Modern economies require both employers and employees.
It's a bit of the Cypres experiment from "brave new world" where a society was constructed of only "alpha" class individuals who ultimately degrated into fighting because of their unwillingness to engage in menial tasks.
Japanese culture, especially, strongly contributes to "groupthink" in a way that makes it actually quite a bit harder than it does as an American, to consider something like starting a business.
While I may run several businesses myself, I'm not quite sure I can bring myself to such a pinnacle of arrogance to suggest that any employee who is found wanting work is inherently himself to blame, since I recognize that it is absurd for a post-industrial society to consist of a majority of business owners with little to no labor pool.
So, tell me, was it ignorance of post-industrial macroeconomics or sheer arrogance that prompted this post?:-)
This is a totally irrational argment and it is the essence of our failing health care, financial, education, transportation, etc.
The thought that someone, somewhere, must pony up obscene amounts of money to give you the illusion of safety (sometimes accompanied by an extraordinarily trivial increase in security).
But don't you dare raise my taxes.....
The very concept of freedom entails risk. The concept of "totally safe" is antithesis to the concept of "totally free".
The phrase "if it just saves only one life, it is worth any cost" is a gross straw man lacking both depth and nuance. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
Sure, any one of "the projects" might qualify, most of those are 20+ story high-rise buildings.
But again, planting it in the middle of other development is totally and completely off topic for what the OP said.
He was talking about long-term, macro population planning. If all 3 million people in a city lived in a series of 1000 high rise buildings, the surrounding land would be very cheap indeed. We're talking about theoretical models and macro scale functions not the stupid short-term micro scale that you're talking about.
I'm starting to find it ironic that you're calling others "moron".
We're talking representative and variable controlled models here, not some sort of urban chic property development movement. You've clearly never been a scientist or had to study a cause-effect relationship in a variable controlled way, beceause you're obviously not capable (or willing) to understand how that might work.:-)
Keep in mind, even if you want to focus on this example, the burj dubai is built on a large complex. The ability to stick 700 residents in the tower (rather than disbursing them around the complex) makes it more plausible to use the land for other things and/or more residents, at a comparable price to what it would be if those 700 tower residents simply weren't present.
This is a primarily muslim country. At this exact moment in history, I don't know of an organized terrorist group that would be both capable and interested in knocking it over.
Given a constant population, say 1000 people, if 900 live in a highrise, that leaves the other 100 to share the entirety of the land (minus the 1% taken by the building), increasing supply and/or decreasing demand.
If those 1000 people were to vie for the land, each expecting their own plot, the land price would be substantially higher due to a constrained supply, causing a spike in demand and consequently a higher price.
It's basic Econ 101.
Now, if you mean "when xxx city built a fancy highrise, the places around it got mor expensive", that has absolutely nothing to do with the highrise, but instead is more reflecting the effect of "urban redevelopment" which may or may not involve highrise apartments, but definitely does not COME from high-rises.
I've run about 700:1 ratio before. Of course, we were 2400 staff and 4 techs. It wasn't too bad because first thing in the morning, one of the techs would make sure we always had 3-5 good running PCs in spare for each type of image in the building and we solved a lot of problems with "swap the machine". A tech could create 5 images in less than 20 minutes of real "desk time" using my network deployment setup.
When an organization staffs that way, nobody gets to bitch when the answer to most problems is "re-image" because we found out that doing more detailed troubleshooting for anyone under Director level, or one of the few critical technology people simply put us too far in the hole time-wise to get anything else done. It's faster to tell them to copy their data to the network, then go down and make sure they did it right and swap the machine. They can copy the data back after we set up their email. Max time on a support call that way was ~15 minutes and solved ANY problem.
We actually managed to move an entire building of people from one place to the other in our spare time at that position as well as deploying wireless and doing about a dozen other things. It wasn't a sweatshop - it was actually one of the nicer places to work I've been to.
We were running a wide variety of apps, which we solved by having 3 standard images that provided a substantial coverage of everything. Once the image was built, there was never any reason to install "apps" because they were on the image. There were two or three that weren't included that had strict controls on who could use them, but they were 1-2 minutes to install.
if you can standardize the hardware and application images, this 680:1 isn't insane at all.
