12 ms·

I agree that there must be jobs, but with one important and subtle distinction. There should always be jobs for anyone willing to work. The difference is it lea

I agree that there must be jobs, but with one important and subtle distinction. There should always be jobs for anyone willing to work. The difference is it leaves out the subtle dehumanization implied in your response (and I know it was unintended), and leaves out our limited, market-driven and popsci ideals about human intelligence out of it. We have all met some damn smart people who never went to college, or learned how to read or write profeciently. My father was brilliant at arithmetic from learning to count money in restaurants and gambling. He was a middle school dropout. The trucker didn't all of a sudden go from stupid to intelligent once someone showed him how to read -- all he needed to do is for someone to teach him! There is a wonderful TED talk about how our STEM-driven craze is a tragedy in terms of how it defines human intelligence by a renounced English teacher and professor, highly recommend it. The short of it is we should never discriminate on arbitrary things like IQ, reading levels, etc, because we have no idea what even constitutes "intelligence", much less how to duplicate it from adolescent to adolescent.

Bakary 9y ago
I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly, but the problem is that some types of intelligence become less useful than others as society changes. STEM-type intelligence becomes more in demand while a very smart person who lacks skills like these (whether they are not attuned to it or didn't have the opportunity to learn) will still struggle because the competition pool is so large that there are tons of people in the same situation and a limited number of ways they can become economically useful. The end result is likely to be a large scale dehumanization even for smart folks unless there is some intervention. Edit: to clarify, the market driven popsci definition is paramount because the market determines your dehumanization
- treehau5 9y ago
  I hear what you are saying. I am challenging the assertion that intelligence has 'types'. The 'type' of intelligence (or in my terms, the more dominant expression of your intelligence) is largely geared by your early upbringings and what you were exposed to. I believe fundamentally we all have the same brain and same capabilities. Strictly speaking, the brain is an organ, but operates more like a muscle, and as such can be trained and improved just like any other organ or muscle in our body. Every single human being has the potential to be an Einstein, so to speak, in my opinion* we have just done a horrible job at a. figuring out what exactly is the right combination of training, motivating factors, and environmental influence to push more towards that direction, b. what it actually means to be an 'Einstein' In any case, since most people have not had the fortune of having the good experiences that most of us here have, I think it is merely a common service to our fellow man and woman to treat them equally no matter what and provide equal opportunities for employment -- and that includes whatever the en-vogue measure of intelligence is out there today. * to be fair to me: I formed my opinion over years long soul searching and embellishment in countless self-help and pop-sci books on self-improvement, finally forming opinions around sound science and not junk science. But I am also a human after all, and admit my understanding of the current literature can be flawed.
  - bradknowles 9y ago
    The chemical composition of your brain may be nearly indistinguishable from mine, but the output of mine may be radically different than yours. There are all sorts of "intelligence" that I just don't have. I don't get social cues. They just don't register for me. There is a "social intelligence" that I don't have. But I have seen people who clearly do. Likewise, there are things that I find to be quite natural for me, and other people look at me like I'm crazy and they don't comprehend how I can do those things. Whether you call it "intelligence" or some other word, I think the result is the same. The Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation (http://jocrf.org/aptitudes http://jocrf.org/aptitudes) uses the term "aptitudes": > Aptitudes are natural talents, special abilities for doing, or learning to do, certain kinds of things easily and quickly. They have little to do with knowledge or culture, or education, or even interests. They have to do with heredity. Musical talent and artistic talent are examples of such aptitudes. > Some people can paint beautifully but cannot carry a tune. Others are good at talking to people but slow at paperwork. Still others can easily repair a car but find writing difficult. Is that a better term than "intelligence" for what you had in mind?
