A Simple Fact Regarding- Intelligence- Religion -Etc [Archive]

Utah

12-18-2006, 01:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Some people are misinterpreting the point of some of my posts. Here is a cold hard fact:

If you are almost sure that X is true.
AND

100 randomly chosen, extremely intelligent, (even by your definition) people are all almost sure that X is false.

THEN

It is still possible that you are right and X is true.

BUT

Almost impossible that you are extremely intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. However, I think it is also possible that you are in an even higher class of intelligence that the 100 extremely intelligent randomly chosen people.

felson

12-18-2006, 02:10 PM

What if X = "No non-Asian American woman is a favorite against David on the math SAT"?

JMAnon

12-18-2006, 02:18 PM

I don't think disagreement with extremely intelligent people and intelligence are negatively correllated as strongly as you suggest. Think of the progress of knowledge over the last 1000 years or so. Every time someone figured out something new that contadicted or refined existing theory, most extremely intelligent people would have been almost sure the existing theory was true. The flatness of the earth is a good example.

A second problem is that many true facts are counterintuitive (although this may be a restatement of the first objection). Extremely intelligent people are usually very confident and trust their intuition. When an extremely intelligent person discovers a counterintuitive fact, his answer will disagree with the answers of other extremely intelligent people. The more esoteric the fact is, the more likely it is that other extremely intelligent people will not have done the work to figure out the truth.

BluffTHIS!

12-18-2006, 02:24 PM

David,

It is important to keep in mind a critical caveat that you have used in a past post to modify such general assertions. And that is that those highly intelligent people, or "expert evidence evaluators" as you were terming it back then, are thoroughly familiar with the religious claims. Although that wouldn't mean they have to be able to read scripture in the original languages, it would mean they need to read at least latin and probably one other language like french/german, in order to be able to study the subject properly, as far as christianity goes, and then to actually do so.

No way you get 100 atheist/agnostic physicists/mathematicians who meet those criteria, even if you count dead ones in the last 50 years. No way. The closest you could come would be with Jewish former yeshiva students who later chose a scientific career, and even then they won't have studied christianity.

keith123

12-18-2006, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think disagreement with extremely intelligent people and intelligence are negatively correllated as strongly as you suggest. Think of the progress of knowledge over the last 1000 years or so. Every time someone figured out something new that contadicted or refined existing theory, most extremely intelligent people would have been almost sure the existing theory was true. The flatness of the earth is a good example.

A second problem is that many true facts are counterintuitive (although this may be a restatement of the first objection). Extremely intelligent people are usually very confident and trust their intuition. When an extremely intelligent person discovers a counterintuitive fact, his answer will disagree with the answers of other extremely intelligent people. The more esoteric the fact is, the more likely it is that other extremely intelligent people will not have done the work to figure out the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

this really doesn't apply to this particular thread. if you poll "smart people" and a huge majority (or all of them) agree that a particular answer X is correct, then you can say with great confidence that "smart people" are highly likely to believe X is true. simple logic says that if you believe X is untrue, then you are highly likely to not be a "smart person."

this thread doesn't take into considerations any of the "why's."

Exsubmariner

12-18-2006, 02:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Some people are misinterpreting the point of some of my posts. Here is a cold hard fact:

If you are almost sure that X is true.
AND

100 randomly chosen, extremely intelligent, (even by your definition) people are all almost sure that X is false.

THEN

It is still possible that you are right and X is true.

BUT

Almost impossible that you are extremely intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are convinced of your superior intelligence.

AND

You don't beleive in God.

THEN

You post on an internet board that people who don't believe what you do aren't as intelligent as you are you may be correct

BUT

Your post is juvenile.

David Sklansky

12-18-2006, 02:41 PM

In 1966 X truly was an 80% shot. Do you think 50K is chopped liver?

RJT

12-18-2006, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
well, highly unlikely that the person is extremely intelligent, yes.

but was that really your main point in all those 99%er posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that David needs an apologists, but for those new to the discussion:

This has always been (in various forms) David’s position/point. I can attest to this having followed and partaken in much of the discussion over that past year.

Fwiw, I am Catholic, so I have at (most) times been on the opposite side of this discussion.

RJT

keith123

12-18-2006, 03:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, highly unlikely that the person is extremely intelligent, yes.

but was that really your main point in all those 99%er posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that David needs an apologists, but for those new to the discussion:

This has always been (in various forms) David’s position/point. I can attest to this having followed and partaken in much of the discussion over that past year.

