FireRises
1yr ago
Read Joseph Heinrich's "The WEIRDest people in the world". It explains a lot of of the non-intelligence related reasons that humans differ in their cognition.
(full disclosure: I haven't actually read the book yet myself. It's working its way to the top of my reading list)
FireRises
1yr ago
Go to a running store that can analyze your running form, and they can recommend a shoe specifically for your running body mechanics. Some people strike with the outside of their feet, some hit the road with a more neutral form. Some are midfoot strikers, vs striking on the balls of your feet or your heel. Get a shoe that compliments your running style.
Also, when shopping for running shoes I've found that some shoes can fit well around my toes and on the sole of my foot, but felt a bit loose around my ankles. Learning how to tie a heel-lock with the shoe's laces has worked really well to correct this one particular problem I've found with shopping for the right shoe.
FireRises
1yr ago
Yeah, this seems like the most likely explanation. I would guess that the biggest, most powerful companies in the world make a lot of their money based off of their ownership of capital, and subsequent rent-seeking. With a side hustle of regulatory capture that lets them extract more rent, and acquire more capital.
I feel like the companies with the means to extract those rents will also have a desire to signal to everyone else how virtuous they are. The Vanguards and Blackrocks of the world can point to their 50% woman, 30% black executives and say "look at how diverse your consent-manufacturer overlords are!"
FireRises
1yr ago
There exists an entire consulting industry that performs research on the benefits of DEI training, the benefits of a more diverse workforce, the success of organizations which have more women/LGBT people in leadership positions, etc. Here is the consulting company Accenture's summary of the benefits of DEI to companies and organizations that adopt their practices.
I am of the belief that it is people's knowledge, experience and competence that determines whether or not an organization will be successful in its goals. It seems extremely unlikely to me that any problem corporations are interested in solving becomes easier the more members of your project team possess a uterus. Likewise, it seems unlikely your organization will gain magical insight into any real problem of interest by virtue hand-selecting team members whose ancestors have a specific continent of origin. And I have a hard time believing there is a benefit to adding more members of your team who are sexually aroused by humans who share their same sex organs (or adding members of your team who wish to change their sex organs via surgery or chemical sterization).
My priors are stacked so incredibly hard against studies which demonstrate that there is actually a benefit to structuring teams based on hand-selecting people who are LGBT, people from Africa, or adding more women. Indeed, it feels like if you lower qualifications to hire people from these groups, it can only result in organizations which are less qualified.
I'm wondering how it is possible that these consulting companies succeed in designing studies that show the opposite of (what I believe to be) reality. Is it all publication bias and p-hacking? My intuition says that it is. But there are some pretty powerful-looking studies that seem to be hard to explain via that explanation alone. Looking at an example of one of the studies done by McKinsey in the above link:
Earnings Before Interests and Taxes (EBIT) margins
McKinsey & Company’s global study of more than 1,000 companies in 15 countries found that organizations in the top quartile of gender diversity were more likely to outperform on profitability—25% more likely for gender diverse executive teams and 28% more likely for gender-diverse boards. Organizations in the top quartile for ethnic/cultural diversity among executives were 36% more likely to achieve above-average profitability. At the other end of the spectrum, companies in the bottom quartile for both gender and ethnic/cultural diversity were 27% less likely to experience profitability above the industry average. Researchers measured profitability by using average EBIT margins
What is the plausible mechanism behind which research that shows these kind of results are created? Are they measuring something that is real (i.e. does a more diverse workforce actually make companies more money)? Or are the brilliant people at McKinsey meticulously hand-selecting the companies to design studies which will show the opposite of reality?
FireRises
1yr ago
There probably isn't much need for the Communications degree but building a corporate culture begins with communication that most men, again in my experience are not interested in. Women are heavily involved in the social shaming, rewarding and so on that is the foundation of our societies, top to bottom.
"Communications coordinators" are the type of people who destroy corporate culture, not create it.
Great corporate culture is created from a groups of people working together to solve difficult problems. So to build this culture, you want to hire intelligent and conscientious people who are passionate about solving the types of problems your organization needs.