    - Moru 9y ago
      My job exists only because a certain type of job has a lot more than average of people that can't write much. Mostly because of dyslexia or similar problems. My job is to completely remove the need for them to waste time on the writing part and let them do their job instead.
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    >Every single human being has the potential to be an Einstein, so to speak, in my opinion Your opinion is completely unsupported by evidence. Do you truly believe someone with Downs Syndrome or a severe traumatic brain injury has the capacity to be a theoretical physicist? The belief that everyone is capable of great things might be comforting, but it's ultimately very cruel. Many people will try their very hardest and get the best available support, but still struggle with the most basic tasks of life and work. Pretending otherwise just absolves us of responsibility. It's a get-out-of-jail-free card when we see people suffering. We need a society that provides a good life for everyone, regardless of their ability to contribute. It's great if truckers can retrain to be software developers or psychotherapists, but we shouldn't be planning our society based on that assumption. Some people are very unlikely to develop advanced professional skills, but that's fine. They're still human beings and they're still entitled to a dignified and fulfilling life.
int_19h 9y ago
If it's a job that doesn't actually need to be done (i.e. it's only done to keep the person willing to do it occupied), is it still a job, or is it just a hobby? You might say it depends on whether it pays or not... but if there's a paycheck in exchange for essentially useless work, it's just welfare in disguise.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > but if there's a paycheck in exchange for essentially useless work, it's just welfare in disguise How many devs out there writing framework (or insert your idea of re-inventing the tech wheel again here) of the week at a job only because VCs are willing to burn up their capital for that lottery ticket? "Useless" is highly subjective.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    "Useless" is highly subjective when you don't have enough information to render accurate judgment. But this is not the case that we're talking about. Consider this simplified case. I hire you to sweep the floors in my apartment, and I pay you by the hour. I have a vacuum cleaner, but I don't offer it to you, because then you'd have done the job much sooner, and would be paid less - and I want to pay you more. Do you see the absurdity in this arrangement? I hope it's fairly obvious. The moral choice in this case is, of course, to let you use the vacuum cleaner, but pay you the same amount as for manual sweeping (minus any amortization costs for the cleaner). I don't lose anything this way, since I've parted with the same amount of money. You have gained, because you've got the same money for less back-breaking work - and now you can either enjoy some extra rest, or perhaps go clean someone else's house and earn more money. The difference in amount of work you performed in the first case vs the second case is the "useless work" here - and there's nothing subjective about it. The difference in amount of money paid for a manual sweep and for vacuuming, if you were paid at the same rate for both, is the welfare, because I didn't have to pay you more than the market price of the hour of your work. Note, I do not consider the term "welfare" to be in any way negative. I just wish we recognized it for what it is, and consciously designed our economic policies around it, instead of pretending that it's something else - in this case, by forcing people to do useless work for it just to satisfy our sense of "propriety" (that they shouldn't "get it for free").
jpttsn 9y ago
Intelligence can be a real thing even if nobody knows how to teach it.
twostoned 9y ago
This might have been asked already but would you mind linking me to said TED talk?
- treehau5 9y ago
  https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_cre... I differ a bit, but the idea that we are shoving only one type of skill set over another is what he touches on. He argues a lot for creativity how it's over looked in modern schooling. https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_cre...
malandrew 9y ago
> There should always be jobs for anyone willing to work. Willing to work != provide value someone is willing to pay for

Bakary 9y ago

I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly, but the problem is that some types of intelligence become less useful than others as society changes. STEM-type intelligence becomes more in demand while a very smart person who lacks skills like these (whether they are not attuned to it or didn't have the opportunity to learn) will still struggle because the competition pool is so large that there are tons of people in the same situation and a limited number of ways they can become economically useful. The end result is likely to be a large scale dehumanization even for smart folks unless there is some intervention. Edit: to clarify, the market driven popsci definition is paramount because the market determines your dehumanization

treehau5 9y ago
I hear what you are saying. I am challenging the assertion that intelligence has 'types'. The 'type' of intelligence (or in my terms, the more dominant expression of your intelligence) is largely geared by your early upbringings and what you were exposed to. I believe fundamentally we all have the same brain and same capabilities. Strictly speaking, the brain is an organ, but operates more like a muscle, and as such can be trained and improved just like any other organ or muscle in our body. Every single human being has the potential to be an Einstein, so to speak, in my opinion* we have just done a horrible job at a. figuring out what exactly is the right combination of training, motivating factors, and environmental influence to push more towards that direction, b. what it actually means to be an 'Einstein' In any case, since most people have not had the fortune of having the good experiences that most of us here have, I think it is merely a common service to our fellow man and woman to treat them equally no matter what and provide equal opportunities for employment -- and that includes whatever the en-vogue measure of intelligence is out there today. * to be fair to me: I formed my opinion over years long soul searching and embellishment in countless self-help and pop-sci books on self-improvement, finally forming opinions around sound science and not junk science. But I am also a human after all, and admit my understanding of the current literature can be flawed.
- bradknowles 9y ago
  The chemical composition of your brain may be nearly indistinguishable from mine, but the output of mine may be radically different than yours. There are all sorts of "intelligence" that I just don't have. I don't get social cues. They just don't register for me. There is a "social intelligence" that I don't have. But I have seen people who clearly do. Likewise, there are things that I find to be quite natural for me, and other people look at me like I'm crazy and they don't comprehend how I can do those things. Whether you call it "intelligence" or some other word, I think the result is the same. The Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation (http://jocrf.org/aptitudes http://jocrf.org/aptitudes) uses the term "aptitudes": > Aptitudes are natural talents, special abilities for doing, or learning to do, certain kinds of things easily and quickly. They have little to do with knowledge or culture, or education, or even interests. They have to do with heredity. Musical talent and artistic talent are examples of such aptitudes. > Some people can paint beautifully but cannot carry a tune. Others are good at talking to people but slow at paperwork. Still others can easily repair a car but find writing difficult. Is that a better term than "intelligence" for what you had in mind?
  - Moru 9y ago
    My job exists only because a certain type of job has a lot more than average of people that can't write much. Mostly because of dyslexia or similar problems. My job is to completely remove the need for them to waste time on the writing part and let them do their job instead.
- jdietrich 9y ago
  >Every single human being has the potential to be an Einstein, so to speak, in my opinion Your opinion is completely unsupported by evidence. Do you truly believe someone with Downs Syndrome or a severe traumatic brain injury has the capacity to be a theoretical physicist? The belief that everyone is capable of great things might be comforting, but it's ultimately very cruel. Many people will try their very hardest and get the best available support, but still struggle with the most basic tasks of life and work. Pretending otherwise just absolves us of responsibility. It's a get-out-of-jail-free card when we see people suffering. We need a society that provides a good life for everyone, regardless of their ability to contribute. It's great if truckers can retrain to be software developers or psychotherapists, but we shouldn't be planning our society based on that assumption. Some people are very unlikely to develop advanced professional skills, but that's fine. They're still human beings and they're still entitled to a dignified and fulfilling life.

int_19h 9y ago

If it's a job that doesn't actually need to be done (i.e. it's only done to keep the person willing to do it occupied), is it still a job, or is it just a hobby? You might say it depends on whether it pays or not... but if there's a paycheck in exchange for essentially useless work, it's just welfare in disguise.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
> but if there's a paycheck in exchange for essentially useless work, it's just welfare in disguise How many devs out there writing framework (or insert your idea of re-inventing the tech wheel again here) of the week at a job only because VCs are willing to burn up their capital for that lottery ticket? "Useless" is highly subjective.
- int_19h 9y ago
  "Useless" is highly subjective when you don't have enough information to render accurate judgment. But this is not the case that we're talking about. Consider this simplified case. I hire you to sweep the floors in my apartment, and I pay you by the hour. I have a vacuum cleaner, but I don't offer it to you, because then you'd have done the job much sooner, and would be paid less - and I want to pay you more. Do you see the absurdity in this arrangement? I hope it's fairly obvious. The moral choice in this case is, of course, to let you use the vacuum cleaner, but pay you the same amount as for manual sweeping (minus any amortization costs for the cleaner). I don't lose anything this way, since I've parted with the same amount of money. You have gained, because you've got the same money for less back-breaking work - and now you can either enjoy some extra rest, or perhaps go clean someone else's house and earn more money. The difference in amount of work you performed in the first case vs the second case is the "useless work" here - and there's nothing subjective about it. The difference in amount of money paid for a manual sweep and for vacuuming, if you were paid at the same rate for both, is the welfare, because I didn't have to pay you more than the market price of the hour of your work. Note, I do not consider the term "welfare" to be in any way negative. I just wish we recognized it for what it is, and consciously designed our economic policies around it, instead of pretending that it's something else - in this case, by forcing people to do useless work for it just to satisfy our sense of "propriety" (that they shouldn't "get it for free").

jpttsn 9y ago

Intelligence can be a real thing even if nobody knows how to teach it.

twostoned 9y ago

This might have been asked already but would you mind linking me to said TED talk?

treehau5 9y ago
https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_cre... I differ a bit, but the idea that we are shoving only one type of skill set over another is what he touches on. He argues a lot for creativity how it's over looked in modern schooling. https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_cre...

malandrew 9y ago

> There should always be jobs for anyone willing to work. Willing to work != provide value someone is willing to pay for