The average rationalist IQ is about 122
post by Rockenots (Ekefa) · 2024-12-28T15:42:07.067Z · LW · GW · 11 commentsContents
11 comments
In The Mystery Of Internet Survey IQs, Scott revises his estimate of the average LessWrong IQ from 138 to 128. He doesn’t explicitly explain how he arrived at this number, but it appears to be an average of the demographics norm method (123) and the SAT method (134). However, using the information in his post, the SAT method doesn’t actually yield 134 but rather 123.
Here’s the breakdown: a median SAT score of 1490 (from the LessWrong 2014 survey) corresponds to +2.42 SD, which regresses to +1.93 SD for IQ using an SAT-IQ correlation of +0.80. This equates to an IQ of 129. Subtracting 6 points (since, according to the ClearerThinking test, the IQs of people who took the SAT and remember their score is ~6 points higher than the group average) brings the adjusted IQ estimate to 123.
The ClearerThinking test also provides a way to adjust self-reported IQs. Subtracting 17 points (because people who report having taken an IQ test claim an average score of 131, but their tested average is only 114) gives an adjusted IQ of 121, based on a self-reported average of 138.
Aggregating the data across all LessWrong and SSC surveys[1] with available information, the estimates consistently cluster around 122. While some might think this is too low, it’s worth noting that an IQ of 122 is at the PhD level.
- ^
- 2017 SSC Survey (Link): Estimated IQ Mean = 122
- From Self-Reported IQ: 122 (average reported IQ: 138.5)
- From Self-Reported SAT: 122 (average SAT score: 1471.9, regressed IQ: 128 - 6 = 122)
- 2009 LessWrong Survey (Link [LW · GW]): Estimated IQ Mean = 125
- From Self-Reported IQ: 125 (median reported IQ: 142)
- 2011 LessWrong Survey (Link [LW · GW]): Estimated IQ Mean = 123
- From Self-Reported IQ: 123 (average reported IQ: 140)
- 2012 LessWrong Survey (Link [LW · GW]): Estimated IQ Mean = 122.5
- From Self-Reported IQ: 122 (average reported IQ: 138.7)
- From Self-Reported SAT: 123 (average SAT score: 1485.8, regressed IQ: 129 - 6 = 123)
- 2013 LessWrong Survey (Link [LW · GW]): Estimated IQ Mean = 121.5
- From Self-Reported IQ: 121 (average reported IQ: 138.2)
- From Self-Reported SAT: 122 (average SAT score: 1474, regressed IQ: 128 - 6 = 122)
- 2014 LessWrong Survey (Link [LW · GW]): Estimated IQ Mean = 122
- From Self-Reported IQ: 121 (average reported IQ: 138.25)
- From Self-Reported SAT: 123 (median SAT score: 1490, regressed IQ: 129 - 6 = 123)
- 2023 LessWrong Survey (Link [LW · GW]): Estimated IQ Mean = 121.5
- From Self-Reported IQ: 118 (average reported IQ: 135.4)
- From Self-Reported SAT: 125 (median SAT score: 1520, regressed IQ: 131 - 6 = 125)
- 2017 SSC Survey (Link): Estimated IQ Mean = 122
11 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Unnamed · 2024-12-28T20:07:13.844Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think that the way that Scott estimated IQ from SAT is flawed, in a way that underestimates IQ, for reasons given in comments like this one. This post kept that flaw.
Replies from: thomas-kwa↑ comment by Thomas Kwa (thomas-kwa) · 2024-12-29T05:29:28.629Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I agree. You only multiply the SAT z-score by 0.8 if you're selecting people on high SAT score and estimating the IQ of that subpopulation, making a correction for regressional Goodhart [LW · GW]. Rationalists are more likely selected for high g which causes both SAT and IQ, so the z-score should be around 2.42, which means the estimate should be (100 + 2.42 * 15 - 6) = 130.3. From the link, the exact values should depend on the correlations between g, IQ, and SAT score, but it seems unlikely that the correction factor is as low as 0.8.
comment by Yair Halberstadt (yair-halberstadt) · 2024-12-29T05:20:50.152Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Here’s the breakdown: a median SAT score of 1490 (from the LessWrong 2014 survey) corresponds to +2.42 SD, which regresses to +1.93 SD for IQ using an SAT-IQ correlation of +0.80. This equates to an IQ of 129.
