I like that new Scott Alexander estimate of 128, 130+ always stroke me as too high, just from knowing a bunch of people irl who range from 85 to 147, and meeting a bunch of rationalists irl. The average rationalist is definitly considerably smarter than those I know who test around 120, but not as bright as the 140+ people. The odd thing is I have met a few people in the 130ish range who had way higher computing power than normal for their IQ, so I think there probably is something like effective IQ, which is your raw base IQ (or g for that matter), multiplied by how effective your thought doctrines are. Someone with a good grasp on Bayesianism or another very good logic framework can run circles around someone with a 5 points higher IQ and less formal training in thought.
The second paragraph puts into words something I’ve noticed but not really mentally formalized before. Some anecdotal evidence from my own life in support of the claims made in this paragraph: I’ve met individuals whose tested IQ exceeds those of other, lower but not much lower, IQ individuals I know who are more educated / trained in epistemological thinking and tangential disciplines. For none of the individual-pairs I have in mind would I declare that one person “ran circles around” the other, however, the difference (advantage going to the lower but better “trained” IQ individual) in conversational dynamics were notable enough for me to remember well. The catch here is the accuracy of the IQ claims made by some of these individuals, as some did not personally reveal their scores to me.
I like that new Scott Alexander estimate of 128, 130+ always stroke me as too high, just from knowing a bunch of people irl who range from 85 to 147, and meeting a bunch of rationalists irl. The average rationalist is definitly considerably smarter than those I know who test around 120, but not as bright as the 140+ people.
The odd thing is I have met a few people in the 130ish range who had way higher computing power than normal for their IQ, so I think there probably is something like effective IQ, which is your raw base IQ (or g for that matter), multiplied by how effective your thought doctrines are. Someone with a good grasp on Bayesianism or another very good logic framework can run circles around someone with a 5 points higher IQ and less formal training in thought.
The second paragraph puts into words something I’ve noticed but not really mentally formalized before. Some anecdotal evidence from my own life in support of the claims made in this paragraph: I’ve met individuals whose tested IQ exceeds those of other, lower but not much lower, IQ individuals I know who are more educated / trained in epistemological thinking and tangential disciplines. For none of the individual-pairs I have in mind would I declare that one person “ran circles around” the other, however, the difference (advantage going to the lower but better “trained” IQ individual) in conversational dynamics were notable enough for me to remember well. The catch here is the accuracy of the IQ claims made by some of these individuals, as some did not personally reveal their scores to me.