An Important Point I Made In Another Thread

[David Sklansky]

This is my response to Lestat on another thread that I thought was important enough to repeat on its own. It concerns a Baye's Theorem type concept that people often get confused about. In this particular case the original subject was the importance of intelligence. But that is not why I am repeating the post here. Even if you think that the argument doesn't apply to intelligence, it does apply to many other important things. I had been meaning to write about this for a while but hadn't gotten around to it until now.

Lestat:

"Of course the forbes list is going to be above average in intelligence, but I'd be willing to bet there are very few among them who do not have someone who's even SMARTER working for them!"

Me:

Since you seem to want to learn, I will go out of my way to explain something to you. And to avoid your biases I will change intelligence to 100 yard dash speed.

I contend that in almost any sport, given no other information, the person with the higher 100 yard dash speed, will be favored to do better at that sport than the slower guy.

Now you point to baseball and point out that while the average speed of professional baseball players is much faster than average, rarely is the fastest player the best player. And that seems to negate my point. Or at least imply that once you get to a certain speed, anything faster hardly helps. Or that somehow the fastest players are weak at other skills DUE TO THEIR FASTNESS. But NONE of that is true.

The reason that the fastest player is almost never the best player stems from two facts.

1. Speed is only one attribute necessarry to succeed in baseball.

2. Super speedsters are MUCH RARER than merely fast players.

This second point is the key. If somehow there was just as many nine flat hundred men in the US as there were 9.8 hundred men (nothing in between and baseball paid more than any other sport) then almost every team's best player would be a 9.0 guy. Because it would be a rarity to find a 9.8 guy whose other skills were sufficiently better than all the 9.0 competion to turn him into the best overall player on the team. But if there is only one 9.0 guy on each team it is likely that among the other 24 guys on the roster, at least one will be able to overcome his speed disadvantage with other skills.

As I said I hope you see that this reasoning helps show the flaws in other similar arguments.

[Cyrus]

I do not understand something in your post. Your basic premise is this:

[ QUOTE ]
In almost any sport, given no other information, the person with the higher 100 yard dash speed, will be favored to do better at that sport than the slower guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you qualify this for baseball, thusly:

[ QUOTE ]
The reason that the fastest player [in baseball] is almost never the best player stems from two facts.

1. Speed is only one attribute necessarry to succeed in baseball.
2. Super speedsters are MUCH RARER than merely fast players.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the 2nd point is quite valid, the 1st point seems utterly reduntant within the context you are setting out your argument. It equally, if not more, applies to sports such as volley, diving, weight lifting, etc.

[jester710]

While I agree with your premise as stated here, I'm not sure that it stands up when we substitute intelligence back in. I think this is because while there is only one way to measure footspeed, intelligence is too hard to pigeonhole like that. If we were able to agree on an exact definition or indicator of intelligence, then your point would clearly be correct. I think this is basically what Lestat was saying as well.

Although, in rethinking my statement, you may clearly be correct anyway. If your statement is simply that, all other things being equal, the more intelligent person will be more successful, then I suppose it doesn't matter what the definition of intelligence is. Whether it's people skills or math skills or whatever, the "more intelligent" person will be better off simply by being superior in that one category. I think this would be true no matter what the quality in question is (e.g., the better looking one, the one with fresher breath, the better speller, etc.). The slightly superior one has slightly better chances of success. Still, in Lestat's defense, this is purely a theoretical question until we can agree on a definition.

[Lestat]

I really do appreciate your going out of your way to explain this. Exactly how you leap from one subject to a completely different one without ever seeming to violate a previous step in logic is truly impressive (at least to me). If I waited until I understood something that thoroughly I couldn't ever post. But I promise to work on waiting to respond until I can back things up a little better.

So your point does make much more sense now. But I still wonder how to account for differences in aptitude?

I think Andy's example of a piano tuner is a good example. Having above average intelligence or the ability to quickly grasp the techniques of tuning will likely make you no better than average among those tuners with a good ear.

I play poker every day with doctors, lawyers, judges, and other professionals who are clearly above average in intelligence. Yet they make plays that are on par with a blithering idiot. Some of these guys have been playing for years and genuinely care about playing well. Likewise, I'm sure you know players who are below average in math ability who are quite good players. In fact, I believe it was you who once stated that ability in math is only a small part of being a successful poker player. Wait... I think this is explained in the 100 yrd. dash example. I might get it yet. Thank you!

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]

Although, in rethinking my statement, you may clearly be correct anyway. If your statement is simply that, all other things being equal, the more intelligent person will be more successful, then I suppose it doesn't matter what the definition of intelligence is. Whether it's people skills or math skills or whatever, the "more intelligent" person will be better off simply by being superior in that one category. Still, in Lestat's defense, this is purely a theoretical question until we can agree on a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Lestat was claiming that many of the people on the Forbes list have people working under them who are more intelligent. David's point, sort of, is that this doesn't disprove the fact that all else being equal, higher intelligence leads to more wealth.

