= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
(No argument with anything you're saying, but I'd like to record my skepticism that uncontrolled bullying is the best way to provide people like you with that particular service, and skepticism that there are very many people who require that service.)
Also keep in mind that you're going to have to deal with assholes once you hit the real world. While protecting children from them at young ages is an idealistic goal, at some level you will have to learn to face them. In a lot of less than extreme circumstances, you can learn and improve strategies to handle them.
In response to
Burdensome Details
Reagan would be unlikely to provide support to unwed mothers, but maybe as part of a deal in which he got what he wanted, a reduction in expenditures.
Irrelevant. If there is any possible explanation where he provides the support without that specific deal, it is automatically less likely that both happen, even if the most likely scenario (90%+) of supporting unwed mothers is given said deal. If it is the only possibility, the scenarios would be equally likely; the conjunction could still not possibly be more likely.
(No argument with anything you're saying, but I'd like to record my skepticism that uncontrolled bullying is the best way to provide people like you with that particular service, and skepticism that there are very many people who require that service.)
I'm not trying to imply that bullying is good by any means. I also don't think it is nearly as terrible as it is portrayed to be. It is extremely dramatized by the media because of the few instances where it is extreme and the bullied takes extreme action. In a lot of cases "bullying" is minor in nature and not significantly different than other "initiation rites" at higher ages. I am all for teachers doing their best to prevent bullying, but some minor things should be let go.
As for homeschooling, for a parent considering it I would add the pro that you can increase the pace of the cirriculum to keep your child from getting bored by mindless repetition. Again from personal experience, I could have learned several classes (particularly math) much faster than it is taught in a public school environment, and as a result I didn't do homework (I would get 70's in classes counting homework as 30%) because I didn't think I was learning anything. So being able to pace classes efficiently would be a significant pro for homeschooling.
I would once more emphasize the positives of social interaction, and find a way, whether through sports, or preferably a way involving both sexes, to make sure your child is getting that interaction. My point on bullying isn't that I think it's a net positive, just that the negatives aren't as extreme as portrayed in the media and aren't enough to seriously cut into the benefits of the socialization.
Pick some other inconvenience which has a small but non-zero disutility and repeat the exercise.
I'm not disputing the validity of the thought process. I don't think the example was well chosen, however. A dust speck, ignoring externalities, doesn't affect anything. Using even a pinprick would have made the example far better.
That'd be Fighting the Hypothetical.
It's an extremely hypothetical situation. However, why should it, ignoring externalities as the problem required, be measured at any disutility? That dust speck has no impact on my life in any way, other than making me blink. No pain is involved.
In response to
Circular Altruism
The comments on this post are no better than those on the Torture vs. Dust Specks post. In other words, simply bring the word "torture" into the discussion and people automatically become irrational. It's happened to some of the other threads as well, when someone mentioned torture.
It strongly suggests that not many of the readers have made much progress in overcoming their biases.
By the way, Eliezer has corrected the original post; anonymous was correct about the numbers.
I would simply argue that a dust speck has 0 disutility.
To a degree, charisma can be learned. Yes, there are some people with natural advantages (height, symmetrical face); but Napoleon is still revered as a leader, despite being famously short.
The right clothes, the right posture, the right attitude, and you could probably persuade most people to do just about anything that doesn't have immediate negative effects on them (you could probably even persuade some people to do things that do have minor immediate negative effects).
Take a look at the Real Life section on this tvtropes page for examples...
Absolutely. That is the reason for the speculation I provided in the second paragraph. Innate ability is also a large factor, and I think, while improving your charisma is useful for anyone, some intelligent people, primarily those without as much natural ability, pass this up as "not of value".
IQ isn't good enough. It's not the only talent required to lead. People have to want to work for you and see your vision. I believe leadership ability and charisma should reasonably be considered aspects of intelligence, but they're not the type that would show up on an IQ test.
Some component of both leadership ability and charisma will show up in an IQ test. IQ helps for those things. There will just be a somewhat weaker correlation between IQ and measures specific to 'leadership ability' and 'charisma' than there is between IQ and measures of mathematical ability. Most significantly because height and facial symmetry aren't directly useful for solving equations.
The correlation between IQ and leadership is absolutely there, because some baseline IQ is a prerequisite for reasonable leadership ability. You can't lead without basic logic abilities or some ability to see patterns, and I would consider leadership and charisma as aspects of intelligence. I made that comment elsewhere in reply to a different comment. However, neither is easy to measure objectively, and these abilities are not measured on an IQ test. It is very possible to have a genius-level IQ and be awful with people.
I would possibly even go farther. I would guess that high IQ people are likely to be closer to the extrema of leadership skills than the general population. Intelligent people who are naturally good with people can apply their intelligence to improving their people skills, and bring themselves closer to the higher extreme. Meanwhile, those closer to the lower extreme are probably more likely than the average person to throw themselves into projects they are good at and decide social interactions are a waste of their time.
That second paragraph is entirely speculation and I have no data to back it up, however, I think the point that while there is some correlation, it is not strong, and that more data would be useful in the original study proposed, is valid.
In response to
Competent Elites
It's true that we don't like to think people better-off than us might be better than us. But two caveats:
1. Just because the cream is concentrated at the top, doesn't mean that most of the cream (or the best cream) is at the top.
2. Causation probably runs both ways on this one. There is a lot of evidence that richer and more-respected people are happier and healthier. Various explanations have been tried to explain this, including the explanation that health causes career success. That explanation turned out to have serious problems, although I can't now remember what they are, other than that I heard them summarized in a talk from a SAGE (anti-aging) conference circa 2004, which I can no longer find any information via Google on because there is now a different organization called SAGE that holds conferences on LGBT aging that totally dominates Google search results.
I think that, if we could measure the degree to which a culture is able to promote based on merit, it would turn out to be a powerful economic indicator - particularly for knowledge-based economies.
Causation probably runs both ways on this one. There is a lot of evidence that richer and more-respected people are happier and healthier. Various explanations have been tried to explain this, including the explanation that health causes career success.
What about a third factor being the crucial decider in both, such the ability to handle/minimize stress levels? As you rise nearer to the top, stress increases. Those most able to adapt to it continue to rise, because high stress levels have a negative effect on brain function, and eventually the people who can't handle the stress are forced to fold. Stress also weakens the immune system and has other negative effects on health.
Logically it should hold that being able to effectively decrease stress would maximize both your chance to rise to the top and your health.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I am not assuming you're wrong klfwip, but I would like some examples of times that ideology was the cause of mass warfare. It seems to me that ideology is usually just the justification for actions intended to produce material results.
I don't think sociohistorical scholars can really believe that fascism would have risen without the threat of communism pushing the corporate class to pour massive amounts of money into fascist parties.
The crusades wouldn't have happened without the Pope trying to expand his influence and gain wealth for the church through control of religious sites and artifacts
Nobody would care about the dumb question of corporate personhood if corporations hadn't poured billions of dollars directly and indirectly into using the litigation of Citizens United to increase their own influence
Whether religion was ultimately the "cause of the crusades" is debatable, but it was the reason used to sell it to the masses. Surely a similar scenario could occur in the "blue vs green" debate outlined above.