5 ms·
The title of this post and the opacity of the abstract is how you start a tire fire on HN. My recommendation would be to post some quoted passages from the tex
by sitkack 5y ago
The title of this post and the opacity of the abstract is how you start a tire fire on HN.
My recommendation would be to post some quoted passages from the text to add some momentum to a productive discussion.
I think one of the interesting passages is
> From 1990 to 2012: the “working class” share of jobs has steadily de- clined from 31.4% to 20.5%; the “creative class” share has been pretty stable, rising from 29.3 to 32.0; the “service class” has risen sharply from 39.3 to 48.5. He calls the latter “low-skill jobs”, seeing increases in occupations like nursing assistants, personal care aids (whether at home or in nursing homes), retail sales, and food prep workers (McDonalds). Note that the ratio between low skill and creative has risen in favor of the former: 1.35 to one in 1990; and 1.57 to one in 2012.
I'd really be interested in changes in the resulting economies for where those working class jobs ended up.
Reading a paper is hard, having a discussion about a paper is even harder. And especially when it has aspects of class and intelligence. Everyone is an expert in their own opinions on those two subjects.
- jcranmer 5y agoMy first thought when I see those statistics is where do jobs such as writing software or approving engineering plans fall into. I suspect that they are both considered "service class" jobs (since neither is attached to manufacturing, nor are they anything that would conventionally be considered creative)--yet they are very much not "low-skill jobs".
- throwawaygh 5y agoIt's a good gut reaction since software is often lumped in with "services", but in the context of the quoted article most software jobs are probably in the "creative" bucket. But the author of the quoted article doesn't bother to share their methodology or data, so who the hell really knows shrugs. Par for the course in sociology, really :)
- DaveExeter 5y agoWriting software I think would certainly be considered "creative class". Even when it is just a lot of cut and pasting from Stack Overflow.
- cblconfederate 5y agoA hypothesis is that the impossibility of having open intelligent discussions without walking on eggshells in the past 30 years may be due to this dysgenia
- throwawaygh 5y agoI struggle to take seriously sociology papers that mention g. Getting through this one is particularly painful because of careless writing. The second paragraph of the introduction is a grammatical mess, and there are many awkward sentences throughout the paper. How much confidence should I have in the correctness of the author's analyses, given that the authors can't even make it through the first column of the introduction of a camera-ready version without glaring grammatical mistakes? I admit, "messy writing portends poor execution" a very general heuristic that definitely isn't causal and might be wrong more often than it's correct. But the authors want me to take "g" seriously, so shrugs.
- bruce343434 5y agowhat does italicized g allude to?
- cyberbanjo 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
- tharne 5y ago"g", sometimes shown as "G", in the context of the study of intelligence typically refers to general intelligence or overall intelligence, in contrast to more specific types of intelligence such as EQ or mathematical ability.
- threatofrain 5y agoIt refers to the meta-observation that many intelligence measures are correlated.
- throwawaygh 5y agoA scientistic rhetorical/sophist ploy used by intelligence researchers.
- threatofrain 5y agoGeneral intelligence is a very mainstream concept. It’s not any specific measure of intelligence, but rather a meta observation on a conglomeration of tests.