Did you ever steal a pack of bubblegum from the store when you were 12? Cos surveys say that almost 50% of society has engaged in some petty theft in the past.
Normally, background checks and job applications only go back 5-7 years for misdemeanors (which most crimes are). This is for a reason, not just because we're all lazy fuckers who don't want to shuffle paper.
Raping and murdering is entirely different. But way to take the outlier and try to use it as anecdote. I'm sure Glen Beck would be proud.:-)
Honestly, every single person I know (including the totally honest, mature, trustworthy ones) did something REALLY stupid when they were aged 15-20. When the guy is 45 and a father of 3 and has been running a business for 10 years and some old indiscression from when he was 15 happens to suddenly feature prominently on every major search engine, do you think this is warranted? What makes him different than every other 15 year old who did something equally (or more) stupid 30 years ago?
Your attitude is "well, fuck em if they get caught".
That's basically what it comes down to, then. "Don't get caught".
I think this sort of thing will really come to a head in the next 30 or 40 years, when people who are respected elders, in their 40s and 50s... say, politicians, business people, etc, suddenly find every choice they made at the age of 17 being splashed in the media.
I don't know if there is a good solution for it. If, in a perfect surveillance society, one were to dig enough, EVERY single person would have some serious negative crap on there. Whether it was "used to steal neighbors panties from the clothes line" or "drove a car at 14" or "had a beer at 19" or "stole a pack of bubble gum at 11" or whatever.
And... your focus on criminal records on a job application is pretty weak too, since by most state law, you're NOT ALLOWED to ask about crimes older than 5-7 years unless they are felonies. The whole CONCEPT of common law that we use is based on the ability for one to build trust based on "expiration" of information. i would note that any standard police records check only goes back 7 years, including FBI checks... except for serious crimes.
However, with the advent of commercial data mining, that's no longer the case, since a data mining operation is going to keep and willingly release that data forever, provided the requester provides the requisite funds.
Personally, I find that a HUGE social problem that should be remedied.
There is an airline in Australia that no longer allows men to sit next to unaccompanied minors. Females or empty seats is the only permissible arrangement.
Adults interacting with children on the street was a commonplace occurrence throughout history until the last 30 years or so. There is nothing about the Internet that makes it special, except that it RESISTED this corrosive social trend for this long.
Whether or not IQ measures "intelligence", there is no answer and you can feel free to argue strenuously that it does not.
Whether it coRRelates with proper spelling, as well, I have no idea.
However, in dozens of studies, the IQ score on any of the 4 accepted IQ scoring metrics ALL correlate with a variety of positive future outcomes, including financial, social and even physical.
I'm feeling lazy so I'll just toss some Wikipedia at you.
The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns[9] states that IQ scores account for about one-fourth of the social status variance...
According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."
Other studies show that ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance.[76] Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background.
Physical People with a higher IQ have generally lower adult morbidity and mortality. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,[47] and schizophrenia[48][49] are less prevalent in higher IQ bands. People in the midsts of a major depressive episode have been shown to have a lower IQ than when without symptoms and lower cognitive ability than people without depression of equivalent verbal intelligence.[50][51]
A study of 11,282 individuals in Scotland who took intelligence tests at ages 7, 9 and 11 in the 1950s and 1960s, found an "inverse linear association" between childhood IQ scores and hospital admissions for injuries in adulthood. The association between childhood IQ and the risk of later injury remained even after accounting for factors such as the child's socioeconomic background.[52] Research in Scotland has also shown that a 15-point lower IQ meant people had a fifth less chance of living to 76, while those with a 30-point disadvantage were 37% less likely than those with a higher IQ to live that long.[53]
All said, whether or not you LIKE IQ testing. Whether or not it measures anything other than "ability to take an IQ test" - it's all totally immaterial in the context of THIS POST, because the "ability to take an IQ test" has, for whatever reason, moderate to high correlation with a variety of social and economic (and even physical) success factors.
Why? I don't know. But I refuse to throw away the data or dismiss it as "arrogant" simply because it makes people uncomfortable.
Fail? I'm sorry? You actually got a laugh out of me by using that word, in context of your post.
I'm enjoying how you cherry picked out of Wikipedia without understanding what you're cherry picking, or even reading the rest of it.
