What information do they have?
This is the general problem of a mixture of experts when all you have are the predictions but not the information on which the predictions are based (at least for the market). I don’t think there is a real answer to that until you input more information into the system.
We want P(side | I_them, I_me)
We have P(side|I_them), P(side|I_me)
The latter don’t give the former.
Mutual fund managers have incentives other than maximizing expectation of price. OPM.
Also, they likely overestimate the value of their privileged information.
That should be the argument.
But the argument is also made that “GDP goes up” in the context of the immigration debate and nationalism. That is the usual context of the question these days.
From a nationalist perspective of the existing citizens of the country, their GDP may go down when immigrants are allowed into the country, even while the GDP of the aggregate including the new immigrants is higher than the original GDP of the existing citizens.
And of course, the influx of immigrants also affects the distribution of GDP within the existing citizens.
LW is the empty place with the empty boxes are the threads with politics in them.
Though driving isn’t the best metaphor. LW is the moot court. Or boxing ring. Or dance floor. Takes two to tango.
We could segregate these things for those who don’t feel their up to having a political discussion. Tag a thread with Politics. Don’t want to talk politics, don’t go into the thread.
But driving drunk is not exactly the same skill as driving sober, so that practicing drunk can be expected to improve your skills in driving drunk in ways that only driving sober would not.
Except by the analogy, we want to be able to drive better, whether drunk or sober. In fact, especially when drunk, because that’s where our poor driving causes real disaster elsewhere, as opposed to the relative safety of our test track.
We want to get Less Wrong, except where it would matter the most.
Don’t regulate efficiency. Regulate consistency of formulation, at most.
There are plenty of actors interested in efficacy. Really, everyone else involved.
Accomplishments?
Did that include being a part of an elite profession?
I think the original article said that smart people accomplished more in a profession, though they were in appropriately excluded.
Anyone have information on cross cultural studies on attitudes toward honesty?
Computers are already better than us in a ton of intelligence tasks, and that list is only going to get longer and longer.
Wrong. This proposition has never been tested before. Things were not a threat to be smarter, cheaper, better before.
Humans have dominated the world through their intelligence. It’s the most powerful factor of production.
You need a stronger argument than “intelligence is just the same as all other factors of production”.
If your lunatic sensor didn’t go off reading this, you should get it adjusted.
A funny comment at LW.
Even lunatics can be right.
Gwern said
The assumption here is that both the general population and elite professions are described by a normal distribution (N(100,15) and N(125,6.5), respectively)
Is it? I didn’t see that. assumption stated. Problem is, they didn’t explicitly specify where they got their distributions. At least I don’t see it.
Looking again at some of their conclusions in the preceding paragraph, it does look like they’re assuming gaussians based on mean and sd a small sample, then projecting that out to the tails. Clearly malpractice.
They don’t come out and say it, but the “This means that” below shows that they are extrapolating to the tails.
This means that 95% of people in intellectually elite professions have IQs between 112 and 138 99.98% have IQs between 99 and 151.
Funny that an article talking about how hard it is to be smart can be so dumb.
Still, my question remains—is there real data out there to support the contention that P(elite career|IQ) has a local max and then decreases for higher IQ?
Half of voters are dumber than average. Trump isn’t shy about appealing to them. Or showing respect to them. Their votes count too. “I love the poorly educated.”
It drives Republican Bow Ties insane; they’re more attached to their Bow Ties than winning elections.
I think Trump scores highly on showing respect and solidarity to voters. He attacks individuals, and he attacks non voters, but he respects all voters.
Hillary I’m with Her. Basket of Deplorables.
Trump I’m with You. I’m your Voice. I respect all of you, even if you don’t vote for me. I love Xs.
Until now, humans always had multiple competitive advantages in sensing, intelligence, and motor control, and an integrated system for all. That competitive advantage made them the best adaptable machines available.
That advantage is going away, particularly for the less intelligent and less educated.
Horses used to compete for real work in the economy, and win. Their population dwindled in the US as they were competed out of the marketplace by machines. Horse genocide. Their domesticated population has been coming back, but now as pets more than workers, and they’re still not near the numbers they used to be.
How many human pets do people want? How many people want to be a pet?
When other things get smarter, cheaper, better, and you don’t, eventually you lose. And machines have advantages to employers that people don’t.
Can’t remember where I saw it, but I think Adams is trying to transition his career to “trusted expert”.
He’s willing to take the financial hit to make the transition.
Good point. I expressed myself poorly.
A lot of people are soon to be automated out of economic viability as employees.
Something has to be done about this, none of those manufacturing, or managerial jobs are coming back
And a lot more jobs are soon to be automated out of existence.
“We have the tools to do this—we could, for instance, sequence a lot of peoples’ DNA, give them all IQ tests, and do a genome-wide association study, as a start.”
I remember a few years ago the Chinese offering free genomic scans for the sufficiently intelligent. Did anyone sign up for that? Anyone know of how that story turned out? I assume they weren’t going to share that info.