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

Harold and George Destroy the World

tomclancy.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 322 posts

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#191

Post by jeremyjh »

hirvi74 wrote: post #160
jeremyjh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't that, but it is one of the strongest predictors of success in the US military.

Compared to what though? Also, how is success in the military even defined? Highest rank? Most years served? Least injuries? The highest body count? Lowest double-digit APR% on 2018 Mustang with a rebuilt title?

You can learn about these things by following the links given by the GP of my comment and reviewing the studies they reference. The other strongest criteria of success was the time of their two-mile run (at their specific age of enlistment).

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#193

Post by thrw045 »

iinnPP wrote: post #53
bee_rider wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The movie did have an unfortunate eugenic implication, which is doubly unfortunate because it wasn’t even necessary for the plot. Society can just get dumb due to people not valuing education. Genetically we’re not that different from cavemen, so the floor (without any weird eugenic theories about dumb people breeding too much) is “tamed caveman.”

Education is still very much present in Idiocracy (Brawndo blah blah). It's the lack of value in logic and thought process that causes the problem. When people value winning an argument on a logical fallacy, there's a severe issue. Education is oft used as the fallacy itself. Much like today on all sides of every significant debate. Where the loudest most emotional rise on feelings over logic. If a person doesn't imm…

I think you hit on a key note about learning when they're wrong, and I think that's one of the biggest issues with social media and modern debate - namely that being wrong in public is incredibly painful and can often destroy a reputation. But then people realized there are groups who agree with them even when they're wrong, so the most important thing is to cater to them and never agree that you're wrong in public, and some percentage of people will go along with your argument.

I think never believing fully in your own ideas and always being able to admit you're wrong and always questioning is almost a super power that I wish we valued more.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#194

Post by enoint »

xp84 wrote: post #161
embedding-shape wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some children are innately motivated to learn I don't think I've met a single child in my life that isn't excited about learning about new stuff, but it really depends on what it is, it differs a lot! And they're all different as well, someone who's really into math might hate history, or vice-versa. But they all want to learn something , in my experience. The problem occurs when you place them all in one school, a…

Lest you think there’s one simple solution, my kid went to a school for one year that deliberately eliminated all that stuff - no set curriculum, no specific academic goals, and students get the majority of the vote on the rules and anything about the whole setup. They could learn about anything they want to, with no pressure. Most of the kids spent their whole days playing Xbox, Switch, or brainrot games like Roblox…

What about the minority?

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#195

Post by jeremyjh »

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote: post #153
jeremyjh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't that, but it is one of the strongest predictors of success in the US military.

It loses its signal once you reach triple digits. You don't want someone with <80 but it tells you nothing about someone with 120 or 160.

They eliminate the bottom third of applicants by ASVAB score which would mean an IQ of 93 if it translated exactly (ADVAB to IQ and SAT is only about 0.8 correlation). That is the minimum to get in to do any job at all for a minimum enlistment contract. So to talk about statistically significant career success predictors you would have to get into the low three digits, just looking at nothing but the math of IQ distributions. A cut-line of 80 would only drop the bottom 9% of the general population.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#196

Post by Forgeties79 »

eudamoniac wrote: post #149
Forgeties79 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t disentangle “smart people have few kids, dumb people have lots of kids, ergo we are gradually getting dumber” from eugenics (or class for that matter). It’s inherent in the argument. It’s also not how genes work. It’s a very classist, flawed argument. In some way it’s emblematic of what the right calls “East Coast elitism” yet I find people from across the political spectrum have no issue embracing the argu…

You can call it a flawed argument, but then you need to point out the flaw. Intelligence is heritable. Flynn effect has reversed. High IQ people have less kids. What's the flaw?

It’s impossible to make a serious argument while citing IQ as a useful measurement of someone’s cognitive potential.

I also don’t need to prove anything. If you are claiming this phenomenon is real the onus is on you to prove it. I can link a dozen articles about the flawed argument people channel from Idiocracy but you should search it if it interests you.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#198

Post by alecco »

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote: post #153
jeremyjh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't that, but it is one of the strongest predictors of success in the US military.

It loses its signal once you reach triple digits. You don't want someone with <80 but it tells you nothing about someone with 120 or 160.

I call BS. From my extensive anecdata:

No amount of education, experience, and grit can turn a 100 IQ person into Einstein. IQ is a massive multiplier.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#199

Post by tadfisher »

nephihaha wrote: post #127
tadfisher wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely nothing wrong with a coordinated, rapid response to a global pandemic. This was a bright spot in humanity's record, IMO. The corruption of public perception of the response by a handful of individuals is something we should regret.

Quite a bit wrong with it. From the beginning the threat level was exaggerated, especially considering the lack of threat to younger people. We are still paying the social and economic costs (including sky high cost of living, directly connected to it). It was also coincidentally very similar to the Event 201 table top exercise a mere six months before between Johns Hopkins, the World Economic Forum and the World Hea…

1 million excess deaths in the US alone, with an infection rate rapid enough to bring the hospital system to its knees. The threat level was judged perfectly.

You can blame the cost of living directly on the corporations charging more for their products than required, and buying up housing to extort renters. Inflation-wise, you have the Trump administration to blame for writing stimulus checks with his name on them, but mainly the corrupt Congress for spending an order of magnitude more on directly paying corporations with zero oversight to make sure they were playing by the rules (PPP).

Post reply on HN