As far as social status... there's not a single study I can find supporting your claim.
From about 10 lines below where you cherry picked YOUR quotation...
The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns[9] states that IQ scores account for about one-fourth of the social status variance...
ROFLMAO. It has almost as much predictive power of social status as your parent's tax bracket... which is to say "extremely high".
Now, lets get to the quotation that YOU cited.
You DO understand that in psychology, a 0.6 correlation is ALMOST UNHEARD of, it's so high? By statistical analysis, that means that fully 40% of "job performance" is directly predicted by a (usually childhood) Stanford-Binet IQ score. And as you stated "Job performance" is the most direct indicator of future income. Were you trying to claim this is "fail"? Seriously?
The only numeric metric that correlates higher than IQ with future income is actually 8th grade standardized testing scores, which in several studies actually has around a.85 correlation, predicting over 70% of future income across a broad range of social and economic classes.
I'll also happily point out that the only study coming up with the 0.2 number you cited was studying UNSKILLED LABOR jobs, where simply showing up to work was a stronger predictor of "job performance", yet IQ STILL had a statistically significant (though small) impact on job performance across all social spectra.
And.... since we're quoting Wikipedia, I'll pull down some citations from the rest of the article that you conveniently decided not to quote. Note that Wikipedia doesn't cite very much of the research that's out there - it's just scratching the surface.
According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."
Other studies show that ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance.[76] Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background.
Wikipedia goes to great length to point out varying opinions, noting that ACROSS THE BOARD, for all job types, IQ generally is viewed to have a correlation of around 0.4 to 0.6 on average for skilled occupations. That's about the same correlation that "having unprotected sex one time with someone HIV positive" has with "getting HIV".
Significant enough?
While we're on the topic, the correlation between IQ and income actually goes up substantially as the worker gains more experience. So while it may be valid to say that "experience" is a more accurate predictor of job success and income, it's also accurate to say that IQ becomes MORE correlated with income as experience increases, which simply leads to the conclusion that people who score higher on IQ tests are able to grow their income as a faster rate than those who do not. Note, I'm carefully NOT calling these people "smarter", because IQ is just one sort of test, but it is a metric that DOES have a valid, strong statistical correlation with many things.
But since I'm sure you've already decided to disagree with me, there are other things (like it or not) that IQ correlates with. This may have nothing to do with "being smart" but somehow, the test is a valid statistical indicator of these things.
People with a higher IQ have generally lower adult morbidity and mortality. Post-Traumatic Stress Dis
The entire philosophy of modern feminism isn't this parody of the 60's women's liberation movement, it's the shocking concept that women are people too, and they should be given the same opportunities to try and fail at anything a man can.
Aha!
That's the issue here. The problem is thatso much of it STILL DOES resemble that parody of hte 60s. I can't help but look at things like the college sports fiasco (I don't know what it's callled) - where they MUST field equal teams for men and women.
Frankly, colleges only put together sports teams to attract talent and gain noteriety and make money. No other real reasons... Women's sports (for the most part) don't help with that. Attendance is less than 20% or men's events, they generally lose money and except in rare cases, they do little to gain noteriety.
So, the govenment steps in and says that all colleges MUST have equal sports for men and women.
Note, most college programs have NO rule whatsoever that say women are forbidden from trying out for the college football team, or the college swimming team. If the government mandated that women MUST be allowed to play on any team they were capablel of playing on, I have no issue at alll. But.. instead, the government says, if you have a 18 member mens soccer team, you must have a 12 member women's soccer team as well with equal facilities.
In many small schools that were financially constrained, that basically decided that there would be no more soccer team at all, because there wasn't resources to double the outlay for a much less than double increase in attendance and recognition.
While I have no issue with women or women playing sports, my uncle frequently tells the story of his junior college baseball team. He was the star player and may have had a chance to play professionally, but when the new standard was enacted, the school did not have the resources to maintain a women's baseball team as welll and so the baseball program was cancelled entirely and his shot at his life's dream was dashed.
Silly story, I know, but it is THIS sort of parody of feminism that gives it a bad name.
I won't even go into the surveys where the majority of women say they should be paid the same at work with identical opportunities in every way, but that a man should ALWAYS buy dinner and hold the door for her and she would be offended if he expected the same in return. If you wish to crush social stigma and doctrine, it can't be "have your cake and eat it too" sort of pick and choose.
