Equity and a whole lot more.
-
Link to video
Well worth the 30 minutes
-
Good stuff. I was listening this morning to Lindsay's interview with Jordan Peterson, done after this speech.
It's probably important to keep in mind that proponents of wokeness don't think of it in terms of Marxism (that would have to be explained to them), but the ideology is perfectly compatible.
-
I found it impressive enough to try listening to Lindsay’s podcast. It was supposed to be about how to attack the movement, but the first 20 minutes were a very bad attempt at trying to explain the Chinese 5 Element Cycle of Creation and Consumption. It went downhill from there. I will try a different podcast and listen to some of his other interviews and debates. But I was EXTREMELY impressed with his citations and the logical and clearly educated and well thought out description of woke idealogy. It reminds me of the Peterson video discussing the Disney executive and deconstruction of the trans movement. Those arguments are the ones we need to get out to the world.
The Brad
-
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
-
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
Please love yourself.
-
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
If the average IQ in one group is 90 and the average in another group is 110, then there will be significant differences in outcome between the two groups, in an increasingly complex job market. IQ discussions tend to get stuck in the difference between 140 and 120, but the important difference is between 90 and 110. That's where the largest part of the population resides, so that's where the statistics come from.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
They used to say that about race.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
If the average IQ in one group is 90 and the average in another group is 110, then there will be significant differences in outcome between the two groups, in an increasingly complex job market. IQ discussions tend to get stuck in the difference between 140 and 120, but the important difference is between 90 and 110. That's where the largest part of the population resides, so that's where the statistics come from.
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
If the average IQ in one group is 90 and the average in another group is 110, then there will be significant differences in outcome between the two groups, in an increasingly complex job market.
All other things being equal? Absolutely.
But that's never the case in practice. Pathological cultures, communication skills, toxic management, flexible employees, toxic employees, a shared belief, quiet quitting, the ability to meaningfully apply yourself and about 20 other circumstances make the 90/110 difference completely meaningless on its own.
-
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
If the average IQ in one group is 90 and the average in another group is 110, then there will be significant differences in outcome between the two groups, in an increasingly complex job market.
All other things being equal? Absolutely.
But that's never the case in practice. Pathological cultures, communication skills, toxic management, flexible employees, toxic employees, a shared belief, quiet quitting, the ability to meaningfully apply yourself and about 20 other circumstances make the 90/110 difference completely meaningless on its own.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
If the average IQ in one group is 90 and the average in another group is 110, then there will be significant differences in outcome between the two groups, in an increasingly complex job market.
All other things being equal? Absolutely.
But that's never the case in practice. Pathological cultures, communication skills, toxic management, flexible employees, toxic employees, a shared belief, quiet quitting, the ability to meaningfully apply yourself and about 20 other circumstances make the 90/110 difference completely meaningless on its own.
You can't use the phrase "completely meaningless", and remain serious about the conversation. You can't acknowledge that one group of people has one mean IQ and another has a different mean IQ, and claim that the difference will be meaningless when you measure aggregate results down the line. That any differences you do see, are attributable to other factors. Those other factors are going to be the conveniently hand wavy 'systemic racism', and where do you suppose that will get us? The only reason we have that logical contortion, is because of the social toxicity of IQ.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
They used to say that about race.
@Copper said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
They used to say that about race.
Bingo!
-
Amy Chua in her book, The Triple Package, provides some additional fodder to this discussion. She explains what aspects of a culture impact success. One element has to do what is expected of one. That is, using Asians and Jewish culture as examples, she notes that these groups work to ensure that their offspring understand that they are expected to do well, i.e. they come from superior stock. A second component is that they must work harder than other people to ensure that they meet those expectations which may seem like a neurotic component to this. Her last point is that impulse control (i.e. some discipline) is key to success. Amy Chua also wrote the book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother describes how she raised her two daughters. She was unbelievably tough on her daughters - but they're both successful - surprise. That book is a fun read.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
If the average IQ in one group is 90 and the average in another group is 110, then there will be significant differences in outcome between the two groups, in an increasingly complex job market.
