Want Your Country to Thrive? Give Geniuses a Universal Basic Income(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Want Your Country to Thrive? Give Geniuses a Universal Basic Income
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-12-06/your-country-s-geniuses-deserve-a-universal-basic-income
250 comments
A lot of people to resist to the Universal part is because of some moral judgement about a person "deserving" it or not.
> No more fraud
Some people will find a way to take it away from someone else, or to appear to the government as multiple people.
> what if you overspend you UBI and have nothing left to eat?
The same if you overspend your salary - you get another job. UBI does not prevent people from working or finding jobs - it just gives workers more flexibility and freedom to pursue better options. Let's say you want to move to the middle of the country. You need to consider a lot of things, including leaving your current job and how long it'd take to find a new one at the destination.
With UBI the risk decreases and people will make such moves.
What UBI makes it harder is underemployment and labor exploitation - people won't work in terrible jobs unless they need to and UBI removes that need.
> No more fraud
Some people will find a way to take it away from someone else, or to appear to the government as multiple people.
> what if you overspend you UBI and have nothing left to eat?
The same if you overspend your salary - you get another job. UBI does not prevent people from working or finding jobs - it just gives workers more flexibility and freedom to pursue better options. Let's say you want to move to the middle of the country. You need to consider a lot of things, including leaving your current job and how long it'd take to find a new one at the destination.
With UBI the risk decreases and people will make such moves.
What UBI makes it harder is underemployment and labor exploitation - people won't work in terrible jobs unless they need to and UBI removes that need.
> With UBI the risk decreases and people will make such moves.
> What UBI makes it harder is underemployment and labor exploitation - people won't work in terrible jobs unless they need to and UBI removes that need.
This is my argument for it as well. There should be universal programs available to help with social mobility, help for those that want to make a change in their lives, in any direction.
There is no need to tie someone down working full time just to pay for the basics, when they could be obtaining an education.
Career changes should be easier to do as well, for example someone who would want to go from IT to Construction or another trade. It might pay well eventually, but the ramp up can take a while and there may not be another breadwinner in the house. There should be assistance for those who want to do something new and contribute to society in the way that works best for them, without burdening their family.
> What UBI makes it harder is underemployment and labor exploitation - people won't work in terrible jobs unless they need to and UBI removes that need.
This is my argument for it as well. There should be universal programs available to help with social mobility, help for those that want to make a change in their lives, in any direction.
There is no need to tie someone down working full time just to pay for the basics, when they could be obtaining an education.
Career changes should be easier to do as well, for example someone who would want to go from IT to Construction or another trade. It might pay well eventually, but the ramp up can take a while and there may not be another breadwinner in the house. There should be assistance for those who want to do something new and contribute to society in the way that works best for them, without burdening their family.
> There is no need to tie someone down working full time just to pay for the basics, when they could be obtaining an education.
Brazil has a conditional cash transfer program called Bolsa Família, and this is one of the things pointed out in a couple studies - that the family used the extra cash to look for better jobs and training instead of working every day just to feed themselves.
Brazil has a conditional cash transfer program called Bolsa Família, and this is one of the things pointed out in a couple studies - that the family used the extra cash to look for better jobs and training instead of working every day just to feed themselves.
>"Making it universal has the added bonus of simplifying welfare programs. Subsidized housing and transport, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc... no need, it is all UBI now. No more fraud because there is no need to: you always qualify, and as a result, no need to fight it. No more rewarding optimization since there is nothing to optimize."
In theory, yes. But I do not believe specialized welfare will ever go away. There are people on Social Security / Disability that absolutely require more than the most basic amount of money a typical non-handicapped citizen needs. I do not believe UBI supporters, and even society at large, would be so heartless as to tell a paraplegic to make-do because the UBI is all they are going to get. So, accommodating them would require some additional administration on top of the UBI to make sure the people with special needs get enough additional money and access to medical care. At which point we would still need to evaluate eligibility, make adjustments, and have a bureaucracy to administer it.
In theory, yes. But I do not believe specialized welfare will ever go away. There are people on Social Security / Disability that absolutely require more than the most basic amount of money a typical non-handicapped citizen needs. I do not believe UBI supporters, and even society at large, would be so heartless as to tell a paraplegic to make-do because the UBI is all they are going to get. So, accommodating them would require some additional administration on top of the UBI to make sure the people with special needs get enough additional money and access to medical care. At which point we would still need to evaluate eligibility, make adjustments, and have a bureaucracy to administer it.
As someone on the right spectrum of fiscal policies, I wholly support UBI for the potential to reduce spending overall. No more fat cats in the government, you don't need managers upon managers to decide who gets what. On average, the US federal government spends at least 1 trillion on welfare each year, and state and local another 1.4 Trillions in hundreds (maybe thousands) of programs. 2.4 trillions each year means 7500 per person. Double up that number (it will be a wash for richer people) and you're mostly done. All the state needs to do is take care of special disabilities, which require significantly more money. But most everyone else can make due with 15k a year.
The biggest flaw is that every election would have at least one party, if not both, pushing for increasing the base income regardless of whether or not it makes sense.
So it's just another face of the current campaigning for minimum wage changes and tax cuts. Doesn't sound like a massive flaw to me.
The vast majority of people aren't affected by minimum wage. A lot of middle class people are against it because it hurts their expenses.
Calibrating the base income is tricky.
Calibrating the base income is tricky.
How is that different from offering tax cuts whether or not they make sense?
Because you can tax the minority (higher income) and because people see the benefits of taxation. If taxes were per-head we'd probably see people voting them as low as possible.
You can also tax things indirectly or in a more abstract way like a VAT or corporate taxes.
Voters keeping taxes too low is a problem for us too though.
You can also tax things indirectly or in a more abstract way like a VAT or corporate taxes.
Voters keeping taxes too low is a problem for us too though.
Universal Basic Income would only work if it were truly universal, as in everyone in the world would get $2/day rather than Americans getting $40/day. The alternative is that a small in-group outsource all their real work to an out-group that doesn't receive UBI, so they are incentivized to stagnate and keep working conditions low for this out-group to make the most out of their UBI.
This is exactly what is happening in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The government employs people who have zero-accountability (often not even requiring attendance at work), so it resembles UBI much more than a bullshit job. Saudi Arabia has actually recently been transitioning to true UBI with their Citizens Account program
This is exactly what is happening in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The government employs people who have zero-accountability (often not even requiring attendance at work), so it resembles UBI much more than a bullshit job. Saudi Arabia has actually recently been transitioning to true UBI with their Citizens Account program
> This is exactly what is happening in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The government employs people who have zero-accountability (often not even requiring attendance at work), so it resembles UBI much more than a bullshit job. Saudi Arabia has actually recently been transitioning to true UBI with their Citizens Account program
Citing Qatar and Saudi Arabia is not an endorsement of any kind, as both of those countries are quite extensive exploiters of what is essentially slave labour.
Citing Qatar and Saudi Arabia is not an endorsement of any kind, as both of those countries are quite extensive exploiters of what is essentially slave labour.
That's my point?
While I like the idea of universal income, something I don’t quite understand: How would it prevent inflation such that the bar for survival isn’t just adjusted to be higher?
>"How would it prevent inflation such that the bar for survival isn’t just adjusted to be higher?"
Most proposals suggest indexing UBI to inflation, but it seems like a period of severe inflation has the potential to rapidly turn into hyperinflation.
Assuming a UBI were implemented, I have a feeling keeping up with inflation would prove to be such a challenge that proposals would be made to issue people vouchers for specific goods in lieu of continually adjusting the dollar amount based on the market price of those goods. I can easily see a government choosing to nationalize some of the factories that produce essential consumer goods like toothpaste or toilet paper as a way of controlling costs. A market would still probably exist for 'premium' non-free versions of the same goods.
Most proposals suggest indexing UBI to inflation, but it seems like a period of severe inflation has the potential to rapidly turn into hyperinflation.
Assuming a UBI were implemented, I have a feeling keeping up with inflation would prove to be such a challenge that proposals would be made to issue people vouchers for specific goods in lieu of continually adjusting the dollar amount based on the market price of those goods. I can easily see a government choosing to nationalize some of the factories that produce essential consumer goods like toothpaste or toilet paper as a way of controlling costs. A market would still probably exist for 'premium' non-free versions of the same goods.
> I can easily see a government choosing to nationalize some of the factories that produce essential consumer goods like toothpaste or toilet paper as a way of controlling costs. A market would still probably exist for 'premium' non-free versions of the same goods.
A voucher for basics makes sense, though that basically means a dual-currency system. We’re subsidizing agriculture so it’s really just smoke-and-mirrors.
Housing and land would still remain a problem, however.
I have no answers, but I want neither extremes of winner-takes-all capitalism; nor a pure socialist system.
A voucher for basics makes sense, though that basically means a dual-currency system. We’re subsidizing agriculture so it’s really just smoke-and-mirrors.
Housing and land would still remain a problem, however.
I have no answers, but I want neither extremes of winner-takes-all capitalism; nor a pure socialist system.
Very recently, parents were given $300 per child, per month. It was very close to becoming permanent.
That was an UBI for households with dependent children.
The argument for inflation is hard to refute given how short the program ran.
The effect was that some parents could now afford to work. Perhaps, daycare rates go up to consume that $300 but unlikely as it is already a tight margin business as are many business and services.
There is nothing in capitalism that says UBI must lead to inflation.
All economic systems are built on rationale actors.
It more like it will create artificial price ceilings.
Let's say the government gives everyone a $300 voucher for daycare.
Savvy business people are going to find a way to run a daycare for $300 per kid and collect that sweet government backed cash flow and lock their services to that amount.
The cash flow from the first $300 is guaranteed by the federal government. Anything over $300 requires a separate billing process.
At $305 that is $5 that requires an additional billing setup.
There would be a gap before the return would be worth it.
A scientific approach would be to weigh the cost between UBI and our current solutions. Unfortunately, politicians typically only favor the science that backs their ideology.
Currently there are already subsidizes in place, some people can qualify for reduced daycare rates. This is the bureaucratic way to implement such support, there is massive overhead as there are many people in the middle ensuring that all the paperwork is perfect.
What is the total cost of delivering these reduced rates vs a UBI for children?
Are we doing the more frugal approach? Almost certainly not. A swath of American's stop expecting a functioning federal government and things have stagnated since.
That was an UBI for households with dependent children.
The argument for inflation is hard to refute given how short the program ran.
The effect was that some parents could now afford to work. Perhaps, daycare rates go up to consume that $300 but unlikely as it is already a tight margin business as are many business and services.
There is nothing in capitalism that says UBI must lead to inflation.
All economic systems are built on rationale actors.
It more like it will create artificial price ceilings.
Let's say the government gives everyone a $300 voucher for daycare.
Savvy business people are going to find a way to run a daycare for $300 per kid and collect that sweet government backed cash flow and lock their services to that amount.
The cash flow from the first $300 is guaranteed by the federal government. Anything over $300 requires a separate billing process.
At $305 that is $5 that requires an additional billing setup.
There would be a gap before the return would be worth it.
A scientific approach would be to weigh the cost between UBI and our current solutions. Unfortunately, politicians typically only favor the science that backs their ideology.
Currently there are already subsidizes in place, some people can qualify for reduced daycare rates. This is the bureaucratic way to implement such support, there is massive overhead as there are many people in the middle ensuring that all the paperwork is perfect.
What is the total cost of delivering these reduced rates vs a UBI for children?
Are we doing the more frugal approach? Almost certainly not. A swath of American's stop expecting a functioning federal government and things have stagnated since.
Inflation shouldn't be happening in an economic regime where UBI makes sense. UBI makes sense when science and technology make production so efficient that normal people are shut out of the economy, they can't compete with corporations for the available economic opportunities.
What to do with the surplus population? The simplest solution is to give them money. It really doesn't matter what form it takes, so long as there's a way to get food and material needs met once robots take all the jobs.
What to do with the surplus population? The simplest solution is to give them money. It really doesn't matter what form it takes, so long as there's a way to get food and material needs met once robots take all the jobs.
That seems more like science fiction than fact.
Food we’re producing efficiently but housing & land, clothes, potable water, and infrastructure not so much.
Food we’re producing efficiently but housing & land, clothes, potable water, and infrastructure not so much.
> That seems more like science fiction than fact.
It's not evenly distributed yet but the future is here: radio-networked pocket supercomputers; print-on-demand machines, and DNA; etc...
> housing & land, clothes, potable water, and infrastructure
Except for land itself, all of those things have become exponentially cheaper in the last few decades. That is, cheaper to make. Housing in particular is kept artificially scarce, largely due to its role as a financial instrument.
It's not evenly distributed yet but the future is here: radio-networked pocket supercomputers; print-on-demand machines, and DNA; etc...
> housing & land, clothes, potable water, and infrastructure
Except for land itself, all of those things have become exponentially cheaper in the last few decades. That is, cheaper to make. Housing in particular is kept artificially scarce, largely due to its role as a financial instrument.
> Except for land itself, all of those things have become exponentially cheaper in the last few decades. That is, cheaper to make. Housing in particular is kept artificially scarce, largely due to its role as a financial instrument.
You have that backwards.
Housing is a financial instrument, because demand for housing remains high in specific areas; far in excess of supply.
Choose a less popular rust-belt city and the home cost will be one third to one quarter of the coastal cities.
Housing is also expensive because of the labor involved.
You have that backwards.
Housing is a financial instrument, because demand for housing remains high in specific areas; far in excess of supply.
Choose a less popular rust-belt city and the home cost will be one third to one quarter of the coastal cities.
Housing is also expensive because of the labor involved.
Like Social Security, it could be tied to inflation.
Social security is generally restricted to a certain age or older.
It also scales to how much you “put in”.
Therefore wouldn’t have the same inflationary impact that a truly universal income would have.
It also scales to how much you “put in”.
Therefore wouldn’t have the same inflationary impact that a truly universal income would have.
True, but that wasn't remotely my point. If you link the UBI to inflation(CPI-U or the like) it doesn't really matter if inflation goes up, so does the UBI payments.
Some things are already linked to inflation like Taxes, Social Security, etc.
Some things are already linked to inflation like Taxes, Social Security, etc.
Yes, but you’re not answering my original question: How does UBI avoid contributing significantly to inflation?
Your response of inflation adjustment doesn’t address the concern of high, unchecked inflation caused by injecting more money into the economy: If everyone has more money, then prices will creep up as businesses realize they can ask for more.
My primary concern is that program like these makes everyone (especially workers) other than the very wealthiest, extremely poor.
We already see the effects of this from Trump’s Covid payments.
Your response of inflation adjustment doesn’t address the concern of high, unchecked inflation caused by injecting more money into the economy: If everyone has more money, then prices will creep up as businesses realize they can ask for more.
My primary concern is that program like these makes everyone (especially workers) other than the very wealthiest, extremely poor.
We already see the effects of this from Trump’s Covid payments.
tldr; We don't know anything about inflation, we know less how UBI will or won't affect it and it doesn't matter anyways, because UBI will not become a thing anytime soon.
People thought the same thing would happen with Social Security, which is tied to inflation. It didn't happen. Though it of course generally only applies to a portion of the population, where a UBI would apply to everyone.
Let's assume your doom and gloom is true, that everyone gets a UBI that is linked to inflation and inflation goes up by 5%/yr instead of the target 2%/yr. The UBI payment will also go up 5% yr, so it can't possibly make people worse off, since the UBI payment will go up along with the inflation, just like social security. So this inflation would ruin the low-income is ridiculous on it's face. Of course it could become a death spiral, and we have ever increasing inflation, and ever increasing UBI payments. Eventually we would have to hit an equilibrium somehow.
Despite common opinion, we really know very, very little about inflation. So far we only know the broad strokes: large demand and low supply. We think high interest rates stop inflation(as it has worked historically, by supposedly drying up demand). We also think people's perception of inflation is also very important somehow. We also just sort of assume 2%/yr inflation is a great thing(a number that was mostly invented out of thin air it turns out). That's about all we really know, but there are lots and lots of possible theories out there, like the covid payments somehow caused inflation. It's possible, but the evidence is hardly rock solid. So many other things also happened that could be the cause or part of the cause as well.
So called experts will crow on and on about their knowledge of inflation and common lay-people assume they know it all as well, but honest academics will mostly shrug and say, we don't really understand it at all, because it's a weird mix of behavioural and traditional economics that is very hard to test, so all we have are some historical data points, each one different than the last enough that it's hard to say much with certainty anything about inflation.
Personally, if we stop all the other systems we have to help out the less well off, and replace it all with what is essentially an expansion of SSI, then chances are we would be better off, if only because of the savings the govt would have in not having to run and staff all of the current programs and simplifying all the rules around SSI we already have.
Of course all of this is a moot point, since there is zero chance the current political parties will ever come together thinking UBI is a good idea.
People thought the same thing would happen with Social Security, which is tied to inflation. It didn't happen. Though it of course generally only applies to a portion of the population, where a UBI would apply to everyone.
Let's assume your doom and gloom is true, that everyone gets a UBI that is linked to inflation and inflation goes up by 5%/yr instead of the target 2%/yr. The UBI payment will also go up 5% yr, so it can't possibly make people worse off, since the UBI payment will go up along with the inflation, just like social security. So this inflation would ruin the low-income is ridiculous on it's face. Of course it could become a death spiral, and we have ever increasing inflation, and ever increasing UBI payments. Eventually we would have to hit an equilibrium somehow.
Despite common opinion, we really know very, very little about inflation. So far we only know the broad strokes: large demand and low supply. We think high interest rates stop inflation(as it has worked historically, by supposedly drying up demand). We also think people's perception of inflation is also very important somehow. We also just sort of assume 2%/yr inflation is a great thing(a number that was mostly invented out of thin air it turns out). That's about all we really know, but there are lots and lots of possible theories out there, like the covid payments somehow caused inflation. It's possible, but the evidence is hardly rock solid. So many other things also happened that could be the cause or part of the cause as well.
