Well over half of people who don’t expect to ever have an clerk-like job (including office clerks as well as retail clerks) are wrong. More importantly, this discipline is helpful in almost all jobs. It may be overrated by some, but you’re underrating it here.
Confirmed that application and focus is a somewhat different thing (though related, in my case at least), and we’re talking more about conformance to imposed schedules and external expectations of monitorable behavior.
Disagree that it’s not useful at IQ 140. It’s a lower proportion of success than for someone closer to the mean, but still a nice still to have and removes some barriers to establishing one’s talents.
Also, I’m comfortable with not having significant accommodation for distant outliers. Actually, for such people, the habits and skills of not getting killed by one’s “peers’ is pretty important. High school sucks for those it’s not evolved/equilibriated for, but it’s temporary.
The situation is not symmetric. I really want to accommodate far-right-tail outliers. They are what moves your science/tech/society forwards.
I think we’re going to disagree a bit here on what ‘accomodate’ means here. I want to mold and control the far-right-tail outliers (as well as the middle hump) so they are more likely to move science/tech/society forward in ways that I like.
I wrote that too quickly. Forcing geniuses to learn to operate when the less-gifted are in positions of power is good for the geniuses AND good for society (though incredibly frustrating for all participants). It doesn’t really fit on a “suppression vs relinquish control” axis.
Relatedly, I don’t believe it’s possible to identify the top 1⁄2 of 1% all that well, and even if we did, there’s so much individual variation that we wouldn’t be able to predict what differences we should accommodate vs allowing/forcing the student to figure out how to (appear to) comply.
I think you’re right that the top 1⁄2 of 1% are much more varied and idiosyncratic than the norm, because they are all going to be gifted in very unique and divergent ways.
However, honestly I think the best way to utilize them (and remove tremendous frustration on both their part and the part of people who would manage them) is treat them like a black box; tell them, “ok, go off and act as you would by default. We’ll make sure no one will bother you. Sink or swim on your own, though. Try to find something interesting. Good luck.
Some of them may not produce all that much of use, but it’s no big loss since they’re only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. And some of them will find and create very unique and interesting things, things that only they could find and create. And that more than offsets the losses from the ones that by chance don’t work out.
When I wrote “I want to accommodate” I meant “create conditions where they would be productive and effective”—it wasn’t really about command-and-control.
Forcing geniuses to learn to operate when the less-gifted are in positions of power is good
Again, sure, but no one is suggesting building some sort of a refuge for the gifted (Galt’s Gulch?) where they could be spared the ravages of the dumb normie society. The are forced to learn in any case.
The whole “show up neatly groomed and dressed” thing is teaching kids to emit particular social signals, it’s just that these signals are more suited (heh) for some situations (e.g. you’re applying for a sales clerk position at Macy’s) and less suited for others. If you are looking to hire a programmer and the candidate shows up in a fancy business suit (while showing all signs of being comfortable in it) with a carefully attended-to hairdo, I don’t think those signals would be well-received.
I don’t think that the “show up neatly groomed and dressed” thing is teaching kids to emit particular social signals that is less suitable to a programmer coming to an interview. Both scenarios are about conforming to social norms and for students that happens to be literally neatly groomed/dressed, which for the programmer means no business suit. It’s just more useful to use the phrase neatly groomed/dressed than socially appropriate because for most things socially appropriate is neatly groomed/dressed.
Being socially appropriate is not overrated conditional on IQ – you have already established that the programmer (presumably your high IQ example) is aware of the dangers of coming in like a weirdo in a business suit to an interview. Why wouldn’t the younger version of this person also want to not look like a weirdo to their peers while in school?
I think you are talking about a more sophisticated version (“being socially appropriate”) and in the context of schools teaching kids its’ considerably more basic (e.g. for boys “get a short, neat haircut, no one will hire if you look like a hippy”).
It’s been a long time since I was in high school (disclosure: I barely passed many classes, and was not in competition for a prestigious university, though I did manage to get 20 AP credits and aced the math SAT), but I don’t recall that the version of “groomed and dressed” then was a particularly different requirement than my current employment as a principal engineer at a large tech company.
Showing up on time for appointments remains rather important. Behaving compatibly with a range of others likewise. Truly bad grooming is, in fact, a hindrance. Formal coiffure and sartorial prowess isn’t particularly helpful, but is less of a hindrance than aggressively-casual (stained sweats and flip-flops).
If it was “show up acceptably groomed and dressed, and with a base level of politeness in behavior to people around you”, would you be happier with the description?
I don’t dispute that being able to meet middle-class social norms of dress and grooming is helpful. What I said is that I think it’s overrated (conditional on high IQ). Looking like everyone else is useful but not that useful.
