ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

The handicap of high IQ

This recent finding on intelligence and leadership will not surprise anyone at this blog:
Although intelligence is positively correlated with inspiring and capable leadership, there’s a point where a leader’s IQ offers diminishing returns or can actually lead to detrimental leadership.

The findings were made by psychologists at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, who assessed 379 mid-level leaders employed by private companies in 30 mainly European countries. The average age of the participants was 38 and 27 percent of them were women.

Each participant was asked to complete the Wonderlic Personnel Test, a cognitive ability test widely used by employers and educational institutions around the world. The average IQ of the participants was 111, which is well above the average IQ score of 100 for the general population....

As previous studies showed, the Swiss researchers found that there was a linear relationship between intelligence and effective leadership — but only up to a point. This association plateaued and then reversed at IQ 120. Leaders who scored above this threshold scored lowered on transformational and instrumental leadership than less intelligent leaders, as rated by standardized tests. Over an IQ score of 128, the poorer leadership style was plainer and statistically significant, as reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

It’s important to note at this point at these ‘very smart’ leaders didn’t employ detrimental leadership styles but rather just scored lower than their ‘less smart’ peers on useful leadership style.
You'll notice that these findings are perfectly consistent with both the observed exclusion of the cognitive elite from the professional elite as well as my distinction between VHIQ and UHIQ. It may also help you understand why I consistently refuse the various leadership positions I am regularly offered as well as why I am so careful about the volunteers I accept.

I intensely dislike explaining things in unnecessary detail, much less justifying things to anyone, especially subordinates. I simply cannot work with people who insist on both a) having the obvious spelled out to them and b) taking umbrage at having things explained step-by-step for them from the beginning as if they were stupid. (Their words, not mine.) Here is the problem with that conceptual dichotomy: if you have to have the obvious spelled out to you, if you can't immediately grasp the whole chain of reasoning from start to finish, then it is necessary to spell everything out from the beginning because the other person cannot possibly know at what point your ability to go from A to Z broke down.

Another problem is the way in which many, if not most, people are unable to recognize that for every effect, there must be a cause. If I ask a question, then I want the answer to it. I don't care if you've told me the answer 40 times before. I don't care if you think I should already know the answer. I don't care if you think there is a different question that I should have asked. Just answer the damned question; I guarantee doing so will take considerably less time than engaging in a debate over any of the various possible permutations of a discussion exploring the reasons why you should not be under any obligation to answer the aforementioned question. What is more likely, the probability that I have forgotten what you have said or the probability that I derive some sort of strange pleasure from forcing you to answer the same question again? Just answer the question that was asked. If that causes any questions to arise on your part, that's fine, but ask them after you answer mine first.

I have also noticed that many people seem to rather enjoy playing dumb, ignoring the most likely context, and insisting on having everything explained to them instead of using their common sense to assume the probable. For example, if I say "wash the car" to my friend, is it reasonable for him to say, "whatever car do you mean? There are millions, tens of millions of cars in the world? How can I possibly take action when I have no idea what car you could possibly be referring to?"

To which my response is: "There is one car in the driveway. It is mine. It is dirty. You borrowed it yesterday. Do you really think I am referring to the presidential limo - no, wait, let's not confuse you and be too general, do you really think I am referring to the U.S. presidential limo?"

Now, the most likely context may or may not be the correct one. But it is surely the correct assumption, which one can either listen and wait to see confirmed by subsequent details, or in the absence of those, a simple question. But to pretend that no actionable information has been presented and that one is operating in a complete absence of data is false, disingenuous, and may even be reasonably considered dishonest. Whether this behavior is the result of looking to excuse inaction, to avoid thinking, or to avoid any responsibility for decision-making, I do not know. Regardless, a highly intelligent person is likely to find this sort of pedantic pseudo-ignorance to be aggravating, and thereby, right from the start, find himself behind the leadership eight-ball in the eyes of his subordinates.

In my opinion, an important aspect of good leadership is a collection of good followers who actively want to be led. I don't think it is a coincidence that the "poorer leadership" line of demarcation observed happens to almost perfectly line up with the so-called 2SD "communications gap". Unfortunately, I don't have any useful advice for the 2SD+ crowd, other than "find smarter subordinates" and "never be surprised by any failure to understand what you think to be obvious."

Labels: ,

214 Comments:

1 – 200 of 214 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Killua November 19, 2017 8:22 AM  

I have noticed the same in some people I consider to be highly intelligent. At some point, it seems like their people skills go down, and these are very important for success.

The autistic japanese kid who spends all his time playing starcraft and watching anime may have a very high IQ, but he is not exactly on a path to becoming a millionaire.

Anonymous TS November 19, 2017 8:24 AM  

Well I hope you don't take umbrage to this link, I found this guy's leadership advice pretty good, He also has some books.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-we-tell-people-do-jobs-get-workers-trust-job-done-simon-sinek

Vox is Infogalactic a part of that AmazonSmile charity program?

Anonymous Slen November 19, 2017 8:28 AM  

Wasn't it Frederick The Great who once said, “If I wished to punish a province, I would have it governed by philosophers.”?