So called experts will crow on and on about their knowledge of inflation and common lay-people assume they know it all as well, but honest academics will mostly shrug and say, we don't really understand it at all, because it's a weird mix of behavioural and traditional economics that is very hard to test, so all we have are some historical data points, each one different than the last enough that it's hard to say much with certainty anything about inflation.
Personally, if we stop all the other systems we have to help out the less well off, and replace it all with what is essentially an expansion of SSI, then chances are we would be better off, if only because of the savings the govt would have in not having to run and staff all of the current programs and simplifying all the rules around SSI we already have.
Of course all of this is a moot point, since there is zero chance the current political parties will ever come together thinking UBI is a good idea.
> tldr; We don't know anything about inflation, we know less how UBI will or won't affect it and it doesn't matter anyways, because UBI will not become a thing anytime soon
Not true. We understand the causes of inflation.
Creating models that accurately forecasts inflation is a different matter, and it’s not helped by big financial actors manipulating and hiding their actions.
The reasons Social Security doesn’t lead to rampant inflation is because Social Security is funded by the working age residents—decreasing the disposable income available to peak spenders at their peak consumption age.
And also because it’s distributed starting at an ever increasing age so it’s far from universal.
If UBI becomes necessary nationwide due to the “investment class” owning everything, that’s a sign that our system has failed completely.
Perhaps it’s inevitable.
Not true. We understand the causes of inflation.
Creating models that accurately forecasts inflation is a different matter, and it’s not helped by big financial actors manipulating and hiding their actions.
The reasons Social Security doesn’t lead to rampant inflation is because Social Security is funded by the working age residents—decreasing the disposable income available to peak spenders at their peak consumption age.
And also because it’s distributed starting at an ever increasing age so it’s far from universal.
If UBI becomes necessary nationwide due to the “investment class” owning everything, that’s a sign that our system has failed completely.
Perhaps it’s inevitable.
> Not true. We understand the causes of inflation.
I assume you are talking about the monetary theory of inflation, MV=PY? I've never met an economist that thinks it tells the whole story. John Cochrane(a world class economist) is in the process of writing a new book that covers inflation, and he doesn't think he has all the answers.
You and the rest of the "we" in your sentence needs to publish some academic papers informing the rest of us, as we clearly didn't get the memo.
> The reasons Social Security doesn’t lead to rampant inflation is because Social Security is funded by the working age residents
It's just a different form of a tax, perhaps it's sold to the people differently enough that they think of it the way you think of it, but it doesn't change the economics any. Taxes pay for it just like taxes would pay for a UBI.
I assume you are talking about the monetary theory of inflation, MV=PY? I've never met an economist that thinks it tells the whole story. John Cochrane(a world class economist) is in the process of writing a new book that covers inflation, and he doesn't think he has all the answers.
You and the rest of the "we" in your sentence needs to publish some academic papers informing the rest of us, as we clearly didn't get the memo.
> The reasons Social Security doesn’t lead to rampant inflation is because Social Security is funded by the working age residents
It's just a different form of a tax, perhaps it's sold to the people differently enough that they think of it the way you think of it, but it doesn't change the economics any. Taxes pay for it just like taxes would pay for a UBI.
> I assume you are talking about the monetary theory of inflation, MV=PY? I've never met an economist that thinks it tells the whole story. John Cochrane(a world class economist) is in the process of writing a new book that covers inflation, and he doesn't think he has all the answers.
Okay. But your position is that we know nothing about inflation. Which simply isn’t true.
Since you’re name dropping John Cochrane (I don’t subscribe to said individual, but you seem to respect them): https://www.johnhcochrane.com/research-all/fiscal-inflation from an essay: “The future is not hopeless. Inflation control simply requires our government, including the central bank, to understand classic lessons of history. Forestalling inflation is a joint task of fiscal, monetary, and micro-economic policy. Stabilizing inflation once it gets out of control is a joint task of fiscal, monetary, and micro-economic policy. Expectations are “anchored” if people believe such policy is in place, and politicians and Fed officials are ready to act if needed.”
That doesn’t read like inflation is some vast, major unknown.
What I think you’re saying is that our knowledge and models of inflation are imperfect, therefore we can’t say with certainty that UBI will cause inflation.
Which is essentially the same as “I don’t know.”
> You and the rest of the "we" in your sentence needs to publish some academic papers informing the rest of us, as we clearly didn't get the memo.
I asked a question; you provided non-answer; when you push the SS narrative I posit why SS is a poor analogy.
Trump’s covid payment is far closer to UBI.
> It's just a different form of a tax, perhaps it's sold to the people differently enough that they think of it the way you think of it, but it doesn't change the economics any. Taxes pay for it just like taxes would pay for a UBI.
I’m pointing out that SS is nothing like UBI, unless you’re saying that UBI is also meant for a subset of the population.
I’m well aware of the dent it makes in my paycheck.
Okay. But your position is that we know nothing about inflation. Which simply isn’t true.
Since you’re name dropping John Cochrane (I don’t subscribe to said individual, but you seem to respect them): https://www.johnhcochrane.com/research-all/fiscal-inflation from an essay: “The future is not hopeless. Inflation control simply requires our government, including the central bank, to understand classic lessons of history. Forestalling inflation is a joint task of fiscal, monetary, and micro-economic policy. Stabilizing inflation once it gets out of control is a joint task of fiscal, monetary, and micro-economic policy. Expectations are “anchored” if people believe such policy is in place, and politicians and Fed officials are ready to act if needed.”
That doesn’t read like inflation is some vast, major unknown.
What I think you’re saying is that our knowledge and models of inflation are imperfect, therefore we can’t say with certainty that UBI will cause inflation.
Which is essentially the same as “I don’t know.”
> You and the rest of the "we" in your sentence needs to publish some academic papers informing the rest of us, as we clearly didn't get the memo.
I asked a question; you provided non-answer; when you push the SS narrative I posit why SS is a poor analogy.
Trump’s covid payment is far closer to UBI.
> It's just a different form of a tax, perhaps it's sold to the people differently enough that they think of it the way you think of it, but it doesn't change the economics any. Taxes pay for it just like taxes would pay for a UBI.
I’m pointing out that SS is nothing like UBI, unless you’re saying that UBI is also meant for a subset of the population.
I’m well aware of the dent it makes in my paycheck.
I think the budget management could be solved. Just allow setting a schedule. You can be paid weekly, bi-weekly or monthly.
With something like CBDC that would be pretty simple to solve.
With something like CBDC that would be pretty simple to solve.
Giving away money universally won't work in the US.
One political party doesn't want to give money away.
The other one will gladly pass out cash but only if the program is means-tested.
One political party doesn't want to give money away.
The other one will gladly pass out cash but only if the program is means-tested.
In the absence of price controls UBI will be quickly absorbed by resetting the prices of food, housing, etc. The inflation kicks in and negates most of the UBI benefits. Income (basic or otherwise) is the reflection of person's productivity. UBI breaks relationship between productivity and income.
Been there, done that. The US once had a huge welfare program and government built-housing.[1] It was a failure. "...problems included drug dealing, drug abuse, gang violence, and the perpetuation of poverty. ... Six of the poorest US census areas with populations above 2,500 were found there.[7] Including children who are not of working age, at one point 95 percent of the housing development's 27,000 residents were unemployed and listed public assistance as their only income source, and 40 percent of the households were single-parent, female-headed households earning less than $5,000 per year. About 96 percent were African-American."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_Homes
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_Homes
3rd and 4th generations living where they started. With less education.
Please no more "geniuses." This cult of personality celebrity idol worship is toxic. The U in UBI stands for "universal" -- you don't need to be a genius to apply. UBI is great for enabling everyone to advance to their ultimate potential by alleviating financial constraints. (It may also lead to laziness as people no longer need to advance to survive.) Hopefully the net benefit outweighs any negative consequences.
Yeah, I'm against UBI, but this is even worse than that. Sending taxpayer money to arbitrarily-defined "geniuses" is the epitome of inequality.
Why not use what we have already used like future service for scholarships (underwriting an education for limited commitment in the future)? As I mention elsewhere, of course it eliminates people wo just want to play around or students who don't know what they want. But it's be an option for serious geniuses who want to cultivate their intellect but maybe don't have an alternative route.
We already do that via grants anyway.
>It may also lead to laziness as people no longer need to advance to survive
I don’t think this is a good argument against UBI when so much of our labor force is engaged in meaningless work, or what late anthropologist David Graeber called “Bullshit Jobs”. [1]
I can imagine it could make some people be perceived as lazy because they now have the freedom to do anything else besides push papers 40 hours a week and that paradigm shift could induce depression because so many people lose themselves while surviving capitalism. That said, there is already a pandemic of depression (4.7% of American adults)[2] that is likely highly correlated to the mentioned phenomena. As the corpus of mental health literature increases, it becomes more and more apparent laziness and depression are not moral failings, but societal failings emerging from the Capitalist-Protestant work ethic [conjecture].
UBI won’t change human nature’s drive to improve material conditions. It will allow many people the ability to pursue meaningful enterprise and self-actualization. For those without the drive to participate in the rat race, I would congratulate their enlightenment instead of accusing them of laziness.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
[2]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/depression.htm
I don’t think this is a good argument against UBI when so much of our labor force is engaged in meaningless work, or what late anthropologist David Graeber called “Bullshit Jobs”. [1]
I can imagine it could make some people be perceived as lazy because they now have the freedom to do anything else besides push papers 40 hours a week and that paradigm shift could induce depression because so many people lose themselves while surviving capitalism. That said, there is already a pandemic of depression (4.7% of American adults)[2] that is likely highly correlated to the mentioned phenomena. As the corpus of mental health literature increases, it becomes more and more apparent laziness and depression are not moral failings, but societal failings emerging from the Capitalist-Protestant work ethic [conjecture].
UBI won’t change human nature’s drive to improve material conditions. It will allow many people the ability to pursue meaningful enterprise and self-actualization. For those without the drive to participate in the rat race, I would congratulate their enlightenment instead of accusing them of laziness.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
[2]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/depression.htm
> Please no more "geniuses." This cult of personality celebrity idol worship is toxic.
Agreed. Just look at Trump, his I.Q. is one of the highest and yet his presidency has been among the worst in American history.
Agreed. Just look at Trump, his I.Q. is one of the highest and yet his presidency has been among the worst in American history.
Was his IQ high because he was a stable genius, and had a good you know what?
Trump is not the problem: he is a symptom. The millions of idiots that voted for him, twice, are the problem.
If you remove everything he said and a pandemic which his opponent stopped him from instantly responding to in promoting disease. Was it so bad really? No new wars for one thing.
> If you remove everything he said
Now that's asking for a lot. But maybe you're right, it's way better to have a president who doesn't say much of anything.
Now that's asking for a lot. But maybe you're right, it's way better to have a president who doesn't say much of anything.
Amazing how a sitting president can have an opponent 3.75 years before the next cycle, unless you mean Pelosi and Schumer similar to how Obama had McConnell. Of course Trump had a lot of opposition within various levels of government but that’s also not a new phenomenon, just one he played up by constantly talking about it as a means to working through it. Arguably if he’d just shut up, he’d have given up his biggest political strength and more co-opted by the corporate deep state.
And then there is the massive PPP wealth transfer he oversaw, both to criminals (not necessarily his fault, just his responsibility) and via the US Treasury (definitely on him). But these things are also nothing new compared to other recent POTUSes except for the most powerful playing constant victim.
And then there is the massive PPP wealth transfer he oversaw, both to criminals (not necessarily his fault, just his responsibility) and via the US Treasury (definitely on him). But these things are also nothing new compared to other recent POTUSes except for the most powerful playing constant victim.
The geniuses bombed the entire planet for generations with their COVID response ideas. I shudder when I hear them talk about "dimming the sun" next. Could use a little less "genius" for awhile.
I'm not sure the idea of genius is one we should rely on. Why is it that we think one or two great people are responsible for all progress?
I'd rather think that it's about creating an environment where someone will solve our problems, and that we merely need to nurture the environment.
With pre-identified geniuses, we end up with an entitled class populated by people who had hired tutors, and a bunch of people who think they'll never amount to anything because they didn't pass the test.
I'd rather think that it's about creating an environment where someone will solve our problems, and that we merely need to nurture the environment.
With pre-identified geniuses, we end up with an entitled class populated by people who had hired tutors, and a bunch of people who think they'll never amount to anything because they didn't pass the test.
I love the story of Faraday and Maxwell precisely for this reason. Maxwell was a bonafide genius, but Faraday was just really good at note-taking and doing experiments. Because of those talents, Faraday was able to document a lifetime of experiments with electricity. Maxwell read the entire record of those experiments and was able to derive the mathematical model of what was happening. It seems that it takes more than just "genius" for progress to occur: creativity, hard work, diligence, and passion are also required, as well as a society that supports the people engaging in such endeavors.
I dislike the notion that some individuals are off the scale on cleverness.
It's easy enough to arrive at the conclusion that a person who is dimmer than us is cognitively challenged; it's much harder to assess the smarts of someone who is smarter than us. Is he 1% smarter than me? 10% smarter? Hell, 100% smarter? All I know is that he understands stuff that I don't, and solves crosswords faster. But I don't believe that anyone is so much smarter than the average that they need to be paid 100x what I could earn.
It's easy enough to arrive at the conclusion that a person who is dimmer than us is cognitively challenged; it's much harder to assess the smarts of someone who is smarter than us. Is he 1% smarter than me? 10% smarter? Hell, 100% smarter? All I know is that he understands stuff that I don't, and solves crosswords faster. But I don't believe that anyone is so much smarter than the average that they need to be paid 100x what I could earn.
Distributions of human skill that we can measure tend to be on long-tailed power scale distributions. Chess is one of the most obvious examples of this. Chess world champions tend to be just dramatically better than the 2nd best players in the world. One early 20th century world champion (Emanuel Lasker) retained (and actively defended) his title for 27 years! And he was also a research mathematician (who made some significant discoveries) and more 'on the side'.
And while that exact stretch remains unbroken, similar levels of dominance in the game are typical. Kasparov was world champion for 15 years. And in current times Magnus Carlsen has been world champion for about a decade, and #1 in the world (by a wide margin) for years beyond that.
On things we can't measure, one can observe facts like the open problem that Einstein would go on to solve (in his twenties, while working at a patent office) was being dug into by countless brilliant minds, to no avail, since Einstein was 8 years old! And his work after that point makes it clear it wasn't just a freak coincidence.
---
I definitely do think there are plenty who are "that much" smarter than average, but I don't think they need to be paid to succeed. Nor do I think one having an official affirmation that he is a "genius" is conducive to clear-headedness. It naturally drives a sense of entitlement, and can be detrimental to actually putting in the work necessary to make things happen. All the potential in the world is irrelevant without a corresponding work ethic.
And while that exact stretch remains unbroken, similar levels of dominance in the game are typical. Kasparov was world champion for 15 years. And in current times Magnus Carlsen has been world champion for about a decade, and #1 in the world (by a wide margin) for years beyond that.
On things we can't measure, one can observe facts like the open problem that Einstein would go on to solve (in his twenties, while working at a patent office) was being dug into by countless brilliant minds, to no avail, since Einstein was 8 years old! And his work after that point makes it clear it wasn't just a freak coincidence.
---
I definitely do think there are plenty who are "that much" smarter than average, but I don't think they need to be paid to succeed. Nor do I think one having an official affirmation that he is a "genius" is conducive to clear-headedness. It naturally drives a sense of entitlement, and can be detrimental to actually putting in the work necessary to make things happen. All the potential in the world is irrelevant without a corresponding work ethic.
Chess is an interesting example. I learned to play chess as a kid. I never got even slightly good; people that were dimmer than me could beat me easily.
But how many chess grandmasters are also fabulously wealthy CEOs? They tend to stay chess-players.
I'm curious about what skill in chess consists of. It seems to correspond to general cognitive capacity; but that's certainly not all of it.
But how many chess grandmasters are also fabulously wealthy CEOs? They tend to stay chess-players.
I'm curious about what skill in chess consists of. It seems to correspond to general cognitive capacity; but that's certainly not all of it.
People aspire to different things.
It's difficult to explain if you've never really gotten seriously into chess, but the game is, by far, one of the most satisfying and rewarding activities in existence. You can put infinite mental energy into the game and continue to get ever more out of it. It is extremely addictive, especially once one reaches a certain level in the game. If I had the choice of retiring to a life endless beaches and scantily clad ladies delivering me all the drinks and pleasures of life one could imagine, or retiring to a [safe] ghetto full of nothing but old highly skilled chess players - I would pick #2 in a heart beat.
There are plenty of chess player anecdotes along the lines of Gata Kamsky. He became frustrated with his progress in chess at some point (as one of the best in the world, but not the best in the world) and just casually decided to become a lawyer. So he did that and breezed through law school and set himself to a traditional path of money and even power. But, as is always the end of these stories, the game called him back. Today he streams himself playing chess for hours a day (on Twitch) to an audience of tens and is clearly more content and satisfied than ever.
It's difficult to explain if you've never really gotten seriously into chess, but the game is, by far, one of the most satisfying and rewarding activities in existence. You can put infinite mental energy into the game and continue to get ever more out of it. It is extremely addictive, especially once one reaches a certain level in the game. If I had the choice of retiring to a life endless beaches and scantily clad ladies delivering me all the drinks and pleasures of life one could imagine, or retiring to a [safe] ghetto full of nothing but old highly skilled chess players - I would pick #2 in a heart beat.
There are plenty of chess player anecdotes along the lines of Gata Kamsky. He became frustrated with his progress in chess at some point (as one of the best in the world, but not the best in the world) and just casually decided to become a lawyer. So he did that and breezed through law school and set himself to a traditional path of money and even power. But, as is always the end of these stories, the game called him back. Today he streams himself playing chess for hours a day (on Twitch) to an audience of tens and is clearly more content and satisfied than ever.
