Smart people more likely to be right?

[Carded]

Lately, DS and other have been stuck on the notion that smarter people are more likely to right than their counterparts. However, for statement to applicable to a specific question certain premises must be shown to be true first.

1) All things must be equal. Both groups intellect is working off the same knowledge base.

Ex. I would always beat the ten smartest poker player at a hand reading game if I was positioned such that I had access to view the player’s in question hold cards.

2) The smart group is operating at reasonable high capacity. Preference or preformed ideas are not interfering with smart person’s ability to come to a conclusion.

3) The correct answer to the problem is a function of intelligence.

Ex. Will the flop be red or black?

4) Human intelligence must on par with the difficulty of the question. If the correct solution requires a one billion IQ, the fact your IQ is 160 and mine is 120 is not a significant enough difference to make an impact on who is more likely right.

So, before making the smart people say so assertion show that it is applicable to the question first.

[runner4life7]

when you give examples, they should be examples that fit or please say examples of itnot fitting, confused the [censored] out of me at 4 am.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]

1) All things must be equal. Both groups intellect is working off the same knowledge base.

Ex. I would always beat the ten smartest poker player at a hand reading game if I was positioned such that I had access to view the player’s in question hold cards.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please read DS's original thread. The entire point was that when two people who are both knowledgable in the subject are debating, the smarter person is more likely to be right. Obviously if you had such an incredible informational advantage, as in your example, this isn't true.

[ QUOTE ]

2) The smart group is operating at reasonable high capacity. Preference or preformed ideas are not interfering with smart person’s ability to come to a conclusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe DS would say that a superbrain is less likely to be clouded by "preference." The point of the argument is that the smarter person is more likely to objectively view all the arguments and evidence, and evaluate them correctly. If a person allows preformed ideas to trump objective evidence, then the odds are probably high that said person is less "intelligent", by DS's meaning.

[ QUOTE ]

3) The correct answer to the problem is a function of intelligence.

Ex. Will the flop be red or black?


[/ QUOTE ]
In your example, everyone who isn't a complete moran would give the same answer. Please give an example of a question where a less intelligent person is likely to give a different answer than a more intelligent person, and that answer is the correct one. I believe you will find it challenging.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Human intelligence must on par with the difficulty of the question. If the correct solution requires a one billion IQ, the fact your IQ is 160 and mine is 120 is not a significant enough difference to make an impact on who is more likely right.


[/ QUOTE ]
There is no reason that this should necessarily be true.


~MagicMan

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously if you had such an incredible informational advantage, as in your example, this isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]As I pointed out in the original thread, the knowledge advantage may not be constantly increasing and at some point it may be a detriment.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Lately, DS and other have been stuck on the notion that smarter people are more likely to right than their counterparts. However, for statement to applicable to a specific question certain premises must be shown to be true first.

1) All things must be equal. Both groups intellect is working off the same knowledge base.

Ex. I would always beat the ten smartest poker player at a hand reading game if I was positioned such that I had access to view the player’s in question hold cards.

2) The smart group is operating at reasonable high capacity. Preference or preformed ideas are not interfering with smart person’s ability to come to a conclusion.

3) The correct answer to the problem is a function of intelligence.

Ex. Will the flop be red or black?

4) Human intelligence must on par with the difficulty of the question. If the correct solution requires a one billion IQ, the fact your IQ is 160 and mine is 120 is not a significant enough difference to make an impact on who is more likely right.

So, before making the smart people say so assertion show that it is applicable to the question first.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of these premises are required in any way. DS's argument is statistical.

[Carded]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lately, DS and other have been stuck on the notion that smarter people are more likely to right than their counterparts. However, for statement to applicable to a specific question certain premises must be shown to be true first.

1) All things must be equal. Both groups intellect is working off the same knowledge base.

Ex. I would always beat the ten smartest poker player at a hand reading game if I was positioned such that I had access to view the player’s in question hold cards.

2) The smart group is operating at reasonable high capacity. Preference or preformed ideas are not interfering with smart person’s ability to come to a conclusion.

3) The correct answer to the problem is a function of intelligence.

Ex. Will the flop be red or black?

4) Human intelligence must on par with the difficulty of the question. If the correct solution requires a one billion IQ, the fact your IQ is 160 and mine is 120 is not a significant enough difference to make an impact on who is more likely right.

So, before making the smart people say so assertion show that it is applicable to the question first.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of these premises are required in any way. DS's argument is statistical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is laughable. Let me try to make it clearer for you.

Show me the statistical information followed the premises or the statistical data is utterly worthless.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lately, DS and other have been stuck on the notion that smarter people are more likely to right than their counterparts. However, for statement to applicable to a specific question certain premises must be shown to be true first.

1) All things must be equal. Both groups intellect is working off the same knowledge base.

Ex. I would always beat the ten smartest poker player at a hand reading game if I was positioned such that I had access to view the player’s in question hold cards.

2) The smart group is operating at reasonable high capacity. Preference or preformed ideas are not interfering with smart person’s ability to come to a conclusion.

3) The correct answer to the problem is a function of intelligence.

Ex. Will the flop be red or black?

4) Human intelligence must on par with the difficulty of the question. If the correct solution requires a one billion IQ, the fact your IQ is 160 and mine is 120 is not a significant enough difference to make an impact on who is more likely right.

So, before making the smart people say so assertion show that it is applicable to the question first.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of these premises are required in any way. DS's argument is statistical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is laughable. Let me try to make it clearer for you.

Show me the statistical information followed the premises or the statistical data is utterly worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're response is unintelligible, but since i was brief, i'll spell it out...

Let's say the statement was 'white people are more likely to make more money than black people'. Your conditions are equivalent to saying "only if they have better jobs, and live in wealthier areas". It's irrelevant to the question. The things you list as required premises are actually CAUSES of the fact that smart people are more likely to be right. Except for 4, which is pretty much just nonsense. It's like saying men don't make more than women because men average 100k and women 99k...