I'm going to guess that the book doesn't even mention flying cars.

Corollary to above sage advice: Futurists are even worst than psychologists.

I'm going to go w/ the credentialed guy.

What credentials? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Ross_(author)

Predicting the future society/technology etc is very difficult business close to futile because most breakthroughs depend on a combination of hard to anticipate new openings that non linearly combine to give you edges that were not originally seen as plausible. Those create outcomes that themselves force new directions and chaos reigns for good eliminating any projections. You may get lucky if your projections go after some general trends or laws of physics or unavoidable statistical outcomes but only for a while.

In my case i am going to make an exception though because i am not trying to predict the future but bring it to us lol! (re; scientific society, solar system megastructures, very friendly AI and fusion from gas giants, life 2.0 etc).


"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it is about the future..." Niels Bohr.

It's good that you were straight-up with us. Beating around the bush is for under 100's.

Stupidity bashing thread.

What are the chances of an exceptionally talented, high IQ individual, suffering from serious mental illness? as compared to say - the average person? What are the costs of exceptional talent? If "professional achievement" is out of your reach, whatever that is, to what recourse do you have?

The rates of mental illness among the intelligent are substantially lower. This holds true in longitudinal studies as well, where IQ is measured at childhood. Which makes sense. Schizophrenia for example is the breakdown of cognition - if you have high highly functional cognition to begin with, you're more likely to survive things that impair it.

Intelligent people on average are all around better functioning, healthier people. And intelligence is correlated with higher emotional intelligence as well.

And no, it's not a stupidity bashing thread. I'm interested if Brian's rather out-there assertion that you can train people of average and lower intelligence to competently do cognitively difficult tasks is true. It's not, of course, but I'd like to see him defend it with reason or science.

How do you know?
Brian defending the stupid.
Many attacking the stupid.

Stupidity bashing thread.

Take a page out of Howard's book and don't beat around the bush.

Large numbers of epidemiological studies. Bipolar may be a possible exception, but overall, mental illness rates are inversely correlated with intelligence.

Brian is defending his stupid claims by making them even more stupid (he claims he can take someone's IQ from 100 to 120 "easily" - if so he should open a business doing just that)
What's with the weirdo social justice warrior stuff? It's ****ing bizarre. Can we not have a discussion about something without morons showing up and defending imaginery people in their head?

You're like a modern day Don Quixote, only more riduculous.

I am legitimately interested in the degree to which intelligence is essential in complex and abstract tasks and professions, and the degree to which it is trainable. It's a legitimate discussion whether you like it or not.

I've stated clearly that my assertion is that people with <100 IQ are cognitively incapable, regardless of training, of doing a large variety of complex abstract tasks with adequate skill. The harder the task, the lower the IQ, the more absolute this becomes.

It is this idea which I wish to discuss and perhaps be proven wrong on with facts and science. And now Don VeeDDz shows up, wailing and lowering his lance to take down the evil windmill.

If anything, greater awareness of the profound impact of low or even average intelligence on job competence is going to help the less intelligent, not hurt them. If Beale's book is right, society needs to be planning for this future. And you can't plan for something you don't see or deliberately ignore because in your weird little world, it's impolite.

I'm slightly above average if that and it took me ~five years of rigorous thinking/meditation/and tracing of past events to get a decent-enough understanding of how things work. most of it was developing a better plasticity rather than reaching effective conclusions, though obviously correlated.

+1 to ToothSayer. it's legitimately tough to form meaningful thoughts while growing up as an anxious kid. but the adaptable ones are able to minimize their deficits to the point of non factor.

Understanding in some substantial core sense the natural world or at least the way it feels at current scientific era to state that, is for me a source of peace and happiness that i can never lose no matter what happens to me short of losing my mind.

I consider it the benefit of having lived even if all else failed. It is enough to make it all plus.

IQ is helping get there but its not the only way or a sufficient condition. Great education does it as well. Personal effort also. This is why i will never deny anyone the probability to get to anything they dream. There is nothing more western than the faith in the power of the individual human spirit. And there is nobody more western than I.

A person of any intelligence in a proper world can be happy productive and remarkably unpredictably useful. That we do not live in that world is a sign we are not intelligent enough.

Synthesis in science in terms of new paradigms is a very tough business and you need as much natural intelligence help as possible. But the synthesis of happiness and fulfillment is entirely possible for most.

If Einstein (not one of the greatest IQs ever even if way up there) with his life taught us anything it is the way to do science, the way to synthesis. It will first pass from the "heart". If you love something enough you can explain it to anyone. You start with yourself.

