4 ms·

What a terrible quote, horrible in the sense of reducing Man to the sum of his capability to build ever greater machines. Surely intelligence bears no relation

What a terrible quote, horrible in the sense of reducing Man to the sum of his capability to build ever greater machines. Surely intelligence bears no relation to goodness! I find Spandrell (and Land, who helped popularize the idea) atrocious.

jlawson 8y ago
You're mixing up goodness as in deserving, vs goodness as in capacity to do good. Spandrell never said anything like smart people are more deserving. He says smart people have more capacity to accomplish things which most people consider good. E.g safety, comfort, health, stability, wealth - and not just for themselves but for others too. Hard to argue with as far as I can see.
- exergy 8y ago
  'Capacity' to do 'good' (even per your definition) is so strongly reliant on the environment that one exists in, that I do not think you can defend your position in a rational manner. I also find it mildly offensive that your comment, and that of Spandrell, implies that smartness is measured only in IQ. High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities. What's more, people living in poor countries and outside of cities aren't 'incapable' of doing good. They are often poorly educated, lack role models, lack good parenting, lack a good peer group, and fundamentally, lack opportunity and a financially stable childhood. Virtually all of it is structural injustices thrown their way through the roll of a dice.
  - iguy 8y ago
    He obviously means "capacity to do good" as in capacity to keep a high-tech society running, and continue making technological improvements. He cares both about the cream of the crop for the next generation of cancer drugs (or computers), and the solid middle for being able to run modern accounting, retail supply chains, large-scale farming. Obviously "doing good" often means other things too, like calling your mom, and volunteering at a soup kitchen. Morally good. I think it's pretty clear from context that this isn't what he's talking about.
  - rainworld 8y ago
    High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities. Absolutely not. IQ correlates well with a number of desirable characteristics, for individuals as well as groups. education, role models, etc These things don't matter nearly as much as people like to think. roll of a dice A dice that appears to be consistently biased in favour of those with high test-solving abilities?
    - polotics 8y ago
      Please check out the recent posts on the subject by Nicholas Nassim Taleb. Illuminating. IQ tests work only to identify people who have a cognitive issue: low IQ is predictive. Anything above 100 is a wash in terms or real world success metrics. (Eg. Income)
      - iguy 8y ago
        Nope. Although the replies Taleb got from people who've actually read this stuff aren't a bad place to start.
  - jlawson 8y ago
    Sorry, gonna have to fisk this one. >Capacity' to do 'good' (even per your definition) is so strongly reliant on the environment that one exists in Yes, an environment created by the people in your community. Or were you talking about the climate and mineral resources and stuff like that? Because considering the inverse relationship between natural resources and the outcomes of countries, that doesn't come close to holding up. >I also find it mildly offensive that your comment, and that of Spandrell, implies that smartness is measured only in IQ. My comment implied nothing at all like that. Also even if I said that, which I didn't, it would be nonsensical to find it "offensive" unless you're using offense as a goal or a tactic. >High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities. Absolutely not. It is the #1 most predictive psychometric measure ever devised for predicting important life outcomes. It predicts criminality, longevity, income, education, health, and a host of other critical factors better than any other psychometric test that exists. >people living in poor countries and outside of cities aren't 'incapable' of doing good. In the modern world, low IQ people lack the mental tools to have a big impact. They're not smart enough to effectively write books, invent technologies, create or run movements or companies or unions, make strong political arguments, etc. It's not their fault, it's just how they are. They can do good in small ways, and many do amazing things in that area. But the modern world revolves around concentrated power, and power concentrates in the hands of those with high IQ. >They are often poorly educated, lack role models, lack good parenting, lack a good peer group, and fundamentally, lack opportunity and a financially stable childhood. True. The question is why. >Virtually all of it is structural injustices thrown their way through the roll of a dice. If it these injustices were a "roll of the dice", they would be randomly distributed across the population. They're concentrated in low-IQ communities, indicating that they're not random; they're actually connected to the fact the community is low IQ. I argue that there is a causal relationship: low IQ people tend to make decisions that make their communities worse (crime, dropping out of school, drugs, irresponsible parenting, etc), which creates the injustices suffered by the members of that community.
- aetimmes 8y ago
  Smart people also have equally as much capacity to accomplish things which most people consider bad. Capability and goodness are generally orthogonal.
  - simonsarris 8y ago
    > Capability and goodness are generally orthogonal. They are not generally orthogonal. They generally correlate well. See Gwern's "The IQ Halo effect": https://www.gwern.net/iq https://www.gwern.net/iq

jlawson 8y ago

You're mixing up goodness as in deserving, vs goodness as in capacity to do good. Spandrell never said anything like smart people are more deserving. He says smart people have more capacity to accomplish things which most people consider good. E.g safety, comfort, health, stability, wealth - and not just for themselves but for others too. Hard to argue with as far as I can see.