But none of those examples gives a reason why it had to be that particular person. Someone is gonna be the first person to solve an unsolved problem, or the new best chess player. It might well be that longevity comes from reaching the top?
The point with chess is to illustrate that relative ability follows a power law. If humanity was relatively normally distributed then of course there'd still be a top, but people in this top would all be roughly equal. And so, like you're implicitly stating, any sort of achievement would largely come down to throwing darts and seeing who, largely by chance, ends up being the first to hit the bullseye.
But in reality the top is not approximately equal. In chess there are hundreds of thousands of rated players. The #1 player is rated 50 points higher than the #2 player. The #1 player is rated 2859. Think about the implications of those three facts! And this is likely precisely the case with Einstein, and also the reason for his success.
Back to current times/domain I'd also argue this is why having exponentially more scientists than ever before has not really led to what somebody who assumed a normal distribution would expect to see.
But in reality the top is not approximately equal. In chess there are hundreds of thousands of rated players. The #1 player is rated 50 points higher than the #2 player. The #1 player is rated 2859. Think about the implications of those three facts! And this is likely precisely the case with Einstein, and also the reason for his success.
Back to current times/domain I'd also argue this is why having exponentially more scientists than ever before has not really led to what somebody who assumed a normal distribution would expect to see.
The examples illustrate that relative outcomes seem to follow that kind of law. How do we know that the outcomes are strongly tied to some sort of potential, and not just self-perpetuating?
You get picked for the team because you're a little bit better than number 2, you feel motivated, you get more training... down the road you are a lot better.
Sports especially is filled with these kinds of stories.
You get picked for the team because you're a little bit better than number 2, you feel motivated, you get more training... down the road you are a lot better.
Sports especially is filled with these kinds of stories.
In general it's pretty difficult to prove a negative. How do you know you don't have a friendly little goblin named Rakinichu, made of dark matter, floating just above your shoulder? You can't really prove that you don't, so the onus is on me to prove that you do. That said, in this specific case, I think there's even reasonably strong evidence against your hypothesis. For instance Einstein's "miracle year" would come while he was working as a low level inspector at a patent office. And he was working there because he applied to numerous universities, but none were interested in taking him on board!
Even in the chess world, "prodigies" are a dime a dozen and Magnus was a relatively late bloomer among his peers. Magnus received his International Master title (the second highest title in chess, prior to Grandmaster) at a later age than Sergey Karjakin, a fellow prodigy, received his Grandmaster title. He also achieved victory coming from a country that had relatively little chess culture. Grandmasters coming from countries with greater chess culture would have had access to greater resources, minds, coaching, and opportunities.
Even in the chess world, "prodigies" are a dime a dozen and Magnus was a relatively late bloomer among his peers. Magnus received his International Master title (the second highest title in chess, prior to Grandmaster) at a later age than Sergey Karjakin, a fellow prodigy, received his Grandmaster title. He also achieved victory coming from a country that had relatively little chess culture. Grandmasters coming from countries with greater chess culture would have had access to greater resources, minds, coaching, and opportunities.
> In general it's pretty difficult to prove a negative.
But this isn't a negative, you're proposing that there's some sort of strong connection between observable potentials and eventual outcomes, am I right? So now we need the evidence.
Sports is a great place to look btw. The history of recruiting busts in the sports world simply incredible. People they guessed wrong on: Tom Brady, Ravel Morrison, Johnny Manziel, Carlos Bacca, just to give you a false positive and a false negative in two different sports.
It just seems to me that is really isn't all that obvious who might be really good, and so we should spread our bets rather than concentrate on a few promising geniuses.
> For instance Einstein...
So how does this say anything about skill? Couldn't he just be a low-probability ticket that won? There were other people looking at similar ideas at the time.
> Even in the chess world...
Thing is chess is international now, Magnus could be Norwegian but very cheaply access chess culture from other countries. Maybe in an earlier era this argument made sense. But just like in football, it's international now and people aren't surprised by regional styles.
But this isn't a negative, you're proposing that there's some sort of strong connection between observable potentials and eventual outcomes, am I right? So now we need the evidence.
Sports is a great place to look btw. The history of recruiting busts in the sports world simply incredible. People they guessed wrong on: Tom Brady, Ravel Morrison, Johnny Manziel, Carlos Bacca, just to give you a false positive and a false negative in two different sports.
It just seems to me that is really isn't all that obvious who might be really good, and so we should spread our bets rather than concentrate on a few promising geniuses.
> For instance Einstein...
So how does this say anything about skill? Couldn't he just be a low-probability ticket that won? There were other people looking at similar ideas at the time.
> Even in the chess world...
Thing is chess is international now, Magnus could be Norwegian but very cheaply access chess culture from other countries. Maybe in an earlier era this argument made sense. But just like in football, it's international now and people aren't surprised by regional styles.
No, that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that people's skill distributions follow a power law, with outliers at nearly any level. To quote the earliest post in this chain, that indeed some people are "off the charts." And this inherent difference in these individuals plays a large role in their ultimate outcomes. And no, I don't think we should "bet" on anybody, whether focused or scattered. The point of Magnus, Einstein, and many others is that the fact that they ultimately were these "off the charts" individuals was in no way whatsoever clear.
And in any case, for people that are "off the charts" - they aren't going to have difficulty excelling in a capitalist economic system, nearly regardless of their humbleness of their beginnings. I would even be inclined to argue that acknowledging somebody as "genius" and plying them with money is more likely to lead to distorted rather than enhanced development. Just because somebody may be several sigmas from the mean cognitively, doesn't mean that they're immune to the trappings any human may succumb to: ego, vice, hedonism, entitlement, laziness, and so on.
---
As for your response, I find it uncompelling. You're trying to argue that there's some childhood butterfly effect that drives outcomes, while hand-waving away major factors that would imperil development (from an environmental POV). Similarly, the 'dart-throw theory' doesn't hold as it wasn't only Einstein's initial ideas that were exceptional - but rather a persisted trend throughout his entire career.
He published more than 450 papers over his 50 year career, with countless revolutionary discoveries. For some context, that's an academic output rate of publishing 0.75 papers per month, for his entire life until his death bed. It's not like he made one great discovery and then coasted on his laurels while reminiscing about the past. His "miracle year", for instance, while working at a patent office, involved the publication of 4 distinct (and ground-breaking) papers! All without any real access to academic resources, or even peers to really bounce ideas off of.
And in any case, for people that are "off the charts" - they aren't going to have difficulty excelling in a capitalist economic system, nearly regardless of their humbleness of their beginnings. I would even be inclined to argue that acknowledging somebody as "genius" and plying them with money is more likely to lead to distorted rather than enhanced development. Just because somebody may be several sigmas from the mean cognitively, doesn't mean that they're immune to the trappings any human may succumb to: ego, vice, hedonism, entitlement, laziness, and so on.
---
As for your response, I find it uncompelling. You're trying to argue that there's some childhood butterfly effect that drives outcomes, while hand-waving away major factors that would imperil development (from an environmental POV). Similarly, the 'dart-throw theory' doesn't hold as it wasn't only Einstein's initial ideas that were exceptional - but rather a persisted trend throughout his entire career.
He published more than 450 papers over his 50 year career, with countless revolutionary discoveries. For some context, that's an academic output rate of publishing 0.75 papers per month, for his entire life until his death bed. It's not like he made one great discovery and then coasted on his laurels while reminiscing about the past. His "miracle year", for instance, while working at a patent office, involved the publication of 4 distinct (and ground-breaking) papers! All without any real access to academic resources, or even peers to really bounce ideas off of.
> long-tailed power scale
Yeah, but a power scale implies that there are outliers at any distance from the median. That can't be true, so the model is defective.
Yeah, but a power scale implies that there are outliers at any distance from the median. That can't be true, so the model is defective.
Except it is true! That is precisely what I was getting at with chess. Right now the #1 player in the world is rated 48 points higher than the #2 player, and this difference is typical and often even more extreme. And the #2 is rated almost 20 points higher than the #3 player!
I could try to explain what those numbers mean mathematically, but I think there's an even easier way to get the gist of it. There are hundreds of of thousands of FIDE rated players. That #1 player's rating is 2859. For him to be 50 points higher than the #2 player is insane in terms of any notion of broad-level approximate human equality, but perfectly normal in the not-even-remotely-equal reality of what we see in chess.
And this is mirrored everywhere, even in sports where the physical limitations on the body are presumably more limiting than the cognitive ones. Running is nice because it's a field where we are going to miss close to 0 outliers, and you can fairly compare generations regardless of time.
Imagine we take Usain Bolt at his peak, and have him run a 200m race against the 200th fastest human to have ever lived at his peak. People might expect this to be a pretty close race. In reality? He'd finish about 9.8 meters, more than 32 feet ahead of the other guy. It would look like 'fast' guy vs 'meh, more or less average' guy. When in reality that 'more or less average' guy is one of the fastest humans to have ever lived!
I could try to explain what those numbers mean mathematically, but I think there's an even easier way to get the gist of it. There are hundreds of of thousands of FIDE rated players. That #1 player's rating is 2859. For him to be 50 points higher than the #2 player is insane in terms of any notion of broad-level approximate human equality, but perfectly normal in the not-even-remotely-equal reality of what we see in chess.
And this is mirrored everywhere, even in sports where the physical limitations on the body are presumably more limiting than the cognitive ones. Running is nice because it's a field where we are going to miss close to 0 outliers, and you can fairly compare generations regardless of time.
Imagine we take Usain Bolt at his peak, and have him run a 200m race against the 200th fastest human to have ever lived at his peak. People might expect this to be a pretty close race. In reality? He'd finish about 9.8 meters, more than 32 feet ahead of the other guy. It would look like 'fast' guy vs 'meh, more or less average' guy. When in reality that 'more or less average' guy is one of the fastest humans to have ever lived!
A true power law would say that there's a diminishing number of chess-players the further out you go along the long tail. But in practice, there are zero chess-players better than the world champion. It may look like a power law within some window, but power laws don't have a cutoff point.
That is what I'm saying about smart people; I don't accept that there are people arbitrarily smarter than the average. My guess is that the cutoff is somewhere around double the average (modulo your method for measuring smartness).
That is what I'm saying about smart people; I don't accept that there are people arbitrarily smarter than the average. My guess is that the cutoff is somewhere around double the average (modulo your method for measuring smartness).
You can see various visualizations of chess ratings here: https://nycdatascience.com/blog/student-works/visualizing-fi...
It is a textbook power law. There are only 2 humans better than 2800, and one is pushing near 2900. Then there are only 37 humans from 2700-2799, 168 from 2600-2699 and so on with an increasingly exponential gain in brackets near the median. And each bracket tends to be exceptionally dominant of brackets just one below, let alone more.
A finite sample means any distribution will have a min and a max. If the odds of a Magnus are 1 in 10 billion, then we can expect to see one person of a roughly proportional skill every generation or two. But if the odds of the next tier of exponentially dominating outlier out are 1 in 500 billion then any given generation of humanity would be unlikely to see one, at least not until we start dramatically increasing our population sizes.
It is a textbook power law. There are only 2 humans better than 2800, and one is pushing near 2900. Then there are only 37 humans from 2700-2799, 168 from 2600-2699 and so on with an increasingly exponential gain in brackets near the median. And each bracket tends to be exceptionally dominant of brackets just one below, let alone more.
A finite sample means any distribution will have a min and a max. If the odds of a Magnus are 1 in 10 billion, then we can expect to see one person of a roughly proportional skill every generation or two. But if the odds of the next tier of exponentially dominating outlier out are 1 in 500 billion then any given generation of humanity would be unlikely to see one, at least not until we start dramatically increasing our population sizes.
> I dislike the notion that some individuals are off the scale on cleverness.
Why not? You accept that some individuals are off the scale of various physical abilities. That try as you might, you'll never be the fastest or tallest or strongest.
What makes intelligence different? Why should we believe that everyone is roughly equal in intelligence?
If you are mediocre in obvious ways, what's left? Everyone wants to be good at something. Everyone wants to be better at something than others. But it is fairly obvious with anything with a physical component. I am a mediocre guitar player. I am not tall. I am not fast. I am not exceptionally strong. These are things that can be sussed out fairly quickly with some basic tests.
But intelligence. Well. That's not only fluid, but it's also abstract. What does it mean to have an IQ of 129 versus an IQ of 130. Especially when one could score both depending on how much sleep one has had. So you can just say IQ is bullshit. Intelligence don't real. Everyone is smart in their own way.
No. That's just simply not true. Yes, one could test differently based on conditions. However, it will fall within a range. Which is why IQ is often expressed as a range. If you score a 129, you'll be within the 125-135 group or something.
And it's just like with physical traits. Like right now, I will be much slower than normal because my quadriceps are fucking cooked. I overexerted myself and I'm sore as shit. Even though I am not normally fast, timing me now wouldn't give an accurate representation of my average speed.
And you can tell when someone has spent any time among the truly gifted. Because running into people like this is something else. They will come into a situation blind, get what you've already gotten, and then make a realization you'd never would have. They do process on a different level. And it's not about knowledge. It's not how much they know. It's about how fast they can acquire that knowledge, understand it, and then build upon it. It's how they can relate knowledge from different areas in new and novel ways. People who have spent time with the truly gifted know there's a such thing as intelligence. People who have only spent time with people who are average to above average have never actually seen intelligence at work.
Why not? You accept that some individuals are off the scale of various physical abilities. That try as you might, you'll never be the fastest or tallest or strongest.
What makes intelligence different? Why should we believe that everyone is roughly equal in intelligence?
If you are mediocre in obvious ways, what's left? Everyone wants to be good at something. Everyone wants to be better at something than others. But it is fairly obvious with anything with a physical component. I am a mediocre guitar player. I am not tall. I am not fast. I am not exceptionally strong. These are things that can be sussed out fairly quickly with some basic tests.
But intelligence. Well. That's not only fluid, but it's also abstract. What does it mean to have an IQ of 129 versus an IQ of 130. Especially when one could score both depending on how much sleep one has had. So you can just say IQ is bullshit. Intelligence don't real. Everyone is smart in their own way.
No. That's just simply not true. Yes, one could test differently based on conditions. However, it will fall within a range. Which is why IQ is often expressed as a range. If you score a 129, you'll be within the 125-135 group or something.
And it's just like with physical traits. Like right now, I will be much slower than normal because my quadriceps are fucking cooked. I overexerted myself and I'm sore as shit. Even though I am not normally fast, timing me now wouldn't give an accurate representation of my average speed.
And you can tell when someone has spent any time among the truly gifted. Because running into people like this is something else. They will come into a situation blind, get what you've already gotten, and then make a realization you'd never would have. They do process on a different level. And it's not about knowledge. It's not how much they know. It's about how fast they can acquire that knowledge, understand it, and then build upon it. It's how they can relate knowledge from different areas in new and novel ways. People who have spent time with the truly gifted know there's a such thing as intelligence. People who have only spent time with people who are average to above average have never actually seen intelligence at work.
> You accept that some individuals are off the scale of various physical abilities.
No I don't!
I'm getting on, and not very fit; I can run about 30 yards, slowly, before I run out of steam. But even Olympic runners can't run 100x faster than me. I know how fast Olympic runners can run.
> Why should we believe that everyone is roughly equal in intelligence?
Why, indeed. Why do you think that I believe that?
> Which is why IQ is often expressed as a range.
I have avoided mention of IQ; I don't think it's equivalent to intelligence.
> and then make a realization you'd never would have.
Yes, of course. I've met a lot of people that are quicker on the uptake than I am. But I'm sorry; "truly gifted" suggests there's some kind of magic going on. I don't believe in magic, and I don't believe in gifts from the gods. And I don't believe that there are people that are orders of magnitude smarter than the average; my observation was simply that average people like me aren't in a position to estimate the smarts of brighter people. So there is a tendency to assume there's magic occurring; that they aren't just brighter, but there's some other ingredient.
There's no magic ingredient; we're all made roughly the same way, from the same ingredients.
No I don't!
I'm getting on, and not very fit; I can run about 30 yards, slowly, before I run out of steam. But even Olympic runners can't run 100x faster than me. I know how fast Olympic runners can run.
> Why should we believe that everyone is roughly equal in intelligence?
Why, indeed. Why do you think that I believe that?
> Which is why IQ is often expressed as a range.
I have avoided mention of IQ; I don't think it's equivalent to intelligence.
> and then make a realization you'd never would have.
Yes, of course. I've met a lot of people that are quicker on the uptake than I am. But I'm sorry; "truly gifted" suggests there's some kind of magic going on. I don't believe in magic, and I don't believe in gifts from the gods. And I don't believe that there are people that are orders of magnitude smarter than the average; my observation was simply that average people like me aren't in a position to estimate the smarts of brighter people. So there is a tendency to assume there's magic occurring; that they aren't just brighter, but there's some other ingredient.
There's no magic ingredient; we're all made roughly the same way, from the same ingredients.
I think you believe that because you say basically that. Then you say that you don't believe there are people that are orders of magnitude smarter than the average. There are.
There's no magic. Just like the fact Usain Bolt running the 100m dash in 9.58 seconds isn't magic. No one else has been capable of reproducing that feat. Including people who train to do exactly that.
And I don't suggest there is magic. You're forcing an argument on me that I am not making.
IQ is as good a measure of intelligence as there is. IQ is not a measure of human worth. IQ is not a measure of success. IQ is not a measure of a lot of things. IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain.
I am simply pointing out that intelligence is no different than any other attribute one can possess. And some people possess it at the extremes.
There's no magic. Just like the fact Usain Bolt running the 100m dash in 9.58 seconds isn't magic. No one else has been capable of reproducing that feat. Including people who train to do exactly that.
And I don't suggest there is magic. You're forcing an argument on me that I am not making.
IQ is as good a measure of intelligence as there is. IQ is not a measure of human worth. IQ is not a measure of success. IQ is not a measure of a lot of things. IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain.
