4 ms·

But does state investment into R&D and state sponsored companies more than compensate for this? I think (as does Ray Dalio) that the U.S. will be surpassed in t

But does state investment into R&D and state sponsored companies more than compensate for this? I think (as does Ray Dalio) that the U.S. will be surpassed in the next 15 years. The U.S. aggressively removes meritocratic gifted programs and replaces them with diversity quotas [1] while China's Gao Kao is widely studied for (in contrast to say the SAT) and pure meritocracy. How can you claim that lower odds events will occur more often in the U.S. when we're suppressing the programs which produce people that go on to make those lower odds events happen? 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jefferson-high-admissions-change/2020/10/07/0a1f8faa-08a7-11eb-9be6-cf25fb429f1a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jeffer...

gumby 5y ago
There’s a very strong counter argument. First, exams like Gao Kao, Bac, SAT are indeed “meritocratic” in that they tend to predict success…because success” tends to mean “does well in this exam” rather than later outcome; to the degree they predict later outcome they reflect a pre existing network, wealth, etc on the part of the students. Now knowing how to speak with people and having some informal network support can make things run smoothly and even in some cases “better” — I think there’s little argument to that. The problem with these pre-existing networks is that they become intellectually and socially inbred (in the US just look for example at the networks that led to the viet nam war, or the crowned heads of Europe, or the churning (over the centuries) dynasties of China). A society built on hybrid vigour is likely to be more resilient and capable than one built on the “fitness” of legacy-based entrants. The latter is a flawed definition of “merit”.
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  I don't think you can argue that a society built on admitting based on diversity rather than even imperfect standardized testing can be more independent of the pre-existing network. By denying admits from poor "overrepresented" minorities you preserve the status quo, since in practice affirmative action merely admits minorities who are already wealthy and connected rather than lifting people out of poverty. At least in the Gao Kao system you have new entrants in upper socioeconomic tiers since you can realistically study your way out of poverty. Those entrants can bring new viewpoints whereas wealthy people, even if they're different races, are fairly homogenous in life experience. Personally I believe standardized tests reflect the degree of time and diligence invested into preparing for them ("grit"), which although negatively impacted by poverty is still a strong signal for future success.
  - omegaworks 5y ago
    >since you can realistically study your way out of poverty Since the advent of standardized testing, wealthy subjects have used their means to cheat.
  - gumby 5y ago
    The Bac was a tool of neutral advancement but I really don’t think it has been in decades. SAT has a more mixed history and has never been particularly neutral (more like am IQ test). Gao Kao has a very long and mixed record but I agree that for a long time it was at least intended to be neutral. But the “princelings” (太子黨) show how neutral it really is today. Personally I take a dim view of the utility of any test that can be crammed for. > I don't think you can argue that a society built on admitting based on diversity rather than even imperfect standardized testing can be more independent of the pre-existing network. Certainly you can, and I am not only citing such an argument and agreeing with it, but am such an example. It’s hardly perfect of course. But just for myself: I am genetically a “mongrel” (per the then laws of the country of my birth), my father was the only of his siblings to enter university; their parents had finished only grades 3 and 6. My mother of a race normally banned from the country. Zero status there. But I attended what is at times described as the “best”* high school in the USA and the so-called “best” university due in part to great SAT scores. (Note: almost four decades ago!). So the system can work. Those with preexisting networks will still have an advantage, but I gained access to them too. I suppose you could say I traveled to the USA so I was inherently in some sort of “in group”. I don’t remember that there was any SAT prep in those days though perhaps it was just not available to me. I certainly don’t remember any of my schoolmates studying for it. * quotation marks because I consider such unidimensional claims to be fatuous. Mentioning them simply to supply a real world example.
igorkraw 5y ago
I am highly sceptical of the idea that standardized testing is truly meritocratic. There's a recent KnowingBetter video that goes into detail on how it can be viewed as a segregation tool and how that idea of "we are educationally disarming ourselves" started with Reagan and Ayn Rand, but that would veer too much into politics, so I'll make my own argument: the fact that you benefit from private tutoring, having a good learning environment, a culture of academic expectations etc. will make rich kids and kids that are pushed into studying more by their parents much more likely to do well on standardized tests. It won'tnecessarily transfer though. So by focusing on standardised testing, you filter out poor people (which still just happen to be overproportionally PoC in the US...) while optimising for people who can do at standardised tests, not necessarily those who'll do well in research. And given the number of diagnosed AD(H) and dyslexic people I've encountered in my higher education who only pass their exams because of accomodation of specialised needs but who are brilliant at their roles now... I'll rather take diversity I think than trust some government to codify what "intelligence" and "merit" means.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
skmurphy 5y ago
It's one thing to play catch up and invest against a technology tree that has already been mapped by more advanced competitors. It's quite another to have to fund exploration. Governments have not proven adept at funding technology advances in peacetime compared to private industry.
wallacoloo 5y ago
I also think this “upside decay” idea has some weight as an argument for some kind of economic reform. There are many would-be entrepreneurs whose potential remains untapped because the low odds of an extreme upside aren’t worth the high odds of a (relatively low-cost) downside to them as an individual, even if those odds are attractive to the society when scaled across many individuals. I don’t see any way to overcome that discrepancy between the individual and the society except by guaranteeing the individual some acceptable standard of living even when they fail. VC tries to do this, but only for ideas tied to specific economic sectors. Lambda school did something that’s halfway there (cover basic expenses, but only for schooling — not for business ventures). Basic income is the broadest idea that helps free entrepreneurs to pursue more frictionlessly these ideas that society benefits from without worry of the cost of failure, yet I hardly ever see people frame it that way.

