For many human traits, it’s perfectly obvious what it means to have twice as much. A six-foot tall man is twice as tall as a three foot tall man. Someone who can lift 300 lbs is twice as strong as someone who can lift 150 lbs. Someone who can run 100 meters in 10 seconds is twice as fast as someone who can run it in 20 seconds.
It becomes more difficult to apply the same logic to IQ. Although we can say a 2000 cubic centimeter brain is twice as big as a 1000 cubic centimeter brain, we can’t necessarily say it’s twice as smart (on average) because we don’t know if the relationship between intelligence and brain size is linear.
I do think the relationship between brain size and IQ is linear (excluding pathological cases) but that’s because brain size is normally distributed and IQ is largely forced to fit a normal curve, however that doesn’t mean intelligence itself is normally distributed.
On the contrary, a member of Prometheus society once claimed that because the human mind works in parallel, complex learning and problem solving speed doubles every 10 IQ points (he later revised to every 5).
To test this fascinating this hypothesis, I imagined people taking the WAIS-R IQ test. Because several subtests (Arithmetic, Block Design and Object Assembly) awarded bonus points for super fast performance, it was possible to imagine a person perfectly solving all the items within the time limit, but using 100% of the allotted time.
Such a person would have an Arithmetic IQ of 105, a Block Design IQ of 100, and an Object Assembly IQ of 90.
Then I asked what would happen if the same person had only used 50% of the allotted time: Arithmetic IQ 105, Block Design IQ of 105, and Object Assembly IQ of 90.
25% of the allotted time: Arithmetic IQ 110, Block Design IQ 120, Object Assembly IQ 100.
12.5% of the allotted time: Arithmetic IQ 135, Block Design IQ 145, Object Assembly IQ 125.
6.25% of the allotted time: This speed takes you beyond the ceiling of all subtests except Object Assembly for which you would score an Object Assembly IQ of 140
It’s hard to draw strong conclusions because David Wechsler arbitrarily decided how much speed was needed for a bonus point, but on balance it looks like a doubling of speed on a particular subtest, equates to a jump of 10 or 15 IQ points (on that subtest)
But how do we reconcile such an explosive distribution with the popular notion of a bell shaped IQ curve, which Jensen assumed IQ likely had given the fact that linear regression predicts IQs of one’s relatives and biological correlates of IQ like brain size enjoy a bell curve.
And indeed some psychometric tasks really do enjoy a true curve (without test takers having to force one). The number of digits you can repeat from memory, or the number of abstract symbols you can copy in 90 seconds or even in the number of words in your vocabulary (when randomly selected from a dictionary) all increase in a linear way with IQ, which means all must form the same bell curve.
So my guess is that the building blocks of intelligence (brain size, memory, raw neural speed) are all normally distributed yet actual complex problem solving and real world adaptive behavior show huge inequality, perhaps because a few extra units of data can double the number of interrelations between them, so the amount of information we can process is normally distributed, but the output of that data is explosively distributed.
So what does it mean to be twice as smart? Well, if you define intelligence as the cognitive capacity for problem solving or goal directed adaptive behavior, then being twice as smart means either the ability to solve twice as many problems or the ability to solve the same amount of problems twice as well.
If we assume most problems in the universe are complex problems, then I’d say an extra 13 math IQ points makes you twice as smart mathematically, an extra 13 spatial IQ points makes you twice as smart spatially etc.
But since different cognitive abilities are imperfectly correlated, I’d say it takes 19 overall IQ points to be twice as smart overall (all domains averaged together).
So assuming mature apes have an IQ of 14, we can very tentatively conclude the following (for young adults):
IQ 14: 1 times smarter than an ape
IQ 33: 2 times smarter than ape
IQ 52: 4 times smarter than an ape
IQ 71: 8 times smarter than an ape
IQ 90: 16 times smarter than an ape
IQ 109: 32 times smarter than an ape
IQ 128: 64 times smarter than an ape
IQ 147: 128 times smarter than an ape
IQ 166: 256 times smarter than an ape
IQ 185: 512 times smarter than an ape
IQ 204: 1,024 times smarter than an ape
So instead of asking people their IQ, you can ask them their MiQ pronounced My Cue (monkey intelligence quotient). A MiQ of 16 to 32 (16 to 32 times smarter than an anthropoid monkey) implies average intelligence for young adults in developed countries. A MiQ below 8 implies impairment in a young adult but would mean gifted in a toddler.
