6 ms·

> We can all be members of the intellectual elite, and then, only then, will a phrase "America's right to know" and, indeed, any true concept of democracy, have

by Kenji 9y ago

> We can all be members of the intellectual elite, and then, only then, will a phrase "America's right to know" and, indeed, any true concept of democracy, have any meaning Come on. We cannot all be members of the intellectual elite. And I'm not being facetious because of a few mentally disabled people. Half the population has an IQ below 100. Let that sink in for a moment. There are (more or less) innate IQ differences and some people excel at intellectual tasks while others do not and actually cannot as a matter of the body they possess. Just ask any school teacher: There are bright kids who get things easily and quickly get ahead and others who cannot progress even if they put in all the hard work and hours they can. This entire piece seems like Asimov is salty because not everyone is an intellectual. Well, too bad, there are people who enjoy a simple life without the sorrows that come with being an intellectual.

ucarion 9y ago
In that sentence, Asimov refers to the popular conception of the elite -- a very low standard -- and not some elite that is defined as the top 1% of society by some measure. On this popular conception of the elite, almost anyone can be a member. All you really need to do is regularly read a news publication.
- paulpauper 9y ago
  yeah just reading the news will make you better-informed than 95% of the population probably
middleclick 9y ago
Since IQ was mentioned, another Asimov essay on the topic: "What Is Intelligence, Anyway?" http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html
dragontamer 9y ago
> Half the population has an IQ below 100. Not surprising, since the very definition of "IQ 100" is average. As far as most researchers go, it turns out that the "IQ 100" has gotten harder and harder every year for nearly the past 100 years. In effect, a person with "IQ 100" back in 1930s would only have an IQ score of ~70 today. Yes, the _average_ person of the 1930s would be considered borderline retarded (defined as below IQ 70) by today's much higher standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect ------------------ The average person is far, far more intelligent today than decades past. There are numerous theories why this is happening (better nutrition? Better technology? Maybe better schooling and teaching?) But regardless, we as a society are significantly improving our "IQ scores" decade after decade.
- pizza 9y ago
  What evidence is there of intelligence following a Gaussian distribution, anyway?
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    None. Its an assumption of the IQ Test. The test itself assumes a Gaussian distribution. IQ Test was a quick-and-dirty testing methodology made in the dark ages of psychology. It turned out to be a decent measurement of general intelligence, but its theoretical fundamentals are... kind of shoddy. I mean, its better than a lot of early 1900s psychology... but its still from an age when psychology was more folk-science than real science. Fortunately, the IQ Test actually seems to measure something... and due to its age there are a large number of results that span over a century. And the test has been relatively standard throughout the time (with exception of its increasing difficulty, as our population has grown smarter on the average)
  - zo1 9y ago
    What evidence is there of height following a normal distribution? Weight? Size of rocks in a riverbed? The normal distribution simply implies that there is some sort of "average" or middle area, and that the further you go from it both sides (smaller/larger, faster/slower, etc), it becomes harder and harder to find instances of that measurement. It's just the way it is, and I'm probably not smart enough to explain it to you in a concise-enough way, but that's the gist of it from my understanding.
    - pizza 9y ago
      The thing about the normal distribution is that it's the distribution with the least information content. It has really little to do with real-world complex processes, and fitting real world phenomena to one typically ends in frustration and wildly incorrect estimates of likelihoods of samples. Intelligence (as measured through some test) being representative of a process that has minimal conditional structure underlying it seems pretty fishy to me. I'd expect intelligence to be more of an asymmetric distribution, with the vast majority of people being above the threshold of, say, catatonia; most people being under "genius" level, and a blip for geniuses that have really changed humanity's capabilities as being pretty far to the upper bounds, but with incredible impact on the group. Something like a "6 sigma" intelligence on a normal distribution would probably show up a lot more often on the skew distribution I have in mind. Although, this might be measuring something like E[f(intelligence)] where f is a convex impact-measuring function of intelligence