gumby 5y ago

There’s a very strong counter argument. First, exams like Gao Kao, Bac, SAT are indeed “meritocratic” in that they tend to predict success…because success” tends to mean “does well in this exam” rather than later outcome; to the degree they predict later outcome they reflect a pre existing network, wealth, etc on the part of the students. Now knowing how to speak with people and having some informal network support can make things run smoothly and even in some cases “better” — I think there’s little argument to that. The problem with these pre-existing networks is that they become intellectually and socially inbred (in the US just look for example at the networks that led to the viet nam war, or the crowned heads of Europe, or the churning (over the centuries) dynasties of China). A society built on hybrid vigour is likely to be more resilient and capable than one built on the “fitness” of legacy-based entrants. The latter is a flawed definition of “merit”.

b9a2cab5 5y ago
I don't think you can argue that a society built on admitting based on diversity rather than even imperfect standardized testing can be more independent of the pre-existing network. By denying admits from poor "overrepresented" minorities you preserve the status quo, since in practice affirmative action merely admits minorities who are already wealthy and connected rather than lifting people out of poverty. At least in the Gao Kao system you have new entrants in upper socioeconomic tiers since you can realistically study your way out of poverty. Those entrants can bring new viewpoints whereas wealthy people, even if they're different races, are fairly homogenous in life experience. Personally I believe standardized tests reflect the degree of time and diligence invested into preparing for them ("grit"), which although negatively impacted by poverty is still a strong signal for future success.
- omegaworks 5y ago
  >since you can realistically study your way out of poverty Since the advent of standardized testing, wealthy subjects have used their means to cheat.
- gumby 5y ago
  The Bac was a tool of neutral advancement but I really don’t think it has been in decades. SAT has a more mixed history and has never been particularly neutral (more like am IQ test). Gao Kao has a very long and mixed record but I agree that for a long time it was at least intended to be neutral. But the “princelings” (太子黨) show how neutral it really is today. Personally I take a dim view of the utility of any test that can be crammed for. > I don't think you can argue that a society built on admitting based on diversity rather than even imperfect standardized testing can be more independent of the pre-existing network. Certainly you can, and I am not only citing such an argument and agreeing with it, but am such an example. It’s hardly perfect of course. But just for myself: I am genetically a “mongrel” (per the then laws of the country of my birth), my father was the only of his siblings to enter university; their parents had finished only grades 3 and 6. My mother of a race normally banned from the country. Zero status there. But I attended what is at times described as the “best”* high school in the USA and the so-called “best” university due in part to great SAT scores. (Note: almost four decades ago!). So the system can work. Those with preexisting networks will still have an advantage, but I gained access to them too. I suppose you could say I traveled to the USA so I was inherently in some sort of “in group”. I don’t remember that there was any SAT prep in those days though perhaps it was just not available to me. I certainly don’t remember any of my schoolmates studying for it. * quotation marks because I consider such unidimensional claims to be fatuous. Mentioning them simply to supply a real world example.

igorkraw 5y ago

I am highly sceptical of the idea that standardized testing is truly meritocratic. There's a recent KnowingBetter video that goes into detail on how it can be viewed as a segregation tool and how that idea of "we are educationally disarming ourselves" started with Reagan and Ayn Rand, but that would veer too much into politics, so I'll make my own argument: the fact that you benefit from private tutoring, having a good learning environment, a culture of academic expectations etc. will make rich kids and kids that are pushed into studying more by their parents much more likely to do well on standardized tests. It won'tnecessarily transfer though. So by focusing on standardised testing, you filter out poor people (which still just happen to be overproportionally PoC in the US...) while optimising for people who can do at standardised tests, not necessarily those who'll do well in research. And given the number of diagnosed AD(H) and dyslexic people I've encountered in my higher education who only pass their exams because of accomodation of specialised needs but who are brilliant at their roles now... I'll rather take diversity I think than trust some government to codify what "intelligence" and "merit" means.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

skmurphy 5y ago

It's one thing to play catch up and invest against a technology tree that has already been mapped by more advanced competitors. It's quite another to have to fund exploration. Governments have not proven adept at funding technology advances in peacetime compared to private industry.

wallacoloo 5y ago

I also think this “upside decay” idea has some weight as an argument for some kind of economic reform. There are many would-be entrepreneurs whose potential remains untapped because the low odds of an extreme upside aren’t worth the high odds of a (relatively low-cost) downside to them as an individual, even if those odds are attractive to the society when scaled across many individuals. I don’t see any way to overcome that discrepancy between the individual and the society except by guaranteeing the individual some acceptable standard of living even when they fail. VC tries to do this, but only for ideas tied to specific economic sectors. Lambda school did something that’s halfway there (cover basic expenses, but only for schooling — not for business ventures). Basic income is the broadest idea that helps free entrepreneurs to pursue more frictionlessly these ideas that society benefits from without worry of the cost of failure, yet I hardly ever see people frame it that way.