The IQ problem and jobs

Anthropology, History, Psychology, Sociology and other related areas.

Re: The IQ problem and jobs

Postby Serpent on August 16th, 2017, 6:26 pm 

wolfhnd » August 16th, 2017, 5:00 pm wrote:Mythology is perhaps an unfortunate term, try the abstract representation of the cultural paradigm from an evolutionary perspective.

That presents a new set of difficulties. I usually avoid 'models', diagrams and abstract representations of things that can be discussed of and for themselves, as they really are, what they really do, what processes are actually taking place; I actively dislike the word "paradigm"; and I don't think cultures and societies conform well to the concept of biological evolution.

Never mind. I was wrong to jump in with incomplete information. Got carried away by the subject; neglected the assigned reading.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2531
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The IQ problem and jobs

Postby wolfhnd on August 16th, 2017, 10:54 pm 

Serpent » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:26 pm wrote:
wolfhnd » August 16th, 2017, 5:00 pm wrote:Mythology is perhaps an unfortunate term, try the abstract representation of the cultural paradigm from an evolutionary perspective.

That presents a new set of difficulties. I usually avoid 'models', diagrams and abstract representations of things that can be discussed of and for themselves, as they really are, what they really do, what processes are actually taking place; I actively dislike the word "paradigm"; and I don't think cultures and societies conform well to the concept of biological evolution.

Never mind. I was wrong to jump in with incomplete information. Got carried away by the subject; neglected the assigned reading.


Abstract representations is the nature of culture. The point Peterson is trying to make is that it isn't just language that requires a biological substrate it is all of consciousness. Culture and biology are inseparable until independent artificial intelligence reproduces itself. Even then since life is so poorly defined the distinction between artificial and biological intelligence may be artificial. Books for example are a form of inanimate artificial intelligence as is much of culture.

Few people are able to see it seems how "artificial" they are. People raised without language have brains that are structurally different from those raised under normal circumstances. Perfectly illustrating the interplay of culture and biology. Your consciousness is not a purely biological process. You are to a large extent what culture has made you.

Here we get to one of the main points Peterson is making. The lack of respect that people have for the culture that created them. No matter how well formed the mind it is a product not of individual but swarm intelligence. Einstein did not invent relativity, the abstract cultural representations that had developed since life emerged coalesced in Einstein. Let Einstein was very stingy with sharing credit. Just as most people fail to acknowledge the debt they owe to culture preferring to think they are their own author and sustenance.

How many times have you stopped to appreciate that your existence is dependent on a military that in it's madness creates order out of chaos. The same is true of all the other "deplorables". The police who keep anarchy at bay, the utility workers who keep your computer on so you can read this, the transportation workers who insure distribution of essential commodities, the farmers who distribute the risk of starvation over vast areas making it an almost unheard of problem in modern societies, the sanitation workers who make your world safe from diseases, the energy workers who make modern society possible, the factory workers who remove all forms of drudgery and multiply your efficiency, the laborers who construct your shelter that keep you warm and dry, The list goes on and the fact that it all works transparently in the back ground is miraculous.

How out of touch with reality the bourgeoisie classes have become to tell the essential people in there lives that they are deplorable. The intelligentsia are like Marie Antoinette telling the peasants they can eat cake because there is no bread. Did anyone miss the petty nobility when the guillotine removed their heads? Didn't society go on without hardly a hiccup?

Peterson's primary message is that you need to make yourself useful first to yourself and through that effort the people around you. That is how you save the soul of a civilization and in the process your own soul. You cannot do that by collectivist rhetoric because life is about the value of individuals not groups.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The IQ problem and jobs

Postby BadgerJelly on August 16th, 2017, 11:59 pm 

Serpent » August 17th, 2017, 3:58 am wrote:
BadgerJelly » August 16th, 2017, 2:39 pm wrote:Peterson refers to people with very low IQ (83 and below, which is 10% of population) having problems finding employment not lower classes.


He starts the lecture by subdividing IQ levels into job categories - so you can't avoid the class question.

Inaccurate from the get-go, because most people don't end up with the job they're best suited for, or have the appropriate cognitive aptitude for, or would most enjoy doing. They take whatever jobs they can get. And the children of wealthier families, with more access to education for a longer period, are more likely to get into the professions, whether they're intelligent enough or not, while poor kids, no matter how intelligent, may never get a shot at a degree, unless they can also play basketball or something.


He is talking about IQ not class. He just presents the list of jobs to show where IQ levels fit into certain jobs taken from data gathered. Someone with an IQ of 83 is highly unlikely to be running a successful company. You are mistaking the content as saying something it is not saying and focusing on something that is not the focus of this topic.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4494
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The IQ problem and jobs

Postby wolfhnd on August 17th, 2017, 12:19 am 

BadgerJelly » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:59 am wrote:
Serpent » August 17th, 2017, 3:58 am wrote:
BadgerJelly » August 16th, 2017, 2:39 pm wrote:Peterson refers to people with very low IQ (83 and below, which is 10% of population) having problems finding employment not lower classes.


