Just Leave Them Behind
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
One of my college professors always starts a new session by telling the story of how he bacame a professor. He started off by learning how to be an electrician, because that's all everyone around him was doing. This is in a 3-tier schooling system. After doing that for a while, an instructor encouraged him to go for a somewhat higher learning to become a technician. He did, and there again, he decided on a whim to try out for the university. He got in, and was encouraged to get a PHD. He got it, and some years later, was made a professor.
It would have been real easy for him to have stayed an electrician. Maybe he could have met a girl and needed to pay bills. Maybe he would have felt he was too old. He had the intellectual ability, but the tiered system could have forced him into a path where he would never have been able to contribute what he has to everyone who passed through him.
You'll never find a well-written book which honestly claims that its author should be a plumber. Why? For the same reason as you'll never find a well-written book which honestly claims that its author is illiterate: If you're able to write well, you're overqualified to be a plumber.
Ask him why he "deserves" to be a plumber and he'll give you a confused look: he deserves to be a plumber because he worked hard during his apprenticeship and learned how to fix drains well.
Being a plumber is a pretty good life: given the choice between being a plumber with his own business and a mid-level Bachelor's-wielding drone in some random company, I'd choose plumber any day. Sure, a plumber has to deal with some pretty unpleasant substances, but then again so does a surgeon.
I would be a lot more impressed by people who make arguments that are rationally correct, but that do not favour them.
It's like people who argue for Eugenics - their version of Eugenics never involves them or their friends/family being cut out from the genetic pool.
I've been arguing for a long time that universities should take fewer students and technical training schools should be expanded. Given that I hope to end up with a faculty position at a university, I'd say that this isn't a position which particularly favours me.
It's like people who argue for Eugenics - their version of Eugenics never involves them or their friends/family being cut out from the genetic pool.
I wouldn't argue for cutting myself out of the gene pool, since I think the genes I have which are responsible for my intellect are worth keeping (both of my parents have doctorates, so I think it's safe to say that there's a strong genetic component in my case); but there is strong evidence that I have genes which predispose for autoimmune conditions, and if I'm ever in a position to have children I'd strongly support using genetic testing to eliminate zygotes with those genes.
If I want to see more students in university, it favours me because I want to be hired to teach them; if I want fewer students, it favours me because I remain part of a smaller elite.
If I think computer scientists should be paid more, it benefits me because I would earn more; if I think computer scientists should be paid less, it benefits me because it means that fewer people would enter the field and I'd have less competition.
Somehow I get the feeling that we'd get more done if we stuck to arguing about policies rather than spending time dissecting the possible motives of their proponents.
Both of your parents have doctorates, so I think it's safe to say that there's a strong nurture component in your case.
When studies have been done on identical twins raised apart, they've shown that genetics matters far more than parental environment, with genes being responsible for close to 40% of the variance in a wide array of personality traits, parental nurturing responsible for about 10%, and the child's peer group responsible for the remaining 50%.
For example, I'm irreligious, so I should be in support of the world becoming religion free, right? I'm not. I know that I don't need it, but I think people, generally, are not morally enlightened enough to deal with a world without religion.. ergo, I want it to stick around!
I guess this is a bit like a master criminal being in support of more policing because they think they can get away with it while lesser crooks are put off by the extra policing. I believe this sort of reasoning is quite common - but it goes against your pattern, I think.
Just so there is no wandering from my main argument - what I am saying is that everytime we read one of these 'controversial' argument, the opinion of the article writer is almost always an opinion that directly benefits him or some group he identifies with. Rarely do we get a controversial article where the person discovers something that turns out to be totally against what he is or stands for.
If you discover something that is against what you stand for, almost everyone will change to match it. So you'll never see someone say: look I found this, but I won't do it.
Instead you'll see someone say: look I was a, but I found b, and now I'm b.
And you certainly see plenty of that.
The Bell Curve is probably the most misrepresented book ever. Indignant liberal weenies turned it into some sort of white supremacist book about race and IQ.
It's actually about how high IQ people have systematically reorganized society to their benefit, isolated themselves, and stripped lower IQ people of the sorts of employment and social systems where they do best.
> When they argue for immigration, it's because they are not affected
High IQ people argue for the liberal immigration policies that hurt laborers. Murray is opposed to such policies.
