Feynman’s measured IQ was 123, not 137. And we already know that IQ tests do not measure vitally important aspects of cognition—in Feynman’s case especially, he was quite strong in those aspects while being weak in the aspects measured. (At least, I know that. What the rest of you know is less certain.)
This is one of the primary reasons why people who think we can use IQ scores as a representation for the higher-level aspects we can’t measure well (because they’re supposedly correlated with IQ) are wrong. (I’m looking at you, Vasser.)
IQ tests do not measure synthetic capacity, imagination, creative potential, or self-restraint / the ability to inhibit low-level drives and impulses. They measure only the ability to complete certain atomic functions in a limited subset of cognitive tasks. That makes them useful—extremely so—but not definitive. Not even close.
Feynman’s measured IQ was 123, not 137. And we already know that IQ tests do not measure vitally important aspects of cognition—in Feynman’s case especially, he was quite strong in those aspects while being weak in the aspects measured. (At least, I know that. What the rest of you know is less certain.)
You don’t even know that. This sort of thing is why no one here likes you. Here, let me provide some more details about that IQ score you put such weight on as a criticism. To quote a previous comment of mine on this topic:
Feynman was younger than 15 when he took it, and very near this factoid in Gleick’s bio, he recounts Feynman asking about very basic algebra (2^x=4) and wondering why anything found it hard
the IQ is mentioned immediately before the section on ‘grammar school’, or middle school, implying that the ‘school IQ test’ was done well before he entered high school, putting him at much younger than 15. (15 is important because Feynman had mastered calculus by age 15, Gleick says, so he wouldn’t be asking his father why algebra is useful at age >15.)
Given that Feynman was born in 1918, this implies the IQ test was done around 1930 or earlier. Given that it was done by the New York City school district, this implies also that it was one of the ‘ratio’ based IQ tests—utterly outdated and incorrect by modern standards.
Finally, it’s well known that IQ tests are very unreliable in childhood; kids can easily bounce around compared to their stable adult scores.
So, it was a bad test, which even under ideal circumstances is unreliable & prone to error, and administered in a mass fashion and likely not by a genuine psychometrician.
to get more upvotes and less downvotes, from me at least, continue to post evidence-based criticisms of other’s faulty points, without unnecessary vitriol.
Considering the strong evidence that lesswrong isn’t nice enough, unnecessary vitriol should always be removed.
Whether a comment with good parts and bad parts (and more good than bad) should get upvotes or downvotes is a complicated question. If votes serve as a signal, probably downvotes, but if they serve as advice on what to read, upvotes.
Considering the strong evidence that lesswrong isn’t nice enough, unnecessary vitriol should always be removed.
I’m curious! I updated my views on lesswrong’s niceness (based on the top-level post about the issue and giving extra weight to the comments section because this is a case about the lesswrong community) to “I don’t have a fucking clue”. And if at all possible I would dearly like to have a clue.
The evidence I saw is that people left because it wasn’t nice enough. No one seemed to think it was too nice, and some people saw drawbacks with increased niceness, but this doesn’t seem like a case where those drawbacks are significant.
I would hope that incredibly sloppy thinking, manifested in such things as posting confidently as a knockdown argument a proposition that is anything but and can be revealed as such with just a tiny understanding of psychometrics, is why Caledonian was so often downvoted and criticized by OB/LW—and not because we didn’t like his haircut.
I don’t think he was ever banned (though his comments were sometimes edited and sometimes deleted). In fact, he stuck around on LW for a while, under the username “Annoyance”.
Feynman’s measured IQ was 123, not 137. And we already know that IQ tests do not measure vitally important aspects of cognition—in Feynman’s case especially, he was quite strong in those aspects while being weak in the aspects measured. (At least, I know that. What the rest of you know is less certain.)
This is one of the primary reasons why people who think we can use IQ scores as a representation for the higher-level aspects we can’t measure well (because they’re supposedly correlated with IQ) are wrong. (I’m looking at you, Vasser.)
IQ tests do not measure synthetic capacity, imagination, creative potential, or self-restraint / the ability to inhibit low-level drives and impulses. They measure only the ability to complete certain atomic functions in a limited subset of cognitive tasks. That makes them useful—extremely so—but not definitive. Not even close.
You don’t even know that. This sort of thing is why no one here likes you. Here, let me provide some more details about that IQ score you put such weight on as a criticism. To quote a previous comment of mine on this topic:
Feynman was younger than 15 when he took it, and very near this factoid in Gleick’s bio, he recounts Feynman asking about very basic algebra (2^x=4) and wondering why anything found it hard
the IQ is mentioned immediately before the section on ‘grammar school’, or middle school, implying that the ‘school IQ test’ was done well before he entered high school, putting him at much younger than 15. (15 is important because Feynman had mastered calculus by age 15, Gleick says, so he wouldn’t be asking his father why algebra is useful at age >15.)
Given that Feynman was born in 1918, this implies the IQ test was done around 1930 or earlier. Given that it was done by the New York City school district, this implies also that it was one of the ‘ratio’ based IQ tests—utterly outdated and incorrect by modern standards.
Finally, it’s well known that IQ tests are very unreliable in childhood; kids can easily bounce around compared to their stable adult scores.
So, it was a bad test, which even under ideal circumstances is unreliable & prone to error, and administered in a mass fashion and likely not by a genuine psychometrician.
to get more upvotes and less downvotes, from me at least, continue to post evidence-based criticisms of other’s faulty points, without unnecessary vitriol.
If 1 line of vitriol followed by >20 lines of ‘evidence-based criticisms’ is still wrong, then I’m not sure I want to be right.
Considering the strong evidence that lesswrong isn’t nice enough, unnecessary vitriol should always be removed.
Whether a comment with good parts and bad parts (and more good than bad) should get upvotes or downvotes is a complicated question. If votes serve as a signal, probably downvotes, but if they serve as advice on what to read, upvotes.
I’m curious! I updated my views on lesswrong’s niceness (based on the top-level post about the issue and giving extra weight to the comments section because this is a case about the lesswrong community) to “I don’t have a fucking clue”. And if at all possible I would dearly like to have a clue.
The evidence I saw is that people left because it wasn’t nice enough. No one seemed to think it was too nice, and some people saw drawbacks with increased niceness, but this doesn’t seem like a case where those drawbacks are significant.
This seems awfully hostile for a reply to a post that’s more than two years old.
Stupidity is stupidity regardless of whether it was posted 2 seconds or 2 years ago. Funnily enough, people (like me) are still reading old posts...
and originally posted to a different site
Hahaha.
I would hope that incredibly sloppy thinking, manifested in such things as posting confidently as a knockdown argument a proposition that is anything but and can be revealed as such with just a tiny understanding of psychometrics, is why Caledonian was so often downvoted and criticized by OB/LW—and not because we didn’t like his haircut.
OB didn’t have downvoting.
LW, fortunately, does. And I think Caledonian ultimately wound up being banned, which is a rather extreme downvote from my point of view.
I don’t think he was ever banned (though his comments were sometimes edited and sometimes deleted). In fact, he stuck around on LW for a while, under the username “Annoyance”.