His wiki page is broken. I'll have to get in touch w/ him to fix it.

We already have people doing just that. I've no interest in becoming an educator.

Your views, clearly outlined in the thread on the scientific method, are that these kinds of scientific studies are not to be trusted - for the most part. Assume Í agree with you, and assume that I don't believe most of these studies are to be trusted.

How do you know?

The cross-wind is strong, and no matter where we aim the boat, we will miss; the wind will always take us down a notch. We must therefore, as a collective, aim higher, to account for this.

We aren't aiming high when we spend more time contemplating the average or below average. We aren't aiming high when we spend our time seeking justification to further limit those we already consider limited. We aren't aiming high by narrowing our focus on the - what is - as opposed to the - what ought.

Your consistent failure to see that which I may "ignore" is the opposite of that which you ignore, is a failure of self-awareness. In your world, it is impossible to consider that you, of all people, may ignore some things as well.

Large numbers of studies are reliable, in aggregate.

Reliability also depends on priors. In this case, the null hypothesis is that intelligence and mental illness are inversely correlated. Just like athleticism and general illness are inversely correlated. Generally, superior functioning strongly correlates with lower levels of dysfunction in the same organs. When all the data backs that up as well, and no one is pushing an agenda or committing fraud or publication bias (such as in drug trials or social "science"), you have a reliable conclusion.

The epistemology here really isn't difficult or controversial.
I have no idea what any of this means. I object to your content-free social justice warrior wailing. Waaaaah! Mommy!!! He's being mean to the stupid people! That's so bad!!! Make it stop!

That's the level of your contribution so far in this thread.

And to the extent that you're getting on your moral high horse doing it, it makes you a nasty/horrible person. The kind of good intentions you're peddling tend to hurt the poor and the stupid and the underprivileged in the long run. Avoidance of uncomfortable reality helps no one, in fact it hurts, because we throw the wrong solutions at the problem by not understanding it.

I don't see any large studies showing an inverse relationship between IQ and mental illness. The bipolar thing makes some sense (but only for me in a post-hoc way) as it confirms my priors. They are work-hards, like all idiots.

I worked with comorbid adults (moderate to severe mental ******ation and mental illness) in the late 1980s, and there seems to be a link between them at least at that level. A totally ****ed up brain is totally ****ed up. Outliers will be outliers. "Ah, well, he isn't able to learn how to tie his shoes, and interestingly, he also eats lint so he has pica!" is the most uninteresting thing in the world.

I would expect that the correct a priori for those within the just-below-normal to high IQ range, that there is no relationship. My prior (from childhood experience) is that the smart kids nearly always are work-hards.

I'm pretty sure the conscientious tend to lead better and happier lives. I could be wrong though, I don't know research in this area. But conscientiousness is correlated strongly with income which is correlated with happiness.

That's a reasonable hypothesis. It would be interesting to see if the data supports it. From the graphs I've seen, I don't believe it does.
Right, just like the big tall athletic guys do far more exercise and training. Therefore, their advantage in sports comes from that exercise and training, and not genes? I don't buy it. I think you naturally work on what you're good at - if you're smart you work on that, if you have the genes for long legs and good muscles, you work on that.

Certainly there is an underclass that has no particular skills and so they study hard. But I'm not sure they fit in the smart category.

It isn't really possible to come up with a operational variable for "better."

What the income-happiness research shows is that income is related to life satisfaction (inherently a measure of you compared to others) but not to enjoyment of each day (how much laughing you do).

Research in this area is really hard to do.

Nah. If you are smart, you do the minimum to get by.

They score well on IQ tests, so there is that. No different than the omnipresent little angry dude who does crossfit.

I've never worked a job that I wasn't overqualified for. That isn't to say I've never worked in a job that didn't have a steep learning curve.

Based on my my experience, I'd wager that most people don't utilise even half of what they've learned to obtain a degree in the job that required said degree.

For a few reasons, the notion of going to college/university solely to get a job has always struck me as silly. There are more pragmatic solutions I can think of that would equip people with sufficient knowledge to perform most of the jobs available on the market today.

Therefore, really needing a degree to fill a position is the exception.

I was cleaning my damn room the other day based on Jordan Peterson's advice, and I came across engineering mathematics notes, that I used to understand, but have now pushed out of memory to fill it with other information, due to the reasons I've outlined above.

I've no shame in admitting that either because I'm good enough to do most jobs in my field, with some revision.
Or moreover, advanced math doesn't interest me if I can't apply it practically in the areas that I am interested in.

