Are Canadians ready for discussing Intellectual Privilege?

[LakeLocker]

With recent events it's become relatively clear that we're gonna be diving deep into the intellectual economy. I.e. reducing carbon intense lifestyles working from home etc.


So do you think Canadians are ready to discuss high IQ privledge?

I know this is verboten topic with many, especially people with very high IQ's but it doesn't deny the reality of the situation. IQ is contributing to inequality and it threatens to tear apart the very fabric of our society.

I've been waiting and waiting for this discussion to go mainstream but it's been completely ignored.

IQ in the current year has a modest affect on life outcomes, but it appears the tech heavy economy will radically accelerate this affect.

I've been waiting for this whole issue to work itself out, but I don't feel we have the time.

We're about to hit an economic upheaval that is gonna be rather horrific for people that are average or less than average.

Meanwhile it's clear that high iq individuals are gonna continually dominate everything about our society.

This isn't just an economic domination that we can tax away, but domination of culture, politics and power.

How can we as moral people ignore this issue? Is this not a crisis that will end up being worst than global warming?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

With recent events it's become relatively clear that we're gonna be diving deep into the intellectual economy. I.e. reducing carbon intense lifestyles working from home etc.


So do you think Canadians are ready to discuss high IQ privledge?

I know this is verboten topic with many, especially people with very high IQ's but it doesn't deny the reality of the situation. IQ is contributing to inequality and it threatens to tear apart the very fabric of our society.

I've been waiting and waiting for this discussion to go mainstream but it's been completely ignored.

IQ in the current year has a modest affect on life outcomes, but it appears the tech heavy economy will radically accelerate this affect.

I'd be interested to see the difference between raw IQ and money.

For example, a 95 IQ person from a rich family can have a stable home life, good food and healthcare growing up, attend a good school, get into post-secondary, good job, etc.

A poor kid with a 150 IQ and the opposite of the above is far worse off IMO.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

With recent events it's become relatively clear that we're gonna be diving deep into the intellectual economy. I.e. reducing carbon intense lifestyles working from home etc.


So do you think Canadians are ready to discuss high IQ privledge?

I know this is verboten topic with many, especially people with very high IQ's but it doesn't deny the reality of the situation. IQ is contributing to inequality and it threatens to tear apart the very fabric of our society.

I've been waiting and waiting for this discussion to go mainstream but it's been completely ignored.

IQ in the current year has a modest affect on life outcomes, but it appears the tech heavy economy will radically accelerate this affect.

I've been waiting for this whole issue to work itself out, but I don't feel we have the time.

We're about to hit an economic upheaval that is gonna be rather horrific for people that are average or less than average.

Meanwhile it's clear that high iq individuals are gonna continually dominate everything about our society.

This isn't just an economic domination that we can tax away, but domination of culture, politics and power.

How can we as moral people ignore this issue? Is this not a crisis that will end up being worst than global warming?

I don't disagree with the general idea (that grunt labor is about to become less valuable, and therefore that if someone's main asset in life is a willingness to work hard then that's also going to be less valuable), but I think the real world characteristic that matter isn't "raw IQ on paper" but rather "the ability to have the best odds of successful outcomes that we'd associate with being smart".

The difference is that the characteristic I'm suggesting is a mix of high intelligence, ability to recognize talent in others, ability to seek knowledge, discipline, motivation, long-term view, willpower, capacity for being well organized, etc. (and I'd probably even add leadership/charisma to the mix too.)

Someone who has a high IQ but also has major personal flaws won't do as well as you think - is my point.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd be interested to see the difference between raw IQ and money.

For example, a 95 IQ person from a rich family can have a stable home life, good food and healthcare growing up, attend a good school, get into post-secondary, good job, etc.

A poor kid with a 150 IQ and the opposite of the above is far worse off IMO.

I have an IQ around 120-140 and was broke most of my life. Started working in highschool. Got into a fight with my gym teacher because he required I get a pair of gym shoes and I had no cash for that. Started a business in university. Was making around 1k a day but was stressful and I worked a lot. Eventually quit. My partner who I brought on continued it and now has a Porsche and a condo.

