Even Freud [...] and his psychology IQ was through the roof.
A conman on a huge drug trip. All of his research was debunked as entirely nonsensical.
As a lemon, the saddest thing in my life is knowing that I will never win
Sigh, it seems there are two cults: people who value IQ way too much, and people who reject it entirely. Both are completely missing the point.
The psychometric evidence is clear: all cognitive tests are correlated with IQ. Moreover, g distills the most prized dimension of intelligence. Like OP says, the higher the IQ the better. How can you value IQ too much?
No other quantity has this much explanatory power. The only reason to reject it is wokeness.
Even Freud [...] and his psychology IQ was through the roof.
A conman on a huge drug trip. All of his research was debunked as entirely nonsensical.
tbh I get the feeling that the entirety of cognitive science is wordsel bs where's Wittgenstein when you need him? oh well at least we have ChatGPT
Freeman Dyson thought that Wittgenstein was a con artist, because the latter was a total jerk in a casual meeting between the two men. I like, trust, and admire Dyson more than Wittgenstein.
Then again, Saul Kripke respected Wittgenstein enough to spend much of his working life expounding on Wittgenstein.
So IDK. But Wittgenstein was an asshole. He abused children.
Freeman Dyson thought that Wittgenstein was a con artist, because the latter was a total jerk in a casual meeting between the two men. I like, trust, and admire Dyson more than Wittgenstein.
Then again, Saul Kripke respected Wittgenstein enough to spend much of his working life expounding on Wittgenstein.
So IDK. But Wittgenstein was an asshole. He abused children.
Paul Graham says, "I would say that this has been, unfortunately for philosophy, the central fact of philosophy. Most philosophical debates are not merely afflicted by but driven by confusions over words. Do we have free will? Depends what you mean by 'free.' Do abstract ideas exist? Depends what you mean by 'exist.' Wittgenstein is popularly credited with the idea that most philosophical controversies are due to confusions over language. I'm not sure how much credit to give him. I suspect a lot of people realized this, but reacted simply by not studying philosophy, rather than becoming philosophy professors."
IQ is the best predictor of everything positive. The rest of social science is creative writing.
More or less, but...
If your IQ is less than 160, you will have a hard time. For example, you won't get a job at OpenAI.
IQ 160 is way too rare to be a useful cutoff for anything socially significant.
IQ is the best predictor of everything positive. The rest of social science is creative writing.
More or less, but...
If your IQ is less than 160, you will have a hard time. For example, you won't get a job at OpenAI.
IQ 160 is way too rare to be a useful cutoff for anything socially significant.
It is extremely socially significant. It distinguishes enlightened LessWrong disciples from simpletons who don't realize that all of social science is solved by g.
Your screen is so tiny that we decided to disable the captcha and posting feature
Formatting guidelines: Commonmark with no images and html allowed. $ and $$ for LaTeX. Input previewed in last post of thread. For a link to be allowed it must include the http(s) tag and come from the list of allowed domains.