Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Business, Finance, and Investing Making money, investing in markets, and running businesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-21-2008, 04:17 AM   #26
Schwallie
formerly TheProdigy
 
Schwallie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,234
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenNUTS View Post
His IQ might be 375 for all I care .........but he just might be the biggest buffoon I have ever encountered.For a successful poker author and part owner of 2p2 it is truly amazing how he constantly makes a fool of himself with his moronic posts/threads.

Its bad enough dealing with the many idiots on most forums ......but David is truly in a league of his own.
QFT, I can't believe they let David be part of this company, he makes it look horrible. He reminds me a lot of when my 45 year old aunt got on mIRC and chatted it up with a bunch of 14 year old kids(she is mildly ******ed, so at least she has an excuse).
Schwallie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2008, 07:04 AM   #27
bull0x
centurion
 
bull0x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 112
Thumbs down Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky View Post
I believe I am persuading many people. Just like I did regarding poker. The reason that isn't obvious is because, just like with poker, there are a small subset of vocal practitioners in various fields who realize the trouble they are in if it becomes widely known that studying math, logic, and probability, and other general thinking techniques, will have you surpassing dumber mediocrities with years of experience, as long as you have a year or so under your belt.

When I came to Vegas ther were scores of moderately talented, seat of their pants, poker pros. They all went broke when faced with the young studious smarter kids.

Same thing for Jeff Yass when he hit Philadelphia and faced seat of the pants options traders. They too went broke. (Someone metioned that nowadays the quants will get killed those few times their models don't apply. But what about in the days when only they knew about the models?)

Like the seargeants who refuse to believe that the young West Point graduates will quickly surpass them, there is that vocal group who can't admit I am right about this stuff. But there is also that silent group who is paying attention and learning the general skills of thinking I advocate. And that second group who is understanding that those kids are the ones they should hire.

Your OP and follow up suggested that you attributed a guys success in a donkament to his super smart brain. Nice measure of skill. Perhaps if he went head to head with a elite pro like antonius/ivey and win, you would have something to promote.

I think what you are saying is if two people competed at trading, one with a 180IQ, one with 150 IQ with the SAME mental, psychological, self control, determination, both with a reasonable amount of experience (add more trading skills required here), then the higher IQ guy would probably win. Well done sir, great job. You make it sound like its super easy for a high IQ guy to gain these additional skills.

In conclusion you suggest a small sample of people (geniuses), of a small sample of people (ppl with skills mentioned above) would be super awesome and make billions of $. Well done. Frustrated much for not being in this category?
bull0x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2008, 07:57 AM   #28
mrbaseball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mrbaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: shortstacked on the bubble
Posts: 11,928
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Most people with 130 IQs like to point to the real world incompetance of many ivory tower 170 IQs. Problem is they forget about the multi talented 150 IQs who can run circles around them. There is no inverse correlation. (I am of course using IQ scores as a stand in for intelligence, even if that is not really true.)
I don't understand your point? Smarter guys are smarter? Is that it? If you are one of the 130 IQ guys I guess that's the hand you are dealt and you have to make the most of it right? Can IQs be increased?

I have no idea what my IQ is? I know I took the test way back when in first grade. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I am well read and educated with college and masters degrees. I know my strengths and limitations.

But none of that really means too much when you are trading (which I do for a living). Most of the guys you are bumping up against are well read and well educated as well. IQ's and GPA's look nice on resumes but down in the trenches nobody cares about any of that and it all comes down to the bottom line. Does a smarter guy have an advantage? Sure if he has common sense and street smarts to go along with it. Some do and some don't. But my guess is that the correlation of a high IQ and trading success is very small at best. On the other hand I would say stupidity or a very low IQ and trading failure are highly correlated. But the 130 IQ crowd is plenty smart enough for great success if they study and apply themselves and learn. The 150+ IQ's will do fine as well is they study, apply themselves and learn. But assuming someone is reasonably smart it's not the brain it's the heart! And that desire along with proper pyschological makeup is what will really determine success or failure.

You seem to imply anyone with a 130 IQ or less should just kill themselves because they never be as good as the "smart" people?
mrbaseball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2008, 08:01 AM   #29
Dean Moriarty
journeyman
 
Dean Moriarty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tripping
Posts: 206
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Mathematically minded individuals are favoured over a randomly selected competitor in endevours favouring those with mathematical skills. That's a truism; no sane person will object to it.

