4 ms·

> because of my own intelligence and skill... Fuck anyone giving me points for things i didn't work for or that are outside my control... Your "intelligence" i

> because of my own intelligence and skill... Fuck anyone giving me points for things i didn't work for or that are outside my control... Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control. What you've done with it is at least partially under your control, but you probably weren't born with any sort of brain disorder, for example. EDIT: adding on things like your visual appearance - race, hair color, pigmentation, height, etc - all of those are outside your control, and you generally can't control how other people initially react to those things outside your control. You didn't control where you were born, or - at least early on - what resources you had access to. You were a victim of (or success due to) your geography, at least early on in your life. But hey, you 'worked hard' and didn't watch as much tv as some lazy bastards who might get a $1000 scholarship because they grew up in a high-crime area, and fuck that, right?

grawprog 7y ago
How? I chose to learn the things i learned outside of school and to an extent the things i chose to learn in both high school and university. I didn't have to learn those things. I could have spent my time watching tv or doing other things. I know the things i know because i spent time and effort learning them.
- Retric 7y ago
  “Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control.” > How? The capacity for intelligence is outside of your control for example genetic disorders are not chosen by the individual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Further, when it comes to intelligence and Nature vs Nurture it’s really both. People 15,000 years ago people had nearly identical genetics, but their society lacked the knowledge to pass a SAT level math test. Now, making the best of your social and genetic background is up to everyone. But, assuming everything is balanced is at best willful ignorance.
- mgkimsal 7y ago
  you didn't choose your capacity for learning. there are people that try - much harder than you'll ever be capable of knowing - who can't do as much as you can. and it's not because of any factors they chose.
- mirrorlake 7y ago
  Think about an extreme case: a hypothetical person who was born an autistic savant who is a musical genius. They sold out concert halls at age 9-10, playing the hardest classical music ever written. To what degree did they “earn” their skills and their genius? At a certain point you must agree that people are born with brains that are wired better, and they had no control over that. Effort should be rewarded, but luck should not. Determining how much of someone’s success was luck vs hard work is not at all easy to determine. Through hard work and discipline, you did the best with the hardware you were given. But don’t think for a second that you wired your own brain. Edit: and just to clarify, I think some fuzzy new metric on a standardized test will probably never summarize whether someone “earned” their score or lucked into it. My comment here is mostly a reminder to be humble.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    When it comes time to enroll in college, I want that savant to go to the best music secondary school that they want to attend. I don't care whether they were "born with it" or "earned it", but I do care that they demonstrate outstanding ability. Not "outstanding ability, after considering factors X, Y, and Z", but simply "outstanding ability".
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      And if the savant kid happened to only see a musical instrument for the first time at 10 years old, so that when they took their music entrance exams at 11 years old their performance was very good but not quite at the same level as the other kids who had been learning for 10 years, you would just want to assess all of them on performance at that moment, and choose the kids that had been playing longer because your objective assessment is that they are better musicians.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        What if they first touched an instrument at age 25? Well, that person wouldn't get into a top music school at age 18. It's true that I value demonstrated objective competence rather than subjective predicted future competence.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- intended 7y ago
  And how would such a test not work out well for you? You would still score well, and the fact that you have extra work will still hold in good stead. Let me turn this question that puts your self interest first. You’ve got two people who you can hire for your team. I turns out one guy got a lower sat score than the other. The lower scorer is someone from the projects where people don’t go to college. He still managed it, and crunched his way through everything to get to community college. The other chap has good parents who are highly educated and comes from a stable household. Without a doubt, the first individual has proven a tenacity required to overcome a world of adversity. Frankly - this is a handicap we already give people if we are made aware of their context. The same reason people respect first responders, or people who’ve made it out of poverty are respected. Because it IS harder, and far more fail to get out in the current environment, than those who do. This will end up being more of a “how effective were you with the opportunities you had.” Measure than any other - and that’s provided it takes off in the first place.
  - kissickas 7y ago
    Have we forgotten the purpose of universities? Groups of students once gathered in a place to attract groups of professors who can teach them thing, and those professors attracted more students, and eventually they got together and built buildings for teaching and housing for students, formed unions, and all the rest. Why should we be shoving people who aren't capable of being the very best students into this environment? Why give them the expectation that this is what they must do to be successful? What must everyone learn from a university (including those in the Ivy League and their peers) that we expect them to all need to go, as a fundamental right, regardless of the fact that they will be displacing students who are quantifiably better-fit for this place? Who will be the first responders if we make everyone get a four-year degree before they can start their lives?
svd4anything 7y ago
So attractiveness adjustment score is also needed right? Physical traits have huge correlations and almost certainly causation to wealth and success. Tax credits for the ugly. Or maybe mandatory minor face disfigurement for the very beautiful. Hating the rich is hate. College board should use their zipcode model to provide free tutoring services instead of trying to punish Asian families who made sacrifices to live in better neighborhoods. Holding down the top doesn't work, isn’t ethical and is not the same as lifting up the bottom. Love the poor by helping them lift themselves up.
- Nition 7y ago
  Interesting demonstration of a possible Harrison Bergeron future that leads from here.
achillesheels 7y ago
Intelligence can be developed. I think it’s called “thinking”. Unless you disagree and have have a more thorough model of the mind as an uncontrollable and spontaneous assembly of synaptic connections in your skull?

grawprog 7y ago

How? I chose to learn the things i learned outside of school and to an extent the things i chose to learn in both high school and university. I didn't have to learn those things. I could have spent my time watching tv or doing other things. I know the things i know because i spent time and effort learning them.

