Comments by "Mikko Rantalainen" (@MikkoRantalainen) on "Chris Williamson" channel.

  1. Interesting discussion! Thanks for sharing this.
    1
  2. 10:45 I think a better question would be "imagine player A with 1000 hours of chess experience with IQ 140, and player B with 10000 hours of chess experience with IQ 100, which one would win?" I would guess that in most cases higher IQ means faster learning ability.
    1
  3. "Equal opportunity" is such an interesting propostion because different people interpret it differently. I definitely think it as meritocracy: it doesn't matter how you acquired your current skills, the current excellence gets you benefits. And it makes sense to give some minimum amount of support for all people to avoid missing people with lots of potential but coming from poor families. However, once you're maybe 16 years old, if you don't have the skills, you shouldn't have shortcuts even if your family is very rich. I'm totally okay with rich family paying for extra private education to improve changes of their kids but I definitely wouldn't accept "pay tuition fee to get a university slot even if you're missing the minimum skills required officially".
    1
  4. 1:00:00 I think it's important to know what the actual question was. There's a huge difference between asking "How attractive you think you are on scale 1-10?" vs "How attractive you think you are on scale 1-10 if estimated by the potential sexual partners in your country?". First one requires you to basically declare how attractive you would be to yourself , another is about estimating the evaluation done by other people.
    1
  5. 22:30 I think this was the most important part of the discussion: as technology and education has advanced, men have lost their advantage in most jobs. I think many of the other things are corollary of this.
    1
  6. TL;DR: game theory is happening everywhere!
    1