exergy 8y ago
'Capacity' to do 'good' (even per your definition) is so strongly reliant on the environment that one exists in, that I do not think you can defend your position in a rational manner. I also find it mildly offensive that your comment, and that of Spandrell, implies that smartness is measured only in IQ. High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities. What's more, people living in poor countries and outside of cities aren't 'incapable' of doing good. They are often poorly educated, lack role models, lack good parenting, lack a good peer group, and fundamentally, lack opportunity and a financially stable childhood. Virtually all of it is structural injustices thrown their way through the roll of a dice.
- iguy 8y ago
  He obviously means "capacity to do good" as in capacity to keep a high-tech society running, and continue making technological improvements. He cares both about the cream of the crop for the next generation of cancer drugs (or computers), and the solid middle for being able to run modern accounting, retail supply chains, large-scale farming. Obviously "doing good" often means other things too, like calling your mom, and volunteering at a soup kitchen. Morally good. I think it's pretty clear from context that this isn't what he's talking about.
- rainworld 8y ago
  High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities. Absolutely not. IQ correlates well with a number of desirable characteristics, for individuals as well as groups. education, role models, etc These things don't matter nearly as much as people like to think. roll of a dice A dice that appears to be consistently biased in favour of those with high test-solving abilities?
  - polotics 8y ago
    Please check out the recent posts on the subject by Nicholas Nassim Taleb. Illuminating. IQ tests work only to identify people who have a cognitive issue: low IQ is predictive. Anything above 100 is a wash in terms or real world success metrics. (Eg. Income)
    - iguy 8y ago
      Nope. Although the replies Taleb got from people who've actually read this stuff aren't a bad place to start.
- jlawson 8y ago
  Sorry, gonna have to fisk this one. >Capacity' to do 'good' (even per your definition) is so strongly reliant on the environment that one exists in Yes, an environment created by the people in your community. Or were you talking about the climate and mineral resources and stuff like that? Because considering the inverse relationship between natural resources and the outcomes of countries, that doesn't come close to holding up. >I also find it mildly offensive that your comment, and that of Spandrell, implies that smartness is measured only in IQ. My comment implied nothing at all like that. Also even if I said that, which I didn't, it would be nonsensical to find it "offensive" unless you're using offense as a goal or a tactic. >High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities. Absolutely not. It is the #1 most predictive psychometric measure ever devised for predicting important life outcomes. It predicts criminality, longevity, income, education, health, and a host of other critical factors better than any other psychometric test that exists. >people living in poor countries and outside of cities aren't 'incapable' of doing good. In the modern world, low IQ people lack the mental tools to have a big impact. They're not smart enough to effectively write books, invent technologies, create or run movements or companies or unions, make strong political arguments, etc. It's not their fault, it's just how they are. They can do good in small ways, and many do amazing things in that area. But the modern world revolves around concentrated power, and power concentrates in the hands of those with high IQ. >They are often poorly educated, lack role models, lack good parenting, lack a good peer group, and fundamentally, lack opportunity and a financially stable childhood. True. The question is why. >Virtually all of it is structural injustices thrown their way through the roll of a dice. If it these injustices were a "roll of the dice", they would be randomly distributed across the population. They're concentrated in low-IQ communities, indicating that they're not random; they're actually connected to the fact the community is low IQ. I argue that there is a causal relationship: low IQ people tend to make decisions that make their communities worse (crime, dropping out of school, drugs, irresponsible parenting, etc), which creates the injustices suffered by the members of that community.
aetimmes 8y ago
Smart people also have equally as much capacity to accomplish things which most people consider bad. Capability and goodness are generally orthogonal.
- simonsarris 8y ago
  > Capability and goodness are generally orthogonal. They are not generally orthogonal. They generally correlate well. See Gwern's "The IQ Halo effect": https://www.gwern.net/iq https://www.gwern.net/iq