I am simply pointing out that intelligence is no different than any other attribute one can possess. And some people possess it at the extremes.
> Usain Bolt running the 100m dash in 9.58 seconds isn't magic
Sure it is. But it's not orders of magnitude.
> IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain.
[citation needed] That claim is both specific and vague at the same time. I'll try to work out how you did that :-)
Sure it is. But it's not orders of magnitude.
> IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain.
[citation needed] That claim is both specific and vague at the same time. I'll try to work out how you did that :-)
Depends on your deviation.
And how do you mean "specific and vague".
IQ isn't precise because like all of our physical attributes, there's wiggle room. Like how you may think you're a certain height, but you actually fluctuate throughout the day. Same with weight. Or strength. Or speed. IQ is a rough measure. It can really only tell us what you get when you take the test. But if you take it several times, it should fall within a range.
And a good IQ test shouldn't test knowledge. It should test reasoning, spatial ability, pattern matching, etc. You know, the factors that make up our raw processing power.
Are you saying it's "specific and vague" because it's an imprecise measure of a specific ability? That wouldn't be "specific and vague" in the way you mean. You could say it's a vague claim about a specific thing, but that's not mysterious.
And how do you mean "specific and vague".
IQ isn't precise because like all of our physical attributes, there's wiggle room. Like how you may think you're a certain height, but you actually fluctuate throughout the day. Same with weight. Or strength. Or speed. IQ is a rough measure. It can really only tell us what you get when you take the test. But if you take it several times, it should fall within a range.
And a good IQ test shouldn't test knowledge. It should test reasoning, spatial ability, pattern matching, etc. You know, the factors that make up our raw processing power.
Are you saying it's "specific and vague" because it's an imprecise measure of a specific ability? That wouldn't be "specific and vague" in the way you mean. You could say it's a vague claim about a specific thing, but that's not mysterious.
I meant "specific and vague" like this:
> Then you say that you don't believe there are people that are orders of magnitude smarter than the average. There are.
So you're stating that some people are orders of magnitude smarter than the average; but you've adduced no evidence. I don't agree; you're making the claim, so the burden is on you.
> IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain.
That's a very specific claim. I know what "raw processing power" means in the context of a CPU, and I know of various ways of measuring it. But a brain is not a CPU. It's not a processor; arguably what it does is not similar to information processing.
> Then you say that you don't believe there are people that are orders of magnitude smarter than the average. There are.
So you're stating that some people are orders of magnitude smarter than the average; but you've adduced no evidence. I don't agree; you're making the claim, so the burden is on you.
> IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain.
That's a very specific claim. I know what "raw processing power" means in the context of a CPU, and I know of various ways of measuring it. But a brain is not a CPU. It's not a processor; arguably what it does is not similar to information processing.
> And you can tell when someone has spent any time among the truly gifted. Because running into people like this is something else. They will come into a situation blind, get what you've already gotten, and then make a realization you'd never would have. They do process on a different level. And it's not about knowledge. It's not how much they know. It's about how fast they can acquire that knowledge, understand it, and then build upon it. It's how they can relate knowledge from different areas in new and novel ways. People who have spent time with the truly gifted know there's a such thing as intelligence. People who have only spent time with people who are average to above average have never actually seen intelligence at work.
I used to think this as well, having gone to a famous university. Some people just seemed to get it much faster than others.
With some hindsight I no longer believe it. I think it was all hard work, and very much influenced by environment.
One guy I knew seemed really quite bright, always seemed to know everything. Ended up getting a PhD as well. But I realized that he basically just studied a lot. I wanted to think he was smarter than me, but I also knew inside I wasn't putting in the same amount of practice he was.
I brought the same fellow into a business to work with me, and he was ordinary. Couldn't have known that he was one of the top grads of two world famous universities, just one among a sea of reasonably competent quants. I'm fairly sure a lot of firms make this mistake as well, they think they need the people who did best at uni, but actually it has a lot to do with what you do with people, who you stick them with, what training they get, and so on.
The thing about highly productive creatives is they seem to have special motivation. They ome into some field, they see connections, they are more motivated to read more, talk to more people, study more. That seems to be the driver. I never saw anyone good that was just smart but not engaged as well.
I used to think this as well, having gone to a famous university. Some people just seemed to get it much faster than others.
With some hindsight I no longer believe it. I think it was all hard work, and very much influenced by environment.
One guy I knew seemed really quite bright, always seemed to know everything. Ended up getting a PhD as well. But I realized that he basically just studied a lot. I wanted to think he was smarter than me, but I also knew inside I wasn't putting in the same amount of practice he was.
I brought the same fellow into a business to work with me, and he was ordinary. Couldn't have known that he was one of the top grads of two world famous universities, just one among a sea of reasonably competent quants. I'm fairly sure a lot of firms make this mistake as well, they think they need the people who did best at uni, but actually it has a lot to do with what you do with people, who you stick them with, what training they get, and so on.
The thing about highly productive creatives is they seem to have special motivation. They ome into some field, they see connections, they are more motivated to read more, talk to more people, study more. That seems to be the driver. I never saw anyone good that was just smart but not engaged as well.
Ok. But since you’re walking a distribution if you keep applying that without insight into how much smarter, just smarter, you’ll understand the tail.
Identify A as smarter than B
A identifies A’ A’ identifies A’’ …
There’s no need to know the quantified smartness, just the ordinal smartness.
Identify A as smarter than B
A identifies A’ A’ identifies A’’ …
There’s no need to know the quantified smartness, just the ordinal smartness.
> and solves crosswords faster
I like this example, especially, as we're all aware, you can get better at both crosswords and IQ tests with practice.
I like this example, especially, as we're all aware, you can get better at both crosswords and IQ tests with practice.
Plus, geniuses tend to make a shitload of money already. And when they dont, there is a reason.
If you pick "high IQ" as the definition of "genius", this isn't true. Right around the point where and individual would be considered a "genius", the correlation between income and IQ breaks down. So a super-genius makes about the same amount of money as a very smart, but within the bell curve, person.
I would imagine this holds true for other definitions of genius, but I haven't seen quantitative data on it.
I would imagine this holds true for other definitions of genius, but I haven't seen quantitative data on it.
Genius is also loaded. It's a fact kids in poverty have lower test grades, so the ACT of giving them UBI will in fact RAISE test scores and maybe move them up to the 'genius' level, or at least give them a better shot.
It's hard to focus on schooling when you're tummy is growling, or there's a ton of stress at home, or abuse, etc.
It's hard to focus on schooling when you're tummy is growling, or there's a ton of stress at home, or abuse, etc.
We grew up poor in the US. We worked hard in school and had above average to excellent test scores. Being poor does not directly support bad test scores or whether society can or should bear the burden of UBI.
Conflating growing up poor with growing up with abuse is incorrect.
Conflating growing up poor with growing up with abuse is incorrect.
And assuming wealth and poverty do NOT correlate with test scores and professional success is equally problematic.
Poverty is directly statistically correlated with poorer test scores and lower IQ. Your hard work and test scores don't contradict those statistics.
ok, well one obvious reason would be environmental effects of being raised by idiots without money.
The more obvious reason would be intelligence has zero correlation with motivation to contribute to society. Your stereotypical high school educated blue collar worker will still be better for society than a NEET Mensa member who spends all their time speed running videogames
I mean it seems like one could perhaps get some estimation of how much impact family wealth and a positive environment has one success in relation to intellectual abilities based on lots of studies over probably about half a century now.
Obviously it would be a wide range of stuff to argue about but still your example sounds more to me like something we won't have that much data on, relatively speaking.
Obviously it would be a wide range of stuff to argue about but still your example sounds more to me like something we won't have that much data on, relatively speaking.
You're right, the 'regular' people form the base of a society. But purely biologically they aren't capable of implementing a system for governing the society. This is b/c a hard working brain consumes up to 25% of total energy which is very expensive. Therefore we tend to find shortcuts that allow us to avoid that much of brain activity. And as brain wants to be 'happy' (chemically) which biologically means good food, reproduction and dominance.
Thus geniuses may be considered a biological anomaly since for some reason they act against their biological nature by stressing themselves considerably more than 'regular' people.
Also see my comment above regarding detecting geniuses in a scientific evidence-based way.
Thus geniuses may be considered a biological anomaly since for some reason they act against their biological nature by stressing themselves considerably more than 'regular' people.
Also see my comment above regarding detecting geniuses in a scientific evidence-based way.
IQ / "intelligence" is such a BS metric to go by. It's effectively the test makers deciding who would get a free ride through life. Which, incidentally would probably make those "geniuses" less intelligent overall.
I'd rather work with a random person who grew up on a farm or the streets than someone who had the best tutors and went to Harvard. People who have to work hard, who grow up hard, are hardened against the world. They learn to survive.
Most of our best entrepreneurs and builders grow up building and being independent. To be independent you have to learn to survive on your own, i.e. not with UBI. I'd rather have a higher level competition, not selecting based on IQ.
In way of an example, a friend of mine who worked blue collar his whole life (running large repairs & logistics operations) ended up moving up the command. Eventually, he ended up in a consulting capacity as part of an R&D team for a massive logistics company. His first day on the job he saved an average of 2 lives a year and around $5m.
He was given the job of improving a warehouse with a bunch of newly hired kids from Yale, Harvard, etc. The kids spent weeks going over all the different locations, trying to optimize layout, etc.
Eventually, my friend just talked to people on the floor. At one point, he noticed a fork lift operator who was having an issue picking up a pallet off a truck. He asked what the issue was and the fork life operator said they didn't know exactly where the height of the pallet is. The ivy league consultants started planning out using cameras to select the correct height(s), looked at the budget associated with hiring developers, tried to identify the costs to retrofit all the fork lifts, etc.
While that went on, my friend got two magnet strips, put some bright tape on the back, measured and put the magnet at the exact height the truck bed and as the pallets were a default height he knew where to put the next strip. Every new truck that came in would just move both strips based on the new truck height. He was done that afternoon and it was a $5 retrofit.
On average, 2-3 workers died a year at all their warehouses due to pallets being knocked down, losses were an estimated $5m.
The point of the story is that "genius" doesn't work better than practical problem solving. Problem solving comes from learning to survive and be independent.
I'd rather work with a random person who grew up on a farm or the streets than someone who had the best tutors and went to Harvard. People who have to work hard, who grow up hard, are hardened against the world. They learn to survive.
Most of our best entrepreneurs and builders grow up building and being independent. To be independent you have to learn to survive on your own, i.e. not with UBI. I'd rather have a higher level competition, not selecting based on IQ.
In way of an example, a friend of mine who worked blue collar his whole life (running large repairs & logistics operations) ended up moving up the command. Eventually, he ended up in a consulting capacity as part of an R&D team for a massive logistics company. His first day on the job he saved an average of 2 lives a year and around $5m.
He was given the job of improving a warehouse with a bunch of newly hired kids from Yale, Harvard, etc. The kids spent weeks going over all the different locations, trying to optimize layout, etc.
Eventually, my friend just talked to people on the floor. At one point, he noticed a fork lift operator who was having an issue picking up a pallet off a truck. He asked what the issue was and the fork life operator said they didn't know exactly where the height of the pallet is. The ivy league consultants started planning out using cameras to select the correct height(s), looked at the budget associated with hiring developers, tried to identify the costs to retrofit all the fork lifts, etc.
While that went on, my friend got two magnet strips, put some bright tape on the back, measured and put the magnet at the exact height the truck bed and as the pallets were a default height he knew where to put the next strip. Every new truck that came in would just move both strips based on the new truck height. He was done that afternoon and it was a $5 retrofit.
On average, 2-3 workers died a year at all their warehouses due to pallets being knocked down, losses were an estimated $5m.
The point of the story is that "genius" doesn't work better than practical problem solving. Problem solving comes from learning to survive and be independent.
> Children who score [IQ]145 or above would then be offered a life-long genius award.
> They could start at, say $75,000 a year and go up by $25,000 increments every decade. The payments could expire if our geniuses decided to take paid employment but then resume if they decided to “drop out” again.
1. I don't think UBI expires, this is more like unemployment benefit which include perverse incentives against employment.
2. IQ is a controversial measurement. It's validity is questionable. It's been used or purposed to be used for truly horrible state sponsored actions in the past. I have a bias against using it for discrimination across populations, simply because of it's history and proponents over the years.
> They could start at, say $75,000 a year and go up by $25,000 increments every decade. The payments could expire if our geniuses decided to take paid employment but then resume if they decided to “drop out” again.
1. I don't think UBI expires, this is more like unemployment benefit which include perverse incentives against employment.
2. IQ is a controversial measurement. It's validity is questionable. It's been used or purposed to be used for truly horrible state sponsored actions in the past. I have a bias against using it for discrimination across populations, simply because of it's history and proponents over the years.
> Children who score [IQ]145 or above would then be offered a life-long genius award.
Sounds like it would create MASSIVE incentives to cheat on the IQ test or pay off the graders to give you a good score as well
It would literally set your kids up for life
Sounds like it would create MASSIVE incentives to cheat on the IQ test or pay off the graders to give you a good score as well
It would literally set your kids up for life
Also, it doesn't have to be overt "cheating": I suspect that whatever metric(s) would be both defined and gamed by the affluent, like college admissions criteria.
This is the only cogent criticism I can find in this thread. I'm predisposed to like the proposal, but I don't really have a good response for you.
On the other hand, don't most IQ tests have elaborate anti-cheating mechanisms? E.g., handwriting an ungraded written portion?
On the other hand, don't most IQ tests have elaborate anti-cheating mechanisms? E.g., handwriting an ungraded written portion?
That sounds a lot more like the SAT. That was also supposed to have anti-cheating measures and be resistant to the practice effect. Yet, students who take SAT prep often end up scoring higher (but dramatically higher) than those that did not take such prep courses.
It seems perfectly plausible that repeatedly taking IQ tests would likely result in a higher score due to practice and familiarity. Especially if there is a significant financial incentive involved and someone is on the border of qualifying for it.
It seems perfectly plausible that repeatedly taking IQ tests would likely result in a higher score due to practice and familiarity. Especially if there is a significant financial incentive involved and someone is on the border of qualifying for it.
LSAT does this as well, and it's generally accepted as an IQ test rather than a knowledge test.
I'm not concerned with trainability. Lots of minimum bars are trainable, like the bar exam, or the Marine Corps PFT/IST. The fact that they're trainable doesn't mean the measures are invalid w/r/t minimum competence as a lawyer, or minimum fitness as a Marine. Similarly, I don't think trainability on tests of logical reasoning, pattern recognition, reading comprehension, memory, etc. necessarily meaningfully reduces the effectiveness of the tests that measure such things. On the contrary, I think it shows that intelligence increases when exercised.
I'm not concerned with trainability. Lots of minimum bars are trainable, like the bar exam, or the Marine Corps PFT/IST. The fact that they're trainable doesn't mean the measures are invalid w/r/t minimum competence as a lawyer, or minimum fitness as a Marine. Similarly, I don't think trainability on tests of logical reasoning, pattern recognition, reading comprehension, memory, etc. necessarily meaningfully reduces the effectiveness of the tests that measure such things. On the contrary, I think it shows that intelligence increases when exercised.
You insinuate you have a high IQ and that is the only cogent critisms you can find here.
[deleted]
> "IQ is a controversial measurement. It's validity is questionable."
IQ is the most reproducible finding in psychology and psychometrics by far.
IQ is the most reproducible finding in psychology and psychometrics by far.
I would argue that The Big Five personality traits is just as reproducible but with a much higher construct validity than IQ. It measures a similar thing in a similar way, in that it's an abstract concept about human psychology (personality and intelligence) that is measured with questionnaires.
There's good science in Psychology, even if the field as a whole is suffering the replication crisis. Some parts of cognitive psychology such as studies in reaction times, memory, and perception are very reproducible. Classic conditioning is a standard in animal training.
Psychology as a whole has a bed reputation, and it has received solid criticism. I think a lot of it has to do with a few high profile frauds, bad translational science (theory to application), perverse publication incentives in academia, and the tendency for non-scientist to use questionable findings to justify their opinions.
There's good science in Psychology, even if the field as a whole is suffering the replication crisis. Some parts of cognitive psychology such as studies in reaction times, memory, and perception are very reproducible. Classic conditioning is a standard in animal training.
Psychology as a whole has a bed reputation, and it has received solid criticism. I think a lot of it has to do with a few high profile frauds, bad translational science (theory to application), perverse publication incentives in academia, and the tendency for non-scientist to use questionable findings to justify their opinions.
It's also one of the most poisoned by history. It has, for instance, been used in eugenics movements and forced sterilizations in the US.
It is influenced by all sorts of factors, from parental income to nutrition.
My family has folks in psych, and they universally regard IQ as "pretty bad, but useful for roughly measuring one form of intelligence".
It is influenced by all sorts of factors, from parental income to nutrition.
My family has folks in psych, and they universally regard IQ as "pretty bad, but useful for roughly measuring one form of intelligence".
> It's also one of the most poisoned by history. It has, for instance, been used in eugenics movements and forced sterilizations in the US.
What a weird line of reasoning. So are rocket propulsion, gold, and English language.
What a weird line of reasoning. So are rocket propulsion, gold, and English language.
rocket propulsion has been used in forced sterilizations?
It was developed as a weapon. I guess the parent is saying IQ tests are also a weapon that has found some not weapon uses?
please refer to the "reliability and validity" section contained herein https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
It's a much more complicated topic than your comment would suggest. The very definition of "intelligence" in regards to the iq test is fuzzy and ill -defined.
Not to mention that Alfie Binet (created the iq test) believed the test itself to be insufficient, and asserted that any true measure of intelligence could not be quantitative.
It's a much more complicated topic than your comment would suggest. The very definition of "intelligence" in regards to the iq test is fuzzy and ill -defined.
Not to mention that Alfie Binet (created the iq test) believed the test itself to be insufficient, and asserted that any true measure of intelligence could not be quantitative.