kleer001 9y ago
Why the down votes? It's correct. There's tons of dumb people. We can't all be elite. That's not how variation in a species works. Intelligence leans heavily on biology so it's got to be varied. Not everyone wins the lottery. Right? Asimov was from New York, he's f-n salty. He'd probably quickly admit it then laugh and compose a limerick about it and slap you on the ass. Also we need dumb people. We need people happy to swim in the shallow end of the pool of ideas. And we need to help them, take care of them, love them like any human. Give them opportunities to do important work. We certainly shouldn't let them have governmental or military powers. Now, we can shift the average intelligence to the right by a standard deviation, but that requires some real gumption. And only a rare group of people is that brave.
- lossolo 9y ago
  You know that you could be perceived as dumb to a lot smarter people than you, right? "But don't worry, "we need dumb people" too. You will get help, we will take care of you and love you like any human. Give you opportunities to do important work. But know one thing, we certainly shouldn't let you have governmental or military powers, you are just too dumb for it." That kind of reasoning is dangerous. Dictatorships are built on "I am smarter than those people, they are just dumb. I know better what's good for them than they do. They can't be allowed to make any decisions, direct or indirect (through voting)".
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    I don't think you're being fair to the person you're replying to. We should want to be led by people more intelligent than most. And not just more intelligent, but more honest, honorable, and courageous than most. That shouldn't be controversial. I don't agree with the OP's paternalism, but I do think that men need to be led to achieve the greatest that each is individually capable of. And to be a great leader requires one to be extraordinary. There is not a Napolean or Alexander sleeping inside each of us. And that's just fine. We are nonetheless equal before God, or for secular ears: equal in dignity and moral worth.
    - 9y ago
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Asimov is not demanding that everyone be a brilliant professor. He is demanding that people educate themselves to the best of their personal ability, rather than expilictly despising anyone who attempts to do that.
bostik 9y ago
> Half the population has an IQ below 100 I'm going to quote a junior high school mate, because what he said nearly 25 years ago still rings true. For background: Finland has mandatory conscription military service. Every year you get an honest cross-cut of the entire population. The sentence you used highlights a real fact, but it leaves it without context. What I'm going to say next is guaranteed to be both insensitive and politically incorrect, but I believe it has to be said. As my mate said: If you think about the "average" person, with an IQ of 100, you should also realise just how dumb that person appears to you. Sit down and take a deep breath. Half the population is, by definition, dumber than that. While in the military service, I learned this the hard way. I saw enough people who had trouble tying their showlaces, let alone the ability to hold a constructive argument. And like everyboby else in the military, everyone of them was given an assault rifle and live ammunition within 96 hours of starting their service. That gives a whole new meaning to fear. The only thing separating some these individuals from Gomer Pyle[0] was the lack of psychosis. (When I became a medic, I met those too. We had to provide them with hard prescription drugs to keep them subdued and maintain a suicide watch to make sure they could be escorted safely out the next day.) I can say with honesty that the military service recalibrated my view of humanity. And it's not pretty. 0: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/
- noobermin 9y ago
  I get it, military service is a particularly exceptional service because of the sampling is wide and all that, but it's not like anyone over the age of 20 hasn't met all sorts of people in general. Also, I get what you're saying, but every time I hear these sorts of things, alarm sirens in my head off and a refrain "confirmation bias" is blasted on repeat. The whole "half of people dumber than the median" doesn't really bother me as much as it does other people, especially since IQ often isn't what I care about when evaluating a person.
  - copperx 9y ago
    > IQ often isn't what I care about when evaluating a person It does become important if you're hiring, looking for a friend or romantic partner, or if you're going to be under that person's authority.

