The analogy is poor because the point is that temporary unemployment of the kind you get with a noisy IQ measure is much less harmful than long-term unemployment of the kind you might get with a better measure. Whereas with diseases A and B people die either way and it’s just a question of who/how many.
The analogy is poor because the point is that temporary unemployment of the kind you get with a noisy IQ measure is much less harmful than long-term unemployment of the kind you might get with a better measure.
The analogy is intended to be about reasoning processes, not the decision itself. Complaining that some readily identifiable people are hurt by measure X is a distraction if what you care about is total social welfare: if we can reduce harm by concentrating it, then let us do so!
I also think that, on the object level, replacing “long-term unemployment” with “long-term underemployment” significantly decreases the emotional weight of the argument. I also think that it’s not quite right to claim that the current method is equally inefficient everywhere- the people who test well but don’t school well, for example, are the readily identifiable class who suffer under the current regime.
Complaining that some readily identifiable people are hurt by measure X is a distraction if what you care about is total social welfare:
While it makes sense to care about total social welfare, the calculation showing that the IQ test is better shows that it is better in terms of job-productivity-years. Job-productivity-years is not social welfare, and you can’t just assume that it is.
Furthermore, my complaint is not that the people harmed are readily identifiable, but that it’s the same people being constantly harmed. Having one person out of 100 never have a job is worse than having all 100 people not have jobs 1% of the time. Even if I knew who the 100 people were and didn’t know who the one person is, that wouldn’t change it.
Sure, but I don’t see why you think the current setup is much better on that metric. Someone who consistently flubs interviews is going to be unemployed or underemployed, even though interviews don’t seem to communicate much information about job productivity. If it were an actual lottery, I think the argument that the unemployment is spread evenly across the population would hold some weight, but I think employers have errors that are significantly correlated already, and I’m willing to accept an increase in that correlation in exchange for a decrease in the mean error.
The analogy is poor because the point is that temporary unemployment of the kind you get with a noisy IQ measure is much less harmful than long-term unemployment of the kind you might get with a better measure. Whereas with diseases A and B people die either way and it’s just a question of who/how many.
The analogy is intended to be about reasoning processes, not the decision itself. Complaining that some readily identifiable people are hurt by measure X is a distraction if what you care about is total social welfare: if we can reduce harm by concentrating it, then let us do so!
I also think that, on the object level, replacing “long-term unemployment” with “long-term underemployment” significantly decreases the emotional weight of the argument. I also think that it’s not quite right to claim that the current method is equally inefficient everywhere- the people who test well but don’t school well, for example, are the readily identifiable class who suffer under the current regime.
Long-term underemployment still tends to erode, or at least not build up, one’s skills, reducing that individual’s lifetime productivity.
While it makes sense to care about total social welfare, the calculation showing that the IQ test is better shows that it is better in terms of job-productivity-years. Job-productivity-years is not social welfare, and you can’t just assume that it is.
Furthermore, my complaint is not that the people harmed are readily identifiable, but that it’s the same people being constantly harmed. Having one person out of 100 never have a job is worse than having all 100 people not have jobs 1% of the time. Even if I knew who the 100 people were and didn’t know who the one person is, that wouldn’t change it.
Sure, but I don’t see why you think the current setup is much better on that metric. Someone who consistently flubs interviews is going to be unemployed or underemployed, even though interviews don’t seem to communicate much information about job productivity. If it were an actual lottery, I think the argument that the unemployment is spread evenly across the population would hold some weight, but I think employers have errors that are significantly correlated already, and I’m willing to accept an increase in that correlation in exchange for a decrease in the mean error.