He starts the lecture by subdividing IQ levels into job categories - so you can't avoid the class question.

Inaccurate from the get-go, because most people don't end up with the job they're best suited for, or have the appropriate cognitive aptitude for, or would most enjoy doing. They take whatever jobs they can get. And the children of wealthier families, with more access to education for a longer period, are more likely to get into the professions, whether they're intelligent enough or not, while poor kids, no matter how intelligent, may never get a shot at a degree, unless they can also play basketball or something.


He is talking about IQ not class. He just presents the list of jobs to show where IQ levels fit into certain jobs taken from data gathered. Someone with an IQ of 83 is highly unlikely to be running a successful company. You are mistaking the content as saying something it is not saying and focusing on something that is not the focus of this topic.


Yes we got a little side tracked but it is almost impossible to separate the issue of IQ and employment from the broader issue of self worth and motivation. There are things society can do and things the individual must do.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The IQ problem and jobs

Postby Serpent on August 17th, 2017, 1:09 am 

wolfhnd » August 16th, 2017, 9:54 pm wrote:Abstract representations is the nature of culture.

Okay, but I haven't been back to see what that has to do with intelligence and job markets.

...Just as most people fail to acknowledge the debt they owe to culture preferring to think they are their own author and sustenance.

Do most people? Not sure I believe that.

How many times have you stopped to appreciate that your existence is dependent on a military that in it's madness creates order out of chaos.

Never. Not once. Not even right now, when you say so, do I feel tempted to subscribe to the notion that an insane military created order out of chaos. Or even that there was "chaos" before standing armies were constituted.
The same is true of all the other "deplorables".

Let's not sloganize anybody tonight.
The police who keep anarchy at bay,

I think about the police, in several ways and from several perspectives, fairly often. Not convinced that anarchy would instantly break out if they didn't have tanks, though. Not even convinced that anarchy is standing by, waiting for a chance to break out when the cops aren't shooting or kicking somebody.
the utility workers who keep your computer on so you can read this,

Approve, on the whole, of utility workers; not satisfied with "the grid" (my compy is running on a solar panel) or how energy is produced and distributed. Really not pleased with nuclear generators, coal or the huge amount of wattage wasted on keeping office towers lit up all night and the crazy-making advertising neon jungles.
the transportation workers who insure distribution of essential commodities,

Again, problematic. Urban public transport is vital; some goods haulage is important, if not essential - but also, a good deal of it is lugging stuff around the world to cajole people out of money they can't afford for things they don't need, or could produce in better quality locally.
the farmers who distribute the risk of starvation over vast areas making it an almost unheard of problem in modern societies,

I'm slightly confused by the sentence construction, but I do think about farmers. I also think about large-scale, subsidized agri-business. The second put a lot of the first out of commission and made the specter of starvation a little more credible in the west and very much in evidence in the east... so... let's keep thinking about them.
the sanitation workers who make your world safe from diseases,

I think we should value them above commodities traders. Maybe even pay them better. What d'you say?
the energy workers who make modern society possible,

Couple holdouts there. Not a fan of oily cormorants and flammable tapwater.
the factory workers who remove all forms of drudgery and multiply your efficiency, the laborers who construct your shelter that keep you warm and dry,

I thought their increasing and accelerating redundancy was a major problem in society right now.
The list goes on and the fact that it all works transparently in the back ground is miraculous.

No, it's not miraculous. It's damn hard work, organizing, co-operation, government regulation, tax collecting and allocating, and it needs a great deal of thought. Even so, it's not working nearly as well as it should.

How out of touch with reality the bourgeoisie classes have become

I don't know who's included in that, if it excludes the planners, administrators and regulators of energy production, home construction, transportation, public utilities, infrastructure, law enforcement and sanitation. Shopkeepers? Teachers? Sports announcers? Beef inspectors? Who?
to tell the essential people in there lives that they are deplorable.

Who has done that? Might you not be projecting one person's one campaign statement regarding a (as it turns out really, really, really deplorable) political enthusiasm into the long-held attitude of one poorly-defined class toward another poorly defined class?
I'm not saying there is no truth in your statement. I'm saying it needs a lot more scrutiny and contemplation to make sense of what's happened, what the relationships of different groups are and how best to improve them.

Did anyone miss the petty nobility when the guillotine removed their heads? Didn't society go on without hardly a hiccup?

I'd call the reign of terror and the collapse of the economy at least a hiccup. Mass beheadings are not the most stable form of governance. I recommend you consider more carefully than Robespierre did which heads are surplus to requirement.

Peterson's primary message is that you need to make yourself useful first to yourself and through that effort the people around you.

Well, that's fine. If the system will let you.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2531
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Braininvat liked this post


Previous

Return to Social Sciences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests