9 ms·

1. The author is unfortunately misguided. It is not the society, but market/economics of today that value intelligence more than anything else, mainly because

1. The author is unfortunately misguided. It is not the society, but market/economics of today that value intelligence more than anything else, mainly because it is directly correlated with economic output. (conscientiousness being the other major factor). 2. On the other hand, Sport teams value speed, strength and agility, eye coordination, height, etc... . basically physical prowess. You can't blame them, nobody is willing to pay to watch a bunch of average out of shape people playing a sport, but they are willing to see peak performance. 3. Same with music, film/movie, and theatre, we are naturally want to see great performances, art, and/or beautiful things. #2 and #3 have been historically more important than #1, and now number #1 (intelligence), is becoming more important due to its economic output and not because society started valuing it more. -- Seems like it was written by a luddite, with no concept of economy output. It like someone from 1910 saying: "We should ban automation in farming and tractors and other machinery should be banned, as where all these farmers will find jobs"... "We must stop glorifying intelligence and treating our society as a playground for the smart minority. We should instead begin shaping our economy, our schools, even our culture with an eye to the abilities and needs of the majority, and to the full range of human capacity. The government could, for example, provide incentives to companies that resist automation, thereby preserving jobs for the less brainy. It could also discourage hiring practices that arbitrarily and counterproductively weed out the less-well-IQ’ed. This might even redound to employers’ benefit: Whatever advantages high intelligence confers on employees, it doesn’t necessarily make for more effective, better employees. "