Is math important in poker and trading? Sure. Is it the most important skill? I doubt it, second- and third-order intentionality and other metacognitive skills seem much more important, and they correlate with math-skills only very lously--if at all. An idiot-savant, brilliant at math--lacking any sophisticated theory of mind, won't be able to beat half-decent poker players for very much, whereas any great "mind-reader" will crush their souls. I'm unsure about trading, but if it's even remotely similar to poker, the same thing will apply.
Quote:
If a well adjusted successful smart adult found a way to get even smarter he would also get richer. Period.
What if he'd become smart enough to look up some psychological studies on long-term happiness, find that above a certain threshold higher wealth does not improve self-reported states of well-being, and decides to retire with just a couple of millions at 35, in order to engage in activities closer to his heart? What if many "super-smart" people just don't value money that highly and "just" enjoy whatever they are doing?

A surprisingly effective rule of thumb: Any assertion ending with "Period." is likely wrong. (Period.)

One could debate ad nauseum which endevours favour those with mathematical skills (all? lol!) and to what extend precisely, but I deem studying the elaborate movements of oak leaves at wind-force zero to be a more intellectually stimulating exertion (and certainly a less frustrating one).
Dean Moriarty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2008, 04:19 PM   #30
Yowserrrs
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,347
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky View Post
Neither. My OP was just one of hundreds of posts I've made over the years trying to persuade people that their misguided idea that the more mathemetically minded are not highly likely to be favored over the less mathematically minded, in almost endeavor, needs to be corrected. They get confused because even if the former is ten times more likely to succeed, they will be in the minority of success stories.
So why dont you make any final tables?
Yowserrrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2008, 07:39 PM   #31
bull0x
centurion
 
bull0x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 112
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yowserrrs View Post
So why dont you make any final tables?
Of the geniuses, he must be in the minority of fail stories. But his high IQ options trader friend won, so therefore high IQ is the key component to success in life, obviously.

Sample size much?
bull0x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2008, 07:44 PM   #32
Yowserrrs
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,347
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

For someone with a high IQ, analytical approach to the game, and 20+ years of experience, youd think based on his own logic hed have quite the poker resume. I'm obv not saying hes a failure by any means but rather just making an easy and obvious rebuttal.
Yowserrrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2008, 08:04 PM   #33
bull0x
centurion
 
bull0x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 112
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Clarification: I didn't mean fail in life, just at tourneys, sklanksy is a theory of poker success and aided me in making $. thx bro.

Yeah talking about a singular tourney success by a high IQ friend then making various jumps in logic to use this as evidence that the guys high IQ was behind the success is just bone head when you consider Sklanskys tourney record.

Maybe he was trying to say, "look dum dumz stop dissin' me in my attempted trading theory posts, my friend trades options, with the same IQ as me, he won a tourney at pokah, therefore I could destroy u alls at options and shiz if I felt inclined. However I will not prove this because <insert excuse> Dum Dumz lols"
bull0x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2008, 05:12 PM   #34
RedManPlus
banned
 
RedManPlus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Doomsday Vision
Posts: 2,169
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky View Post
The fact is that these guys turned 100K into well over a billion.
DS has virtually no idea how money is made in the financial markets...
Or he would have been running a successful hedge fund for the last 20 years.

The vast majority of profits come from some form of arbitrage...
NOT from making directional bets.

Acting as a market maker and providing liquidity in the context of a bid-ask spread...
Is closely analogous to the casino business model.

http://www.sig.com/tradingAndMarketMaking.html

Trying to "beat" essentially random markets with directional bets...
Is closely analogous to gamblers trying to overcome the casino edge.

Classic market making techniques have not changed in 100 years...
And do not require more than undergrad level math.
As a general rule, greater complexity does not yield greater profits in trading.
What is far more important is creatively picking your spots (analogous to poker game selection)...
And building state-of-the-art computer infrastructure.

This is where the greatest complexity is...
And where genius level talent is required...
Building and maintaining sub 1 ms latency infrastructure.

IQ beyond Top 10% has nothing to do with it...
And the notion that the options floor traders of 15 years ago have "disappeared" is a myth...
They are all just moved to offices and carried on business as usual.
RedManPlus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2008, 05:18 PM   #35
stinkypete
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
stinkypete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 15,713
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedManPlus View Post
The vast majority of profits come from some form of arbitrage...
NOT from making directional bets.
i'm pretty sure the vast majority of profits are made by going long and staying long. but if you have the numbers to back up your claim i'd like to see them.
stinkypete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 04:18 AM   #36
MatthewRyan
President of Upswingpoker
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,998
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

HEADS UP DS?
MatthewRyan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 09:23 AM   #37
ikestoys
banned
 
ikestoys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: and don't vote trump/sanders
Posts: 94,444
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky View Post
I was just wondering if some people here had the audacity to think they could be favored over someone who was better than them at poker, had a 20 point IQ edge, had spent twenty years studying the subject, and the endeavor was highly technical. Anybody who could believe that, could never be convinced that guys with Eric's type of brain could quickly learn to surpass them in less obviously technical endeavors.
Wait, so winning a donkament makes you a great player? Is Jerry Yang the best player in the world?

