Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 541 posts

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#101

Post by freehunter »

pmiller2 wrote: post #65
freehunter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because IQ is not scientifically proven and is inherently flawed.

What is your evidence? IQ tests undoubtedly measure something, and that something correlates with things like academic performance and certain types of job performance. What’s flawed about that?

The quickest Google search for "flaws of IQ tests" comes back with so many studies showing that IQ is not correlated to intelligence that at this point the burden of proof is on anyone who says IQ is relevant. Even if IQ does measure something, it's not an indicator of anything other than the ability to pass a standardized test. It certainly is not an indicator of intelligence.

In other words: what is your evidence that IQ measures anything actually relevant?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fund...

https://www.popsci.com/why-iq-is-flawed

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-o...

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/07/the-tru...

https://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#102

Post by throwawayjava »

aphextron wrote: post #76

It is splitting our entire society in two. There are people who work in the old economy, actually doing things in the world. These people are still "tied to the land" in a sense. Their income isn't high enough to live alone, so they still maintain strong familial and neighborly bonds. Their work is physical (that doesn't mean unskilled or low paid, just that it requires physical manipulation), and requires them to ph…

This is a ridiculously false dichotomy. Plenty of folks in the midwest/south/appalachia/dakotas/etc. don't give a shit about their communities, and plenty of people in dense coastal cities care deeply about the people around them. And vice versa (as you noted).

Weekend (or, anyways, short) vacations to Paris are a thing. On the other hand, they are also super cheap historically speaking ( Paris, stay in a hostel and it's Also, I have back issues from sitting all day and he has back issues from standing all day. He should wear a brace. I should get a standing desk. We are both too dumb/lazy to change and will probably both regret it in 10 years.

So. Rich laborers spend too much on stupid stuff and all humans have health issues. News as 11.

Furthermore, the modality of caring differs, and this causes a blindness to others' generosity. The average rich person in SF who cares about their neighbors is extremely unlikely to exhibit that care via churches, but might take in a homeless LGBT youth and donate 20K+ to various humanitarian/environmental orgs. Similarly, the average rich person in rural GA who cares about their neighbors is extremely unlikely to exhibit that care by voting for progressive policies or by offering to shelter LGBTQ youth, but might donate 20K+ to their church every year.

Those groups are invisible to each other because they each think of "civic engagement" in terms of their own preferred modality, not realizing that there are other ways to help.

(Tangentially, people from the "interior" refer to themselves as "midwesterners", "appalachian", "southerners", "mountain states", or, more commonly, just by their state or even region within their state. I've literally never heard anyone from anywhere outside of Boston/NYC/SF refer to that part of the country as the "interior". Where in the "interior" do people actually refer to themselves as being from the "interior"?!?!)

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#104

Post by refurb »

nicklaf wrote: post #56
refurb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about people who want to work? Their productivity increases even further, they make more money and inequity increases. Or are you suggesting we ban working?

Or are you suggesting we ban working? Well, with a sufficiently progressive tax, you might choose to stop volunteering your time for what will be diminishing returns in income.

Ok, fair point.

But as someone already mentioned, would we want someone like Elon Musk to not work?

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#105

Post by freehunter »

dragonwriter wrote: post #75
freehunter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because IQ is not scientifically proven and is inherently flawed.

> Because IQ is not scientifically proven “IQ is not scientifically proven” is, at best, an incomplete thought. What claim about IQ necessary for the upstream comment’s argument is unproven? > and is inherently flawed. It what manner relevant to the reference in the present discussion is IQ “inherently flawed”?

If IQ isn't relevant to the parent's comment, then it shouldn't have been brought up. If it is relevant, then there should exist some proof that IQ actually matters.

The parent is making the claim that, because of IQ, certain segments of the population are at a fundamental disadvantage when it comes to STEM careers. For this to be anything more than pure poppycock, there needs to be proof that IQ measures anything actually relevant to the success of those jobs. And not only relevant, but measures something that cannot be trained, cannot be explained by differences in education of astronomy majors vs home economics majors, something that fundamentally bars elementary education majors from succeeding in electrical engineering.

Prove that IQ measures anything that says an accountant could not have been otherwise trained to practice chemistry because they're 10 IQ points short. If IQ measures anything relevant to the job you perform, there has to be some proof.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#106

Post by speedplane »

freehunter wrote: post #105
dragonwriter wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because IQ is not scientifically proven “IQ is not scientifically proven” is, at best, an incomplete thought. What claim about IQ necessary for the upstream comment’s argument is unproven? > and is inherently flawed. It what manner relevant to the reference in the present discussion is IQ “inherently flawed”?

