<p>Anyone this perceptive got to be intelligent.;)</p>
<p>In a narrow sense, my concern is mismatch- a mismatch of education and ability, and a mismatch of ability and occupation. </p>
<p>While posters may not think so, my greater concern is reserved for the quality of our ruling class. Looking at the state of the world, I simply can not believe this is the best we have. I dont think they are serving us well.</p>
<p>I think this is as political as I will get here.</p>
<p>Can you give a few examples of these mismatches, Canuckguy? I’m honestly interested but do not understand what you mean. As far as the “ruling” class goes, it’s my opinion that many of our larger problems are exacerbated mostly by failures of character rather than by failures of intelligence. In the category of “failures of character” I would include the willful disregard of laws of science, manipulated mathematics and the conflation of specific religious beliefs with absolute truth. (And that is as political as I should get!)</p>
<p>As far as the “ruling” class goes, it’s my opinion that many of our larger problems are exacerbated mostly by failures of character rather than by failures of intelligence.</p>
<p>If you look at the graph I posted early again, you will see a strong correlation not only between intelligence and occupational success, but also a negative correlation between intelligence and social pathologies.</p>
<p>So, for starters, when I see a deficit that increases by an average of almost 4 billion dollars a day, foreign exploits that have been going on for a decade with no end in sight, and the horror show that was the debt-ceiling crisis of 2011, I cannot help but wonder about the average intelligence of the people responsible for them. They were certain not doing their job very well.</p>
<p>Coupling that with some of the known EC activities of these honourable members- such as the gentleman who strongly advocated for a national child predator database on the one hand, and to keep his own name off of it on the other; or the gentleman that tried to serve his wife divorce papers while she was in hospital for cancer treatment-what else am I suppose to think?</p>
<p>Wouldnt it be great if we can do a Jim Manzi on them before they are put in positions of responsibility? I am disturbed that we are taking greater care in selecting management consultants than we do our elected representatives.</p>
<p>We really, really need to get back to the original topic…</p>
<p>I’m confused. Didn’t the vast majority of the folks responsible for the financial crises of the last few years actually go through a “Jim Manzi?”</p>
<p>I thought they were primarily all quant types from Goldman Sachs, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hilarious. This is like the Pied Piper asking “Hey kids, do your parents know you are this far from home?”</p>
<p>As far as the original topic goes, I sometimes wish I had been more thoughtful in choosing a major or that I had gone to a school where I was actively mentored rather than allowed to aimlessly drift into English because I liked to read and write. At the same time, it worked out okay as I ultimately found that what I was good at and liked doing involved a combination of writing, editing and bossing people around. What has also helped me along the way is the fact that I am intellectually curious, open to new ideas, logical and generally fun to be around. In all seriousness, I wonder about what the road to career success will look like for my daughter given today’s job market. Possibly, the gentle, ambling path I took will not be open to her. But maybe it will be.</p>
<p>I found my intellect did not match my ambition my children likewise. We all moved on, doing the best we can with what we are given. NO blame, no shame. Life has been good.</p>
<p>I do love to live in the body of a Philip Anderson or a Terrence Tao for a day though, just to know what it feels like.</p>
<p>* I’m confused. Didn’t the vast majority of the folks responsible for the financial crises of the last few years actually go through a “Jim Manzi?”*</p>
<p>I am certain the quant types went through a Jim Manzi, but the decision to take a flyer with it rests higher up. I bet those are the same guys who got into an elite through one or more hooks, and did just well enough to get hired through a “Lauren Rivera” instead.</p>
<p>^^^
So the Secretary of the Treasury bears no responsibility for the economic policy of the country? THe Council of Economic advisors have no significant input? Where do you think they come from?