stcredzero 8y ago
IQ shouldn't be conflated with human worth. It should be taken as a measure of societal progress, however. Poles and Italian immigrants in the US raised their average IQ scores over the 1st half of the 20th century -- by over 15 points! Where there has been no progress and backsliding in average IQ scores, this should be taken as an indictment of the policies at play in those times and places.
- ardit33 8y ago
  Here is the hard thing to swallow: Some people are worth more than others. eg: A beautiful person will have much more options in dating, while an ugly person will not, or have no options at all. I know, it is unfair, but there is a clear case that humans have different worth in a society, and it depends on their abilities. A top scorer (aka Ronaldo, Messi, or Zlatan) in soccer, will have much higher worth in the market then a mediocre one. Their output is directly measurable, and yes, they have much much different value and they are worth more than an average player. Their presence in a team creates more ticket sales and more viewership into the sport. So, they are clearly worth more to that sport at least. If you think sports are valuable at all to a society, then they are probably worth more to the society as well. If you think sports are useless, then they are probably noise. But it seems that our society values sports and performance. As I said, IQ is not the only one. Beauty, physical strength, height, prowess, performance in arts, acting ability, creativity are other ones. Yes, a sub-average IQ person, that happens to be a great athlete will do well. So, a person with high IQ, but sub-average athletic ability, or beauty. The author mentions that it is 'unfair' that companies select their candidates by their IQ, while it is clear case that companies are simply acting on their self interest (IQ is highly co-related to output in today's information age). And, while I agree we should do more to improve early childhood education, and honestly start at even pre-natal care, to make sure that we do whatever we can to raise IQ. But I don't agree with his recommendation to resist automation at any cost, and not to value IQ at all. History has shown that societies that did resist progress, the average person suffered for it, (feudal Japan, Russia, or China in the 19th century, are examples where centuries of backwards economic values, and resisting to automation resulted in much poorer societies overall).
  - bittercynic 8y ago
    Be careful with that idea about some being worth more than others. As we move from one domain to another through the course of a day/week/whatever, we take on different levels of "worth". As for the dating thing, dating someone far more or less beautiful than you comes with some problems, but sometimes is worth it. There are lots of people at all levels of beauty, so I don't buy the idea that you might have no options due to ugliness.
- foobar2020 8y ago
  > Poles and Italian immigrants in the US raised their average IQ scores over the 1st half of the 20th century -- by over 15 points! So did everyone else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect 3 points per decade = 15 points per 50 years. So this shows that immigration to the US had no impact on the IQ of this group. Whole developed world has very similar IQ levels to United States, except for China, Japan, Korea which have higher average levels: https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country
  - philwelch 8y ago
    There are also a lot of very boring explanations for this. It turns out that good nutrition and avoiding lead poisoning (two major improvements in quality of life in developed countries in the 20th century) both lead to higher IQ.
    - foobar2020 8y ago
      Right right, I'm not sure anyone really knows why this happens. My point is that 15 points per half-decade is just baseline. Doesn't mean we've picked up any useful correlation.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Doesn't mean we've picked up any useful correlation. There are US sub-populations that have lagged. Genetics does not explain this, as overseas populations with the same genetics have not lagged.
        foobar2020 8y ago
        Interesting. Do you have any sources where I could read about it? Flynn effect is fascinating me - if it holds in the future we'll have, in developed nations, an average IQ of 130 (by today's standards) in 100 years. That's a LOT. It'd, roughly, mean that ~17% of people would be capable of graduating from today's Ivy League schools without problems (145 IQ or more). And there would still be the (new) top 0.5%. But whether it will hold is anyone's guess.
0xfeba 8y ago
> It could also discourage hiring practices that arbitrarily and counter-productively weed out the less-well-IQ’ed. Affirmative action for the stupid? > This might even redound to employers’ benefit: Whatever advantages high intelligence confers on employees, it doesn’t necessarily make for more effective, better employees. Uh-huh. Sure, it doesn't necessarily make for it, but it's a good indicator. It really did read like it was written by a Luddite.
- andrei_says_ 8y ago
  Please define stupid? My dentist is stupidly inept at front-end development, a dancer is stupid at math, a front-end dev may suck at accounting. Which one of them is stupid?
  - civilian 8y ago
    Stupidity is general slowness in learning. If someone is not good at _anything_ then it's a good bayesian guess to say they're stupid. If someone has high-achievement in one or more specialities it's safe to say they're smart. [edit: Feel free to explain the downvotes! I understand the parent-comment was arguing for a "there are different types of intelligence" kind of theory, but I do think that the "aggregate smartness" is more useful/correct. Think of the smart people you know-- aren't they often kind of polymaths? And even things they're new to, they kind of pick up fast? And think of the really stupid people you know--- don't they kind of suck of everything?]
  - lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
    Probably all 3 if they lacked the introspection to avoid interviewing for positions in dev work, math, and accounting respectively. Competence (which is probably closer to what society is increasingly valuing as opposed to intelligence) is always context dependent (although society has also generally respected the idea of the accomplished generalist, see the idea of the Renaissance Man).
  - woodlumhoodlum 8y ago
    All 3 (says the back-end dev)
jdietrich 8y ago
>It is not the society, but market/economics of today that value intelligence more than anything else Society has chosen to give the market relatively free reign. Society could also choose to redistribute profits and incentivise companies to act in the interests of society in general, rather than their just their shareholders. You might disagree with that, you might even have a profound moral objection to that, but on a societal level it is very much a choice.
- ryanmonroe 8y ago
  The suggestion that we should redistribute wealth is very different from the author's suggestion that we should provide a disincentive for automation, and make sure we don't tend to hire the best (where best includes intelligence) person available for a given job.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  Yup, if we truly valued intelligence then we should recognize the inequality of the American economic system is systematically wasting a lot of human potential simply because it so unevenly gives people the basic resources of clean food, water, shelter, education, medical care.
- ardit33 8y ago