(note I’m not trying to be that annoying guy who asks for statistics to try and win an argument if the other party fails to produce them; I really want to see info on people’s expected vs actual employment outcomes)
There’s a relationship between having regular habits and mental health, I believe. I can’t prove it off the top of my head but you’ll find similar ideas if you look into writing about for example keeping clean living-spaces, getting into the habit of dressing well, etc. and it aligns with my personal experiences. It seems to me the chief benefit is that forcing yourself to go through with things that aren’t fun but which are necessary for living above the level of an animal acts like acid to the narcissistic patterns of thought that provoke people to convince themselves that they’re too good for discipline.
There’s a relationship between having regular habits and mental health
At the extremes, yes. If your habits are very very regular and you are very very attached to them, you might have OCD :-P
the chief benefit is that forcing yourself to go through with things that aren’t fun but which are necessary for living above the level of an animal acts like acid to the narcissistic patterns of thought
That line of thought is well expressed in early Protestantism—see e.g. the Puritans.
Because I’ve seen the relationship between irregular lifestyle and depression in other people around me in my life. If there is research on the topic that you know about or some contrary observations you want to forward then feel free. But at this point this seems like this conversation is heading towards “well can you prove that” territory. And in short, no I cannot prove it.
I’ve seen the relationship between irregular lifestyle and depression in other people
And which way the causality arrow points?
In any case, I’m trying to say that there is a difference between saying “Orderly life helps some people I know manage their mental state” (which is a statement about some people you know) and “There’s a relationship between having regular habits and mental health” (which is a statement about how the world works).
The typical mind fallacy is also accompanied by the atypical mind fallacy—the idea that no one has the same mind or thoughts as you and you are unique.
And what is it other than the atypical mind fallacy if one regards himself as too far above the level of the plebes who work as clerks to subject himself to a schedule, unless he has some strong concrete evidence that basically compels him to acknowledge his own brilliance?
If John von Neumann or Paul Erdos woke up at 2 PM and argued that their brains worked better at night, I’d be inclined to take them seriously. If someone without anything to show for their irregular lifestyle nevertheless believed that keeping a schedule would damage their progress, that would be a delusion.
the chief benefit is that forcing yourself to go through with things that aren’t fun but which are necessary for living above the level of an animal acts like acid to the narcissistic patterns of thought
and ended with
one regards himself as too far above the level of the plebes who work as clerks to subject himself to a schedule
A fair bit of distance between the two, don’t you think?
No, I don’t agree. Rergarding yourself as superior to plebs and therefore as above routine is at least weak evidence for narcissism. In combination with absence of clear evidence for the idea that you are in fact superior, it would be strong evidence for narcissism.
Actually, there is no need for any evidence of general superiority. All you need is evidence that the disordered lifestyle works for you—regardless of your brilliance or dimness—and that would be quite sufficient.
Why so? If you assert—as I think you do—that ordered lifestyle helps, that implies that you can get evidence what kind of lifestyle helps and, presumably, the same evidence could point in a different direction.
Because if you’re depressed then your disordered lifestyle is not in fact working for you. Someone for who depression has become the water they swim in might fail to see it that way but depression isn’t the default state of mind for a human being.
Because if you’re depressed then your disordered lifestyle is not in fact working for you.
But isn’t the situation symmetric? I can say “if you’re depressed then your disciplined lifestyle is not in fact working for you” and that would have the same validity.
Yes that would be correct; and I can imagine how this could be the case for somebody like a very high-powered lawyer that wakes up at 4 AM, goes to bed at midnight and shows up to work dressed for success every day; but still feels the whole thing to be hollow and meaningless. Regularity/schedule/discipline may be necessary without being sufficient.
OK, so if the situation is symmetric, why do you believe that disciplined life helps (some) people, but are unwilling to believe that disordered life also helps (some) people?
I’m not unwilling to believe that a disordered life helps some people. I’m saying that, as an individual, each one of us has to be very careful into letting ourselves believe we are one of those people in the absence of strong counter-evidence; because the ( admittedly intuitively assessed on my part ) prior probability of that being the case is not great.
So basically you have a strong prior that disciplined life is considerably more helpful than disorganized one. I assume it’s based on your own experience and the experience of other people in your circle. That’s all fine. What I am doubtful about is how much does that generalize. “Induction” is not a good answer because it’s applicable to absolutely anything.
It’s also about learning discipline. Building the habit of showing up somewhere every day on time, well-dressed and well-groomed is valuable.
I think this value is overrated.
Necessary for a clerk. Less necessary if you don’t expect to be one.
