Again, make more, for what? Consume more, why?
Why should intellect determine someone's success /earning potential? Socialism is the answer, PMW.
- Thread starter Gonzo
- Start date
Again, make more, for what? Consume more, why?
It's very comical to think anyone would rather choose mentality or physically intensive work over standing around with boredom as your only cause of stress, for the same pay.
Again, how are they not both physically and mentally challenging? Work is work, it's exhaustive.
What I don't understand, again, is what is with the attacks on me? I'm rarely here, thought I'd spur a thought experiment but I've been negged, my thread has been one starred and I've been called an idiot multiple times. A bunch of pretentious a$$holes in here.
I think it’s more about market demand for certain skills over the actual perception of skills.
If just about everyone can ball like LeBron with a month of training then the demand for NBA players would plummet as would the cost to play one.
intelligence is NOT mostly genetically inherited though. Your upbringing and your environment may give you a better chance at having higher intellect but genetics itself does not determine your intelligence.This is a great philosophical question, breh.
We're learning more and more every day that on top of intelligence being mostly genetically determined, that traits we associate with "personality" and believe to be malleable through self-improvement (things like conscientiousness, ability to focus, etc.) are somewhat (or even mostly) genetically determined as well.
Even things like your susceptibility to substance abuse have a significant genetic component - it isn't an accident that 10 people can try heroin or a cigarette or drink alcohol, but only 1 or 2 actually turn into junkies/chimneys/alcoholics.
So not only are your smarts dependent on your genetic makeup, but so is your ability to put whatever smarts you've got to work.
I've always been a proponent of progressive taxation off the intelligence data alone.
But this new data on just how powerful a role genetics play in so many other human traits has me wondering if that's far enough.
What I can say is that knowledge of all this has made me far more empathetic to those struggling in life.
furthermore, this argument that someone that works at mcdonalds is on the same level playing field as someone like a surgeon or an aerospace engineer is absolutely absurd. and no not all stress is the same.
panopticon
Superstar
Is Intelligence Hereditary?
"Scientists have investigated this question for more than a century, and the answer is clear: the differences between people on intelligence tests are substantially the result of genetic differences."
"Genes make a substantial difference, but they are not the whole story. They account for about half of all differences in intelligence among people"
"the genetic influence on measured intelligence appears to increase over time, from about 20 percent in infancy to 40 percent in childhood to 60 percent in adulthood. One possible explanation may be that children seek experiences that correlate with, and so fully develop, their genetic propensities."
so not only should we put every trade/job, etc. on the same level playing field, so perhaps we should also bring back the eugenics movement? it's only fair right?Is Intelligence Hereditary?
"Scientists have investigated this question for more than a century, and the answer is clear: the differences between people on intelligence tests are substantially the result of genetic differences."
"Genes make a substantial difference, but they are not the whole story. They account for about half of all differences in intelligence among people"
"the genetic influence on measured intelligence appears to increase over time, from about 20 percent in infancy to 40 percent in childhood to 60 percent in adulthood. One possible explanation may be that children seek experiences that correlate with, and so fully develop, their genetic propensities."
weed out the ppl with weak "genes", and poor personality traits or poor intelligence performance. Cuz if genetics can be proven to be hereditary, then we can ensure that weeding out the unintelligent will only push society even further.
Or maybe we can just look at the ways that intelligence is tested and note that it's all just BS.
but to get back to your post....
Intelligence Is Not (Just) Genetic
Lewin argued that human behavior is a product of both the situation and past experience. Given this theoretical perspective, the right question is not a question of Genes v. Environment, the right question is how do genes and environment interact to shape behavior?
An illustration of how Lewin's theories currently shape research on genes can be traced to studies of intelligence. For years, researchers have been interested in how much of people’s intellectual capacity is a product of their genes, and studies have typically examined the impact of genes on the intelligence of twin pairs (who share between 50% and 100% of their genes).
The logic goes (and I'm simplifying here): twins should have identical or nearly identical levels of intelligence, and if they don't, then the environment is shaping their intelligence. Most studies suggest that about 3/4 of intelligence differences between individuals can be traced to genes.
In all of these twin studies, however, researchers have rarely accounted for differences in the social context. Most notably, the vast majority of these twin studies involve twins raised in very homogeneous socioeconomic conditions (e.g., parents with similar education and income backgrounds). Thus, these twin studies find large genetic influences in intelligence. The confound is that the twins also share very similar social environments (One of Lewin's successors, Richard Nisbett has published a great book(link is external) pointing out this confound).
What happens when researchers account for the effect of socioeconomic context on intelligence? Eric Turkheimer(link is external)—a professor at the University of Virginia—and his colleagues(link is external) tackled this very question by examining the intelligence of twin pairs raised in very different socioeconomic backgrounds. The researchers reasoned that if the socioeconomic environment matters little for intelligence, then genetic differences between twins on intelligence measures should be small.
