5 ms·

The rise and rise of the cognitive elite

48 points by robg 16y ago

amenas 16y ago
Cognition is enhanced the more it's used, well I believe even repetitive jobs have room for innovation...
- jbri 16y ago
  If it's repetitive, it can be automated (to varying degrees).
joe_the_user 16y ago
Summary: They debunk some statistics that claim that inequality leads to various social ills but themselves make the far-less supported implications that there is something "cognitive" about those individuals who now have a large portion of the world's wealth - especially, it's a far leap from statistics indicating those with a university education are paid more to the implication that smart people get paid more. For however little we understand these things, their claims might be true but what stands-out is the distinction between the standard they hold the critics of inequality to and the standards they hold their sort-of-pro-inequality stand to.
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  To be fair, this is one article in a series on inequality. They come done much harsher on other sources of inequality, such as the American financial system and the Chinese rural to urban migration quotas.
- sedachv 16y ago
  Take note of this quote from the article: "And their findings about teen births, women’s status and innovation depend on Scandinavia, a region with a mild and sensible culture that is equally evident among people of Scandinavian stock who live in America." The whole thing is basically an elaborate rationalization of racism through the cliche of social darwinism. As much as I dislike stupid people, I hate social conservatives even more.
  - kiba 16y ago
    The whole thing is basically an elaborate rationalization of racism through the cliche of social darwinism. As much as I dislike stupid people, I hate social conservatives even more. I don't detect endorsement of social darwinism.
    - forkandwait 16y ago
      That's because you don't know what social darwinism means.... (edit) ... it means that individuals who win the various competitions in society (jobs, attractive spouses, etc) succeed because they have innate superiority in some way, and that we should allow such competition because it somehow propagates excellence.
  - m-photonic 16y ago
    I don't know, to me it looks like the bit about Americans of Scandinavian stock is just a throwaway line that has nothing to do with the point they're actually making, which is that the observed correlations are mainly just a product of the fact that there are a few countries with low levels of inequality that also happen to be exemplars of things like high life expectancy or women's rights. I don't think they're actually making any racial arguments in this article. When they do mention race later on, it's to make the point that the correlations of social problems with inequality don't have any more inherent explanatory value than the correlations with race.
    - candeira 16y ago
      I am writing from memory, but I think the writer of this piece had in mind the following Milton Friedman anecdote: When told there was almost no crime in quasi-socialist Nordic countries, Friedman retorted (I paraphrase) "ah, but we have almost no crime among Nordic-Americans".
    - sedachv 16y ago
      "I don't know, to me it looks like the bit about Americans of Scandinavian stock is just a throwaway line that has nothing to do with the point they're actually making" Then why go out of your way to use such a contentious statement? Why mention this later on: "race is a far more accurate predictor of murder, imprisonment and infant-mortality rates"? What does this have to do with the "cognitive elite?" This is just "fuck niggers, heil nordic ubermensch" stated in different terms. Both the agendas of that article (racism and classism) can much better be explained by the growing gender divide: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-... Women are better in the knowledge economy than men, and sex is a much better predictor of murder and imprisonment rates than race.
- forkandwait 16y ago