Things must be strange up in Canada.</p>
<p>Believe me, if Einstein were Truman’s Secretary of Defense he would have had some influence on policy.</p>
<p>
So which one of these Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisors got in on a “hook” -</p>
<p>BTW, I admire the evidentiary strength of the preface “I bet”. </p>
<p>
Good grief, precisely what agenda are you talking about? Is your point that the best elected officials would be from Management Consulting? Hmmmm. Interesting.</p>
<p>oh, and once again,
Did you lose your internet compass? The orignal topic is in the other direction. Or was this just something you posted but didn’t really, really mean?</p>
<p>Canuckguy (if you are still around)-
I’ve spent a good deal of time discussing things with you on this website (not so much in this thread). And it suddenly dawned on me that I really have no clear idea what your point is. Your post are often very lengthy, with multiple links, which is great. But I find your premise obfuscated.</p>
<p>Can you state it in a couple sentences?</p>
<p>Is this basically it - In the vast majority of important roles in society the most important characteristics are general factor intelligence and quantitative skills. THerefore, most important selection processes - admisison to elite schols, hiring at financial firms, even consideration of candidates for election to important government offices - should be based on very objective criteria like IQ and SAT scores (particularly math SAT scores). Most people bump up against innate limits and cannot pass these threshold criteria.</p>
<p>I’m not really interested in debating this as I have no firm postion. But for clarity’s sake, if you could answer this I would appreciate it, then the thread can return naturally to its source.</p>
<p>Oh, I’m sure they are smart enough to know how to balance the budget (it actually does not take that much intelligence to figure that out, at least if you look at an overview of the budget). But they are also smart enough to know that there is no way that can sell and market the necessary budgeting changes to voters. Getting elected is mostly about sales and marketing.</p>
<p>^^^I think something is serious wrong here. You have misinterpreted my position in so many places. Did I say something that really offended you?</p>
<p>I will try to answer some of your questions, assuming, that is, they are not rhetorical in nature.</p>
<p>It is the quants job to do quantitative analysis and present them to decision makers. It is the decision makers job to make decisions on what to do with those analysis. If the quants conceal the limitations and the risks of their models to the decision makers, that is one thing; but when the decision makers are aware of the risk and choose to ignore them, that is an entirely different matter. I submit that we are dealing with the latter here, not the former.</p>
<p>When I talk about having an agenda, I am talking about those who want to maintain the status quo even when the status quo is clearly not working. As we all know, power can be intoxicating, but denial can not work for long. How long do you think we can continue to run 4 billion dollars a day deficits?</p>
<p>Why do I want to get back to the original topic? If we continue with this type of political discussion, the thread will be closed. Is that not a good enough reason for you?</p>
<p>I cannot believe what I have said here is that difficult to understand. Are you sure you are not choosing to deliberately play dumb as part of a grand strategy of denial?</p>
<p>And it suddenly dawned on me that I really have no clear idea what your point is. Your post are often very lengthy, with multiple links, which is great. But I find your premise obfuscated.</p>
<p>Glad to see that you have regained your composure. Now we can talk.</p>
<p>I find it disturbing when folks are saying things that are empirically untrue. To avoid being accused of the same, I use links religiously. When I do use them, I make a point of quoting from a specific passage that is pertinent to the discussion. If you choose to read the entire article instead, then I can see why you would conclude that my premise is obfuscated.</p>
<p>Your criticism is reasonable though. I will see what I can do in the future to shorten my posts.</p>
<p>Is this basically it</p>
<p>I think both verbal and quantitative skills are equally important. Other than that I think you have it in a nutshell. I would also like to say that our political leadership should be given more of a Jim Manzi treatment instead of a Lauren Rivera one. Love to have the private sector join in as well, but we dont have that kind of control over them.</p>
<p>I still dont understand why you are having such a hard time following my reasoning when you seem to understand my position so well.</p>
<p>*Oh, I’m sure they are smart enough to know how to balance the budget (it actually does not take that much intelligence to figure that out, at least if you look at an overview of the budget). But they are also smart enough to know that there is no way that can sell and market the necessary budgeting changes to voters. Getting elected is mostly about sales and marketing. *</p>
