= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns claims that parental SES and IQ are correlated at .33; that parental SES explains one third of social status variance (which implies r=.58) and one fifth of income variance (r=.45); that IQ explains about a quarter of the social status variance (r=.5) and a sixth of the income variance (r=.4), and that also correcting for parental SES reduces the predictive ability of IQ by a quarter. I would expect more recent numbers to be broadly similar.
Thanks for the link. It's a nice summary of the state of research a few years back, and anybody who's interested in the topic should read it.
It is probably even more interesting to me because it tacks pretty hard away from the conclusions some people have drawn in this thread. The authors clearly did not believe that the well-attested differences in IQ testing across ethnic groups could be ascribed to genetic factors.
"It's been known for generations that religious identification with the in-group eases working relationships and obviates friction over expressions of belief, so employers should as a default prefer employees share their religions."
That's actually an interesting argument. I wouldn't mind seeing it expanded, if you happen to have real numbers lying around.
Though some obvious confounders do come to mind: in a really diverse religious environment (like, for example, the Silicon Valley tech scene), you're giving up quite a bit in talent if you recruit only from your co-religionists. And if you weight it less heavily, I'd be very surprised if the response looked linear: I wouldn't expect a workplace that's (say) 50% Christian with the rest split between atheists, Hindus, and Buddhists to be that much more harmonious than one with equal numbers of all of the above plus the odd Wiccan or Discordian. It might actually be worse under some circumstances, although this is rank speculation.
A lot of the current research focuses on "trust" inside groups. This is not exactly double-blinded climate controlled stuff, as you might expect, just brave and smart social psychologists doing their best. I find it highly plausible and confirmatory of many centuries of non-scientific observations about insularity. Disclaimer: I AM NOT SAYING DISTRUST OF PEOPLE OF OTHER BELIEF SYSTEMS IS GOOD, JUST THAT IT HAPPENS.
Atheism associated with lack of "trustworthiness signals" by believers.
Religious in-group trust and cooperation is higher.
I know of no studies on friction over expression of religious beliefs. I do kind of take as a given that there are fewer HR complaints when everybody's got the same Sacred Heart/Darwin amphibian/Santa Muerte/COEXIST bumper sticker.
Though some obvious confounders do come to mind...
Granted that there are huge trade-offs for religious homogeneity, and I think that it's almost always a bad business decision (exceptions: semi-utopian communes? survival in Hobbesian chaos? new colonies without hope of reinforcement?) It was just an exemplary argument of a sort made less often than, you know, arguments about race and IQ.
I haven't looked at any numbers recently, so I don't expect these guesses to be particularly accurate, but I'd guess IQ correlates .2 to .6 with most interesting measures of life success, and height correlates around 0 to 0.1 (after controlling for IQ).
Do you similarly control the IQ finding for height? For obvious reasons that is necessary for consistency.
I'd certainly expect (based on loose memories of studies encountered) height to predict more than '0 to 0.1' and IQ to predict a heck of a lot less than 0.6, especially when considering populations that are not limited to first world nations. I wish it were otherwise, naturally. I'd love the world to be more biased in favour of my own highest stat.
In any case, I would consider it legitimate to readers who encounter "Life is an IQ test" delivered in response to the quoted context to be sufficient evidence that the comment is not worth reading and downvoting and ignoring it. It was only because I was more patient that normal that I bothered to read further and found you had a good point hidden in the detail. Do with that information what you will.
I'd love the world to be more biased in favour of my own highest stat
You can re-allocate some of that to Charisma if you work really hard (stand-up comedy is a learned skill) and if you have a British or Australian accent you get +1 just by coming to North America and talking. Provided you haven't already maxed it, Strength is highly trainable, as are Dexterity and Constitution. Even HP, up till about 30 when bone density stops accumulating. Wisdom is extremely trainable, and there's some evidence the world's biased that direction, so I'd throw points there when in doubt.
Even if this were true, it would not follow that there is no countervailing incentive to remove barriers to employment for disadvantaged classes of people.
To refer back to the OP, why is the relevant disadvantaged class "black people" rather than "people with low IQ" or even "people unqualified for the job"?
why is the relevant disadvantaged class "black people"
As far as it goes, I'm in favor of preserving opportunities for all sorts of people to work, because it's humanizing and it makes people happy. We're all in favor of that, right?
But I also don't think there's been historic, organized pressure to keep low-IQ people from finding useful labor, and while such people deserve the protection of the law, it's not illuminating to compare their plight to a group of people who were denied the ability to find employment they were very capable of using intimidation, violence, and bad-faith law....