Well over half of people who don’t expect to ever have an clerk-like job (including office clerks as well as retail clerks) are wrong. More importantly, this discipline is helpful in almost all jobs. It may be overrated by some, but you’re underrating it here.
I should have prefaced that by “Conditional on high IQ”.
If your IQ is 80, that’s a really useful habit. If your IQ is 140, not that much.
Note that being able to focus and apply yourself is a highly useful skill for everyone, but that’s not quite what we are talking about here.
Confirmed that application and focus is a somewhat different thing (though related, in my case at least), and we’re talking more about conformance to imposed schedules and external expectations of monitorable behavior.
Disagree that it’s not useful at IQ 140. It’s a lower proportion of success than for someone closer to the mean, but still a nice still to have and removes some barriers to establishing one’s talents.
Also, I’m comfortable with not having significant accommodation for distant outliers. Actually, for such people, the habits and skills of not getting killed by one’s “peers’ is pretty important. High school sucks for those it’s not evolved/equilibriated for, but it’s temporary.
Sure and that is perfectly compatible with being overrated :-)
The situation is not symmetric. I really want to accommodate far-right-tail outliers. They are what moves your science/tech/society forwards.
I think we’re going to disagree a bit here on what ‘accomodate’ means here. I want to mold and control the far-right-tail outliers (as well as the middle hump) so they are more likely to move science/tech/society forward in ways that I like.
Well, everyone does X-/
The interesting question is what happens when you find out you can’t. Double down on suppression or relinquish control?
I wrote that too quickly. Forcing geniuses to learn to operate when the less-gifted are in positions of power is good for the geniuses AND good for society (though incredibly frustrating for all participants). It doesn’t really fit on a “suppression vs relinquish control” axis.
Relatedly, I don’t believe it’s possible to identify the top 1⁄2 of 1% all that well, and even if we did, there’s so much individual variation that we wouldn’t be able to predict what differences we should accommodate vs allowing/forcing the student to figure out how to (appear to) comply.
I think you’re right that the top 1⁄2 of 1% are much more varied and idiosyncratic than the norm, because they are all going to be gifted in very unique and divergent ways.
However, honestly I think the best way to utilize them (and remove tremendous frustration on both their part and the part of people who would manage them) is treat them like a black box; tell them, “ok, go off and act as you would by default. We’ll make sure no one will bother you. Sink or swim on your own, though. Try to find something interesting. Good luck.
Some of them may not produce all that much of use, but it’s no big loss since they’re only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. And some of them will find and create very unique and interesting things, things that only they could find and create. And that more than offsets the losses from the ones that by chance don’t work out.
When I wrote “I want to accommodate” I meant “create conditions where they would be productive and effective”—it wasn’t really about command-and-control.
Again, sure, but no one is suggesting building some sort of a refuge for the gifted (Galt’s Gulch?) where they could be spared the ravages of the dumb normie society. The are forced to learn in any case.
The whole “show up neatly groomed and dressed” thing is teaching kids to emit particular social signals, it’s just that these signals are more suited (heh) for some situations (e.g. you’re applying for a sales clerk position at Macy’s) and less suited for others. If you are looking to hire a programmer and the candidate shows up in a fancy business suit (while showing all signs of being comfortable in it) with a carefully attended-to hairdo, I don’t think those signals would be well-received.
I don’t think that the “show up neatly groomed and dressed” thing is teaching kids to emit particular social signals that is less suitable to a programmer coming to an interview. Both scenarios are about conforming to social norms and for students that happens to be literally neatly groomed/dressed, which for the programmer means no business suit. It’s just more useful to use the phrase neatly groomed/dressed than socially appropriate because for most things socially appropriate is neatly groomed/dressed.
Being socially appropriate is not overrated conditional on IQ – you have already established that the programmer (presumably your high IQ example) is aware of the dangers of coming in like a weirdo in a business suit to an interview. Why wouldn’t the younger version of this person also want to not look like a weirdo to their peers while in school?
I think you are talking about a more sophisticated version (“being socially appropriate”) and in the context of schools teaching kids its’ considerably more basic (e.g. for boys “get a short, neat haircut, no one will hire if you look like a hippy”).
It’s been a long time since I was in high school (disclosure: I barely passed many classes, and was not in competition for a prestigious university, though I did manage to get 20 AP credits and aced the math SAT), but I don’t recall that the version of “groomed and dressed” then was a particularly different requirement than my current employment as a principal engineer at a large tech company.
Showing up on time for appointments remains rather important. Behaving compatibly with a range of others likewise. Truly bad grooming is, in fact, a hindrance. Formal coiffure and sartorial prowess isn’t particularly helpful, but is less of a hindrance than aggressively-casual (stained sweats and flip-flops).
