This post was rejected for the following reason(s):
This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work. An LLM-detection service flagged your post as >50% likely to be written by an LLM. We've been having a wave of LLM written or co-written work that doesn't meet our quality standards. LessWrong has fairly specific standards, and your first LessWrong post is sort of like the application to a college. It should be optimized for demonstrating that you can think clearly without AI assistance.
So, we reject all LLM generated posts from new users. We also reject work that falls into some categories that are difficult to evaluate that typically turn out to not make much sense, which LLMs frequently steer people toward.*
"English is my second language, I'm using this to translate"
If English is your second language and you were using LLMs to help you translate, try writing the post yourself in your native language and using a different (preferably non-LLM) translation software to translate it directly.
"What if I think this was a mistake?"
For users who get flagged as potentially LLM but think it was a mistake, if all 3 of the following criteria are true, you can message us on Intercom or at team@lesswrong.com and ask for reconsideration.
you wrote this yourself (not using LLMs to help you write it)
you did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas. (using it briefly the way you'd use a search engine is fine. But, if you're treating it more like a coauthor or test subject, we will not reconsider your post)
your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics.
If any of those are false, sorry, we will not accept your post.
* (examples of work we don't evaluate because it's too time costly: case studies of LLM sentience, emergence, recursion, novel physics interpretations, or AI alignment strategies that you developed in tandem with an AI coauthor – AIs may seem quite smart but they aren't actually a good judge of the quality of novel ideas.)
Five years ago, I raised my IQ test score by 50-70 points with effort. I became arrogant and prideful; I would tell people that they’re illogical or factually incorrect.
If I was so smart, why was I not top in class? neat? organised? friendly? or focused?
After all, “the only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life.” - Naval.
This quote is only a useful heuristic, and I enjoy quoting it because it’s pragmatic.
But you cannot infer the definition of intelligence as the ability to get what you want out of life.
Intelligence is NOT objective
Intelligence is not a scalar quantity; it is a high-dimensional cluster of many skills. Its relevance depends on the problem domain and the feedback loops available.
It is flawed to think that you are smarter than guys that dance on tiktok because you read essays like these. or to have titles like “most gifted children in the world”. Have you met all the children? Or do you have a criterion that can reach those you don’t meet?
If I’m quick at making funny jokes, and you are quick at math, neither of us is “smarter”.
Schools, governments, and media would insist some kids are “gifted” and others are not.
This essay is a historical autopsy of that story. I will show you that the sharp divide between “smart” and “dumb” is barely two centuries old, that it emerged for boring institutional reasons rather than deep truths about human potential and that most barriers we treat as “not smart enough” are products of 19th-century mass schooling and a handful of poor proxies.
Except for the obvious exceptions: people with neurological disabilities, a handful of James Sidis-level outliers, and so on. But they are dwarfed by the number of people who were never given the environment, incentives or time to develop the skills that mattered for what they really want.
Who was smart and who was dumb 500 years ago?
Some might think that the scribes, physicians, and philosophers were smart and the carpenters, bakers, and blacksmiths were less smart. But that is false.
Why have we built AI models that can do writing and library organising before AI blacksmiths and carpenters?
A blacksmith must understand metallurgy, heat tolerance, geometry, muscle memory, and so on.
One’s job does not make them mentally superior to another.
If you wanted to learn to make fire, then you would watch someone making fire and you would follow their guidance. If you wanted to learn to hunt, you would go hunting with your tribe.
If you wanted to learn blacksmithing, you apprenticed to a blacksmith.
If you wanted medicine, you followed a physician or midwife.
There was no entrance examination or report card. You were judged only on whether you could eventually produce work that didn’t break, kill the patient, or burn the house down. Feedback was swift, concrete, and often expensive.
The Origin of Mass Schooling
Status barriers came from our status games. Some jobs were set apart for a particular guild, caste or gender.
Even then, learning still happened through imitation and long apprenticeships. A rich boy who couldn’t visit the blacksmith’s shop and a poor girl who couldn’t attend the university were both excluded by politics, not by any theory that their brains were unsuited for the craft.
The Spartans, the Aztec telpochcalli, Jesuit colleges and the Prussian Volksschule systems were the roots of our modern school system.