<p>I really really really dont want to go there. ;)</p>
Yeah, thanks for not answering my question simply and directly and choosing to start off insulting me instead. </p>
<p>
IMO it takes excessive labor to dig your point out from under the verbiage. After doing so, I still found myself uncertain as to whether I had succesfullly completed the scavenger hunt. After your most recent response now my question is why do I bother.</p>
Is this directed to me or ucbalumnus? If it is directed at me it might offend me that you aren’t bothering to check who posted what.</p>
<p>This, at least, seems to be directed at me -</p>
<p>
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. My point is that it is possible to have two highly intelligent, well educated “quant” advisors honestly believe and recommend the polar opposite on policy. You may have more Paul Krugmans but you have a significant number of Arthur Laffers. The responsiblity for acting on the recommendations lies with the policymaker, but that doesn’t mean those who recommend it don’t believe it is the better course of action, given the fact that all models have limitations. </p>
<p>So if these supposedly hyperintelligent advisors were the policymakers, they would make the same decision. If not, they are certainly dishonest, because they always come out on the talk shows to defend their boss’s actions.</p>
<p>Oh, a small item for consideration. Both Newt Gingrich and Elliot Spitzer scored extrremely well on their standardized tests. Many politicians did. </p>
<p>My take on Canuckguy’s position is that he thinks our “ruling class,” whatever that means, ought to be composed of only the highest Math SAT scorers. I don’t think he has sufficiently thought through how that would work or why it would be best.</p>
<p>The responsiblity for acting on the recommendations lies with the policymaker, but that doesn’t mean those who recommend it don’t believe it is the better course of action, given the fact that all models have limitations.</p>
<p>You are making my argument for me here. This is precisely why the policymaker must be wiser than his advisors and not the other way around. My feeling is that the people responsible for putting the Li formula into action only saw the money sign, and were mathematically out of their depth.</p>
<p>In too many of these cases, I suspect the unhooked are working for the hooked. It should at least be the other way around. </p>
<p>*So if these supposedly hyperintelligent advisors were the policymakers, they would make the same decision. If not, they are certainly dishonest, because they always come out on the talk shows to defend their boss’s actions. *</p>
<p>I never expect policymakers to make the best decisions at all times. They are human beings. I do expect them to be wise, experienced in the craft of leadership, and morally beyond reproach. If they are clearly not up to the job, vote for someone else next time around.</p>
<p>Oh, a small item for consideration. Both Newt Gingrich and Elliot Spitzer scored extrremely well on their standardized tests. Many politicians did.</p>
<p>As I said in an earlier post, intelligence is a necessary but insufficient condition…</p>
<p>BTW, my apologies for losing my cool. Yesterday, your post (308) looked like a deliberate attempt to muddle the issue, but it does not seem so bad now. I over-reacted.</p>
<p>My take on Canuckguy’s position is that he thinks our “ruling class,” whatever that means, ought to be composed of only the highest Math SAT scorers.</p>
<p>The Rivera study filled me with despair, but the Manzi article is giving me new hope. His approach, with some adjustment, would be the best vehicle for selecting a ruling class that I know.</p>
<p>Think about it. A cut-off of 750 on the Math, 1500 overall, and tough courses with a minimum of 3.5 is an excellent starter. You then add 3 layers of interview, each tougher than the previous, mixing case studies with lets talk about you and us discussions, a test for psychopathy, and instead of EC, previous administrative experience with distinction etc. should just about do it.</p>
<p>It is much more nuanced than just highest Math SAT scorers</p>
<p>Test scores, college courses, psychological tests, and interviews (which are performances and can be faked) don’t indicate moral character or civic leadership ability. I don’t want a “ruling class”; I accept that every society has elites, but one should be able to earn entrance to the elite through measures other than cognitive ability and self-presentation skills, both helpful but insufficient for gifted leadership.</p>
<p>Your suggestion alsy bypasses the thorny question of who gets to “select” the ruling class in a democracy. Read Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites.</p>
This is precisely why the policymaker must be wiser than his advisors and not the other way around. My feeling is that the people responsible for putting the Li formula into action only saw the money sign, and were mathematically out of their depth.</p>