WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Red Pill Collection

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #121  
Old 03-10-2018, 06:23 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default


think of it this way.

Rhianna isn't the best singer in the world. You could find a million people as good or better. And the difference between her and lesser known singers might be described as luck.

But... You still have to be able to sing to compete. The luck element doesn't render the ability to sing and perform completely irrelevant.

__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 03-10-2018, 07:00 AM
anna (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 130
Thanks: 55
Thanks 88
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
think of it this way.

Rhianna isn't the best singer in the world. You could find a million people as good or better. And the difference between her and lesser known singers might be described as luck.

But... You still have to be able to sing to compete. The luck element doesn't render the ability to sing and perform completely irrelevant.

lol, no way, your being silly now ..

No one is saying it’s all luck, she may have had a lucky break at some point, aren’t we simply suggesting that those with considerable success have also been fortunate along the way, or manifested it through sheer determination. Let’s assume she’s highly driven, bags of confidence and a good enough singer and has taken enough knocks to seize the opportune moment. Maybe it’s all in the charisma, the marketing potential too. Maybe she was fantastically skilled in progressing her career. There’s an element of chance, some people are risk takers.

Maybe it’s all about risk taking, ... or your ability to manage risk ... or even the ability to quantify risk objectively.
Perhaps highly successful people are life’s gamblers.

Last edited by anna; 03-10-2018 at 12:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to anna For This Useful Post:
Beesauce (03-12-2018)
  #123  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:54 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,103
Thanks: 370
Thanks 693
Default

I've been an classic, "old country" guy for a long time. Some of this Nu Country is actually painful to listen to, so the element of being able to sing or basic musicianship is not a requirement.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:00 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by anna View Post
lol, no way, your being silly now ..

No one is saying it’s all luck
Sorry I wasn't really aiming this at you specifically more a general comment. But the slant of the article and PB's argument is actually that, it's all luck, and the only thing producing differences in outcome between groups is discrimination, racism, sexism etc, nothing to do with behaviour, talent, preferences, free will, agency, all these things are irrelevant.

There is some truth in it -- but it's far from an absolute.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:03 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
I've been an classic, "old country" guy for a long time. Some of this Nu Country is actually painful to listen to, so the element of being able to sing or basic musicianship is not a requirement.
Sure -- and some 70 IQ people are rich. But in general talent helps within the entertainment industry.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 03-11-2018, 02:50 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,849
Thanks: 400
Thanks 1,051
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
I've been an classic, "old country" guy for a long time. Some of this Nu Country is actually painful to listen to, so the element of being able to sing or basic musicianship is not a requirement.


You’re mistaking talent for style here. There are almost no “stars” or rising stars in the music business without a lot of talent. 99.99% of them are extremely talented. The industry wouldn’t put up with someone who didn’t have the chops to get shit done consistently and quickly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 03-11-2018, 10:58 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
I think we need to get off of this filthy rich thing. Only because the filthy rich are miles above EVERYONE regardless of being women or black or whatever so there's a whole 'nother distinction there. We're more talking about the difference between normal people.

Success is finding a partner, not dying alone. The same way success in the market is not living in poverty, being able to comfortably survive. Not living the terrible life mentioned a few posts back which, relatively speaking is becoming less and less a feature of the West. I know some people will have a go at me for that -- but the plebs of today do live like the middle class of yesteryear.

And analogous wise -- the poor becoming rich (or better off) would be akin to the ugly person making it with a beautiful person. If sexual interactions were only based on physical attractiveness then that shouldn't happen. Same way, in a world where accidents at birth wholly determine where you end up in life there shouldn't be such a thing as 'social mobility'.
Yes, but removing “filthy rich” means we lose the people responsible for the racist big data algorithms, we remove the lazy, we remove the dumb, and we also remove the world’s largest ugly thugs who apparently have very physically attractive partners...

