« The Legend Continues | Main | David Sklansky Is A Douchebag, Part 2 »
December 15, 2006
Poker Pundit Talks Trash To Trivia Champ
Could we have a showdown between Ken Jennings and David Sklansky? I hope so, but smart money, knowing Sklansky, is on no.
Earlier today I found this nugget in Google Reader seconds after posting it. All I can say is, wow. Dave makes so many logical errors in his arguments there. The most obvious is the idea that because those two beliefs are illogical (and I'll grant him that they are) anyone with a very strong logical ability could not possibly believe them. That's actually just absurd. If anything people who are smarter have more ability to convince themselves of things they want to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary.
There are actually a number of very well respected scientists who are quite religious. Newton was famous for saying that he spent more time studying the Bible than he did math or physics, and given his time period I would not be surprised if he could have passed David's polygraph. The church was far more fire-and-brimstone then than it is now.
If David had set the wager up better I'd probably take his side. For instance I'd be more than willing to bet that the average atheist would outscore the average non-atheist, and definitely the average person who believed those two things. But to assume that every believer has less logical capacity than him is just plain naïve. It overrates his own logical ability and underrates the power of self-delusion.
I think 2+2 poster HeavilyArmed summed up David's challenge perfectly by saying
It's pure ego with plenty of wiggle room and no point proven, win or lose (or much more likely never undertaken).Ni han sir. Ni han.From David I expect nothing less.
I like Ken's response. After having read a lot of his stuff and seeing his speed in his many Jeopardy appearances, I'd probably take him in a straight IQ test or GRE (verbal included) over Sklansky. I wouldn't put the whole bankroll on it, but I'd put up a chunk. He's obviously a very bright guy and very well-rounded, and David is definitely a one-trick pony.
Posted by themaroon at December 15, 2006 11:43 PM
Comments
Sklansky is offering this bet because he's pretty sure he can score close to perfect. Everything else is just inflammatory BS hoping to trap some very smart religious guy.
Posted by: mjk at December 16, 2006 2:01 AM
I don't know much about Jennings except that he won all those Jeopardies, but I think if they took the whole GRE, verbal included, Jennings would probably be 99%+ to score higher.
BTW, this whole episode is hilarious.
Posted by: Ed Miller at December 16, 2006 10:05 PM
Sklansky mistakes being good at maths for being smart. Read his posts in the forums at 2+2 and it's quickly apparent that he's a whizz at maths and poker, but not so hot at thinking through anything less straightforward.
Posted by: Dr Zen at December 17, 2006 7:57 AM
I think the point Sklansky is making is a bit more subtle than "Christian evangelicals are bad at math." I think the point he really wants to make is that anyone with a reasonable amount of logical ability doesn't truly believe in the resurrection and that belief in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.
The piece he's missing, IMO, is the role that faith plays in evangelical Christianity. It's seemingly impossible to be a rational being and simultaneously subscribe to a belief system that requires the willing suspension of disbelief. However, I think it's silly to think that a wide range of smart individuals can't compartmentalize their thinking in such a way as to allow this seemingly incongruous situation to exist, at least enough to pass a polygraph test.
Posted by: koolmoe at December 17, 2006 3:13 PM
Dr. Zen's point is well taken. Neither the SAT or GRE focus on IQ or cognitive or logical ability. They are primarily tests of specific areas of knowledge and ability. If Sklansky intends to measure IQ or logicial ability, then a more accurate test would be either an actual IQ test or the LSAT, 3/4th's of which measure logicial and cognitive ability.
Posted by: JAMES at December 18, 2006 12:22 AM
Why is deep knowledge of Math being equated to being "smart"?
Certainly a person with well-rounded intellect like Jennings would be considered "smarter" then a Math jock like Sklansky.
Posted by: Drizztdj at December 18, 2006 10:55 AM