  One can assume that most readers of the Economist are in the elite, more or less... and elites have always been fond of expounding on how their status is justified. When it was ok to say "God loves us better", that worked; now the elites justify their status with "scientific" reasoning that "proves" that they deserve their status because of some innate personal feature. Surprise, surprise. While my experience does not a scientific sample make, when I worked in a hardware store for two years (more or less doing my undergrad), I thought that the population was about as smart as the students I went to college with. However, the long term blue collar hardware store employees neither understood how to go to school, or how to mobilize education when they did get acquire some. So... I think there is sytemic, multi-generational differences in access to the training that allows you to succeed in the supposedly meritocratic society we would like to believe we live in. The difference in training is definitely manifest in "pure" cognitive ability, but if your parents don't read to you as an infant, push you to do your homework, or help you to go to college, OF COURSE you are going be dumber by the time you join the workforce as an "adult". Read Bourdieu.
maxklein 16y ago
Well, that sucks for us normal people. Perhaps in a hundred years, the cognitive gap will be so large that there will be little meaningful interaction between the two groups. I wonder who'll do the boring middle management tasks then. Perhaps those people who can do mild intelligence, repetitive tasks will then be the highly paid ones, seeing as all the geniuses will have a lot of competition.
- j_baker 16y ago
  If the geniuses have a lot of competition, then they're not geniuses anymore now are they? And besides that, who says there aren't already highly-paid repetitive jobs requiring mild intelligence? Accountants and lawyers come to mind (people from both of these fields tell me they really don't require a whole lot of intelligence and are pretty repetitive (although the accountants are quick to point out that it's not as repetitive as you probably think)).
  - jacoblyles 16y ago
    It's worth noting that part of the wage of lawyers and accountants is monopoly rent extracted by strict licensing requirements that put hurdles in the way of potential competitors. It doesn't matter if you can pass the bar or the accountancy exams, most states will require that you also get a college (or post-college) degree. Credentialism keeps competitors and innovation out of fields like medicine, accounting, law, and taxi services, maintaining high prices and high wages.
  - WildUtah 16y ago
    who says there aren't already highly-paid repetitive jobs requiring mild intelligence? Cops and firemen make big money in many parts of the USA with $200,000+ mid career salary and benefits very common. Genius level scientists and engineers rarely make it that high in any endeavor with reasonable hours and job security.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  That depends on whether there is a niche for the 'normal people'. Traditional ecological models suggest that without such a niche, the 'normal people' will die out and the average intelligence of the human race will increase. So long as, of course, we don't wind up in an "Idiocracy"-type scenario.
sayemm 16y ago
Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray called it back in 1994 - http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297035491&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Pape...
patrickgzill 16y ago
This seems like a lot of hand-waving to try to justify outrageous situations like those on Wall Street getting huge bonuses via government handouts; no one begrudges athletes and celebrities their money, they are paid by the market.
- omouse 16y ago
  Erm, there's another difference too: atheletes and celebrities do not have their money tied to power; bankers do. When was the last time celebrities and atheletes tried to get their friends into positions of power?
nazgulnarsil 16y ago
just like to point out that IQ is not correlated with wealth when educational attainment is corrected for. that is, smart people without degrees don't do that well on average, contrary to the anecdotes.
- netcan 16y ago
  Do you happen to remember any citation for this?
  - nazgulnarsil 16y ago
    looking for it now, someone pulled data from the GSS and did a regression.
sown 16y ago
In the past I've mentioned that I lack the talent that many of you have and I was rebuked. However, when the economist says something similar I don't see such protests. Why?