Please don't use Wikipedia to argue your points. We should all be beyond that. It's not a source.
The references in the article might be good sources, but they too often do not actually support the article.
The references in the article might be good sources, but they too often do not actually support the article.
> most reproducible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect?wprov=sfla1
you must be joking right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect?wprov=sfla1
you must be joking right
That's a very incestious way of looking at it. Psychometrics in itself starts off with an a priori assumption that mental capabilities (and implied, human value) can be measured. One can always introduce another metric, say Integrity-Quotient, and then develop the test for it. Now we not only have this made-up metric, and its corresponding test (look at how objective it is), but now because it can be captured in a number, it is information in the narrowest computational sense. It's reproducibility is irrelevant in this dynamic. The positive trait (integrity) has now shriveled to fit the parameters of the machine.
This type of circularity is willful submission to the algorithm. We reduce the richness of human cognition only so it can be bureaucratized (e.g. tie it to some fiscal benefit like UBI). It is not fair in any humane (as opposed to mechanical) sense.
This type of circularity is willful submission to the algorithm. We reduce the richness of human cognition only so it can be bureaucratized (e.g. tie it to some fiscal benefit like UBI). It is not fair in any humane (as opposed to mechanical) sense.
I have no idea what you could be possibly referring to. IQ is known to be susceptible to practicing the exams. IQ itself is measured w/ different tests that don't necessarily completely agree.
If the exams are known beforehand, the test is flawed. Notwithstanding, what people deem to be an expression of IQ requires practice anyway. At any rate I don't understand the value in the tests. They're redundant.
This only tells you in what dire conditions lay psychology and psychometrics.
IQ is only propaganda for an ideology.
IQ is only propaganda for an ideology.
Even as a High IQ person, if someone gave me this kind of money as a teenager, I would have spent half on liquor and wild women and the other half, I would have wasted…
Lex Fridman had an interesting podcast on IQ a few months ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hppbxV9C63g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hppbxV9C63g
> IQ is a controversial measurement. Its' validity is questionable.
There's a loud chorus saying that. Mostly they're making excuses for some racial group not doing well.
There's a loud chorus saying that. Mostly they're making excuses for some racial group not doing well.
Stephen Jay Gould wasn't making excuses.
This scheme seems extremely ripe for corruption. Essentially you are promising someone millions on a few tests... So just paying 50 thousand to get your child this status would setup them for life...
I'll go one step further, it's total BS. :)
I tested as a genius level IQ in elementary school. I went to special educational programs in grade 4-5, then a school with a stream just for "enrichment learning" (bused in with other kids) from grade 6-12.
I tried pot for the first time at 12, was a typical stoner at 15, and went into the intellectual pursuit of "working in a kitchen" until my mid-20s.
My family was financially and socially stable enough that I could move back home with my parents at get a degree in Computer Science when various medical conditions prevented me from working as a cook any longer. I would have had a minor in "Math" had my university handed those out (they started a year after I graduated).
I in no way excelled. I had a decent GPA but it was hard work and my mature student status that got me through that first year back and kept me in it to get a degree. I couldn't handle being in university any longer so I dropped out of the Masters program.
I have I had gone to university right out of High School I probably would have failed and gone on the same path. My genius IQ did not set me up for curing cancer. It set me up for "I don't have to study to do well in school" and let me figure out "I can stage in different kitchens to travel around and see the world while also in a job that doesn't care if I am high all the time".
Giving me a guaranteed income would have probably stifled even that little bit of ambition.
I do think there's room for giving kids who didn't have the millions of squandered advantages I had some financial help but it should not be based on IQ.
I tested as a genius level IQ in elementary school. I went to special educational programs in grade 4-5, then a school with a stream just for "enrichment learning" (bused in with other kids) from grade 6-12.
I tried pot for the first time at 12, was a typical stoner at 15, and went into the intellectual pursuit of "working in a kitchen" until my mid-20s.
My family was financially and socially stable enough that I could move back home with my parents at get a degree in Computer Science when various medical conditions prevented me from working as a cook any longer. I would have had a minor in "Math" had my university handed those out (they started a year after I graduated).
I in no way excelled. I had a decent GPA but it was hard work and my mature student status that got me through that first year back and kept me in it to get a degree. I couldn't handle being in university any longer so I dropped out of the Masters program.
I have I had gone to university right out of High School I probably would have failed and gone on the same path. My genius IQ did not set me up for curing cancer. It set me up for "I don't have to study to do well in school" and let me figure out "I can stage in different kitchens to travel around and see the world while also in a job that doesn't care if I am high all the time".
Giving me a guaranteed income would have probably stifled even that little bit of ambition.
I do think there's room for giving kids who didn't have the millions of squandered advantages I had some financial help but it should not be based on IQ.
Surely you understand that no matter what there will always be some amount of 130IQ+ people who languish their whole lives?
A program like this is focused on the disproportionate number of home runs it would produce, fully expecting some to strike out.
A program like this is focused on the disproportionate number of home runs it would produce, fully expecting some to strike out.
> Giving me a guaranteed income would have probably stifled even that little bit of ambition.
Well, are you still a cook now?
Well, are you still a cook now?
No, I manage a bunch of dev teams. I'm lucky to be where I am. I don't think gbi would have helped me, I already had a privileged existence. My family is not wealthy but we faced no really economic insecurity and were all decent people. I'd rather see money go to people who have potential but not all the advantages I had. I just think IQ is a terrible predictor of "will cure cancer and invent a warp drive".
IQ is the variable with most correlation for income at your 50s....
I have friends with extremely high IQ with a very similar path to yours...
I agree, the basic income should go elsewhere. Geniuses don't need it. Having a high IQ will guarantee you a privileged existence if you even apply yourself one little bit. Yeah, I know lots of high IQ people who are burn outs and do little-to-nothing for years on end... but that is also part of the privilege. They work when they want to.
[deleted]
Well, if you give everyone in your country a UBI, then all geniuses in your country will get a UBI. No (means) tests needed.
Doesn't even need to be that explicit. It would be no surprise to find out that the those managing the program that identifies "genius" discovers that genius runs in their families (and friends' families).
And the graduates of the "right" genius-test-prep programs.
Yeah it misses the whole point of “universal” programs. No gatekeepers, no forms, cheap to administer, and most importantly fair.
Also, keep in mind debates about embryonic selection are going on even as it is being offered as a service for a fee right now.
There's all sorts of things ethically questionable about this proposal. Even if the model of progress it's based on was correct, and even if there wasn't any fraud, there would be plenty of other problems with it.
There's all sorts of things ethically questionable about this proposal. Even if the model of progress it's based on was correct, and even if there wasn't any fraud, there would be plenty of other problems with it.
UBI for geniuses might work something like this. Schoolchildren would be given a succession of IQ tests during their schoolyears: IQ tests because they are the best method we have of assessing raw intellectual ability rather than school learning. A succession because everybody can have an off day — the physicist Richard Feynman liked telling people that he had only scored 124 in an IQ test. Children who score 145 or above would then be offered a life-long genius award.
These people have no idea what they are talking about.
IQ tests are tools. In order to properly assess very high IQ children or twice exceptional -- gifted and disabled -- children, they need to be administered by a qualified professional. Most IQ tests only go to 145. Very high IQs can only be meaningfully assessed by about age 7.
If the tests get overused and it becomes common knowledge what is on them, they stop being useful metrics because now they can be gamed, essentially. Last I heard, we were having trouble updating our IQ tests for various reasons and, also, IQ tests are highly culturally biased. An IQ test for Americans won't effectively assess a Brit or Canadian.
IQ tests are extremely controversial. The first test, created by Binet, that became the starting point of modern IQ tests was not intended to assess intelligence. It was intended to assess school readiness in children in France in an era where not all kids had birth certificates, so you couldn't use age as your metric, and rural kids tended to be less ready for public school than city kids for cultural reasons.
These people have no idea what they are talking about.
IQ tests are tools. In order to properly assess very high IQ children or twice exceptional -- gifted and disabled -- children, they need to be administered by a qualified professional. Most IQ tests only go to 145. Very high IQs can only be meaningfully assessed by about age 7.
If the tests get overused and it becomes common knowledge what is on them, they stop being useful metrics because now they can be gamed, essentially. Last I heard, we were having trouble updating our IQ tests for various reasons and, also, IQ tests are highly culturally biased. An IQ test for Americans won't effectively assess a Brit or Canadian.
IQ tests are extremely controversial. The first test, created by Binet, that became the starting point of modern IQ tests was not intended to assess intelligence. It was intended to assess school readiness in children in France in an era where not all kids had birth certificates, so you couldn't use age as your metric, and rural kids tended to be less ready for public school than city kids for cultural reasons.
> These people have no idea what they are talking about.
It's true, but despite that I think they are plausibly in the ballpark of a useful idea. Their particular implementation sucks, but what if an implementation included a decision making process where false/flawed "facts" were subjected to skilful review by other people.
In this case, each proposition asserted by the proponent could be rejected based on valid critiques from a diverse set of reviewers (here there is non-trivial complexity, but nothing insurmountable imho), and they could rework their recommendations to eliminate those flaws and return with an improved plan that would be subjected to the same process. After several rounds, I'd think this could produce better ideas, and over time I'd think people would get much better at it cutting the time it takes for iterations.
> If the tests get overused and it becomes common knowledge what is on them, they stop being useful metrics because now they can be gamed, essentially.
Under current approaches that mostly come from academia (not exactly the most diverse set of minds), and are subject to long iteration cycles - fund 100 startups to work on the problem and we may see better results.
Isn't it weird that we complain endlessly about poor results, and yet hardly anyone has strong feelings about doing things differently (if not outright scoff at the very idea)? I've read your posts for many years, please tell me that you can see this phenomenon all around us?
It's true, but despite that I think they are plausibly in the ballpark of a useful idea. Their particular implementation sucks, but what if an implementation included a decision making process where false/flawed "facts" were subjected to skilful review by other people.
In this case, each proposition asserted by the proponent could be rejected based on valid critiques from a diverse set of reviewers (here there is non-trivial complexity, but nothing insurmountable imho), and they could rework their recommendations to eliminate those flaws and return with an improved plan that would be subjected to the same process. After several rounds, I'd think this could produce better ideas, and over time I'd think people would get much better at it cutting the time it takes for iterations.
> If the tests get overused and it becomes common knowledge what is on them, they stop being useful metrics because now they can be gamed, essentially.
Under current approaches that mostly come from academia (not exactly the most diverse set of minds), and are subject to long iteration cycles - fund 100 startups to work on the problem and we may see better results.
Isn't it weird that we complain endlessly about poor results, and yet hardly anyone has strong feelings about doing things differently (if not outright scoff at the very idea)? I've read your posts for many years, please tell me that you can see this phenomenon all around us?
It's true, but despite that I think they are plausibly in the ballpark of a useful idea.
I'm anti-UBI. I've been open about that for years.
I would like to bring back SROs* in walkable, mixed-used neighborhoods and improve public transit and cycling infrastructure, and make food stamps more or less a "You want them? Just ask." kind of thing. I think if we had sufficiently cheap housing where you could comfortably live without a car and you could be guaranteed to eat, that would be a better means to provide the social stability and social mobility that UBI proponents seem to be shooting for with what is, in my opinion, a thoroughly broken mental model for a long list of reasons.
There are already programs to grant "geniuses" money. I'm cool with that. Those programs generally seem to have a thorough selection process, something this article very much lacks.
If you are picking "the best of the best" from Harvard to give money to, you already know just about anyone at Harvard will do something useful with that money and not spend it on the oft joked about "hookers and cocaine" that some lottery winners more or less actually do spend their money on.
We are awash in vast societal wealth. We need to find better ways to put in a floor for "everybody" (while recognizing that no matter what you do, some people will be "problem children" and you will need to find ways to cut them out so as to try to force them to behave) while making sure we aren't destroying society in the process.
I do not believe this idea of just passing out cash for supposed "genius" based on IQ tests has any merit at all. The historical examples cited in the article as things that worked well for that place and time were not examples of passing out cash for "smarts." It was passing out cash to smart people who did things.
Yes, on the one hand, people gotta eat and yadda. On the other hand, there is the Duke Nukem Forever phenomenon where seemingly endless cash meant that they didn't ship until the company was nearly broke again.
Money can be very useful stuff. Lots of problems don't budge merely because you throw money at them.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
Isn't it weird that we complain endlessly about poor results, and yet hardly anyone has strong feelings about doing things differently (if not outright scoff at the very idea)? I've read your posts for many years, please tell me that you can see this phenomenon all around us?
I don't actually understand what you are asking. You would need to clarify.
I'm anti-UBI. I've been open about that for years.
I would like to bring back SROs* in walkable, mixed-used neighborhoods and improve public transit and cycling infrastructure, and make food stamps more or less a "You want them? Just ask." kind of thing. I think if we had sufficiently cheap housing where you could comfortably live without a car and you could be guaranteed to eat, that would be a better means to provide the social stability and social mobility that UBI proponents seem to be shooting for with what is, in my opinion, a thoroughly broken mental model for a long list of reasons.
There are already programs to grant "geniuses" money. I'm cool with that. Those programs generally seem to have a thorough selection process, something this article very much lacks.
If you are picking "the best of the best" from Harvard to give money to, you already know just about anyone at Harvard will do something useful with that money and not spend it on the oft joked about "hookers and cocaine" that some lottery winners more or less actually do spend their money on.
We are awash in vast societal wealth. We need to find better ways to put in a floor for "everybody" (while recognizing that no matter what you do, some people will be "problem children" and you will need to find ways to cut them out so as to try to force them to behave) while making sure we aren't destroying society in the process.
I do not believe this idea of just passing out cash for supposed "genius" based on IQ tests has any merit at all. The historical examples cited in the article as things that worked well for that place and time were not examples of passing out cash for "smarts." It was passing out cash to smart people who did things.
Yes, on the one hand, people gotta eat and yadda. On the other hand, there is the Duke Nukem Forever phenomenon where seemingly endless cash meant that they didn't ship until the company was nearly broke again.
Money can be very useful stuff. Lots of problems don't budge merely because you throw money at them.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
Isn't it weird that we complain endlessly about poor results, and yet hardly anyone has strong feelings about doing things differently (if not outright scoff at the very idea)? I've read your posts for many years, please tell me that you can see this phenomenon all around us?
I don't actually understand what you are asking. You would need to clarify.
> I would like to bring back SROs* in walkable, mixed-used neighborhoods and improve public transit and cycling infrastructure, and make food stamps more or less a "You want them? Just ask." kind of thing. I think if we had sufficiently cheap housing where you could comfortably live without a car and you could be guaranteed to eat, that would be a better means to provide the social stability and social mobility that UBI proponents seem to be shooting for with what is, in my opinion, a thoroughly broken mental model for a long list of reasons.
Ya, I am a HUGE fan of reconsidering fundamentals.
Have you ever noticed that almost no one considers the current way we do things to be immutable, as if it had been passed down from God himself? Like when people are talking about what we should do about homeless people, and how we can't house them because that would cost too much money.....like, might it be possible that there's something in between sleeping on the sidewalk and a condo? If we were to look around the world or even in our own history, might we notice that there is a broad spectrum of forms of housing? This very simple principle applies everywhere - I swear, it seems to me like I live on a planet of walking zombies with a thin layer of personality over top. If people just arrived here on Earth (but with the same computational horsepower), do you think everyone would find things as acceptable and non-batshit-insane as they do now, after slowly simmering in this insane broth for an entire lifetime?
> There are already programs to grant "geniuses" money. I'm cool with that. Those programs generally seem to have a thorough selection process, something this article very much lacks.
And what do they produce: more of the same, well within the boundaries of the Overton Window.
> We are awash in vast societal wealth. We need to find better ways to put in a floor for "everybody" (while recognizing that no matter what you do, some people will be "problem children" and you will need to find ways to cut them out so as to try to force them to behave) while making sure we aren't destroying society in the process.
You should come visit Canada - here, we "are" "better" than the Americans with their small-minded selfishness....meanwhile, our super duper "free" medical system is falling apart, people are dying in hallways waiting for treatment, tent cities are now common across the country, and so forth and so on. Simultaneously, 30% or so of the population have become (multi-)millionaires based on being in the right place at the right time: buying real estate. And the kicker: no capital gains tax for one's primary residence - that is considered craaaaaaaazy to both rich and poor, whereas having to kick 40% of your hard earned income into the kitty is "just common sense, thou shalt not question it".
> I don't actually understand what you are asking. You would need to clarify.
As far as I can tell: not only do humans have near zero self-awareness, they have an extremely strong aversion to the very notion.
I believe things are much worse than they appear on the surface - were it not for the boosts we've enjoyed from science, engineering, plentiful commodities (a state of affairs that is not guaranteed), and formerly "ok" leadership, I think we'd be much more fucked than we are....a situation that I believe we are going to see start to seriously manifest in the next few decades, if not sooner. I would not be surprised if things started unravelling even in the next few years.
Ya, I am a HUGE fan of reconsidering fundamentals.
Have you ever noticed that almost no one considers the current way we do things to be immutable, as if it had been passed down from God himself? Like when people are talking about what we should do about homeless people, and how we can't house them because that would cost too much money.....like, might it be possible that there's something in between sleeping on the sidewalk and a condo? If we were to look around the world or even in our own history, might we notice that there is a broad spectrum of forms of housing? This very simple principle applies everywhere - I swear, it seems to me like I live on a planet of walking zombies with a thin layer of personality over top. If people just arrived here on Earth (but with the same computational horsepower), do you think everyone would find things as acceptable and non-batshit-insane as they do now, after slowly simmering in this insane broth for an entire lifetime?
> There are already programs to grant "geniuses" money. I'm cool with that. Those programs generally seem to have a thorough selection process, something this article very much lacks.
And what do they produce: more of the same, well within the boundaries of the Overton Window.