Their explicit purpose was to produce obedient soldiers and civil servants who would follow orders without question.
Prussia had a remarkable military victory over France in 1870, leading many nations to believe its educational design was key to national power.
So, they copied them. They copied their bells, uniforms, rigid schedules, age cohorts, and centralised curriculum. Britain, France and the United States were the first nations to adopt the educational system.
“The state must take over the education of youth entirely… so that children do not learn what their parents want, but what the state deems useful.” ~ from Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s addresses to Germany
“We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science… We shall fortunately not need to provide craftsmen or entrepreneurs with more than a smattering of knowledge.” ~ Occasional Letter Number One, Rockefeller=funded General Education Board, 1906
Mass schooling was about producing a predictable distribution of human raw material for factories and bureaucracies.
The “DUMB” equation
“From my great-grandfather, not to have frequented public schools, and to have had good teachers at home, and to know that on such things a man should spend liberally.” ~ Marcus Aurelius
“It is foolish to answer a question that you do not understand. It is sad to work for an end that you do not desire. Such foolish and sad things often happen, in and out of school, but the teacher should try to prevent them from happening in his class.” ~ G. Polya
School is an attempt to make education “scalable” and affordable. Thirty children are to be taught one curriculum at once, in age groups and uniforms, while the teacher has to rush through the subject before the bell rings.
Within this system, it is unlikely that every student will understand and/or have interest in the problems written on the blackboard. This makes them feel foolish and sad.
Anybody that couldn’t catch up to the average speed of the class (which depends on the teacher’s skill and class size) wouldn’t pass and would be labelled “dumb”.
Students and teachers optimise for what would be written on their piece of paper, and they take shortcuts.
The modern concept of fixed, general intelligence is an artefact of industrial sorting technology.
IQ Tests.
IQ tests were not made to measure deep, immutable “brain power”. The first version was built by Alfred Binet in 1905 for one specific purpose: to spot Parisian schoolchildren who would struggle with the standard curriculum so they could get extra help.
The test had been hijacked by armies and schools within 20 years.
Stanford-Binet, WAIS, Raven’s matrices, etc. that are present today measure the same four things: vocabulary, arithmetic, block design, and matrix reasoning. These are the fundamental skills required for 19th-century schooling and bureaucratic work. IQ tests won’t help you measure anything else.
Plus, like other skills, they are trainable.
My own score on common online Raven’s-style tests jumped 50-70 points in about four months of practice in 2020-2021.
Dual n-back training studies show 10-20 point gains on matrix tests that last for months.
Norway military data shows IQ rising roughly 3 points per decade.
IQ tests have statistical malpractice rooted in them. The kind of techniques you can find in Darrel Huff’s book on How to lie with statistics:
The sample is biased: Questions are chosen because they correlate with school grades in 1920s America or Britain. If you didn’t grow up in that cultural context, you lose points.
The “average” is forced to 100 every generation by renorming.
Ceiling and floor effects hide variance at the tails.
Reproducibility of the exact test results in a short time is high; reproducibility across different tests or after years away is mediocre. The skill decays when you stop drilling it. I retook some online tests while writing this section and scored 138 and 163.
Even if you designed some stable and well-measured IQ tests (There are some impressive ones written by folks with 190+ sd15 IQ), it would still be a terrible metric compared to what actually matters.
They can predict who will do well in mass schooling (that’s what they were made for) but can’t predict who will build a great company, raise happy children, compose music, and solve the world’s most important problems.
Teach Yourself
We no longer have the excuses that justified mass schooling and IQ sorting in 1900.
Khan Academy, YouTube, AI tutors, open-source codebases, and real-time feedback from global markets mean anyone with an internet connection can now access the world’s best teachers in any subject.
The old constraints are gone. The old labels are still here because they are comfortable status markers, not because they are true.
Pick something you actually want.
Find the ten people alive who are best at it.
Copy what they do; learning will be so interesting that you may forget to eat or sleep.
Measure your output.
Iterate ruthlessly.
That loop beats any score or childhood label.
I did it with writing, programming, science, and a few other things after I stopped caring about matrix puzzles. My life got dramatically better.