  Yes, I disagree. I lived under communism (in Albania). The society at time (communist/socialist regime), decided that in order to make it up in the society and the ranks of state controlled companies you have had to come from a 'poor or simple' family, and if you were part of the previous bourgeoise, or not communist enough, (i.e. most smart people), you were relegated to crappy jobs, or often interned into education camps. In resulted in a lot of communist zealots, but dummies, going to top positions. They did what they could, and it resulted in total economic collapse few decades later. It resulted in food rations, where a family of 4 could only buy a dozen of eggs a week, one pound of meat, and could barely buy bread/milk and other necessities. Some folks here have really never faced the dire consequences of communism and how it created a poor society across the board. When I was 11, I had to stay in bread lines so our family could eat. It looked like this: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/hungry-people-desparate-for-food-besiege-a-bread-shop-in-news-photo/56764766 https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/hungry-peopl...
mhuffman 8y ago
> It is not the society, but market/economics of today that value intelligence more than anything else, mainly because it is directly correlated with economic output Unfortunately, I think this is spot on. Sadly, In the US at least, people are worth to society what they are worth in $$$.
- ACow_Adonis 8y ago
  And I think the other major confounder in all of this discussion is also the tendency for US culture to mistake $$$ for intelligence and worth to society. In addition, in almost every discussion where people say "successful", the implicit assumption is that you understand they really mean $$$. The idea that intelligence or usefulness to society might negatively correlate with $$$ is so far removed it's almost a culturally forbidden thought.
philwelch 8y ago
I think society values competence, and intelligence is a trait that enables, but does not guarantee, competence. There are a ton of highly intelligent people who do not hold high social status, because intelligence is neither necessary nor sufficient for competence. Highly intelligent people who never apply themselves to socially-valued aims are considered losers and hold zero status in our society; the archetypal example of this being Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons.
- tristor 8y ago
  Yes, this is true. But I think it's more complex than this. Society /relies/ on competence for its continued existence, but it doesn't necessarily value it innately. Kind of referencing back to the person you replied to, the market values competence not society, but it does it out of necessity. Having competent people in all fields helps to accelerate your ability to grow, become profitable, and reduces mistakes. The bulk of people in the West are apathetic without much care for their work, and care is nearly an inherent prerequisite of competence, as competence is something you develop and are not born with. You develop competence through focused practice and the care to understand. Clearly, while we rely on competence, it's not so highly valued.
  - kpil 8y ago
    >The bulk of people in the West are apathetic without much care for their work In my experience, most people put a lot of energy and care into their jobs, and most are proud over what they do even when they are not doing especially important or valued tasks. They also seem to be putting the interest of the company above other concerns.
lrajlich 8y ago
You're (mostly) missing the point. This is, more or less, the point... "Yes, some careers do require smarts. But even as high intelligence is increasingly treated as a job prerequisite, evidence suggests that it is not the unalloyed advantage it’s assumed to be." When I was young I tended to equate academic performance & raw smarts with success, but as I've gotten older I've notice that long term success is less correlated with raw intelligence and more with disposition: charisma, grit, and emotional intelligence. In some ways, in the current academic system, being extremely smart is almost like being able to cheat. You can skip the studying, take a test that others will struggle with, and still ace it. Real life is less like that and more of a slog where having a high IQ gives you a 20% advantage instead of a 150% advantage (these numbers are obviously pulled out of thin air).
- civilian 8y ago
  You're absolutely right. And the Big5 factor named "conscientiousness" is another word for grit. (AndI assume ardit33 was using the Big5 meaning.) I'd further say that emotional intelligence and charisma correlate somewhat with intelligence. They may be developed later, but it's easier for an intelligent person to develop those things. One college summer I was interning at a sales office, and the sales manager said something that stuck with me: "Often we're selling this product to people who don't really understand it, or don't really understand how it's going to help them. And it's easy to have a deal fall through because of that, and I've seen a lot of salespeople in that situation throw up their hands and say 'bah! The client is stupid, that's why I couldn't sell the thing to him.' But if you're so much smarter, and the client is dumber, then you ought to be able to figure out a way to help the client along and understand the value. Working with a dumb client is no excuse, it's a call to action."
  - lrajlich 8y ago
    Yes, big 5 is a good model for disposition. However, to be precise, conscientiousness isn't the same thing as grit. To illustrate the distinction, look at John McCain - he embodies a sort of tenacity and resilience I would call "grit" (thumbs down at 2am), but isn't the most conscientious (didn't vet Sarah Palin). I'm sure there's studies to say charisma and social intelligence correlate with intelligence, or some academic would argue those are a form of intelligence, etc. The article specifically calls out IQ / test taking intelligence as being overvalued by society in general, which is what I mean in my comment as well. Eg, The SAT doesn't test you for these traits and these traits will not make much of a difference in an academic setting.
minitel 8y ago
The part about catering to the "less-well-IQ'd" minority sounds very off to me. Reminds me of the Vonnegut short story Harrison Bergeron => http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
VeronicaJJ123 8y ago
I am surprised your comment is not flagged by the usual Luddite HN community. Recently a makeup artist complained that she works harder than programmers and yet programmers get paid lot more to just sit in front of screen and type (to paraphrase her). Author's article comes from the standard "intellectual idiot" standpoint that goes something like this "this is what is wrong with the world, only if I had the power to change it I would have made it better" Author is ignorant of the fact that intelligence correlates with economic output which also means you are more valuable to society. That is how markets work and will always work. Very good essay here : https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-can-we-help-thickos-at-university-pretend-theyre-clever/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-can-we-help-thickos-...
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It is not the society, but market/economics Both having a market and behavior in that market are aspects of society. So, no, if it is the latter then it definitely also is the former.
jpao79 8y ago
I agree. I think a more direct statement of the state of American society is "American society increasingly gives more money to people who know how to make more money by providing goods and services that people are being convinced to pay money for." Or even more simply, those who are adept at acquiring money, will acquire more of it. People fortunately or unfortunately value you based on what you can do for them. Whether we agree with the goods and services individual people chose to pay for and whether the setup is myopic is another thing. That said, it does seem to be the fairest way thus far until we can figure out a way to base our economy on human kindness. It's better than alternatives of ways of rewarding humans. Basing it on beauty, strength, most weapons, most cruel, etc. seems worse off for society. I also curiously wonder if some of the extreme income inequality is actually partially due to the fact that most rational people will stop adding more stress to their lives because they realize making more money after a certain point requires more sacrifices then they personally are willing to make (i.e. 24/7 emails, constant travel, etc.)