Colleges are the greatest innovation and economic drain the country has, and it's not close. An enormous waste of resources and young brains in their prime. So I'm with you there.
I'd be interested in your opinion on whether the experience you've had requires above average intelligence. It's Brian's claim that anyone with average intelligence (I guess that means 90-110?) can learn to understand/have competence in almost anything. I believe this to be very untrue.

Not the exception - especially in engineering/technical/science/medical/law/actuarial, etc., the degree is the first step in getting the certification required to practice. If you wish to continue with what you went to school for. And this is also true for a larger number of degrees than most think, including a teaching degree to teach first-graders how to take a nap.


Also testing/certification is required for may trade jobs (that pay very well) - auto-diesel mechanics/plumbers/electricians/welders/heavy equipment crane operators, etc. and etc. And many of these require additional class (some yearly) to keep up with certification.

The need for the official stamp of approval is need for many jobs and not just professional type jobs.

And it does make a difference for sure because organized education is the single most important reason for progress in our civilization.


You force yourself to learn a lot of things when the process is disciplined and well organized with guidance and meaningful practice. Everybody stands to improve.

A great deal of good paying jobs can be obtained out of the darkness of desperation by a few critical classes that lead to certification in many applied careers. Many can change their lives with such decisions. Having a basic college degree to build on is very advantageous in clearing such requirements of certification. An education is never a waste.

I'm not arguing against education.
I'm well aware of the benefits that current standard third level education systems have to offer on a personal level.

On a practical basis, there certainly is a case to be made that most jobs
on any jobs listing website, which specify that the applicant have a degree, do not in fact need four years studying for.
It's not easy to see when you browse for jobs that you haven't spent more than a day studying for. But it is easy to recognise
when you browse jobs that do fall into your field.

As a concrete example, the highest paying job in my field is an embedded systems engineer. For that you need to know
how to program well in a specific language or two, the architecture of the specific chip, and the various standard communication protocols. The employer lists
the specific skills needed. Two years of study max, and you can skip the Newton-Rhapson method.

In any case, I'm in the business of automating other jobs that people once used to perform, all the while envisioning the
path of seeing my own job being automated away. Perhaps then I can get back to some real learning like a true autodidact.

You may counter by saying that having spent that amount of time studying, it puts one in the position of having more options available
to apply for various jobs in their area; which I'd then counter by saying had the applicant solely focused
on the particulars required for a
certain job, the time required could be easily cut in half. How this could be implemented falls into shaky political grounds but I see it happening.
Here, there are initiatives in place that take unemployed graduates and put them into accelerated applied courses to fill positions.

And those who can't do, teach.

I know how the saying goes but it is also true that those that can do the best can teach also like the best often ie Feynman. This is because they do get what its all about at a deeper level.

In my view when it works its not about teaching for the love of teaching or the job security itself, its about changing a student's life forever with your presentation of ideas trying to top what happened to you as an experience, as an inspiration to start a life long dream in the greatest adventure ever attempted. The real teacher is trying to not betray a 9 year old, to win against the cynicism that will attack them for the rest of their lives...

Even a boring technical lecture can be made into something more carefully designed to win at a deeper level by better choice of examples or applications. In the end education is about personal power, about creating a stronger human that adversity will not find as easy a target. You believe in education because you believe in creating strong thinkers. They can take everything away from you, but they will never be able to take away your education.

I believe OP has overlooked the very important component of emotional intelligence and artistic ability.

If Picasso can create a painting that captivates the eyes and imagination of the masses, is he not a genius? Regardless of whether or not he can perform calculus.

Similarly, if Casanova has the ability to seduce every woman he comes into contact with, is he not considered a genius?

If George Carlin can make you laugh your ass off (and millions of other people) does it matter whether or not he was a high school drop out?

A smart young boy, with the potential to pursue mathematics, may look at the world around him and say "f*** math. If he sees all the hot chicks go for popular guys, he's going to try and become like one of those guys. This means developing a sense of humor, charm, wit, courage, bravery, toughness. None of these traits have anything to do with rational intelligence, except possibly the ability to produce witty remarks.

If he sees that none of the computer programmers get any chicks, he's going to avoid pursuing math and the hard sciences.

The same can be said for women. Is Kim Kardashian dumb? I mean, yeah she's dumb on an academic level. But if she's so dumb, how did she seduce the world into giving her millions and millions of dollars worth of fame and attention? Lots of women make sex tapes and they never achieve anything. What did Kim do that separated her from the pact? I don't know, and neither do you, because she knows something about how people think that you and I do not.