The birth of a new american aristocracy?

[Hrothbern]

Actually IQ has fairly high test-retest reliability. Obviously it's not perfect, nothing is, but it's still pretty good

have tests on that been done with intervals like 20 years ?

I tried to find an example, but could only find this one done on 344 students with a 2.84 year interval.
"Long-term stability of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Fourth Edition"
2.84 year is long term ???
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23397927

 

[Ironsided]

High IQ is for nerds. IQ tests measure convergent thinking which is about as useful as arse outside building circuits or something. In the real world there are a million right answers and your job is to choose your truth wisely. This is not done by empirical studies. It’s done in the hive mind of actual humanities.

 

[Lexicus]

In the real world there are a million right answers and your job is to choose your truth wisely. This is not done by empirical studies. It’s done in the hive mind of actual humanities.

QFT

Logic is highly overrated in the real world.

The 0.1%/9.9%/90% structure is pretty much what Europeans mean when they talk about an upper, middle and working class. It's only startling to Americans because the ideology of a "mass-middle class" is so deeply-rooted in their political discourse.

And in fairness, it seemed a fairly plausible notion for a long time, at least for white people. The United States did enjoy a genuine broad-based prosperity for the three decades after the Second World War. But it came unstuck some time ago- it's been unstuck for longer than it ever really existed, at this point- and you're all now just catching up to the idea that the American exception isn't so exceptional.

Ironically, this is all coming against a background of Europeans becoming much worse at talking about class. It seems like we're all meeting somewhere in the middle, which is I suppose why stuff like "99%" has so much currency compared to a stodgily Marxist "proletariat".

I've come to the rather pessimistic conclusion that the "middle-class" in American discourse is basically just a new take on the "mass aristocracy" of whiteness.

Materially speaking, you are correct about that broad-based prosperity. It was something that Americans of color were largely excluded from, and it has turned out that the majority of white people in the US preferred to destroy the basis of their own prosperity over seeing people of color become prosperous en masse.

 

[Hehehe]

have tests on that been done with intervals like 20 years ?

I tried to find an example, but could only find this one done on 344 students with a 2.84 year interval.
"Long-term stability of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Fourth Edition"
2.84 year is long term ???
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23397927

I'd have to dig up the studies, but the figures I've seen are that IQ test results have over 0.9 correlation with each other across several years. I've also seen studies of IQ over a person's lifetime, but I can't for the life of mine seem to find them anymore

High IQ is for nerds. IQ tests measure convergent thinking which is about as useful as arse outside building circuits or something. In the real world there are a million right answers and your job is to choose your truth wisely. This is not done by empirical studies. It’s done in the hive mind of actual humanities.

As much as I find your "everybody's a winner!!!!"-attitude endearing, IQ is actually a real thing that has a real body of literature supporting it. I know you're not aware of this body of literature, and it's ok. But you do realize that your uninitiated insights are of limited value?

 

[Hrothbern]

I'd have to dig up the studies, but the figures I've seen are that IQ test results have over 0.9 correlation with each other across several years. I've also seen studies of IQ over a person's lifetime, but I can't for the life of mine seem to find them anymore

Would be real nice if you could dig up that IQ stability you saw
Especially whether that IQ stability was the stability over time of the average of the group measured, or the relative stability of the ranking of individuals over time, or the individual IQ stability over time.

From what I have seen was that the individual IQ change over time is quite substantial, both up as down, with roughly a standard deviation of 10-20 IQ points !
(with teens, adolescents used for the first measurement)

 

[Broken_Erika]

QFT

Logic is highly overrated in the real world.

Pfffft! Logic is for Vulcans!

 

[Ironsided]

As much as I find your "everybody's a winner!!!!"-attitude endearing, IQ is actually a real thing that has a real body of literature supporting it. I know you're not aware of this body of literature, and it's ok. But you do realize that your uninitiated insights are of limited value?

It's not about you and your 112.5 IQ.