All it means is that, of the 1200 or whatever amount of people working for each forbes dude, one or more is likely to be smarter just because there are so many.

AND, what is a much better representation of David's point: There are many more very smart people than there are extreme geniuses in the world. Therefore, it is likely that more very smart people will be very wealthy than extreme geniuses (overall.. not proportionally).

P.S. - I am terrible at explaining myself on the internet.

[Lestat]

Man, I'm really outclassed in this forum. Did you guys all take debating and logic classes or something?

Yes, this is what I was trying to point out (that you did better). There are different measurements and/or types of intelligence and not all intelligence fits all aptitudes.

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
No, Lestat was claiming that many of the people on the Forbes list have people working under them who are more intelligent. David's point, sort of, is that this doesn't disprove the fact that all else being equal, higher intelligence leads to more wealth.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not disputing this statement. However, I think you're taking the last post Lestat made on the other thread and trying to say that was his entire point, while I think it was just an illustration, and his true point was revealed in earlier posts. The success of people on the Forbes list is primarily incidental and doesn't prove a point either way.

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> P.S. - I am terrible at explaining myself on the internet. </font>

I think you do a pretty good job. At least you explained my point clearly, except...

<font color="red"> All it means is that, of the 1200 or whatever amount of people working for each forbes dude, one or more is likely to be smarter just because there are so many. </font>

I'm not sure this is what I was getting at. Of course, the low entry workers won't be as intelligent as the "Forbes dude". However, I contend that there will be *many* people on his upper level staff who possess higher intelligence. I'm talking about designers, engineers, marketing execs, legal advisors, etc.

I don't remember the details, but I remember a story I heard where Henry Ford was on trial for something or other. The opposing lawyer tried to embarrass Ford by showing his ignorance on basic subjects. He asked Ford a very simple question which Ford did not know the answer to. When the opposing lawyer asked how Ford could run such a goliath company and not know the answer to something any high school graduate would know, Ford replied: I don't clutter my mind with such things. I can sit at my desk, pick up a phone and within minutes I'll have a team of experts who can answer any question you could possibly give me.

Anyway, I was always kind of impressed with that.

I think you're wrong. First, having the fastest dash time doesn't apply to feilding,hitting,etc.

I think that you're trying to prove a logical point, and your example is flawed.

Shooby.

[jester710]

You're missing his trump card: "all else being equal." He's saying that if you take two players who start out with equal fielding, hitting, catching etc. abilities and talents, but one is faster than the other, then the faster player is more likely to be successful.

Put another way, what he is saying is this: assume you have two people. They are equal in all respects. Now assume one is better than the other in one respect. Which one is more likely to be successful?

Sklansky's style is impetuous, his logic is impregnable, and he's just ferocious. He wants to eat your children.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Put another way, what he is saying is this: assume you have two people. They are equal in all respects. Now assume one is better than the other in one respect. Which one is more likely to be successful?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think he's using 100 dash for athletic ability the same as general intelligence as measured by iq test for intelligence.

[tek]

Many of the people on the Forbes list over the years have proven their intelligence in the choice of parents they were conceived by...

intelligence doesnt neccessarily equal being a successful money-maker.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the people on the Forbes list over the years have proven their intelligence in the choice of parents they were conceived by...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're thinking clearly.

[andyfox]

Believe it or not, I'm trying to learn from you too (all evidence to the contrary).

I believe your basic point here is validated by the fact that most baseball general managers tend to favor signing young position players who have good speed and young pitchers who are fireballers. Their reasoningm conscious or not, is that the great physical ability cannot be taught, whereas if the athlete already has that ability, the other skills of the game can indeed be taught, and a position player with good speed or a pitcher with a good fastball will likely come equipped with other physical skills to allow them to do well at the other things needed to be a good player.

BTW, FWIW, the best player in Major League Baseball has often been the fastest player. Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle (and possibly Jackie Robinson) come to mind, and there would be many more examples (Oscar Charleston and Satchel Paige, among others) had not African-Americans been barred from the game until the late 1940s.

You say this is applicable to "many other important things." I suppose our disagreement is over how many of those things to which it is indeed applicable.

[andyfox]

How about if he changed "fastest dash time" to "best hand-eye coordination"? Would you agree with this?:

I contend that in almost any sport, given no other information, the person with the best hand-eye coordination will be favored to do better at that sport than a person with slower hand-eye coordination.

Now you point to baseball and point out that while the average hand-eye coordination of professional baseball players is much greater than average, rarely is the player with the best hand-eye coordination the best player. And that seems to negate my point. Or at least imply that once you get to a certain speed of hand-eye coordination, anything faster hardly helps. Or that somehow the players with the best hand-eye coordination are weak at other skills DUE TO THEIR HAND-EYE COORDINATION. But NONE of that is true.