All other things being equal? Absolutely.
But that's never the case in practice. Pathological cultures, communication skills, toxic management, flexible employees, toxic employees, a shared belief, quiet quitting, the ability to meaningfully apply yourself and about 20 other circumstances make the 90/110 difference completely meaningless on its own.
You can't use the phrase "completely meaningless", and remain serious about the conversation. You can't acknowledge that one group of people has one mean IQ and another has a different mean IQ, and claim that the difference will be meaningless when you measure aggregate results down the line. That any differences you do see, are attributable to other factors. Those other factors are going to be the conveniently hand wavy 'systemic racism', and where do you suppose that will get us? The only reason we have that logical contortion, is because of the social toxicity of IQ.
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
If the average IQ in one group is 90 and the average in another group is 110, then there will be significant differences in outcome between the two groups, in an increasingly complex job market.
All other things being equal? Absolutely.
But that's never the case in practice. Pathological cultures, communication skills, toxic management, flexible employees, toxic employees, a shared belief, quiet quitting, the ability to meaningfully apply yourself and about 20 other circumstances make the 90/110 difference completely meaningless on its own.
You can't use the phrase "completely meaningless", and remain serious about the conversation.
How many brilliant engineers you know remain brilliant engineers and never get promoted because their social skills are a trainwreck? (How many do get promoted and become walking managerial disasters?) How many not-so-high IQ employees continually get promoted not because of their fluid intelligence, but because of their charisma?
The most common crutch of high IQ people is that they know they have a high IQ and mistakenly believe it adequately compensates for other shortcomings.
Please love yourself.
-
Amy Chua in her book, The Triple Package, provides some additional fodder to this discussion. She explains what aspects of a culture impact success. One element has to do what is expected of one. That is, using Asians and Jewish culture as examples, she notes that these groups work to ensure that their offspring understand that they are expected to do well, i.e. they come from superior stock. A second component is that they must work harder than other people to ensure that they meet those expectations which may seem like a neurotic component to this. Her last point is that impulse control (i.e. some discipline) is key to success. Amy Chua also wrote the book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother describes how she raised her two daughters. She was unbelievably tough on her daughters - but they're both successful - surprise. That book is a fun read.
@kluurs said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
Amy Chua in her book, The Triple Package, provides some additional fodder to this discussion. She explains what aspects of a culture impact success. One element has to do what is expected of one. That is, using Asians and Jewish culture as examples, she notes that these groups work to ensure that their offspring understand that they are expected to do well, i.e. they come from superior stock. A second component is that they must work harder than other people to ensure that they meet those expectations which may seem like a neurotic component to this. Her last point is that impulse control (i.e. some discipline) is key to success. Amy Chua also wrote the book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother describes how she raised her two daughters. She was unbelievably tough on her daughters - but they're both successful - surprise. That book is a fun read.
It's worth remembering occasionally that highly successful and highly fucked up aren't mutually exclusive. Admittedly, a broader definition of what being successful actually means might be helpful.
-
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
If the average IQ in one group is 90 and the average in another group is 110, then there will be significant differences in outcome between the two groups, in an increasingly complex job market.
All other things being equal? Absolutely.
But that's never the case in practice. Pathological cultures, communication skills, toxic management, flexible employees, toxic employees, a shared belief, quiet quitting, the ability to meaningfully apply yourself and about 20 other circumstances make the 90/110 difference completely meaningless on its own.
You can't use the phrase "completely meaningless", and remain serious about the conversation.
How many brilliant engineers you know remain brilliant engineers and never get promoted because their social skills are a trainwreck? (How many do get promoted and become walking managerial disasters?) How many not-so-high IQ employees continually get promoted not because of their fluid intelligence, but because of their charisma?
