The IQ problem and jobs

[BadgerJelly]

This is a section of talk by Jordan Peterson:



It is interesting to consider this societal problem. He refers to governments generally ignoring it. The simple truth is as technology develops more and more people are left trying to get jobs they are not capable of doing.

He talks about the US army refusing to recruit people of an IQ 83 or lower. This means 10% of the population are considered of too low intelligence to fight in the army.

At the end he also mentions automated cars, so a huge part of the male work force will lose their jobs. There will be no more driver jobs. What are all these low IQ people going to do with themselves?

I think he has a point about addressing this delicate problem sooner rather than later. If we cannot as a society find jobs for these people then they will likely degenerate to committing crimes having been driven out of work by the technological advances and complexity of the work place, a complexity they simply cannot mentally handle.

[Eclogite]

My in depth examination of society suggests that at least some of them could become politicians.

[BadgerJelly]

My in depth examination of society suggests that at least some of them could become politicians.

Well, he said in the video that some subjects tend to have lower IQ ratings ... I did a quick check and found IT & Computing as well as History and Political Sciences at the arse end of the scale. Physics and math obviously topping the IQ rating list ;)

[wolfhnd]

Big problem but it is worse than most people think. Many lawyers, engineers, research and medical technicians, accountants, teachers, sales representatives, and others in the 110 to 130 IQ range can easily be replaced by AI.

[BadgerJelly]

Big problem but it is worse than most people think. Many lawyers, engineers, research and medical technicians, accountants, teachers, sales representatives, and others in the 110 to 130 IQ range can easily be replaced by AI.

How do you justify this statement? I think Peterson pointed out that people still need to man the tills in McDonalds because the job is too complex for robots.

[Serpent]

How do you justify this statement? I think Peterson pointed out that people still need to man the tills in McDonalds because the job is too complex for robots.

What tills?
Half thew supermarkets and hardware stores already have automated checkouts.
That's where the customer does the clerk's work, saves the megacorp a ton of money laying people off and doesn't even get a discount.

[wolfhnd]

https://hbr.org/2016/10/robots-will-rep ... fessionals

[BadgerJelly]

Actually, yeah! At Coffee Bean they give you a little vibrating thing so you know when to go collect your coffee. The stupidity of it is I've seen 3 staff behind the counter chatting and then calling to me to come collect my expensive coffee.

Now I refuse to take the thing and just tell them to call me because I sit literally right next to them.

note: This is more a complaint about customer services and lack of commonsense :P

I am not arguing that job numbers are being reduced only that for certain jobs people have to fill gaps. I doubt we'll go out to restaurant and see robots cooking and serving food anytime soon (maybe a slight possibility in places like McDonalds, but it is a suprising complex job to navigate given the number of customers.

At self check-outs there is usually 2 person on stand-by per 4 check-outs, so this is a reduction certainly.

[BadgerJelly]

https://hbr.org/2016/10/robots-will-replace-doctors-lawyers-and-other-professionals

He mentions this. The thing he pointed out that stuck me was that the very low end of the spectrum do nothing in their free time. It is a question of fulfilling your sense of purpose. For me or you, or anyone of 100-130 IQ if we're not working we can pursue other activity and think about things. The low end of the spectrum just get bored and feel worthless.

I have a lot of free time and I try and use it to further my intellect and general understanding. As he says in the vid he could explain a task to me in 10 minutes that I would be able to do no problem without further instruction, whereas someone with an IQ of around 85 or lower it would, and has, taken him 10 hours to get them to understand and complete only part of the task.

People of low IQ need simple jobs to fit into society. If this is extended up to IQ of 130 then I don't see it as being as a big a problem the higher we go because we'd effectively be freeing up people to improve themselves and have sense of self worth.

People need something to do.

[wolfhnd]

There will be new jobs and if you predict where they will be you may be the next Bill Gates.

[wolfhnd]

https://hbr.org/2016/10/robots-will-replace-doctors-lawyers-and-other-professionals

He mentions this. The thing he pointed out that stuck me was that the very low end of the spectrum do nothing in their free time. It is a question of fulfilling your sense of purpose. For me or you, or anyone of 100-130 IQ if we're not working we can pursue other activity and think about things. The low end of the spectrum just get bored and feel worthless.

I have a lot of free time and I try and use it to further my intellect and general understanding. As he says in the vid he could explain a task to me in 10 minutes that I would be able to do no problem without further instruction, whereas someone with an IQ of around 85 or lower it would, and has, taken him 10 hours to get them to understand and complete only part of the task.

