As people get more intelligent and smarter, the Ad business will die. I'm sure about it.
In my whole life, there's no single ad that makes sense for me to see and click, because it's annoying.
I love smart search results, not smart ad results.
In my whole life, there's no single ad that makes sense for me to see and click, because it's annoying.
I love smart search results, not smart ad results.
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. "
Therefore I believe that as our society reaches for further egalitarianism, this hierarchy of "intelligence" should flatten, imo towards people being more knowledgeable. Not like you need to take away people's Harvard PHDs to make sure every American has what they need to at least graduate highschool, or, you know, be able to read.
I don't necessarily agree that greater education leads to greater invulnerability to ads and the modern poisons in our society: most of my friends are smarter than me by many measures, and yet as far as I know I'm the only one not at least mildly addicted to Instagram and co., despite all of us often having conversations where we all seem to agree that that shits bad for you. Nah it takes something other than knowledge / educational privilege, i don't know what specifically, but something else.
This is the claim: intelligence is just some combination of education, class, and race
Let's state the obvious here: genetics. Why did you conveniently leave that one out? Are you in denial about (inherently) stupid people existing or something? Can you prove that they don't exist?
Also, before you assume I'm being more specific: I'm not saying equal access to education is a wasted endeavor. Sure, make the public school system good in rich and poor areas
But we're talking about intelligence in general here, so leaving genetics out is just avoiding the obvious because it isn't politically satisfying
I doubt this can be demonstrated to have a much stronger effect than educational opportunities, which is a function of class, which in some societies, such as American society, is a function partially of race, for historical and contemporary reasons, as well as a function of economic condition (the two are inexorably linked for reason of generational wealth).
> leaving genetics out is just avoiding the obvious because it isn't politically satisfying
I'm very much of the opinion, and as far as I understand it research backs me up here, that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics, the overall outcomes are vastly more affected by things we have lots of control over, such as the egalitarianian-ness of our society, than things we don't really have control over, such as each individual's genetics (and do we want to go down the path of structuring our hierarchies around this? shall I go get the swath of sci fi warning against this?)
You seem to disagree, not sure why, though I'm curious!
> Are you in denial about (inherently) stupid people existing or something?
Nope, just seems mostly irrelevant in this conversation. What's the point of talking about genetics here? How about we do achieve educational access egalitarian, truly, and we find out some people aren't doing quite as good of art, or writing quite as good as poetry, or dreaming up quite as interesting apps, or doing engineering quite as fast, because they lost a genes lottery. Do you think it's a good idea to start structuring hierarchies around this? Seems cruel and pointless to me.
Yep this is what I was looking for. Given this, the original claim isn't right
> Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned?
Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted
Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable
It really is just that.
Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. "But genetic factors!!" Eh, it's mostly just about how much you work out. It's not really worth talking about genetic factors when the majority of the population can't do a single pullup. Are we moving goalposts, or rather just doing actionable conversations?
> Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable
I'm not going to do your work for you. For some reason you really wanna talk about genes. I'll be honest, I'm going to take you at good faith here, but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go.
Why are you more interested in talking about genetic factors of intelligence than the far more significant factors in economic conditions? What's the deal here? Where you going with this?
Some people can get shredded really easily because of genetics. Some people are just naturally more fit than others
> but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go.
My point is your initial point is an oversimplification. If you throw the same resources at the same group of people from a similar socioeconomic status, there will still be a difference of ability. Some people will move faster than others
So the crux of my argument is this: just because there's an inequality of outcome does not imply that the cause is purely socioeconomic. Given constitutional differences, striving for equality of outcome is a sub-optimal use of resources
Should there be standards or some kind of baseline? Yes. But striving for absolute equality of outcome at the expense of everything else is a net negative for society
It is good and right to provide good and equal educational opportunities to people regardless of economic status. Countries like the USA aren't, and should. What are you arguing for here, some kind of genetic evaluation first to make sure we aren't "wasting resources" on a kid that will do math a little more slow? Why not just redirect abundance to the point it doesn't matter?
Nevertheless I do deny it. Genes don't cause anything, they just sit there in nucleuses. If you don't include the entire causal chain you're not serious either.
Nevermind all these difficult projects you worked on. Nevermind that your ex colleagues gave you glowing references. Nevermind all your open source projects. Nevermind that the project you led and worked on has never been hacked in 3 years in spite of having hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. It's all worthless because I don't see any fancy branding in your resume.
According to who exactly? Some stupid person somewhere? Why should anyone here care?
And also the successful business as i know run no Ad campaign.
You're just making assumptions.
Marketers probably have a similar view, and lo and behold you're both looking through the same lens, namely, Google and The Current Forces Shaping The Ad Market.
Advertising is a useful and symbiotic relationship, but may best be disintermediated... so to speak.
Don't believe me ? Just try them until you find out bad things by yourself.
But really: why don't more people use ublock origin? It makes the web actually usable
If I go on a website and see a bunch of sponsored bullshit, it makes me much less likely to ever go there again