...tools which, and this is sad, were very much still in use when the Civil Right Act was passed, and would still be in use today if it had never been passed.
Racial "classes"--not sets of corresponding genetic polymorphisms, which science tells us about, but race as we understand it in America, which is both more and less complicated--were not created by the Civil Rights Act, or the civil rights movement. They were created long before that, to justify cruelty, and to deny the continuing effect of that social construction would have been, in the the judgment of the majority of our Congress in 1964 and our Supreme Court since then, counterproductive.
All other things being equal, is anyone disagreeing with this?
Not at all. It's a very rationalist sort of argument. There are many like it. I think it would be terrific if we spent more time exploring those, possibly at the expense of focusing heavily on arguments that seem a little less than disinterested.
I think you either drastically overestimate the impact of IQ or underestimate the predictive value of those other factors of life success
Perhaps we should switch to numbers to make it easier to communicate. I haven't looked at any numbers recently, so I don't expect these guesses to be particularly accurate, but I'd guess IQ correlates .2 to .6 with most interesting measures of life success, and height correlates around 0 to 0.1 (after controlling for IQ). I'd guess facial symmetry has correlation >0.3 with other health-related things, a correlation around 0.4 with social things, and a correlation below 0.3 with the rest.
If you have a source handy that estimates these sorts of correlations, I'd like to see it, but I don't think it's important enough to spend time hunting something down.
I would be very surprised if IQ correlates at .6 with, say, wealth or income. Parental wealth and income possibly correlate no more than 0.5 to childrens' incomes, and it would be frankly remarkable for IQ to be (1) transmitted intergenerationally to a large degree, and (2) more closely correlated to financial outcomes than one's parent's financial outcomes, since your parents often give you not only your genes, but your inheritance/early support, financial assumptions, and first set of career contacts.
In response to
Rationality Quotes August 2013
The complexity of software is an essential property, not an accidental one. Hence, descriptions of a software entity that abstract away its complexity often abstract away its essence.
I agree that there are concerns, and you would lose a lot of the depth, but my real concern is with how this makes me perceive CFAR. When I am told that there are things I can't see/hear until I pay money, it makes me feel like it's all some sort of money making scheme, and question whether the goal is actually just to teach as many people as much as possible, or just to maximize revenue. Again, let me clarify that I'm not trying to attack CFAR, I believe that they probably are an honest and good thing, but I'm trying to convey how I initially feel when I'm told that I can't get certain material until I pay money.
It's akin to my personal heuristic of never taking advice from anyone who stands to gain from my decision. Being told by people at CFAR that I can't see this material until I pay the money is the opposite of how I want to decide to attend a workshop, I instead want to see the tapes or read the raw material and decide on my own that I would benefit from being in person.
Yeah, I feel these objections, and I don't think your heuristic is bad. I would say, though, and I hold no brief for CFAR, never having donated or attended a workshop, that there is another heuristic possibly worth considering: generally more valuable products are not free. There are many exceptions to this, and it is possible for sellers to counterhack this common heuristic by using higher prices to falsely signal higher quality to consumers. But the heuristic is not worthless, it just has to be applied carefully.
I don't know how this happened. My comment was supposed to be a reply to:
When the axe came into the woods, many of the trees said, "At least the handle is one of us.
Ah. I read that one as a reference to the tendency to let tribal affiliation trump realistic evaluation of outcomes.
Is this just supposed to be a demonstration of irrationality? Can some one unpack this?
A demonstration of the gray fallacy. The opinions of Ariel Castro are not equidistant from the truth with those of the rest of society, and we don't find the truth by finding a middle ground between his claims and those of everybody else.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
After joining the military, where executive function on demand is sort of the meta-goal of most training exercises, i found that having a set wardrobe actually saves a great deal of mental effort. You just don't realize how much time you spend worrying about clothes until you have a book which literally has all the answers and can't be deviated from. I know that this was also a thing that Steve Jobs did- one 'uniform' for life. President Obama apparently does it as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/10/05/steve-jobs-always-dressed-exactly-the-same-heres-who-else-does/
There are a number of other things i've learned for this which are maybe worth writing up as a separate post. Not sure if that's within the purview of LW though.
I agree, though it's always been interesting to me how the tiniest details of clothing become much clearer signals when eveybody's almost the same. Other military practices that I think conserve your energy for what's important:
-Daily, routinized exercise. Done in a way that very few people are deciding what comes next.
-Maximum use of daylight hours
-Minimized high-risk projects outside of workplace (paternalistic health care, insurance, and in many cases, housing and continuing education.)