No the analogy does not work because sexual interactions are not only based on physical attractiveness (relative to a ‘norm’). It would actually be better if money-related success, or the structure of a society was like finding a partner (for all sexes) in a relatively monogamous society, the system would be relatively fairer.

But social mobility is constrained by a hierarchical structure, simple fact, we cannot all be rich under a hierarchical structure. People who inherit money, are of the correct colour, are of the correct sex, are from the correct postcode etc are the people most likely going to be found in the upper rungs. Fact.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 03-11-2018, 11:14 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Not random though. If it was, intelligence wouldn't correlate with income regardless of gender race and other things. Does it correlate perfectly? No, course not. Are some really dumb people super rich? Yeah. But the key is do the 70 - 90 bracket cluster at the low end of earners? Yes. Does this cluster break away into higher earnings as we move up the IQ axis? Yes.

There are a bunch of conclusions, but none which say intelligence has nothing to do with income disparity, we only argue about the extent. A modest conclusion might say 10%...

For me we could half it and I'd still want IQ included in my analysis.



I don't know. But you see how this anomaly (if you can call it that) has us taking stabs in the dark? And Asian Americans earning more than White Americans... how do we do that without agency, ability or positive discrimination?
Doesn’t correlate at all, if we remove the filthy rich at one end we should theoretically remove most people with IQs* in ~second to third standard deviation (on the right hand side of chart) and therefore be left with people less than ~115 IQ. But no, in median income earners we have people with ~greater than average IQ, like researchers, engineers, technicians, who cannot get up the rungs because these places are filled by researchers, engineers and technicians with ~similar intelligence. Then above these people are their... managers...

But in thug-like powers Thug Quotient or TQ, removing the richest also removes the top two standard deviations of TQ.


As I asked before, how many of these people are from poor communities?

*a pretend intelligence test that can summarise a person’s intelligence and fair for all people
**a pretend thug test that can summarise a person’s thug abilities and fair for all types of thuggery
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by PickleBottom; 03-11-2018 at 11:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 03-11-2018, 11:20 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by anna View Post
yes, if you teach youngsters anything it’s about exploiting that golden opportunity, that random lucky event and the greater the exposure and commitment to life - the good, the bad and the ugly - the easier it becomes for them to see those chance moments, or even increase the odds, grab it without hesitation and run. It helps to be hungry.
Nope, be a thug and guarantee that it happens, that’s the lesson learnt from the way today’s society is structured. The gambler who card counts and plays the long game will most likely always have more money compared to the gambler who risks all their stake on how “lucky” they are. If the card-counting gambler is also part of a team who can gang up on a newbie trying to exploit luck, the latter gambler is less likely to succeed, I.e., 9/10 people have a better chance of getting the aces compared to 1/10.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 03-11-2018, 11:31 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Stands to reason. But the argument isn't that those with ten times the income of others are ten times more intelligent and ten times harder working.

Only that they are likely to be intelligent. And chances are their job requires a fair amount of skill and dedication. No not ten times the amount of skill and dedication, but being a doctor requires more ability and knowledge than being a cashier.

The group with IQ 130 is more likely to earn more than the group with 70. That's just true. Therefore intelligence matters.

I'm not really into the idea of a meritocracy because that implies life is fair which is a stupid idea. Life CANNOT ever be fair -- the whole thing is a nonsense.

I've said income correlates with IQ, that's true, plenty of studies confirm it, like, hundreds. So does education. You have a degree, masters, PhD all of that are again predictors. Now we can run around getting upset about educational bias I suppose and we have affirmative action for that (which seems to be failing). But again, if it's random qualifications shouldn't matter. Then add single parent homes, also shouldn't matter. Age, age shouldn't matter. Being married. And here's an interesting one... Height.
Nope, you wanting it to be true, does not mean it is true. It’s all part and parcel of pleb mentality, a person can make up that an imaginary being exists and people will follow it, but I wouldn’t recommend jumping off a cliff in hope It will save you. Reality. Bam! Successful people are successful because they are lucky, or a thug. The higher up they are the more lucky / thug they are.