The most common crutch of high IQ people is that they know they have a high IQ and mistakenly believe it adequately compensates for other shortcomings.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
If the average IQ in one group is 90 and the average in another group is 110, then there will be significant differences in outcome between the two groups, in an increasingly complex job market.
All other things being equal? Absolutely.
But that's never the case in practice. Pathological cultures, communication skills, toxic management, flexible employees, toxic employees, a shared belief, quiet quitting, the ability to meaningfully apply yourself and about 20 other circumstances make the 90/110 difference completely meaningless on its own.
You can't use the phrase "completely meaningless", and remain serious about the conversation.
How many brilliant engineers you know remain brilliant engineers and never get promoted because their social skills are a trainwreck? (How many do get promoted and become walking managerial disasters?) How many not-so-high IQ employees continually get promoted not because of their fluid intelligence, but because of their charisma?
The most common crutch of high IQ people is that they know they have a high IQ and mistakenly believe it adequately compensates for other shortcomings.
Now we're in anecdote land. You have many ways of making IQ meaningless from certain perspectives, which seems to be at odds with your claimed willingness to accept it as a thing that matters. Which is my point. It's socially toxic to a degree that even people who claim to be willing to accept it, aren't actually willing to accept it. This has also played out at the Heterodox academy, where it is third rail, entirely because of its applicability to racial differences (where white europeans are unequivocally not at the top).
Education is extremely important.
-
Amy Chua in her book, The Triple Package, provides some additional fodder to this discussion. She explains what aspects of a culture impact success. One element has to do what is expected of one. That is, using Asians and Jewish culture as examples, she notes that these groups work to ensure that their offspring understand that they are expected to do well, i.e. they come from superior stock. A second component is that they must work harder than other people to ensure that they meet those expectations which may seem like a neurotic component to this. Her last point is that impulse control (i.e. some discipline) is key to success. Amy Chua also wrote the book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother describes how she raised her two daughters. She was unbelievably tough on her daughters - but they're both successful - surprise. That book is a fun read.
@kluurs said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
Amy Chua in her book, The Triple Package, provides some additional fodder to this discussion. She explains what aspects of a culture impact success. One element has to do what is expected of one. That is, using Asians and Jewish culture as examples, she notes that these groups work to ensure that their offspring understand that they are expected to do well, i.e. they come from superior stock. A second component is that they must work harder than other people to ensure that they meet those expectations which may seem like a neurotic component to this. Her last point is that impulse control (i.e. some discipline) is key to success. Amy Chua also wrote the book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother describes how she raised her two daughters. She was unbelievably tough on her daughters - but they're both successful - surprise. That book is a fun read.
I like how Chua makes an appearance in Hillbilly Elegy. Random pop culture crossover. There have been many attempts at canceling her.
One of the more prominent myths people accept as true, is the degree to which parenting can create successful people. Bad parenting can create unsuccessful people, but the effect of good parenting, or what we consider good parenting, plateaus quickly. This has been demonstrated, for instance with twin studies where the twins were raised in different homes.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
I'm fairly convinced that unless we open the IQ can of worms, the only other explanation we'll ever have for group disparities, is systemic racism, and government intervention will be the only solution. But we are so far away from the will to confront the IQ thing.
I don't see why it has to be a third rail. IQ alone won't get anybody anywhere.
If the average IQ in one group is 90 and the average in another group is 110, then there will be significant differences in outcome between the two groups, in an increasingly complex job market.
All other things being equal? Absolutely.
But that's never the case in practice. Pathological cultures, communication skills, toxic management, flexible employees, toxic employees, a shared belief, quiet quitting, the ability to meaningfully apply yourself and about 20 other circumstances make the 90/110 difference completely meaningless on its own.
You can't use the phrase "completely meaningless", and remain serious about the conversation.
How many brilliant engineers you know remain brilliant engineers and never get promoted because their social skills are a trainwreck? (How many do get promoted and become walking managerial disasters?) How many not-so-high IQ employees continually get promoted not because of their fluid intelligence, but because of their charisma?
