I do not believe that testing for the ability to perform a task without actually observing someone performing the task for real is a trivial task And I believe the idea that one can test *generally* for the ability to "perform tasks" (the g-factor) is false
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Kajel96536401 and
You may not believe it, but the scientific evidence is extremely strong that the correlation between the g-factor and the ability to perform cognitive tasks is large. The problem that observing someone is often extremely costly and/or hard. 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @arthur_affect and
When you demand the unreasonable, people usually start cheating (as a Stalinist, that should be familiar to you). We pretty consistently see that the alternative to general testing is influence peddling, benefiting the rich and powerful. 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @Kajel96536401 and
Yup, the problem with all other methods of social sorting is they're all "subjective" and "irrational" and therefore benefit the already-powerful But standardized testing just measures objective truths and puts the people in power who objectively should be there Awesome
2 replies 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Kajel96536401 and
The true positions of power are not usually achieved through testing, but through other means. Your entire argument is false for that reason, because you fail to distinguish between the workers who just do what they are told (most of us) and the few with significant power.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @Kajel96536401 and
Yes, under a Marxist analysis a highly paid software engineer in San Francisco is in the "working class" the same as a burger-flipper in Wichita, and the members of the "ruling class" are indeed very few However, the idea that the engineer *has no power* is horseshit
3 replies 2 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
If nothing else, on the small-scale day-to-day level where we live most of the time, *money is power* (I'm still kind of seething over Scott's incredibly headass post where he tried to deny this fact and be like "Hey money is only useful for, like, buying stuff")
2 replies 1 retweet 25 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Kajel96536401 and
Yes, but that power is far different than what you probably mean. Money is how we coerce people into pro-social behavior and how we create win-win situations. Basically, we reward it when people provide high benefits to others, at relatively low costs to themselves. 1/2
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @arthur_affect and
This is why capitalism was so good at increasing the level of goods that people have, because nearly everyone benefits from participating. The main problem is that there are big differences in the ability to provide benefits to others. 2/3
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @arthur_affect and
Hence the need for redistribution. This is why social democracy was a success and Marxism was a disaster, because Marxism refused to reward people more if they provided more benefits to others, leading to massive shirking and corruption. 3/3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This is blatantly false and the idea that there was no benefit under Marxism-Leninism to being a brilliant scientist or a "10x engineer" is 8th-grade civics nonsense Whatever the actual problems with a planned economy are it's not that
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.