Congrats to this guy obviously, but lets not get carried away here DS.
ikestoys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 12:04 PM   #38
Recliner
old hand
 
Recliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Left hanging
Posts: 1,807
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys View Post
Wait, so winning a donkament makes you a great player? Is Jerry Yang the best player in the world?

Congrats to this guy obviously, but lets not get carried away here DS.
It was stud?
Recliner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 01:20 PM   #39
Thremp
banned
 
Thremp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I lurve bewbs
Posts: 36,452
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys View Post
Is Jerry Yang the best player in the world?
Scoreboard.
Thremp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 10:59 PM   #40
Shoe
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,860
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yowserrrs View Post
So why dont you make any final tables?
I think it is because the average poker player has an IQ approxmiately 30 points higher than than the OP's. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely he would make a final table. DUCY?
Shoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 06:42 AM   #41
stinkypete
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
stinkypete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 15,713
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yowserrrs View Post
So why dont you make any final tables?
he did it for you yowserrrs


End of Day 2 Chip Counts Released

Day 2 of Event 40 $2,500 2-7 Triple Draw, has come to an official close with the release of the overnight chip counts. Following the elimination of Billy Baxter in seventh, the final six players bagged their chips, with the counts for each player as follows:

John Phan 294,000
Gioi Luong 291,000
Robert Mizrachi 215,000
Shun Uchida 200,000
Ben Ponzio 113,000
David Sklansky 78,000
stinkypete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 01:31 PM   #42
Phone Booth
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,366
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by APXG View Post
other than poker this also describes LTCM, merton / scholes, finance academics, etc. all of them pretty much suck at real-world options pricing in the long-term when pitted against an opponent who only bets when he knows their models are wrong. perhaps this only happens 0.1% of the time -- but it obviously doesn't matter, b.c. the opponent is never forced to bet or post any ante. maybe SIG guys have learned to make very radical adjustments to their models for specific situations, but if anything, such an occurence would most likely be INVERSELY correlated with iq.
I think David Sklansky has a real point here. I could certainly be wrong but I don't think LTCM had any 150+ IQ types. How can you be that smart, even realize that what they are doing is essentially running a bank and not understand the nature of banking? Intelligence is learning aptitude and the hallmark of genius is to be able to learn from things that never happened (one could call that creativity). Thus either there were no geniuses or there was a collective decision making failure. One good explanation is that most people are not smart enough to recognize real genius. By and large, people tend to think that anyone smarter than they are is a genius.

I agree with the following three points that Sklansky made (I may be modifying them somewhat):

1. Raw intelligence is far more important than what people give it credit for. Furthermore, it has been gaining importance because the infrastructure (social, physical and informational) allows the few with extremely high intelligence to apply their ability much further than has traditionally been possible. Also the complexity of organizations has grown in such a way that understanding them may take a greater level of intelligence. I haven't seen any rebuttals here other than a few examples where the poster is confusing specialized training with intelligence. Those are different things.

2. Raw intelligence is positively correlated with almost all other important life skills except, if you can call it a skill, motivation. As far as I can tell, intelligence is positively correlated with social awareness, understanding of self and others, emotional control, communication skills, etc, etc. People have tendency to think that higher intelligence means lacking in some other areas. There are two distinct but related phenomena that mislead people into believing this:

a) One is related to the point made above; people mistake specialized ability in one area for raw intelligence. If you take two people with the same level of raw intelligence and one is later labeled as a math genius (due to training, interest, whatever) and the other isn't, assuming similar levels of training in other areas, the math genius will tend to lag in areas not directly related to mathematics. Thus assuming that variability in specialized abilities is greater than covariability in other abilities due to intelligence, we'll find that people that we perceive as geniuses tend to lack in other areas, despite positive correlation between intelligence and ability in these areas.

b) The other phenomenon is that smarter people will tend to develop an understanding of the world that is more correct but yet distinct from that of the average people. This necessarily leads to communication difficulties, as some shared understanding of the world is essential to communication. This phenomenon is probably rarer than is reported. Most often, this is cited by self-proclaimed geniuses who mistake their own specialization for genius and their own inability to communicate for the world's inability to understand. Or by eccentrics and/or their admirers who mistake the differences in their worldviews for superiority. Geniuses tend to be superior communicators in general and are generally able to compensate for this.