So even though the average human brain is roughly 4 times bigger than the average ape’s, the human mind is roughly 20 times bigger.
Pumpkin Person 
An alternative hypothesis would be that the different composent of intelligence are not equally distributed.
The Univeristy of Ghent has développés a very nice way to evaluate a person vocabulary size and at 25 years, the average (for Dutch, Spanish and English) is 40k words, with bottom 5% at 25k and top 5% at 50k. So here you’re model would predict a factor of 6 and it’s 2.
For creativity,Pederson says that a huge number (I don’t remember but it was more than 90%) ar 0 and a tiny fraction very high.
For the logical component – deducing ans inducing – I believe your doubling capacity for each 5 IQ points straight line a very good (second) guess and there is a threshold level, some people can’t figure out answers at a certain level. So it’s not even comparable qualitatively. It’s very interesting in high school, they are some people who have to get out of
the advanced math even when they are very hardworking and genuinely interested.
So I would say that the different components of G have different distributions among people, so the average capacity quotient – for average problems – would be good to tell surviving capacity if you dump people in an Island (that would be the Monkey scale) but underestimate the differences in many environments (computing, trading, law counseling etc ).that would be more like the Prometheus scale.
yes, as I mentioned in the article, vocab and tests of memory seem to have more of a normal distribution and thus a fairly linear relationship with IQ (i.e. 10 or 15 k words per 25 IQ points), but I wonder if these tests should be given the same weight as tests measuring complex problem solving (which do seem to show the constant doubling effect).
Of course you could argue that learning language (vocab) is the most complex thing we do, but perhaps simple vocabulary is not an especially good measure of true verbal intelligence: ability to use words to your advantage. A lawyer with a verbal IQ of 125 might know only twice as many words as a lawyer with a verbal IQ of 75, but I bet the settlement he could win in a court case would be far more than twice as big (all else being equal).
I believe we can extend Chomsky thesis about grammar to vocabulary. It’s not possible that an average performer would be able by age 25 to learn 40k words, knowing that the relationship among words and meanings is arbitrary (duck, canard, pato, Anka, Ente etc )
And some kids in multi-lingual environment are able to learn up to 5 languages without having any above average IQ, and that’s 200k word.
So in our line of reasoning, there would be different things in a verbal test – word knowledge , grammar etc – and only the part related to deduction and induction would have this exponential outcome differences. Exactly like in Putnam math competition where the median score is usually next to 0.
This theory would entail a pure « g » wich is logical reasoning and then proxy-g, with all other elements that contribute to a person standing and solving problems. However, if you give an infinite set of pbs, my guess would be that the variance would converge toward the logic core part of intelligence. But on a given set of problems, proxy-go could be a major contributor. I that sense, one shouldn’t deflate Russell g standing for being clumsy to the point of not being able or willing to prepare coffee or tea .
If we assume the average European learns 3 languages (language IQ 100) and Cardinal Guiseppe Mezzofanti, the greatest polyglot in European history (language IQ 190) spoke 39, then linguistic ability might only double every 25 language IQ points, (roughly double the points needed to double spatial and arithmetic speed)
Maybe language was such an important skill that humans were selected to vary very little in it.
This theory would entail a pure « g » wich is logical reasoning and then proxy-g, with all other elements that contribute to a person standing and solving problems.
But then we’d expect the more g loaded the subtest, the more they showed the exponential outcome. Yet the highly g loaded vocabulary does not, though tasks that are very low in g (finger tapping speed) also do not.
But probably logic is « embedded » as vocabulary. But vocabulary would be a bit more. Like being closer to « grammar » wich itself is closer to « vision » wich itself is closer to « homeostatis functions » or « pain » that are fairly automated and out of the scope of cortex instructions.
“humans were selected to vary very little in it.”
How?
The ones who couldn’t speak died or failed to mate when they lived. Yes I know, a just-so story.
THe distinction between in logic (core g) and lets say vocabulary size (proxy g) would not be g loadedness – they are all correlated with g – but the shape of the function.