 

[El_Machinae]

You might not be surprised to see fluctuations in IQ over the course of someone's life, because IQ is partially based on age. And it's not like the term 'early Bloomer', or 'late bloomer' are just invented terms that don't describe real phenomena. That will be a source of real variance in an individual, that will show up in the Mass statistics as well

 

[plarq]

I came across this article in the Atlantic and thought it was interesting, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/. It's quite long but here are some quotes for this discussion, highlighting who "the 9.9 percent" are, what advantages they have, and how hard it is to move in and out of this group:







Do you agree "the 9.9 percent" is a legitimate class? If so, how much of the wealth imbalance should be blamed on them? How should people in this group fight "for opportunities for other people’s children" and alleviate the wealth imbalance... or is it just a matter of the federal government taxing them more and more?

No, US is a plutocracy, where money can make ignorant people geniuses. Your money speaks louder than your bloodline.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yes
And where for jobs 50 years ago the companies allowed or even encouraged these "unqualified" people to grow substantially during their job to a level that was both intellectual as money wise satisfying (for employee and employer), these growth possibilities are now much less because of the higher defined job tasks, decreasing the need for self-thinking employees and the formalisation of "qualified" whereby education level plays a bigger role.
Learning on the job Having the right certificate

True story. In aerospace it used to be possible for a gifted, hardworking machinist or technician to move into the engineering ranks without a degree through consistent, awesome work. Now that's *almost* unheard of and when it does happen, the new 'engineer' is handicapped by job titles that are deliberately tiered below normal engineers (something like manufacturing specialist rather than manufacturing engineer). Playing games with job titles is a great way for companies to suppress wages - the promoted technician can feel like he's a proper engineer and enjoy a small pay boost but in reality he (or she) is locked out of the engineer I, II, III, etc promotion path and subsequent raises.

 

[Hehehe]

Would be real nice if you could dig up that IQ stability you saw
Especially whether that IQ stability was the stability over time of the average of the group measured, or the relative stability of the ranking of individuals over time, or the individual IQ stability over time.

From what I have seen was that the individual IQ change over time is quite substantial, both up as down, with roughly a standard deviation of 10-20 IQ points !
(with teens, adolescents used for the first measurement)

The only study I could find was this one. It has some problems, since the test subjects were tested first at a very young age and later at a fairly advanced age. I'd prefer to see a study comparing 20-year-olds to 60-year-olds, if that were the case, I'd expect to see even more robust correlations

Raw stability coefficients for the MHT from 11-70, 11-79, and 11-87 years were .67, .66, and .51, respectively; and larger when corrected for range restriction in the samples.

It's not about you and your 112.5 IQ.

Meh, I'm happy with what little I got

True story. In aerospace it used to be possible for a gifted, hardworking machinist or technician to move into the engineering ranks without a degree through consistent, awesome work. Now that's *almost* unheard of and when it does happen, the new 'engineer' is handicapped by job titles that are deliberately tiered below normal engineers (something like manufacturing specialist rather than manufacturing engineer). Playing games with job titles is a great way for companies to suppress wages - the promoted technician can feel like he's a proper engineer and enjoy a small pay boost but in reality he (or she) is locked out of the engineer I, II, III, etc promotion path and subsequent raises.

I don't know about aerospace engineering specifically, but there's quite a lot that goes into highly technical occupations. While I can't speak for that industry specifically, I doubt that a job as a machinist prepares one for complex design work. It's one thing to machine a part, and it's completely another thing to design a part while also making sure that all the strength calculations are correct, and that the part adheres to all of the various industry standards. I imagine that this is doubly true for aerospace engineering, where safety margins are smaller and standards and regulations are much more strict.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It was never an easy transition and I doubt it was ever super-common but it was a viable career move until recently when it just became almost impossible. And for sure you are not likely going to take a technician and turn him into an engine designer because there is a lot of fundamental book-learning stuff they just don't have but need for those kinds of jobs. However, turning a technician into a manufacturing engineer is very plausible. Those engineers are not typically doing detailed design work but are instead fixing problems and creating work instructions. That's definitely within the skill set of a talented technician.

There are still a few places where it's possible to make that transition but not as many as before. And in any case those few places play games with job titles that lessen the earning potential of those who make the transition which in turn makes it less likely people will do it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, but that's where all the yucky people who are too stupid to be ashamed are.

Here some of the tradies can hit 6 figure incomes.

Can't be that stupid. Pays more than most degrees. Its also theoretically possible to get close to that without any formal qualifications (cops can hit 70k starting, air traffic control, port crane operator or tug pilot). Some IT work can also be like that as hands on experience can count for more than a degree. Got a mate who is 40, self taught high school drop out earning 6 figures.