Both of your exaples strike me that they're about as dumb as rocks. Intelligence is the ability to deduce a solution when you haven't prevously been spoon fed the steps needed to get their.
The ability to write gramitically correct english and the ability to engineer a bridge are both things that ALMOST anyone could learn, given the motivation and time. Tying a shoe and using a GPS are also things that can be learned quite easily by anyone with half a brain.
The ability to figure out how to do it WITHOUT having someone spoon-feed you the proper steps... that is intelligence, in my book.
Very intelligent people don't have any greater chances of acquiring material wealth, social status, or other factors that contribute to reproductive success.
You slammed the GP for [citation needed]... well... ahem...
IQ is highly correlated with future income. IQ is also highly correlated with social status.
Right now, IQ is negatively correlated with reproductive success (by a quantative measure) due to contraception and social stigma, but in the past (>300 years ago), that would not have been the case as financial acumen would almost directly correlate with family health.
Right... and...
Language skills, not brute force, is what has allowed this species to reach the levels it has -- and it would have happened even if we'd been slathering rat beasts with room temperature IQs. Evolution does not care for either male ego or smart people -- in fact, based on anecdotal evidence, the universe is in fact actively hostile towards intelligence.
I might disput that. Language developed around 300,000 years ago by best estimate and during that period, until about 90,000 years ago, the population (and thus reproductive success of the species) dropped precipitously. Evidence suggests that around 90,000 years ago there were less than 2,000 humans remaining on earth.
Around 90,000 years ago, (the paleolithic era) there are archaeological evidence for a massive improvement in hunting implements (but no agriculture yet). This began the nearly exponential growth of the population.
The next great spike in population growth stemmed from agriculture, the third from writing (which was developed out of a need to pursue accounting and record keeping of land ownership - which you stated was a bit of a "male" thing), and the final came from the discovery of antibiotics in the very recent past.
Before you toss [citation needed], I suggest you research the topic.;-)
I would use this cultural analogy analogy when referencing this topic.
I think cultures such as native americans were MUCH more "emotionally intelligent". They felt connected with the land. When they had disputes, they may invade, but they almost never killed - they captured and then released for the sheer "emotional" impact it had on the loser of the battle.
They contemplated themselves and their place much more fully than many of their "western" counterparts. However, they were still living in tents with a life expectancy of 34 years old and were still using whittled bows and flint stone arrowheads until they encountered the "westerners". They weren't "stupider" - just less "scientifically inclined"
On the other hand, the westerners were more culturally focused on the "traditional" intelligence and as a result, they built giant ships and huge castles and massive works of art and constructed intricate written laguages and poetry and epistomological philosophy and complex music.... and of course, guns and guillotines and atomic bombs.
Which is more valuable? Well, it depends on what your values are.
But, ask yourself this question.
Would you rather be in tune with nature and at peace as an emotional tribal community, but living with the fact that half of your children will die before the age of 7 and you will be very lucky to live past 40 and you will never have a hot shower and will walk, in buffalo skin shoes, wherever it is you need to go, and will eat only as much as you can find/kill/forage from the grasslands?
Or do you value your car/house/ipod and believe it might be very valuable for people to have had a bent toward the slightly less social, but much more technical/scientific/literary/philosophical "western ideal"?
Slashdot Mirror
Except now it's pedophiles and radio towers.
It's gonna be a fun decade for child care workers and HAM radio operators.
Modern economies require both employers and employees.
It's a bit of the Cypres experiment from "brave new world" where a society was constructed of only "alpha" class individuals who ultimately degrated into fighting because of their unwillingness to engage in menial tasks.
Japanese culture, especially, strongly contributes to "groupthink" in a way that makes it actually quite a bit harder than it does as an American, to consider something like starting a business.
While I may run several businesses myself, I'm not quite sure I can bring myself to such a pinnacle of arrogance to suggest that any employee who is found wanting work is inherently himself to blame, since I recognize that it is absurd for a post-industrial society to consist of a majority of business owners with little to no labor pool.
So, tell me, was it ignorance of post-industrial macroeconomics or sheer arrogance that prompted this post? :-)
This is a totally irrational argment and it is the essence of our failing health care, financial, education, transportation, etc.
