Sklansky's Handicap

madnak · #1 10-10-2006, 10:29 AM

This is a response to Sklansky's series of threads in which he basically says that if someone is smarter than you, you should agree with what they say. Okay, that's a slight oversimplification, but you get the idea.

So my question to you, David, is this - if someone who scores well above you on the metrics you're referring to were to come into the debate and disagree with you, that is, if one of the "great minds" you like to mention were to post and tell you that no, smart people are wrong a whole hell of a lot, would you abandon this line of reasoning?

I'm assuming someone who is more knowledgeable than you, who is smarter than you, and who is biased against his own position (as he will generally be, given that your position is that he's some great ubermensch). According to your standards, such a person would be incalculably more likely than you to be right about the subject. Therefore, if he were to dispute your position, you would have to abandon it. Correct?

I believe it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for the members of SMP to find such an "anti-Sklansky" with a distinguished record and stratospheric IQ score...

Utah · #2 10-10-2006, 11:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming someone who is more knowledgeable than you, who is smarter than you, and who is biased against his own position (as he will generally be, given that your position is that he's some great ubermensch). According to your standards, such a person would be incalculably more likely than you to be right about the subject. Therefore, if he were to dispute your position, you would have to abandon it. Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]You have introduced a new variable - that the argument has been studied by the handicapper. I believe that you would have to state your question to be:

.....Therefore, if you were likely to get into a dispute in the future about an unknown subject where the previous conditions exist would you agree that it is more likely that the other player will be correct?

Borodog · #3 10-10-2006, 11:46 AM

I believe if some "ubermensch" came along proclaiming the theory that, all other things being equal, more intelligent people are not more likely to be correct than less intelligent people, David Sklansky would (rightly) reduce his estimation of that person's intelligence.

aeest400 · #4 10-10-2006, 01:33 PM

Nice post. David is clearly a bright guy, but some of his arguments don't seem to grasp the complexity of various issues about which he posts and the underlying assumptions involved. He analyzes scenarios with examples and thought experiements, when he may be just better off analyzing them (to use a word he seem to apply pejoritively) philosophically. I guess I'm a little irked because I am sometimes aware of philosophers who have discussed issues he brings up in a more rigorous manner. E.g., I think he would be well served by reading some Hilary Putnam or Donald Davidson or Daniel Dennett. That said, I think he is often correct.

madnak · #5 10-10-2006, 02:24 PM

The question isn't whether intelligence is a factor, it's whether intelligence is the factor. You're being almost as black-and-white as David. Of course geniuses have a higher probability of being correct; they also have a higher probability of being loony.

I'm a bit surprised you're in agreement with David, actually, because his position very much contradicts the "marketplace of ideas" approach to thought (as well as the idea of meme transmission as a primary innovative vector). I always thought you liked those approaches.

Utah - you're right, it's impossible to prove in reality. That's a pity. Still, we can work in terms of a thought experiment. What if, hypothetically, we were to poll everyone on Earth with an IQ > 180. And what if 80% of them disagreed with David on this issue? That should eliminate the impact of selection bias, right?

guesswest · #6 10-10-2006, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming someone who is more knowledgeable than you, who is smarter than you, and who is biased against his own position (as he will generally be, given that your position is that he's some great ubermensch). According to your standards, such a person would be incalculably more likely than you to be right about the subject. Therefore, if he were to dispute your position, you would have to abandon it. Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem isn't that this argument is internally inconsistent. It's that this kind of intelligence doesn't exist. Or if it does it's some vanishingly improbable coincidence of aligned specializations.

Lestat · #7 10-10-2006, 02:30 PM

One intelligent person disagreeing with David won't do. It's only when a majority of intelligent people are predisposed to one side of an argument that the side becomes undeniably meaningful.

You might be able to find someone with a higher IQ than David who disagrees with something he wrote about poker. Likewise, I'm sure there are some geniuses who are Catholic. But it should take more than this to get us to start throwing out Sklansky's poker books, or attending church.

FortunaMaximus · #8 10-10-2006, 02:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for the members of SMP to find such an "anti-Sklansky" with a distinguished record and stratospheric IQ score...

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not. I'm sure this is one of the attractions of SMP.

[ QUOTE ]
Still, we can work in terms of a thought experiment. What if, hypothetically, we were to poll everyone on Earth with an IQ > 180. And what if 80% of them disagreed with David on this issue? That should eliminate the impact of selection bias, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

And in the process, increase the average intelligence in SMP.

What I personally find in those arguments he proposed, there are flaws in the logic of those arguments, that aren't necessarily drawn from naviete, but rather it is a deliberate misstep in logic. And who jumps all over that?

madnak · #9 10-10-2006, 02:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe if some "ubermensch" came along proclaiming the theory that, all other things being equal, more intelligent people are not more likely to be correct than less intelligent people, David Sklansky would (rightly) reduce his estimation of that person's intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, isn't this antithetical to David's position? David is recommending that, when we strongly disagree with the "smart people," we should reevaluate our own opinions, and our own evaluation of our relative intelligence. They've already proved themselves, therefore if they disagree with us, we are the ones more likely to be incorrect. For David to take the opposite approach outlined here, to, upon finding that he's in disagreement with the "smarter people," people who've already proved themselves in various metrics, reevaluate their intelligence level rather than his own... Well, that would show that he's not acting consistently. It would also show that he's using his ego and emotions to determine his positions, rather than his analytical capabilities.

FortunaMaximus · #10 10-10-2006, 02:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It would also show that he's using his ego and emotions to determine his positions, rather than his analytical capabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's unavoidable for anybody scoring well enough in the metric. But what the counterpoint is for most of those... The blows to the ego and emotional swaying forces the individuals to look at their own analytical capabilities.

If you can incorporate that, the overall sum cannot help but be improved. If you can't, though...