> We are awash in vast societal wealth. We need to find better ways to put in a floor for "everybody" (while recognizing that no matter what you do, some people will be "problem children" and you will need to find ways to cut them out so as to try to force them to behave) while making sure we aren't destroying society in the process.
You should come visit Canada - here, we "are" "better" than the Americans with their small-minded selfishness....meanwhile, our super duper "free" medical system is falling apart, people are dying in hallways waiting for treatment, tent cities are now common across the country, and so forth and so on. Simultaneously, 30% or so of the population have become (multi-)millionaires based on being in the right place at the right time: buying real estate. And the kicker: no capital gains tax for one's primary residence - that is considered craaaaaaaazy to both rich and poor, whereas having to kick 40% of your hard earned income into the kitty is "just common sense, thou shalt not question it".
> I don't actually understand what you are asking. You would need to clarify.
As far as I can tell: not only do humans have near zero self-awareness, they have an extremely strong aversion to the very notion.
I believe things are much worse than they appear on the surface - were it not for the boosts we've enjoyed from science, engineering, plentiful commodities (a state of affairs that is not guaranteed), and formerly "ok" leadership, I think we'd be much more fucked than we are....a situation that I believe we are going to see start to seriously manifest in the next few decades, if not sooner. I would not be surprised if things started unravelling even in the next few years.
Like when people are talking about what we should do about homeless people, and how we can't house them because that would cost too much money.....like, might it be possible that there's something in between sleeping on the sidewalk and a condo?
Homelessness is a complex topic. It's hard to wrap one's brain around it. Trying to adequately analyze a complex topic and then effectively communicate about it with people who haven't studied it the way you have for years is actually, like, hard.
People want to think it's not. Unlike, say, Physics, they want to think something social like that is simple to understand or whatever. It's really not.
My answer to something "between the sidewalk and a condo" is updating the concept of the SRO and bringing them back. We've torn down about a million of them in the US in recent decades.
And what do they produce: more of the same, well within the boundaries of the Overton Window.
Yet another reason to not want to pay people merely to "be smart." Solid solutions typically come from the margins and from people directly impacted by the pain points enough that they have skin in the game and can't just walk away, no matter how much they might wish they could.
our super duper "free" medical system is falling apart
Health care and medical care are not the same thing. There is vast room for improvement in non-medical health care which has tremendous potential to alleviate some of the stressors on modern medical systems while improving quality of life and reducing costs.
I believe things are much worse than they appear on the surface
I'm an optimist whose father fought in the front lines of two wars -- including WW2 -- and was decorated both times. Humans have faced potentially world-ending crises before and risen to the occasion. I see no reason why it can't be done again.
I've studied what we (in the US) did for WW2 and I don't see any reason we can't do a lot of those things again. We raised Victory Gardens. We made work spaces female-friendly with on-site daycare and such. We converted all our efforts to solving the problem and it got solved and the prosperity of the 50s and 60s was rooted in what we did during the war.
We did a whole lot and I get tired of trying to repeat it. It's the kind of thing you can write entire books about and still miss stuff and a comment on a forum never does it justice and is exhausting to write.
Homelessness is a complex topic. It's hard to wrap one's brain around it. Trying to adequately analyze a complex topic and then effectively communicate about it with people who haven't studied it the way you have for years is actually, like, hard.
People want to think it's not. Unlike, say, Physics, they want to think something social like that is simple to understand or whatever. It's really not.
My answer to something "between the sidewalk and a condo" is updating the concept of the SRO and bringing them back. We've torn down about a million of them in the US in recent decades.
And what do they produce: more of the same, well within the boundaries of the Overton Window.
Yet another reason to not want to pay people merely to "be smart." Solid solutions typically come from the margins and from people directly impacted by the pain points enough that they have skin in the game and can't just walk away, no matter how much they might wish they could.
our super duper "free" medical system is falling apart
Health care and medical care are not the same thing. There is vast room for improvement in non-medical health care which has tremendous potential to alleviate some of the stressors on modern medical systems while improving quality of life and reducing costs.
I believe things are much worse than they appear on the surface
I'm an optimist whose father fought in the front lines of two wars -- including WW2 -- and was decorated both times. Humans have faced potentially world-ending crises before and risen to the occasion. I see no reason why it can't be done again.
I've studied what we (in the US) did for WW2 and I don't see any reason we can't do a lot of those things again. We raised Victory Gardens. We made work spaces female-friendly with on-site daycare and such. We converted all our efforts to solving the problem and it got solved and the prosperity of the 50s and 60s was rooted in what we did during the war.
We did a whole lot and I get tired of trying to repeat it. It's the kind of thing you can write entire books about and still miss stuff and a comment on a forum never does it justice and is exhausting to write.
> Homelessness is a complex topic. It's hard to wrap one's brain around it. Trying to adequately analyze a complex topic and then effectively communicate about it with people who haven't studied it the way you have for years is actually, like, hard.
Reading, writing, and arithmetic also used to be hard, until we started teaching people how to do it. Perhaps thinking is similar? (Sorry for the animosity, I'm angry at the system, not you.)
> People want to think it's not. Unlike, say, Physics, they want to think something social like that is simple to understand or whatever. It's really not.
I wonder if our love affair with science that works in a (relatively) simple, deterministic problem space might have stunted our ability to realize the complexity we're swimming in. I think it would be hilarious if by jumping out of the frying pan that is religion, we've ended up in the fire of another delusional ideology.
> My answer to something "between the sidewalk and a condo" is updating the concept of the SRO and bringing them back. We've torn down about a million of them in the US in recent decades.
Agree, but I think it may be useful to set aside some cycles for considering associated phenomena: why can so few people understand that cost of solutions is a super big deal? I agree that things like SROs are rarely discussed...but why is this the case? Why can smart people not realize the significance in this scenario (cost control is taken very, very seriously during implementation design elsewhere)?
Or more generically: what is it about the mind that causes it to execute computation so differently depending on the topic of discussion, and why can so few people recognize this phenomenon (why does the mind refuse to examine itself)?
> Yet another reason to not want to pay people merely to "be smart." Solid solutions typically come from the margins and from people directly impacted by the pain points enough that they have skin in the game and can't just walk away, no matter how much they might wish they could.
Yup....yet we continue to do the opposite of what is obviously smart.
> Health care and medical care are not the same thing. There is vast room for improvement in non-medical health care which has tremendous potential to alleviate some of the stressors on modern medical systems while improving quality of life and reducing costs.
Agree, but the end result remains: our super duper "free" medical system is falling apart.
> I'm an optimist whose father fought in the front lines of two wars -- including WW2 -- and was decorated both times. Humans have faced potentially world-ending crises before and risen to the occasion. I see no reason why it can't be done again.
I worry that we are (currently) not adequately the same as we used to be. It's true that the laws of physics don't stop us, but there certainly seems to be some kind of force(s) in play that render us incapable of getting out of the trap we've maneuvered ourselves into, and seem intent on staying in (shitposting on the internet about the members of your ideological outgroups may seem like doing something positive, but I suspect it is not actually).
> I've studied what we (in the US) did for WW2 and I don't see any reason we can't do a lot of those things again. We raised Victory Gardens. We made work spaces female-friendly with on-site daycare and such. We converted all our efforts to solving the problem and it got solved and the prosperity of the 50s and 60s was rooted in what we did during the war.
Simplistically:
Step 1: set a goal.
Step 2: achieve that goal.
Not working? Add Step 0: be actually serious, stop communicating in the form of truthy but not actually true statements, like we do with great success in science, engineering, etc.
> We did a whole lot and I get tired of trying to repeat it. It's the kind of thing you can write entire books about and still miss stuff and a comment on a forum never does it justice and is exhausting to write.
I wonder: are internet forums the peak of human communication? Perhaps we haven't maxed out what is possible.
Reading, writing, and arithmetic also used to be hard, until we started teaching people how to do it. Perhaps thinking is similar? (Sorry for the animosity, I'm angry at the system, not you.)
> People want to think it's not. Unlike, say, Physics, they want to think something social like that is simple to understand or whatever. It's really not.
I wonder if our love affair with science that works in a (relatively) simple, deterministic problem space might have stunted our ability to realize the complexity we're swimming in. I think it would be hilarious if by jumping out of the frying pan that is religion, we've ended up in the fire of another delusional ideology.
> My answer to something "between the sidewalk and a condo" is updating the concept of the SRO and bringing them back. We've torn down about a million of them in the US in recent decades.
Agree, but I think it may be useful to set aside some cycles for considering associated phenomena: why can so few people understand that cost of solutions is a super big deal? I agree that things like SROs are rarely discussed...but why is this the case? Why can smart people not realize the significance in this scenario (cost control is taken very, very seriously during implementation design elsewhere)?
Or more generically: what is it about the mind that causes it to execute computation so differently depending on the topic of discussion, and why can so few people recognize this phenomenon (why does the mind refuse to examine itself)?
> Yet another reason to not want to pay people merely to "be smart." Solid solutions typically come from the margins and from people directly impacted by the pain points enough that they have skin in the game and can't just walk away, no matter how much they might wish they could.
Yup....yet we continue to do the opposite of what is obviously smart.
> Health care and medical care are not the same thing. There is vast room for improvement in non-medical health care which has tremendous potential to alleviate some of the stressors on modern medical systems while improving quality of life and reducing costs.
Agree, but the end result remains: our super duper "free" medical system is falling apart.
> I'm an optimist whose father fought in the front lines of two wars -- including WW2 -- and was decorated both times. Humans have faced potentially world-ending crises before and risen to the occasion. I see no reason why it can't be done again.
I worry that we are (currently) not adequately the same as we used to be. It's true that the laws of physics don't stop us, but there certainly seems to be some kind of force(s) in play that render us incapable of getting out of the trap we've maneuvered ourselves into, and seem intent on staying in (shitposting on the internet about the members of your ideological outgroups may seem like doing something positive, but I suspect it is not actually).
> I've studied what we (in the US) did for WW2 and I don't see any reason we can't do a lot of those things again. We raised Victory Gardens. We made work spaces female-friendly with on-site daycare and such. We converted all our efforts to solving the problem and it got solved and the prosperity of the 50s and 60s was rooted in what we did during the war.
Simplistically:
Step 1: set a goal.
Step 2: achieve that goal.
Not working? Add Step 0: be actually serious, stop communicating in the form of truthy but not actually true statements, like we do with great success in science, engineering, etc.
> We did a whole lot and I get tired of trying to repeat it. It's the kind of thing you can write entire books about and still miss stuff and a comment on a forum never does it justice and is exhausting to write.
I wonder: are internet forums the peak of human communication? Perhaps we haven't maxed out what is possible.
(Sorry for the animosity, I'm angry at the system, not you.)
I'm sort of amused and wondering if some detail failed to communicate effectively.
I've had a class on Homelessness and Public Policy as part of pursuing an unfinished Bachelor's in Environmental Resource Management with a Concentration in Housing as part of a plan to eventually get a Master's in Urban Planning. I've studied housing issues for years, both formally and informally, and I spent years homeless and I'm pretty happy with where I am on the topic and with my efforts to find a path forward.
Nonetheless, it remains challenging to try to effectively communicate with other people who don't have the background knowledge I have and be adequately succinct while effectively making a point. You need to master the lingo and figure out how to side-step language that just causes conversations to go pointlessly sideways and get nowhere and it's still actually hard work to do that.
I spend less time these days trying to talk at internet strangers on public forums (about housing issues/homelessness) and more time trying to flesh out Project: SRO. I think in the long run, that's a more effective use of my time that has some hope of accomplishing something, someday.
I'm sort of amused and wondering if some detail failed to communicate effectively.
I've had a class on Homelessness and Public Policy as part of pursuing an unfinished Bachelor's in Environmental Resource Management with a Concentration in Housing as part of a plan to eventually get a Master's in Urban Planning. I've studied housing issues for years, both formally and informally, and I spent years homeless and I'm pretty happy with where I am on the topic and with my efforts to find a path forward.
Nonetheless, it remains challenging to try to effectively communicate with other people who don't have the background knowledge I have and be adequately succinct while effectively making a point. You need to master the lingo and figure out how to side-step language that just causes conversations to go pointlessly sideways and get nowhere and it's still actually hard work to do that.
I spend less time these days trying to talk at internet strangers on public forums (about housing issues/homelessness) and more time trying to flesh out Project: SRO. I think in the long run, that's a more effective use of my time that has some hope of accomplishing something, someday.
Well I wish you luck, it is a good cause.
This is a really dumb idea. Perhaps the author of the article or idea would not qualify for this "universal" income.
A large problem with the decline in intellectual curiosity relates to the "teach to the test" mentality adopted in so many places where students are not encouraged to think about or reason through problems, only to regurgitate blurbs and numbers.
My kids went through a Montessori education from infancy until they were about 9-12 years old (can't remember). Under that philosophy, they learned whatever interested them at their own pace and they were not only allowed, but they mixed with kids older and younger so that all could play off of and learn from each other. Older kids mentored younger kids. The materials they worked with challenged them to think about the subject matter.
We moved them to a private school later and they were ahead of everyone in their grade level. Both are in college with one graduating with a MS this week and continuing to a PhD next spring and the other finishing up a BS.
I always felt under-utilized as a Dad resource because my kids almost never asked for help with their homework. I wanted to dig in and help them understand the materials they were covering. They didn't need my help because they had the mental tools to think through things on their own.
A large problem with the decline in intellectual curiosity relates to the "teach to the test" mentality adopted in so many places where students are not encouraged to think about or reason through problems, only to regurgitate blurbs and numbers.
My kids went through a Montessori education from infancy until they were about 9-12 years old (can't remember). Under that philosophy, they learned whatever interested them at their own pace and they were not only allowed, but they mixed with kids older and younger so that all could play off of and learn from each other. Older kids mentored younger kids. The materials they worked with challenged them to think about the subject matter.
We moved them to a private school later and they were ahead of everyone in their grade level. Both are in college with one graduating with a MS this week and continuing to a PhD next spring and the other finishing up a BS.
I always felt under-utilized as a Dad resource because my kids almost never asked for help with their homework. I wanted to dig in and help them understand the materials they were covering. They didn't need my help because they had the mental tools to think through things on their own.
What does the the word universal mean again?
Well UBI is a well established concept to create a more equal society, so let's steal the name and use it to create inequality. Brilliant!
That was my though as well.
Without touching the inequalities / corruption aspect, it would be closer to a research grant than a Universal basic income the way it is set up.
Then again, it's bloomberg.
Without touching the inequalities / corruption aspect, it would be closer to a research grant than a Universal basic income the way it is set up.
Then again, it's bloomberg.
It's either universal, no strings attached, unconditional or GTFO!
Unconditional free money for everyone. Nice story for 5 yo children, but not for those who have even the most basic of grasps on the history of the humankind.
Unconditional as in mousetrap cheese it will be.
Unconditional as in mousetrap cheese it will be.
Goodhart's Law [1] says that "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure".
This is a great thing to make every growing children to be trained / optimized for one or some specific things only.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
This is a great thing to make every growing children to be trained / optimized for one or some specific things only.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
- Stephen Jay Gould
- Stephen Jay Gould
This tugs at the heartstrings but it is more sentimental than substantial. Why not consider the number of people with potential and talent that would never discover it because they didn't need to work or apply themselves thanks to a UBI?
And there is no evidence a basic income would have altered that trajectory.
People with a particular drive are the ones who find a way.
There are smart people out there but a lot of them get into boring jobs because they are easy. They don’t particularly like difficult exploration.
Will some opportunities have been missed? Yes, but that’s life. Nature isn’t about maximizing everything.
People with a particular drive are the ones who find a way.
There are smart people out there but a lot of them get into boring jobs because they are easy. They don’t particularly like difficult exploration.
Will some opportunities have been missed? Yes, but that’s life. Nature isn’t about maximizing everything.
I'm no genius, but in a world where I was born in a nation with UBI (or just expected a fat inheritance) I would have taken that masters in Bioinformatics scholarship and continued my research instead of writing shit code so businesses can make money
Lots of people who graduated with me followed the same path for the same reason
Lots of people who graduated with me followed the same path for the same reason
> And there is no evidence a basic income would have altered that trajectory.
If one does not try something, should one expect there to be evidence of how well it works?
> People with a particular drive are the ones who find a way.
Tautological thinking can be useful, but it is a double edged sword.
> There are smart people out there but a lot of them get into boring jobs because they are easy. They don’t particularly like difficult exploration.
Agreed, perhaps there is a lack of instruction in how to think in an exploratory manner. Maybe we are too short term results oriented.
> Will some opportunities have been missed? Yes, but that’s life.
a) Confident delusional beliefs about free will aside, it is at least plausible that the state of affairs at any given snapshot in time is a consequence of our actions that preceded it.
b) People in relatively comfortable positions often are more comfortable with the current state of affairs than those who are not in a comfortable position.
> Nature isn’t about maximizing everything.
It also isn't (or doesn't have to be) about having no interest in optimizing the environment in a manner that benefits all people, but it seems this is the local maxima we're stuck at, for now.
If one does not try something, should one expect there to be evidence of how well it works?
> People with a particular drive are the ones who find a way.
Tautological thinking can be useful, but it is a double edged sword.
> There are smart people out there but a lot of them get into boring jobs because they are easy. They don’t particularly like difficult exploration.
Agreed, perhaps there is a lack of instruction in how to think in an exploratory manner. Maybe we are too short term results oriented.
> Will some opportunities have been missed? Yes, but that’s life.
a) Confident delusional beliefs about free will aside, it is at least plausible that the state of affairs at any given snapshot in time is a consequence of our actions that preceded it.
b) People in relatively comfortable positions often are more comfortable with the current state of affairs than those who are not in a comfortable position.
> Nature isn’t about maximizing everything.
It also isn't (or doesn't have to be) about having no interest in optimizing the environment in a manner that benefits all people, but it seems this is the local maxima we're stuck at, for now.
I don't disagree with much of anything you're saying. At the same time, I don't see UBI as a decent cure.