That’s why vocabulary test and spatial test can be both g loaded at the same level, but with the shape of spatial much steeper than verbal, for some test like in Mega test or the other way around for ancien sat verbal, because either it doesn’t tap as much on proxy g or on crystallized intelligence (like sat math).
I think your right. as spearman himself said, g appears to be most related to seeing relationships, and it makes sense that this abstract ability might have an explosive distribution because each extra data point vastly increases the number of interrelations among all data points.
however you suggested that an average across all types of problem solving would have a function similar to core g. Presumably because other distributions would cancel out in the aggregate? The problem is i’d expect all the proxy g distributions to be less explosive, so instead of all canceling out (if some were more explosive and others less explosive), an aggregate score might just be a watered down version of the core g distribution.
Yes Pumpkin, I agree. But notice it doesn’t change correlation. Correlation is not dependent on the shape of the function. It’s not intensity. It’s just a common factor on ordering. An then, there is no link between raw scores you would get by averaging and the magnitude of the differences. We can use the raw score as a proxy to determine the shape of the function for each component but wen you aggregate, you don’t need to look at the raw scores any more.
Psychometrician should try to test relationship between scores and capacity as your post suggest very rightly by studying this relationship for each sub part of test .
The question is how should scores be aggregated into measures of “overall intelligence”. The advantage of forcing all subtests to fit a bell curve is each ability gets equal weight, so if person A has a verbal in the top 1% (IQ 135) but average math (IQ 100) and person B has average verbal (IQ 100) but top 1% math (135), both have a composite score of 235.
However if in reality, top 1% verbal is 135% as good as average, but top 1% math is 500% as good as average, then the high verbal person still has a composite of 235 but the high math person now has a composite of 600. Maybe that’s justified if math genius has historically had far more real world adaptive value or maybe it’s just a statistical artifact.
I am in Barcelona and food and wine is so cheap and tasty here. I recommend this city to all of you.
“assuming mature apes have an IQ of 14”
I see no reason for this assumption.
If we assume space aliens exist and that they visited man thousands of years ago then we can say they helped us build X structures and gave us Y knowledge.
Apes lack intentional states because they don’t have the brains that make intentional states possible. So they lack beliefs and desires. If they lack beliefs it means they lack thought because thoughts are directed at beliefs (see the argument in the other thread). Comparing humans to non-human animals doesn’t make sense. Our brains are too different. We have minds. They do not.
Comparing humans to non-human animals doesn’t make sense. Our brains are too different. We have minds. They do not.
Not only do chimps have minds, some say they have Theory of Mind.
As for comparing humans to non-humans; it depends how you define intelligence. If you define it as the g factor, I agree that can’t be extrapolated to animals because the causes of human cognitive variation may not transcend species. But if you define it as the overall cognitive ability to solve problems of every kind, then perhaps you can make some rough comparisons, and when we do, we find that apes solve most problems like a Western 2.5 year-old. If an adult human performed that low on a wide variety of subtests with sufficient floor, their full-scale IQ would be about IQ 14.
Animals have beliefs and desires?
obviously they have desires
They lack language.
Chimps are 1.35 times more powerful than humans. That’s an actual quantifiable measure.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619071114
Sure, humans have brains that are X percent/times bigger than chimps. But I see no reason to accept your 14 IQ assumption. The muscular strength difference is an actual example of a quantifiable measure between humans and chimps. Not imaginary IQ differences.
RR, as you are interested in philosophers (you recycle Davidson, Searle, Fodor etc ), you should read last Dennett masterpiece that shows how much what you call « just so » stories are important scientific research tools. It’s in the line of Pinker intuition, but very technically detailed.
I don’t like Dennett writing style but the ideas are good.
Just-so stories are science?
Yes, all new hypothesis are ad hoc.
If you’re going to steal my debate style, at least fix your ignorance. It’s embarrassing.
Just-so stories are ad hoc hypotheses. They can’t be independently verified.
Just-so stories are science?
Yes, all new hypothesis are ad hoc.
Therefore Just- so stories are a part of science
By definition, just-so stories can’t be independently verified.
No, Ad hoc hypotheses can be independently verified(as long as they are falsifiable), they just haven’t been yet.
