32 points
*

The whole idea of “IQ correlates with income, so we can eliminate poverty by genetically increasing people’s IQ” seems particularly stupid to me. Like, what do you think is the actual reason that IQ correlates with income? Is it because the magical money fairies give you more money the smarter you are? Also, IQ is a normed measure anyway, so the average is always 100 and there’s always the same number of people with each score… agh, it’s dumb for so many reasons

edit: wait, sorry, it’s actually stupider than I thought:

Elites play a disproportionate role in the economic productivity of nations because they occupy important roles in government and business. If one is interested in increasing economic output and creating better institutions, it would be wise to drastically improve the size and abilities of the elite… In an effort to empirically investigate this question, Carl and Kirkegaard (2022)investigated the benefit of the top 5% independent of the average national IQ level and found additional benefits beyond the benefit from the average IQ. This is fortunate, considering the most likely scenario is that elites adopt the technology more rapidly than the population at large. Government subsidies and low costs would ameliorate the issue of inequality.

Literally just trickle down IQnomics

permalink
report
reply
14 points

I think in their minds, there is this magical threshold below which all the brown and disabled people live, and once you get rid of all the people residing below that threshold all you have left is smart people who want to make the world better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Exactly this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

People playing too many Paradox games.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Don’t you mean, “EA” games? (ba dum tiss)

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

And poorly at that. Intelligence is a mugs game, if you put your genetic points towards longevity you can keep your initial crowd of scientist/explorers as research leaders longer, which gives a bigger boost to research and more advantages.

At least until the robot god restarts the simulation and/or Paradox releases a new patch.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

god, fuck, I don’t miss the days (like 3 years ago, so not even a long time) when The Bell Curve got ultra popular again thanks to the race scientists on the orange site, and all my coworkers kept casually referencing it to sound smart

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

EA works on the hypothesis that in order to assist the most people, they have to amass as much money as possible in order to create mega altruistic ™ projects which will assist done nebulous future generations of trillions, whilst ignoring the fact that helping everybody right now will be a greater benefit by increasing the likelihood that there will be people in the future to assist.

TLDR; Ultra-rich idiots trying to justify their greed by saying it’s for the benefit of humanity.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

The case for the importance of IQ for numerous real-world outcomes was made in the controversial book The Bell Curve (1994) by psychologist Richard Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray. They cogently argued

No, they didn’t.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

In 2002, psychologist Richard Lynn and political scientist Tatu Vanhanen published their seminal book

Ah, “seminal” in the sense of “cum-bucket”

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Their methodology gave conclusive and unquestionable evidence that people with caucasoid skull shape are innately and genetically predisposed towards knowing what a “regatta” is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Top comment by a large margin is an extensive ‘your sources are bad and you should feel bad’ by some Bob Jacobs, which would be encouraging, if wasnt for every. single. other. comment.

Not a bad read overall (the BJ comment), especially if like me you didnt remember off the top of your head who Lynn is and why he sucks, even if it suffers from the forced rationalist equanimity that dictates you treat obviously disingenuous bulshit with the utmost respect as long as it is presented in a sufficiently formalistic manner and doesn’t call for genocide too overtly (I wonder what the deleted Roko comment was about).

permalink
report
reply
6 points

I wonder what the deleted Roko comment was about

Are you talking about his -18 karma comment? It says:

Long post on eugenics, -1 points right now and lots of comments disagreeing. Looks like this is a political battle; I’ll skip actually reading it and note that these kinds of issues are not decided rationally but politically, EA is a left-wing movement so eugenics is axiomatically bad. From a right-wing point of view one can even see it as a good thing that the left is irrational about this kind of thing, it means that they will be late adopters of the technology and fall behind.

permalink
report
parent
reply

SneerClub

!sneerclub@awful.systems

Create post

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

[Especially don’t debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

Community stats

  • 182

    Monthly active users

  • 332

    Posts

  • 7.9K

    Comments