The market is imperfect (as we see it's attracting outsized talent to selling crass ads) and on the other hand, central planning/state enterprises (Soviet-style) also has shortcomings which are even worse --though they do well in developing talent for where it's needed (however they are bad at figuring out 'needs') and suffers from gross mismanagement in operations.
So, given the above, it would seem there is a place for a middle-ground somewhere, I just don't see the magic in UBI necessary to achieve that.
One option is what kind of exists in certain underattracted/underserved areas where the government underwrites someone's education in return for service. So there are grants one can receive in exchange for service commitment after graduation. Obviously you can't "play around" and try to figure out if you like something and then something else... You have to know what you want.
The market is imperfect (as we see it's attracting outsized talent to selling crass ads) and on the other hand, central planning/state enterprises (Soviet-style) also has shortcomings which are even worse --though they do well in developing talent for where it's needed (however they are bad at figuring out 'needs') and suffers from gross mismanagement in operations.
So, given the above, it would seem there is a place for a middle-ground somewhere, I just don't see the magic in UBI necessary to achieve that.
One option is what kind of exists in certain underattracted/underserved areas where the government underwrites someone's education in return for service. So there are grants one can receive in exchange for service commitment after graduation. Obviously you can't "play around" and try to figure out if you like something and then something else... You have to know what you want.
We don't disagree.....Doreen and I are chatting about some alternative approaches here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33881262
Fundamentally, we seem to be unable to consider whether our approach is wrong, never mind where we're going to get the money.
And as for me: I do not believe this to be an accident, and I do not believe it to be only those dirty Republicans / religious people: I think western culture itself is a fucking disaster that needs to be rewritten from the ground up.
Fundamentally, we seem to be unable to consider whether our approach is wrong, never mind where we're going to get the money.
And as for me: I do not believe this to be an accident, and I do not believe it to be only those dirty Republicans / religious people: I think western culture itself is a fucking disaster that needs to be rewritten from the ground up.
> And there is no evidence a basic income would have altered that trajectory.
There's no evidence either way. You're citing lack of evidence on something that's barely been tested, much less had enough time in the wild to have its effects studied.
There's no evidence either way. You're citing lack of evidence on something that's barely been tested, much less had enough time in the wild to have its effects studied.
UNIVERSAL
You keep using that world.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
You keep using that world.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
I'm strongly in favour of a UBI. It totally makes sense, at least in wealthy Western societies; there's a whole expensive bureaucracy involved in means testing, prosecuting welfare fraud, and so on.
But to make it work, it has to be Universal, i.e. everyone gets it automatically.
But to make it work, it has to be Universal, i.e. everyone gets it automatically.
I hate government welfare programs about as much as possible, but the "administrative overhead" arguments I see from UBI advocates really doesn't make much sense. The savings from eliminating most overhead in welfare programs isn't nearly as much money as most UBI advocates seem to think. Roughly 5% of the cost of the food stamp program in the US goes to administrative overhead. Social Security (which doesn't have means testing, the only requirement is age-based) spends ~0.6% on overhead. From what I can find about Medicaid, admin costs are generally around 5%. You'd only save ~$40 billion a year if you eliminated all administrative overhead for Medicaid (which is nothing to sneeze at, but it's nowhere near enough to fund a UBI).
Where are you getting the overhead numbers? Does that include non-reimbursed costs to beneficiaries that were eligible but not receiving due to bureaucracy? What about other externalities incurred in the process?
The SSA (and the agencies over various other welfare programs) publish overhead costs, etc. No idea if they account for the concerns you mentioned or not:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html
People are saying it's a benefit, nobody (maybe with the exception of an occasional misinformed internet commenter, but I don't think I've even seen that) is claiming the saving in reduced admin costs would fully fund UBI. And the fact it wouldn't fully fund it doesn't take away from the fact that saving billions and billions of wasted money wouldn't be a big side-benefit that helps reduce the cost.
UBI would be funded by increased taxation on the wealthiest, but the fact that the majority of current welfare admin costs would be saved reduces the amount of tax-based funding meaning that more benefit comes out of each dollar taxed.
UBI would be funded by increased taxation on the wealthiest, but the fact that the majority of current welfare admin costs would be saved reduces the amount of tax-based funding meaning that more benefit comes out of each dollar taxed.
I don't know how you fund UBI; I'm not an economist. But I know it can be done, because I know the government has funded some astonishlingly costly projects.
The thing about UBI is that it takes away financial terror from everyone; whatever happens, you won't have to beg on the pavement. Socialized health assures you that you won't be forced to sell your family's home if you get ill.
It's hard to measure the value of these social goods, so they don't get measured. But they are undeniably goods.
The thing about UBI is that it takes away financial terror from everyone; whatever happens, you won't have to beg on the pavement. Socialized health assures you that you won't be forced to sell your family's home if you get ill.
It's hard to measure the value of these social goods, so they don't get measured. But they are undeniably goods.
Well, this article is certainly an example of cognitive decline it's talking about. Why would society want to encourage geniuses to work less thanks to welfare?
UBI does have several purposes worth considering:
- If people are in a temporary crisis, giving them enough spending money to live in a dorm and eat rice and lentils can let them recover rather than the crisis becoming worse and more permanent due to traumatic life experiences.
- Some adults are permanently incapable of fully supporting themselves through commercial employment. Could be because of physical or mental disability, or just a 50 year old coal miner too old to learn new marketable skills. So instead of having a fraction of the population be angry, miserable and fomenting trouble, we offer them an early retirement/semi-retirement. Let robots work for you, enjoy!
But that's at best a necessary evil, with many side effects. For example, when these functions are taken up by voluntary institutions, aid recipients are incentivized to not bite the hand that feeds them and to support themselves or pay it forward to the largest degree possible. The last thing we want to do is to impose dependency on people who least need it and are most able to benefit the rest of us through their hard work. Get all the obstacles out of their way, let them get their foot in the door through apprenticeships if college is not a good option and let them shine!
UBI does have several purposes worth considering:
- If people are in a temporary crisis, giving them enough spending money to live in a dorm and eat rice and lentils can let them recover rather than the crisis becoming worse and more permanent due to traumatic life experiences.
- Some adults are permanently incapable of fully supporting themselves through commercial employment. Could be because of physical or mental disability, or just a 50 year old coal miner too old to learn new marketable skills. So instead of having a fraction of the population be angry, miserable and fomenting trouble, we offer them an early retirement/semi-retirement. Let robots work for you, enjoy!
But that's at best a necessary evil, with many side effects. For example, when these functions are taken up by voluntary institutions, aid recipients are incentivized to not bite the hand that feeds them and to support themselves or pay it forward to the largest degree possible. The last thing we want to do is to impose dependency on people who least need it and are most able to benefit the rest of us through their hard work. Get all the obstacles out of their way, let them get their foot in the door through apprenticeships if college is not a good option and let them shine!
As a little twist on the author's badly thought out proposal, what if we simply take the NSF scheme for doling out funding and make it more broadly available. Each year (or every few years) you can submit a proposal about what you plan to do if you're given a UBI, it will go through peer-review, and about 6 months later you'll get a notification if you were selected for funding or not.
Hell, as a PI currently writing a bunch of NSF proposals this doesn't sound half bad to me.
Hell, as a PI currently writing a bunch of NSF proposals this doesn't sound half bad to me.
Want more geniuses? Challenge kids to solve real and useful problems. If we can teach kids to code, and play in Chopin competitions, we can teach them surgery, higher math, engineering, and to be research assistants.
Are geniuses having trouble solving the problem of acquiring a basic income? The people behind this proposal can't be included, because the incentives of welfare traps and maintaining genius status to keep the payments coming is a perverse incentive. Look what publish or perish did to academia. It just created garbage factories. Also, the best way to get their ideas resented and ignored is to grant them privileges, and not necessarily because it's unjust, but because there is a basic human instinct to find irresponsibility and dependency in adults disgusting.
What we absolutely do know is that if you want to destroy group, give it welfare. Just like feeding wild animals who become dependent and get wiped out by scarcity, the most universally reliable way to create a failure to thrive is to substitute taking care of themselves with adapting to dependency. The best thing about this idea is that it we know whatever the right thing is, it's going to be the opposite of this.
Are geniuses having trouble solving the problem of acquiring a basic income? The people behind this proposal can't be included, because the incentives of welfare traps and maintaining genius status to keep the payments coming is a perverse incentive. Look what publish or perish did to academia. It just created garbage factories. Also, the best way to get their ideas resented and ignored is to grant them privileges, and not necessarily because it's unjust, but because there is a basic human instinct to find irresponsibility and dependency in adults disgusting.
What we absolutely do know is that if you want to destroy group, give it welfare. Just like feeding wild animals who become dependent and get wiped out by scarcity, the most universally reliable way to create a failure to thrive is to substitute taking care of themselves with adapting to dependency. The best thing about this idea is that it we know whatever the right thing is, it's going to be the opposite of this.
> Are geniuses having trouble solving the problem of acquiring a basic income?
I have 100% meet very smart (genius debatable) people that have trouble solving the problem of acquiring a basic income, or have to over invest time in pursuits beneath them. They usually share some of these common characteristic.
* Highly intrinsically motivated. External rewards like money or reputation don't factor into their decision making, or in some cases demotivate them.
* Social outsider. The usually show behavior a psychologist could diagnosis as a disorder.
* Self learner. They learn by reading or by doing, and very little is learned in a classroom or a group setting.
I have 100% meet very smart (genius debatable) people that have trouble solving the problem of acquiring a basic income, or have to over invest time in pursuits beneath them. They usually share some of these common characteristic.
* Highly intrinsically motivated. External rewards like money or reputation don't factor into their decision making, or in some cases demotivate them.
* Social outsider. The usually show behavior a psychologist could diagnosis as a disorder.
* Self learner. They learn by reading or by doing, and very little is learned in a classroom or a group setting.
I love the fact that people still unironically use the term "welfare trap", while we can see massive numbers of homeless and home insecure people all over America. People actually believing the bad faith constructed arguments of those with massive amounts of wealth and power actually make me believe America deserves to keep licking the boots of the 1% like dogs until we all die.
Welfare traps are most definitely a thing, but removing welfare is not the solution.
The solution is to remove restrictions like "we will only give you disability/medicare if you have less than $2000 in 'non-acceptable' assets", or "you can only get food stamps if you make less than $20k/yr" or any number of horribly terrible things we do that effectively give very poor people, in an economic sense, marginal tax rates much much greater than 100%.
Punishing people for making more money is never the solution. Honestly this is one reason why UBI is so enticing... any benefit that is abruptly taken away at any point creates these horrible incentives.
The solution is to remove restrictions like "we will only give you disability/medicare if you have less than $2000 in 'non-acceptable' assets", or "you can only get food stamps if you make less than $20k/yr" or any number of horribly terrible things we do that effectively give very poor people, in an economic sense, marginal tax rates much much greater than 100%.
Punishing people for making more money is never the solution. Honestly this is one reason why UBI is so enticing... any benefit that is abruptly taken away at any point creates these horrible incentives.
Yep. This is one of the big reasons in favor it UBI. It flattens the curve so people can try to get back on their feet without severe consequences of they fail.
I know someone who is on social security disability. They can't even save money to buy a car without losing their benefits. For medical reasons, they are unable to work a full-time job, but they could possibly work virtually part time. But if they even apply to a job they lose their benefits. And the amount they get from social security isn't even enough to pay housing and medical expenses, nevermind food. If they didn't have external support they'd be SOL.
I know someone who is on social security disability. They can't even save money to buy a car without losing their benefits. For medical reasons, they are unable to work a full-time job, but they could possibly work virtually part time. But if they even apply to a job they lose their benefits. And the amount they get from social security isn't even enough to pay housing and medical expenses, nevermind food. If they didn't have external support they'd be SOL.
See how long UBI lasts when someone uses it to support unpopular activities. Public arts funding was a great example, where the results can be best described as democratic. Even though I like some ideas around UBI, if it is conditional or otherwise not absolutely guaranteed, it's just dominion.
Same thing can be said of welfare in general. There are way too many people who would rather let everyone die than give "the wrong people" help.
Do you have any citations to back up your claim that "What we absolutely do know is that if you want to destroy group, give it welfare"?
That is not common knowledge where I am from and would like to see what scientific studies have determined.
At least for me personally, I doubt that would be true. Having a guaranteed basic support and healthcare for me family as a safety net would allow me to take more risks such as starting a company or joining a startup.
I know I have to spread out my vacation. If I take more than a few days at a time, I get bored and start tinkering on a hobby project.
That is not common knowledge where I am from and would like to see what scientific studies have determined.
At least for me personally, I doubt that would be true. Having a guaranteed basic support and healthcare for me family as a safety net would allow me to take more risks such as starting a company or joining a startup.
I know I have to spread out my vacation. If I take more than a few days at a time, I get bored and start tinkering on a hobby project.
It reminded me a sci-fi book by Strugatsky brothers (of Stalker/Roadside picnic fame) which is called "Monday begins of Saturday".
It's a funny novel about working in what were called Research Institutes(НИИ) in USSR. So all kinds of supposedly smart people were spending their lives there in order to advance "scientific progress". I see it as basically UBI but with some strings and bureucracy attached.
Depending who you ask, but it had so many problems.
Apart from the awkward misunderstanding of the word "universal", there are other issues with this proposal. For one, having a high IQ is neither necessary nor sufficient for making a major contribution to society. For a variety of reasons, most people with very high IQs never do anything important with it (in the sense of an invention, a company, a movement, a masterpiece, etc), and it's not because they lack a guaranteed income. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because IQ, vision, and motivation are three different qualities which are, at best, weakly correlated.
If you want to make your country better, make it easier for people with good ideas to get the resources to pursue them. For starters, make it easier to get grants. There are already projects trying to do this, but having 100x the resources wouldn't hurt.
If you want to make your country better, make it easier for people with good ideas to get the resources to pursue them. For starters, make it easier to get grants. There are already projects trying to do this, but having 100x the resources wouldn't hurt.
The problem is the current systems are getting less efficient at supporting geniuses financially :
- The Academic Genius (Scholarship -> Tenure) : Supposedly, you have minimal work schedule (the article is pointing to some worsening fault lines)
- The Entrepreneur Genius (VC funds -> Equity) : You supposedly work on what you "love". It its true that you have to be a somewhat business-genius too to navigate the system, but this did work for a lot of people in the last decades. Where are we heading? I don’t know.
- The employee Genius (Salary -> Social security): Well, ChatGPT is again stirring that panic : a lot of knowledge workers jobs may not be immune to automation (soonish). And Social security is not in a good shape.
- The Academic Genius (Scholarship -> Tenure) : Supposedly, you have minimal work schedule (the article is pointing to some worsening fault lines)
- The Entrepreneur Genius (VC funds -> Equity) : You supposedly work on what you "love". It its true that you have to be a somewhat business-genius too to navigate the system, but this did work for a lot of people in the last decades. Where are we heading? I don’t know.
- The employee Genius (Salary -> Social security): Well, ChatGPT is again stirring that panic : a lot of knowledge workers jobs may not be immune to automation (soonish). And Social security is not in a good shape.
Is the ChatGPT threat to knowledge workers an actual threat (let's say in the timeframe of a decade) or only a perceived one? I don't think at the current performance of ChatGPT and similar models are enough to displace genius knowledge workers. Although I could see the possibility of ChatGPT-like models allowing more work to be done by fewer knowledge workers. And in this scenario, there is no guarantee that an "unfound" genius makes it through the new system.
> are enough to displace genius knowledge workers
I was more referring to the genius that does routine employment work mostly to support himself (like for the cliche example: Einstein working in the patent office while preparing his theories).
> an actual threat (let's say in the timeframe of a decade) or only a perceived one?
This is a big question. chatGPT is pushing some buttons a lot faster than I thought. is it just a jolt? is there an AI winter on the horizon? The fact that these systems are still mostly magical black boxes does not help us predict. So, who knows?
I was more referring to the genius that does routine employment work mostly to support himself (like for the cliche example: Einstein working in the patent office while preparing his theories).
> an actual threat (let's say in the timeframe of a decade) or only a perceived one?
This is a big question. chatGPT is pushing some buttons a lot faster than I thought. is it just a jolt? is there an AI winter on the horizon? The fact that these systems are still mostly magical black boxes does not help us predict. So, who knows?
This is such an absurd suggestion that I'm convinced it's intended to sour public perception of UBI.
Much more important would be giving them (and others) the opportunities to realize their own potential even if they don't go on the exact path early in life. It's not impossible, but it is extremely difficult at the age of 26 to realize that marketing isn't for you and that your true calling is astrophysics. Our society typically sorts people at a young age, and there's no easy path out once you've been sorted (again, not impossible, but very difficult). I've met a number of remarkable people who were stuck in remedial jobs, but really excelled and took off when they finally got their break. They were lucky; many aren't.
I've seen people say things like "I despair at all of the Einsteins out there who are stuck plowing fields." But that sentiment is a bit of a cop out; the issue is made to be distant enough that we can relieve ourselves of a certain amount of responsibility. How about all of the Einsteins in our own society who are still stuck in the patent office?
I've seen people say things like "I despair at all of the Einsteins out there who are stuck plowing fields." But that sentiment is a bit of a cop out; the issue is made to be distant enough that we can relieve ourselves of a certain amount of responsibility. How about all of the Einsteins in our own society who are still stuck in the patent office?
Giving free money to most geniuses I know would result in morbid obesity of both them and their Steam libraries.
Genius doesn't produce much when motivation is lacking, and most geniuses I know just aren't very motivated. Many expend much of their energy wrestling various mental health challenges including anxiety, OCD, ADHD, sensory issues, etc, etc.
Genius doesn't produce much when motivation is lacking, and most geniuses I know just aren't very motivated. Many expend much of their energy wrestling various mental health challenges including anxiety, OCD, ADHD, sensory issues, etc, etc.