Rather than say it was my IQ its that I recognized an opportunity and moved forward with it. However I could not have done my job if I was dumb.

That being said, a high IQ can often lead to a low EQ. People with high EQ's tend to make a lot of money as well.

Rather than say its IQ or EQ that leads to success, I have found in Canada that its hard work that leads to money. You might not become a multi-millionaire but work hard and you'll make an above average wage. Its not like the old days where white collar jobs pay significantly more, manual labor now pays a lot too.

I suspect if we could teach discipline better in highschool and perhaps identify ADD individuals better and get them treated everyone would do better.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd be interested to see the difference between raw IQ and money.

For example, a 95 IQ person from a rich family can have a stable home life, good food and healthcare growing up, attend a good school, get into post-secondary, good job, etc.

A poor kid with a 150 IQ and the opposite of the above is far worse off IMO.

I think you're radically underestimating the difference between the two.

If you said an IQ of 110 and 95 you "might" be right.

[lio45]

$1k a day for many years now and he only has a measly Porsche and not even his own SFH?!?

BTW I'm curious to know what industry it was in - you were in your late teens and early 20s and making that much, I have a hard time imagining any legal business with those kinds of numbers

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

I think you're radically underestimating the difference between the two.

If you said an IQ of 110 and 95 you "might" be right.

I'm not super familiar with the scale of the IQ system, but somebody at the bottom and top of 1 standard deviation, for example.

[misher]

Originally Posted by lio45

$1k a day for many years now and he only has a measly Porsche and not even his own SFH?!?

BTW I'm curious to know what industry it was in - you were in your late teens and early 20s and making that much, I have a hard time imagining any legal business with those kinds of numbers

I worked around 12 hours a day to get up to 1k and my partner tookover my clients but hired others to do my work. My partner mostly worked as my agent while I did most of the actual work.

And besides that, yeah I'm not giving you more personal details about me. It wasn't drugs.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

I don't disagree with the general idea (that grunt labor is about to become less valuable, and therefore that if someone's main asset in life is a willingness to work hard then that's also going to be less valuable), but I think the real world characteristic that matter isn't "raw IQ on paper" but rather "the ability to have the best odds of successful outcomes that we'd associate with being smart".

The difference is that the characteristic I'm suggesting is a mix of high intelligence, ability to recognize talent in others, ability to seek knowledge, discipline, motivation, long-term view, willpower, capacity for being well organized, etc. (and I'd probably even add leadership/charisma to the mix too.)

Someone who has a high IQ but also has major personal flaws won't do as well as you think - is my point.

I'm pretty sure it's an even split between industriousness and intelligence.

Leadership skills use to mean quite a bit as well, however I think we'll see that is fast disappearing as relevant. You can always higher a average iq individual to run the HR side of things and leave it be.

Industriousness will always be a factor but my point is that it is slipping quite quickly as something that really matters.

Computer based work doesn't care about your social skills nor does it care about how hard you worked last year. Your problem solving skills of the current minute are important everything else is a background concern.

[misher]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

I'm pretty sure it's an even split between industriousness and intelligence.

Leadership skills use to mean quite a bit as well, however I think we'll see that is fast disappearing as relevant. You can always higher a average iq individual to run the HR side of things and leave it be.

Industriousness will always be a factor but my point is that it is slipping quite quickly as something that really matters.

Computer based work doesn't care about your social skills nor does it care about how hard you worked last year. Your problem solving skills of the current minute are important everything else is a background concern.

• Video Link

I felt like this would fit with the current discussion.

[WhipperSnapper]

The ratio between senior executive and employee wages has gone from about 4:1 to 400:1 in 40 years. It's pedigree and/or who you know to join the elite group than your IQ, experience, etc. The alternative is to rapidly build up a company's valuation through a shady growth strategy and cash in an IPO. That's how most tech billionaires are made. Unfortunately, I have too much of a conscience to be able to sleep at night knowing my immense wealth has come out of the pockets of hundreds of average employees/investors speculating the market.