Nb. I included who / where a person was born as part of luck, what I believe was missing from the article was thuggery, because thuggery conveys an advantage.

Edit. Are you sure you want to state that a meritocracy doesn’t work, when you are arguing that merit leads to success?
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by PickleBottom; 03-11-2018 at 11:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 03-11-2018, 11:37 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by anna View Post
income correlates to IQ in those who are fixated on material gain and status certainly.

Some folks are primarily motivated by money making, some not so, some thrive on competition. What about quality of life, family, ethics and cultural bias, love even. Politics. Yep, there’s luck, immense drive, ambition, expectation - horses for courses. There are family dynasties within the mid bracket too, fortunes made and lost within generations.

There is a poverty trap, am all for universal income but high achievers come from all walks of life actually.
This is one point that I have not touched on success = money. I don’t think it should, but it does, and that’s another argument entirely...
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 03-11-2018, 11:43 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
think of it this way.

Rhianna isn't the best singer in the world. You could find a million people as good or better. And the difference between her and lesser known singers might be described as luck.

But... You still have to be able to sing to compete. The luck element doesn't render the ability to sing and perform completely irrelevant.
It is important to remember that when you add another quality we are not discussing success only. If you look at “talent” there would presumably be a normal distribution of “talented” people, a singer, would presumably be at the right hand side of the normal distribution, once again in the top two standard deviations, but the distribution of success (relative to money) would not be of the same distribution. If it were you would not find single artists in the $200M bracket while similarly talented artists are working in McDonalds.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 03-11-2018, 11:48 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Icon7

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Sorry I wasn't really aiming this at you specifically more a general comment. But the slant of the article and PB's argument is actually that, it's all luck, and the only thing producing differences in outcome between groups is discrimination, racism, sexism etc, nothing to do with behaviour, talent, preferences, free will, agency, all these things are irrelevant.

There is some truth in it -- but it's far from an absolute.
Nope, in a fair society things like talent, preferences, free will etc will come into play when discussing success, but in a thug-driven society, only the biggest thugs win.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:32 AM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Here’s another metaphysical question which I asked before...

How come most of the talented, intelligent, hard working etc people are old white guys? Some even nearly or over 80 years old. Investors who are heaps more savvy than the people working for them and creating the algorithms which give them their fortune. Same with University science professors, old guys who’re still in the lab and coming up with huge ideas in their 70s etc etc
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:59 AM
anna (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 130
Thanks: 55
Thanks 88
Default

enjoying your reads pb ...

So a guy is singing his heart out in some backwater, a music industry mogul is driving through town and has a heated phone exchange with his second wife who seeks a divorce, he asks his chauffeur to stop the car because he needs a drink, he instructs his lawyer immediately.

The mogul offers the drop-dead-gorgeous guy a deal on the spot, he craves his next fix and the musician has that raw, pure, unadulterated, artistic integrity that he calculates he can shape to his own ends for huge profit. It soothes his aching ego some - although the dude takes a real interest in his offer he ultimately declines it.

Feeling doubly peeved now, our industry man leaves the bar and his wife rings again, the call is now recorded, he calmly goads the woman 18 years his junior and bellows to the driver to find another watering hole. He can’t believe his luck in the next joint, (nor she) for behold! There performs a beautiful, charismatic, talented, hungry, peach of a girl who will compromise at (next to) nothing for a break in the industry.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 03-12-2018, 02:48 AM
anna (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 130
Thanks: 55
Thanks 88
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Nope, be a thug and guarantee that it happens, that’s the lesson learnt from the way today’s society is structured. The gambler who card counts and plays the long game will most likely always have more money compared to the gambler who risks all their stake on how “lucky” they are. If the card-counting gambler is also part of a team who can gang up on a newbie trying to exploit luck, the latter gambler is less likely to succeed, I.e., 9/10 people have a better chance of getting the aces compared to 1/10.
... ah, but the boy has the thug attribute in spade loads, really not for the messing, has found a niche market thankfully, he’s a comfort on a dark night ... girlie girls not so, brutal thuggery of any description simply not in their nature, not really, at what price?



