Well, good to know I can correctly identify a problem when I see one.
SCP-Foundation isn’t all that cryptic. When your subject matter doesn’t exist and your audience is the general public, everything gets explained in plain, intuitive language, and whatever didn’t get explained deliberately wasn’t to increase suspense and engagement. That’s why I like SCP-Foundation. If LW was like that, I would have joined sooner.
The Bell Curve asks the question, “Does intelligence determine your place in society?” and provides evidence that it unavoidably does. We should expect that since IQ tests were literally invented to measure traits that correlate with success in organized society. Bit of a dumb question, if you ask me. IQ’s original purpose was to identify individuals that needed more support so we could GIVE IT TO THEM. Therefore, it follows to assume that any other criteria or factors that influence IQ score (like stress responses, sleep quality, mental health, etc., most of which can also be linked to genetics,) will also reduce one’s academic performance, societal success, and quality of life. The book fails to appropriately address that, instead pitching IQ as some fundamental measure of worth in a way that is… circular to its own identity. That’s probably why nobody bothered to write this crap for the first 90 years IQ tests existed.
I doubt this was intentional, but this book is an example of how data can be used to push flimsy, morally repugnant conclusions. Meanwhile, academics eat this shit up even 2 decades after it gets refuted because we are, in fact, just as dumb and biased as everyone else. Humans like stuff that makes us feel superior, and once we have it, there isn’t much motivation to contradict it. We are very unlikely to google “criticisms of The Bell Curve” once a peer in our self-aggrandizing group endorses it,… but that would be the most important time.
I’ll gladly admit that IQ testing can be helpful-ish, but in groups of people trying to solve problems, the far greater predictor of success is diversity. The data is all over askJAN.org, but people who are already succeeding in organized society have little reason to visit. There are 8+ other types of intelligence that IQ scores don’t measure, depending which source you ask… all of which were valuable to human survival before we went out of our way to “standardize” everything...
And might become valuable again when/if everything falls apart. Some of them might include creativity, resilience, emotional agility, and humility. Considering the status of many X-risks, it might be in our best interests to bridge those gaps, learn how to harness them, and start collaborating NOW.
So, going forward, just keep in mind, self-referrential environments (which tend to be comfortable due to the absence of out-group dissent,) discourage cognitive diversity and foster echo-chambers.
No idea. My favorite stuff is cryptic and self-referential, and I think IQ is a reasonable metric for assessing intelligence statistically, for a group of people.
Well, good to know I can correctly identify a problem when I see one.
SCP-Foundation isn’t all that cryptic. When your subject matter doesn’t exist and your audience is the general public, everything gets explained in plain, intuitive language, and whatever didn’t get explained deliberately wasn’t to increase suspense and engagement. That’s why I like SCP-Foundation. If LW was like that, I would have joined sooner.
The Bell Curve asks the question, “Does intelligence determine your place in society?” and provides evidence that it unavoidably does. We should expect that since IQ tests were literally invented to measure traits that correlate with success in organized society. Bit of a dumb question, if you ask me. IQ’s original purpose was to identify individuals that needed more support so we could GIVE IT TO THEM. Therefore, it follows to assume that any other criteria or factors that influence IQ score (like stress responses, sleep quality, mental health, etc., most of which can also be linked to genetics,) will also reduce one’s academic performance, societal success, and quality of life. The book fails to appropriately address that, instead pitching IQ as some fundamental measure of worth in a way that is… circular to its own identity. That’s probably why nobody bothered to write this crap for the first 90 years IQ tests existed.
I doubt this was intentional, but this book is an example of how data can be used to push flimsy, morally repugnant conclusions. Meanwhile, academics eat this shit up even 2 decades after it gets refuted because we are, in fact, just as dumb and biased as everyone else. Humans like stuff that makes us feel superior, and once we have it, there isn’t much motivation to contradict it. We are very unlikely to google “criticisms of The Bell Curve” once a peer in our self-aggrandizing group endorses it,… but that would be the most important time.
I’ll gladly admit that IQ testing can be helpful-ish, but in groups of people trying to solve problems, the far greater predictor of success is diversity. The data is all over askJAN.org, but people who are already succeeding in organized society have little reason to visit. There are 8+ other types of intelligence that IQ scores don’t measure, depending which source you ask… all of which were valuable to human survival before we went out of our way to “standardize” everything...
And might become valuable again when/if everything falls apart. Some of them might include creativity, resilience, emotional agility, and humility. Considering the status of many X-risks, it might be in our best interests to bridge those gaps, learn how to harness them, and start collaborating NOW.
So, going forward, just keep in mind, self-referrential environments (which tend to be comfortable due to the absence of out-group dissent,) discourage cognitive diversity and foster echo-chambers.
Hope this helps. (finger guns)