People of low IQ need simple jobs to fit into society. If this is extended up to IQ of 130 then I don't see it as being as a big a problem the higher we go because we'd effectively be freeing up people to improve themselves and have sense of self worth.

People need something to do.

Granted but even if they are employed they still have plenty of time to cause havoc, mess up their kids, abuse drugs, and disturb the peace.

[BadgerJelly]

wolf -

I don't think that's fair. Intelligence does not make someone "good". I would say they would be unhappy if they felt worthless, as anyone would. This could turn them to drugs and crime, but if it didn't I am more concerned about the human being not the problem they pose to society but the problem society poses to the individual human (smart or not).

The smarter just happen to have more ways and means to cope I imagine? Although that could be argued too. I would hardly say being smart makes you happier and more fulfilled it is simply a case of fulfilling your own potential, or rather striving to do so. If you have a limited potential and that is taken away from you what is left? The higher the ceiling of potential (in this case of value to society) is much higher for the people with higher IQ it would seem?

[Serpent]

The only advantage intelligence gives you is finding creative things to do with your free time. Bright people are more likely to invent something, or play complex games, or write how-to-be-happy-even-though-Jesus-doesn't-really-like-you-all-that-much books, while stupid people are more likely to attend gladiatorial contests, gather around stalled cars, or shoot innocent bunnies.

As for work, there are skills of the body and hand and eye that don't rely on intelligence; there is caring and nurturing that doesn't need higher education; there are talents and emotional capacities; there are still areas of service and art where thinking may even be a hindrance.

We've known since quite early in the 20th century that most work will eventually be done by machines, but we kept right on making too many people as well as machines. We'll adjust to less work and more diverse activities - at all intellectual levels.

If we survive the next 20 years. Or days.

[wolfhnd]

wolf -

I don't think that's fair. Intelligence does not make someone "good". I would say they would be unhappy if they felt worthless, as anyone would. This could turn them to drugs and crime, but if it didn't I am more concerned about the human being not the problem they pose to society but the problem society poses to the individual human (smart or not).

The smarter just happen to have more ways and means to cope I imagine? Although that could be argued too. I would hardly say being smart makes you happier and more fulfilled it is simply a case of fulfilling your own potential, or rather striving to do so. If you have a limited potential and that is taken away from you what is left? The higher the ceiling of potential (in this case of value to society) is much higher for the people with higher IQ it would seem?

Well I live in the ghetto and grew up in red neck land so don't lecture me on tolerance.

[wolfhnd]

The only advantage intelligence gives you is finding creative things to do with your free time. Bright people are more likely to invent something, or play complex games, or write how-to-be-happy-even-though-Jesus-doesn't-really-like-you-all-that-much books, while stupid people are more likely to attend gladiatorial contests, gather around stalled cars, or shoot innocent bunnies.

As for work, there are skills of the body and hand and eye that don't rely on intelligence; there is caring and nurturing that doesn't need higher education; there are talents and emotional capacities; there are still areas of service and art where thinking may even be a hindrance.

We've known since quite early in the 20th century that most work will eventually be done by machines, but we kept right on making too many people as well as machines. We'll adjust to less work and more diverse activities - at all intellectual levels.

If we survive the next 20 years. Or days.

Same old I'm better than you because I live in a gated community line? The problem with "stupid" people is they have been abandoned by the bourgeoisie liberal middle class that used to set an example of how to live a non chaotic life.

[BadgerJelly]

Wolf -

I sense a negative tone? I am not lecturing you. I did expect controversy with this subject matter though because it is a tough problem for society and one people likely feel offended by.

My response was to this:

Granted but even if they are employed they still have plenty of time to cause havoc, mess up their kids, abuse drugs, and disturb the peace.

I think if people are occupied and have a sense of purpose they won't turn to these things. That is all I was saying. Some, at every level of society (regardless of intelligence, wealth, creativity or a number of other factors that don't spring immediately to my mind), will loose their sense of worth or purpose due to personal circumstances and turn to drugs, violence and such.

I was not aware I was lecturing you on tolerance? To be honest I am not quite sure what you meant? Tolerance of what? Not trying to be cute here just looking for clarity.

You seemed to insinuate to me that low intelligence made people "bad", I admit my interpretation may have been way off the mark. If so just state that is not what you meant, if so then it is an interesting view I'd like to hear about please.