Fwiw, I am Catholic, so I have at (most) times been on the opposite side of this discussion.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

that might be the basis of the 50K challenge, but it isn't the extent of his argument.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8461844&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

David Sklansky

12-18-2006, 03:17 PM

But extremely smart people will not claim thay are almost sure about something UNLESS they feel they have enough information to make that statement. I suppose it would have been better if my original post postulated that the 100 were randomly chosen from that subset.

John21

12-18-2006, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
David,

It is important to keep in mind a critical caveat that you have used in a past post to modify such general assertions. And that is that those highly intelligent people, or "expert evidence evaluators" as you were terming it back then, are thoroughly familiar with the religious claims. Although that wouldn't mean they have to be able to read scripture in the original languages, it would mean they need to read at least latin and probably one other language like french/german, in order to be able to study the subject properly, as far as christianity goes, and then to actually do so.

No way you get 100 atheist/agnostic physicists/mathematicians who meet those criteria, even if you count dead ones in the last 50 years. No way. The closest you could come would be with Jewish former yeshiva students who later chose a scientific career, and even then they won't have studied christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and probably pivotal to the argument, but it will more than likely be completely overlooked. In its need to be right, intelligence oftentimes loses touch with its true purpose - which is to discern truth.

felson

12-18-2006, 03:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In 1966 X truly was an 80% shot. Do you think 50K is chopped liver?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't read the following statement as referring to 1966.

"Makes me use every ounce of my willpower not to reissue the challenge to every non Asian American female."

edit: I also think 80% in 1966 is too generous, but I'm not interested in discussing that point for now.

BluffTHIS!

12-18-2006, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But extremely smart people will not claim thay are almost sure about something UNLESS they feel they have enough information to make that statement. I suppose it would have been better if my original post postulated that the 100 were randomly chosen from that subset.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is certainly true regarding their field of expertise or other related scientific fields. But not regarding other things necessarily. And in fact taking your line of argumentation, it just becomes similar to the mathematical error of a self-reference in an equation because they're all relying on the judgement of their peers in forming their own judgement, when NONE of them has actually studied the matter throougly.

El Diablo

12-18-2006, 04:35 PM

Utah,

"However, I think it is also possible that you are in an even higher class of intelligence that the 100 extremely intelligent randomly chosen people."

Exactly. World is flat comes to mind.

Borodog

12-18-2006, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Some people are misinterpreting the point of some of my posts. Here is a cold hard fact:

If you are almost sure that X is true.
AND

100 randomly chosen, extremely intelligent, (even by your definition) people are all almost sure that X is false.

THEN

It is still possible that you are right and X is true.

BUT

Almost impossible that you are extremely intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

I don't like this for the same reason I don't like your $1k challenge: The world has plenty of extremely intelligent people who are almost sure of things they have never actually considered rationally.

El Diablo

12-18-2006, 05:02 PM

Boro,

"The world has plenty of extremely intelligent people who are almost sure of things they have never actually considered rationally."

I think that's the same point I was trying to make in the other thread when I asked David:

"Why do you dismiss the possibility that there may be people able to partition a certain set of ideas and believe in them based purely on faith as opposed to using logic and reasoning, while using sound logic and reasoning with respect to everything else?"

surftheiop

12-18-2006, 05:26 PM

So your saying any scientist who made a theory opposite to the widely held belief at the time is not likely extremely intelligent?

David Sklansky

12-18-2006, 05:45 PM

Is it possible that even you and Borodog can't think straight? I postulated 100 out of 100 randomly chosen who all agreed. What's the chances they are all North Carolina weird anomolies.

Praxis101

12-18-2006, 05:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Some people are misinterpreting the point of some of my posts. Here is a cold hard fact:

If you are almost sure that X is true.
AND

100 randomly chosen, extremely intelligent, (even by your definition) people are all almost sure that X is false.

THEN

It is still possible that you are right and X is true.

BUT

Almost impossible that you are extremely intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you have discovered relevant information which has not yet been brought to light for the other 100 extremely intelligent individuals.

Intelligence != knowledge...

I'm not sure we're supposed to assume that knowledge is equal amongst all participants, that'd be a bit unrealistic - very thought provoking post, though, DS!