Rational wiki simplifies pretty nicely:
“Ad hoc explanations are not always an illegitimate exercise; if a new phenomenon is discovered, early explanations are likely to be technically ad hoc until experimentation or study can be conducted on it. In this sort of use and more general use, ad hoc arrangements are unavoidable because no one can predict the unpredictable (except maybe Derren Brown) – e.g., examiners putting ad hoc arrangements on exam marks because they didn’t predict a spelling error, or role-players making up rules as they go along because the source book never said what to do if a Level 12 Sorceress cast that spell from that location while this rule was in effect under those rules in that building, which just produces a silly result. In science or when investigating pseudoscience, it is important to make sure that ad hoc claims are falsifiable and repeatable.”
See P2 of the just-so story argument. I’ve laid out what an ad hoc hypothesis is (a just-so story) and (Ir)Rational Wiki doesn’t cut it.
Philosophers of science distinguish hypotheses that accommodate existing observations from hypotheses that predict previously unknown facts generated before the formulation of a hypothesis. The former hypothesis is ad hoc, which is to say a just-so story.
The hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation generates no testable predictions. The only evidence, for example, for EP hypotheses is only the data they’re invoked to explain. Thus, EP hypotheses are inherently ad hoc, meaning a just-so story.
A theory remains ad hoc until it can generate testable predictions of novel facts. In lieu of this, they’re just telling stories.
“See P2 of the just-so story argument. I’ve laid out what an ad hoc hypothesis is (a just-so story) and (Ir)Rational Wiki doesn’t cut it.”
None of what you stated refutes my contention.
Just so stories are a part of science, that is fact, that is not up for debate. I don’t care about any other drivel you feel like spamming. Try to stay relevant to the topic at hand. If you truly do not understand my point(what else is new), then it seems you’re the one who needs to re-read that book.
You should read more rational wiki, you might actually find out how logic works.
It’s not “spamming”, what I said is true.
You might want to go take a logic course and learn how to fork arguments.
“It’s not “spamming”, what I said is true.”
I was simply answering your question and you responded with an irrelevant and actually wrong definition of what a just so story was.
The argument provided defines what a “just-so story” is.
You can measure your English vocabulary size here :
http://vocabulary.ugent.be
One possible reason why vocab doesn’t show huge differences is that in order for a language to be functional, everyone must have similar vocabs to communicate, so it gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator
The first reason you gave – that is was heavily selected – seems the most reasonable. I can tell you that it’s more difficult to communicate with people with high logical gap than vocabulary gap.
And it’s explain why almost everyone has enough intelligence to go to the fridge and open a pack of beer, a robot would have a hard time doing it on a regular basis in an inhabited flat.
For specific bio-physical processes, physician have told me it’s not rare to have 1 to 100 differences among people like in the reaction threshold to certain drugs (for example, it’s difficult for anaesthesisf doctor to put me to sleep, that’s why I am going to marry one soon. Let’s see how weird little Bruno’s would be ….
100 = 1
119 = 2
138 = 4
157 = 8
176 = 16
195 = 32
I assume the interrelations squares as it doubles.
“So my guess is that the building blocks of intelligence (brain size, memory, raw neural speed) are all normally distributed yet actual complex problem solving and real world adaptive behavior show huge inequality, perhaps because a few extra units of data can double the number of interrelations between them, so the amount of information we can process is normally distributed, but the output of that data is explosively distributed.”
The structure of white matter connecting the cortex together is as applied by control theory the determining factor in fluid cognition. The cortex leans through the structure of the white mater network. The network configuration modulates memory use.
“Someone who can lift 300 lbs is twice as strong as someone who can lift 150 lbs.”
If I can pull a 600lb deadlift and PP can only pull a 300 pound deadlift it doesn’t follow that I’m twice as strong (because the weight of the two pullers matters as well along with the two pullers’ somatotype).
Let’s say that PP and I have the same somatotype. Let’s say PP weighs 150 pounds. That means he pulled 2 times his body weight. Let’s say I weigh 150 pounds. That means I pulled 4 times my body weight.