stcredzero 8y ago

IQ shouldn't be conflated with human worth. It should be taken as a measure of societal progress, however. Poles and Italian immigrants in the US raised their average IQ scores over the 1st half of the 20th century -- by over 15 points! Where there has been no progress and backsliding in average IQ scores, this should be taken as an indictment of the policies at play in those times and places.

ardit33 8y ago
Here is the hard thing to swallow: Some people are worth more than others. eg: A beautiful person will have much more options in dating, while an ugly person will not, or have no options at all. I know, it is unfair, but there is a clear case that humans have different worth in a society, and it depends on their abilities. A top scorer (aka Ronaldo, Messi, or Zlatan) in soccer, will have much higher worth in the market then a mediocre one. Their output is directly measurable, and yes, they have much much different value and they are worth more than an average player. Their presence in a team creates more ticket sales and more viewership into the sport. So, they are clearly worth more to that sport at least. If you think sports are valuable at all to a society, then they are probably worth more to the society as well. If you think sports are useless, then they are probably noise. But it seems that our society values sports and performance. As I said, IQ is not the only one. Beauty, physical strength, height, prowess, performance in arts, acting ability, creativity are other ones. Yes, a sub-average IQ person, that happens to be a great athlete will do well. So, a person with high IQ, but sub-average athletic ability, or beauty. The author mentions that it is 'unfair' that companies select their candidates by their IQ, while it is clear case that companies are simply acting on their self interest (IQ is highly co-related to output in today's information age). And, while I agree we should do more to improve early childhood education, and honestly start at even pre-natal care, to make sure that we do whatever we can to raise IQ. But I don't agree with his recommendation to resist automation at any cost, and not to value IQ at all. History has shown that societies that did resist progress, the average person suffered for it, (feudal Japan, Russia, or China in the 19th century, are examples where centuries of backwards economic values, and resisting to automation resulted in much poorer societies overall).
- bittercynic 8y ago
  Be careful with that idea about some being worth more than others. As we move from one domain to another through the course of a day/week/whatever, we take on different levels of "worth". As for the dating thing, dating someone far more or less beautiful than you comes with some problems, but sometimes is worth it. There are lots of people at all levels of beauty, so I don't buy the idea that you might have no options due to ugliness.
foobar2020 8y ago
> Poles and Italian immigrants in the US raised their average IQ scores over the 1st half of the 20th century -- by over 15 points! So did everyone else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect 3 points per decade = 15 points per 50 years. So this shows that immigration to the US had no impact on the IQ of this group. Whole developed world has very similar IQ levels to United States, except for China, Japan, Korea which have higher average levels: https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country
- philwelch 8y ago
  There are also a lot of very boring explanations for this. It turns out that good nutrition and avoiding lead poisoning (two major improvements in quality of life in developed countries in the 20th century) both lead to higher IQ.
  - foobar2020 8y ago
    Right right, I'm not sure anyone really knows why this happens. My point is that 15 points per half-decade is just baseline. Doesn't mean we've picked up any useful correlation.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Doesn't mean we've picked up any useful correlation. There are US sub-populations that have lagged. Genetics does not explain this, as overseas populations with the same genetics have not lagged.
      - foobar2020 8y ago
        Interesting. Do you have any sources where I could read about it? Flynn effect is fascinating me - if it holds in the future we'll have, in developed nations, an average IQ of 130 (by today's standards) in 100 years. That's a LOT. It'd, roughly, mean that ~17% of people would be capable of graduating from today's Ivy League schools without problems (145 IQ or more). And there would still be the (new) top 0.5%. But whether it will hold is anyone's guess.

