| > Net worth. It's a pretty good proxy. TLDR; I have met quite a few very high net worth individuals, their spouses and offspring. Hundreds of them, actually. I have not been impressed overall with their intellectual capacity for learning important and lifesaving knowledge in preparation for life-changing natural survival conditions which are outside of their daily routine. The same has been true at the middle and lower income distributions under similar circumstances. I am neutral about the future IQ of the population of any of their descendants, poor or rich.. There are many other factors at play. The long version: That has not been my admittedly anecdotal experience among high, moderate, and average net work individuals and small to large congregations of those net worth groups in North, Central, South Americas, East Asia, the Pacific Islands, the UK and Northern Europe. I haven't found any specific factors resulting in concentration of above or below average IQ individuals within any of those groups. I have traveled much; been in direct leadership positions among high net worth individuals' on board of directors, and have been in direct contact with significant groups of low net worth populations in both labor and non-profit support roles. I do confess to not having conducted specific research in the IQ to net worth among those groups, so this is just an informed opinion. So, I will yield on the sole point IFF net worth is assumed to be a strong proxy for high IQ; then we might be headed in a smarter direction in the portions of the general population resulting from those families. I do agree with the distinction that the proposed mechanism in the film Idiocracy is not what is occurring. It does however seem apparent that due to many different mechanisms we may be in for a significantly dumber future, and on that we also agree. It may be that among the high net worth populations; there may be a factor within the high IQ subgroup that is aware of the complex difficulty for the planet due to excessive and wasteful overconsumption and the aggregate demand that additional population stresses the situation. That subgroup may be choosing to self deselect for reproduction, and that subgroup may be among the highest fraction of IQ. It doesn't appear that this aspect was in the study you referenced, nor in any of that study's sources' research. Did I miss that component? |
| |
| ▲ | naishoya 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm sorry if it seemed like I was unimpressed with any one group over the others. My statement was that I have been not overall impressed with ANY of the groups. None of the groups was more or less likely on average to not need rescue, resuscitation, or to be refused participation due to non-compliance. My proxy for IQ is; don't eat the sticky purple berries, don't stand on the edge of the precipice, don't try to drive across the flooded wash, don't camp in the dry streambed, don't try to pet the baby buffalo, check your shoes before you stick your feet in them in the morning, put the fire all the way out - cold, wet, and mixed is out, don't swim away from your dive buddy, don't walk up on the mule from behind, wear a hat, bring extra socks, don't drink the water from the stream, cook the bear meat thoroughly, don't put your hands in dark holes; in the forest or in the reef, clip your toenails well before the long downhill hike, spend a few extra dollars on a pair of slip on ice crampons for your tennis shoes - even though the instructions were to bring two pairs of hiking boots - wet and dry. Pack light, wear a small bell to warn off the bears, pick up your garbage - if you brought it into the wilderness you must take it back out with you,... again, DON'T STAND ON THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF, I don't care how you are going to look in the selfie, and neither will anyone else if the phone and you fall 300 feet. And, no your emotional support min-pin-poo cannot go on the week long rafting trip with us. Does this sound like I'm over-estimating anyone's baseline IQ? You wouldn't believe the raw stupid that happens all the time. It's just not demonstrably correlated with bank balance or jewelry selection. | | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | An excellent list. My general rule is to stay at least 20 feet back from the precipice. If I may add a couple: 1. never walk behind a car with its backup lights on 2. when climbing a ladder, only move one limb at a time 3. never walk in front of a car that has its engine running 4. wait for traffic to stop before setting a foot in the crosswalk 5. floss every day 6. keep your shoes on when taking off or landing in an airplane (can't run barefoot over burning, torn metal) 7. if you smell smoke in a building, exit immediately. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200 8. take the stairs once in a while in your workplace, as then you'll know where they are when the building fills with smoke 9. wear a life jacket on a small boat, even if you look like a dork. The water ski vests are less klunky | |
| ▲ | dnautics 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The thing is you're cherry picking dumb events, so there's observation bias. I'm sure in the last year I would have done something on your list, even if they aren't things I regularly do. And besides that's not what idiocracy is representing. | | |
| ▲ | naishoya 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | But, would you have done any one of those things had there been a scheduled safety class before going, and had all of those things been clearly presented and then tested for? I think probably not. I have been in the position of holding pre- and post excursion knowledge and readiness assessment sessions, which contents and protocols were rigorously designed by Principle Investigators, with external audit and multi-year review. In one location there was over a hundred years of applied practice. (Back-county mule operations since 1904 with an enviable safety record and over twenty riders on every day where not cancelled due to adverse weather or public health risks) My personal observations include covering very specific potential hazards for backcountry, open ocean, agriculture and industrial workplace risks. They also include direct and indirect observations in the domains of corporate, personal risk, and global threat assessment, up to and including prevention of and response to K&R by state and private actors. So, yes, I cherry picked for the comical and obvious. That list is not comprehensive or statistically balanced whole set. I do admit to confirmation bias, I'm positive that was at the lead of this flow as " admittedly anecdotal observations." And you're right, that is not what Idiocracy was representing. That is still clear and we still do agree. My only point is that my admittedly biased observations fail to find high net worth as a positive correlation with above average IQ. I also "posit" that although the high net worth shows recent increases in TFR is substantial in some places (the US and UK from your source), there is still a high rate observable in the bottom 25% of net worth populations as seen due to earlier time of first partition and a slightly higher number of offspring per mother, and that the difference in resultant IQ in the whole population due to these effects may be well within any statistical margin for error. So, we still agree, this is not the mechanism either causing nor preventing an Idiocracy defined change in the outcomes for the US population. There appear to be other, less (epi)genetic, reasons for the demonstrable decline in outcomes for the median populations. ~ BTW, big fan of the work in alternative bit representations. |
|
|
|
