commons. Individually, going after every woman they meet seems like it should improve their chances; collectively, it ends up driving women away and reducing everyone’s chances. We would expect rationalist/skeptic/etc. guys to figure this out, but they often don’t. Why is this?
I think they get sucked in by the experience. It takes a lot of emotional control to fight back things like optimism bias, attachment and unrealistic expectations when you’re compelled by mating instincts, pressured by hormones and lifelong romantic dreams are clouding your mind. It doesn’t surprise me that a lot of intelligent guys act like they’re sort of “drunk” on the experience.
I developed emotional control through meditation to prevent myself from taking a “drunken” approach to romance. That’s what I’d recommend for anyone having these problems.
Actually, I have run into enough guys who treat me like I’m the last woman on earth because I’m a female nerd that I’ve developed an aversion to anything resembling that type of behavior. I was understanding about their enthusiasm at first, because I want a nerd, too, but it just doesn’t work to date someone when they’re acting like you’re their last chance. They want to move too fast, they create expectations, they become biased and won’t hear me when I talk about things that may be incompatibilities. That intensity throws a wrench into the process of getting to know someone. I grok their sense of necessity about being careful in how they present themselves, and I approve of this thread (There are a lot of things I wish I could say to guys—we need to communicate, and I have been wishing for an opportunity to do that), but on the individual level, I am easily spooked by signs of early attachment, overly optimistic probability estimates about us working out, and impatience to see signs of an established connection. I go on the alert for these signs of irrationality if a person treats me “like a celebrity” or similar. For the record none of the questions in this thread (so far) have bothered me.
As for whether it feels empowering, no. First of all, my sense of self-worth is not connected to my attractiveness. I am more than my ability to attract a mate. Secondly, being one of the few nerdy women has only served to highlight the fact that dating between nerds is pretty dysfunctional. At first, it was fun to have so much attention (other nerd spot) but it quickly became obvious that more attention does not convert into a larger ratio of real romance opportunities. There are a lot of incompatible guys trying to make me like them and hoping they can magically “make it work”, and the ones who do seem good have problems like the above, and I feel a need to cut it short to prevent dysfunction. I think the crazy male-to-female ratio among nerds has caused more damage to my dating life than anything—so that’s what I usually think of when I am reminded of it, not how “empowered” I feel.
I know it can be tiring to explain to frustrating people why they are frustrating. Thanks for taking the time to type this up. Hopefully I’m good enough at taking criticism that I won’t stay frustrating long.
Bad Concept: Obviousness
Consider this—what distinguishes obviousness from a first impression? Like some kind of meta semantic stop sign, “it’s obvious!” can be used as an excuse to stop thinking about a question. It can be shouted out as an argument with an implication to the effect of “If you don’t agree with me instantly, you’re an idiot.” which can sometimes convince people that an idea is correct without the person actually supporting their points. I sometimes wonder if obviousness is just an insidious rationalization that we cling to when what we really want is to avoid thinking or gain instant agreement.
I wonder how much damage obviousness has done?
An alternate explanation:
Maybe the years of public schooling that most of us receive cause us to trust papers so much, that if we see something written down on a paper, we feel uncomfortable opposing it. If you’re threatened with punishment for not regurgitating what is on an authority’s papers daily for that many years of your life, you’re bound to be classically conditioned to behave as if you agree with papers.
So maybe what’s going on is this:
You fill out a scientist’s paper.
The paper tells you your point of view. It looks authoritative because it’s in writing.
You feel uncomfortable disagreeing with the authority’s paper. School taught you this was bad.
Now the authority wants you to support the opinion they think is yours.
You feel uncomfortable with the idea of failing to show the authority that you can support the opinion on the paper. (A teacher would not have approved—and you’d look stupid.)
You might want to tell the authority that it’s not your opinion, but they have evidence that you believe it—it’s in writing.
You behave according to your conditioning by agreeing with the paper, and do as expected by supporting what the researcher thinks your point of view is.
I think this might just be an external behavior meant to maintain approval of an authority, not evidence that they’ve truly changed their minds.
I wonder what would happen if the study were re-done in a really casual way with say, crayon-scrawled questions on scraps of napkins instead of authoritative looking papers.
Also, I wonder how much embarrassment it caused when they seemed to fill out the answers all wrong and how embarrassment might have influenced these people’s behavior. Imagine you’re filling out a paper (reminiscent of taking a test in school) but you filled out the answers all wrong. Horrified by the huge number of mistakes you made, might you try to hide it by pretending you meant to fill them out that way?
