4 ms·

They have not controlled for the most obvious variable: class. Obviously higher class individuals would score higher on their intelligence test having received

They have not controlled for the most obvious variable: class. Obviously higher class individuals would score higher on their intelligence test having received better education It should not surprise anyone that people higher up the class hierarchy have more moderate, centrist views while those that are struggling and for which radical change is an objective need because the current system is not working for them, embrace radicalism.

dllthomas 4y ago
Then you should be very surprised that they seem to have found higher test scores implying more demand for change.
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
orthecreedence 4y ago
As I've done better financially in life, I've become more radical. I'm one data point, but my experience contradicts your conclusion. I think in my case, it was a realization that I'm not working harder than other people or even working things that matter more than anybody else (in fact, on the contrary) and that at least 90% of my success can be attributed to luck. So if my success is not due to my deeds but rather a randomized lottery, then there's no point in preserving the status quo. And that's only analyzing one aspect: me. There are a lot of other reasons the world should change beyond what benefits just me.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sharadov 4y ago
  Do you work in tech, WFH and make upwards of 200K/year :-)
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  It seems to me you are overgeneralizing from your own case and understating the effects of your choices on the outcome in characterizing success as random. But even if it is random, you should hold out for demonstrably better alternative before giving up on preserving the existing one. There are worse outcomes than randomly distributed success.
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    > It seems to me you are overgeneralizing from your own case and understating the effects of your choices on the outcome in characterizing success as random. You think my only point of observation is myself? I even said in my original comment that I compare myself to others. > you should hold out for demonstrably better alternative Or work toward creating a better alternative, driven by my radical ideas for how things need to change. Why wait around for everyone else to fix things (or, more likely, sit around on their asses waiting for other people to change things)? > There are worse outcomes than randomly distributed success. Like I said, my analysis does not stop at myself or just at "success" as the main factor to optimize for. There are other reasons for changing the overall organization of the economic system. The current system demonstrably does not scale.
- hindsightbias 4y ago
  I’m more radical too, but looking at peers, it’s not really luck within their socio-economic (middle-class tech, college educated, mostly white) sphere. Pretty much anyone who showed up could find a way to get comfortable. Even those with screwed up personal lives weren’t starving. They’ve all got big trucks, houses and go on cruises.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
abeppu 4y ago
They show correlations between household income and their other measures in study 2 (significant positive correlation with conservatism, insignificant positive correlation with extremism), and between income at 2 ages in study 3 (in both cases there was significant relationship to conservatism and a weaker significant relationship to extremism). I think it's more interesting that they focus on finding their one relationship (between intelligence and extremism) and don't really unpack the relative sizes to other correlations in their own studies. E.g. the link between intelligence and extremism is weaker than the link between intelligence and conservatism (though studies 2 and 3 find _opposite signs_ for this relationship) and is weaker than the link between intelligence and income. So their study is basically consistent with the possibility that some intelligent people earn higher incomes and richer people are likely to be atypically conservative.
AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
> They have not controlled for the most obvious variable: class. What's the distinction you're making between household income and class? > The hypothesis that the positive association between higher intelligence and economic extremism would be replicated was tested using a linear model with total intelligence score as the independent variable, and economic extremism as the dependent variable, controlling for age, gender, education level, and <<<household income>>>.
- teamonkey 4y ago
  > What's the distinction you're making between household income and class? In the UK class is more complicated than simply having an income. It’s strongly correlated but not the same. You can have zero income, even be cash poor, but still have a title, influence, family history, contacts, favours, promises, even land (via various trusts)…

dllthomas 4y ago

Then you should be very surprised that they seem to have found higher test scores implying more demand for change.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

orthecreedence 4y ago

As I've done better financially in life, I've become more radical. I'm one data point, but my experience contradicts your conclusion. I think in my case, it was a realization that I'm not working harder than other people or even working things that matter more than anybody else (in fact, on the contrary) and that at least 90% of my success can be attributed to luck. So if my success is not due to my deeds but rather a randomized lottery, then there's no point in preserving the status quo. And that's only analyzing one aspect: me. There are a lot of other reasons the world should change beyond what benefits just me.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sharadov 4y ago
Do you work in tech, WFH and make upwards of 200K/year :-)
seti0Cha 4y ago
It seems to me you are overgeneralizing from your own case and understating the effects of your choices on the outcome in characterizing success as random. But even if it is random, you should hold out for demonstrably better alternative before giving up on preserving the existing one. There are worse outcomes than randomly distributed success.
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  > It seems to me you are overgeneralizing from your own case and understating the effects of your choices on the outcome in characterizing success as random. You think my only point of observation is myself? I even said in my original comment that I compare myself to others. > you should hold out for demonstrably better alternative Or work toward creating a better alternative, driven by my radical ideas for how things need to change. Why wait around for everyone else to fix things (or, more likely, sit around on their asses waiting for other people to change things)? > There are worse outcomes than randomly distributed success. Like I said, my analysis does not stop at myself or just at "success" as the main factor to optimize for. There are other reasons for changing the overall organization of the economic system. The current system demonstrably does not scale.
hindsightbias 4y ago
I’m more radical too, but looking at peers, it’s not really luck within their socio-economic (middle-class tech, college educated, mostly white) sphere. Pretty much anyone who showed up could find a way to get comfortable. Even those with screwed up personal lives weren’t starving. They’ve all got big trucks, houses and go on cruises.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

abeppu 4y ago

They show correlations between household income and their other measures in study 2 (significant positive correlation with conservatism, insignificant positive correlation with extremism), and between income at 2 ages in study 3 (in both cases there was significant relationship to conservatism and a weaker significant relationship to extremism). I think it's more interesting that they focus on finding their one relationship (between intelligence and extremism) and don't really unpack the relative sizes to other correlations in their own studies. E.g. the link between intelligence and extremism is weaker than the link between intelligence and conservatism (though studies 2 and 3 find _opposite signs_ for this relationship) and is weaker than the link between intelligence and income. So their study is basically consistent with the possibility that some intelligent people earn higher incomes and richer people are likely to be atypically conservative.

AftHurrahWinch 4y ago

> They have not controlled for the most obvious variable: class. What's the distinction you're making between household income and class? > The hypothesis that the positive association between higher intelligence and economic extremism would be replicated was tested using a linear model with total intelligence score as the independent variable, and economic extremism as the dependent variable, controlling for age, gender, education level, and <<<household income>>>.

teamonkey 4y ago
> What's the distinction you're making between household income and class? In the UK class is more complicated than simply having an income. It’s strongly correlated but not the same. You can have zero income, even be cash poor, but still have a title, influence, family history, contacts, favours, promises, even land (via various trusts)…