Jordan Peterson - IQ and The Job Market

I agree entirely with you on the urgency of figuring out productive jobs for people with IQs on the left side of the bell curve. Jordan Peterson has a very good video on this[1]. I would couple this with a concern that we end (or, dare we dream, reverse) the dysgenic social policies we currently have in place (IQ is 50-80% heritable). In the short run, we need to work to move the production chain back to the united states, and that will generate some manufacturing jobs. I suspect more than the corporate-interest controlled media will say, but it almost doesn't matter if we are playing the long game for our kids. [1] - [VIDEO]

There is an interesting clip from Jordan Peterson on IQ and jobs. Sure intelligent people want something meaningful from their jobs, but at the lower ends people are probably happier with something less challenging. [VIDEO] Personally I wouldn't mind cycling around all day and staying fit, but keeping software running pays a fair bit better.

Yep. Jordan Peterson has discussed how important IQ is in the modern economy and how both the left and the right are in denial about it. While the left thinks anyone can be anything, the right thinks lazy people just need to work harder. Both are wrong. [VIDEO] Difficult problem.

To flesh out a large range of implications will take at least an effort worthy of a PhD dissertation. With successful embryo selection, at least we can keep up with the increasingly higher minimum IQ needed to function well in advanced society and avoid a large underclass of unemployable people. Jordan Peterson - IQ and The Job Market [VIDEO]

Modern advanced society already requires a high minimum intelligence for people to function in especially to hold a respectable job or be a respectable member of a community. The minimum is increasing when more automation is used for most kinds of automation. If someone's children will likely have a lower than this minimum intelligence, which you can infer from parent's IQ and other measures, will you encourage or prohibit them to use either embryo selection or genetic engineering? What are the impact on the child's life for each option? Is the 'distaste' more important than giving a better opportunity for the newborns? Also, what can you do? You cannot put regulations on China or other countries. On this issue, they will not agree on international agreement either. And there will be rich people who fly to other countries to have the procedures done. This will cause even more inequality than allowing it domestically. Jordan Peterson IQ and Job Market [VIDEO]

This is a decent article on a true problem, but there are two things I would mention that add context to the situation: Genetics do matter. Adult intelligence appears to be somewhere between 50 and 80% determined by genetics. Thus we should expect over time in a meritocracy for smart kids to come from the same families. This is compounded by assortative mating by IQ, which has become far more widespread in the last forty years. So things are going to look nepotistic (and they always will be to some extent, see my second point below) when, in fact, this is a natural phenomena. So, what? Just let the people who lose the genetic lottery rot? No. Instead, we might want to focus on having a more balanced economy where, rather than everyone striving to become part of the elite, a working class person can have a perfectly reasonable life. Jordan Peterson discusses this problem in this video: [VIDEO] Secondly, it is not immoral for parents to make large investments in their own children's lives. This behavior is no doubt somewhat driven by genetics (nearly everything appears to be at least 40% genetic) but it is also a learned behavior. Government programs that replace parental investment have been catastrophic for minorities in the united states: for example 73% of non-hispanic blacks are born out of wedlock. So delegating parental investment in children to the state, in the name of ending nepotism, may have some very detrimental effects that are difficult to predict. All of this is

Google interviews are mostly IQ tests. There are a basic set of primitives (algorithms and data structures) and you have to think fast and combine them. Google never cared about experience and knowledge as much as intelligence (the ability to learn fast): [VIDEO]

The reason they give is based on self evaluation. People are particularly bad at self evaluation. Keep in mind, most people don't know what their IQ is. And most don't consider themselves to posses less intelligence as they don't know what more intelligence feels like. See this video for relationship between job expectation and IQ: [VIDEO]