The thought that someone, somewhere, must pony up obscene amounts of money to give you the illusion of safety (sometimes accompanied by an extraordinarily trivial increase in security).
But don't you dare raise my taxes.....
The very concept of freedom entails risk. The concept of "totally safe" is antithesis to the concept of "totally free".
The phrase "if it just saves only one life, it is worth any cost" is a gross straw man lacking both depth and nuance. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
Keep in mind that ALMOST all air travel in Israel is international. There's a much higher standard of security for international flights in general.
In addition, we have this pesky constitution think that prevents certain types of searches and interrogations in domestic travel.
I appreciated the tag "FreedomMeansRisk" because it quicky and efficiently gets to the heart of the problem.
Sure, any one of "the projects" might qualify, most of those are 20+ story high-rise buildings.
But again, planting it in the middle of other development is totally and completely off topic for what the OP said.
He was talking about long-term, macro population planning. If all 3 million people in a city lived in a series of 1000 high rise buildings, the surrounding land would be very cheap indeed. We're talking about theoretical models and macro scale functions not the stupid short-term micro scale that you're talking about.
I'm starting to find it ironic that you're calling others "moron".
We're talking representative and variable controlled models here, not some sort of urban chic property development movement. You've clearly never been a scientist or had to study a cause-effect relationship in a variable controlled way, beceause you're obviously not capable (or willing) to understand how that might work. :-)
Keep in mind, even if you want to focus on this example, the burj dubai is built on a large complex. The ability to stick 700 residents in the tower (rather than disbursing them around the complex) makes it more plausible to use the land for other things and/or more residents, at a comparable price to what it would be if those 700 tower residents simply weren't present.
Mod -1 "Replying to yourself is lame"
This is a primarily muslim country. At this exact moment in history, I don't know of an organized terrorist group that would be both capable and interested in knocking it over.
Given a constant population, say 1000 people, if 900 live in a highrise, that leaves the other 100 to share the entirety of the land (minus the 1% taken by the building), increasing supply and/or decreasing demand.
If those 1000 people were to vie for the land, each expecting their own plot, the land price would be substantially higher due to a constrained supply, causing a spike in demand and consequently a higher price.
It's basic Econ 101.
Now, if you mean "when xxx city built a fancy highrise, the places around it got mor expensive", that has absolutely nothing to do with the highrise, but instead is more reflecting the effect of "urban redevelopment" which may or may not involve highrise apartments, but definitely does not COME from high-rises.
Have any better way of explaining it?
I'm quite sure they know, but they have no incentive to tell that the building has shrunken substantially from initial designs.
There is prestige in big numbers. It's not simply a probably of unknown dimensions.
Oh yeah,
People who were "trouble" users learned really quick that jacking with their system caused them to get a fresh image and removed all their fiddling.
They often quit messing things up after the second or third swap. Total time lost.. about an hour, total.
I've run about 700:1 ratio before. Of course, we were 2400 staff and 4 techs. It wasn't too bad because first thing in the morning, one of the techs would make sure we always had 3-5 good running PCs in spare for each type of image in the building and we solved a lot of problems with "swap the machine". A tech could create 5 images in less than 20 minutes of real "desk time" using my network deployment setup.
When an organization staffs that way, nobody gets to bitch when the answer to most problems is "re-image" because we found out that doing more detailed troubleshooting for anyone under Director level, or one of the few critical technology people simply put us too far in the hole time-wise to get anything else done. It's faster to tell them to copy their data to the network, then go down and make sure they did it right and swap the machine. They can copy the data back after we set up their email. Max time on a support call that way was ~15 minutes and solved ANY problem.
We actually managed to move an entire building of people from one place to the other in our spare time at that position as well as deploying wireless and doing about a dozen other things. It wasn't a sweatshop - it was actually one of the nicer places to work I've been to.
We were running a wide variety of apps, which we solved by having 3 standard images that provided a substantial coverage of everything. Once the image was built, there was never any reason to install "apps" because they were on the image. There were two or three that weren't included that had strict controls on who could use them, but they were 1-2 minutes to install.
if you can standardize the hardware and application images, this 680:1 isn't insane at all.
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Straw man, anyone?
