5 ms·

One of the photo shows his highly concentration. I have a hypothesis that many world class masters have talent to get into "Flow State". Juggling is one of the

by jjcc 2y ago

One of the photo shows his highly concentration. I have a hypothesis that many world class masters have talent to get into "Flow State". Juggling is one of the activity that associate with the state. Another example is DHH who created RoR eventually became professional sport car racer. It's well know that in sports area, many top players have the talent. My guess is it's also applicable on "mind sports".

machiaweliczny 2y ago
I’ve watched vide with guy that supposedly has 200IQ and in his view IQ is ability to focus on small on small set of things but many high IQ ppl can’t „refocus” it easily and aren’t doing well in life.
- FredPret 2y ago
  A 200 IQ is not possible at current population levels. It’s a statistical measure comparing the test taker against the average, much like percentiles. At a certain IQ score, somewhere in the 170’s I think, the expected number of individuals with that IQ is about 1. If we had absolute measures of intelligence (that would be a breakthrough for the ages), then we could say “A is twice as smart as B” and award A twice the points of B. In such a system, the sky is the limit for the number of points. EDIT: If/when we build a human-level AI, perhaps we could use the number of transistors / artificial neurons involved as a proxy for an absolute measure of how difficult it is to answer some problems. This would be imperfect but better than nothing.
  - naveen99 2y ago
    It’s close though. Iq sd is 15. 200 is about 6.7 sd above mean. Odds of being 6.5 standard deviations away is 1 in 12 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rul...
    - FredPret 2y ago
      Sure, but we can’t say someone has a 1-in-12B intelligence when we only have 8B (or whatever) people. We can only go as high as 1-in-<current_pop>
      - willvarfar 2y ago
        we can compare their intelligence to those who have previously lived? A quick googling gives estimates of ~117B humans have ever been born. So if you were the cleverest person on the planet, ever, you'd have 1-in-117B intelligence?
        jll29 2y ago
        I was thinking along similar lines, bit it becomes a theoretical question when you cannot test/evaluate/interact with subjects anymore. Also, I'm wondering whether a difference of 1 IQ point is even noticeable, and if not, what's the smallest noticeable increment or faction of a unit.
        FredPret 2y ago
        A difference in 1 IQ point in the 100-101 range might be a difference in absolute problem-solving ability of x units, while than the difference between 170-171 is y units.
      - dleeftink 2y ago
        Matter of perspective; one in the 100~150 billion sapiens (or more) that have gone before and the rates go up. It's also possible rates are underestimated, as we have only tested a relatively small sample compared to N=all
        FredPret 2y ago
        If we test every living human, we can figure out who is the very smartest one. That person has a 1-in-<current_pop> intelligence, from which we can calculate their IQ. That IQ is nowhere near 200. It would be handy to have standardized test answers from every human ever, but sadly most are dead as you point out.
  - entropicdrifter 2y ago
    >EDIT: If/when we build a human-level AI, perhaps we could use the number of transistors / artificial neurons involved as a proxy for an absolute measure of how difficult it is to answer some problems. This would be imperfect but better than nothing. Wouldn't that be roughly equivalent to equating brain size/volume to intelligence? I know there's a decent correlation between intelligence and head-size, but it's not that consistent. Some brains just work better for their size.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      That’s why it’ll be a proxy that will get better over time as AI architectures converge towards optimality.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  Intelligence is such a multi-faceted thing that is seems ridiculous to try to reduce it to a single measure and I am highly suspicious of any that tries to do so.

by jjcc 2y ago

machiaweliczny 2y ago

I’ve watched vide with guy that supposedly has 200IQ and in his view IQ is ability to focus on small on small set of things but many high IQ ppl can’t „refocus” it easily and aren’t doing well in life.

FredPret 2y ago
A 200 IQ is not possible at current population levels. It’s a statistical measure comparing the test taker against the average, much like percentiles. At a certain IQ score, somewhere in the 170’s I think, the expected number of individuals with that IQ is about 1. If we had absolute measures of intelligence (that would be a breakthrough for the ages), then we could say “A is twice as smart as B” and award A twice the points of B. In such a system, the sky is the limit for the number of points. EDIT: If/when we build a human-level AI, perhaps we could use the number of transistors / artificial neurons involved as a proxy for an absolute measure of how difficult it is to answer some problems. This would be imperfect but better than nothing.
- naveen99 2y ago
  It’s close though. Iq sd is 15. 200 is about 6.7 sd above mean. Odds of being 6.5 standard deviations away is 1 in 12 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rul...
  - FredPret 2y ago
    Sure, but we can’t say someone has a 1-in-12B intelligence when we only have 8B (or whatever) people. We can only go as high as 1-in-<current_pop>
    - willvarfar 2y ago
      we can compare their intelligence to those who have previously lived? A quick googling gives estimates of ~117B humans have ever been born. So if you were the cleverest person on the planet, ever, you'd have 1-in-117B intelligence?
      - jll29 2y ago
        I was thinking along similar lines, bit it becomes a theoretical question when you cannot test/evaluate/interact with subjects anymore. Also, I'm wondering whether a difference of 1 IQ point is even noticeable, and if not, what's the smallest noticeable increment or faction of a unit.
        FredPret 2y ago
        A difference in 1 IQ point in the 100-101 range might be a difference in absolute problem-solving ability of x units, while than the difference between 170-171 is y units.
    - dleeftink 2y ago
      Matter of perspective; one in the 100~150 billion sapiens (or more) that have gone before and the rates go up. It's also possible rates are underestimated, as we have only tested a relatively small sample compared to N=all
      - FredPret 2y ago
        If we test every living human, we can figure out who is the very smartest one. That person has a 1-in-<current_pop> intelligence, from which we can calculate their IQ. That IQ is nowhere near 200. It would be handy to have standardized test answers from every human ever, but sadly most are dead as you point out.
- entropicdrifter 2y ago
  >EDIT: If/when we build a human-level AI, perhaps we could use the number of transistors / artificial neurons involved as a proxy for an absolute measure of how difficult it is to answer some problems. This would be imperfect but better than nothing. Wouldn't that be roughly equivalent to equating brain size/volume to intelligence? I know there's a decent correlation between intelligence and head-size, but it's not that consistent. Some brains just work better for their size.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    That’s why it’ll be a proxy that will get better over time as AI architectures converge towards optimality.
hermitcrab 2y ago
Intelligence is such a multi-faceted thing that is seems ridiculous to try to reduce it to a single measure and I am highly suspicious of any that tries to do so.