IQ goes back to World War I as I recall. Nothing like high explosives to push science fast, if not necessarily in the right directions. I do recall that plastic surgery did develop for obvious reasons during that war (using tongue to rebuild lips etc.)
I love that this wasn't a giant hugbox, and instead was an incisive challenge for Freddie to contend with potential contradictions and limitations to the view he has put forth in the Cult of Smart
♦️The Discussion missing the core questions when it comes to Social Meritocracy: 🛡️1.Why is Job Selection for Management based mainly on the Interview Method (Storytelling) instead of Exam Method ? 🛡️2.Why there is no Just, Open, and Transparent Competition and Selection as in the Olympics? 🛡️3.Why there is no Open and Transparent Competition every 5 years for Management Positions (as in Politics) ? 🌀4.Why is the Human Social System avoiding Open and Transparent Competitions ?
One of the arguments in favor of worker democracy is precisely this notion of allowing workers to elect management, because presumably they would never elect someone who gave theselves outsized rewards, and they'd be unlikely to elect someone who'd offshore their jobs, etc.
In some ways, the very notion of meritocracy is just simply a myth. I think that's why it keeps breaking down in argumentation... The truth is more chaordic... Expecting a meritocracy will always disappoint you... We can strive towards a system in which people that are good at things should be free to practice those things, meritocracy would still have to be ex post facto... Part of this discussion is about how academia is an outdated model of signalling, but our society hasn't yet caught up, we still want treat education like some sort of army style top down thing, the internet would beg to differ, yet there are many entrenched interests in the university and college system that I would say are slowing the flattening of the "meritocratic" pyramid... All classes free on youtube tomorrow, tests and grading mechanisms made free for all, degrees available 24/7 to anyone that wants them. It's coming...
If you lower standards you will graduate more engineers, however more is not better. The most significant contribution of those otherwise substandard engineers will be to water down the pool of engineers and create situations where promotions that might be based upon affirmative action for instance will allow less qualified engineers to take up slots that should have been occupied by more cognatively qualified engineers. Lower the standards and you won't get rocket engines.
I would argue, respectfully, that Mr deBoars arguments can easily be dismissed on a number of levels. While I share some of his observations as being the most true, many of his arguments come from a flawed diagnostic position. For example, the meritocracy is not an achievable goal, which is why it works. The pursuit of the meritocracy is what produces the best results. He's looking in the wrong places. As a further example, the elevation of doctors over nurses as a social standard doesn't come from gender bias. It comes from the level of dedication, education, ability to recall obscure but massive well of information, financial, and on top of all of that, the level of ability to solve health issues that can be life threatening. Nurses, unless they are nurse practitioners, do not diagnose conditions. So, there's a massive lack of depth to Dr deBoars analysis. They are consequentialist and only focus on outcome rather than diagnostic, which comes from investigating the causes leading up to an outcome, and that's the biggest mistake he makes(which he barely discusses) Perhaps I'll make a reply video and link it here with my counter arguments. Great video though!
I'm not so sure. It seems like they lingered for quite some time on the fundamental questions of why society hands out rewards for academic achievement in the way it does, e.g. why people deseve what they get.
The banks were bailed out because they had been forced by the government to make loans to people who should not have been given loans due to their poor credit standings.
Luck is for people who can't comprehend causality. There is no genetic lottery. You, your body and mind are the results of innumerable choices made by your ancestors. Where to live who to marry, whether or not to have children. All part of the causal chain that led to you. Taking anything from someone and giving it to someone else is immoral. Charitable contributions are not.
Wow, Callard was so nice here. Whenever she says "hmm" I'm sure she's thinking "You've again revealed yourself to be a fool" but she just kind of lets it go, and then it happens again and again.
Meritocracy does not create inequality, people were never equal in the first place. If you truely want to reduce inequality then you should be in favour of disincentivizing procreation amongst those with the least potential to make significant contributions to society and the most likelihood to become net burdens on society.
Capitalism is just a framework within which people interact in markets. People will naturally seek out the most talented people available regardless of the economic framework in use. If I were bartering my labor in exchange for say a chicken, I would want a nice plump chicken, not a scrawny one. So stop knocking Ccapitalism. People make the choices, not capitalism. People chose online shopping and caused the down turn of stick and brick stores. Don't blame capitalism.
There is only one kind of intelligence. You sound very unintelligent when you talk about " moral intelligence ", which is actually conscientiousness, which is one of the fundamental principles for moral acts. "Emotional intelligence"? Not a thing. The word you are looking for is maturity.
Agnes has a brilliant mind, she asks compelling questions, and has a comforting nature
IQ goes back to World War I as I recall. Nothing like high explosives to push science fast, if not necessarily in the right directions. I do recall that plastic surgery did develop for obvious reasons during that war (using tongue to rebuild lips etc.)
