Mod post

[lyndz.livejournal.com]

So I guess having two absentee moderators is pretty much worthless. I'm taking nominations to add another couple to the list. I apologize for all but abandoning LJ.

Comments

[madscience.livejournal.com]

My claims are not that remarkable, and therefore your certainty that I'm lying is not justifiable. At least one person in two hundred is capable of the things I claim. Got that? I consider about one person in two hundred my superior. Because of the steepness of the curve at the high end, three or four people in a thousand are as devastatingly superior to me as I am to someone at the ninety-fifth percentile, and as someone at the ninety-fifth percentile is in turn to someone at the eightieth. So no, I do not believe myself to be an infallible god of the universe. Your hyperbole is uncalled for.

More importantly, the implications of my claims should not require proving that I am telling the truth about myself specifically. All the important implications, including the veracity of my sweeping generalizations, follows from the existence of a class of people who are capable of doing the things I claim to be capable of.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

My claims are not that remarkable, and therefore your certainty that I'm lying is not justifiable.

Whether something is "remarkable" or not is not relevant. All that is relevant is, is there evidence to bolster your claim? Is that evidence contradicted by competing evidence? Without evidence, I have no reason to assume you are telling the truth or are anything more than another Internet Tough Guy.

At least one person in two hundred is capable of the things I claim. Got that?

How did you determine that statistic?
What polling method did you use? What was the pool and the population?
What is your certainty? A 95% +/- 4%?

All the important implications, including the veracity of my sweeping generalizations, follows from the existence of a class of people who are capable of doing the things I claim to be capable of.

A class I have yet to see evidence of, which only exists by your assertion.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

"A class I have yet to see evidence of . . ."

Then you are blind.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm concerned, you and everyone else here is no different than any other person I have encountered in private or public IRL in the course of my IT work. This is unsurprising. It is my experience that all human beings, including myself, are interchangeable and disposable, which is why I currently work towards replacing all non-management/upper-class jobs with robots, automation, and intelligent software. I am VERY happy about the coming elimination of 95%+ menial positions.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

The bottom 80% or so are indeed interchangeable and disposable. If you're one of them, it would explain why you're completely unaware of how the top quintile lives.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

The bottom 80% or so are indeed interchangeable and disposable.

So are the top 20%. Do you know what you and I and the rest of humanity are? We're bio-robots, with inefficient organically grown-over-time programming. In the future, we will be able to correct that.

If you're one of them, it would explain why you're completely unaware of how the top quintile lives.

*shrugs* If it please you to think of me as such. You automatically dismiss those you deem inferior as such anyway, regardless of the actual correctness of your assessment.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Nevermind your outrageous claims of being able to singlehandedly author econometric textbooks or build Obamacare.gov for 50k, lolz at the super genius math!
At the 95th percentile the IQ is ~125. At 99.5th, it is ~139. A difference of ~14 points. At the 99.7th (3/1000), the IQ is ~141 or a difference of 2 points.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

The point scale is not linear, genius. It describes the distribution of performance values, not the relative magnitude of the performance values.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

No shit, Sherlock. Now why don't you go reread what you wrote and figure out why what you said was so devastatingly stupid. A super genius should have no problem with that.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

You should take your own advice.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Lolz super genius keep it up

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Please calculate the slopes of a bell curve and explain how the right tail's slope is decreasing at a rate at all comparable to what you've described, super genius

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Wow. You really don't have the first clue what an IQ score is.

The bell curve is the distribution of scores. The performance level associated with those scores is not a bell curve; it's a power law curve. There's barely any difference in actual knowledge between a score of 70 and a score of 115, but there's a gigantic difference between a scores of 145 and a score of 150.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Prove it.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-debunks-idea-that-human-performance-fits-on-a-bell-curve-2012-5
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/02/19/the-myth-of-the-bell-curve-look-for-the-hyper-performers/

These articles actually misrepresent the implications of the research. The bell curve is real; it just doesn't represent what most people think it does, as you have so amply demonstrated.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

I composited the images from the second article to explain the research better.