LessWrong: video games

The entire article reads like a stealth sneer.

Is it "consistency of results on a single IQ test type"? Not really. Wikipedia says: […]

That's a best-case scenario for tests designed with that criteria as a priority, and the range is still significant.

Is it "consistency of results across different IQ test types"? Not really; that's obviously worse than the above, and many "non-IQ" tests have comparable consistency.

Yea to be fair to IQ tests horoscopes are also really inconsistent.

Is it "practice being mostly irrelevant"? Not really. A few practice runs can often be worth +8 points

Is it "working for an unusually wide range of intelligence"? Not really. IQ tests are notorious for working poorly above ~135

Wow, sounds like IQ tests kinda suck. Maybe we shouldn't place so much importance on them.

and I'd say they only really work well for -20 to +0 relative to the designers, with a somewhat wider range for teams.

My ACT score was in the top 0.1%, but I don't feel particularly proud of that, because it wasn't evaluating any of my actual strengths. I left college after a semester (while that was a failure from the perspective of society, school was holding me back intellectually) but I still took the GRE for...reasons...and got a top 1% score without studying, but that's not something I consider particularly meaningful either. Here's a theory of Alzheimer's I developed - what test score does that correspond to? As for IQ tests, I had a couple proper ones as a kid, and my scores were probably as high as was very meaningful, but probably less impressive than reading Feynman in 3rd grade.

Spoiler tagging this doesn't make it not an irrelevant humblebrag.

It might not be as objective, but people could compete on aesthetics too.

Oh shit, this guy invented art competitions!

When people smarter than the test designers take an IQ test, they often have to guess what the designers were thinking, but with video games, evaluation can be completely objective.

Guessing what a test designer thinks is a cognitive task so surely high G people can do it better. I don't see the problem.

The bandwidth and scope possible with video games is much higher than with IQ tests. You can test people with bigger problems, like remembering the units in Wargame Red Dragon, and multidisciplinary challenges, like optimizing both cost and visuals of fireworks in Kerbal Space Program; そういえば、ゲームのウィキの英語を理解することはまたテストのもう一つの側面でしょう.

Random-ass Japanese for no reason. Weeb detected. Ironic how the non-English sentence muses about testing proficiency in reading English.

I propose that from here on out people will be ranked by a test that involves dad jokes and making spiteful remarks about TESCREAL fandom.

1 comments

The entire article reads like a stealth sneer.
Is it "consistency of results on a single IQ test type"? Not really. Wikipedia says: […]
That's a best-case scenario for tests designed with that criteria as a priority, and the range is still significant.
Is it "consistency of results across different IQ test types"? Not really; that's obviously worse than the above, and many "non-IQ" tests have comparable consistency.
Yea to be fair to IQ tests horoscopes are also really inconsistent.
Is it "practice being mostly irrelevant"? Not really. A few practice runs can often be worth +8 points
Is it "working for an unusually wide range of intelligence"? Not really. IQ tests are notorious for working poorly above ~135
Wow, sounds like IQ tests kinda suck. Maybe we shouldn't place so much importance on them.
and I'd say they only really work well for -20 to +0 relative to the designers, with a somewhat wider range for teams.
My ACT score was in the top 0.1%, but I don't feel particularly proud of that, because it wasn't evaluating any of my actual strengths. I left college after a semester (while that was a failure from the perspective of society, school was holding me back intellectually) but I still took the GRE for...reasons...and got a top 1% score without studying, but that's not something I consider particularly meaningful either. Here's a theory of Alzheimer's I developed - what test score does that correspond to? As for IQ tests, I had a couple proper ones as a kid, and my scores were probably as high as was very meaningful, but probably less impressive than reading Feynman in 3rd grade.
Spoiler tagging this doesn't make it not an irrelevant humblebrag.
It might not be as objective, but people could compete on aesthetics too.
Oh shit, this guy invented art competitions!
When people smarter than the test designers take an IQ test, they often have to guess what the designers were thinking, but with video games, evaluation can be completely objective.
Guessing what a test designer thinks is a cognitive task so surely high G people can do it better. I don't see the problem.
The bandwidth and scope possible with video games is much higher than with IQ tests. You can test people with bigger problems, like remembering the units in Wargame Red Dragon, and multidisciplinary challenges, like optimizing both cost and visuals of fireworks in Kerbal Space Program; そういえば、ゲームのウィキの英語を理解することはまたテストのもう一つの側面でしょう.
Random-ass Japanese for no reason. Weeb detected. Ironic how the non-English sentence muses about testing proficiency in reading English.
I propose that from here on out people will be ranked by a test that involves dad jokes and making spiteful remarks about TESCREAL fandom.