Did you ever steal a pack of bubblegum from the store when you were 12? Cos surveys say that almost 50% of society has engaged in some petty theft in the past.
Normally, background checks and job applications only go back 5-7 years for misdemeanors (which most crimes are). This is for a reason, not just because we're all lazy fuckers who don't want to shuffle paper.
Raping and murdering is entirely different. But way to take the outlier and try to use it as anecdote. I'm sure Glen Beck would be proud. :-)
Honestly, every single person I know (including the totally honest, mature, trustworthy ones) did something REALLY stupid when they were aged 15-20. When the guy is 45 and a father of 3 and has been running a business for 10 years and some old indiscression from when he was 15 happens to suddenly feature prominently on every major search engine, do you think this is warranted? What makes him different than every other 15 year old who did something equally (or more) stupid 30 years ago?
Your attitude is "well, fuck em if they get caught".
That's basically what it comes down to, then. "Don't get caught".
I think this sort of thing will really come to a head in the next 30 or 40 years, when people who are respected elders, in their 40s and 50s... say, politicians, business people, etc, suddenly find every choice they made at the age of 17 being splashed in the media.
I don't know if there is a good solution for it. If, in a perfect surveillance society, one were to dig enough, EVERY single person would have some serious negative crap on there. Whether it was "used to steal neighbors panties from the clothes line" or "drove a car at 14" or "had a beer at 19" or "stole a pack of bubble gum at 11" or whatever.
And... your focus on criminal records on a job application is pretty weak too, since by most state law, you're NOT ALLOWED to ask about crimes older than 5-7 years unless they are felonies. The whole CONCEPT of common law that we use is based on the ability for one to build trust based on "expiration" of information. i would note that any standard police records check only goes back 7 years, including FBI checks... except for serious crimes.
However, with the advent of commercial data mining, that's no longer the case, since a data mining operation is going to keep and willingly release that data forever, provided the requester provides the requisite funds.
Personally, I find that a HUGE social problem that should be remedied.
There is an airline in Australia that no longer allows men to sit next to unaccompanied minors. Females or empty seats is the only permissible arrangement.
Awesome.
Adults interacting with children on the street was a commonplace occurrence throughout history until the last 30 years or so. There is nothing about the Internet that makes it special, except that it RESISTED this corrosive social trend for this long.
Does it matter what THIS GUY did? Nope.
If THAT GUY over there ran screaming into the lobby of a theatre and blew himself up, does that justify making screaming... or running... illegal?
Missed the point, my friend.
Whether or not IQ measures "intelligence", there is no answer and you can feel free to argue strenuously that it does not.
Whether it coRRelates with proper spelling, as well, I have no idea.
However, in dozens of studies, the IQ score on any of the 4 accepted IQ scoring metrics ALL correlate with a variety of positive future outcomes, including financial, social and even physical.
I'm feeling lazy so I'll just toss some Wikipedia at you.
The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns[9] states that IQ scores account for about one-fourth of the social status variance...
According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."
Other studies show that ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance.[76] Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background.
Physical
People with a higher IQ have generally lower adult morbidity and mortality. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,[47] and schizophrenia[48][49] are less prevalent in higher IQ bands. People in the midsts of a major depressive episode have been shown to have a lower IQ than when without symptoms and lower cognitive ability than people without depression of equivalent verbal intelligence.[50][51]
A study of 11,282 individuals in Scotland who took intelligence tests at ages 7, 9 and 11 in the 1950s and 1960s, found an "inverse linear association" between childhood IQ scores and hospital admissions for injuries in adulthood. The association between childhood IQ and the risk of later injury remained even after accounting for factors such as the child's socioeconomic background.[52] Research in Scotland has also shown that a 15-point lower IQ meant people had a fifth less chance of living to 76, while those with a 30-point disadvantage were 37% less likely than those with a higher IQ to live that long.[53]
All said, whether or not you LIKE IQ testing. Whether or not it measures anything other than "ability to take an IQ test" - it's all totally immaterial in the context of THIS POST, because the "ability to take an IQ test" has, for whatever reason, moderate to high correlation with a variety of social and economic (and even physical) success factors.
Why? I don't know. But I refuse to throw away the data or dismiss it as "arrogant" simply because it makes people uncomfortable.