This would an area where ... er ... whatshername would like to talk about "teaching morals". This is also something Peterson talks about in another talk I listened too and I think it is valid to some degree in the way he framed the argument, poses the idea of having authority. Me being me I am opposed to "authority" in general, but also I obviously live with some structured "authority" in my life be it self-imposed or otherwise.

Same old I'm better than you because I live in a gated community line? The problem with "stupid" people is they have been abandoned by the bourgeoisie liberal middle class that used to set an example of how to live a non chaotic life.

Here there is another point worth mentioning in context to the vid in the OP. Peterson makes clear, elsewhere, that he sees a distinct difference between "wise" and "smart". An idiot may very well be wise, what "wise" means would lead to another thread though in regard to how Peterson defines this compared to how we do.

The main issue I am looking at here is what can society do? You mention the "middle class" disregarding the "lower class". Is evidence to parallel wealth with intelligence? With "class" we are effectively talking about "class" in this circumstance?

Example:

Some correlation worth noting, but I would not declare IQ as the only factor here.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/02/06/correlations-of-iq-with-income-and-wealth/

Anyway, the main theme for this thread is the lack of possible jobs in the future and what the unemployed will do. How have the "middle class" failed and what can they do?

[BadgerJelly]

Tempted to start another thread about this :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nal9ICDwhgo

Fascinating stuff. Also, a reason we should be cautious about drawing quick conclusions and assumptions about what "intelligence" factors into.

So in the above vid we have Peterson saying quite clearly there is no correlation between "intelligence" and "industriousness", which seems to me to contradict an idea expressed in the vid posted in the OP of this thread.

The question is then more about "motivation" maybe? Which would explain a lot. I imagine everyone is motivated for this or that reason and that "intelligence" does nothing to increase nor decrease in either direction with a bias. In some cases greater intelliegence would seem to contribute to increasing one way or another "motivation" or simply not at all?

The question then becomes what "industry" do unemployed people carry out, or people with free time. Pursuits would be physical, mental and social, all of which can vary in degree with intellectual capacity quite easily. As long as a sense of "success" or "progress" is felt it seems this is enough for anyone right? And in order to "progress" there needs to be managed conflicts and regular obsticles? The very avoidance of "confliction" may be a huge hinderance and this could be a telling factor?

More questions than answers here and hard to determine what this means for the outcome of less and less jobs for humans.

[Serpent]

Same old I'm better than you because I live in a gated community line?

I did live in a gated community once, for a month. Didn't like it. Some idjit kept waking me up at dawn with a leaf-blower. Now there's a stupid invention!
Now I live in the boonies, wear thrift-shop clothes and try to wheelbarrow my winter firewood under roof in the few days between rains.

As for being better than you - I consider "better" to mean kinder, more compassionate, more generous, more aware of other people, other species and the world at large. I have no way to compare myself to you, or anyone I haven't met, on those grounds.

As for intelligence, as I said, it's not a deciding factor in functionality.

The problem with "stupid" people is they have been abandoned by the bourgeoisie liberal middle class

I have said something similar to an American and been roundly, soundly reprimanded.

that used to set an example of how to live a non chaotic life.

I'm not convinced they ever did that, as a class. Individually, some still do.

[Serpent]

... cause havoc, mess up their kids, abuse drugs, and disturb the peace....

I think if people are occupied and have a sense of purpose they won't turn to these things. That is all I was saying. Some, at every level of society (regardless of intelligence, wealth, creativity or a number of other factors that don't spring immediately to my mind), will loose their sense of worth or purpose due to personal circumstances and turn to drugs, violence and such.

They won't all express it in the same way. And some are better able to keep it secret. You think the drug (depression, chronic pain, opiates) problem is confined to the unemployed factory workers? Drug addiction has plagued the medical profession for decades. Alcoholism is wide-spread in the police and building trades. Etc. Plenty of well-off, successful executives abuse substances - and their wives, kids and dogs, or somebody who gets paid, or coerced, to be abused. Unemployed people can't afford those luxuries: their dysfunction is out in the open, and they're far more likely to be arrested, which will them render them permanently unemployable.
There have been huge psychological problems in industrial society all along. The more social societies do a better job of addressing the problems, preventing some of the damage, patching up their wounded. The more aggressively competitive and monetized societies leave more and more road-kill in the wake of their drive to wealth-concentration.