Oooh great idea. Bugs / Suggestions:
The answers are transformed into this tiny little poll code with a poll id, so I assume it’s being saved to a database. However, the questions are not being saved with them. I can edit my question after the poll has been answered. This may result in some pranks later where you ask some obvious question like “does the earth revolve around the sun” or whatever and everyone answers “yes” and then you can change your question to “are you a Scientologist?” and you will see everyone’s votes saying “yes” to that. Much more malicious changes are possible, of course. Also, if the questions aren’t stored in the database with the answers, you won’t have as many options later for doing cool things with your database full of polls.
The code: [Poll] does not work because it’s upper case, but this is not an obvious reason for poll failure, so one may end up wasting lots of time trying to figure it out or make annoying requests for support. Making this case insensitive is probably a good idea.
The poll seems designed for very short answers. My elitism poll results look bad for that reason.
Actually, this eternal September business was preceded by the concerns of other people in my LessWrong could grow a lot but we’re doing it wrong thread:
gjm (Specifically concerned about intentional growth that I proposed causing eternal September.)
More people expressed concern when I talked about preventing it:
People are still expressing concern in this very thread:
If there’s a volunteer interested in working on growth, and it looks like lots of growth is possible, but a bunch of people are concerned about a decline in culture and it’s a known risk of growing internet forums, and Eliezer is talking about the proliferation of undiscriminating skeptics, and I saw a forum collapse from it myself, doesn’t it make sense to talk about whether growth would destroy LessWrong before speeding up growth?
People were quick to up vote my growth post like there’s no tomorrow. It was the most popular post in almost a month. Then I write a post about the downsides of growth, and it’s down voted to the point of being hidden. Might this be optimism bias, normalcy bias, or denial at work? I don’t think that the rejections stated are the true rejection.
Man, Gatto spurred off so much thought for me. That was in my early 20′s so it’s not all readily coming to mind right now, but wow. I feel like… he explained so much. I’m not sure why you say he’s inspiring. So much of life that didn’t make any sense began to make sense after that. But that was one of the worst existential crises I’ve ever experienced. To realize that your whole life you had been stifled by the thing you thought was teaching you: abominable. There are horrors worse than death. That is one of them.
When I was 17, I decided to tear my whole reality apart because I noticed that it contained too many flaws. This was excruciating and terrifying. When I was 18, I had the undignified experience of realizing I could not allow myself to vote because I wasn’t taught to think critically and was still learning to. When I was in my early 20′s, I discovered logical fallacies and went “SOMEBODY WROTE THIS ALL DOWN!!?!!?? Why didn’t I know about this!?” I was a mess of a young woman—it took years of effort to put together a decently competent mind after all that.
Failing to teach reasoning skills in school is a crime against humanity.
I took it and did all the extra credit questions except one because it would not be accurate for me.
This is an especially good point because you’re currently able to change the question after the results are in, allowing you to prank the poll takers by making their answers seem to support anything you feel like.
Sure, the bounce rate may include returning users, but you seem to be missing this really important point:
When I first saw the site, I had no idea what it was about. I left. Without clicking anything.
When I saw the site the second time, I read the about us page, still didn’t know what it was about, and left. Without clicking anything.
A web professional who has worked with marketers (me) is telling you “the web marketing sucks”.
We really don’t know what percentage of the bouncers are new users from this page. But if we want growth, we can’t just tell ourselves that most of the people who are leaving are returning users and brush this off. Consider this:
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s18lesswrong&r=36
If the new users were all registering, the growth should be how much faster than that?
(I’m hereby updating the OP with this. Thanks for pointing it out.)
On IQ Accuracy:
As Yvain says, “people have been pretty quick to ridicule this survey’s intelligence numbers as completely useless and impossible and so on” because if they’re true, it means that the average LessWronger is gifted. Yvain added a few questions to the 2012 survey, including the ACT and SAT questions and the Myers-Briggs personality type question that I requested (I’ll explain why this is interesting), and that give us a few other things to check against, which has made the figures more believable. The ridicule may be an example of the “virtuous doubt” that Luke warns about in Overconfident Pessimism, so it makes sense to “consider the opposite”:
The distribution of Myers-Briggs personality types on LessWrong replicates the Mensa pattern. This is remarkable since the patterns of personality types here are, in many significant ways, the exact opposite of what you’d find in the regular population. For instance, the introverted rationalists and idealists are each about 1% of the population. Here, they are the majority and it’s the artisans and guardians who are relegated to 1% or less of our population.
Mensa’s personality test results were published in the December 1993 Mensa Bulletin. Their numbers.