The reason that the player with the best hand-eye coordination is almost never the best player stems from two facts.

1. Hand-eye coordination is only one attribute necessary to succeed in baseball.

2. People with Super hand-eye coordination are MUCH RARER than players with merely excellent hand-eye coordination.

This second point is the key. If somehow there were just as many Super hand–eye coordination guys as there were men with merely excellent hand-eye coordination (nothing in between and baseball paid more than any other sport) then almost every team's best player would be a guy with super hand-eye coordination. Because it would be a rarity to find a guy with merely excellent hand-eye coordination whose other skills were sufficiently better than all the super guys to turn him into the best overall player on the team. But if there is only one guy with super hand-eye coordination on each team it is likely that among the other 24 guys on the roster, at least one will be able to overcome his hand-eye speed disadvantage with other skills.

[Georgia Avenue]

I'm not sure this is the same since hand-eye-coodn isn’t a quantifiable measurement. Or is it? If there is a standard test for measuring h-e-c which is commonly sited by scientist/sports statisticians, then I stand corrected--it’s a perfect example. Barring that, the reason your re-phrasing sounds more convincing is that it is a fundamental *trait* of sports rather than a single quantifiable component, LIKE THE IQ TEST. The David’s contention was (pardon the ratios):

40 yrd.dash:Baseball::IQ TEST:Intellectual Activities
So you CAN be a good baseball player if you are a fat slob (low 40y.d.), it’s just not very likely.
Therefore: You CAN be a good XXXX* if you don’t have a high IQ, it’s just not very likely.
Also: IF you have a VERY high 40, THEN you COULD be a good baseball player.
THEREFORE: IF you have a VERY high IQ, THEN you COULD be a good XXXX.

However I don’t think this analogy expresses the truth of the David’s position. In most of his posts and writing it sounds to me more like he thinks that logic-based reasoning as tested by the IQ test is fundamental to all rational thought, and hence to all activity that employs the mind, including writing jokes! Take some dumb pizza delivery boy from Baltimore and Bill Gates (or whoever) and give them 3 years to write a sitcom pilot. HIIQ would at least be able to logically figure out the rules and tropes of comedy and come up with some passable jokes, while (MOST LIKELY) the pizzaboy wouldn’t, and his sitcom would just be a collection of fart noises.

I think the real If/Then statements look like this:

To be a good XXXX, you MOSTLY MUST have a high IQ.
IF you have a VERY HIGH IQ, you WILL be a good XXXX.

I think you can see that this wouldn’t fit the analogy:

To be a good baseball player, you MOSTLY MUST have a high 40.
IF you have a VERY HIGH 40, you WILL be a good baseball player.

Frankly, I think it is the foundation of the analogy that is incorrect, not the analogy itself. IQ is in fact like a 40yrd dash stat. But figuring stuff out like: “Why am I here? What should I do right now? What is thinking or being or time or whatnot? Is there a God? If there is a god…what is he like?” is not like baseball. When it comes to philosophical reasoning, we’re all idiots.

(Full disclosure:
My IQ is pretty low, so I MOST LIKELY am SCREWED UP somewhere in this post.
My verbal GRE score was 500 points higher than my verbal score. Beat that variance!)


*XXXX=mental activity including but not limited to answering and asking philosophical questions.

[jester710]

I don't know that I would agree that the IQ test is a valid measure of "absolute" intelligence (meaning, I'm not willing to concede that the 125 person is definitely more intelligent, whatever that means, than the 124). My point is that, until we agree on a definition of intelligence or a way to measure it, there will be disagreement over Sklansky's point. I don't know if he meant to or not, but he seems to imply that intelligence is closely related to ability in math or science; would you agree that a person who is more gifted in math and science will be more likely to be successful in ANY endeavor than a person less gifted in those fields?

Sklansky seems to say yes, all other things being equal. I think that if you make all other things equal, then the person with more ability in science and math (Person A) is such an obvious choice that it's not worth talking about. Person A has the same abilities in all other fields as Person B, but excels in one. By virtue of that alone, he would be more likely to succeed.

But if Sklansky truly believes (and I don't know that he does) that science and math skills are closely correlated to intelligence, then you have more of a gray area. For example, Person A is very gifted in science and math. Person B is equally gifted in areas like art and literature. They are equally superior to the other in those fields (meaning A is twice as good at math and B is twice as good at creative writing or whatever). Would anyone say that, given a random endeavor, Person A is more likely to be successful?

[David Sklansky]

"Sklansky's style is impetuous, his logic is impregnable, and he's just ferocious. He wants to eat your children."

Do I have permission to put that quote on the cover of all new editions of my books?