0xfeba 8y ago

> It could also discourage hiring practices that arbitrarily and counter-productively weed out the less-well-IQ’ed. Affirmative action for the stupid? > This might even redound to employers’ benefit: Whatever advantages high intelligence confers on employees, it doesn’t necessarily make for more effective, better employees. Uh-huh. Sure, it doesn't necessarily make for it, but it's a good indicator. It really did read like it was written by a Luddite.

andrei_says_ 8y ago
Please define stupid? My dentist is stupidly inept at front-end development, a dancer is stupid at math, a front-end dev may suck at accounting. Which one of them is stupid?
- civilian 8y ago
  Stupidity is general slowness in learning. If someone is not good at _anything_ then it's a good bayesian guess to say they're stupid. If someone has high-achievement in one or more specialities it's safe to say they're smart. [edit: Feel free to explain the downvotes! I understand the parent-comment was arguing for a "there are different types of intelligence" kind of theory, but I do think that the "aggregate smartness" is more useful/correct. Think of the smart people you know-- aren't they often kind of polymaths? And even things they're new to, they kind of pick up fast? And think of the really stupid people you know--- don't they kind of suck of everything?]
- lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
  Probably all 3 if they lacked the introspection to avoid interviewing for positions in dev work, math, and accounting respectively. Competence (which is probably closer to what society is increasingly valuing as opposed to intelligence) is always context dependent (although society has also generally respected the idea of the accomplished generalist, see the idea of the Renaissance Man).
- woodlumhoodlum 8y ago
  All 3 (says the back-end dev)

jdietrich 8y ago

>It is not the society, but market/economics of today that value intelligence more than anything else Society has chosen to give the market relatively free reign. Society could also choose to redistribute profits and incentivise companies to act in the interests of society in general, rather than their just their shareholders. You might disagree with that, you might even have a profound moral objection to that, but on a societal level it is very much a choice.

ryanmonroe 8y ago
The suggestion that we should redistribute wealth is very different from the author's suggestion that we should provide a disincentive for automation, and make sure we don't tend to hire the best (where best includes intelligence) person available for a given job.
dv_dt 8y ago
Yup, if we truly valued intelligence then we should recognize the inequality of the American economic system is systematically wasting a lot of human potential simply because it so unevenly gives people the basic resources of clean food, water, shelter, education, medical care.
ardit33 8y ago
Yes, I disagree. I lived under communism (in Albania). The society at time (communist/socialist regime), decided that in order to make it up in the society and the ranks of state controlled companies you have had to come from a 'poor or simple' family, and if you were part of the previous bourgeoise, or not communist enough, (i.e. most smart people), you were relegated to crappy jobs, or often interned into education camps. In resulted in a lot of communist zealots, but dummies, going to top positions. They did what they could, and it resulted in total economic collapse few decades later. It resulted in food rations, where a family of 4 could only buy a dozen of eggs a week, one pound of meat, and could barely buy bread/milk and other necessities. Some folks here have really never faced the dire consequences of communism and how it created a poor society across the board. When I was 11, I had to stay in bread lines so our family could eat. It looked like this: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/hungry-people-desparate-for-food-besiege-a-bread-shop-in-news-photo/56764766 https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/hungry-peopl...

mhuffman 8y ago

> It is not the society, but market/economics of today that value intelligence more than anything else, mainly because it is directly correlated with economic output Unfortunately, I think this is spot on. Sadly, In the US at least, people are worth to society what they are worth in $$$.

ACow_Adonis 8y ago
And I think the other major confounder in all of this discussion is also the tendency for US culture to mistake $$$ for intelligence and worth to society. In addition, in almost every discussion where people say "successful", the implicit assumption is that you understand they really mean $$$. The idea that intelligence or usefulness to society might negatively correlate with $$$ is so far removed it's almost a culturally forbidden thought.

philwelch 8y ago

I think society values competence, and intelligence is a trait that enables, but does not guarantee, competence. There are a ton of highly intelligent people who do not hold high social status, because intelligence is neither necessary nor sufficient for competence. Highly intelligent people who never apply themselves to socially-valued aims are considered losers and hold zero status in our society; the archetypal example of this being Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons.