So, if you believe that most of the people who took the survey lied about their IQ, you also need to believe all of the following:
That most of these people also realized they needed to do IQ correlation research and fudge their SAT and ACT scores in order for their IQ lie to be believable.
Some explanation as to why the average of lurker’s IQ scores would come out so close to the average of poster’s IQ scores. The lurkers don’t have karma to show off, and there’s no known incentive good enough to get so many lurkers to lie about their IQ score. Vaniver’s figures.
Some explanation for why the personality type pattern at LessWrong is radically different from the norm and yet very similar to the personality type pattern Mensa published and also matched my predictions. Even if they had knowledge of the Mensa personality test results and decided to fudge their personality type responses, too, they somehow managed to fudge them in such a way that their personality types accidentally matched my predictions.
That they decided not to cheat when answering the Bayes birthday question even though they were dishonest enough to lie on the IQ question, motivated to look intelligent, and it takes a lot less effort to fudge the Bayes question than the intelligence and personality questions. (This was suggested by ArisKatsaris).
That both posters and lurkers had some motive strong enough to justify spending 20+ minutes doing the IQ correlation research and fudging personality test questions while probably bored of ticking options after filling out most of a very long survey.
It’s easier just to put the real number in the IQ box than do all that work to make it believable, and it’s not like the liars are likely to get anything out of boasting anonymously, so the cost-benefit ratio is just not working in favor of the liar explanation.
If you think about it in terms of Occam’s razor, what is the better explanation? That most people lied about their IQ, and fudged their SAT, ACT and personality type data to match, or that they’re telling the truth?
Summary of criticism:
Possible Motive to Lie: The desire to be associated with a “gifted” group:
In re to this post, it was argued by NonComposMentis that a potential motive to lie is that if the outside world perceives LessWrong as gifted, then anyone having an account on LessWrong will look high-status. In rebuttal:
I figure that lurkers would not be motivated to fudge their results because they don’t have a bunch of karma on their account to show off and anybody can claim to read LessWrong, so fudging your IQ just to claim that the site you read is full of gifted people isn’t likely to be motivating. I suggested that we compare the average IQs of lurkers and others. Vaniver did the math and they are very, very close..
I argued, among other things, that it would be falling for a Pascal’s mugging to believe that investing the extra time (probably at least $5 worth of time for most of us) into fudging the various different survey questions is likely to contribute to a secret conspiracy to inflate LessWrong’s average IQ.
Did the majority avoid filling out intelligence related questions, letting the gifted skew the results?
Short answer: 74% of people answered at least one intelligence related question and since most people filled out only one or two, the fact that the self-report, ACT and SAT score averages are so similar is remarkable.
I realized, while reading Vaniver’s post that if only 1⁄3 of the survey participants filled out the IQ score, this may have been due to something which could have skewed the results toward the gifted range, for instance, if more gifted people had been given IQ tests for schooling placement (and the others didn’t post their IQ score because they did not know it) or if the amount of pride one has in their IQ score has a significant influence on whether one reported it.
So I went through the data and realized that most of the people who filled out the IQ test question did not fill out all the others. That means that 804 people (74% not 33%) answered at least one intelligence related question. As we have seen, the IQ correlations for the IQ, SAT and ACT questions were very close to each other (unsurprisingly, it looks like something’s up with the internet test… removing those, it’s 63% of survey participants that answered an intelligence related question). It’s remarkable in and of itself that each category of test scores generated an average IQ so similar to the others considering that different people filled them out. I mean if 1⁄3 of the population filled out all of the questions, and the other 2⁄3 filled out none, we could say “maybe the 1⁄3 did IQ correlation research and fudged these” but if most of the population fills out one or two, and the averages for each category come out close to the averages for the other categories, why is that? How would that happen if they were fudging?
It does look to me like people gave whatever test scores they had and that not all the people had test scores to give but it does not look to me like a greater proportion of the gifted people provided an intelligence related survey answer. Instead it looks like most people provided an intelligence related survey answer and the average LessWronger is gifted.
Exploration of personality test fudging:
Erratio and I explored how likely it is that people could successfully fudge their personality tests and why they might do that.
There are a lot of questions on the personality test that have an obvious intelligence component, so it’s possible that people chose the answer they thought was most intelligent.
There are also intelligence related questions where it’s not clear which answer is most intelligent. I listed those.
The intelligence questions would mostly influence the sensing/intuition dichotomy and the thinking/feeling dichotomy. This does not explain why the extraversion/introversion and perceiving/judging results were similar to Mensa’s.