Here’s an article in The Atlantic that I think raises some very good points:
David H. Freedman goes on to talk about the social stigma against people with below average IQs and their limited prospects today. He’s not talking about retarded people either, but those who simply aren’t bright enough to get a college degree.
This is going to be even more problematic with the rise of automation and artificial intelligence. The less brainy amongst us, those who aren’t smart enough to be lawyers and engineers, will be the first on the chopping block. Freedman suggests the government provide incentives to companies to resist automation, but I think that’s only going to delay the inevitable.
How do we deal with this issue going forward into the future?
I don’t have the patience right now to read the whole thing. I’ll just say in general that any person, regardless of intelligence who wants to be a productive member of society should have the opportunity to live a decent live. If a person only has the ability to be a minimum wage worker then a minimum wage job should be available and it should pay a living wage, a wage sufficient to afford decent housing, eat healthy food, wear suitable clothes, raise children, and have access to the means to improve themselves whether they can or not.
I think we marginalize people far more often on other criteria than intelligence and abilities, but we do concentrate to much on people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps when they may lack the ability to do so. Not everyone will benefit from more education, not everyone will be able to compete on skills, those people shouldn’t find themselves doomed to live among the portion of society who refuse to work.
The article mentions popular entertainment shows like, Big Bang Theory, that are part of the “problem” because they glorify intelligence. It fails to address all the popular reality TV shows that glorify and indulge stupidity.
I think there is much less difference in ability between people with below average, average, and above average IQs than we might think. I think it only matters in the margins, and we don’t live in the margins.
As a professor at a not-especially-selective state university, I think this is a real and growing problem (although I’m not a big fan of the use of the word “stupid” in this context). I see a lot of young people who are not especially academically inclined, and in some cases may not be capable of doing college-level work at all, but who feel like they have to get the degree because they believe (often accurately) that they won’t be able to get a job that pays a living wage without it. A few of them end up being a good fit in programs like culinary arts, but a lot more of them drop out with nothing but debt and a handful of C-range grades in miscellaneous subjects to show for their efforts.
I don’t know what the solution is, but I think a good start would be raising the minimum wage. Manufacturing may be a lost cause, but it’s not that there AREN’T still plenty of service-industry jobs that don’t require a huge amount of intelligence. (The author of the article speculates that truck drivers and waitstaff may someday be automated out of existence, but this hasn’t happened yet, and we’ll also need more people to care for the elderly as the population ages.) The real problem is that there’s a massive pay and prestige gap between those jobs and professional jobs that require a college degree, and I’m not sure there absolutely has to be.
Does anyone know the author’s IQ? From the solution section:
People should be protected so they can still be beat of burden! I mean, the Egyptians didn’t need any fancy schmancy “machines” to build the pyramids!!
So these employers are currently using counterproductive hiring practices because… they’re not… smart? enough to see that they’re counterproductive? My head hurts.
Plus, anyone glorifying the 50s has to explain why that golden age wasn’t just a result of “every other industrialized country in the world was bombed into ruins during WWII” and also has to add “if you were a straight, white male” on the end of every superlative he or she uses: The 1950s were a golden age for the American Worker [if you were a straight, white male]. When you don’ have to compete with any foreign works and you don’t have to compete with 3/4 of the folks in your own country, it can be a grand ol’ time indeed!
Let’s expand this comparison not just to the 1950s, but to all of human history before that! Going back to medieval and ancient times, the vast majority of the population were illiterate farmers (stretching back even further, they were illiterate hunter-gatherers). It didn’t require a lot of brains for you to have an accepted role in society, to feel good about yourself, and to earn a living.
A part of the problem is the inability to admit that not everyone is college material. There are more options in life then college graduate or ditch digger. The world needs carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and other skill tradespeople. Yet our education systems seems to be trying to make square pegs go into the round college hole. Instead of boring and frustrating lower IQ teens by trying to prepare them for college it would be better to try to teach them a trade or a skill that they can use to get a trade. I see the biggest hurdle to this being the unwillingness to admit that not every school is going to have the same percentage of college educable people and that schools in poor area are going to send fewer people to college.