https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a7000741.html

“The first time physicist Richard Feynman visited Las Vegas in the*late 1940s, he went from game to game, working out how much he*could expect to win (or, more likely, lose). He decided that although*craps was a bad deal, it wasn’t that bad: for every dollar he bet, he*could expect to lose 1.4 cents on average. Of course, that was the*expected loss over a large number of attempts. When Feynman tried*the game, he was particularly unlucky, losing five dollars right away.*It was enough to put him off casino gambling for good.

Nevertheless, Feynman made several trips to Vegas over the years.*He was particularly fond of chatting with the showgirls. During one*trip, he had lunch with a performer named Marilyn. As they were*eating, she pointed out a man strolling across the grass. He was a*well-known professional gambler named Nick Dandolos, or “Nick*the Greek”. Feynman found the notion puzzling. Having calculated*the odds for each casino game, he couldn’t work out how Nick the*Greek could consistently make money.*Marilyn called Nick the Greek over to their table, and Feynman*asked how it was possible to make a living gambling. “I only bet*when the odds are in my favour,” Nick replied. Feynman didn’t understand*what he meant. How could the odds ever be in someone’s*favour?

Nick the Greek told Feynman the real secret behind his success.*“I don’t bet on the table,” he said. “Instead, I bet with people around*the table who have prejudices–superstitious ideas about lucky*numbers.” Nick knew*the casino had the edge, so he made wagers*with naive fellow gamblers instead. Unlike the Parisian gamblers*who used the martingale strategy, he understood the games, and understood*the people playing them. He had looked beyond the obvious*strategies – which would lose him money – and found a way to*tip the odds in his favour. Working out the numbers hadn’t been the*tricky part; the real skill was turning that knowledge into an effective*strategy.”

Last edited by anna; 03-12-2018 at 02:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 03-12-2018, 03:34 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Here’s another metaphysical question which I asked before...

How come most of the talented, intelligent, hard working etc people are old white guys?
Again every time we describe the top people as the most talented, intelligent etc we're creating a straw man. This has never been the assertion. But to answer the question...

Partly, population distribution. If we control for population... then Asians are top. So I guess we need to build a framework for systematic Asian privilege.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-12-2018, 03:47 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
It is important to remember that when you add another quality we are not discussing success only. If you look at “talent” there would presumably be a normal distribution of “talented” people, a singer, would presumably be at the right hand side of the normal distribution, once again in the top two standard deviations, but the distribution of success (relative to money) would not be of the same distribution. If it were you would not find single artists in the $200M bracket while similarly talented artists are working in McDonalds.
No it wouldn't be the same distribution. It's another straw man argument. Not saying that talent equals success. Am asserting that the successful are MORE LIKELY to be talented. To wit, the artists with the top ten hits are not the top ten best artists. BUT... if you put them against ten random people from the pub you'd still bet on them. If talent didn't matter then there would be NO REASON to bet on the artists with the top ten hits because they shouldn't be any more likely to possess more talent than anyone else.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:02 AM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
No it wouldn't be the same distribution. It's another straw man argument. Not saying that talent equals success. Am asserting that the successful are MORE LIKELY to be talented. To wit, the artists with the top ten hits are not the top ten best artists. BUT... if you put them against ten random people from the pub you'd still bet on them. If talent didn't matter then there would be NO REASON to bet on the artists with the top ten hits because they shouldn't be any more likely to possess more talent than anyone else.
You’re still mixing up two things “talent” and “success”, go back to a random pub with 10 random people in it, including a random talented musician, would you expect in a random pub that of the ten people the most successful to be the random talented musician? If you are comparing talent though then absolutely the top ten artists will most likely be more talented.

