9 ms·

Here is one wacky theory behind the drop at high levels: maybe this is mostly a function of which jobs require certain cognitive levels, and how much those jobs

Here is one wacky theory behind the drop at high levels: maybe this is mostly a function of which jobs require certain cognitive levels, and how much those jobs pay. For example, there are quite a few jobs that pay well which require above average abilities such as management, engineering, medicine, law. But arguably there are jobs that have higher requirements such as theoretical scientists, mathematicians, university professors, philosophers. Those jobs that have the highest requirements actually pay less than the ones with slightly lower requirements. So maybe what is happening here is that people are more likely to end up with a job that utilizes their unique abilities, but at some point that has and negative impact on outcomes. For a while I have been on the opinion that we waste the talents of the top 0.1 percent of thinkers by having them debate in the ivory ivory tower while they could be doing a lot more in the real world by going into management, politics, or engineering. But what do I know: maybe 9 dimensional math about strings will prove highly practical some day and add more value than another Da Vinci (who was very involved in practical problems).

tropsis 4y ago
It's also a matter of personal preference and individual skills. A person who is capable of 9 dimensional math about strings might not be able to do well anything else, or might not want to do anything else.
- adverbly 4y ago
  > might not be able to do well anything else, or might not want to do anything else. To some extent, this may be a failure of the educational system. A good number of high intellect folks are not actually challenged, and so they end up thinking that if they're not good at something right away, it's not worth their time or effort. Perhaps what you're describing is actually the mechanism behind why people would tend to go for careers that match their unique abilities rather than those that have the best outcomes. For example, consider somebody who would make an amazing doctor. However, if you kept their doctor skills the same but made them really good at some obscure skill which was socially highly regarded and paid well - but in both cases lower than they could do as a doctor - they might decide not to be a doctor.
manimino 4y ago
Businesses solve the problems people have right now. It is good at scratching itches. Academics solve long-term problems. They do not need to chase profits, so they can tackle bigger ideas. The risk is higher, but the rewards to humanity as a whole can be far greater - just less immediate. Note that there is a significant amount of "academia" that happens inside large tech co's, such as Google / Facebook / Microsoft, just as Bell Labs did in yesteryear.

tropsis 4y ago

It's also a matter of personal preference and individual skills. A person who is capable of 9 dimensional math about strings might not be able to do well anything else, or might not want to do anything else.

adverbly 4y ago
> might not be able to do well anything else, or might not want to do anything else. To some extent, this may be a failure of the educational system. A good number of high intellect folks are not actually challenged, and so they end up thinking that if they're not good at something right away, it's not worth their time or effort. Perhaps what you're describing is actually the mechanism behind why people would tend to go for careers that match their unique abilities rather than those that have the best outcomes. For example, consider somebody who would make an amazing doctor. However, if you kept their doctor skills the same but made them really good at some obscure skill which was socially highly regarded and paid well - but in both cases lower than they could do as a doctor - they might decide not to be a doctor.

manimino 4y ago

Businesses solve the problems people have right now. It is good at scratching itches. Academics solve long-term problems. They do not need to chase profits, so they can tackle bigger ideas. The risk is higher, but the rewards to humanity as a whole can be far greater - just less immediate. Note that there is a significant amount of "academia" that happens inside large tech co's, such as Google / Facebook / Microsoft, just as Bell Labs did in yesteryear.