3 ms·

UBI for geniuses might work something like this. Schoolchildren would be given a succession of IQ tests during their schoolyears: IQ tests because they are the

UBI for geniuses might work something like this. Schoolchildren would be given a succession of IQ tests during their schoolyears: IQ tests because they are the best method we have of assessing raw intellectual ability rather than school learning. A succession because everybody can have an off day — the physicist Richard Feynman liked telling people that he had only scored 124 in an IQ test. Children who score 145 or above would then be offered a life-long genius award. These people have no idea what they are talking about. IQ tests are tools. In order to properly assess very high IQ children or twice exceptional -- gifted and disabled -- children, they need to be administered by a qualified professional. Most IQ tests only go to 145. Very high IQs can only be meaningfully assessed by about age 7. If the tests get overused and it becomes common knowledge what is on them, they stop being useful metrics because now they can be gamed, essentially. Last I heard, we were having trouble updating our IQ tests for various reasons and, also, IQ tests are highly culturally biased. An IQ test for Americans won't effectively assess a Brit or Canadian. IQ tests are extremely controversial. The first test, created by Binet, that became the starting point of modern IQ tests was not intended to assess intelligence. It was intended to assess school readiness in children in France in an era where not all kids had birth certificates, so you couldn't use age as your metric, and rural kids tended to be less ready for public school than city kids for cultural reasons.

mistermann 4y ago
> These people have no idea what they are talking about. It's true, but despite that I think they are plausibly in the ballpark of a useful idea. Their particular implementation sucks, but what if an implementation included a decision making process where false/flawed "facts" were subjected to skilful review by other people. In this case, each proposition asserted by the proponent could be rejected based on valid critiques from a diverse set of reviewers (here there is non-trivial complexity, but nothing insurmountable imho), and they could rework their recommendations to eliminate those flaws and return with an improved plan that would be subjected to the same process. After several rounds, I'd think this could produce better ideas, and over time I'd think people would get much better at it cutting the time it takes for iterations. > If the tests get overused and it becomes common knowledge what is on them, they stop being useful metrics because now they can be gamed, essentially. Under current approaches that mostly come from academia (not exactly the most diverse set of minds), and are subject to long iteration cycles - fund 100 startups to work on the problem and we may see better results. Isn't it weird that we complain endlessly about poor results, and yet hardly anyone has strong feelings about doing things differently (if not outright scoff at the very idea)? I've read your posts for many years, please tell me that you can see this phenomenon all around us?
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  It's true, but despite that I think they are plausibly in the ballpark of a useful idea. I'm anti-UBI. I've been open about that for years. I would like to bring back SROs* in walkable, mixed-used neighborhoods and improve public transit and cycling infrastructure, and make food stamps more or less a "You want them? Just ask." kind of thing. I think if we had sufficiently cheap housing where you could comfortably live without a car and you could be guaranteed to eat, that would be a better means to provide the social stability and social mobility that UBI proponents seem to be shooting for with what is, in my opinion, a thoroughly broken mental model for a long list of reasons. There are already programs to grant "geniuses" money. I'm cool with that. Those programs generally seem to have a thorough selection process, something this article very much lacks. If you are picking "the best of the best" from Harvard to give money to, you already know just about anyone at Harvard will do something useful with that money and not spend it on the oft joked about "hookers and cocaine" that some lottery winners more or less actually do spend their money on. We are awash in vast societal wealth. We need to find better ways to put in a floor for "everybody" (while recognizing that no matter what you do, some people will be "problem children" and you will need to find ways to cut them out so as to try to force them to behave) while making sure we aren't destroying society in the process. I do not believe this idea of just passing out cash for supposed "genius" based on IQ tests has any merit at all. The historical examples cited in the article as things that worked well for that place and time were not examples of passing out cash for "smarts." It was passing out cash to smart people who did things. Yes, on the one hand, people gotta eat and yadda. On the other hand, there is the Duke Nukem Forever phenomenon where seemingly endless cash meant that they didn't ship until the company was nearly broke again. Money can be very useful stuff. Lots of problems don't budge merely because you throw money at them. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy Isn't it weird that we complain endlessly about poor results, and yet hardly anyone has strong feelings about doing things differently (if not outright scoff at the very idea)? I've read your posts for many years, please tell me that you can see this phenomenon all around us? I don't actually understand what you are asking. You would need to clarify.
  - mistermann 4y ago

mistermann 4y ago

> These people have no idea what they are talking about. It's true, but despite that I think they are plausibly in the ballpark of a useful idea. Their particular implementation sucks, but what if an implementation included a decision making process where false/flawed "facts" were subjected to skilful review by other people. In this case, each proposition asserted by the proponent could be rejected based on valid critiques from a diverse set of reviewers (here there is non-trivial complexity, but nothing insurmountable imho), and they could rework their recommendations to eliminate those flaws and return with an improved plan that would be subjected to the same process. After several rounds, I'd think this could produce better ideas, and over time I'd think people would get much better at it cutting the time it takes for iterations. > If the tests get overused and it becomes common knowledge what is on them, they stop being useful metrics because now they can be gamed, essentially. Under current approaches that mostly come from academia (not exactly the most diverse set of minds), and are subject to long iteration cycles - fund 100 startups to work on the problem and we may see better results. Isn't it weird that we complain endlessly about poor results, and yet hardly anyone has strong feelings about doing things differently (if not outright scoff at the very idea)? I've read your posts for many years, please tell me that you can see this phenomenon all around us?

DoreenMichele 4y ago
It's true, but despite that I think they are plausibly in the ballpark of a useful idea. I'm anti-UBI. I've been open about that for years. I would like to bring back SROs* in walkable, mixed-used neighborhoods and improve public transit and cycling infrastructure, and make food stamps more or less a "You want them? Just ask." kind of thing. I think if we had sufficiently cheap housing where you could comfortably live without a car and you could be guaranteed to eat, that would be a better means to provide the social stability and social mobility that UBI proponents seem to be shooting for with what is, in my opinion, a thoroughly broken mental model for a long list of reasons. There are already programs to grant "geniuses" money. I'm cool with that. Those programs generally seem to have a thorough selection process, something this article very much lacks. If you are picking "the best of the best" from Harvard to give money to, you already know just about anyone at Harvard will do something useful with that money and not spend it on the oft joked about "hookers and cocaine" that some lottery winners more or less actually do spend their money on. We are awash in vast societal wealth. We need to find better ways to put in a floor for "everybody" (while recognizing that no matter what you do, some people will be "problem children" and you will need to find ways to cut them out so as to try to force them to behave) while making sure we aren't destroying society in the process. I do not believe this idea of just passing out cash for supposed "genius" based on IQ tests has any merit at all. The historical examples cited in the article as things that worked well for that place and time were not examples of passing out cash for "smarts." It was passing out cash to smart people who did things. Yes, on the one hand, people gotta eat and yadda. On the other hand, there is the Duke Nukem Forever phenomenon where seemingly endless cash meant that they didn't ship until the company was nearly broke again. Money can be very useful stuff. Lots of problems don't budge merely because you throw money at them. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy Isn't it weird that we complain endlessly about poor results, and yet hardly anyone has strong feelings about doing things differently (if not outright scoff at the very idea)? I've read your posts for many years, please tell me that you can see this phenomenon all around us? I don't actually understand what you are asking. You would need to clarify.
- mistermann 4y ago