If IQ isn't relevant to the parent's comment, then it shouldn't have been brought up. If it is relevant, then there should exist some proof that IQ actually matters. The parent is making the claim that, because of IQ, certain segments of the population are at a fundamental disadvantage when it comes to STEM careers. For this to be anything more than pure poppycock, there needs to be proof that IQ measures anything ac…

There doesn't have to be absolute proof, just decent evidence. While it's absolutely true that IQ tests aren't perfect (the very idea that intelligence can be measured on a single axis is suspect), there is plenty of evidence that shows correlation between IQ and success in certain fields.

If all good accountants or chemists have relatively high IQs, it doesn't prove that a good IQ is necessary, but it certainly provides some evidence. It's classic causation/correlation, but in this case, there are mountains of evidence of correlation.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#107

Post by [deleted] »

throwawayjava wrote: post #102
aphextron wrote: post #76

It is splitting our entire society in two. There are people who work in the old economy, actually doing things in the world. These people are still "tied to the land" in a sense. Their income isn't high enough to live alone, so they still maintain strong familial and neighborly bonds. Their work is physical (that doesn't mean unskilled or low paid, just that it requires physical manipulation), and requires them to ph…

This is a ridiculously false dichotomy. Plenty of folks in the midwest/south/appalachia/dakotas/etc. don't give a shit about their communities, and plenty of people in dense coastal cities care deeply about the people around them. And vice versa (as you noted). Weekend (or, anyways, short) vacations to Paris are a thing. On the other hand, they are also super cheap historically speaking ( Paris, stay in a hostel and…

[deleted]

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#108

Post by aphextron »

throwawayjava wrote: post #102
aphextron wrote: post #76

It is splitting our entire society in two. There are people who work in the old economy, actually doing things in the world. These people are still "tied to the land" in a sense. Their income isn't high enough to live alone, so they still maintain strong familial and neighborly bonds. Their work is physical (that doesn't mean unskilled or low paid, just that it requires physical manipulation), and requires them to ph…

This is a ridiculously false dichotomy. Plenty of folks in the midwest/south/appalachia/dakotas/etc. don't give a shit about their communities, and plenty of people in dense coastal cities care deeply about the people around them. And vice versa (as you noted). Weekend (or, anyways, short) vacations to Paris are a thing. On the other hand, they are also super cheap historically speaking ( Paris, stay in a hostel and…

>Weekend (or, anyways, short) vacations to Paris are a thing. On the other hand, they are also super cheap historically speaking ( Paris, stay in a hostel and it's Try repeating this statement to a friend who is deciding between groceries or gas to get to work this week. You really can't comprehend what life is like on the minimum wage of $15k.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#109

Post by g9yuayon »

darawk wrote: post #67
echevil wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably most east Asian countries? Likely India as well.

Ya, all east asian countries, you're right. China is interesting especially to me though because, just anecdotally, there seem to be an unusually high number of Chinese female STEM graduates. Not sure what's going on there, but they seem to have solved the gender gap in STEM somehow. Could just be i've encountered an unusual sample too, though.

Easy, just tell everyone that anyone can study STEM as long as they work hard. Do you know Noether, Marie Curie, Grace Hopper, Chien-Shiung Wu, and many more female scientists and engineers are household names? They are featured in mass media, in text books, and in our bedtime stories.

Gender bias in STEM? That's a god damn first-world problem.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#110

Post by freehunter »

speedplane wrote: post #106
freehunter wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If IQ isn't relevant to the parent's comment, then it shouldn't have been brought up. If it is relevant, then there should exist some proof that IQ actually matters. The parent is making the claim that, because of IQ, certain segments of the population are at a fundamental disadvantage when it comes to STEM careers. For this to be anything more than pure poppycock, there needs to be proof that IQ measures anything ac…

There doesn't have to be absolute proof, just decent evidence. While it's absolutely true that IQ tests aren't perfect (the very idea that intelligence can be measured on a single axis is suspect), there is plenty of evidence that shows correlation between IQ and success in certain fields. If all good accountants or chemists have relatively high IQs, it doesn't prove that a good IQ is necessary, but it certainly prov…

The biggest argument against that is the question of "is that IQ score inherent or trained"? Yes, it seems some professions have higher IQ scores. But is that because they're actually smarter? Or is it that they're better educated in the things that score well on an IQ test? It's no coincidence that the professions where people have higher IQs are also professions that are monumentally harder than the ones further down the list. If IQ correlation means STEM causation, we could just as easily flip that around and say that STEM education means IQ increases.

If we are making the statement that certain sections of the population cannot be trained for STEM careers because they don't have the IQ to be competitive, then we'd better be damn sure that IQ isn't something that can be taught. And there is mounds of evidence showing that intelligence is not assigned at birth.

Does IQ measure intelligence, or education? And are either of those static throughout a person's life?

Post reply on HN