Sklansky's Handicap

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]Respectfully, I think you missed the point. This too breaks the original handicap model because it is no longer blind and thus the automatic edge in the original handicap model (barring my awesome insight into the chance that the lower scoring player could actually be right more often in a binary decision model) no longer applies. For example, Skalansky might have been -EV going in but stumbled onto something brilliantly insightful and obviously correct that the other player missed (or that every 99%+ IQer on the planet missed). There is no way he should think he is wrong.

I think he would agree that if such an unlikely person existed that was smarter, more knowledgable, and without bias were to challenge him in a future epic battle of the two most brilliant minds on the planet and if the topic was unknown at this time and the scores were directly relevant to the topic he would lay odds on his opponent. But, only he can answer for sure.

[madnak]

I think it's best for an intelligent person to "over-correct" sometimes. Intelligent people are used to being right, and so it's hard for them to get into the habit of questioning their conclusions. They start to just assume everything they do is right, and as a result someone less intelligent but more perceptive or careful may achieve a greater level of accuracy.

I think it's useful sometimes to step back and think, "what if I'm wrong?" Or even look at your own arguments and try to refute them, try to put yourself in your opponent's place. At worst they give you a better understanding of why you're right, but sometimes they can yield surprising insights that you'd never think to find without consciously suspending your disbelief. These insights aren't necessarily even related to the argument you're having!

But the strange thing is that in spite of the results, it can get hard or even scary. Religion is one subject in particular that really starts to scare me when I consider its truth. I don't think it's all about the fire and brimstone either - it happens with Buddhism, Taoism, all that stuff. It makes me feel like I'm sinking in the ocean. I think it's just the dissonance that stems from questioning hard assumptions that I have.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is one subject in particular that really starts to scare me when I consider its truth. I don't think it's all about the fire and brimstone either - it happens with Buddhism, Taoism, all that stuff. It makes me feel like I'm sinking in the ocean. I think it's just the dissonance that stems from questioning hard assumptions that I have.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also to do with the fact that you'd be ignorant of something extraordinarily important if you were in fact wrong. I've been trying to do this recently with religion, and 'sinking in an ocean' is the perfect description - I think this is because it'd be so overwhelmingly meaningful if you were to accept it without reservation.

[FortunaMaximus]

Standing on shoeboxes trying to keep dry instead of a raft...

Ugh. Religion's a worrisome issue. If Christians are right, I hope I'm not judged too harshly. There's nothing I can do about it.

Ditto views that treat life as an unique event that goes away with the flicker of life in your body. There's so much more to see in the Universe.

Scary, and I think I've come to terms with most of that. Mainly, well, nothing I can do about it but live the way I should, right? And fortunately I'm a good person most days.

"Here there be dragons..." Indeed.

[Borodog]

madnak,

I think you are stretching David's point too far, that's all. Just because a guy you previously thought was smarter than you says something clearly fallacious (like all else being equal, smarter people are not more likely to be correct), doesn't cause you to throw out logic and adopt nonsensical positions. It should cause you to revise downward your opinion of that person's intelligence.

[David Sklansky]

"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?"

This is a good question and I have good answers.

First I need to correct two points. He doesn't need to be biased against the position he is arguing. He only needs to be neutral. Secondly I never said the smarter, more knowledgeable person would be "incalculably" more likely to be right. Just a significant favorite.

Next I must mention that you have introduced a Russell paradox. Had this knowledgeable unbiased genius been disagreeing with me about any other subject you could lay a nice price on him. But in this case its only even money. Because HE is saying you can't lay a price. Hopefully many of you saw that.

Meanwhile there actually IS a specific person who almost meets your criteria. He is my cousin, the other Eddie Miller. He skipped two grades got erfect SATs, majored in astrophysics at Harvard, played piano at age four, got hysterical with me reading Being and Nothingness at age five, when on to publish a newspaper and has contempt for the same SAT he aced.

He doesn't sway me that much because of a fact that I have until now never explicitly mentioned. Which is that my opinion the advantages of math type intelligence come not mainly from my own thoughts but rather from observation. I am pretty unique among academic type thinkers in the opportunities I have had to rub elbows with so many different types of minds. (More than Eddie has) And as years go by, it becomes more and more obvious the advantages conferred by math talent and knowledge. Sometimes this talent is not related to academic achievement. Howard Lederer and Stu Ungar are examples. Conversely when I am arguing about anything with people without this knowledge or talent I am struck by how often they fall into irrefutable fallacies. Expounding on my experiences is something for a different thread.