What a ridiculous stereotype. That's like saying if someone's able to program well, they're too geeky to get a girlfriend.
He's saying a large number can't be a small one, and you're saying that's like saying a large number can't be prime.
There are some fields, such as writing or computer programming, where the gap between "average" and "good" is huge; and other fields, such as plumbing, where the gap is relatively modest. A fantastic plumber might be twice as good as an average plumber, but he isn't a hundred times better.
If you're a good writer or computer programmer, you can make a far larger contribution to society by working in those fields than by working as a plumber, no matter how fantastic a plumber you might happen to be. That's what I mean by being overqualified.
Have you ever had a bad or fantastic plumber do work for you?
Trust me, there's a difference, and it's way more than 2X. Bad plumbers have to keep coming back to the same job to fix their mistakes (job security, I guess). Fantastic plumbers will point out other issues that will likely become a problem in the future, and fix them in 5 minutes before you need to call a plumber again. In that regard, they're not all that different from programmers.
iirc, he was a 'magician' with cards or something ... who plays a lot with probability
he impressed a prof from ivy league uni, then got into grad school without having to do undergrad.
it happened around 1950, should be less possible now
actually around 2003 i had a friend doing master in EE, having background as chinese language teacher. An old chinese professor of her let her into the EE grad program :D she was really struggling :(
I don't know any really smart or accomplished people who would say that it was just their intellectual superiority that got them to where they are. Rather, they are usually eager to cite luck first, and in reality it was their effort that got them places.
Myself, I know I'm lucky as hell, but I do put in a lot of effort too, not just in my chosen field but also reading everything I can. My hope is the effort in combination with a little luck will pay off big :)
This guy has some interesting points, and there is a degree of truth in it, but he's way too absolute in citing a single determinant factor of success, and his idea of additional systemized testing is ridiculous. There are differences in intelligence levels, but through effort they even out in practice in most cases. And as if his tests could ever be completely without bias, or even perfected enough to accurately determine true intelligence vs acquired knowledge.
Motivation and application are much more important than any hypothesized "native ability". "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?" Practice.
"it’s almost impossible to raise academic ability, to turn the below-average into even the slightly less below-average. It’s only “educational romanticism” that makes us think we can."
I disagree in principle, although I don't have a lot of exposure to the science/data concerned here. What is pretty clear to me is that currently, the United States as a whole is not culturally geared to hold education, science, etc as important and/or "sexy". Consider the ratio of how many people watch Reality TV compared to Mythbusters and the like.
For instance, I think this review misses a point of Murray's that I consider important. In an article I read by Murray in the American last month [http://www.american.com/archive/2008/september-october-magaz...], his idea seems to be that core knowledge, the kind of things that we as a culture need to know, like basic American history, geography, cultural literacy, science, etc, should be taught at a much earlier age, in the K-8 curriculum, and not wait until college. He said that the average student needs to know much more about the above fields than they know now, and so it should be taught earlier, so that most people don't need a four-year college education in order to have the core knowledge necessary in a modern society.
"The more people who go to college, the more stigmatizing the failure to complete college becomes."
I think Mr. Murray needs to lighten up a little. One way in which American culture excels over many others, is in our embrace of failure. If you want to try to go to college, and end up failing, so what? Do something else. You're still in your early 20s.
Certainly, there is the issue of going into heavy debt in a failed attempt at a college education. But that is different from people thinking less of you for having tried something and failed.
People reading Hacker News should empathize with this sentiment more than most, I think.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_ki...
It would also mean that Americans are inherently "dumber" (loosely speaking) than Europeans, since they on average score lower on tests of math and science. After all, nothing can be done to raise achievement, so it must be inherent.
I don't believe that for a minute.
I also think the statement is empirically false; It is perfectly possible to raise achievement, and I think it's much more probable that the difficulties doing so on a large scale are rooted in flawed educational practices and cultural/societal factors.
Considering that 230 years ago, one-fifth of a nation consisting of 20% slaves, 50% indentured servants, and unschooled farmers for most of the rest, bought Common Sense, which isn't exactly beach reading, I'm not too impressed with his claim that 80% of people are inherently incapable of college-level work.
Life sucks. Deal with it.