3. Finally, the threshold for intelligence beyond which it becomes redundant is likely much higher than most people expect. My experience is that most people have really no idea what it's like to be smarter and have no real appreciation for intelligence beyond their level. It makes perfect sense, since it's either magic they can't comprehend or simple extrapolation of their own abilities, neither of which likely represents what higher intelligence is.


At the same time, I find that the variation in raw intelligence among people isn't particularly high. A lot of people see a big gap between themselves and others based on the one area that they specialize in with no appreciation for those areas where they lag, but this is necessarily a biased indicator that allows everyone to be above average. It's possible that a rather high percentage of people are capable of being experts in specialized domains, even in something as competitive as trading in financial markets. And what David Sklansky doesn't understand when he babbles about mathematical minds is that even the dumbest person in the world is more mathematically capable than he would be using explicit logic - otherwise he'd be able to program a capable AI. Thus this idea that explicit understanding of mathematics matters, when it's the implicit mathematical mind underneath it all that needs to handle the bulk of mental computation, is somewhat preposterous. And his claimes become even more so when he himself exhibits no more mathematical sophistication than a pretty smart teenager, which has no hope of ever being useful except in answering trivial questions. On the other hand, those who exhibit a superior, intuitive understanding of mathematics is likely to have a more accurate model of the world.
Phone Booth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 02:01 PM   #43
snappo
adept
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 950
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone Booth View Post
I could certainly be wrong but I don't think LTCM had any 150+ IQ types.
FWIW Buffett has said (Re: LTCM) "ten or 15 guys with an average IQ of maybe 170".
snappo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 02:34 PM   #44
Phone Booth
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,366
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by snappo View Post
FWIW Buffett has said (Re: LTCM) "ten or 15 guys with an average IQ of maybe 170".
I don't know what this shows other than that Buffett doesn't know what he's talking about. There probably has never been an actual organization of 10 or more people who weren't related with an average IQ that is more than 4.5 standard deviations above average. More importantly, there's absolutely zero evidence of this genius. I could hire nothing but a bunch of college drop-outs and do what they did. The only real hard part about fixed income arb is risk management - you're printing money every other day.

So it's possible they were geniuses in, say, music or something, but that really has nothing to do with this.
Phone Booth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 02:53 PM   #45
APXG
grinder
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 669
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone Booth View Post
I think David Sklansky has a real point here. I could certainly be wrong but I don't think LTCM had any 150+ IQ types. How can you be that smart, even realize that what they are doing is essentially running a bank and not understand the nature of banking? Intelligence is learning aptitude and the hallmark of genius is to be able to learn from things that never happened (one could call that creativity). Thus either there were no geniuses or there was a collective decision making failure. One good explanation is that most people are not smart enough to recognize real genius. By and large, people tend to think that anyone smarter than they are is a genius.

I agree with the following three points that Sklansky made (I may be modifying them somewhat):

1. Raw intelligence is far more important than what people give it credit for. Furthermore, it has been gaining importance because the infrastructure (social, physical and informational) allows the few with extremely high intelligence to apply their ability much further than has traditionally been possible. Also the complexity of organizations has grown in such a way that understanding them may take a greater level of intelligence. I haven't seen any rebuttals here other than a few examples where the poster is confusing specialized training with intelligence. Those are different things.

2. Raw intelligence is positively correlated with almost all other important life skills except, if you can call it a skill, motivation. As far as I can tell, intelligence is positively correlated with social awareness, understanding of self and others, emotional control, communication skills, etc, etc. People have tendency to think that higher intelligence means lacking in some other areas. There are two distinct but related phenomena that mislead people into believing this:

a) One is related to the point made above; people mistake specialized ability in one area for raw intelligence. If you take two people with the same level of raw intelligence and one is later labeled as a math genius (due to training, interest, whatever) and the other isn't, assuming similar levels of training in other areas, the math genius will tend to lag in areas not directly related to mathematics. Thus assuming that variability in specialized abilities is greater than covariability in other abilities due to intelligence, we'll find that people that we perceive as geniuses tend to lack in other areas, despite positive correlation between intelligence and ability in these areas.

b) The other phenomenon is that smarter people will tend to develop an understanding of the world that is more correct but yet distinct from that of the average people. This necessarily leads to communication difficulties, as some shared understanding of the world is essential to communication. This phenomenon is probably rarer than is reported. Most often, this is cited by self-proclaimed geniuses who mistake their own specialization for genius and their own inability to communicate for the world's inability to understand. Or by eccentrics and/or their admirers who mistake the differences in their worldviews for superiority. Geniuses tend to be superior communicators in general and are generally able to compensate for this.


3. Finally, the threshold for intelligence beyond which it becomes redundant is likely much higher than most people expect. My experience is that most people have really no idea what it's like to be smarter and have no real appreciation for intelligence beyond their level. It makes perfect sense, since it's either magic they can't comprehend or simple extrapolation of their own abilities, neither of which likely represents what higher intelligence is.


At the same time, I find that the variation in raw intelligence among people isn't particularly high. A lot of people see a big gap between themselves and others based on the one area that they specialize in with no appreciation for those areas where they lag, but this is necessarily a biased indicator that allows everyone to be above average. It's possible that a rather high percentage of people are capable of being experts in specialized domains, even in something as competitive as trading in financial markets. And what David Sklansky doesn't understand when he babbles about mathematical minds is that even the dumbest person in the world is more mathematically capable than he would be using explicit logic - otherwise he'd be able to program a capable AI. Thus this idea that explicit understanding of mathematics matters, when it's the implicit mathematical mind underneath it all that needs to handle the bulk of mental computation, is somewhat preposterous. And his claimes become even more so when he himself exhibits no more mathematical sophistication than a pretty smart teenager, which has no hope of ever being useful except in answering trivial questions. On the other hand, those who exhibit a superior, intuitive understanding of mathematics is likely to have a more accurate model of the world.

you are mixing the narrow, "IQ" definition of intelligence (what I was referring to in LTCM) and a comprehensive, aggregate intelligence level (what you presented as 'intelligence' in your points) which is wholly unmeasurable/unquantifiable but is VISIBLE, though only at levels below or equal to that of one's own.

note that i never referred to the 180 iq LTCMers as 'geniuses' -- they certainly don't deserve such a denotion in its rationally defined form b.c. all they are is raw logical ability with little refinement or 'comprehensive intelligence' enhancements. this is b.c. comprehensive intelligence is NOT doled out at birth -- it is a result of using the raw iq to PERSONALLY ATTAIN a superior understanding of the world. this was exactly my point to sklansky -- many of the 180 iq, '1600 SATs in half-time' faux-geniuses are egregiously underdeveloped talent when it comes to life, though perhaps very developed in a specific field which they happened to be steered into (i.e. math). such a fact disqualifies them from true genius, or even high intelligence (by your definition, which i agree with). despite this, they could still obliterate 99.99% of the population on an iq test.

if you & sklansky are saying that a fully life-developed 180 IQ is superior to a fully developed 150, i don't disagree. but generally, it is the 150s that realize the benefits and necessities of 'development' much more readily and resolutely than the 180s, whose development gets stunted by the ease with which they grasp extremely complex concepts. in any field that is laced with discontinuities, logical paradoxes, etc., (and thus generally requires an understanding of self-fallbility), it is correct to choose a newborn 150 over a newborn 180 assuming each 'develops' on the AVERAGE development schedule for his iq level. if you assume they each develop on the SAME schedule (i think what sklansky is assuming), of course you take the 180.
APXG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 02:58 PM   #46
Yowserrrs
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,347
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone Booth View Post
At the same time, I find that the variation in raw intelligence among people isn't particularly high. A lot of people see a big gap between themselves and others based on the one area that they specialize in with no appreciation for those areas where they lag, but this is necessarily a biased indicator that allows everyone to be above average. It's possible that a rather high percentage of people are capable of being experts in specialized domains, even in something as competitive as trading in financial markets. And what David Sklansky doesn't understand when he babbles about mathematical minds is that even the dumbest person in the world is more mathematically capable than he would be using explicit logic - otherwise he'd be able to program a capable AI. Thus this idea that explicit understanding of mathematics matters, when it's the implicit mathematical mind underneath it all that needs to handle the bulk of mental computation, is somewhat preposterous. And his claimes become even more so when he himself exhibits no more mathematical sophistication than a pretty smart teenager, which has no hope of ever being useful except in answering trivial questions. On the other hand, those who exhibit a superior, intuitive understanding of mathematics is likely to have a more accurate model of the world.
I couldnt agree with this more and have thought this way for a long time but never had anyone else articulate it.