The main issue I am looking at here is what can society do? You mention the "middle class" disregarding the "lower class".

Class is something North Americans refuse to acknowledge. As recently as the 1970's, America still had a working class, with its own voice, cultural presence, muscle and political representation (and its own brand of corruption, yes). Well, the working class has been politically disappeared. There has been a concerted pretense, in election campaigns, in policy-making, in entertainment and news media and advertising, that America is one great big happy homogeneous middle class. Not co-incidentally, the rural population was swept under an even bigger cognitive carpet, even earlier, as the land was gobbled up by agri-business.
More than half the people had their class identity stolen in broad daylight.
That's why there is no political left.

Anyway, the main theme for this thread is the lack of possible jobs in the future and what the unemployed will do. How have the "middle class" failed and what can they do?

There is no middle class identity, either. If everybody's middle class, it doesn't mean anything. They can't fail or succeed because they have no common direction or purpose or leadership or vision. There are factions who want this or that particular policy, but no foundation for solidarity.

Anyway, all that is obsolete now.
We're asking the wrong question for this century.
Employment is the whole wrong concept. In one sense, it always was: it's simply wrong to equate a person's worth with how much profit he or she can generate. The phrase "Job Market" itself is obscene - people should not be a bought-and-sold commodity.

We can think about work, usefulness, interdependence, human value, autonomy, self-respect, community - lots of basic human things.
And we really should think about those things, instead of getting forever distracted by "What does the boss need?". Forget the boss - his pony got bit by the blue-tail fly.

[BadgerJelly]

Serpent -

You've made an error regarding the first quote. You seem to have read the exact opposite of what I've written. I said that people will fall into those cycles regardless of social standing due to problems.

I didn't really bring class up nor wealth. IQ does not mean high income, it quite spread but there is obvious correlation to some degree.

By "worth" I meant sense of personal value to society, the feeling of being useful for something not "profit" but certainly a kind of "economic" use, be this through material or non-material production (meaning social bonds not just material gains or material management.)

As I noted Peterson seems to contradict himself a little in the last vid I posted. "Industry" does not necessarily mean "production". He is talking, I assume, on a psychological level and shows that peoples "industriousness" (meaning "hard-working") in their lives has no direct correlation to their IQ level.

I am looking specifically at job losses and what people do if they are not active. What jobs can people with low IQ do given that these jobs are being taken on my robotics? If they remain jobless and are provided for what do they do to find a sense of worth in their lives? This is the issue Peterson raises. By the last vid above those who are industrious will probably be able to busy themselves with something, but those who are not will surely fall into some serious problems.

I have more free time than most and even though I tend to squander a lot of it (being some what slovenly with bouts of intense work), I at least feel a sens eof self-worth completely detacted from my working life. The other factor to "fill the void" would obviously be friends and family. This seems like a more than slightly plausible occupation that Peterson has failed to bring up.

[wolfhnd]

Employment and "worth" are separated issues. There is nothing wrong with competition for jobs because any other system would be unjust and require an authoritarian government that focuses on groups not the individual. Differences in how society views the worth of the individual are related to how the legal system treats people based on class. Hillary Clinton's email server with classified documents on it and OJ Simpson's murder trial are examples of worth being unjustly attributed.

[BadgerJelly]

I think Peterson's point is that people like to do stuff that is deemed of value either to themselves or to society. We are talking about sense of "self-worth" here. Sorry if that was not clear.

What Peterson is getting at is people with low IQ may have less to occupy themselves with to give themselves a sense of self-worth because they simply won't have much scope for different interests. If doing their previous job is all they know then a huge piece of their lives have been removed. For even lower IQ there are very, very few jobs for those people to fill so they are left to their own devices to fill their time (this is where the "industrious" mind will prevail over IQ short comings it seems?)

[Serpent]

Serpent -

You've made an error regarding the first quote. You seem to have read the exact opposite of what I've written. I said that people will fall into those cycles regardless of social standing due to problems.

I was addressing the part about being occupied. Occupation, even very lucrative and respected occupation, doesn't prevent those problems. I'm saying the cause of those problems may not be found in whether people have jobs or not.
But Peterson did appear to suggest that they're problems specifically associated with unemployment in the working classes.

y "worth" I meant sense of personal value to society, the feeling of being useful for something not "profit" but certainly a kind of "economic"

You may think of it that way, and people should think of it that way, but industrial/capitalist societies emphatically have and do equate a person's worth with their monetary capability.

