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

Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 197 posts

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#141

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

political12345 wrote: post #135
hirvi74 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure what is defined as "financial success," since it appears to be something one can be born into regardless of IQ. In regards to income, I briefly skimmed the Wikipedia section for IQ and Income, which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Income "Highly correlated" would not be the choice of words I use to describe correlations between (0.23 - 0.5). We, as people, should c…

> Highly correlated" would not be the choice of words I use to describe correlations between (0.23 - 0.5). lol, this range is 0.5 to 0.7 variance explained (R squared) which is an insane value. in typical social studies a correlation of > 5% is considered a major improvement. In finance a correlation or > 1% is considered amazing. You are either a hyper-intelectual drinking Taleb's kool-aid or simply don't know what…

If the correlation is 0.2 then it explains 4% of the variance. If it's 0.5, then 25%. I'm not sure how you got your numbers, can you clarify?

Also 10% variance explained in social science is considered pretty good (which is depressing, but such is life).

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#142

Post by palmetieri2000 »

lliamander wrote: post #94
aeternum wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purely free markets also have some very well-known failure cases: tradgedy of the commons, ability of a large participant to drop prices to eliminate competition then raise prices, inability of market forces to handle extreme tail risk like major natural disasters.

> tradgedy of the commons That has to do with diffusion of responsibility for communal property. What does that have to do with markets. > ability of a large participant to drop prices to eliminate competition then raise prices I think the market has ways to adapt to such behavior. Regulatory capture in a non-free market seems like a much more likely, and more persistent, risk. > inability of market forces to handle…

By what metric is the US market free? I find it difficult to believe that it would be considered anything other than in a state of regulatory capture.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#143

Post by AlexandrB »

WalterBright wrote: post #68
aeternum wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to be a purely free market. I'm very much a proponent of free markets but there's also a need for some amount of thoughtful regulation. Allowing market participants to discharge toxins into the local water supply is not in society's interests but is quite possible in a purely free-market system. There's now a good amount of evidence that a hybrid system: mostly free-market, with some regulation, and s…

> Allowing market participants to discharge toxins into the local water supply is not in society's interests but is quite possible in a purely free-market system. A pure free market system would not allow people to pollute other peoples' property.

How do you define property rights for air and water? If I own a section of a stream and I dump my garbage into it, am I polluting my property or another's property? What if the consequences were unforeseen (as is often the case with groundwater contamination)?

Edit: moreover how is "the free market" going to defend the property rights of others in these cases? I assume via civil litigation. But what if my victims can't afford prolonged litigation or I decide that the potential cost of a settlement is less than the cost of disposing of pollutants properly?

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#144

Post by j0hnyl »

autoexec wrote: post #136
JamesBarney wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean to not believe in IQ? Does that mean these high IQ people don't think IQ exists. It obviously exists. It's a real measure that people use. It's not like midichlorian count which is a measure from Starwars. Which doesn't exist because it only exists in the movies and doesn't measure something real (the force).

> What does it mean to not believe in IQ? I believe that IQ exists, but I don't believe it's an effective measure of the things people typically expect from it once you get into average or above average scores. Leaving aside the problem of the tests themselves and how they're conducted, I suspect that even a "perfect" test wouldn't predict how well a person would manage their life, perform in their job, or contribute…

I think you are making assumptions here:

> effective measure of the things people typically expect from it once you get into average or above average scores.

But I don't think that's what IQ is, it's just a measure of a type of assessment relative to other participants. Beyond that, there are strong correlations at various IQ levels on how people perceive certain spatial and logic questions/tasks. IQ does not measure your personality or job performance.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#145

Post by bpodgursky »

deltasevennine wrote: post #134
bpodgursky wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is maybe 1.5 standard deviations above mean, which is a very dangerous place to be.

No, everyone on HN likes to think they're at least 1.5 std from the mean (when in reality they're below that). Very different from actually being 1.5 std from the mean. This is an even more dangerous place to be.

1.5 std is only 120-125 IQ

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#146

Post by nickpp »

palmetieri2000 wrote: post #140
WalterBright wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The beauty of the free market is that instead of suppressing selfish motives, it enables them in a way that benefits society. It's why Americans live the highest standard of living in the world. Socialism fails because it relies on altruistic behavior, which is in short supply in humans.

>It's why Americans live the highest standard of living in the world. Some Americans*, and far fewer than those that have some of the lowest standards of living in the world. And the US has greater wealth disparity than many other countries with living standards many would argue are at least equal. Altruism isnt necessary, education is. Education teaches people that the best way to prevent the most harmful acts in so…

> Altruism isnt necessary, education is.

Communists tried so hard to educate us into the "New Man". For the betterment of all mankind, of course.

Of course, ignoring human nature tuned the whole "experiment" into a huge, predictable failure.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#147

Post by deltasevennine »

bpodgursky wrote: post #145
deltasevennine wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, everyone on HN likes to think they're at least 1.5 std from the mean (when in reality they're below that). Very different from actually being 1.5 std from the mean. This is an even more dangerous place to be.

1.5 std is only 120-125 IQ

Makes sense. Someone on HN is typically average. Everyone likes to think of themselves as slightly more intelligent, but the reality is... most people are average... including the modern programmer.

I would say that in the past... the average IQ for programmers was higher.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#148

Post by nh23423fefe »

paganel wrote: post #38
nh23423fefe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Can you really be said to hold a view that you can't even evangelize. Yeah, most definitely, I realise as I get older (I'm in my early 40s now) that life is quite complicated and there's almost no "evangelical"-like truth to it. Especially not when it comes to economics, that's for sure.

Ok, cool view you have there about life that you can't express beyond "its quite complicated".

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#149

Post by nh23423fefe »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #64
mistermann wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you answered a question other than the one that was asked. Would you mind answering the one that was asked?

I'm not taking either side of this argument. I just want to say that I found your question to be incomprehensible. I can't blame giraffe_lady for not answering it; I couldn't, because I can't tell what you're asking.

Why is the question incomprehensible, why isn't your comprehension incomplete?

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#150

Post by Test0129 »

WalterBright wrote: post #116
astrange wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you didn’t have regulations you wouldn’t be able to consume or produce any modern product. It’s not worth making electronics if your users all have randomly shaped random voltage power sockets installed by whoever built their house, uncontrolled RF emissions, and want to pay you in private bank currencies you can’t spend. This is an example of the article - libertarianism requires people to replace how things actu…

> It’s not worth making electronics if your users all have randomly shaped random voltage power sockets installed by whoever built their house, And yet nearly all electronics standards arose through voluntary cooperation. Ever notice the USB socket on your computer? The audio jack? The HDMI port? etc. Did you know that Edison standardized the Edison lightbulb socket, not the government? > uncontrolled RF emissions, A…

> Banks solved that problem long ago. The free banking system worked. BTW, we still mostly use PRIVATE BANK CURRENCIES all the time! Amazing, but true. They're called credit cards, bank checks, paypal, venmo, wire transfers, money orders, cashier's checks, etc. Even store coupons are private currency.

To reiterate this point the current US dollar is a private dollar issued by a private bank and funded (essentially) by congress and the treasury. The last time the US had a public dollar was prior to the American revolution.

A lot of people make the mistake of conflating The Fed with the government but it is federal in name only. It is owned by private shareholders no different than any other corporation.

Post reply on HN