Pound for pound strength matters more, saying I’m twice or 3 times as strong as person X who does lift Y doesn’t make too much sense as there is deeper context in the strength between two different individuals (ie weight and levers). (What matters more is X times body weight lifted, not relative weight lifted between two individuals.)
When they do the strongest man contest, isn’t the winner just the guy who lifts the most weight, not the guy who lifts the most weight for his body size?
It’s like saying solving a puzzle in 30 seconds is smarter if you have a small brain because brain pound for brain pound you’re smarter. Makes no sense: brain size is part of what makes you smart just as muscle mass is part of what makes you strong so correcting for either is an over-correction
“When they do the strongest man contest, isn’t the winner just the guy who lifts the most weight, not the guy who lifts the most weight for his body size?”
So? If there is someone with a more impressive bw/weightk lifted ratio then that’s more impressive to me.
My analogy is apt and WSM isn’t relevant to it nor was I talking about it.
just because they’re more impressive, doesn’t mean they’re stronger
Yes it does. Your analogy wasn’t good. If we weigh the same and have the same body type then if you pull 300 and I pull 600, sure just by weight moved I’m twice as strong. But the weight of the person moving the weight matters.
If someone weighs 600 pounds and pulls 601 pounds is he stronger than myself who can pull 600 at 150?
(Post this comment not the other.)
If someone weighs 600 pounds and pulls 601 pounds is he stronger than myself who can pull 600 at 150?
yes, he’s stronger, but you have more muscle efficiency
No he’s not stronger than me. I’m stronger than him by a long shot. Weight moved is irrelevant if the weight of the mover isn’t known.
Doesn’t get it, as usual.^
Absolute strength: 600 pounds lifter with 600 pound deadlift is stronger. Relative strength, he only lifts 1 time his body weight. I lift 4 times, I’m stronger relatively. It’s not impressive for a 600 pound mad to lift 600 pounds.
Melo doesn’t know anything abkht lifting.
I asked some of my coworkers and they of course agreed with me. Not surprising that people who don’t know about lifting don’t agree
I agree the lighter person lifting the same weight has more relative strength, but you didn’t say “relatively stronger”, you just said “stronger”
I’m writing something on race and strength regarding the 2014 Boyce study (to clarify some things and give more information), so we can see who “doesn’t get it”, a Filipino American construction worker or an Italian American personal trainer.
“you just said “stronger””
Sorry, I thought it was implied that “stronger” meant pound for pound. For example in that 2014 Boyce study, blacks were slightly relatively stronger than whites. You’ll see later.
I brought this up to my coworkers today and they agreed with me.
Also in my original comment I said “Pound for pound strength matters more.”
But you also said:
If I can pull a 600lb deadlift and PP can only pull a 300 pound deadlift it doesn’t follow that I’m twice as strong (because the weight of the two pullers matters as well along with the two pullers’ somatotype).
It does follow that you’re twice as strong.
It does not follow that you’re twice as relatively strong.
Regarding straight weight lifted, that’s true (twice as strong).
If I’m lifting 600 pounds at 150 that’s 4 times my body weight. For that person to match my relative strength, he’d have to lift 2400 pounds.
“Melo doesn’t know anything abkht lifting.”
Right, this is coming from the idiot who didn’t know what torque equilibrium was, and then preceded to lie about how much he could lift, when I demonstrated how it made his argument nonsensical.
I know enough to know the difference between being stronger, and being able to lift more. As well as the difference between absolute strength and relative strength. Which is more than can be said for you.
Yea Melo I’m an idiot.you got that. You’re right, as always.
What does “pound for pound” strength mean? The guy that weighs 600 and deads 601 is stronger than me who deads 600 at 150?
“You’re right, as always.”
Haha, such a child.
“The guy that weighs 600 and deads 601 is stronger than me who deads 600 at 150?”
He can lift more, which means he has more absolute strength.
What does pound for pound strength mean?
Yea he can lift more (by one pound). He pulls 1.00166666667 times his body weight; I pull 4.0000000 times my body weight. Clearly I am stronger and it is more impressive. The fact that he can lift one more pound than me is not relevant due to his weight (1.00166666667 times bw compared to 4.0000000 times bw). What’s more impressive: a BP of 300 at 300 pounds or a BP of 299.999 at 150 pounds?