The most common crutch of high IQ people is that they know they have a high IQ and mistakenly believe it adequately compensates for other shortcomings.
Now we're in anecdote land. You have many ways of making IQ meaningless from certain perspectives, which seems to be at odds with your claimed willingness to accept it as a thing that matters. Which is my point. It's socially toxic to a degree that even people who claim to be willing to accept it, aren't actually willing to accept it. This has also played out at the Heterodox academy, where it is third rail, entirely because of its applicability to racial differences (where white europeans are unequivocally not at the top).
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
You have many ways of making IQ meaningless from certain perspectives, which seems to be at odds with your claimed willingness to accept it as a thing that matters.
Then you're not paying attention carefully enough. Of course IQ matters. A lot. It can't be discounted. But it's not the exclusive deciding factor for professional proficiency or success. There's no such thing. A high-IQ Comic Book Guy who can't relate is going to be hobbled in the workforce, as is the affable low-IQ guy who can't hack it.
Anyone who competently manages others knows this.
Which is my point. It's socially toxic to a degree that even people who claim to be willing to accept it, aren't actually willing to accept it.
What is "it"? That IQ matters? I already said it does. You can't have a conversation about what equality should mean without addressing that. But the same is true for a handful of other traits, too. For those who think IQ does or should negate everything else, well, blaming the wokes for making the world not fit that model would be a rational step, but an incorrect one.
-
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
You have many ways of making IQ meaningless from certain perspectives, which seems to be at odds with your claimed willingness to accept it as a thing that matters.
Then you're not paying attention carefully enough. Of course IQ matters. A lot. It can't be discounted. But it's not the exclusive deciding factor for professional proficiency or success. There's no such thing. A high-IQ Comic Book Guy who can't relate is going to be hobbled in the workforce, as is the affable low-IQ guy who can't hack it.
Anyone who competently manages others knows this.
Which is my point. It's socially toxic to a degree that even people who claim to be willing to accept it, aren't actually willing to accept it.
What is "it"? That IQ matters? I already said it does. You can't have a conversation about what equality should mean without addressing that. But the same is true for a handful of other traits, too. For those who think IQ does or should negate everything else, well, blaming the wokes for making the world not fit that model would be a rational step, but an incorrect one.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
You have many ways of making IQ meaningless from certain perspectives, which seems to be at odds with your claimed willingness to accept it as a thing that matters.
it's not the exclusive deciding factor for professional proficiency or success. There's no such thing.
Nobody has claimed that, nobody ever does. So why does it appear in your counter argument?
Which is my point. It's socially toxic to a degree that even people who claim to be willing to accept it, aren't actually willing to accept it.
What is "it"? That IQ matters? I already said it does. You can't have a conversation about what equality should mean without addressing that. But the same is true for a handful of other traits, too. For those who think IQ does or should negate everything else, well, blaming the wokes for making the world not fit that model would be a rational step, but an incorrect one.
If those other traits are measurable and different across groups we care about (which are sex and race), then they will be important parts of the equation and should be discussed. If on the other hand they're just random differences that don't have different means between groups, then they're of no value to discuss for the purposes of public policy or received cultural ideas. IQ fits the criteria of being important and measurable and different between groups we care about, and that's why it's important to understand. Cultural factors also fit that criteria, but we see whether CNN wants to discuss families without fathers, for instance. Culture isn't as third rail as IQ, but anything that conflicts with the systemic racism narrative will inevitably be third rail adjacent.
-
People with a high IQ tend to be smart about most things
People with a low IQ tend to not be smart about most things.
Of course the exceptions stick out like sore thumbs and get attention.
@Copper said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
People with a high IQ tend to be smart about most things
People with a low IQ tend to not be smart about most things.
Of course the exceptions stick out like sore thumbs and get attention.
I work on the second floor of a building which has the first floor almost entirely inhabited by people with engineering and science PhD's with a few Master's degrees thrown in. Based on my own personal observations, I would question all of these statements except for the last one.