48 points by robg 16y ago

amenas 16y ago

Cognition is enhanced the more it's used, well I believe even repetitive jobs have room for innovation...

jbri 16y ago
If it's repetitive, it can be automated (to varying degrees).

joe_the_user 16y ago

Summary: They debunk some statistics that claim that inequality leads to various social ills but themselves make the far-less supported implications that there is something "cognitive" about those individuals who now have a large portion of the world's wealth - especially, it's a far leap from statistics indicating those with a university education are paid more to the implication that smart people get paid more. For however little we understand these things, their claims might be true but what stands-out is the distinction between the standard they hold the critics of inequality to and the standards they hold their sort-of-pro-inequality stand to.

bryanlarsen 16y ago
To be fair, this is one article in a series on inequality. They come done much harsher on other sources of inequality, such as the American financial system and the Chinese rural to urban migration quotas.
sedachv 16y ago
Take note of this quote from the article: "And their findings about teen births, women’s status and innovation depend on Scandinavia, a region with a mild and sensible culture that is equally evident among people of Scandinavian stock who live in America." The whole thing is basically an elaborate rationalization of racism through the cliche of social darwinism. As much as I dislike stupid people, I hate social conservatives even more.
- kiba 16y ago
  The whole thing is basically an elaborate rationalization of racism through the cliche of social darwinism. As much as I dislike stupid people, I hate social conservatives even more. I don't detect endorsement of social darwinism.
  - forkandwait 16y ago
    That's because you don't know what social darwinism means.... (edit) ... it means that individuals who win the various competitions in society (jobs, attractive spouses, etc) succeed because they have innate superiority in some way, and that we should allow such competition because it somehow propagates excellence.
- m-photonic 16y ago
  I don't know, to me it looks like the bit about Americans of Scandinavian stock is just a throwaway line that has nothing to do with the point they're actually making, which is that the observed correlations are mainly just a product of the fact that there are a few countries with low levels of inequality that also happen to be exemplars of things like high life expectancy or women's rights. I don't think they're actually making any racial arguments in this article. When they do mention race later on, it's to make the point that the correlations of social problems with inequality don't have any more inherent explanatory value than the correlations with race.
  - candeira 16y ago
    I am writing from memory, but I think the writer of this piece had in mind the following Milton Friedman anecdote: When told there was almost no crime in quasi-socialist Nordic countries, Friedman retorted (I paraphrase) "ah, but we have almost no crime among Nordic-Americans".
  - sedachv 16y ago
    "I don't know, to me it looks like the bit about Americans of Scandinavian stock is just a throwaway line that has nothing to do with the point they're actually making" Then why go out of your way to use such a contentious statement? Why mention this later on: "race is a far more accurate predictor of murder, imprisonment and infant-mortality rates"? What does this have to do with the "cognitive elite?" This is just "fuck niggers, heil nordic ubermensch" stated in different terms. Both the agendas of that article (racism and classism) can much better be explained by the growing gender divide: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-... Women are better in the knowledge economy than men, and sex is a much better predictor of murder and imprisonment rates than race.
forkandwait 16y ago
One can assume that most readers of the Economist are in the elite, more or less... and elites have always been fond of expounding on how their status is justified. When it was ok to say "God loves us better", that worked; now the elites justify their status with "scientific" reasoning that "proves" that they deserve their status because of some innate personal feature. Surprise, surprise. While my experience does not a scientific sample make, when I worked in a hardware store for two years (more or less doing my undergrad), I thought that the population was about as smart as the students I went to college with. However, the long term blue collar hardware store employees neither understood how to go to school, or how to mobilize education when they did get acquire some. So... I think there is sytemic, multi-generational differences in access to the training that allows you to succeed in the supposedly meritocratic society we would like to believe we live in. The difference in training is definitely manifest in "pure" cognitive ability, but if your parents don't read to you as an infant, push you to do your homework, or help you to go to college, OF COURSE you are going be dumber by the time you join the workforce as an "adult". Read Bourdieu.

maxklein 16y ago

Well, that sucks for us normal people. Perhaps in a hundred years, the cognitive gap will be so large that there will be little meaningful interaction between the two groups. I wonder who'll do the boring middle management tasks then. Perhaps those people who can do mild intelligence, repetitive tasks will then be the highly paid ones, seeing as all the geniuses will have a lot of competition.

j_baker 16y ago
If the geniuses have a lot of competition, then they're not geniuses anymore now are they? And besides that, who says there aren't already highly-paid repetitive jobs requiring mild intelligence? Accountants and lawyers come to mind (people from both of these fields tell me they really don't require a whole lot of intelligence and are pretty repetitive (although the accountants are quick to point out that it's not as repetitive as you probably think)).
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  It's worth noting that part of the wage of lawyers and accountants is monopoly rent extracted by strict licensing requirements that put hurdles in the way of potential competitors. It doesn't matter if you can pass the bar or the accountancy exams, most states will require that you also get a college (or post-college) degree. Credentialism keeps competitors and innovation out of fields like medicine, accounting, law, and taxi services, maintaining high prices and high wages.
- WildUtah 16y ago
  who says there aren't already highly-paid repetitive jobs requiring mild intelligence? Cops and firemen make big money in many parts of the USA with $200,000+ mid career salary and benefits very common. Genius level scientists and engineers rarely make it that high in any endeavor with reasonable hours and job security.
sliverstorm 16y ago
That depends on whether there is a niche for the 'normal people'. Traditional ecological models suggest that without such a niche, the 'normal people' will die out and the average intelligence of the human race will increase. So long as, of course, we don't wind up in an "Idiocracy"-type scenario.

sayemm 16y ago

Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray called it back in 1994 - http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297035491&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Pape...

patrickgzill 16y ago

This seems like a lot of hand-waving to try to justify outrageous situations like those on Wall Street getting huge bonuses via government handouts; no one begrudges athletes and celebrities their money, they are paid by the market.

omouse 16y ago
Erm, there's another difference too: atheletes and celebrities do not have their money tied to power; bankers do. When was the last time celebrities and atheletes tried to get their friends into positions of power?

nazgulnarsil 16y ago

just like to point out that IQ is not correlated with wealth when educational attainment is corrected for. that is, smart people without degrees don't do that well on average, contrary to the anecdotes.

netcan 16y ago
Do you happen to remember any citation for this?
- nazgulnarsil 16y ago
  looking for it now, someone pulled data from the GSS and did a regression.

sown 16y ago

In the past I've mentioned that I lack the talent that many of you have and I was rebuked. However, when the economist says something similar I don't see such protests. Why?