tristor 8y ago
Yes, this is true. But I think it's more complex than this. Society /relies/ on competence for its continued existence, but it doesn't necessarily value it innately. Kind of referencing back to the person you replied to, the market values competence not society, but it does it out of necessity. Having competent people in all fields helps to accelerate your ability to grow, become profitable, and reduces mistakes. The bulk of people in the West are apathetic without much care for their work, and care is nearly an inherent prerequisite of competence, as competence is something you develop and are not born with. You develop competence through focused practice and the care to understand. Clearly, while we rely on competence, it's not so highly valued.
- kpil 8y ago
  >The bulk of people in the West are apathetic without much care for their work In my experience, most people put a lot of energy and care into their jobs, and most are proud over what they do even when they are not doing especially important or valued tasks. They also seem to be putting the interest of the company above other concerns.

lrajlich 8y ago

You're (mostly) missing the point. This is, more or less, the point... "Yes, some careers do require smarts. But even as high intelligence is increasingly treated as a job prerequisite, evidence suggests that it is not the unalloyed advantage it’s assumed to be." When I was young I tended to equate academic performance & raw smarts with success, but as I've gotten older I've notice that long term success is less correlated with raw intelligence and more with disposition: charisma, grit, and emotional intelligence. In some ways, in the current academic system, being extremely smart is almost like being able to cheat. You can skip the studying, take a test that others will struggle with, and still ace it. Real life is less like that and more of a slog where having a high IQ gives you a 20% advantage instead of a 150% advantage (these numbers are obviously pulled out of thin air).

civilian 8y ago
You're absolutely right. And the Big5 factor named "conscientiousness" is another word for grit. (AndI assume ardit33 was using the Big5 meaning.) I'd further say that emotional intelligence and charisma correlate somewhat with intelligence. They may be developed later, but it's easier for an intelligent person to develop those things. One college summer I was interning at a sales office, and the sales manager said something that stuck with me: "Often we're selling this product to people who don't really understand it, or don't really understand how it's going to help them. And it's easy to have a deal fall through because of that, and I've seen a lot of salespeople in that situation throw up their hands and say 'bah! The client is stupid, that's why I couldn't sell the thing to him.' But if you're so much smarter, and the client is dumber, then you ought to be able to figure out a way to help the client along and understand the value. Working with a dumb client is no excuse, it's a call to action."
- lrajlich 8y ago
  Yes, big 5 is a good model for disposition. However, to be precise, conscientiousness isn't the same thing as grit. To illustrate the distinction, look at John McCain - he embodies a sort of tenacity and resilience I would call "grit" (thumbs down at 2am), but isn't the most conscientious (didn't vet Sarah Palin). I'm sure there's studies to say charisma and social intelligence correlate with intelligence, or some academic would argue those are a form of intelligence, etc. The article specifically calls out IQ / test taking intelligence as being overvalued by society in general, which is what I mean in my comment as well. Eg, The SAT doesn't test you for these traits and these traits will not make much of a difference in an academic setting.

minitel 8y ago

The part about catering to the "less-well-IQ'd" minority sounds very off to me. Reminds me of the Vonnegut short story Harrison Bergeron => http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

VeronicaJJ123 8y ago

I am surprised your comment is not flagged by the usual Luddite HN community. Recently a makeup artist complained that she works harder than programmers and yet programmers get paid lot more to just sit in front of screen and type (to paraphrase her). Author's article comes from the standard "intellectual idiot" standpoint that goes something like this "this is what is wrong with the world, only if I had the power to change it I would have made it better" Author is ignorant of the fact that intelligence correlates with economic output which also means you are more valuable to society. That is how markets work and will always work. Very good essay here : https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-can-we-help-thickos-at-university-pretend-theyre-clever/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-can-we-help-thickos-...

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It is not the society, but market/economics Both having a market and behavior in that market are aspects of society. So, no, if it is the latter then it definitely also is the former.

jpao79 8y ago

I agree. I think a more direct statement of the state of American society is "American society increasingly gives more money to people who know how to make more money by providing goods and services that people are being convinced to pay money for." Or even more simply, those who are adept at acquiring money, will acquire more of it. People fortunately or unfortunately value you based on what you can do for them. Whether we agree with the goods and services individual people chose to pay for and whether the setup is myopic is another thing. That said, it does seem to be the fairest way thus far until we can figure out a way to base our economy on human kindness. It's better than alternatives of ways of rewarding humans. Basing it on beauty, strength, most weapons, most cruel, etc. seems worse off for society. I also curiously wonder if some of the extreme income inequality is actually partially due to the fact that most rational people will stop adding more stress to their lives because they realize making more money after a certain point requires more sacrifices then they personally are willing to make (i.e. 24/7 emails, constant travel, etc.)