I’m a certain type of “stupid”, (I believe), and it aint easy. I have an IQ in the lower “normal” range. I didn’t finish college. I have a learning disability.
I don’t know what exactly to add to this conversation other than I’ve learned to surround myself with intelligent people. That’s why I’m on this message board, that’s why I spend a lot of time with my brother, who’s very smart, and that’s why I stay away from people who I’d consider “stupid” as well, but seem to think they’re smart and would yell their opinion with 100% certainty that they are right.
I’ve never been a great reader, (and I’m a horrendous writer), but I always did pretty well with reading comprehension, because I trained myself to look at HOW words are used in a sentence, (because my vocabulary isn’t that great), and sort of figure out what is being said by looking the way it’s used. Same thing with spotting people who are “intelligent”, I listen to people, and using my best judgment, (and Google, and Straight Dope, and other people’s perspectives), to decide who’s smart and who’s full of shit.
I’ve said plenty of stupid things on here, and people here can be… unsympathetically honest. Most people would get defensive if they are bluntly told how wrong they are - but that’s why it’s called ‘The Straight Dope’… people give it to you ‘straight’ here. That doesn’t mean that I take everyone at their word here. If someone were to challenge me, I would often wait to see if others feel the same way. I would often, (not always), adjust my opinion accordingly.
Socially I’m doing ok… but when it comes to working, paying bills, filling out forms… I’m very disadvantaged.
Agree, but it isn’t just low IQ teens. My son has an above average IQ - he isn’t a genius, but he’s been tested and he’s smart. He wants trade school - he doesn’t have the desire to have a desk job. And we’ve had to talk his counselors into that path.
At the same time, a lot of the trade jobs that pay well are fairly intellectually challenging - at least to get through the program. You don’t become an electrician or a plumber or a car mechanic without some academic background in the science behind those trades. You don’t become a stylist unless you know at least some of the chemistry behind coloring hair. A dental assistant needs anatomy, chemistry and biology - maybe not extensive, but you have to have some idea where your sinus cavities are in relation to the roots of your teeth. You don’t need to be Harvard material, but you need to be willing to apply yourself to get through the program - and its going to take some amount of intelligence to do so.
I’m having some trouble squaring post #15 with any meaning of stupid that has utility in the real world. “Has a learning disability” doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with “is stupid.”
I think the rising tide of automation and AI is the best argument for we need to seriously consider basic minimum income.
But I also think technology allows employers to weigh social intelligence over analytical reasoning. If you’ve got a bunch of self-check out counters, then you can concentrate on hiring staff who–while unable to make change without a calculator–are “people persons” who know how to create a pleasurable shopping experience.
And maybe we need to acknowledge that a super high IQ is not meaningful for every and all professions. Take medicine. It used to be that the body of medical knowledge was an exclusive, cloistered thing only accessible to those with medical training. But with information constantly on the tip of everyone’s fingers, that’s simply not true anymore. Am I saying that anyone can be a doctor? No, of course not. But if I wake up with a funny-looking rash, I don’t feel compelled to call my primary care physician because I know Dr. Google has the answer. So I don’t know what we gain by restricting the medical profession to the super intelligent, when most medical questions are becoming easier to solve. Seems like we should be selecting medical students based on skills (like bedside manner) that can’t be match by technology, in addition to above-average analytical skills.
Well, that’s true. I suppose I meant that along with the other things I listed that make things challenging for me. Along with having a lower IQ and not being able to finish college, it’s just insult to injury. That’s why I said I was a certain type of stupid and have stupid in quotes.
It’s not just the learning disability. I have a very difficult time problem solving.
Is that an adequate answer? Or did I miss interoperate your post?