IQ strongly correlates with future income in about 20 longitudinal studies. Whether or not IQ measures intelligence is another matter.
I'm interested to see the study that shows high-school drop-outs being equal across IQ ranges and what is meant by "gifted" (gad, I hate that word).
The fact is that advanced degrees are highly correlated with high IQ scores. ...
No idea where the extra o came from in the previous post. I must have been tired. :-)
Fail? I'm sorry? You actually got a laugh out of me by using that word, in context of your post.
I'm enjoying how you cherry picked out of Wikipedia without understanding what you're cherry picking, or even reading the rest of it.
As far as social status... there's not a single study I can find supporting your claim.
From about 10 lines below where you cherry picked YOUR quotation...
The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns[9] states that IQ scores account for about one-fourth of the social status variance...
ROFLMAO. It has almost as much predictive power of social status as your parent's tax bracket... which is to say "extremely high".
Now, lets get to the quotation that YOU cited.
You DO understand that in psychology, a 0.6 correlation is ALMOST UNHEARD of, it's so high? By statistical analysis, that means that fully 40% of "job performance" is directly predicted by a (usually childhood) Stanford-Binet IQ score. And as you stated "Job performance" is the most direct indicator of future income. Were you trying to claim this is "fail"? Seriously?
The only numeric metric that correlates higher than IQ with future income is actually 8th grade standardized testing scores, which in several studies actually has around a .85 correlation, predicting over 70% of future income across a broad range of social and economic classes.
I'll also happily point out that the only study coming up with the 0.2 number you cited was studying UNSKILLED LABOR jobs, where simply showing up to work was a stronger predictor of "job performance", yet IQ STILL had a statistically significant (though small) impact on job performance across all social spectra.
And.... since we're quoting Wikipedia, I'll pull down some citations from the rest of the article that you conveniently decided not to quote. Note that Wikipedia doesn't cite very much of the research that's out there - it's just scratching the surface.
According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."
Other studies show that ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance.[76] Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background.
Wikipedia goes to great length to point out varying opinions, noting that ACROSS THE BOARD, for all job types, IQ generally is viewed to have a correlation of around 0.4 to 0.6 on average for skilled occupations. That's about the same correlation that "having unprotected sex one time with someone HIV positive" has with "getting HIV".
Significant enough?
While we're on the topic, the correlation between IQ and income actually goes up substantially as the worker gains more experience. So while it may be valid to say that "experience" is a more accurate predictor of job success and income, it's also accurate to say that IQ becomes MORE correlated with income as experience increases, which simply leads to the conclusion that people who score higher on IQ tests are able to grow their income as a faster rate than those who do not. Note, I'm carefully NOT calling these people "smarter", because IQ is just one sort of test, but it is a metric that DOES have a valid, strong statistical correlation with many things.
But since I'm sure you've already decided to disagree with me, there are other things (like it or not) that IQ correlates with. This may have nothing to do with "being smart" but somehow, the test is a valid statistical indicator of these things.
People with a higher IQ have generally lower adult morbidity and mortality. Post-Traumatic Stress Dis
But, the men outnumber the women in that regard, perhaps 20... maybe 40 to one.
Sure, in the field of literature, it's more like 4-to-1....
how much weight should that be given before it appears to be "pandering"?
The entire philosophy of modern feminism isn't this parody of the 60's women's liberation movement, it's the shocking concept that women are people too, and they should be given the same opportunities to try and fail at anything a man can.
Aha!
That's the issue here. The problem is thatso much of it STILL DOES resemble that parody of hte 60s. I can't help but look at things like the college sports fiasco (I don't know what it's callled) - where they MUST field equal teams for men and women.
Frankly, colleges only put together sports teams to attract talent and gain noteriety and make money. No other real reasons... Women's sports (for the most part) don't help with that. Attendance is less than 20% or men's events, they generally lose money and except in rare cases, they do little to gain noteriety.
So, the govenment steps in and says that all colleges MUST have equal sports for men and women.
Note, most college programs have NO rule whatsoever that say women are forbidden from trying out for the college football team, or the college swimming team. If the government mandated that women MUST be allowed to play on any team they were capablel of playing on, I have no issue at alll. But.. instead, the government says, if you have a 18 member mens soccer team, you must have a 12 member women's soccer team as well with equal facilities.