I don't think that works unless Less wrong specifically selects for high SAT score. If it selects for high IQ and the high SAT is as a result of the high IQ then you would have to go the other way and assume an SD of 3.03.
If, as seems more likely, Less wrong correlates with both IQ and SAT score, then the exact number is impossible to calculate, but assuming it correlates with both equally we would estimate IQ at 2.42 SD.
comment by Thac0 · 2024-12-28T21:53:36.160Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I like that new Scott Alexander estimate of 128, 130+ always stroke me as too high, just from knowing a bunch of people irl who range from 85 to 147, and meeting a bunch of rationalists irl. The average rationalist is definitly considerably smarter than those I know who test around 120, but not as bright as the 140+ people.
The odd thing is I have met a few people in the 130ish range who had way higher computing power than normal for their IQ, so I think there probably is something like effective IQ, which is your raw base IQ (or g for that matter), multiplied by how effective your thought doctrines are. Someone with a good grasp on Bayesianism or another very good logic framework can run circles around someone with a 5 points higher IQ and less formal training in thought.
↑ comment by Fer32dwt34r3dfsz (rodeo_flagellum) · 2024-12-29T04:12:48.754Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The second paragraph puts into words something I've noticed but not really mentally formalized before. Some anecdotal evidence from my own life in support of the claims made in this paragraph: I've met individuals whose tested IQ exceeds those of other, lower but not much lower, IQ individuals I know who are more educated / trained in epistemological thinking and tangential disciplines. For none of the individual-pairs I have in mind would I declare that one person "ran circles around" the other, however, the difference (advantage going to the lower but better "trained" IQ individual) in conversational dynamics were notable enough for me to remember well. The catch here is the accuracy of the IQ claims made by some of these individuals, as some did not personally reveal their scores to me.
comment by Gordon Seidoh Worley (gworley) · 2024-12-28T20:40:17.250Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Honestly, this fits my intuition. If I think of all the rationalists I know, they feel like they are on average near 120 IQ, with what feels like a standard distribution around it, though in reality it's probably not quite normal with a longer upper tail than lower tail, i.e. fewer 90s than 150s, etc. Claims that the average is much higher than 120 feel off to me, relative to folks I know and have interacted with in the community (insert joke about how I have "dumb" friends maybe).
comment by Elizabeth (pktechgirl) · 2024-12-28T17:15:58.396Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
are you correcting for the year the test was taken? The SAT grading has shifted dramatically over time.
comment by faul_sname · 2024-12-28T21:38:24.159Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
a median SAT score of 1490 (from the LessWrong 2014 survey) corresponds to +2.42 SD, which regresses to +1.93 SD for IQ using an SAT-IQ correlation of +0.80.
I don't think this is a valid way of doing this, for the same reason it wouldn't be valid to say
a median height of 178 cm (from the LessWrong 2022 survey) corresponds to +1.85 SD, which regresses to +0.37 SD for IQ using a height-IQ correlation of +0.20.
Those are the real numbers with regards to height BTW.
Replies from: UnexpectedValues↑ comment by Eric Neyman (UnexpectedValues) · 2024-12-29T04:54:22.667Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
These both seem valid to me! Now, if you have multiple predictors (like SAT and height), then things get messy because you have to consider their covariance and stuff.
Replies from: faul_sname↑ comment by faul_sname · 2024-12-29T05:32:54.831Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That reasoning as applied to SAT score would only be valid if LW selected its members based on their SAT score, and that reasoning as applied to height would only be valid if LW selected its members based on height (though it looks like both Thomas Kwa [LW(p) · GW(p)] and Yair Halberstadt [LW(p) · GW(p)] have already beaten me to it).