by Kenji 9y ago

ucarion 9y ago

In that sentence, Asimov refers to the popular conception of the elite -- a very low standard -- and not some elite that is defined as the top 1% of society by some measure. On this popular conception of the elite, almost anyone can be a member. All you really need to do is regularly read a news publication.

paulpauper 9y ago
yeah just reading the news will make you better-informed than 95% of the population probably

middleclick 9y ago

Since IQ was mentioned, another Asimov essay on the topic: "What Is Intelligence, Anyway?" http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html

dragontamer 9y ago

> Half the population has an IQ below 100. Not surprising, since the very definition of "IQ 100" is average. As far as most researchers go, it turns out that the "IQ 100" has gotten harder and harder every year for nearly the past 100 years. In effect, a person with "IQ 100" back in 1930s would only have an IQ score of ~70 today. Yes, the _average_ person of the 1930s would be considered borderline retarded (defined as below IQ 70) by today's much higher standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect ------------------ The average person is far, far more intelligent today than decades past. There are numerous theories why this is happening (better nutrition? Better technology? Maybe better schooling and teaching?) But regardless, we as a society are significantly improving our "IQ scores" decade after decade.

pizza 9y ago
What evidence is there of intelligence following a Gaussian distribution, anyway?
- dragontamer 9y ago
  None. Its an assumption of the IQ Test. The test itself assumes a Gaussian distribution. IQ Test was a quick-and-dirty testing methodology made in the dark ages of psychology. It turned out to be a decent measurement of general intelligence, but its theoretical fundamentals are... kind of shoddy. I mean, its better than a lot of early 1900s psychology... but its still from an age when psychology was more folk-science than real science. Fortunately, the IQ Test actually seems to measure something... and due to its age there are a large number of results that span over a century. And the test has been relatively standard throughout the time (with exception of its increasing difficulty, as our population has grown smarter on the average)
- zo1 9y ago
  What evidence is there of height following a normal distribution? Weight? Size of rocks in a riverbed? The normal distribution simply implies that there is some sort of "average" or middle area, and that the further you go from it both sides (smaller/larger, faster/slower, etc), it becomes harder and harder to find instances of that measurement. It's just the way it is, and I'm probably not smart enough to explain it to you in a concise-enough way, but that's the gist of it from my understanding.
  - pizza 9y ago
    The thing about the normal distribution is that it's the distribution with the least information content. It has really little to do with real-world complex processes, and fitting real world phenomena to one typically ends in frustration and wildly incorrect estimates of likelihoods of samples. Intelligence (as measured through some test) being representative of a process that has minimal conditional structure underlying it seems pretty fishy to me. I'd expect intelligence to be more of an asymmetric distribution, with the vast majority of people being above the threshold of, say, catatonia; most people being under "genius" level, and a blip for geniuses that have really changed humanity's capabilities as being pretty far to the upper bounds, but with incredible impact on the group. Something like a "6 sigma" intelligence on a normal distribution would probably show up a lot more often on the skew distribution I have in mind. Although, this might be measuring something like E[f(intelligence)] where f is a convex impact-measuring function of intelligence

kleer001 9y ago

Why the down votes? It's correct. There's tons of dumb people. We can't all be elite. That's not how variation in a species works. Intelligence leans heavily on biology so it's got to be varied. Not everyone wins the lottery. Right? Asimov was from New York, he's f-n salty. He'd probably quickly admit it then laugh and compose a limerick about it and slap you on the ass. Also we need dumb people. We need people happy to swim in the shallow end of the pool of ideas. And we need to help them, take care of them, love them like any human. Give them opportunities to do important work. We certainly shouldn't let them have governmental or military powers. Now, we can shift the average intelligence to the right by a standard deviation, but that requires some real gumption. And only a rare group of people is that brave.

lossolo 9y ago
You know that you could be perceived as dumb to a lot smarter people than you, right? "But don't worry, "we need dumb people" too. You will get help, we will take care of you and love you like any human. Give you opportunities to do important work. But know one thing, we certainly shouldn't let you have governmental or military powers, you are just too dumb for it." That kind of reasoning is dangerous. Dictatorships are built on "I am smarter than those people, they are just dumb. I know better what's good for them than they do. They can't be allowed to make any decisions, direct or indirect (through voting)".
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  I don't think you're being fair to the person you're replying to. We should want to be led by people more intelligent than most. And not just more intelligent, but more honest, honorable, and courageous than most. That shouldn't be controversial. I don't agree with the OP's paternalism, but I do think that men need to be led to achieve the greatest that each is individually capable of. And to be a great leader requires one to be extraordinary. There is not a Napolean or Alexander sleeping inside each of us. And that's just fine. We are nonetheless equal before God, or for secular ears: equal in dignity and moral worth.
  - 9y ago

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

Asimov is not demanding that everyone be a brilliant professor. He is demanding that people educate themselves to the best of their personal ability, rather than expilictly despising anyone who attempts to do that.

bostik 9y ago

> Half the population has an IQ below 100 I'm going to quote a junior high school mate, because what he said nearly 25 years ago still rings true. For background: Finland has mandatory conscription military service. Every year you get an honest cross-cut of the entire population. The sentence you used highlights a real fact, but it leaves it without context. What I'm going to say next is guaranteed to be both insensitive and politically incorrect, but I believe it has to be said. As my mate said: If you think about the "average" person, with an IQ of 100, you should also realise just how dumb that person appears to you. Sit down and take a deep breath. Half the population is, by definition, dumber than that. While in the military service, I learned this the hard way. I saw enough people who had trouble tying their showlaces, let alone the ability to hold a constructive argument. And like everyboby else in the military, everyone of them was given an assault rifle and live ammunition within 96 hours of starting their service. That gives a whole new meaning to fear. The only thing separating some these individuals from Gomer Pyle[0] was the lack of psychosis. (When I became a medic, I met those too. We had to provide them with hard prescription drugs to keep them subdued and maintain a suicide watch to make sure they could be escorted safely out the next day.) I can say with honesty that the military service recalibrated my view of humanity. And it's not pretty. 0: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/

noobermin 9y ago
I get it, military service is a particularly exceptional service because of the sampling is wide and all that, but it's not like anyone over the age of 20 hasn't met all sorts of people in general. Also, I get what you're saying, but every time I hear these sorts of things, alarm sirens in my head off and a refrain "confirmation bias" is blasted on repeat. The whole "half of people dumber than the median" doesn't really bother me as much as it does other people, especially since IQ often isn't what I care about when evaluating a person.
- copperx 9y ago
  > IQ often isn't what I care about when evaluating a person It does become important if you're hiring, looking for a friend or romantic partner, or if you're going to be under that person's authority.