The other stuff I said is stand-alone; not at you or Wolfhnd or Peterson in particular but the issue in general.
"Job Market" is right there in the title of the video.

[BadgerJelly]

Serpent -

Oh, haha! I meant "occupied" in the broader sense of "busy" ("industrious") filling their time. I think his point is generally if your scope for being "industrious" is low (small field of interest) what are you going to do with your time?

Peterson refers to people with very low IQ (83 and below, which is 10% of population) having problems finding employment not lower classes.

[wolfhnd]

I like Peterson because he is honest, that doesn't mean I buy into all the psychological mumble jumbo. One thing he gets right is that people like Dawkins killed God without much understanding of the consequences. Peterson has latched on to Nietzsche's explanation of the role God played as the glue that held civilization but it should have been self evident that you couldn't remove one of civilization's foundation stones without tweaking it.

I suspect that many high IQ individuals never believed in the same "God" that the masses believed in but that probably puts an unnecessary fine point on the issue. Considering that Newton spent more time on religion than physics it could even be misleading. The point is that self worth for the masses was a product of egalitarian nature of Christianity while the message for the brighter people required elaboration. All souls are equal or perhaps the souls of the poor even a bit higher in the heavenly pecking order but that is clearly dysfunctional in a world that requires planning and preparation.

Peterson is trying to restore the soul. You can accept that as being figurative or literal it doesn't really matter. If we look at Peterson's proposition for restoration of the soul it is from a historical perspective more inline with protestant than orthodox philosophy. He thus avoids the damage that the eschatological nature of Christianity inflicts. The protestant work ethic deals with the nihilism that was always the most dangerous part of Christian philosophy. Simply put why work if all that matters is personal salvation at the end of time. Peterson's answer is that work restores the soul and he applies evolutionary psychology to prove his point.

[Serpent]

Dawkins doesn't deserve any credit for killing God. Lots of people before him had a hand in that assassination.
Anyway, how many no-longer-working people are familiar with Dawkins, as anything but a demonic icon in creationist propaganda? The people who actually read his work already didn't believe in God when they opened the book. I very much doubt he's changed anyone's belief or world-view in any appreciable way.

That's nothing to do with the robotization of societies, most of which was done by industrial and political leaders who were pillars of their church and moved their lips in all the right places in the service.

[Serpent]

Peterson refers to people with very low IQ (83 and below, which is 10% of population) having problems finding employment not lower classes.

He starts the lecture by subdividing IQ levels into job categories - so you can't avoid the class question.

Inaccurate from the get-go, because most people don't end up with the job they're best suited for, or have the appropriate cognitive aptitude for, or would most enjoy doing. They take whatever jobs they can get. And the children of wealthier families, with more access to education for a longer period, are more likely to get into the professions, whether they're intelligent enough or not, while poor kids, no matter how intelligent, may never get a shot at a degree, unless they can also play basketball or something.

[wolfhnd]

Dawkins doesn't deserve any credit for killing God. Lots of people before him had a hand in that assassination.
Anyway, how many no-longer-working people are familiar with Dawkins, as anything but a demonic icon in creationist propaganda? The people who actually read his work already didn't believe in God when they opened the book. I very much doubt he's changed anyone's belief or world-view in any appreciable way.

That's nothing to do with the robotization of societies, most of which was done by industrial and political leaders who were pillars of their church and moved their lips in all the right places in the service.

That is a pretty shallow analysis of what Peterson is saying. His message is in opposition to post modernism. For God you can substitute some instinctual psychological structure. I believe his concept of hierarchy, social structure and instinct is reasonably accurate even if it is expressed through mythology.

[Serpent]

That is a pretty shallow analysis of what Peterson is saying.

I wasn't trying to analyze it. I didn't get that far in the video - technical glitch. I may try it again.

I'm not much inclined to drag mythology into the current socio-economic crisis, but I realize that many people are, so it may be unavoidable.

[wolfhnd]

That is a pretty shallow analysis of what Peterson is saying.

I wasn't trying to analyze it. I didn't get that far in the video - technical glitch. I may try it again.

I'm not much inclined to drag mythology into the current socio-economic crisis, but I realize that many people are, so it may be unavoidable.

Mythology is perhaps an unfortunate term, try the abstract representation of the cultural paradigm from an evolutionary perspective.