My opinion isn't totally based on observation though. Part of it comes from my understanding that people are confused when they say: Most mathmeticians try to be great widget makers. Most great widget makers are not mathmeticians. Most mathmeticians are not great widget makers. Therefore math can't be a great help in making widgets. THAT CONCLUSION IS WRONG. See why. (I recently saw an example of this fallacious thinking by naturepath David Williams when he tried to argue that high cholesteral doesn't cause heart attacks {most heart attacks...etc}. If he's right the argument doesn't prove it.}

Another reason I'm sure I'm right is partly observational and partly due to knowledge. It relates to the ignorance of the average person as to how much deep math and therefore math talent goes into our modern day miracles. I'm not talking so much about understanding them after they are created, although even doing that is beyond 95% of the population. I'm talking about the creation of these things. And the creation of the components. Maybe one in a thousand has any hope of doing that. Put another way: North Korea doesn't have an atomic bomb. A few hundred people in North Korea do. (A few dozen plus the few hundred they taught.) If they all went to Estonia, Estonia would have it and N. Korea wouln't. And they would NEVER have it if the top 1000 smartest people in N. Korea left every year.) Similar things could be said about cat scans, computers, and most modern drugs. The remaining people might be able to follow instructions to build them but they wouldn't fully understand how they worked.

Getting back to my willingness to defer to someone much smarter or more knowledgeable. Well I have never met anyone MUCH smarter. Someone who could easily beat me on a math aptitude test or who wouldn't lose to me on at least some type of thinking questions. But there are plenty of people who are now a bit smarter and certainly more knowledgeable. And when there opinions differ from my I am greatly concerned. That's why I have been hesitant to argue with Borodog. On the other hand one must remember a reply I made to Darryl P and an idea brought up by Utah, the fourth best poster here. Which is that the slightly less intelligent player may still be the one to bet on if only he and not his adversary picks and chooses his fights. A super genius whod is sure he is right is favored over a super duper genius who is slightly less sure.

So if you ever see me flatly disagreeing with this AC stuff you can all pack up your bullhorns.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting back to my willingness to defer to someone much smarter or more knowledgeable. Well I have never met anyone MUCH smarter. Someone who could easily beat me on a math aptitude test or who wouldn't lose to me on at least some type of thinking questions. But there are plenty of people who are now a bit smarter and certainly more knowledgeable. And when there opinions differ from my I am greatly concerned. That's why I have been hesitant to argue with Borodog. On the other hand one must remember a reply I made to Darryl P and an idea brought up by Utah, the fourth best poster here. Which is that the slightly less intelligent player may still be the one to bet on if only he and not his adversary picks and chooses his fights. A super genius whod is sure he is right is favored over a super duper genius who is slightly less sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

But by how much?

First of all, intelligence is a very arbitrary thing. "Intelligence" is a blanket term for aggregate aptitude in various mental areas which vary greatly from person to person. One who excels in logical or mathematical reasoning may have poor spatial, kinesthetic or linguistic reasoning. IQ and SAT scores do not reflect intelligence; they define them. "Intelligence," as most people believe, is simply a matter of how well one can do on a test; other intelligent application are much harder to quantify. I think you're putting a little too much stock into labels like "super duper genius."

Secondly, and more importantly, someone with a greater logical or mathematical intellect should be not only able to come up with more correct solutions, but also should be able to explain his reasoning. Borodog would make an ass of himself if, instead of explaining the logic of his physics and economic posts, he simply said "I have a PhD, therefore I'm probably right." However, it is instinctive for human beings to allow the validity of a certain train of thought rest upon the credibility of the person explaining it, which makes it seem intuitive for us to put more stock into their arguments, and there is some truth to this.

Academic credibility is nonetheless vastly subordinate to the quality of their reasoning in determining who is "most likely correct." Your attempt to handicap debators based on credibility in the absence of other information seems pointless, because there is always other information; this is always done in the context of a debate, where the opponents are presenting different conclusions and unique sets of reasoning. It is the reasoning that should be primarily considered; not the credibility.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Put another way: North Korea doesn't have an atomic bomb. A few hundred people in North Korea do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is (the nexus of) a key insight, IMO. Tricking people into thinking about groups instead of thinking about people is a incredibly effective technique for propogating the atrocities of statism. People are willing to do things for the "greater good" or for "the nation" that they would never do if they were thinking about the actual human-to-human interactions involved.