One thing though: I thought those with very high IQs were more likely to have low EQs?
Yowserrrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 03:50 PM   #47
Thremp
banned
 
Thremp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I lurve bewbs
Posts: 36,452
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Phone Booth,

What exactly did LTCM do? Lose money? Implode?
Thremp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 03:59 PM   #48
bills217
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
bills217's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SeaCattle
Posts: 7,455
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thremp View Post
Phone Booth,

What exactly did LTCM do? Lose money? Implode?
[x] Imploded
[x] Lost everything
[x] Two above items were inevitable given strategy
bills217 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:20 PM   #49
Thremp
banned
 
Thremp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I lurve bewbs
Posts: 36,452
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by bills217 View Post
[x] Imploded
[x] Lost everything
[x] Two above items were inevitable given strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTCM#1998_Bailout

E for effort.
Thremp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:35 PM   #50
Phone Booth
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,366
Re: Susquehanna Partner Wins 10K Stud Bracelet. Donates 100% to Charity

Quote:
Originally Posted by APXG View Post
this is b.c. comprehensive intelligence is NOT doled out at birth -- it is a result of using the raw iq to PERSONALLY ATTAIN a superior understanding of the world.
I guess what I was saying is that this "comprehensive intelligence" (or if you like, the ability to acquire it) is highly heritable and is indeed doled out at birth (and/or during developmental stages). And that it is more heritable than any "specialized" intelligence that we find. If you took two people with equivalent abilities in math, for instance, whoever is better at other intellectual tasks is more likely to have been born with a higher innate ability in most things, including math. You want her to have your baby if you want a smart child, etc.


Quote:
if you & sklansky are saying that a fully life-developed 180 IQ is superior to a fully developed 150, i don't disagree. but generally, it is the 150s that realize the benefits and necessities of 'development' much more readily and resolutely than the 180s, whose development gets stunted by the ease with which they grasp extremely complex concepts. in any field that is laced with discontinuities, logical paradoxes, etc., (and thus generally requires an understanding of self-fallbility), it is correct to choose a newborn 150 over a newborn 180 assuming each 'develops' on the AVERAGE development schedule for his iq level. if you assume they each develop on the SAME schedule (i think what sklansky is assuming), of course you take the 180.
Where I disagree is that in my framework the people that you describe as 180-IQ faux-geniuses are simply 150-IQ geniuses who used their ability towards becoming exactly that. It's not that they chose not to become a fully life-developed 180 IQ, but rather that they did not have the ability to become one. Maybe they could've become a fully life-developed 150 IQ. Whereas if you took somebody with a natural IQ of 180 and another with a natural IQ of 150, the former is far more likely to be able to acquire both comprenhensive intelligence and specialized intelligence than the latter. She's also more likely to be able to acquire specialized intelligence in a greater number of fields without sacrificing anything. Thus having specialized intelligence but a low level of comprehensive intelligence, whether you're talking about the LTCM guys or those on the left of the autistic spectrum is indicative of a lower natural level of intelligence, at least compared to those who don't miss anything. Idiot-savants who can perform extremely well at specific tasks provide a valuable piece of evidence for this theory, as long as you accept that nothing about autism increases the brain's innate capacity.

Of course this is a simplification - there is a level of dimensionality to intelligence that I'm ignoring, though insofar as purely intellectual tasks are concerned, I think it is overstated.

The other thing I disagree with is your odd contention that geniuses don't develop as well because they don't see self-fallability, paradoxes, discontinuity, etc. Those things are everywhere in life! Geniuses, if anything, are more likely to think about those things and run into them in their own minds when they are young, as opposed to others who need to be taught the importance of these things. I would argue the exact opposite - the real geniuses, when they underachieve, do because they are able to anticipate failures before they encounter them, making them overly cautious and unlikely to luckbox into prominence. But the real reason why we don't see a lot of successful geniuses is because we're bad at figuring out who's a genius and there are so few of them. Barring severe mental or emotional illnesses and/or extremely bad luck, most geniuses probably tend to attain at least a moderate level of success in whatever they choose to do.

Btw, I think everyone here is way overstating the #'s in regards to IQs - most likely because most IQ tests aren't very good and inflated for most people with any kind of education. Someone with an IQ 5 standard deviations (180) above the norm should be sufficiently rare that it's not even necessarily likely anyone here has ever met or heard of such a person. Even an IQ of 150 should put one at the top few percent among, say, Harvard undergraduates.
Phone Booth is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive