This issue seems loaded because cognition is the way you win big now. Although NFL stars win big with pay, it's the Gates and the Zuckerburgs who loom high in our minds.
I've learned to ignore the issue (aside from its entertainment value) because there's still too much for me to optimize within my phenotypic range and local environment to make me better off – or at least, so I think. Either way there's much more to keep me busy than navel-gazing at cognitive-height so much.
On a related note: James Flynn of the Flynn Effect has noted many paradoxes within his infamous and eponymous result. I.Q. might not be improving so much. He anticipates explanations which synthesize nature and nurture but also look at the mind in terms of more basic cognitive operations and strategies. If I.Q. scores increasing reflect on the acquisition of useful, task-specific strategies, one might still be emulate the downward effect of a couple of I.Q. points which is at least something to be optimistic about. Newton only discovered Freshman Calculus.
http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/12/16/the-flynn-effect-tro...
EDIT:
Or perhaps it's the reduction of ambiguity/improvement-of-clarity that intelligence can bring that makes it so appealing in modern life? In which case there's still Buddhism to help with that.
>Although NFL stars win big with pay, it's the Gates and the Zuckerburgs who loom high in our minds.
That's interesting. I have the opposite view: people in tech tend to earn more, but it's the LeBron James's and Taylor Swifts of the world that loom in our minds.
I think that intellectual pissing contests are disgusting. In upper middle-class institutions such as Berkley people seem to revel in it. Everybody embraces the imaginary hierarchy so completely that watching them do it makes me gag. I think that this phenomenon has been intensified by the relative disappearance of the middle class. People no longer aspire to academic excellence because of their passion or enjoyment for the subject they study. Instead they believe that they need to be among the elite in order to have a happy and satisfying life.
I have become more and more discouraged by the blog kindly submitted here. The blog post author started out as a physicist, somehow didn't make a big mark in physics, and since then has been going into academic administration. His blog collects his unpublishable (in the scientific sense of "publishable," after peer review) thoughts about a variety of controversial issues on which he expresses opinions without as much knowledge base or professional training and experience as the older domain experts who actually research those issues. I just haven't found this blog to be a reliable source for Hacker News submissions that lead to informed, fruitful discussion. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
This has to be the nicest, most reasonable-sounding ad hominem argument I've ever seen.
But it's still an ad hominem argument. Is there any way you actually disagree with the post? What would you say to Dr. Hsu if he were in the room?
Also, what is your evidence that he's not in touch with experts in psychometrics and human genomics? I don't know him, but I have very much the contrary impression.
Practically no one makes a 'big mark in physics' anymore, unless they are a bona-fide genius. Hsu is merely very smart and hard-working, otherwise he'd not have graduated from Caltech.
> I just haven't found this blog to be a reliable source for Hacker News submissions that lead to informed, fruitful discussion.
Anything defending genetic determinism is basically flamebait. Methinks those people should stop flaming and read something on identical twins reared separately, and how they are less different from each other than siblings brought up together.
Has anyone done any studies to correlate intelligence with net worth? Since the +3 or +4 SD people usually work to satisfy their own curiosity and thirst for knowledge, I would assume that it doesn't pay really well above a level...
I find it rather discouraging that mediocracy really punishes people for being extremely smart. Evolutionary punishment is decreasing their fitness (money, social stature, e.t.c.) and thus decreasing their procreation chances. Smart women are affected even more. Not to mention the intentional punishment/oppression by different intelligence class supervisors.
> He wore a vest summer and winter, and never learned to bathe regularly.
I am curious as to why so many geeky/nerdy type guys express disinclination to daily bathing (myself included).
While regular bathing is beneficial to maintaining hygiene and health, too frequent bathing (especially when using cleansing products) can disrupt the skins natural sebum, pH & moisture control mechanism, dislodge the natural bacterial flora which may predispose the person to harmful infections. Many chemical products commonly used during bathing (soaps, shampoos, gels, disinfectants) are known to mess with the human immune & endocrine systems, a few may even be carcinogenic. Afflictions like eczema, asthma etc. are allegedly attributable to a heightened state of "hygiene" among modern humans - the immune system which keeps constant vigil against infections, is rendered "jobless" because the chemical disinfectants have done it's job, eventually attacks the body itself.
Spurred by the aggressive marketing from the personal cleansing products manufacturers, daily bathing has become a cultural phenomena in our society. Prime motivation for daily bathing seems to be grooming these days.
Anecdote does not equal evidence, but I've encountered many geeks who are inclined to hold off having a bath until it becomes necessary. I wonder why that is?
That article is rather misanthropic--all humans with average intellect are simply "teachable animals?" And does society and evolution really punish those with high intellect? Sidis was disgusted with sex and removed himself from the gene pool. That's his fault. And how are "smart women" affected by decreased procreation chances? They can go to the sperm bank and find a high IQ donor. And men can buy a surrogate.
[+] [-] bordercases|10 years ago|reply
I've learned to ignore the issue (aside from its entertainment value) because there's still too much for me to optimize within my phenotypic range and local environment to make me better off – or at least, so I think. Either way there's much more to keep me busy than navel-gazing at cognitive-height so much.
On a related note: James Flynn of the Flynn Effect has noted many paradoxes within his infamous and eponymous result. I.Q. might not be improving so much. He anticipates explanations which synthesize nature and nurture but also look at the mind in terms of more basic cognitive operations and strategies. If I.Q. scores increasing reflect on the acquisition of useful, task-specific strategies, one might still be emulate the downward effect of a couple of I.Q. points which is at least something to be optimistic about. Newton only discovered Freshman Calculus. http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/12/16/the-flynn-effect-tro...
EDIT:
Or perhaps it's the reduction of ambiguity/improvement-of-clarity that intelligence can bring that makes it so appealing in modern life? In which case there's still Buddhism to help with that.
[+] [-] xiaoma|10 years ago|reply
That's interesting. I have the opposite view: people in tech tend to earn more, but it's the LeBron James's and Taylor Swifts of the world that loom in our minds.
[+] [-] papapra|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bronz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emgoldstein|10 years ago|reply
But it's still an ad hominem argument. Is there any way you actually disagree with the post? What would you say to Dr. Hsu if he were in the room?
Also, what is your evidence that he's not in touch with experts in psychometrics and human genomics? I don't know him, but I have very much the contrary impression.
[+] [-] thewarrior|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RogtamBar|10 years ago|reply
Practically no one makes a 'big mark in physics' anymore, unless they are a bona-fide genius. Hsu is merely very smart and hard-working, otherwise he'd not have graduated from Caltech.
> I just haven't found this blog to be a reliable source for Hacker News submissions that lead to informed, fruitful discussion.
Anything defending genetic determinism is basically flamebait. Methinks those people should stop flaming and read something on identical twins reared separately, and how they are less different from each other than siblings brought up together.
[+] [-] evoloution|10 years ago|reply
I find it rather discouraging that mediocracy really punishes people for being extremely smart. Evolutionary punishment is decreasing their fitness (money, social stature, e.t.c.) and thus decreasing their procreation chances. Smart women are affected even more. Not to mention the intentional punishment/oppression by different intelligence class supervisors.
PS: one of my favourite relevant reads: http://prometheussociety.org/cms/index.php/articles/the-outs...
[+] [-] brass9|10 years ago|reply
I am curious as to why so many geeky/nerdy type guys express disinclination to daily bathing (myself included).
While regular bathing is beneficial to maintaining hygiene and health, too frequent bathing (especially when using cleansing products) can disrupt the skins natural sebum, pH & moisture control mechanism, dislodge the natural bacterial flora which may predispose the person to harmful infections. Many chemical products commonly used during bathing (soaps, shampoos, gels, disinfectants) are known to mess with the human immune & endocrine systems, a few may even be carcinogenic. Afflictions like eczema, asthma etc. are allegedly attributable to a heightened state of "hygiene" among modern humans - the immune system which keeps constant vigil against infections, is rendered "jobless" because the chemical disinfectants have done it's job, eventually attacks the body itself.
Spurred by the aggressive marketing from the personal cleansing products manufacturers, daily bathing has become a cultural phenomena in our society. Prime motivation for daily bathing seems to be grooming these days.
Anecdote does not equal evidence, but I've encountered many geeks who are inclined to hold off having a bath until it becomes necessary. I wonder why that is?
An interesting read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/fashion/31Unwashed.html?_r...
[+] [-] Retra|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hashberry|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bordercases|10 years ago|reply
Yep. http://lesswrong.com/lw/7e1/rationality_quotes_september_201...