6 ms·

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

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
- pnutjam 8y ago
  ahhh.. Salespeople. What's truly on the bottom of the pond under all that scum and stagnant water.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The scum also rises.
CuriouslyC 8y ago
> Here is the hard thing to swallow: Some people are worth more than others. According to whom? Why do they have the authority to say? You can say that person A produces more economic output than person B, but the true worth of that is subjective. Higher IQ doesn't necessarily mean you're more competent, it means you're better at solving certain kinds of puzzles. Unless it is your job to solve that kind of puzzle you should directly measure what you care about. I also don't see how a preference for high IQ scores is inextricably linked to the notion of progress.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I also don't see how a preference for high IQ scores is inextricably linked to the notion of progress. It is the one measurable attribute which is most strongly associated with positive life outcomes, flat out. There are also different kinds of intelligence. This is really just to say that there are different kinds of competence. The more competent people are at solving problems, fixing things, and getting along with each other, the better life is. That's all it is.
- bloak 8y ago
  It seems to me that people today are mostly rewarded for passing exams, not "IQ" tests. Being good at passing exams is different from being good at "IQ" tests, and neither of those things necessarily correlates well with being good at doing useful work. Provided that the candidates have had similar educational opportunities, I would guess that a traditional exam is a better measure of someone's ability to be good at useful work because preparing for an exam requires studying, which is a kind of work. On the other hand, if you have to compare candidates who have not had similar educational opportunities, something similar to an "IQ" test might be better, though you will end up selecting some people who turn out to be good at very little besides solving those kinds of puzzles, and who are perhaps lazy and disorganised to boot.
jadedhacker 8y ago
Right wing mindset. Inborn attributes should be promoted and the unlucky discarded. Also, ascribe many things to inborn attributes that are actually the result of the environment.
aninhumer 8y ago
Your entire point rests on the implicit moral premise that the "worth" of a human should determined by their ability to produce utility for society. But why should that be? If someone, for whatever reason, is less able to produce utility, does that mean that person deserves less of that which is produced? That they should experience a worse life because of their lesser talents? And if someone is, for whatever reason, more able to produce utility, do they deserve more? Should we divert resources to improve their life at the expense of others? You can argue that inequality is necessary to create incentives. I don't personally believe that's true, but I understand the argument as a reasonable moral position. But to argue that some people are morally worth more than others is to discard the very notion of human equality. Your point isn't "hard to swallow", rather it is the conclusion of a moral framework which many find abhorrent.
- aslkfjhskjfhadk 8y ago
  >Your entire point rests on the implicit moral premise that the "worth" of a human should determined by their ability to produce utility for society. If we are to measure the worth of a person the value that they contribute to society is the most obvious way. A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing. People don't deserve things for existing. They are given a chance to contribute and if they fail to take advantage of that chance they are not rewarded. The belief that everyone, despite the decisions that they have made over the course of their life should be treated, rewarded, and respected equally is abhorrent. The ideology you are promoting would have a wife and child beater be treated equally to a doctor.
  - aninhumer 8y ago
    >A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing. People don't deserve things for existing. Well thank you for being honest enough that I don't feel the need to argue against you. Your hostility towards humanity speaks for itself. >The ideology you are promoting would have a wife and child beater be treated equally to a doctor. And the ideology you are promoting would have the disabled murdered for being unproductive. And indeed, it already has.
facetube 8y ago
> Here is the hard thing to swallow: Some people are worth more than others. This type of rhetoric is what put an incompetent lying reality television star in the White House. Signaling to people they are worth less than others hurts them on an emotional level regardless of veracity. People who are emotionally hurt can and will make problems for you. People with high emotional intelligence understand this, will avoid pressing that button, and will achieve better outcomes in their endeavors as a result.

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

pnutjam 8y ago
ahhh.. Salespeople. What's truly on the bottom of the pond under all that scum and stagnant water.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The scum also rises.

CuriouslyC 8y ago

> Here is the hard thing to swallow: Some people are worth more than others. According to whom? Why do they have the authority to say? You can say that person A produces more economic output than person B, but the true worth of that is subjective. Higher IQ doesn't necessarily mean you're more competent, it means you're better at solving certain kinds of puzzles. Unless it is your job to solve that kind of puzzle you should directly measure what you care about. I also don't see how a preference for high IQ scores is inextricably linked to the notion of progress.

stcredzero 8y ago
I also don't see how a preference for high IQ scores is inextricably linked to the notion of progress. It is the one measurable attribute which is most strongly associated with positive life outcomes, flat out. There are also different kinds of intelligence. This is really just to say that there are different kinds of competence. The more competent people are at solving problems, fixing things, and getting along with each other, the better life is. That's all it is.
bloak 8y ago
It seems to me that people today are mostly rewarded for passing exams, not "IQ" tests. Being good at passing exams is different from being good at "IQ" tests, and neither of those things necessarily correlates well with being good at doing useful work. Provided that the candidates have had similar educational opportunities, I would guess that a traditional exam is a better measure of someone's ability to be good at useful work because preparing for an exam requires studying, which is a kind of work. On the other hand, if you have to compare candidates who have not had similar educational opportunities, something similar to an "IQ" test might be better, though you will end up selecting some people who turn out to be good at very little besides solving those kinds of puzzles, and who are perhaps lazy and disorganised to boot.

jadedhacker 8y ago

Right wing mindset. Inborn attributes should be promoted and the unlucky discarded. Also, ascribe many things to inborn attributes that are actually the result of the environment.

aninhumer 8y ago

Your entire point rests on the implicit moral premise that the "worth" of a human should determined by their ability to produce utility for society. But why should that be? If someone, for whatever reason, is less able to produce utility, does that mean that person deserves less of that which is produced? That they should experience a worse life because of their lesser talents? And if someone is, for whatever reason, more able to produce utility, do they deserve more? Should we divert resources to improve their life at the expense of others? You can argue that inequality is necessary to create incentives. I don't personally believe that's true, but I understand the argument as a reasonable moral position. But to argue that some people are morally worth more than others is to discard the very notion of human equality. Your point isn't "hard to swallow", rather it is the conclusion of a moral framework which many find abhorrent.

aslkfjhskjfhadk 8y ago
>Your entire point rests on the implicit moral premise that the "worth" of a human should determined by their ability to produce utility for society. If we are to measure the worth of a person the value that they contribute to society is the most obvious way. A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing. People don't deserve things for existing. They are given a chance to contribute and if they fail to take advantage of that chance they are not rewarded. The belief that everyone, despite the decisions that they have made over the course of their life should be treated, rewarded, and respected equally is abhorrent. The ideology you are promoting would have a wife and child beater be treated equally to a doctor.
- aninhumer 8y ago
  >A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing. People don't deserve things for existing. Well thank you for being honest enough that I don't feel the need to argue against you. Your hostility towards humanity speaks for itself. >The ideology you are promoting would have a wife and child beater be treated equally to a doctor. And the ideology you are promoting would have the disabled murdered for being unproductive. And indeed, it already has.

facetube 8y ago

> Here is the hard thing to swallow: Some people are worth more than others. This type of rhetoric is what put an incompetent lying reality television star in the White House. Signaling to people they are worth less than others hurts them on an emotional level regardless of veracity. People who are emotionally hurt can and will make problems for you. People with high emotional intelligence understand this, will avoid pressing that button, and will achieve better outcomes in their endeavors as a result.