4 ms·
"increasingly" ? Was there a time when unintelligent people were more protected, and less exploited by private interests ("caveat emptor" and con artists and sn
by kolpa 8y ago
"increasingly" ? Was there a time when unintelligent people were more protected, and less exploited by private interests ("caveat emptor" and con artists and snake-oil sellers) and government (institutionalization, eugenics, propaganga)?
- jadedhacker 8y agoYes and no. Check out Foucault. He was a radical philosopher that discussed the treatment of mental health and was a critic of institutionalization. I don't know enough about him to agree or disagree with him, but he is an influential point of view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJTeNTZtGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJTeNTZtGU
- sevensor 8y agoThe article quotes an accountant from the 1950s: > hiring decisions were “based on a candidate having a critical skill or two and on soft factors such as eagerness, appearance, family background, and physical characteristics.” To me, this looks like the 1950s accountant preferred to hire WASPs. (Especially the last three items.) Now that we've mostly agreed this kind of thing is bad, what we're left with is critical skills and eagerness. So intelligence becomes a bigger factor in hiring decisions because the other factors were pretty terrible.
- scrumper 8y agoMinor nit: It quotes an account from the '50s, not an accountant.
- sevensor 8y agoHa! That's what I get for making a hasty response after skimming. Well, accountants or otherwise, I stand by my assessment.
- scrumper 8y agoIn fairness in the '50s as a man your choices were ad exec, sales rep, auto mechanic, lawyer, accountant, or serviceman. There were no other jobs at all.