FireRises
1yr ago
The underappreciated benefits is that: if HBD is true, then "invisible racism that everyone holds" stops being a reasonable explanation for why certain demographics are under-performing. Acknowledging HBD is (in my opinion) critical to reducing racial bitterness that the mainstream media has been trying really hard for the past decade to inflame
FireRises
2yr ago
Most of this website understands that a) intelligence tests have predictive validity and b) that Ashkenazi Jews, as a group, have extremely high average intelligence. Given these two observations, one would expect the country with the most jews-per-capita, Israel, would have a tremendous amount of human capital. I would expect, knowing nothing else about the country, that industry there would thrive and the wages in that country should be among the highest in the world. But wages there aren't that high: the GDP per capita in Israel is broadly similar to an average European country like Belgium.
What could be the cause of this? Ashkenazi Jews make up around 2% of the US's population, but due to their high intelligence, worth ethic, and culture, have a large percentage of positions of power and prestige in the US. You would think that Israel, being 33% Ashkenazi Jewish, would have tremendous number of brilliant 130+ IQ middle-and-upper class, and I'd expect Israel to be a tremendous source of intellectual and economic might in the European region as a result (kind of similar to Singapore or Taiwan in Asia, but with even more economic and technological prowess).
What explains Israel's economic and technological mediocrity? The rest of Israel's demographics are largely Mizrahi Jews and Sephardic Jews, as well as 20% arabs. Mizrahi and Sephardic jews have around an IQ of 92-ish, whereas Arabs have an IQ around 80. Which means that, overall, the IQ for Israel is estimated to be around 92. But even still there are a lot of very bright people in Israel; it should really be a bigger economic powerhouse, but it isn't. Can anyone help me to understand why? Are international corporations just not leveraging these untapped intellectual resources properly? Or does the presence of some dumb people in your society prevent the 30% of the very-smart people from successfully starting businesses/reaching the level of international influence that they otherwise could?
tl;dr: Israel isn't a big economic superpower. Why?
FireRises
2yr ago
As a red triber working in a blue city, it doesn't feel very descriptive of my situation, all of my female friends save one are pro life to the point of donating time and/or money to life focused crisis pregnancy centers
This is extremely the opposite of my experience as a red triber working in a very-blue city. I think it would be difficult to find any of my female friends who would mention being pro-life. People get fired for admitting that they are pro-life; I expect I would lose some friends if I made my opinions about this subject clear to them.
FireRises
2yr ago
I saw someone on reddit link this greentext image which explains some of the difficulties with basic reasoning ability that people with low IQ have.
I've read some books on the basics of intelligence research (which shows that intelligence is positively correlated with many outcomes that are good, and negatively correlated with many outcomes that are bad), but this text somehow phrased it in very concrete terms that I found interesting. Are there any other readings people have found that tries to contextualize the reality of living at a different intelligence level?
I know that, when people empathize with others, they tend to do so by "putting themselves in other people's shoes", which is trying to figure out how you would act given a different set of circumstances. But doing this with people of vastly different cognitive ability than you is flawed, and I want to understand some of the ways in which it is flawed better.
FireRises
2yr ago
Smart watches literally exist specifically to gamify exercise. Run further distances, lift heavier weight, walk more steps? You get more points. Then you can share your high point count on social media with your friends.
Although, as someone who has no interest in owning a smart watch, but is in outrageously good shape, I can say that "being physically fit" and "traveling the world doing fun outdoorsy/fitness hobbies" is much more rewarding than an app ever could be.
...So yeah, my advice is to partake in interesting and physically strenuous hobbies, and to try to find friends who do those hobbies. Not to try to get your exercise while looking at a screen
I seem to remember reading recently that a report that came out which investigated the whole "Trump-Russia" collusion narrative, and came to the conclusion that it was manufactured without evidence by the media and FBI. But I'm drawing up blanks on what that report was called, and Google (being a part of the censorship-industrial complex) doesn't really want me to find it easily.
Does anyone remember what this report was called? And where I could read it?
More options
Context Copy link