Spin Off Logic Problem From Genius-Religion Debate

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
In that small subset of questions, high IQ will be a liability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine a high IQ being a liability in practical terms. Maybe an absurd hypothetical like "in order to get the question right, you must fail to understand it," but in the real world - high IQ a liability?

[bunny]

See my edit as well for another reason I'm not convinced a higher IQ individual is more likely to solve a problem than a lower IQ individual. Test conditions necessarily impose artificial limitations.

I'll ponder on some examples - I dont have a catalog, I just expect the category exists, since it seems unlikely to me that we have been able to formulate the optimal approach for solving all problems.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In that small subset of questions, high IQ will be a liability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine a high IQ being a liability in practical terms. Maybe an absurd hypothetical like "in order to get the question right, you must fail to understand it," but in the real world - high IQ a liability?

[/ QUOTE ]
There were no constraints on Y in DS's scenario. I agree with you that a high IQ is a good indicator of problem solving ability in general. I dont think it's right to annoint it as the be-all and end-all though - I suspect a category of (perhaps odd) questions exists which will deceive people who approach problems in the way that scoring highly on an IQ test requires - perhaps Y is one of those questions.

[dknightx]

i'm going to have to go with believing Y is probably true ... but i'll have to think a bit more about this.

[madnak]

Let's say using independent methods I determine that Y has an n probability of being correct. After recognizing this correlation, I would adjust that upward significantly. The extent would depend on n though - if n is initially .000001, then I might raise go all the way to .05 certainty of Y on this basis. If n is initially .9, then I might go to .95. I don't think I can evaluate the probability of Y being correct solely on the basis of this correlation.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
See my edit as well for another reason I'm not convinced a higher IQ individual is more likely to solve a problem than a lower IQ individual. Test conditions necessarily impose artificial limitations.

I'll ponder on some examples - I dont have a catalog, I just expect the category exists, since it seems unlikely to me that we have been able to formulate the optimal approach for solving all problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is more about groups than individuals. Of course one individual can have more common sense than another, but I'd like to hear how IQ can bias thinking strongly enough, across the group of smart individuals, that their important advantages in other areas would be wiped out.

The reason I challenged you to come up with examples is because it seems your comments are just coming from a gut feeling. If what you say is true, there should be examples in the world.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In that small subset of questions, high IQ will be a liability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine a high IQ being a liability in practical terms. Maybe an absurd hypothetical like "in order to get the question right, you must fail to understand it," but in the real world - high IQ a liability?

[/ QUOTE ]
There were no constraints on Y in DS's scenario. I agree with you that a high IQ is a good indicator of problem solving ability in general. I dont think it's right to annoint it as the be-all and end-all though - I suspect a category of (perhaps odd) questions exists which will deceive people who approach problems in the way that scoring highly on an IQ test requires - perhaps Y is one of those questions.

[/ QUOTE ]
In fact, I think it's quite likely Y is one of these odd questions. If you line up six freaks with IQs of 200, probably only 2 of them think it's true. 4 of them think it's false. When you survey 100 people with IQs of 150, around 25 think it's true and 75 think it's false.

I dont see what grounds you have for thinking it's probably true, since most people think it's false (including the super-geniuses). If you're going to go with false, you have to then explain why the high-IQ people are more likely to get it wrong. Y being in the hypothetical category I'm talking about is probably a good explanation, dont you think?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See my edit as well for another reason I'm not convinced a higher IQ individual is more likely to solve a problem than a lower IQ individual. Test conditions necessarily impose artificial limitations.

I'll ponder on some examples - I dont have a catalog, I just expect the category exists, since it seems unlikely to me that we have been able to formulate the optimal approach for solving all problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is more about groups than individuals. Of course one individual can have more common sense than another, but I'd like to hear how IQ can bias thinking strongly enough, across the group of smart individuals, that their important advantages in other areas would be wiped out.

The reason I challenged you to come up with examples is because it seems your comments are just coming from a gut feeling. If what you say is true, there should be examples in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was definitely a gut feeling and I'll think on it further. However, I by no means meant to suggest that the class of problems I am referring to was either large, nor important in a real-world sense.

I think the situation DS is describing would be explained either by Y being in this class of anti-IQ problems or being so difficult that it is beyond human limits. I approach life from the arrogant position that I can solve anything if I think about it long enough, so I've probably discounted this second explanation without adequate justification. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
There were no constraints on Y in DS's scenario. I agree with you that a high IQ is a good indicator of problem solving ability in general. I dont think it's right to annoint it as the be-all and end-all though - I suspect a category of (perhaps odd) questions exists which will deceive people who approach problems in the way that scoring highly on an IQ test requires - perhaps Y is one of those questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I'll grant that. But I would also say that there's no reliable way to evaluate such "odd" questions. If IQ is a liability, then I think reason is (almost always, you'd basically have to use set theory to find a counterexample) also a liability. But I don't think we can discover truths objectively and collectively without applying reason - subjectively and personally perhaps...

[David Sklansky]

Stop with the off the subject IQ debate. Stipulate that the higher your IQ, the more likely you are to be right.

This is an interesting problem regarding our right to extrapolate. The Sklansky Extrapolation Question. I personally have not decided on an answer.