[ QUOTE ]
If people surrender their moral independence to some “morally-superior” collective (or, more accurately, some madman claiming to speak for such a non-existent entity), then of course violence is the inevitable result. Irrational and collectivist moral absolutes are the fundamental WMDs of our species.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/mo...molyneux1.html

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Next I must mention that you have introduced a Russell paradox. Had this knowledgeable unbiased genius been disagreeing with me about any other subject you could lay a nice price on him. But in this case its only even money. Because HE is saying you can't lay a price. Hopefully many of you saw that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what he's saying - I'm not suggesting someone who argues that every participant in a debate is inherently equal. Just, at heart, that analytical intelligence isn't always the primary criterion in a debate, or possibly that it isn't relevant at all.

[ QUOTE ]
I am pretty unique among academic type thinkers in the opportunities I have had to rub elbows with so many different types of minds. (More than Eddie has) And as years go by, it becomes more and more obvious the advantages conferred by math talent and knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, wouldn't those people who actually study intelligence be the authorities on the subject? And doesn't the fact they're all in disagreement indicate that jumping to conclusions based on personal experience might be hasty?

To me it sounds like your conclusion is primarily intuitive, and so I can't respect it. If, in your personal experience, you've found a very strong correlation between mathematical ability and success, that doesn't necessarily indicate causation, does it? But of course you'd have a strong "gut feeling" that math makes people successful, because that's how humans interpret events.

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion isn't totally based on observation though. Part of it comes from my understanding that people are confused when they say: Most mathmeticians try to be great widget makers. Most great widget makers are not mathmeticians. Most mathmeticians are not great widget makers. Therefore math can't be a great help in making widgets. THAT CONCLUSION IS WRONG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I don't see the relevance of this to the discussion. Can you elaborate?

[ QUOTE ]
Another reason I'm sure I'm right is partly observational and partly due to knowledge. It relates to the ignorance of the average person as to how much deep math and therefore math talent goes into our modern day miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I agree, but fail to see the relevance.

[ QUOTE ]
A super genius whod is sure he is right is favored over a super duper genius who is slightly less sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the super duper genius is slightly less sure because he's better at evaluating the accuracy of his opinions? While the super genius is just an egotist who assumes he's always right? This is important! It's been brought up in the other thread but in a limited way. The ability of a person to evaluate the likelihood that he is correct is relevant, and not necessarily correlated with intelligence. I'd say it's more relevant than intelligence itself.

For example, imagine a simple genius who is extremely good at evaluating his opinions, and who is 95% confident in his position. Compare him to a super duper genius who is egotistical and believes he's always right about everything. Assume he actually is right most of the time, 80% of the time. As always, he's 100% confident in his position.

So now we have a mere genius who's 95% confident in his position (but who is almost always accurate in his confidence levels) versus a super duper genius who's 100% confident in his position (but is bad at determining his confidence). It's clear now that the genius is the person to bet on, not the super duper genius.

Another way to put it is this. Do you trust a weatherman who always predicts rain in an area where it rains 80% of the time, or a weatherman who predicts rain with excellent accuracy but with varying degrees of confidence in an area with erratic rainfall? I say the latter is the better weatherman, even if the former is "right more often" due to the rainfall in his area. Similarly I'd say that the genius is a more effective debater, even if the super duper genius is right more often due to his intelligence. And if the second weatherman, or the genius, predicts something with 100% certainty, that's much more of a sure bet than if the first weatherman or the super duper genius made the same prediction (in spite of their higher rates of general accuracy).

[BeerMoney]

David, is it true that people like Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson, and Chip Reese are more successful poker players than you? Are they better poker players than you? If the answer to these questions is "yes", what is the answer to the question "Are you smarter than them?"

If the answer to all of the questions is yes, could you explain why they are better than you at poker despite your superior intelligence?

Also, guys, AFAIK, DS has maintained a position of "An 800 math SAT doesn't make you a genius, it doesn't make you dumb either, but it means that you could be a super genius. But, a 300 math SAT means you ARE NOT a genius and you are stupid."