Spin Off Logic Problem From Genius-Religion Debate

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Since your stipulation is "trivially necessary," but we usually have no guarantee that this is in force at all (as in the prior religion debate -- no doubt it's difficult to sort people into a continuum of how much exposure they've had or effort they've put into a given subject over the course of their lives), is your answer to the OP's question, "no?"

[/ QUOTE ]

TC has actually done a very good job here. Sklansky had a somewhat vauge notion which he formulated poorly. TC pointed out the flaws in DS's formulation and reformulated the notion in a way where the idea behind Sklansky's simplifying stipulation could be put to work via a reformed stipulation that actually makes sense - debatable as it might be. TC thereby provided a workable mathematical model we could look at.

When we do take a close look at it we see what TC points out. Sklansky's Extrapolation notion doesn't work. The linear rise in percent of people with higer IQ's giving >50% evaluations for the Price could be due to low IQ people underestimating a correct price that is still under 50%. Under TC's workable assumption, DS's extrapolation would miss the convergence of opinion to a <50% price at superhuman IQ levels.

Sklansky's basic idea of extrapolating the local linear trend is just wrong, at least in TC's reasonable and simple model. Something David guessed might be the case btw, and which he probably would have seen himself had he been able to formulate the problem in a way that made sense to begin with.

PairTheBoard