How do you guys deal...

[giblets]

I don't see how it sucks to be a successful person who has the opportunity to be even more successful.

[MOBIUS]

Because clearly in his mind he has issues with it - otherwise he still wouldn't be posting threads like this here. Here seems to be a person who it seems might never truly be happy despite his relative success. Doesn't really sound like success to me is all...

[Jon Miller]

My point is that because current tests give you poor resolution at high levels doesn't mean you can't devise a test that would give you very high resolution at high levels, even if it gave you no resolution at any level below that.

You don't understand how classification works, particularly when dealing with extremes.

If you won't agree that Da Vinci or Pascal or similar people were great geniuses than you disagree with the entire field of experts which study intelligence.

Being able to do such achievements (or multiple such) is the definition of great genius.

As for achievements goes, you can look at
Marilyn vos Savant
Kim Ung-yong
Langan

as people who didn't get Nobel prizes/etc and yet still did enough achievement to get identified.

You are going to identify the extremes, because the very superior people identify these achievements as things that they could not achieve.

You don't need to identify all the most gifted people (And of the greatest geniuses).

You have to identify some portion of them (positively identify). This is what is necessary for discovery, and this is what you build on to make a more precise measurement (be able to determine ones who for various reasons do not shine so bright).

This is what you fail to understand. It is the most basic aspect of the identification of rare events problem.

It would be impossible to (reasonably) construct a test to identify any of the greatest intelligences without first being able to identify some portion of them.

JM
(most likely it would be impossible to unreasonably construct such a test as well, and when I imagine an unreasonable test I imagine one where every single person tests every other single person....)

[Jon Miller]

It is conceivable that you could devise a test that someone of IQ ~ 160 would barely be able to answer any of the questions, someone of IQ 170 could achieve a pass and someone of IQ 180 would be able to ace.

You could create such a test.

You would have no clue if the person you assigned an IQ of 180 to (who aced the test) was more intelligent than the person who did not do so well and you assigned an IQ of 170 to.

Unless you had a group of varying intelligences (who you will assign to 160, 170, 180) to use to create the test with.

JM

[Jon Miller]

And yes, the personal judgements/tests which are used when assigning IQs > 160 are based on individuals assigning values to people based on comparing them to people who they identified as great geniuses due to achievement.

As mentioned in many places, there are numerous problems with this and what there is that exists is based on achievement (did you teach yourself multiple languages before the age of 8/etc) and not based on a test that person took.

If some group of people who were identified as great geniuses (due to achievement) set about creating a test, than yes... a test could be created.

It doesn't exist right now.

And we can't create one without first identifying great genius through achievement.

JM

[Zoetstofzoetje]

IQ is a very narrow and crude way of measuring a person´s ability. If you need proof, go to a Mensa meeting, and observe that crowd. (Social) misfits will explain to you that society is not built for them, and how unfair life has been to them.

Newton was a real dickhead without real friends. More examples exist.

To get anywhere in life, you need a range of abilities that work well together. If we can credit KH for anything (other than some well-developed trolling skills, and a propensity for puffery), it´s his ability to leverage his intelligence through his other skills.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Much as I usually disregard anything that Zstfaasjoetlql has to say, KH's unique genius like others that make an impact, is his ability to comprehend complex topics, analyze as required and then translate to lay speach (when he deems it necessary to mingle with the commoners).

[Dauphin]

Unique....like others?

[Jon Miller]

I haven't seen anything (achievement wise) that suggests that KH is one of the top ~4000 or so analytic minds of all time.

Considering how all the others that I identify did do things that suggested they were means that it is unlikely that KH is such a mind instead of just a superior or very superior mind (which is all tests can (and have) determine him to be).

Not so many of the extremely intelligent go into finance so I am willing to believe he is in the top 20k ever there.

JM
(as noted, there are other types of intelligence, music (Mozart) for example... which is why to be in the top ~20k ever he would need to be in the top ~4k ever analytic minds)

[DaShi]

Much as I usually disregard anything that Zstfaasjoetlql has to say, KH's unique genius like others that make an impact, is his ability to comprehend complex topics, analyze as required and then translate to lay speach (when he deems it necessary to mingle with the commoners).

I'm not sure calling people "******" is translating complex topics to lay speech.

[Dinner]

There is an unseemly amount of brown nosing occurring in this thread. KH is a cool guy (even if he ditched me to go drinking with other people. ) and I'm happy he has found a financially rewarding profession which he does well in but as Han Solo said there are some delusions of grandeur happening here.

BTW TMM was a cool guy too though I can often be an ass while drunk and probably didn't come off as well as I wanted to.

[KrazyHorse]

What mistake? Alby said something about the 99th percentile of IQ for the whole world. He made no claims about the statistical accuracy, reliability, worth or whatever of such a hypothetical and obviously unfeasible test. If we're going to "unbundle" words to have extra meanings that aren't even hinted at, it'd be just as easy and far more reasonable to read "intelligence" for Alby's "IQ" and make the whole question go away.

Good lord. "About to", and then did.

[KrazyHorse]

AFAIK KH is making a bit of money and doing a bit of finance, he's not making billions. He is certainly underachieving for one of the top 20k brains ever to live.

Not at all...I would consider "underachieving" in this context to mean "conditioned on intelligence, performs lower than average". And as I mentioned to Jon, it's pretty clear that conditioning on intelligence at the top end of the distribution gains you a lot less than you would think, naively

[KrazyHorse]

Am I going to have to write out the toy model explicitly, or will one of you lesser minds do me the favor?

[Kuciwalker]

Technically speaking, the 99th percentile of IQ should still put you in the 99th percentile of intelligence, even though IQ is normalized to a developed world mean.