Highlighting the insights of Kurt Lewin more than 70 years after his work, the researchers found that socioeconomic background had a major impact on genetic influences on intelligence: More specifically, when twins were reared in high socioeconomic status environments, genes accounted for approximately 72% of variance in intelligence scores between twins. When reared in low socioeconomic status environments, genes accounted for only about 8% of variance in intelligence within the twin pairs.
panopticon
Superstar
Never argued that. Should have made that clear in my original post - I'm not a socialist or a eugenicist.
As far as the validity of intelligence testing goes, I'll have time to share my thoughts tomorrow.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
Yes. Anyone can work at McDonald's full-time. The skill is low enough that any random person over 16 can do it. However, most adults over 35 can't be nearly as successful at being aerospace engineer. That's why being an engineer is valued higher than being at the register.
Dealing with a fast-pace environment and people for 8 to 10 hours almost non-stop can be very stressful. But again, more people can handle that than being an aerospace engineer or worrying about a shuttle not killing 5 people and blowing $5M.
Not just complete but to do it in the first place.
I agree. There are certain aspects of life that everyone should be given the right regardless of skill or intellect (as we define it). Such as: quality education and quality healthcare.
We already have social democracy. Western Europe has shown that it works. Why aren't you advocating that?
This is an interesting concept that I won't dismiss out of hand. To pay someone for being at a certain skill level instead of having a certain skill. Unfortunately as @5n0man pointed out, too many people are lazy. So certain skills may get flooded because it's easy work for good pay. So how does your theory handle that?
You have yet to prove your answer is right.
nikka this sounds like the plot to a teenage dystopian novel
Aint nobody trying to live like them nikkas in The Giver
Disclosure
Pro
"low skill" work is a myth. All work entails effort and skill. All work is respectable and necessary or why bother. All full time work should also be compensated with living wage and benefits package.
Even if everyone goes to college and betters themselves someone will always need to take out the trash and deliver the pizzas. Someone will always have to sweep the streets and wash the sheets. To say that they do not deserve to be able to pay their bills and buy food and that they deserve to be poor says more about you then it does about them. If this economic system can’t, of its own accord, pay a living wage to janitors, restaurant workers, cleaning staff at hotels and garbage collectors and store clerks; in essence a large segment of the working population, then as a system has failed.
It is quite telling that a few months back the stock market plunged on news that wages were rising. We have to stop measuring the health the economy by how well rich people are doing, that is misleading. we need to start measuring the economy by how well the least among us manage to get along.
A truly strong economy can carry the labor force even the bottom of the labor force. A weak economy is that one that cannot actually carry the janitors and labors. If it can’t actually afford to pay for them then it is a very weak economy on the verge of collapse. And that is because it can’t sustain itself if it can’t afford the labor that it relies on for its very survival.
The question of what any given job "should" make is a very interesting one, both on the low end and on the high end. What "should" investment banking make? The answer to that question evolves over time (especially with investment banking). The point I would make is that any answer is really just the product of social/cultural values. There is no "real" answer in any truly objective sense. Now there is an ideology of market capitalism that likes to pretend that there is an "invisible hand" that is as objective as the laws of gravity that set's wages and profits where they "should" be. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that the ideology of free-market capitalism is about as objective as the "mandate of heaven"; more often than not it is just a post hoc rationalization of a power grab.
Even if everyone goes to college and betters themselves someone will always need to take out the trash and deliver the pizzas. Someone will always have to sweep the streets and wash the sheets. To say that they do not deserve to be able to pay their bills and buy food and that they deserve to be poor says more about you then it does about them. If this economic system can’t, of its own accord, pay a living wage to janitors, restaurant workers, cleaning staff at hotels and garbage collectors and store clerks; in essence a large segment of the working population, then as a system has failed.
It is quite telling that a few months back the stock market plunged on news that wages were rising. We have to stop measuring the health the economy by how well rich people are doing, that is misleading. we need to start measuring the economy by how well the least among us manage to get along.
A truly strong economy can carry the labor force even the bottom of the labor force. A weak economy is that one that cannot actually carry the janitors and labors. If it can’t actually afford to pay for them then it is a very weak economy on the verge of collapse. And that is because it can’t sustain itself if it can’t afford the labor that it relies on for its very survival.
The question of what any given job "should" make is a very interesting one, both on the low end and on the high end. What "should" investment banking make? The answer to that question evolves over time (especially with investment banking). The point I would make is that any answer is really just the product of social/cultural values. There is no "real" answer in any truly objective sense. Now there is an ideology of market capitalism that likes to pretend that there is an "invisible hand" that is as objective as the laws of gravity that set's wages and profits where they "should" be. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that the ideology of free-market capitalism is about as objective as the "mandate of heaven"; more often than not it is just a post hoc rationalization of a power grab.