If you look at the pool of “talented” people independently the talent will be normally distributed, but if you look at the success you will find a very small number of people (not necessarily the most talented) will be the most successful, and if we wonder “how so?” take into account luck and thuggery and cha-ching! You’ll be right on the money.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:08 AM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by anna View Post
... ah, but the boy has the thug attribute in spade loads, really not for the messing, has found a niche market thankfully, he’s a comfort on a dark night ... girlie girls not so, brutal thuggery of any description simply not in their nature, not really, at what price?



https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a7000741.html
Yes but I was talking card-counting in Black-Jack to demonstrate that people who stack the odds in their favour, rather than count on odds only, will win out in the long run, just like the guy in the Feynman story. In the MIT article they only discuss luck, but people willing to sell their grandmother for a couple of quid have an advantage over people who’ll find this abhorrent. The Game of Life.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:18 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
You’re still mixing up two things “talent” and “success”, go back to a random pub with 10 random people in it, including a random talented musician, would you expect in a random pub that of the ten people the most successful to be the random talented musician?
Nope. Doesn't matter. Is irrelevant to the argument.

If you are comparing talent though then absolutely the top ten artists will most likely be more talented.
Ah but why? All we know is that they're successful, we don't know that they're talented. Why should they be more likely to be talented if there's no relationship between success and talent?
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:18 AM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

The reason what I’m saying is hard to swallow is this is The Human Battle, this is the Bhagavad Gita, this is confronting the Demiurge. A personal battle between the crap spoon fed to you and your personal path to find The Truth, to find your own path and agency.

When you reject this crap you attain Nirvana, and halt the continued reincarnation and re-birth of Plebism.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:22 AM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Nope. Doesn't matter. Is irrelevant to the argument.



Ah but why? All we know is that they're successful, we don't know that they're talented. Why should they be more likely to be talented if there's not relationship between success and talent?
It is part of the argument because you are attempting to marry together two independent variables with no relationship.

Well, let’s put it this way, if you have the top ten artists (who are successful musicians) and you compare them to people who don’t play music, the former would be better at playing music... doesn’t mean that all musicians are successful though.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:24 AM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post


Again every time we describe the top people as the most talented, intelligent etc we're creating a straw man. This has never been the assertion. But to answer the question...

Partly, population distribution. If we control for population... then Asians are top. So I guess we need to build a framework for systematic Asian privilege.
I missed this one. What do you mean by “if you control for population”? If you control for population my presumption is you would kick out, for example, China.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:27 AM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
It is part of the argument because you are attempting to marry together two independent variables with no relationship.

Well, let’s put it this way, if you have the top ten artists (who are successful musicians) and you compare them to people who don’t play music, the former would be better at playing music... doesn’t mean that all musicians are successful though.
And further to this, if you compared luck and thuggery of the top ten musicians to the random people in the pub and the musicians would be off the charts.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:32 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Well, let’s put it this way, if you have the top ten artists (who are successful musicians) and you compare them to people who don’t play music, the former would be better at playing music... doesn’t mean that all musicians are successful though.
Ah but this is the argument you see. You actually don't have to say anything else to agree with it.

And we don't have to say people who 'don't play music', only a random selection. We don't even need to make a definite statement that 'the former would be better at playing music' (the opposite is possible in some freak turn of events) only that given the information you would make the assumption that the former would be better at playing music and the reason you make that assumption is that we know that there is a higher probability of being talented amongst those who are successful in the entertainment industry.

Therefore if we're comparing one group against another group in terms of success, one thing we'd need to control for would be talent. Think basketball.

Blacks way overrepresented. Racism? No. Talent, yes. Doesn't mean racism doesn't exist or that we live in a perfect meritocracy or anything like that.

This is a stark example and I know we can come up with a bunch of counter scenarios but none which completely remove the significance of talent as a predictor of success.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 03-12-2018, 07:44 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
I missed this one. What do you mean by “if you control for population”? If you control for population my presumption is you would kick out, for example, China.
Nah, just per capita, if we view the US as a closed economy.