El Diablo

12-18-2006, 05:54 PM

David,

The 100 people wouldn't be the anomalies, the 1 would.

David Sklansky

12-18-2006, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So your saying any scientist who made a theory opposite to the widely held belief at the time is not likely extremely intelligent?

[/ QUOTE ]

I allowed for the possibility of very rare exceptions. But even the one you mentioned probably doesn't qualify. For two reasons.

1. The renegade scientist will almost always be wrong and almost always be less intelligent than the 100 mentioned.

2. If the renegade scientist really does have a truthful new theory it is extremely unlikely that all 100 would be so sure it was wrong. (That flat earth analogy that someone made was preposterous for that reaason.) People think it is romantic when a new notion totally flies in the face of accepted wisdom (ulcers caused by bacteria for instance). But I'm quite sure that the vast majority of these amazing new notions were at least contemplated by a small percentage of brilliant people beforehand.

Borodog

12-18-2006, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Boro,

"The world has plenty of extremely intelligent people who are almost sure of things they have never actually considered rationally."

I think that's the same point I was trying to make in the other thread when I asked David:

"Why do you dismiss the possibility that there may be people able to partition a certain set of ideas and believe in them based purely on faith as opposed to using logic and reasoning, while using sound logic and reasoning with respect to everything else?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely.

keith123

12-18-2006, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Boro,

"The world has plenty of extremely intelligent people who are almost sure of things they have never actually considered rationally."

I think that's the same point I was trying to make in the other thread when I asked David:

"Why do you dismiss the possibility that there may be people able to partition a certain set of ideas and believe in them based purely on faith as opposed to using logic and reasoning, while using sound logic and reasoning with respect to everything else?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely.

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't that the point of his challenges. if such people exist, where are they? this is his point at least.

David Sklansky

12-18-2006, 06:12 PM

I screwed up the rebuttal slightly. Here's the better one.

Say there are 1,000,000 extremely smart people and 100,000,000 not so smart.

Say 10% of the dumber ones disagree with the 100 smarties. Thats 10,000,000. Say three percent of the remaining 999,900 smarties also disagree with the 100. That's being very generous.

So you have 10,030,000 disagreers. (Or is there three consecutive e's). If you are one of them it is a 333-1 shot against you being smart.

BluffTHIS!

12-18-2006, 06:18 PM

David,

In line with what I have said earlier, it is on you to prove those guys actually have studied the subject of religion and 2 or 3 major ones specifically, and thoroughly, to make your point. Your saying that they aren't likely to hold an opinion without having done so, and then asserting a likelihood of religion being true based on the number of them holding such an opinion, becomes a parlay otherwise and with a much lesser overall probability. And as I said in my previous post, I think your probability as to the first team is so far off the overall probability of the parlay is a big dog.

andyfox

12-18-2006, 07:25 PM

There is [sic] only two "e"s, as in disagreed. Generally we drop an "e' when an added suffix begins with a vowel Otherwise, we'd all be disbelieveers. There are exceptions, though, which is why we're all anteers (I think).

Seems to me when an extremely smart person believes something not so smart, there's usually an extenuating circumstance, something that doesn't allow that person to be smart on that particular issue. Von Neumann's thoughts about the Cold War and the Soviet Union come to mind. Boro and El Diablo should know that you're referring to an "all things being equal" scenario and that the smart person has studied the subject.

andyfox

12-18-2006, 07:29 PM

The flatness of the earth is not a good example. Most educated, intelligent people knew the earth was spherical a long time ago; it was only the less smart who thought it was flat. The idea that, in Columbus's time, most people who knew of the proposed voyage thought he'd sail off the edge, is a myth. So the issue of the flat earth actually backs up David's position.

dvsfun1

12-19-2006, 12:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a cold hard fact:

If you are almost sure that X is true.
AND

100 randomly chosen, extremely intelligent, (even by your definition) people are all almost sure that X is false.

THEN

It is still possible that you are right and X is true.

BUT

Almost impossible that you are extremely intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, true. Thank you for pointing this out.

You have given solace. All things considered, I would rather be occasionally right than extremely intelligent.

vhawk01

12-19-2006, 01:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is a cold hard fact:

If you are almost sure that X is true.
AND

100 randomly chosen, extremely intelligent, (even by your definition) people are all almost sure that X is false.

THEN

It is still possible that you are right and X is true.