Anonymous grayman November 19, 2017 8:29 AM  

VD

As someone who has had to mange people and ends up with a 2SD difference between myself aND a significant portion of subordinates, my experience was that approaching it in a military manner was most effective for me.
Those who can't extrapolate as you describe are given concise commands of action, no explanation or discussion. Those who can process at higher levels are simply given objectives, constraints and left to their tasks.

I'm not often considered a "nice" supervisor but am an effective one. Then again being strongly INTJ it's probably one of the few strategies that would work for me anyway.

Blogger JACIII November 19, 2017 8:29 AM  

The studied corporate "leadership" is an entirely different thing from organic leadership that occurs spontaneously in the population. I like to say the difference between leader and manager is lies.

People will show exceptional loyalty to a technically flawed leader if that leader is exceptionally effective in achieving aligned goals, is trustworthy (honest), and is loyal to those who look to him.

Anonymous grayman November 19, 2017 8:34 AM  

Killian

For high IQ, intj and to SD type individuals who are in a leadership role the key is that you have to learn to understand how the so-called average individual processes which will be very different from how you will process whether you like it or agree with it or think it's stupid is a irrelevant you have to internalize how those you are leading process so that you can adjust your inputs to be effective with their mental models of the world

Blogger Johnny November 19, 2017 8:35 AM  

Apparently for the same reason people who run popular entertainment seem to be not all that cleaver. They link up easier with the average person watching the stuff.

Also I see a difference between analysis and implementation. In analysis you need to run through the details, or should. Once the core goals are established, then less scrutiny is better. There is a difference between conceptualizing and implementing.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer November 19, 2017 8:39 AM  

I have ran into the purposeful obtuseness several times and it has a few causes.

1.)It is used as an excuse to engage in more conversation rather than work.

2.) It's used as an excuse to screw around instead of doing work because "the boss isn't around to explain and I don't understand his instructions".

3.) It's a way of abdicating any responsibility. "If I make assumptions and I am wrong then it will be my fault. If I make the boss spell things out exactly then it will be his fault if I do something wrong because I was just doing what he told me to do."

Blogger JACIII November 19, 2017 8:43 AM  

It helps to realize some people are literally too dumb to do almost anything. It is one thing to say that and another to actually internalize it. Then figure out where others fit in the range of "can do anything" to "can sweep the floor. sometimes. if you corner him like a rat and stand over him tell him ever move to make." cause it's a really big range.

Anonymous ThiryFarm November 19, 2017 8:44 AM  

I apologize in advance for this off-topic comment, but there is no open thread for general questions...

My question is this: does anyone know why I could not post the title of SJW's Always Lie or a link to the book on a couple of sub-Reddits I follow? Sadly, two of the related sub Reddit's had a pretty nasty SJW situation over the past 48 hours, which is a real shame because they are not at all political subs but rather are devoted to people who are interested in ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting.

Briefly, an older southern gentleman who participates a lot and is incredibly kindly and encouraging was attacked in the nastiest way possible by a small cadre of SJW feminists. His crime with using the words "ma'am" and "miss" in his replies to women.

It turned into a complete poop storm. And suddenly there was (seemingly out of nowhere) a small but vocal minority of women saying that regardless of his particular crime, it was time that we all started looking at the misogyny on r/keto. My jaw just dropped open; what misogyny? I've never seen a comment there that could even vaguely be construed as misogynistic. But these women said men there comment on women's bodies all the time.… But when you post pictures of your before and after 20 pound weight loss, it is natural that people are going to say "Wow you look great now!" isn't it?

Anyway, the poor man under attack was falling all over himself to apologize, and I was thinking, "No, wait, don't do that! This is an SJW attack!" I tried to post both the title of the book and a link to it, but I was not able to. Every time I tried to post it, I got an error message. So my question is can someone tell me why. Is that book banned from Reddit or something? Is there a way around it?

The story doesn't have a happy ending. The kindly old man apologized about a million times, said he would remove himself from the sub, and then deleted his account and all his comments. This was someone who was beloved by everyone on r/keto. This morning all traces of the attack of been deleted. Completely memory-holed…

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 19, 2017 8:46 AM  

This ties in with the quote at the bottom of this blog page. Those reasonably within the +2SD range of average will be effective with the largest range of people naturally. Those significantly higher will either need to pick and choose, or do the enlisted-military "You're not paid to think. Just DO it." This will not be comforting to more average individuals with a habit of putting on airs, so again, pick and choose.

Blogger Arthur Isaac November 19, 2017 8:46 AM  

OT. I've been warning my family members (Michigan for the most part) to be aware and alert to the demographic make up of the people near them. Unfortunately for this veteran he was put in a place where he couldn't do anything about it.

http://www.11alive.com/mobile/article/article/news/investigations/hidden-camera-tells-true-story-of-how-veteran-died-after-calling-for-help-gasping-for-air/85-490859558

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 19, 2017 8:49 AM  

Heaven forbid trying to lead people -2SD or greater. In many cases it can't be done.

Blogger JACIII November 19, 2017 8:51 AM  

grayman wrote:Killian

.... you have to internalize how those you are leading process so that you can adjust your inputs to be effective with their mental models of the world


This. Most honest people's errors are explained by this whether it be in the arena of politics, work, philosophy, women, science, or business.

