I don’t because it leads to nonsense signals from the worst sort. Truth is that

I don’t because it leads to nonsense signals from the worst sort. Truth is that as you approach 140s you’re facile enough to accomplish anything with consistent effort over long periods of time. And as we approach 160 we are not sure what we are testing that’s meaningful in outcomes. There are plenty of 170s who are unstable and work as cashiers at seven eleven so to speak. Or like the recent millenniums prize winner who are recluses and otherwise invisible. These are, at some point, statistically interesting in comparing outliers’ differences in performance in time, and less about what they accomplish with it. Whereas under 140 there appear to be limits to what people accomplish in every standard deviation – though it varies quite a bit by personality within each standard deviation between people.

Conversely, it absolutely astonishes and horrifies me how non linearly logical ability crashes below the mid 90s. Meaning Democratic government with open unregulated participation without demonstrated real world achievement in middle class responsibilities is never going to accomplish anything but burning accumulated social, economic and political capital.

As anyone who studies my work will eventually discover, I have more than enough to accomplish very difficult ambitions over time. But I also know it’s not enough to compete with the minds I mentioned in the previous post within time. And because of personality traits, I lack the desire or need for approval sufficient to submit to relative economic poverty, management of my learning by others, and academic politics, so I work best independently as I wish to and usually in competition with my business interests, despite that I build companies as social science experiments.

My particular talent is a very subtle autistic pattern recognition across a very lucky long term memory. But unlike the outlier mathematicians I’ve mentioned, my attention regulation and resulting working memory differences, as well as unwillingness to work endlessly with puzzles (math etc) dependent on extraordinary working memory, instead of real world problems that are dependent upon extraordinary associative memory rather than working memory, led me to my work within my limits, which like my memory led to a very broad achievement in epistemology, logics, and behavioral science instead of a narrow technical innovation in the more challenging subject of math.

I hope this helps. I find this explanation is most useful for others.

Reply addressees: @ezra_tezra @KirkegaardEmil