[GreaterMontréal]

As long as people with a DEP can make $40/h or more in the construction industry, we're gonna be ok.

[milomilo]

I thought IQ was basically useless as a measurement of intelligence anyway?

And even so, it's still just one metric. How hard you work, physical ability, social skills, looks, inherited money, education are all just as important for being successful.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The ratio between senior executive and employee wages has gone from about 4:1 to 400:1 in 40 years.

This would make perfect sense if you appreciate that communication technology and computing make people way more powerful than ever before.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's pedigree and/or who you know to join the elite group than your IQ, experience, etc.

This doesn't explain why silicon valley/the world has been taken over by people with incredibly limited social skills.

You can go through the list of tech billionaires almost all have near genius level iqs, and are known for being sociall awkward or simply less affective than the average person.

Obviously if you are talking about boomer industries like Oil this is the case but I don't think it will be in the near future.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The alternative is to rapidly build up a company's valuation through a shady growth strategy and cash in an IPO.

Or you have better ideas and innovations and absolutely slaughter the competition with good old bloody thirsty capaitlism.

Jeff Bezo's by all accounts is a brilliant human being and his 1990s social skills aren't fit for an Iphone store.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That's how most tech billionaires are made. Unfortunately, I have too much of a conscience to be able to sleep at night knowing my immense wealth has come out of the pockets of hundreds of average employees/investors speculating the market.

You can say this about anything.

If your idea is successful you win big. If you have an IQ of 160 work 80 hour weeks and you aren't successful you've failed on a level that 99.99 percent of the population aren't even to compete at.


The fact that a near genius can fail is exactly the kind of evidence that tells you how cut throat this is.

[flar]

I always thought the world was set up best for people with moderate IQs. People with very high IQs sometimes struggle.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I thought IQ was basically useless as a measurement of intelligence anyway?

And even so, it's still just one metric. How hard you work, physical ability, social skills, looks, inherited money, education are all just as important for being successful.

Yup, monetary success is not a valid way to measure success. I'm in the top 1% IQ/income but I'm not Vancouver nor Toronto rich in anyway.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

Yup, monetary success is not a valid way to measure success. I'm in the top 1% IQ/income but I'm not Vancouver nor Toronto rich in anyway.

Are you denying your own privilege how dare you?

[Spocket]

No. I'm so sick of this never-ending cavalcade of silly accusations. If you don't like your station in life, improve it. You live in Canada. It's far from impossible. No, I don't care where you grew up. No, I don't care about the choices you made. You don't get a diploma just for being alive. Want a degree? Get one. Don't want one? Okay, shut up.

In the age of rapidly depleting basic and necessary resources, at what point can we tell people that maybe now's not the time for their petty nonsense? Or ever. Nobody can change their natural intelligence. By that I mean their capacity to learn and recall as necessary. The most you can do is get college or university training and use that to earn money.

Also, is that really the case that only the high-IQ people run the show? Have you not listened to what singers and other celebrities have to say about anything? Sure, they don't make as much as Bill Gates but they make a hell of a lot of money and even more, people actually want to know what they think (for some very mysterious reason) For all practical purposes, they're the ones actually running things on the lower end (where I'm reasonably certain %100 of the people on this board are)

[vid]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Also, is that really the case that only the high-IQ people run the show?

• Video Link

(If you can't get the Youtube around the Great Firewall at the moment, this is a clip of Trump saying China "has respect for Donald Trump and Donald Trump's very very large—uh—brain".)

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by vid

• Video Link

(If you can't get the Youtube around the Great Firewall at the moment, this is a clip of Trump saying China "has respect for Donald Trump and Donald Trump's very very large—uh—brain".)

Exactly! Great example. Former celebrity. Dumb as a bag of hammers. Somehow running the strongest power on the planet.