In many small schools that were financially constrained, that basically decided that there would be no more soccer team at all, because there wasn't resources to double the outlay for a much less than double increase in attendance and recognition.
While I have no issue with women or women playing sports, my uncle frequently tells the story of his junior college baseball team. He was the star player and may have had a chance to play professionally, but when the new standard was enacted, the school did not have the resources to maintain a women's baseball team as welll and so the baseball program was cancelled entirely and his shot at his life's dream was dashed.
Silly story, I know, but it is THIS sort of parody of feminism that gives it a bad name.
I won't even go into the surveys where the majority of women say they should be paid the same at work with identical opportunities in every way, but that a man should ALWAYS buy dinner and hold the door for her and she would be offended if he expected the same in return. If you wish to crush social stigma and doctrine, it can't be "have your cake and eat it too" sort of pick and choose.
Both of your exaples strike me that they're about as dumb as rocks. Intelligence is the ability to deduce a solution when you haven't prevously been spoon fed the steps needed to get their.
The ability to write gramitically correct english and the ability to engineer a bridge are both things that ALMOST anyone could learn, given the motivation and time. Tying a shoe and using a GPS are also things that can be learned quite easily by anyone with half a brain.
The ability to figure out how to do it WITHOUT having someone spoon-feed you the proper steps... that is intelligence, in my book.
But they are also highly correlated with economic success.
Is that just random dumb luck?
Very intelligent people don't have any greater chances of acquiring material wealth, social status, or other factors that contribute to reproductive success.
You slammed the GP for [citation needed]... well... ahem...
IQ is highly correlated with future income. IQ is also highly correlated with social status.
Right now, IQ is negatively correlated with reproductive success (by a quantative measure) due to contraception and social stigma, but in the past (>300 years ago), that would not have been the case as financial acumen would almost directly correlate with family health.
Right... and...
Language skills, not brute force, is what has allowed this species to reach the levels it has -- and it would have happened even if we'd been slathering rat beasts with room temperature IQs. Evolution does not care for either male ego or smart people -- in fact, based on anecdotal evidence, the universe is in fact actively hostile towards intelligence.
I might disput that. Language developed around 300,000 years ago by best estimate and during that period, until about 90,000 years ago, the population (and thus reproductive success of the species) dropped precipitously. Evidence suggests that around 90,000 years ago there were less than 2,000 humans remaining on earth.
Around 90,000 years ago, (the paleolithic era) there are archaeological evidence for a massive improvement in hunting implements (but no agriculture yet). This began the nearly exponential growth of the population.
The next great spike in population growth stemmed from agriculture, the third from writing (which was developed out of a need to pursue accounting and record keeping of land ownership - which you stated was a bit of a "male" thing), and the final came from the discovery of antibiotics in the very recent past.
Before you toss [citation needed], I suggest you research the topic. ;-)
I would use this cultural analogy analogy when referencing this topic.
I think cultures such as native americans were MUCH more "emotionally intelligent". They felt connected with the land. When they had disputes, they may invade, but they almost never killed - they captured and then released for the sheer "emotional" impact it had on the loser of the battle.
They contemplated themselves and their place much more fully than many of their "western" counterparts. However, they were still living in tents with a life expectancy of 34 years old and were still using whittled bows and flint stone arrowheads until they encountered the "westerners". They weren't "stupider" - just less "scientifically inclined"
On the other hand, the westerners were more culturally focused on the "traditional" intelligence and as a result, they built giant ships and huge castles and massive works of art and constructed intricate written laguages and poetry and epistomological philosophy and complex music.... and of course, guns and guillotines and atomic bombs.
Which is more valuable? Well, it depends on what your values are.
But, ask yourself this question.
Would you rather be in tune with nature and at peace as an emotional tribal community, but living with the fact that half of your children will die before the age of 7 and you will be very lucky to live past 40 and you will never have a hot shower and will walk, in buffalo skin shoes, wherever it is you need to go, and will eat only as much as you can find/kill/forage from the grasslands?
Or do you value your car/house/ipod and believe it might be very valuable for people to have had a bent toward the slightly less social, but much more technical/scientific/literary/philosophical "western ideal"?
Just curious....