[extropy-chat] it's all understandable, except

[Samantha Atkins]

On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:15 AM, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Eugen wrote
>
>> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 07:29:41PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>>> The Singularity (or its preceding technological innovations) need
>>> above all to get people smarter, especially the great hordes of
>>> children today who simply are incapable of difficult technical work,
>>> and who will (because of IQ limitations) perform rather poorly
>>> whatever they try to do that is of any use.
>>
>> I try to avoid me-toos, but above passage can't be overemphasized.
>> The issue isn't differences in issued equipment between the ears.
>> Motivation is the key, and almost all current education environments
>> (nevermind prior poor parenting) actively demotivate.
>
> Since Eugen wrote this, a number of people have chimed in to agree.
> I ask, where is the evidence that the key problems are current  
> educational
> environments or poor parenting?  Are there studies?
>

What is the worth of these studies though?  How has their methodology  
been vetted?

> The studies---your anecdotes aside---report what I said they did,
> namely that it's genes 50%, peers 50%, parents 0%, and schools, 0%.
> (I should add, to be careful, that these are determinants of adult
> personality.  But I think that it applies to contributing technically
> to society too.)

This seems highly unlikely and suspicious.  How would genes be that  
well separated out from environmental factors.  In environmental  
factors how exactly would the contribution from parents and schools be  
teased out so cleanly from that of peers?   It looks a good deal to  
pat on the face of it, doesn't it?


>
> And furthermore, contrary to what Eugen states, the limiting factor
> *is* what is between the ears.  Researchers on intelligence admit,
> however, that intelligence is like money.  It really doesn't matter
> how much you have so long as you have enough.
>
> But the overwhelming part of the populace does *not* have enough
> cognitive ability, not enough for today's technical needs.
>

So, a bit down the road we can fix that, yes?

> And even in your anecdotes, from dyslexia to "boredom and
> frustration" causing dropping out, we could segregate  :-)  those
> with certain proclivities and try to specialize the instruction  
> they're
> given.  That would be a good idea.  But many kids simply rebel,

They simply rebel with no reason at all?

> and unless you provide very expensive tutoring (with a touch of
> compulsion), they're not going to use all their potential anyway.
> You can suggest remedies.  That would be nice.  But why not
> point to somewhere among the 6 billion people where the problem
> as you see it *has* been solved?
>
> Eugen continues, rather obscurely:
>
>> Not only does demographics limit the quantity, the quality has been
>> going down monotonously since middle last century, or even before.
>
> What do you mean by this?  IQ has been going up (cf. Flynn effect).
>

You could fool me by what I see of people around me in multiple walks  
of life.  Maybe they started scoring IQ on the curve.

>> The job market does the rest to discourage entering technical fields.
>> The message is certainly loud and clear enough, and it's being heard.
>
> How does the job market discourage entering technical field?
> I'm not following you.
>

If you want to do cutting edge R&D the well-renumerated opportunities  
are thin on the ground.

- samantha