The fact is, Charles Murray is correct: IQ does predict your job performance, financial prospects, likelihood of criminality, and probability of becoming an unwed mother. It predicts these in the same sense as whether of not someone has the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes is a predictor of whether they will die of breast cancer -- there are lots of factors, including dumb luck, but it's one of the largest.
Can we do something about this? Absolutely: If someone carries the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, we can recommend that they undergo routine breast cancer screening from an early age. If someone has a low IQ, we can pay special attention to them in school to make sure that they're not falling behind.
What we decide to do is a matter of public policy. Some states provide free breast cancer screening to everybody; others provide free breast cancer screening to anyone with a family history of the disease; others don't provide free breast cancer screening at all. Similarly, some states "stream" children into classes with other children with similar IQs; some states put everybody into the same class but perform testing so that teachers know which students are more likely to need help; and some states just throw all the children together without making any attempt to distinguish the high IQs from the low IQs.
Some people are born stupid. But pretending that we're all equal won't fix that. The first step towards dealing with it is to recognize that life sucks.
For a very rough approximation: if I remember well, SAT averages for Harvard/Yale/Princeton (more likely to be doctor/lawyer/executive) are very similar to (or even higher than?) scores for MIT/Caltech/Stanford (more likely to be scientist/engineer).
So, could it be that it's not the high intelligence by itself that has said dampening effect on one's earning potential, but it's more about interests of the individual?
In particular, IQ is a very old and limited measure of cognitive ability with many controversies about culture bias. For example it doesn't reflect long term goal focus, a more important ability for success.
Related but not what I had in mind at that moment: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/18/060918fa_fact?cu...
I don't know much about anything. My back-in-time kind of dream is to make my (younger) self pick neuroscience (well, that or protein biochemistry.)
Here's a 9 year old child...what's his IQ? 115. What's his long-term-goal-focus? Only god knows.
I foresee a future where a computer scans you, and prints out your ideal career. Then a beautiful one-eyed woman puts a chip in your hand that permanently locks you into that career. The motto: "You gotta do what you gotta do."
I'm off. Gotta deliver a pizza to I. C. Wiener.
The sad thing is, this statement is sometimes true (but not as much as Murry would suggest). When I was young, down the street lived a big kid, Kenny was his name. He was never really allowed out like the other kids. But I do remember when I visited his house once he had the largest box of cars I'd ever seen. I remember asking my mum if he could come out to my house some time and possibly bring some toys. Only to be promptly told no. Why? Well he's different and has trouble learning and goes to a special school.
But why?
Surely he could take a book and learn as much as he wanted? No was the reply... Never. I remember balling my eyes out hearing this as I couldn't understand why he couldn't just pick a book up and learn as I was at school. Of course this didn't stop Kenny playing Basketball for Australia or numerous other achievements. The reason why Murray is wrong is this is an extreme. Not everyone has the intellectual disability that crippled Kenny's ability to learn and therefore if they want to learn new things all the stops should be pulled out if they show the inclination. The ability to learn is a form of emancipation.
"... the others are incapable of doing college-level work — and those who do should study a curriculum heavy on the great books, so they can become moral and ethical mandarins and wisely run the country for the rest of us. ..."
China has this sort of approach and I'll give you an example of the kind of screwed up problems it can cause. Australia has a large quantity of super fine Merino wool. It's the material that all the best suits are woven from and has some unique properties that make it ideal for high-end garments. But it's expensive. So the Chinese decided that investment was one way to go ~ http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1664831.htm So they invested some money in an existing Merino Sheep-Station with the intention of growing the wool then shipping the clipped wool to China thus saving money. From clip to yarn would be all Chinese. But running a farm tested their approach to tackling things - their bias for groups of "elites" who are primarily tertiary educated instructing a greater mass of ill-educated.
Running a farm is difficult anywhere. Not having any local expertise or understanding of the local conditions as well as a group of people that could be trained or seek training on the latest techniques but could also put this training into practice turned out to be fatal. The farm failed. The highly educated couldn't translate their theory into practice. The lesser educated couldn't be show how.
What was missing was the broad spectrum of skills and intelligence, something what we class as tradesman or technicians. We severely underestimate the quality and expertise of our tradespeople and technicians.