Funny story: one of my friends was convinced he was stronger than me because he is a tree worker and works around trees all day. He was convinced that he was stronger than me. Took him in my garage and he repped out 75 pounds and couldn’t even get 3 reps. I showed him up by repping twice that (was close to pressing my bw at the time).
(Post this comment.)
“What does pound for pound strength mean?”
Relative strength.
I have a question now. Maybe a couple.
Why are you asking me that? Did you and pumpkin not just discuss it? Even if I hadn’t known before the conversation it’s obviously laid out in you two’s exchange above, so what gives? You did it in the other post too, Instead of asking me what Gould said n his book why don’t you address my criticism of it? In all reality even if I hadn’t read it I could just download a PDF of it and you would be none the wiser. Again, if you’re going to swagger jack me, do it right. Otherwise you’re just going to continue looking stupid. Nobody here is intellectually dishonest like that, except for you. An example of the proper way to use my style, would be my response to your erroneous extrapolations from the study on the FOXP2 gene. I didn’t ask you if you read it, I assumed you did and preceded to destroy your contention on it, revealing that you either did not actually read it or you’re just a shitty reader. You may wanna take notes.
What “style”? You just spew wordsalads. The extrapolations from the study aren’t “erroneous”. “Language gene” myths need to go.
Nevermind the fact that adaptationist/selectionist explanations are inherently ad hoc
“You just spew wordsalads.”
How about this then, why don’t you use my syllogisms in your jerry fodor rant as examples and specifically point out what makes them “wordsalads” instead of arguments.
“Language gene” myths need to go.”
What myths?
So according to puppy logic, this person must have a very high VIQ.
No because 50 IQ points gap for vocabulary is a factor 2, the same as 5 IQ points for purely fluid learning (Pederson assignments for people 85, 100 and 115 IQ). And spelling is even more chrystallized intelligence .
But this kid is very clever. But it’s not shown per se by the spelling contest.
they don’t know the meaning of the words let alone use them.
“But this kid is very clever. But it’s not shown per se by the spelling contest.”
I would bet hes very good at memorisation, speed reading, applied math and talking at technology conferences about how tech will change the world anyday now.
“tech will change the world anyday now.”
about 5 years.
i hope kitty isn’t a real person.
but another example of euro better is the maine coon vs the siamese.
i had a maine coon. lived to 19. he’d gone senile by then, stared at the wall for hours. when he died i played this…
So someone with a 190IQ like Terry Tao would definitely know how to make a compelling argument.
I think that clarity and pedagogy are things that people can work out but it is also a form of mind. And it depends of the public . Pinker is the clearest guy you can imagine for people above 130. Pederson is extremely clear for people above 115. That why he is so appelant. Among college educated persons, half of them get the most of what he preaches.
Even in a very elite professional environnement, there are so huge differences among people that you can’t have only one standard. But I ve seen that , when that’s people, people congregate with the most similar level possible.
So youre saying if we were all as smart as Terry Tao wed all realise why his arguments about president trump make sense.
Gee, I never saw it that way.
peepee thinks high IQ is being a personality-less brainwashed hideous china person.
The Pb with Tao argument about Trump is that when the premise is false, the inference is always true, but has no meaning. So his argument would be interesting if and only if it was a fact that Trump was unqualified to be pdt. Besides, I am not sure about Tao Verbal IQ. I would say he is a case of base on his bio and some article of him I read :
– extreme math crystallized intelligence. Like 1 in 3.5M or 175. Because what he found is not deep like some Russian (Jewish) guys. It’s bright and learned.
– 1 in 100k math ability or 165 . Because it’s more work than some others … but knowing that I put a certain billionnaires at 155 in math, if you put him at 165, then Tao should be 175 in comparison.
– and I would say a verbal IQ of 135 (top 1%) because he was quite articulate from a young age.
So I would put him around 160 (4 sd). Just in America, there are 100 kids that are brighter born each year, but the probability they get the focus and energy of Tao is so low, that he would face no much competition in a generation .
So he is really extraordinary dear Philo for the rarity of his qualities and experience, and the result is consistent with that .
so Tao’s argument is a tautology.
Trump is unfit if Trump is unfit.