If the population of each group was equal and the current distribution of wages in the US stayed constant, then Asians would occupy more higher positions than any other group.

"Asian Americans have the highest average income, followed by white Americans, Latino Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans."
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:25 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Ah but this is the argument you see. You actually don't have to say anything else to agree with it.

And we don't have to say people who 'don't play music', only a random selection. We don't even need to make a definite statement that 'the former would be better at playing music' (the opposite is possible in some freak turn of events) only that given the information you would make the assumption that the former would be better at playing music and the reason you make that assumption is that we know that there is a higher probability of being talented amongst those who are successful in the entertainment industry.

Therefore if we're comparing one group against another group in terms of success, one thing we'd need to control for would be talent. Think basketball.

Blacks way overrepresented. Racism? No. Talent, yes. Doesn't mean racism doesn't exist or that we live in a perfect meritocracy or anything like that.

This is a stark example and I know we can come up with a bunch of counter scenarios but none which completely remove the significance of talent as a predictor of success.
You’re still confusing a few things here,

1) basketball is a relatively fair, open, competitive sport, adjudicated so that it remains fair and this is the reason the sport is not dominated by old white guys. Eventually a basketballer gets to a stage where they get less competitive and therefore their place is taken. There is a definitive goal in basketball which can measure success.

2) a person who is a musician is not playing in a fair, open, competitive sport, adjudicated so that it remains fair, but it does require a degree of talent to be a musician. But if we measure success in music as the amount of money a musician has we are not measuring musical talent, but if we measure ability to read music we are. Fact.

3) if we measure success in a hierarchical society by the amount of money people have we are looking at a unfair non-competitive market where the people who have the money can create and avoid rules to ensure they are always looked upon favourably. The people who are of the type similar to the people in power will be looked upon favourably and any behaviour whereby a person can cheat the rules or act immorally will lead to success. Fact. No talent required, just rich parents.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:28 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Nah, just per capita, if we view the US as a closed economy.

If the population of each group was equal and the current distribution of wages in the US stayed constant, then Asians would occupy more higher positions than any other group.

"Asian Americans have the highest average income, followed by white Americans, Latino Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans."
Why not look at the counter example, US citizens who have moved to Asia will be on average more affluent than the Asian natives, including those who live in poor neighbourhoods for being the wrong colour and speaking the wrong language etc etc
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:35 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
You’re still confusing a few things here,

1) basketball is a relatively fair, open, competitive sport, adjudicated so that it remains fair and this is the reason the sport is not dominated by old white guys. Eventually a basketballer gets to a stage where they get less competitive and therefore their place is taken. There is a definitive goal in basketball which can measure success.

2) a person who is a musician is not playing in a fair, open, competitive sport, adjudicated so that it remains fair, but it does require a degree of talent to be a musician. But if we measure success in music as the amount of money a musician has we are not measuring musical talent, but if we measure ability to read music we are. Fact.

3) if we measure success in a hierarchical society by the amount of money people have we are looking at a unfair non-competitive market where the people who have the money can create and avoid rules to ensure they are always looked upon favourably. The people who are of the type similar to the people in power will be looked upon favourably and any behaviour whereby a person can cheat the rules or act immorally will lead to success. Fact. No talent required, just rich parents.
And further to this, if we put the manager of the engineers in amongst the engineers and gave them all a competitive task to complete (which doesn’t involve bullying or microwaving small animals), who would win? Either
1) the more financially successful manager
2) the more talented, intelligent, hard working engineers?
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Give Your Kid A Pill masontrc Poetry 0 03-23-2013 06:34 AM
BOOM! Countdown to my poem collection Juilingstar177 Classifieds 0 02-29-2012 11:33 PM
Spillway Review Jay Writing Markets 0 06-04-2006 02:59 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:17 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.