Good questions from the moderator...thoughtful and calculated to elicit an interesting conversation.
I love that this wasn't a giant hugbox, and instead was an incisive challenge for Freddie to contend with potential contradictions and limitations to the view he has put forth in the Cult of Smart
Freddy has the patience of a saint, here.
♦️The Discussion missing the core questions when it comes to Social Meritocracy:
🛡️1.Why is Job Selection for Management based mainly on the Interview Method (Storytelling) instead of Exam Method ?
🛡️2.Why there is no Just, Open, and Transparent Competition and Selection as in the Olympics?
🛡️3.Why there is no Open and Transparent Competition every 5 years for Management Positions (as in Politics) ?
🌀4.Why is the Human Social System avoiding
Open and Transparent Competitions ?
One of the arguments in favor of worker democracy is precisely this notion of allowing workers to elect management, because presumably they would never elect someone who gave theselves outsized rewards, and they'd be unlikely to elect someone who'd offshore their jobs, etc.
In some ways, the very notion of meritocracy is just simply a myth. I think that's why it keeps breaking down in argumentation... The truth is more chaordic... Expecting a meritocracy will always disappoint you... We can strive towards a system in which people that are good at things should be free to practice those things, meritocracy would still have to be ex post facto... Part of this discussion is about how academia is an outdated model of signalling, but our society hasn't yet caught up, we still want treat education like some sort of army style top down thing, the internet would beg to differ, yet there are many entrenched interests in the university and college system that I would say are slowing the flattening of the "meritocratic" pyramid... All classes free on youtube tomorrow, tests and grading mechanisms made free for all, degrees available 24/7 to anyone that wants them. It's coming...
If you lower standards you will graduate more engineers, however more is not better. The most significant contribution of those otherwise substandard engineers will be to water down the pool of engineers and create situations where promotions that might be based upon affirmative action for instance will allow less qualified engineers to take up slots that should have been occupied by more cognatively qualified engineers. Lower the standards and you won't get rocket engines.
I would argue, respectfully, that Mr deBoars arguments can easily be dismissed on a number of levels.
While I share some of his observations as being the most true, many of his arguments come from a flawed diagnostic position.
For example, the meritocracy is not an achievable goal, which is why it works. The pursuit of the meritocracy is what produces the best results. He's looking in the wrong places.
As a further example, the elevation of doctors over nurses as a social standard doesn't come from gender bias. It comes from the level of dedication, education, ability to recall obscure but massive well of information, financial, and on top of all of that, the level of ability to solve health issues that can be life threatening. Nurses, unless they are nurse practitioners, do not diagnose conditions.
So, there's a massive lack of depth to Dr deBoars analysis. They are consequentialist and only focus on outcome rather than diagnostic, which comes from investigating the causes leading up to an outcome, and that's the biggest mistake he makes(which he barely discusses)
Perhaps I'll make a reply video and link it here with my counter arguments. Great video though!
I'm not so sure. It seems like they lingered for quite some time on the fundamental questions of why society hands out rewards for academic achievement in the way it does, e.g. why people deseve what they get.
@@chmod0644 that's a perfectly reasonable position to hold, which I could also agree with.
Societies have always been unequa, they are comprised or people and people are not equal.
The banks were bailed out because they had been forced by the government to make loans to people who should not have been given loans due to their poor credit standings.
Luck is for people who can't comprehend causality.
There is no genetic lottery. You, your body and mind are the results of innumerable choices made by your ancestors. Where to live who to marry, whether or not to have children. All part of the causal chain that led to you.
Taking anything from someone and giving it to someone else is immoral. Charitable contributions are not.
Not just abstract. Just analitical ability - full stop.
4
We don’t live in a meritocracy; we live in a kakistocracy. It’s perverse to blame the former for the latter.
Wow, Callard was so nice here. Whenever she says "hmm" I'm sure she's thinking "You've again revealed yourself to be a fool" but she just kind of lets it go, and then it happens again and again.
lol
Meritocracy does not create inequality, people were never equal in the first place. If you truely want to reduce inequality then you should be in favour of disincentivizing procreation amongst those with the least potential to make significant contributions to society and the most likelihood to become net burdens on society.
Capitalism is just a framework within which people interact in markets. People will naturally seek out the most talented people available regardless of the economic framework in use. If I were bartering my labor in exchange for say a chicken, I would want a nice plump chicken, not a scrawny one. So stop knocking Ccapitalism. People make the choices, not capitalism. People chose online shopping and caused the down turn of stick and brick stores. Don't blame capitalism.
There is only one kind of intelligence. You sound very unintelligent when you talk about " moral intelligence ", which is actually conscientiousness, which is one of the fundamental principles for moral acts.
"Emotional intelligence"? Not a thing. The word you are looking for is maturity.