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.