6 ms·

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 a

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.
  - madeuptempacct 8y ago
    No one said "no options" - he said way less options.
- ChemicalWarfare 8y ago
  >> Here is the hard thing to swallow: Some people are worth more than others. I would add a qualifier here - "in some situations". As human beings per se we all are "worth" the same. When acting in a specific capacity, however, your ability to perform in that capacity determines your objective worth in that role. And of course it's pretty obvious that some occupations are better suited for ppl with different abilities. Master programmer will (most likely)be a worthless pro running back and (most likely)vice versa. The thing is - ppl are very accepting of the physical differences between individuals but contrary to what the article is saying - intellectual differences are way more of a taboo.
  - madeuptempacct 8y ago
    Your life is the sum of those "some" situations.
- amatic 8y ago
  > Here is the hard thing to swallow: Some people are worth more than others. "Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids. You wanna work here - close!" Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross
  - 8y ago
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.

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.
- madeuptempacct 8y ago
  No one said "no options" - he said way less options.
ChemicalWarfare 8y ago
>> Here is the hard thing to swallow: Some people are worth more than others. I would add a qualifier here - "in some situations". As human beings per se we all are "worth" the same. When acting in a specific capacity, however, your ability to perform in that capacity determines your objective worth in that role. And of course it's pretty obvious that some occupations are better suited for ppl with different abilities. Master programmer will (most likely)be a worthless pro running back and (most likely)vice versa. The thing is - ppl are very accepting of the physical differences between individuals but contrary to what the article is saying - intellectual differences are way more of a taboo.
- madeuptempacct 8y ago
  Your life is the sum of those "some" situations.
amatic 8y ago
> Here is the hard thing to swallow: Some people are worth more than others. "Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids. You wanna work here - close!" Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross
- 8y ago

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.