6 ms·

It seems clear to me that there is an IQ cutoff below which one cannot be an effective programmer. And this cutoff is actually quite high, comparatively. I'd be

It seems clear to me that there is an IQ cutoff below which one cannot be an effective programmer. And this cutoff is actually quite high, comparatively. I'd be very surprised if more than 5 percent of the population, with the current distribution of intelligence, could become effective programmers, even if highly motivated. All psychometric evidence points to IQ being largely genetic, and the environmental components irreversible after after a very young age. It's odd, but my very "conservative" view on intelligence and heredity, that of agreeing with the scientific consensus, leads me to support some forms of wealth distribution.

cm2012 10y ago
Intelligence is not as set in stone as all that over time. The Flynn effect is well documented across different societies, showing a rise in the average population IQ by ~3 every year, and by 10 every 30 years. This means if you need an IQ of 110 to be a programmer, the average person will be able to do it in 30 years.
- Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  It seems to have stopped in developed countries: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf
api 10y ago
You've really hit on the elephant nobody talks about because talking about actual inborn differences in human ability is taboo across the board. What we will see in the 21st century is a large fraction of the human population fall off the edge where the marginal value of their labor becomes <=0 no matter what they do. They can't change this because they got a bad hand in the genetic lottery, which is not their fault. This is very different from industrialization 1.0. That created a lot of jobs because the machines were dumb, and because economic growth was huge. Now the machines are smart and growth is slow. Welfare state, violent revolution, or absolute surveillance state totalitarianism and starving ghettos. Pick one dystopia. I think welfare state is definitely the least of these evils. Eventually we could fix this with augmentation and universally available genetic engineering, but the tech is not ready and the social, philosophical, and religious understanding and assimilation is even less ready than the tech. The process of cultural adoption cannot even begin until the tech is mature enough. Unskilled labor disrupting AI will arrive long before the means of improving ourselves. Edit: some have brought up the Flynn effect and evidence IQ is growing. Unfortunately even if true I think it's far too slow. Automation tech is advancing much faster with a decades shorter iteration cycle. Doubt digit median IQ growth over decades would probably be required to prevent mass unemployment at the scale of billions and that's pure sci-fi.
fellellor 10y ago
The IQ cutoff thing is, to me clearly, arrogant bullshit. In fact your whole comment seems like nothing but arrogant bullshit. If overall intelligence were indeed entirely genetic, since western societies operate on meritocracy, then the upper classes of these countries would be full of supremely intelligent uber mensch or whatever. That however, even from cursory inspection, is definitely not the case since you have more than your share of rich and stupid individuals. Programming is nothing but an area of work which is more suited to people with a certain analytical skill sets. There are plenty of cases of people from diverse backgrounds excelling in this area in spite of the obstacles in front of them.
- Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  The upper classes do have higher average IQ, an effect which is more pronounced the more meritocratic the society. Yes, there are lots of stupid rich people and tons of smart impoverished people, but we are talking about averages here. As most people desire wealth and intelligence is your capacity to realize your desires, intelligent people acquire more wealth than less-intelligent people. As intelligence is very heritable, this has unfortunate class implications. I’m not endorsing this description as normative, I just think it is accurate. This state of affaires is allowed to be both true and objectionable. Natural selection is a horrible process that runs on death and suffering, it would be very odd if it shaped our variations in a manner that matches our ideological preferences. > Programming is nothing but an area of work which is more suited to people with a certain analytical skill sets. If you think you can turn 100 IQ people into productive programmers, you could make billions by training your own staff and undercutting everyone else. Give it a try.

cm2012 10y ago

Intelligence is not as set in stone as all that over time. The Flynn effect is well documented across different societies, showing a rise in the average population IQ by ~3 every year, and by 10 every 30 years. This means if you need an IQ of 110 to be a programmer, the average person will be able to do it in 30 years.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
It seems to have stopped in developed countries: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf

api 10y ago

You've really hit on the elephant nobody talks about because talking about actual inborn differences in human ability is taboo across the board. What we will see in the 21st century is a large fraction of the human population fall off the edge where the marginal value of their labor becomes <=0 no matter what they do. They can't change this because they got a bad hand in the genetic lottery, which is not their fault. This is very different from industrialization 1.0. That created a lot of jobs because the machines were dumb, and because economic growth was huge. Now the machines are smart and growth is slow. Welfare state, violent revolution, or absolute surveillance state totalitarianism and starving ghettos. Pick one dystopia. I think welfare state is definitely the least of these evils. Eventually we could fix this with augmentation and universally available genetic engineering, but the tech is not ready and the social, philosophical, and religious understanding and assimilation is even less ready than the tech. The process of cultural adoption cannot even begin until the tech is mature enough. Unskilled labor disrupting AI will arrive long before the means of improving ourselves. Edit: some have brought up the Flynn effect and evidence IQ is growing. Unfortunately even if true I think it's far too slow. Automation tech is advancing much faster with a decades shorter iteration cycle. Doubt digit median IQ growth over decades would probably be required to prevent mass unemployment at the scale of billions and that's pure sci-fi.

fellellor 10y ago

The IQ cutoff thing is, to me clearly, arrogant bullshit. In fact your whole comment seems like nothing but arrogant bullshit. If overall intelligence were indeed entirely genetic, since western societies operate on meritocracy, then the upper classes of these countries would be full of supremely intelligent uber mensch or whatever. That however, even from cursory inspection, is definitely not the case since you have more than your share of rich and stupid individuals. Programming is nothing but an area of work which is more suited to people with a certain analytical skill sets. There are plenty of cases of people from diverse backgrounds excelling in this area in spite of the obstacles in front of them.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
The upper classes do have higher average IQ, an effect which is more pronounced the more meritocratic the society. Yes, there are lots of stupid rich people and tons of smart impoverished people, but we are talking about averages here. As most people desire wealth and intelligence is your capacity to realize your desires, intelligent people acquire more wealth than less-intelligent people. As intelligence is very heritable, this has unfortunate class implications. I’m not endorsing this description as normative, I just think it is accurate. This state of affaires is allowed to be both true and objectionable. Natural selection is a horrible process that runs on death and suffering, it would be very odd if it shaped our variations in a manner that matches our ideological preferences. > Programming is nothing but an area of work which is more suited to people with a certain analytical skill sets. If you think you can turn 100 IQ people into productive programmers, you could make billions by training your own staff and undercutting everyone else. Give it a try.