Retric 7y ago
“Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control.” > How? The capacity for intelligence is outside of your control for example genetic disorders are not chosen by the individual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Further, when it comes to intelligence and Nature vs Nurture it’s really both. People 15,000 years ago people had nearly identical genetics, but their society lacked the knowledge to pass a SAT level math test. Now, making the best of your social and genetic background is up to everyone. But, assuming everything is balanced is at best willful ignorance.
mgkimsal 7y ago
you didn't choose your capacity for learning. there are people that try - much harder than you'll ever be capable of knowing - who can't do as much as you can. and it's not because of any factors they chose.
mirrorlake 7y ago
Think about an extreme case: a hypothetical person who was born an autistic savant who is a musical genius. They sold out concert halls at age 9-10, playing the hardest classical music ever written. To what degree did they “earn” their skills and their genius? At a certain point you must agree that people are born with brains that are wired better, and they had no control over that. Effort should be rewarded, but luck should not. Determining how much of someone’s success was luck vs hard work is not at all easy to determine. Through hard work and discipline, you did the best with the hardware you were given. But don’t think for a second that you wired your own brain. Edit: and just to clarify, I think some fuzzy new metric on a standardized test will probably never summarize whether someone “earned” their score or lucked into it. My comment here is mostly a reminder to be humble.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  When it comes time to enroll in college, I want that savant to go to the best music secondary school that they want to attend. I don't care whether they were "born with it" or "earned it", but I do care that they demonstrate outstanding ability. Not "outstanding ability, after considering factors X, Y, and Z", but simply "outstanding ability".
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    And if the savant kid happened to only see a musical instrument for the first time at 10 years old, so that when they took their music entrance exams at 11 years old their performance was very good but not quite at the same level as the other kids who had been learning for 10 years, you would just want to assess all of them on performance at that moment, and choose the kids that had been playing longer because your objective assessment is that they are better musicians.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      What if they first touched an instrument at age 25? Well, that person wouldn't get into a top music school at age 18. It's true that I value demonstrated objective competence rather than subjective predicted future competence.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
intended 7y ago
And how would such a test not work out well for you? You would still score well, and the fact that you have extra work will still hold in good stead. Let me turn this question that puts your self interest first. You’ve got two people who you can hire for your team. I turns out one guy got a lower sat score than the other. The lower scorer is someone from the projects where people don’t go to college. He still managed it, and crunched his way through everything to get to community college. The other chap has good parents who are highly educated and comes from a stable household. Without a doubt, the first individual has proven a tenacity required to overcome a world of adversity. Frankly - this is a handicap we already give people if we are made aware of their context. The same reason people respect first responders, or people who’ve made it out of poverty are respected. Because it IS harder, and far more fail to get out in the current environment, than those who do. This will end up being more of a “how effective were you with the opportunities you had.” Measure than any other - and that’s provided it takes off in the first place.
- kissickas 7y ago
  Have we forgotten the purpose of universities? Groups of students once gathered in a place to attract groups of professors who can teach them thing, and those professors attracted more students, and eventually they got together and built buildings for teaching and housing for students, formed unions, and all the rest. Why should we be shoving people who aren't capable of being the very best students into this environment? Why give them the expectation that this is what they must do to be successful? What must everyone learn from a university (including those in the Ivy League and their peers) that we expect them to all need to go, as a fundamental right, regardless of the fact that they will be displacing students who are quantifiably better-fit for this place? Who will be the first responders if we make everyone get a four-year degree before they can start their lives?

svd4anything 7y ago

So attractiveness adjustment score is also needed right? Physical traits have huge correlations and almost certainly causation to wealth and success. Tax credits for the ugly. Or maybe mandatory minor face disfigurement for the very beautiful. Hating the rich is hate. College board should use their zipcode model to provide free tutoring services instead of trying to punish Asian families who made sacrifices to live in better neighborhoods. Holding down the top doesn't work, isn’t ethical and is not the same as lifting up the bottom. Love the poor by helping them lift themselves up.

Nition 7y ago
Interesting demonstration of a possible Harrison Bergeron future that leads from here.

achillesheels 7y ago

Intelligence can be developed. I think it’s called “thinking”. Unless you disagree and have have a more thorough model of the mind as an uncontrollable and spontaneous assembly of synaptic connections in your skull?