 

[civvver]

I know a lot of people who do that by taking side jobs. Cousin is a licensed electrician. I don't know how much he makes at his 9-5 job but he works an additional 10-20 hours every week installing electrical boxes, wiring up kitchens, whatever for friends and family and probably makes close to 100k. He told me hiring an electric company to do a whole new box can be up to $5,000. He will do it for 2-3 and it takes him half a day.

My father in law is the richest person I know. He got his plumbing license, became a master plumber, started his own company. Retired last year at 60, is a multi millionaire. Now at some point he was not really a plumber but a small business owner, but still he started in trades. Master plumbers make a lot.

 

[Zardnaar]

I know a lot of people who do that by taking side jobs. Cousin is a licensed electrician. I don't know how much he makes at his 9-5 job but he works an additional 10-20 hours every week installing electrical boxes, wiring up kitchens, whatever for friends and family and probably makes close to 100k. He told me hiring an electric company to do a whole new box can be up to $5,000. He will do it for 2-3 and it takes him half a day.

My father in law is the richest person I know. He got his plumbing license, became a master plumber, started his own company. Retired last year at 60, is a multi millionaire. Now at some point he was not really a plumber but a small business owner, but still he started in trades. Master plumbers make a lot.

yeah plumbing pays well here, sending your kids to trade school would be a better option IMHO than most degrees and easier to get a job. Law, accounting and IT can be fairly cut throat.

We paid a young fella $40 and hour to do the flooring. He got the job done for 1/3rd the price we were quoted and then got one of his mates to recarpet the house for less than half the retail price and we paid him something similar. Got a free upgrade to the drive way and a retaining wall so paid just under 6 k for 20-25k worth of work roughly.

I helped him out and was his "boy" for the day to speed things up. Wife comes home and I was using a crowbar to rip up the floor. If they can do it a lot cheaper than a company not gonna nickle and dime them over $5 or $10 on the hourly rate for a one off job.

If I had kids who looked at doing a trade I would recommend Plumbing and electrician. Pays more and less reliant on the building cycle. You can delay maintenance on a house, can't really delay fixing the lights, toilet or water.

 

[plarq]

I would not enroll in any liberal arts major because I need the money.

 

[Farm Boy]

Here some of the tradies can hit 6 figure incomes.

Can't be that stupid. Pays more than most degrees. Its also theoretically possible to get close to that without any formal qualifications (cops can hit 70k starting, air traffic control, port crane operator or tug pilot). Some IT work can also be like that as hands on experience can count for more than a degree. Got a mate who is 40, self taught high school drop out earning 6 figures.

I did intend it with a degree of irony.

Though, a lot of those jobs are remarkably competitive and/or difficult. Not super easy to get yourself put at the controls of a bigass crane!

 

[aelf]

Yeah, but that's where all the yucky people who are too stupid to be ashamed are.

Blue collar jobs are great. But there's got to be a way to supplement the skills training with the softer stuff. Even on the college-educated side, we have enough engineers who are great at thinking technical but start becoming weirdos or fascists when politics or ethics come up.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Blue collar jobs are great. But there's got to be a way to supplement the skills training with the softer stuff. Even on the college-educated side, we have enough engineers who are great at thinking technical but start becoming weirdos or fascists when politics or ethics come up.

Eh that attitude started developing before college and probably won't change from exposure to new ideas. When I took microeconomics 101, the lectures kept getting interrupted by our resident Mr. Libertarian who would ask leading questions so he could go on a rant about how evil taxation is. It was a class for freshmen...

But yeah by and large engineers are conservative and most of them come from conservative families. So they were raised that way - they didn't turn into it. And there are already enough gen-ed courses in the curriculum that if they were going to have a change of heart in college they would have. They just don't

 

[Yeekim]

*Sigh* IQ is a better predictor of future success than parental socio-economic status is (Strenze, 2006). Yet we're supposed to have a serious discussion about this "intergenerational earnings elasticity", which could be wholly explained by genetics, while at the same time we're supposed to pretend that genes and intelligence aren't a thing

1) Pretending that genes and intelligence aren't a thing is dumb, yes.
2) Pretending that differences in IEE in US can be wholly explained by genetics is, imho, even dumber.