BUT

Almost impossible that you are extremely intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, true. Thank you for pointing this out.

You have given solace. All things considered, I would rather be occasionally right than extremely intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? Why? You do get that the extremely intelligent people are right EXCEPT FOR the times you are occasionally right?

Speedlimits

12-19-2006, 01:34 AM

siegfriedandroy

12-19-2006, 01:36 AM

Speedlimits

12-19-2006, 01:39 AM

This is why "intelligence" is ill-defined.

If a scientist is brilliant and understands GToR etc. but accepts Jesus in his life then he is an idiot when it comes to philosophy/psychology.

I am "smarter" than the brilliant scientist in regards to those two subjects but he is smarter than me in regards to science.

BUT overall I would say the brilliant scientist is smarter than me because I value science over any other subject.

dvsfun1

12-19-2006, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously? Why? You do get that the extremely intelligent people are right EXCEPT FOR the times you are occasionally right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps my point was a little too subtle.

JMAnon

12-19-2006, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
this really doesn't apply to this particular thread. if you poll "smart people" and a huge majority (or all of them) agree that a particular answer X is correct, then you can say with great confidence that "smart people" are highly likely to believe X is true. simple logic says that if you believe X is untrue, then you are highly likely to not be a "smart person."

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't true given the vastness of factual propositions we are talking about (all of them). Both you and Sklansky seem to be confusing intelligence with education. All extremely intelligent people are ignorant of many facts and discoveries.

That 100 sampled at random do not believe some factual proposition, doesn't say anything about the intelligence of one person who does believe it. Our knowledge changes rapidly, and many true facts are counterintuitive. To say anything useful about the intelligence of the dissenter, one needs to understand his reason for dissenting. The fact of dissent alone tells us nothing.

Sklansky is positing that if one disagrees with the consensus of 100 extremely intelligent people about any topic then it is "almost impossible" that you are extremely intelligent. That simply is not true.

For example, imagine that a group of extremely intelligent people learn some obscure fact about biology in high school or undergrad school. Then, ten years later, an extremely intelligent biologist proves the obscure fact wrong. If the members of our group are not biologists, they never hear about the discovery, because it is not important enough to be covered by mainstream media. If you poll them, they will all say the fact is true, but the biologist will say it is false. This scenario is not "almost impossible." Like I said, the more technical and obscure a fact is, the more likely it won't be known by most extremely intelligent people. If the fact is a new discovery that conflicts with prior convention or if it is counterintuitive, extremely intelligent people will give the wrong answer.

JMAnon

12-19-2006, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The flatness of the earth is not a good example. Most educated, intelligent people knew the earth was spherical a long time ago; it was only the less smart who thought it was flat. The idea that, in Columbus's time, most people who knew of the proposed voyage thought he'd sail off the edge, is a myth. So the issue of the flat earth actually backs up David's position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about Columbus? Are you saying that most extremely intelligent people in 1006 believed that the earth was spherical; I doubt it. Even in Columbus's day, I doubt that most extremely intelligent people believed the earth was round, because so few people were educated in those days, especially in the peasant classes. There is a huge difference between intelligence and education. Although you added "educated" as a qualifier, Sklansky did not.

JMAnon

12-19-2006, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm quite sure that the vast majority of these amazing new notions were at least contemplated by a small percentage of brilliant people beforehand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Small percentage is the problem with your proposition. How many extremely intelligent people ponder the cause of ulcers? A few dozen maybe? You said 100 chosen at random. What are the odds that you get an ulcer-ponderer in the 100? If you are considering the top .25% of the population on the intelligence scale as "extremely intelligent" that is 16 million people to select from. Want to narrow it down to the top tenth of a percent? That still leaves six and a half million people to select from.

JMAnon

12-19-2006, 09:11 PM

runner4life7

12-19-2006, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Some people are misinterpreting the point of some of my posts. Here is a cold hard fact:

If you are almost sure that X is true.
AND

100 randomly chosen, extremely intelligent, (even by your definition) people are all almost sure that X is false.

THEN

It is still possible that you are right and X is true.

BUT

Almost impossible that you are extremely intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a lot of problems using the word FACT and the word almost a lot in the definition of said fact. I also think that this is an absolutely terrible logic process and am in a little shock that you would suggest it in this manner.

runner4life7

12-19-2006, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I screwed up the rebuttal slightly. Here's the better one.