Give everyone a basic income.
If everyone had a basic income, nobody would need to work. Jobs would be obsolete. Just think how nice the country would be.
Yes, because no one ever wants to make more money once they are able to afford the bare necessities of food and shelter.
My grandfather quit his job the moment he could go on welfare and live in a rent-controlled apartment in NYC. He never worked again.
I think this is a pretty big logical fallacy. There are TONS of people right now, today, who never need to work another day in their life and could live in a cozy dry home with plenty of food and decent healthcare - even in the US. Not just Jeff B & Elon, but plenty of well-off 50 year olds who _could_ retire, but would much rather keep working for a while longer so that their retirement involves trips to europe and fun boats instead of a modest home and little travel.
Lots of people love their jobs, and love the things they can afford because they work harder than they strictly need to (me too! I definitely don't _need_ a nice espresso machine). Lots of start-up founders get into it because they genuinely want to make the world a better place, and the thought that they might be taking the blade from LGA and cruising around on a huge boat I'm sure doesn't hurt their desire to do the insanely hard work of starting a company.
My personal hot take is that capitalism's emphasis on coercion (you only get healthcare if you work, we sometimes worry that our biggest problem is $15/hour workers slacking off) blinds us to the fact that lots of (most?) us really enjoy our work and love having something to do all day that feels useful.
Lots of people love their jobs, and love the things they can afford because they work harder than they strictly need to (me too! I definitely don't _need_ a nice espresso machine). Lots of start-up founders get into it because they genuinely want to make the world a better place, and the thought that they might be taking the blade from LGA and cruising around on a huge boat I'm sure doesn't hurt their desire to do the insanely hard work of starting a company.
My personal hot take is that capitalism's emphasis on coercion (you only get healthcare if you work, we sometimes worry that our biggest problem is $15/hour workers slacking off) blinds us to the fact that lots of (most?) us really enjoy our work and love having something to do all day that feels useful.
I assume you're currently intentionally working the least hours at the laziest job you can for subsistence money.
You seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that first world lifestyles are only possible due to entire countries worth of third world slave labor.
Someone has to do all this yucky boring work and by golly it's not going to be me! Out of sight, out of mind.
Someone has to do all this yucky boring work and by golly it's not going to be me! Out of sight, out of mind.
I believe the word for this is "tenure".
I’d settle for universal basic healthcare at this point (US biased comment).
Great:
How do you now define genius?
What is the old saying? Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
I think we would have to first prove that the genius is going to provide something for us in some way, even if it is just research, it can not be frivolous research with no end in sight that does not produce.
Uh-oh, how do I show that we are doing research that will eventually produce something? Einstein noted that if we knew what we were doing, we would not call it research. So many great discoveries were accidental, but then how do I prevent the scammers from gaming the system?
How do you now define genius?
What is the old saying? Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
I think we would have to first prove that the genius is going to provide something for us in some way, even if it is just research, it can not be frivolous research with no end in sight that does not produce.
Uh-oh, how do I show that we are doing research that will eventually produce something? Einstein noted that if we knew what we were doing, we would not call it research. So many great discoveries were accidental, but then how do I prevent the scammers from gaming the system?
Yes let’s subsidize those that already won the genetic lottery, sounds like a great idea. Let’s give multi-millionaire trust fund babies UBI as while we are at it.
Well yes, give it to the trust fund babies, but also give it to everyone else too. That's the "universal" part of UBI. Once you take out the "universal" part it isn't UBI anymore.
No, let's not give it to just "geniuses".
Even as someone privileged enough to do very well on those tests while barely studying and picking up the knowledge through osmosis and curiosity, and who would find it a great relief to have a guaranteed stipend, I can hardly think of a worse idea. The immediate knock-on effects would make it a disaster at both a societal level and a personal level (just start with taking the existing resentments about 'elites' and turning them up to 11).
What is really needed is actual Universal Basic Income, with emphasis on the "Universal" - for everyone. Eliminate bureaucracy with it's overhead and inherent prejudices. We're an advanced society, just ensure everyone has enough for basic food, housing, & health. That'll intrinsically shut down many of the worst types of exploitation, and we wont' have to worry about releasing the potential of the 143-IQ vs the 147-IQ people, or the motivated 97-IQ person.
Even as someone privileged enough to do very well on those tests while barely studying and picking up the knowledge through osmosis and curiosity, and who would find it a great relief to have a guaranteed stipend, I can hardly think of a worse idea. The immediate knock-on effects would make it a disaster at both a societal level and a personal level (just start with taking the existing resentments about 'elites' and turning them up to 11).
What is really needed is actual Universal Basic Income, with emphasis on the "Universal" - for everyone. Eliminate bureaucracy with it's overhead and inherent prejudices. We're an advanced society, just ensure everyone has enough for basic food, housing, & health. That'll intrinsically shut down many of the worst types of exploitation, and we wont' have to worry about releasing the potential of the 143-IQ vs the 147-IQ people, or the motivated 97-IQ person.
Give everyone a ubi, sorting out the geniuses will never actually identify only the geniuses. And less smart people deserve basic human dignity. Just give it to everyone. I guarantee you people will still want to work.
That work might end up being more creative work and less "flipping burgers because if I don't take this job I will starve and die" work.
That work might end up being more creative work and less "flipping burgers because if I don't take this job I will starve and die" work.
The entire point is it's a universal basic income. Giving geniuses money is missing the entire point.
Hopefully, implementing Serge Saveliev's idea of cerebral sorting would give a way to detect geniuses in an evidence-based way. Unfortunately, this is still technically impossible (MRI resolution is still too low).
Another issue is that many would like their kids to become one of the geniuses, even if they're fake, as long as this gives them some advantages. Such people would reject the idea of cerebral sorting. Also, according to Saveliev, for ideological reasons neural science in the West hasn't advanced in mapping brain fields and sub-fields (postmortem slicing and photographing) as much as in USSR. That is even if one gets both Saveiliev and an hi-res MRI scanner from the future, the whole idea of sorting would be considered unacceptable for similar reasons.
Another issue is that many would like their kids to become one of the geniuses, even if they're fake, as long as this gives them some advantages. Such people would reject the idea of cerebral sorting. Also, according to Saveliev, for ideological reasons neural science in the West hasn't advanced in mapping brain fields and sub-fields (postmortem slicing and photographing) as much as in USSR. That is even if one gets both Saveiliev and an hi-res MRI scanner from the future, the whole idea of sorting would be considered unacceptable for similar reasons.
You won't actually give UBI to geniuses. You will give UBI to whomever bureaucratic machine deems as genius.
This article has it backwards.
> is why intellectual progress is stalling.
It's stalling specifically because of the "progress" we have made over the past 100 years. Welfare didn't exist back then. Government mandated schooling either.
These are the absolute reasons why we're getting dumber and dumber. You're a parrot at school, not thinking for yourself. You don't have to think or plan about food or housing, tomorrow or the next year - go and get a hand-out - free housing, free food.
Look at all the geniuses and their path to success. This is what we should be emulating. Obviously not all of us are geniuses, but continuing this path will ensure that none appear. UBI is only going to make it worse. Okay, that's my 2 minutes. I'm off, back to TikTok.
> is why intellectual progress is stalling.
It's stalling specifically because of the "progress" we have made over the past 100 years. Welfare didn't exist back then. Government mandated schooling either.
These are the absolute reasons why we're getting dumber and dumber. You're a parrot at school, not thinking for yourself. You don't have to think or plan about food or housing, tomorrow or the next year - go and get a hand-out - free housing, free food.
Look at all the geniuses and their path to success. This is what we should be emulating. Obviously not all of us are geniuses, but continuing this path will ensure that none appear. UBI is only going to make it worse. Okay, that's my 2 minutes. I'm off, back to TikTok.
[deleted]
This idea is like telling the absolutist kings to try a bit of democracy for a while; it's contrary to all the social policies in the last 20 years and contrary to the central tenets of equity. It won't happen for the same reason orchestra auditions aren't blind anymore.
> contrary to the central tenets of equity.
"Equity" is a concept in law: AIUI (IANAL) it mainly concerns trusts and contracts. The word is sometimes used as a synonym for "fairness", but I don't think something as vague as "fairness" has central tenets.
And I don't think there's anything unfair about a UBI, any more than universal healthcare, or a universal police service.
"Equity" is a concept in law: AIUI (IANAL) it mainly concerns trusts and contracts. The word is sometimes used as a synonym for "fairness", but I don't think something as vague as "fairness" has central tenets.
And I don't think there's anything unfair about a UBI, any more than universal healthcare, or a universal police service.
> but I don't think something as vague as "fairness" has central tenets.
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity
> Equity
> Eq"ui*ty (?), n.; pl. equities (#). [F. équité, L. aequitas, fr. aequus even, equal. See Equal.]
> 1. Equality of rights; natural justice or right; the giving, or desiring to give, to each man his due, according to reason, and the law of God to man; fairness in determination of conflicting claims; impartiality.
> [....]
> Syn. -- Right; justice; impartiality; rectitude; fairness; honesty; uprightness. See Justice.
That's Webster's 1913, so it's not a new usage. And it's what was chosen for definition #1 (the others are, as you note, lawyer jargon).
> Eq"ui*ty (?), n.; pl. equities (#). [F. équité, L. aequitas, fr. aequus even, equal. See Equal.]
> 1. Equality of rights; natural justice or right; the giving, or desiring to give, to each man his due, according to reason, and the law of God to man; fairness in determination of conflicting claims; impartiality.
> [....]
> Syn. -- Right; justice; impartiality; rectitude; fairness; honesty; uprightness. See Justice.
That's Webster's 1913, so it's not a new usage. And it's what was chosen for definition #1 (the others are, as you note, lawyer jargon).
This article does invite the question, "How best can a society maximize the potential of their untapped best and brightest?"
The first step is identifying them. Obviously an IQ test is a seriously dumb threshold. Untold numbers of high IQers have done nothing with their lives despite having myriad opportunities. (AFAIK, everyone famous only for extraordinary IQ has failed to excel otherwise, like Marilyn vos Savant.)
But the second criterion has to be: what is it about _some_ 'geniuses' that makes them disruptors and creators? That quality is surely more important to success than pure brainpower. Is it imagination? Is it independent thought?
The first step is identifying them. Obviously an IQ test is a seriously dumb threshold. Untold numbers of high IQers have done nothing with their lives despite having myriad opportunities. (AFAIK, everyone famous only for extraordinary IQ has failed to excel otherwise, like Marilyn vos Savant.)
But the second criterion has to be: what is it about _some_ 'geniuses' that makes them disruptors and creators? That quality is surely more important to success than pure brainpower. Is it imagination? Is it independent thought?
Also, bring these geniuses together in a space where they can experiment with expensive equipment. Call that space a "lab". And give them an office near that lab so they can work out new ideas.
Invest in education.
Create more geniuses, and more clever people in general.
Create more geniuses, and more clever people in general.
Want your company to thrive? Give geniuses 100% free time to work on their own projects.
By the way, do people at Google still get 1 day to work on their own projects?
By the way, do people at Google still get 1 day to work on their own projects?
This is huge mistake.
Really, progress driven by entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurs are special type of people, who constantly pursue something, which could change world.
And entrepreneurs don't need ubi, they need just freedom. Because main principle of business, to broke borders, mental, or physical, or legal, and sell people something, which they cannot buy inside their borders without help from some third party.
Really, progress driven by entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurs are special type of people, who constantly pursue something, which could change world.
And entrepreneurs don't need ubi, they need just freedom. Because main principle of business, to broke borders, mental, or physical, or legal, and sell people something, which they cannot buy inside their borders without help from some third party.
Forget geniuses... Figure out UBI for everyone or at least a better social net. Even non-geniuses start businesses or do interesting things when given some economic freedom.
Thriving countries have strong business investment, lots of small business startups (not just tech), high labour force participation, etc... Giving only geniuses money would just turn it into a strange technocracy...
Thriving countries have strong business investment, lots of small business startups (not just tech), high labour force participation, etc... Giving only geniuses money would just turn it into a strange technocracy...
Only thing from article, with which I agree, need good enough education for all, who want it (again, FREEDOM), but this is not the same target as ubi.
Unfortunately, in real life, many schools does not give really good education, and Universities in many cases instead of education, muster in young people into their religion.
Unfortunately, in real life, many schools does not give really good education, and Universities in many cases instead of education, muster in young people into their religion.
I’d heard that most entrepreneurs were children of wealthy individuals who have at least $20M, and the only good reason to not have extremely high estate taxes. I’m skeptical that a UBI will have the same effect. The entrepreneurs need to have resources to start a company without risk, not just resources to survive.
I disagree. We have scholarships, which force the geniuses to make use of their cognitive abilities in specific ways.
UBI can be used for anything, including staying at home, accumulating wealth by investing the money without giving back anything to society, etc.
Not all "intelligent" people are industrious.
UBI can be used for anything, including staying at home, accumulating wealth by investing the money without giving back anything to society, etc.
Not all "intelligent" people are industrious.
You should do this if you want intelligence testing to revert to whiteness testing. I can't wait for my government IQ test to require knowledge of How I Met Your Mother characters.
I feel like this scenario was already played out by the dystopian postapocalyptic Brazilian sci-fi show 3%.
I feel like this scenario was already played out by the dystopian postapocalyptic Brazilian sci-fi show 3%.
IQ tests are already extremely useful for upward mobility, but they haven't reverted to whiteness testing. White people, who invented most of the tests, aren't even the demographic that does the best on them.
"Universal". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The OP is more of a Genius Tax Credit... where I imagine a world where congress passes it with the stipulation that it's only for those making greater than $400K income.
The OP is more of a Genius Tax Credit... where I imagine a world where congress passes it with the stipulation that it's only for those making greater than $400K income.
Geniuses tend to make a shitload of money already. And when they dont, there is a reason.
Erm. This is why you have grad-school, and then tenure-track, and then finally, tenure.
At least in the U.S., modern academia has been slowly and quietly eliminating tenure.
Not that requiring geniuses to be career academics makes much sense, in any case.
Not that requiring geniuses to be career academics makes much sense, in any case.
To weed out those who can't afford all that education?
Reminds me of the great short story Manna. It has a much more idealistic and more be the book definition of “universal”.
https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
It's not universal then.
Elite and want to have a scapegoat?
Create a new class of "elites," give them everything they need, more than most people, and put all the spotlight on them.
If anything goes wrong, who's everyone gonna blame?
Create a new class of "elites," give them everything they need, more than most people, and put all the spotlight on them.
If anything goes wrong, who's everyone gonna blame?
One solution could be:
If you volunteered to be acknowledged as a genius, you must open your status. You wear special shakles which is salient and observable to everyone paying the resources directly or indirectly. You shouldn't be allowed to physically protect yourself to your surroundings or you lose the genius status. (or under some absolute physical restraint or suffering verifiable by everyone). Everyone could challenge you at court with sound evidences, which is judged by random sampled jury group by laws well established in future.
With that I could trust to give them "life long resources" to give us "prophecy".
If you volunteered to be acknowledged as a genius, you must open your status. You wear special shakles which is salient and observable to everyone paying the resources directly or indirectly. You shouldn't be allowed to physically protect yourself to your surroundings or you lose the genius status. (or under some absolute physical restraint or suffering verifiable by everyone). Everyone could challenge you at court with sound evidences, which is judged by random sampled jury group by laws well established in future.
With that I could trust to give them "life long resources" to give us "prophecy".
What the fuck is wrong with you?
"You shouldn't be allowed to physically protect yourself to your surroundings or you lose the genius status. (or under some absolute physical restraint or suffering verifiable by everyone)."
We've already effectively given people life long resources for nothing more than exiting the correct vagina. And you seem to want to make it legal to effectively freely harass nerds.
"You shouldn't be allowed to physically protect yourself to your surroundings or you lose the genius status. (or under some absolute physical restraint or suffering verifiable by everyone)."
We've already effectively given people life long resources for nothing more than exiting the correct vagina. And you seem to want to make it legal to effectively freely harass nerds.
I changed my mind. Give all same kind UBI is better idea. Otherwise "shakled genius" may find a way to jailbreak and cast wisdom of revenge on everyone else.
The title is wrong, should be: "Want Your Country to Implode? Give Geniuses a Universal Basic Income." Welfare states destroy families and cultures.
Can't read the article, but I highly doubt they have enough empirical backup for a plan that could influence society heavily, if any.
Archived: https://archive.ph/EYppA
How about we just get rid to the government/insurance/lobbyist collusion.
Geniuses... that must be the people at the "Genius Bar"?
So then the question is who defines who is genius.
This article was brought to you by Mensa.
Lol. And who chooses the geniuses?
lol no. Give everyone UBI.
Or give corrupt or fraudsters asylum like Britian does. Or sell visas to rich people like Canda and Australia do.
Western nations implemented UBI in 2020 and 2021 in the form of checks and loans and we are now living through the disastrous effects of UBI as the economy sputters and inflation and high prices lower our standard of living and make all of our lives worse. In short, UBI has been a complete disaster and is not a viable solution to any problem.
I didn't see any of those cheques or loans; perhaps "universal" doesn't include me.
[deleted]
No, that only happened in socialist countries. Nothing like that here.
Universal, everyone has it, same amount, no condition. Be a genius or an idiot, active or retired, poor or billionaire, hero or criminal, no exception, except maybe for minors.
Making it universal has the added bonus of simplifying welfare programs. Subsidized housing and transport, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc... no need, it is all UBI now. No more fraud because there is no need to: you always qualify, and as a result, no need to fight it. No more rewarding optimization since there is nothing to optimize.
In my view, UBI is not generous, there will be losers, and a lot of jobs related to welfare will be made pointless. It may be a problem for those who have trouble managing a budget too: what if you overspend you UBI and have nothing left to eat? I think it won't work not because people will stop working, but because it is too big a change and some people will find themselves literally starving, at least during the transition. It is like many solutions to complex problems: clear, simple and wrong.