(doesn’t mean anything)
I think Tao has been IQ tested and got in the high 100s.
Just like Bill Gates who makes the argument that minority poor people of illegal background need help more than co-ethnics of an impoverished background, or say blind people, or disabled people or people with MS.
Bill is so intelligent I can’t make any sense of what he does. It looks like hes a dupe to me. But Im not smart like Bill.
No kitty, it’s of this sort :
« If it is obvious to all that Trump is unfit, then X ». If the hypothesis is not true – it is not obvious to all that Trump is unfit, the reasoning will always be true, both when X is true or false.
A tautology is a proposition that is always true. His proposition would be false if the hypothesis were true but the consequence X were false. So it’s not a tautology.
Bruno are you suggesting Kitty is hysterical? Crazy even?
Not at all Philo. It was just a technical question I thought I was able to answer. I don’t understand kitty but I like him, like I like you too despite your provocation . You share a kind of fragility (I don’t know if it is the adequate word, I mean weakness but without being dérogative nor even negative)
but peepee is NOT alone. at least in the US there is simultaneously IQ worship combined with the belief that very high IQ people have something wrong with them.
it could be, but then that would mean IQ tests simply stop testing intelligence past a certain high level.
that is, like most of american ideology it’s a contradiction.
my own experience is that the very highest IQs will tend to be weird, maladjusted, socially awkward, etc. in some ways, but that all of this can be explained simply by their having no peers with whom to interact. that is, if they get themselves into a situation where they’re surrounded by people as smart as themselves they grow out of it. terman did find that the very smartest in his sample were “maladjusted”.
it’s NOT the result of pathology. it’s just the result of being different, very different, but in a GOOD way.
i mean when i took my black standard poodle to the dog park he just sat down and looked at me like, “you expect me to play with these people?”
I think the same !
good on tucker, agreeing with noam again.
THE most central thing to being an american is FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
so threatened that they’re willing to lose business…
THAT’S THE RUB!
1. jones was silenced SIMULTANEOUSLY by multiple platforms.
2. jones was VERY popular…made LOTS of money for his platforms.
what the conspiracy is, i don’t know.
but like eric weinstein i know…
THERE IS A CONSPIRACY!
If there’s a conspiracy, they would love Jones because he diverts attention from it with his own fictional conspiracies. why do you think he got so many powerful backers in the first place?
More likely youtube & others just got scared of liberal boycotts and decided he was more trouble than he was worth.
there are at least three levels of conspiracy and a continuum between them.
1. no conspiracy.
2. conspiracy of which the conspirators are un-aware.
3. conspiracy of which all conspirators are fully 100% aware.
i admit. white people can be hideous to other ethnies.
white people, male and female, look like witches.
1. long skinny prominent noses.
2. prominent pointy chins.
3. orthognathism like someone took a shovel and bashed in their mouths.
all true.
the witch is an extreme white facial skeleton.
Thanks for banning all my comments puppy. Youre very nice.
The alex jones discussion was off-topic. I only approved some of it cause i thought it was in an open thread
Your post uses cognition speed as the frame for deciding what “twice as smart” means. Twice as fast. This is reasonable.
But there’s another angle on twice as smart. Rather than speed at a task, rate who’s best at a cognitive competition. Then ask the question who’s “twice as likely to win”. Why? Well, it’s more tractable. Let’s use chess ELO ratings as an example. A 400 point difference means 10x better, and that the higher rated player will win 92% of the time. The point here is that ELO ratings for chess follow roughly a bell curve (I think it’s pareto power law, but depends on your sample set). Anyway. The point here is the distribution is roughly a bell curve, but each ELO point goes up by a log scale. This is a hint we should think of the IQ scale as also a log scale. That is to say, I think this is a supporting argument to your post.
I did a post a while back which references chess elo in the context of AI, where I talk about ELO distributions in the midle of the post. If you’re interested you can read it here
https://praxtime.com/2015/05/27/why-samantha-is-so-dangerous/
Then ask the question who’s “twice as likely to win”.
Very interesting. I don’t know enough about the elo system to judge your work but does twice as likely to win mean twice as good at chess? I think A is twice as good at chess as B if A can beat C in half as many moves as B can beat C(or win by twice as many points if the games don’t finish)