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

91–100 of 197 posts

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#91

Post by Test0129 »

liotier wrote: post #15
WalterBright wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sad that free markets are viewed as an "extreme" position.

Free markets indeed is an extreme position: efficiency in trade requires regulation.

Regulations? You mean the same mechanism ISPs, food companies, "sin taxable" companies, etc use to capture entire segments of the market and price fix their way to a billion dollar profit? Or the regulations that nearly sank Tesla in the cradle that existed for no reason other than politicians are as corrupt, if not more, than the worst CEOs?

99.9% of the time regulation is unnecessary. Over-regulation is a huge problem and one that only an actual theoretical free market could address. I see people on HN complaining about last mile politics often. Yet people seem hard pressed to look to the free market for a solution. I'd rather deal with a corrupt CEO whose power will end when their life does, rather than a politician whose power will continue for centuries until someone with a few more brain folds steps in and stops it.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#92

Post by lliamander »

WalterBright wrote: post #13

Intelligence isn't knowledge. Wisdom is the combination of intelligence with knowledge.

I agree that intelligence and knowledge are not the same, but I would say that wisdom is more than just the sum of the other two.

The way I see it:

1. Intelligence is how fast you can go

2. Knowledge is where you start from

3. Wisdom (or "perspective" as Alan Kay would say) is the direction you are going.

If we think of intellectual activity as searching on the terrain of ideas for truth, knowledge and intelligence can both help you get to the truth faster, but ultimately what matters most is whether you are pointed in the right direction.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#93

Post by pedrosorio »

selimthegrim wrote: post #65
Jensson wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the positive correlation between income at 30 and income at 42 is 0.11 I'm surprised this correlation is so low, most people have already started their main career at 30, do people really change career that much between 30 and 42? Only reason I see it can be that low is that they have women who quit work or something, otherwise I'd expect high earners to continue to be high earners at that age and vice versa.

Workplace politicking and climbing the career greasy pole does not always correlate with intelligence.

The comment you replied to does not mention intelligence

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#94

Post by lliamander »

aeternum wrote: post #20
WalterBright wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sad that free markets are viewed as an "extreme" position.

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 extreme tail risk like major natural disasters.

I just don't think that's supported by the evidence.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#95

Post by hindsightbias »

orthecreedence wrote: post #40
cardanome wrote: post #25

They have not controlled for the most obvious variable: class. Obviously higher class individuals would score higher on their intelligence test having received better education It should not surprise anyone that people higher up the class hierarchy have more moderate, centrist views while those that are struggling and for which radical change is an objective need because the current system is not working for them, em…

As I've done better financially in life, I've become more radical. I'm one data point, but my experience contradicts your conclusion. I think in my case, it was a realization that I'm not working harder than other people or even working things that matter more than anybody else (in fact, on the contrary) and that at least 90% of my success can be attributed to luck. So if my success is not due to my deeds but rather…

I’m more radical too, but looking at peers, it’s not really luck within their socio-economic (middle-class tech, college educated, mostly white) sphere. Pretty much anyone who showed up could find a way to get comfortable. Even those with screwed up personal lives weren’t starving. They’ve all got big trucks, houses and go on cruises.

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#96

Post by teamonkey »

AftHurrahWinch wrote: post #59
cardanome wrote: post #25

They have not controlled for the most obvious variable: class. Obviously higher class individuals would score higher on their intelligence test having received better education It should not surprise anyone that people higher up the class hierarchy have more moderate, centrist views while those that are struggling and for which radical change is an objective need because the current system is not working for them, em…

> They have not controlled for the most obvious variable: class. What's the distinction you're making between household income and class? > The hypothesis that the positive association between higher intelligence and economic extremism would be replicated was tested using a linear model with total intelligence score as the independent variable, and economic extremism as the dependent variable, controlling for age, ge…

> What's the distinction you're making between household income and class?

In the UK class is more complicated than simply having an income. It’s strongly correlated but not the same. You can have zero income, even be cash poor, but still have a title, influence, family history, contacts, favours, promises, even land (via various trusts)…

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#97

Post by redeeman »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #63
wutbrodo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, related effects are well-established in politics: "elite" voters (esp as measured by education) are more coherent and thus more extremist, while the average voter is all over the map because they're not as interested in (or capable of?) having a coherent model of reality.

Or they are less willing to mutilate reality in order to try to make it fit within some intellectual/philosophical/political system. And the more radical the system is, the more it mutilates reality in order to try to make it fit within the system.

> Or they are less willing to mutilate reality in order to try to make it fit within some intellectual/philosophical/political system.

what we are seeing a certain political leaning do these days would seem to very very strongly disprove this :)

Re: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes

#99

Post by redeeman »

andreilys wrote: post #28
giraffe_lady wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This view is actually very narrow-minded, much more than simply having views you aren't able to deftly articulate or defend against a dedicated opponent. It compresses an absolutely huge realm of human experience (believing things???) into a very small one (arguing about them on the internet), and then tries to judo it so the first doesn't matter unless you can ably commit to the second. Tragic reduction of your worl…

I think they're referring to the NPC programming that people receive through media/authority figures, and only have those views because "my fellow tribe member on Fox News/CNN said so" You can't really blame them though, the average person simply doesn't have the time to be well researched on a given topic, and so are going to default to tribal thinking that when you poke at, falls apart. It has nothing to do with in…

> You can't really blame them though, the average person simply doesn't have the time to be well researched on a given topic, and so are going to default to tribal thinking that when you poke at, falls apart.

true, but I also cannot expect the average person to be a doctor, but if someone feints in the cinema, and I yell "anyone here a doctor??" I do expect them to not claim to be one if they are not.

If you do not know something about a subject, you should not inject yourself in where it matters. And when you want to learn about a subject, you should not be a total sheep that blindly listens to the talking heads on TV, regardless of which channel it is on.

Post reply on HN