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.
@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.
-
@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.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@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.
There's a massive overlap between high IQ individuals and individuals who have a crippling lack of self-awareness.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@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.
There's a massive overlap between high IQ individuals and individuals who have a crippling lack of self-awareness.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
There's a massive overlap between high IQ individuals and individuals who have a crippling lack of self-awareness.
Quite possibly true, but that's not where I was coming from. Very highly qualified science/math types will inevitably tend to have high IQ's based on the types of questions prevalent in IQ tests. They also don't necessarily make good/smart decisions on some day-to-day activities, despite their brilliance elsewhere. For example, the inability to easily tell the difference between walking through the door, and attempting to leave the room via the broom cupboard.
Sure, their absent-mindedness could be because they're thinking about more important things. Still....
-
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
Education is extremely important.
-
https://www.tamdistrict.org/cms/lib/CA01000875/Centricity/Domain/539/Presidential IQ scores 1.pdf
3 are missing from the above, here are estimates from elsewhere
https://www.ranker.com/list/us-presidents-by-iq/lauren-slocum
Trump 145
Obama 155https://iqtestprep.com/joe-bidens-iq-score/
Biden 115
-
I've estimated my IQ as being about 175, which explains why I'll never be President.
-
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
I suppose guidance counselors, career coaches, performance reviews, and top 10 employment articles the world over are in on the woke conspiracy to emphasize soft skills. Because everyone knows if you have no self awareness or are a total bastard, the world still just gives you things if you show them your Mensa card.
There are indeed negative correlations with high IQ in terms of measurable success. For starters, there's a threshold at which IQ differences start to create a communication problem for those with the higher IQ.
-
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
I suppose guidance counselors, career coaches, performance reviews, and top 10 employment articles the world over are in on the woke conspiracy to emphasize soft skills. Because everyone knows if you have no self awareness or are a total bastard, the world still just gives you things if you show them your Mensa card.
There are indeed negative correlations with high IQ in terms of measurable success. For starters, there's a threshold at which IQ differences start to create a communication problem for those with the higher IQ.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
I suppose guidance counselors, career coaches, performance reviews, and top 10 employment articles the world over are in on the woke conspiracy to emphasize soft skills. Because everyone knows if you have no self awareness or are a total bastard, the world still just gives you things if you show them your Mensa card.
There are indeed negative correlations with high IQ in terms of measurable success. For starters, there's a threshold at which IQ differences start to create a communication problem for those with the higher IQ.
Well you continue to argue against the idea that IQ explains everything, but that's an idea nobody holds.
It makes perfect sense to concentrate on improving skills that one can train and improve. I have no issue with those conspirators emphasizing the development of things other than IQ.
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what. We third rail it, and substitute politically expedient (and leftist/marxist) explanations for the differences that by all data, it can be demonstrated to account for.
Education is extremely important.
-
There's a simple analogy that gets to the point about why IQ matters to group differences, and why it's not everything. If measurable success is the sum of 10 dice, and one of those 10 dice is loaded to produce a higher result for one group as compared to another, then the sum of the 10 dice will be different on average for one group than the other. The other nine dice can freely roll around as dice do. Any individual sum can't be counted on to be higher in one group than the other. But if we care deeply about average differences, which are inevitable in the presence of a loaded die, then we should care about that loaded die, and we should care about being honest about why it's loaded. Especially when the dishonest explanations are socially destructive.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
I suppose guidance counselors, career coaches, performance reviews, and top 10 employment articles the world over are in on the woke conspiracy to emphasize soft skills. Because everyone knows if you have no self awareness or are a total bastard, the world still just gives you things if you show them your Mensa card.
There are indeed negative correlations with high IQ in terms of measurable success. For starters, there's a threshold at which IQ differences start to create a communication problem for those with the higher IQ.
Well you continue to argue against the idea that IQ explains everything, but that's an idea nobody holds.
It makes perfect sense to concentrate on improving skills that one can train and improve. I have no issue with those conspirators emphasizing the development of things other than IQ.
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what. We third rail it, and substitute politically expedient (and leftist/marxist) explanations for the differences that by all data, it can be demonstrated to account for.
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what.
I don't think we will, actually. AI's only a few years out from making this problem irrelevant by comparison.
-
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what.
I don't think we will, actually. AI's only a few years out from making this problem irrelevant by comparison.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what.
I don't think we will, actually. AI's only a few years out from making this problem irrelevant by comparison.
As long as there is a semblance of freedom and social mobility, the smarter people will figure out a way to get ahead in that culture, too. Because I doubt even social skills are negatively correlated with IQ.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what.
I don't think we will, actually. AI's only a few years out from making this problem irrelevant by comparison.
As long as there is a semblance of freedom and social mobility, the smarter people will figure out a way to get ahead in that culture, too. Because I doubt even social skills are negatively correlated with 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.:
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what.
I don't think we will, actually. AI's only a few years out from making this problem irrelevant by comparison.
As long as there is a semblance of freedom and social mobility
Based on the trajectory of the technology and our total incompetence when it comes to planning for that, I'm not at all convinced there will be.
-
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.
He has a very well-done dictionary of wokeness called New Discourses: Translations from the Wokish. New Discourses is a good follow on twitter (much better than James himself, whom I unfollowed a few years ago).
The entire dictionary is available on newdoscourses.com.
Random sample entry here:
