Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
No test measures intelligence. A test only measures you relative to the persons that wrote the test. – loosely quoting Asimov.
2007 is ancient history now. It is an interesting graph that one might correlate with a lack of meritocratic structure in society, but I'm on the low end cause I say this without looking up and reading the study. Pretty pictures evoke emotional blabbering bias and all that.
Making 180k with that 70 IQ brain
Sports maybe?
no wait
influencer
Edit: Nah, no influencers in 2007, a blissful time
Oil rig divers
You will make a little more or a little less than your parents did. That is the biggest determination on your income level.
or a lot less that's fun too
Just imagining a world where there's no antidemocratic inheritance and all income is between 20-230k per year
Pretty well backs up the a statement I've been making for years. You don't have to be smart to be rich. You just have to lack decency.
one half of the rich are rich because they were born rich
I now use the "Likes AI Test" to measure IQ. The premise is that AI can only be average because it consumes everything on the internet indiscriminately. So, people with greater than average critical thinking and knowledge hate AI because its dumber than them and useless. Conversely, people with less than average critical think and knowledge love AI because it seems smarter than them. So if we measure someones like or dislike of AI we can infer the general range of their IQ.
Given this above test, this means my boss is a fucking idiot and gets paid a lot of money to be an idiot.
AI because its dumber than them and useless.
I am much better at washing dishes by hand than my dishwasher. I still mostly let my dishwasher have a crack at things to spare me from usually having to bother.
It's a bit trickier with AI, as it's more obnoxiously screwing up when it screws up, but at least upon occasion it's able to spit out a few mind numbingly obvious lines of code that would have taken me longer to type myself, because I can only hit keyboard buttons so fast.
If you're using AI because it's smart, you're dump. However AI holds imo way more value in knowledge and speed for simple tasks.
It doesn't matter how smart you are, AI has more knowledge than you. Maybe not in a specific field but its a valuable tool in getting knowledge for a lot of different topics.
It doesn't matter how smart you are, AI is faster in simple tasks like creating a python script to parse hex data and visualize it.
So even though I hate AI like the next person I think this IQ measuring you proposed is bullshit.
Congrats you're dumber than AI
Being rich is pretty fucking obviously mostly about being born to rich parents.
Being smart too.
If your parents are rich you would have gone to the better funded schools with better teachers and better clubs/programs and focus on those with your stress-free lifestyle to grow up smarter.
I thought poor people were poor because they spend all their money on avocado toast, while rich people eat bootstraps or something like that
i think the rich have seen the avocado toast problem for a long time. that's why they sell you avocado toast, because clearly it's making you poor and they have too much of it.
Tfw the r ain't r'in
I've said for a long time that intelligence isn't the number one trait for becoming filthy rich. It's lack of a moral compass.
Ya got a source though? Like everyone knows sociopaths are great at CEO and other executive roles, but what does the same plot look like for ethics
Nope. But if I believe it it's true. That how it works now right?
Seriously, no chart but there seem to be plenty of examples and few exceptions. There are something like 2700 billionaires in the world. I certainly am not familiar with all of them.
But also I have seen opportunities to improve my financial standing in ways that are not ethical. I did not take them. I assume others do.
So in conclusion, it's just observation. Do you disagree with the assessment or are you looking for proof?
Also in my defense, I said it was something I said, not something I could prove.
I have a counter anecdote!
Worked for a rich family as the sysadmin at their business. They would refuse to make unethical decisions. First manager's meeting I sat we had a choice of screwing our clients, just a little, thereby making up on some money we were losing. Or, we could leave things as they were. VP looked around the table, "Well. Guess we have to do the right thing."
I always got tickets to a charity ball at the beach. The family was top donors and wouldn't show up. They were true believers in the Biblical admonition to STFU about your charity and just do it.
Guess there exceptions to every rule.
Looks like there's some other Factor X (in orange) not accounted for in the data.
Y'know, like, rich parents, stable household, access to resources, and opportunities, etc
Reminds me of the marshmallow test:
But the marshmallow test is a tricky one. Replication studies reveal important details that are missing from Mischel’s triumphant analysis. On average, the kids who “fail” and eat the marshmallow rather than waiting and doubling their haul were poorer, while the “patient” kids were from wealthier backgrounds. When the “impatient” kids were asked about the thought process that led to their decision to eat the marshmallow rather than holding out for two, they revealed a great deal of future-looking thought.
The adults in these kids’ lives had broken their promises many times: Their parents would promise material comforts, from toys to treats, that they were ultimately unable to provide due to economic hardship. Teachers and other authority figures would routinely lie to these kids, out of some mix of overly optimistic projection about the resources they’d be given to help the kids in their care, or the knowledge that the kids’ poor, time-strapped, frantic parents wouldn’t be able to retaliate against them for lying.
So the kids had carefully observed the world they operated in and concluded, on balance of probability, that eating the marshmallow was the safe bet. At the very least, it foreclosed on the possibility that the adults running the experiment would come back in 15 minutes and declare that, due to circumstances beyond their control, they were taking back the original marshmallow, rather than providing two of them. They were thinking about the future, in other words.
These kids didn’t grow up to do worse in school and life because they lacked self-control: Those outcomes were dictated by America’s two-tier education system, which funds schools based on local property taxes, topped up by parental donations, which means that poor neighborhoods get poor schools. If these kids’ brains show up differently on a scan 20 years later, Occam’s Razor dictates that this is caused by a life of desperation and precarity, whose stresses are compounded by inadequate health-care.
https://locusmag.com/feature/cory-doctorow-marshmallow-longtermism/
Very interesting. I imagine an even simpler explanation for why poorer kids do less well in school:
You simply can't focus on abstract thoughts if you're lacking basic ingredients in your life.
It's something like the pyramid of needs:
When you're hungry in school because you didn't have proper breakfast because your parents had too little time to prepare one or were unable to actually buy proper-quality ingredients, your brain simply can't focus on geography of the other end of the world or god forbid, calculus.
I guess that if schoolkids were given free meals before school and during midday break, their performance in school-related activity would improve by at least 50% in poorer regions.
Replication studies reveal important details
Doesn't provide a source
He usually has a companion piece on his blog for anything that goes into Locus. There, he linked to the wiki page about the marshmallow test, which has a section on follow-up studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment#Follow-up_studies
Interesting, the follow-ups all together paint quite a different picture than the above quote/blog post
A 2024 study extended the approach of Watts et al and found that "Marshmallow Test performance does not reliably predict adult outcomes."
I genuinely thought that was the point of this graph. The logarithmic function in blue very clearly shows there is a limit as to what IQ alone will net you.
People will look at the same graph and come up with different explanations. I personally agree with your interpretation.
I'd be curious to see a chart like this but with savings or some other form of stored wealth! Because I'd like to believe that smarter people might not earn that much more, but they're more diligent about saving what they do get
I've always said the rich have to be somewhat intelligent to hang onto the money. Worked for a fairly rich family and scammers and salesmen were constantly after them.
I do not think that would be as correlated as you imagine either. Conservativism is not particularly intelligent. Spotting an opportunity will often evolve and lead down different paths. Many engineers have gained and lost vast quantities of wealth pursuing ventures. Business is hard and it is impossible to constrain all variables.
I'd like to see the same chart done but with EQ (emotional intelligence).
I'd also like to see the chart if it was actually representative of the rich. Populate the chart with individuals reporting >2.5 million in income per year.
This is more like a chart of, "does being smart help you stay above the poverty line?"
I mean, while it's true that IQ tests aren't a great measure of intelligence, it's not like all humans are equally intelligent. We all know some people who are clearly smart and some people who are clearly dumb. And I think it's completely expected that being smarter gives you some advantage at getting money. I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that being smart is generally advantageous in life. This chart seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me...there is a slight correlation, moreso on the low end (how can severely mentally retarded people do most jobs or even have incomes?), and less so on the high end. It makes a mistake in talking about income rather than net worth, which is really the more pertinent thing in "being rich". I bet we would see a much lower correlation there, because you can be born into having a high net worth. But the correlation isn't too high, because, as everyone reasonable already suspected, being rich is almost entirely about being lucky. I don't think this chart really has any import to the many social discussions about meritocracy or wealth or intelligence, except for maybe to disprove someone who believes that we live in a fair world where "if you're smart and work hard you can make it". But even then, that would rely on a misunderstanding of what the chart tells us.
Basically, I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.
In my experience, type A personality has more to do with being able to earn a lot vs anything else. The cake is a lie.