Your stereotypes are both inaccurate and harmful. All the handymen I know are extremely intelligent.
Let’s decide what the truth is before we go calling it harmful. First, “dutiful”/”vigilant”, etc. are just synonyms with “conscientious”. That’s by definition, not stereotype. As for the “low-IQ” part, I only claimed that
studies found an inverse correlation between conscientiousness and the general intelligence factor, and
you want conscientious people for in-home and human-service jobs. (regardless of IQ)
It’s only an inverse correlation, and nowhere near a perfect −1. (Maybe −0.25) As I mentioned, there exist some who have both low-IQ and are not conscientious (who don’t make good employees), I thought that also implied the existence of the reverse.
If you want to claim we’re being inaccurate, we need data, not anecdotes. Stereotypes often have some statistical truth.
The chart michaelkeenan linked to is instructive. There is considerable overlap in these curves. Average-IQ (~100) people can get most jobs on that chart, but would find it difficult to get the high-IQ jobs near the bottom, and probably can’t get a medical doctor job at all. An IQ-85 person could realistically get an electrician job, but not an electrical engineering job.
If we believe the chart, then we should also expect a significant number of above-average-IQ people working blue collar jobs. I do not dispute this. You claim to be an example of that. But they can retrain and even get merit scholarships. I pointed out that this process would still be disruptive, since the training process could take years.
But they (and you) are part of the “cognitive elite” that tristanm isn’t worried about becoming perpetually unemployed. It’s the other side, precisely the low-IQ people who can’t retrain for high-IQ jobs that were cause for concern. I pointed out they may have other advantages (conscientiousness) that could mitigate that somewhat, and furthermore, what is easy for humans is not the same as what is easy for robots anyway.
my IQ is 144, which I am only saying because that seems to be of particular importance to you
Who, me? Why are you so surprised I’m talking about it when this is the direct topic of the thread? The g factor is real, and significant to life outcomes. This is settled science.
Let’s decide what the truth is before we go calling it harmful. First, “dutiful”/”vigilant”, etc. are just synonyms with “conscientious”. That’s by definition, not stereotype. As for the “low-IQ” part, I only claimed that
studies found an inverse correlation between conscientiousness and the general intelligence factor, and
you want conscientious people for in-home and human-service jobs. (regardless of IQ)
It’s only an inverse correlation, and nowhere near a perfect −1. (Maybe −0.25) As I mentioned, there exist some who have both low-IQ and are not conscientious (who don’t make good employees), I thought that also implied the existence of the reverse.
If you want to claim we’re being inaccurate, we need data, not anecdotes. Stereotypes often have some statistical truth.
The chart michaelkeenan linked to is instructive. There is considerable overlap in these curves. Average-IQ (~100) people can get most jobs on that chart, but would find it difficult to get the high-IQ jobs near the bottom, and probably can’t get a medical doctor job at all. An IQ-85 person could realistically get an electrician job, but not an electrical engineering job.
If we believe the chart, then we should also expect a significant number of above-average-IQ people working blue collar jobs. I do not dispute this. You claim to be an example of that. But they can retrain and even get merit scholarships. I pointed out that this process would still be disruptive, since the training process could take years.
But they (and you) are part of the “cognitive elite” that tristanm isn’t worried about becoming perpetually unemployed. It’s the other side, precisely the low-IQ people who can’t retrain for high-IQ jobs that were cause for concern. I pointed out they may have other advantages (conscientiousness) that could mitigate that somewhat, and furthermore, what is easy for humans is not the same as what is easy for robots anyway.
Who, me? Why are you so surprised I’m talking about it when this is the direct topic of the thread? The g factor is real, and significant to life outcomes. This is settled science.