Related questions
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Manifold. The strategies are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of market dynamics most of the trades will go over a typical user's head. There's also the site's rationalistic outlook, which is deftly woven into its characterisation- the philosophies often expressed draw heavily from futurist and EA writers and the LessWrong sphere, for instance. The power users understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these discussions, to realise that they're not just random interactions in the comments section- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Manifold truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Buttocks Cocktoasten's existential catchphrase "rationalussy," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Marcus Abramovitch's genius trading unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Manifold tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
The average IQ of a university graduate is 110-115.
@GabeGarboden That’s what it’s trending towards anyway and thus what the market ought to settle to (and also the cheapest share price)
@MichaelWheatley alas people are irrational and so bringing the market to the correct price provides too low/negative returns for several years
Don't be fooled guys: Manifolders listen to smart people, and frequently copy their language and concepts. But like stochastic parrots, merely echoing thoughts and memorizing standard techniques for common situations doesn't make them truly intelligent.
They are outcompeted by GPT-4 in reading comprehension, and it is well-known that GPT-4 is not AGI. So, the average Manifolder must not be generally intelligent.
Put them in front of a novel problem requiring original insights, where they need to observe relevant evidence over a period of months, where they need the attention/memory to compress it into a model that makes forward prediction, where they don't have somebody spoonfeeding them already-known thought patterns, and their true lack of fluid intelligence will be revealed.
They are biological machines that happen to have a large database of cached word associations. Often it cannot even be introspected. Would a large Markov chain or table of responses be intelligent just because it has a smart-sounding response memorized? Obviously not.
Don't mistake the illusion of intelligence for intelligence.
@Mira Where is the evidence that GPT4 outperforms average manifolds reader? Where someone’s bot profiting or something?
@a WvM probably? more mana available to users that didn't get it due to being better forecasters, so lots of markets have spikes from some of those users making mistakes
@Mira Yeah but you still have to resolve the Sudoku market, so as long as I cash out before then I'm safe.
You guys can take this army test if you want: ( AGCT (agctest.com) )
The Army General Classification Test (AGCT) is the predecessor to the AFQT, boasting an estimated g-loading of ~0.91. This 40 minute comprehensive test evaluates verbal, quantitative, and spatial abilities and is accepted by Mensa, Intertel and other High IQ societies.
It's possible that you guys really do have 125IQ, and that the 95th percentile of this pathetic species is just still really stupid, moreso than I was expecting.
@levifinkelstein points out that (paraphrasing) since Manifolders are some of the dumbest people I interact with on a regular basis, I may not have visibility into the lower end of the distribution, which may make relative percentile comparisons harder for me, and thus my LOWER bets are inaccurate...
I can scarcely imagine a conscious sentient being that can read, write, and do arithmetic, while being dumber than the average Manifolder. But if these statistics are true... perhaps that is merely a failure of my own imagination, a reflection of my inability to see the fine distinctions in intelligence between the squirrels, ants, and human beings that inhabit our beautiful planet.
And as nice as it feels to bet your guys' IQs down using the very money I took from you in the betting markets, I must recant if sufficient statistical evidence proves my bets an underestimate.
dont misunderestimate us
I think the average IQ here is likely somewhere between 115 and 125. There's a lot of room between 100 and 141.
@Mira I tested at 138 when I was 5 and according to SAT and GRE scores it’s around 150. I took those long enough that they were pretty good proxies for IQ. ASVAB has me in the 99th percentile. My math is rusty.
@jeremiahsamroo you guys should put together a sample or something. otherwise only the people that get big scores are going to post in the comments, and people will say the average is 138 even though if you make an actual Manifold market you will get actual dumbasses in your comments as a matter of empirical fact:
If you guys are going to present statistics, they must include a believable number of dumbasses that explains my many observations of illiteracy and innumeracy.
@Mira You just surround yourself with geniuses in real life and don’t have chance to interact with 100-115 IQ people. The average college grad has a 115 IQ and only 1/3 of the population has a college degree. The average IQ of a high school grad is 105. When is the last time you had a conversation with a high school grad?
I know we are not providing any real evidence here, I am just amusing myself. Can I get a list of manifold users and perhaps try to do some sampling? That might be fun.
@Mira Someone could do a bounty market to get people to share their scores. Or you could specifically target some of these supposed dumbasses and convince them to take the test.
@Mira There is no way to get a sample because people with the average or below would refuse to participate.
@jeremiahsamroo Even if you provide incentives, people with different IQ levels will not respond equally to the incentives, making the resulting average still too high.
@jeremiahsamroo Mana of course! It’s hard to imagine that people will take that test though, so we will probably have to go with self-reported IQ, which is probably something that most people don’t have.
@JimAusman But how are you going to engineer the incentives to be sufficiently discriminative. If you offer mana for lower scores, how will you prevent incentivizing people to alter their scores to be lower? How will you ensure a truly representative sample?
@jeremiahsamroo Why would I pay more for lower scores? I would have them report the scores to me directly, promise to not share them and then analyze the data and report on it. Do you have a better study design?
@JimAusman Admitting to anyone, even in private or as an anonymous submission, that you have a low score, means admitting it to yourself. So your method will not get equal submissions from equal proportions of low and high scoring people, but the high scoring will be better represented.