Say there are 1,000,000 extremely smart people and 100,000,000 not so smart.

Say 10% of the dumber ones disagree with the 100 smarties. Thats 10,000,000. Say three percent of the remaining 999,900 smarties also disagree with the 100. That's being very generous.

So you have 10,030,000 disagreers. (Or is there three consecutive e's). If you are one of them it is a 333-1 shot against you being smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me how this is any different. use the same amount of smart and not smart people. We will say 10% of smart people are over the age of 50 and 15% of the not smart people are over the age of 50. By your logic then there is a very large chance, that you DS, are in the not smart group, which should show you just how flawed your logic is.

Utah

12-19-2006, 11:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All extremely intelligent people are ignorant of many facts and discoveries

[/ QUOTE ]

I originally thought of that as a good counter to the D.S.'s statement. However, I dismissed it because anybody that I would consider extremely intelligent would constantly be spinning ideas in their heads that challenge current thinking/facts on a subject or they are already extending the current knowledge into unknown territory in their head. Therefore, for them to disagree with me (and to do so with a very high level of confidence) it would mean that many of them went through this exercise and summarily dismissed it forever.

Of course, some will be wrong and some will not have studied certain things. However, there is no way that 100 people that are extremely intelligent will be sure on something and not have it be almost certainly correct. Now, it is certainly possible that everyone is wrong. BUT, if that is the case then I believe that the best thinking will also lead you to the incorrect thinking - ie, I may be correct and they may be wrong but it is a function of luck or it is a function that my inferior intelligence had some advantage.

Skalansky's statement holds up to scrutiny.

bkholdem

12-20-2006, 12:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Some people are misinterpreting the point of some of my posts. Here is a cold hard fact:

If you are almost sure that X is true.
AND

100 randomly chosen, extremely intelligent, (even by your definition) people are all almost sure that X is false.

THEN

It is still possible that you are right and X is true.

BUT

Almost impossible that you are extremely intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about:

If you are almost sure X is true and you make tons of posts to point out X is true (by mocking Y).

So maybe X is true and maybe Y is true, but there is a new catagory, Z, wherby you are showing signs of ... an almost megalomaniacal obsession in trying to show that X is true and Y is not true.

David Sklansky

12-20-2006, 12:31 AM

I have my reasons. Ones that you would agree with and shouldn't surprise you.

El Diablo

12-20-2006, 03:42 AM

Utah,

"However, there is no way that 100 people that are extremely intelligent will be sure on something and not have it be almost certainly correct."

Stating the obvious here, but this could be possible if all accepted a certain base level assumption as true that a new level of genius realized is actually incorrect. I'm talking stuff like, I dunno, something new having to do with the number of elements or something. I really don't know enough about math or science to give a great example, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying here. I guess you could just say that "the accepted base assumptions we use are almost certainly correct" but I think that's a bit of a copout.

Utah

12-20-2006, 05:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Utah,

"However, there is no way that 100 people that are extremely intelligent will be sure on something and not have it be almost certainly correct."

Stating the obvious here, but this could be possible if all accepted a certain base level assumption as true that a new level of genius realized is actually incorrect. I'm talking stuff like, I dunno, something new having to do with the number of elements or something. I really don't know enough about math or science to give a great example, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying here. I guess you could just say that "the accepted base assumptions we use are almost certainly correct" but I think that's a bit of a copout.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it depends one what DS meant by "almost sure". To me that means that they do not merely think something is correct but that they believe that the chances of it ever being incorrect is < .000001%. For example, lets take the speed of light. I may find 100 extremely bright people that agree that we will never be able to travel faster than the speed of light because current formulas show that it is impossible to do so. However, they will not all be sure to to .999999. There will be some doubt from someone. Now, maybe it is faulty for some to hold that view but it will be there. Basically, the threshold to reach agreement for 100 extremely bright people is about impossible because those types of people are questioning everything and they have a hard time taken as given simply because they want to break out of whats known and expand into crazy new possibilities no one ever thought of.

So, if agreement is reached you almost sure to be an idiot /images/graemlins/smile.gif In my interpetation of "almost sure", it would almost take something like "the world is secretly run by giant 12 foot purple bunnies in tutus" to get agreement.

If DS simply meant that they believed it strongly but could still have some small reservations about it then I would disagree with him.