If it was “show up acceptably groomed and dressed, and with a base level of politeness in behavior to people around you”, would you be happier with the description?
I don’t dispute that being able to meet middle-class social norms of dress and grooming is helpful. What I said is that I think it’s overrated (conditional on high IQ). Looking like everyone else is useful but not that useful.
I’d argue that this is not the case, since the vast majority of people who don’t expect to be “clerks” still end up in similar positions.
Have any stats on that?
(note I’m not trying to be that annoying guy who asks for statistics to try and win an argument if the other party fails to produce them; I really want to see info on people’s expected vs actual employment outcomes)
See my answer to Dagon.
There’s a relationship between having regular habits and mental health, I believe. I can’t prove it off the top of my head but you’ll find similar ideas if you look into writing about for example keeping clean living-spaces, getting into the habit of dressing well, etc. and it aligns with my personal experiences. It seems to me the chief benefit is that forcing yourself to go through with things that aren’t fun but which are necessary for living above the level of an animal acts like acid to the narcissistic patterns of thought that provoke people to convince themselves that they’re too good for discipline.
At the extremes, yes. If your habits are very very regular and you are very very attached to them, you might have OCD :-P
That line of thought is well expressed in early Protestantism—see e.g. the Puritans.
Does the fact that Puritans said it make it wrong?
The Puritans were very concerned with saving souls from eternal damnation. What are you very concerned with?
Saving my own psyche from limited damnation.
Sure. But why do you think this generalizes?
Because I’ve seen the relationship between irregular lifestyle and depression in other people around me in my life. If there is research on the topic that you know about or some contrary observations you want to forward then feel free. But at this point this seems like this conversation is heading towards “well can you prove that” territory. And in short, no I cannot prove it.
And which way the causality arrow points?
In any case, I’m trying to say that there is a difference between saying “Orderly life helps some people I know manage their mental state” (which is a statement about some people you know) and “There’s a relationship between having regular habits and mental health” (which is a statement about how the world works).
There’s a difference, but induction isn’t black magic.
It’s conceivable that it it can point both ways simultaneously. What is in a person’s power to alter is their actual behaviour.
The typical mind fallacy isn’t black magic either.
And what is it other than the atypical mind fallacy if one regards himself as too far above the level of the plebes who work as clerks to subject himself to a schedule, unless he has some strong concrete evidence that basically compels him to acknowledge his own brilliance?
If John von Neumann or Paul Erdos woke up at 2 PM and argued that their brains worked better at night, I’d be inclined to take them seriously. If someone without anything to show for their irregular lifestyle nevertheless believed that keeping a schedule would damage their progress, that would be a delusion.
It’s interesting how we started with
and ended with
A fair bit of distance between the two, don’t you think?
No, I don’t agree. Rergarding yourself as superior to plebs and therefore as above routine is at least weak evidence for narcissism. In combination with absence of clear evidence for the idea that you are in fact superior, it would be strong evidence for narcissism.
Actually, there is no need for any evidence of general superiority. All you need is evidence that the disordered lifestyle works for you—regardless of your brilliance or dimness—and that would be quite sufficient.
In the types of cases that I was referring to, where irregular lifestyle coincides with depression, that evidence too would be unavailable.
Why so? If you assert—as I think you do—that ordered lifestyle helps, that implies that you can get evidence what kind of lifestyle helps and, presumably, the same evidence could point in a different direction.
Because if you’re depressed then your disordered lifestyle is not in fact working for you. Someone for who depression has become the water they swim in might fail to see it that way but depression isn’t the default state of mind for a human being.
But isn’t the situation symmetric? I can say “if you’re depressed then your disciplined lifestyle is not in fact working for you” and that would have the same validity.
Yes that would be correct; and I can imagine how this could be the case for somebody like a very high-powered lawyer that wakes up at 4 AM, goes to bed at midnight and shows up to work dressed for success every day; but still feels the whole thing to be hollow and meaningless. Regularity/schedule/discipline may be necessary without being sufficient.
OK, so if the situation is symmetric, why do you believe that disciplined life helps (some) people, but are unwilling to believe that disordered life also helps (some) people?
I’m not unwilling to believe that a disordered life helps some people. I’m saying that, as an individual, each one of us has to be very careful into letting ourselves believe we are one of those people in the absence of strong counter-evidence; because the ( admittedly intuitively assessed on my part ) prior probability of that being the case is not great.
So basically you have a strong prior that disciplined life is considerably more helpful than disorganized one. I assume it’s based on your own experience and the experience of other people in your circle. That’s all fine. What I am doubtful about is how much does that generalize. “Induction” is not a good answer because it’s applicable to absolutely anything.
A prior probability is generalized by nature.