Blogger Shimshon November 19, 2017 8:51 AM  

You are of course the leader 500+ VFM, who are sworn to vile, faceless obedience to your every grunt or word.

Blogger JACIII November 19, 2017 8:58 AM  

basementhomebrewer wrote:I have ran into the purposeful obtuseness several times and it has a few causes.

1.)It is used as an excuse to engage in more conversation rather than work.

2.) It's used as an excuse to screw around instead of doing work because "the boss isn't around to explain and I don't understand his instructions".

3.) It's a way of abdicating any responsibility. "If I make assumptions and I am wrong then it will be my fault. If I make the boss spell things out exactly then it will be his fault if I do something wrong because I was just doing what he told me to do."


4.) it is the undesired inevitable defensive response to micromanagement.

And why no one has written a book titled, "How to use micromanagement techniques to be the most effective leader." Unless there is a "Leadership for Dummies" book.

Blogger VD November 19, 2017 8:58 AM  

You are of course the leader 500+ VFM, who are sworn to vile, faceless obedience to your every grunt or word.

That does simplify things, of course.

Anonymous Dyskord November 19, 2017 9:04 AM  

I am part of a team launching a new business next year. We are a small group and I am often given the most difficult or essential tasks due to the inference of my greater intelligence.
Due to the fact the venture is starting next year, the team members will assume critical leadership roles and it was agreed those roles will change and the titles and responsibilities will increase as the business grows. For instance as we are small theres no need for an area manager or even district manager. The titles and duties of a sales manager will suffice as there will initially only be a single sales team.
I am to head this sales team with additional duties.
However this week my managerial skills were called into question when a worker (Siphokazi) feeling slighted when another employee recieved praise and he did not. The fact he did nothing to deserve praise never occurred to him, only that he had never received it. Siphokazi is an employee I have difficulty dealing with. He behaves like a child, acts like a child and throws tantrums like a child. However my boss likes him because he is a relatively simple guy who does what he's told and is capable to do simple things.
Despite not only raising his voice, inciting to fight me and gross insubordination he wasn't even issued a warning. And I was advised strongly by my boss to let it go.
However my leadership abilities have been called into question. If I cant handle a simple minded emotionally driven guy like Siphokazi how will I handle a sales team or larger responsibilities in the future.
Yeah, i'm kinda pissed off.

Blogger tuberman November 19, 2017 9:05 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:This ties in with the quote at the bottom of this blog page. Those reasonably within the +2SD range of average will be effective with the largest range of people naturally. Those significantly higher will either need to pick and choose, or do the enlisted-military "You're not paid to think. Just DO it." This will not be comforting to more average individuals with a habit of putting on airs, so again, pick and choose.

This was the past, and in the future all "effective" military will have to think, as in special forces thinking.

VD, is NOT talking about thoughtless following IMHO, he is talking about intelligent following, where the followers have already figured out all the obvious stuff, and do not need to start from square one, as it is all instinctive.

Anonymous Avalanche November 19, 2017 9:06 AM  

Vox" "never be surprised by any failure to understand what you think to be obvious."

This is a source of a common problem between men and women. Men (in general) never want to (think to) say anything that's obvious... (Why would they? You know: it's OBVIOUS!)

However, many things that are obvious to men are not obvious to women (that is not merely an IQ diff, although that enters in; it's a different brain-organization thing).

Women get frustrated with men because (among other things {G}) men don't/won't talk to them (like women talk with women). Women 'connect' by talking. Men talk to pass information: no information to pass? No talk! (Drives women screaming nuts; I'm sure you've noticed?)

And men get frustrated with women chirping about so many things that are 100% obvious (or trivial) ... but the women aren't talking to pass information, they're talking to make or nurture a connection!

My husband used to tease that I was 'calling things into being' by announcing them as we drove by. "Oh look! There's a bead store, I'll have to come back by one day. That deli went out of biz." We made a deal that I could chatter on, and he did NOT have to remember (he did, mostly anyway) or answer. (Was it as "fulfilling" for me to not have a conversation? No, but I knew he was hearing, just not listening.)

And at lunch once, when I was fed up (okay, desperate) with his normal silence; I groused: "I don't care what you say, just TALK to me!" (And how many men have heard that from their woman?!) I said:" I don't even care if you just tell me the throw weights of WWII weapons" (his specialty). So, he did (bless his big heart! Southern gentleman, attending to his wife!) -- and to HIS amazement, I listened, I asked (actually intelligent) questions -- and HE had a lovely and pleasing 'conversation' on a topic he loved to talk about! (And *I* got my connection!)

Yeah, yeah, solipcism... You men who frustrate your wives might consider trying it. I had described this to a coworker (who was frustrated by and frustrating his wife); and he reported back that, one morning, as he got up to work, she asked him to 'stay in bed a bit longer and talk to her.'

Reluctantly, he did so, and ("wracking his brains") told her ("useless gossip") about what his office mate had said, and how the project he was on was going (and "crap like that"). To his amazement, (again, this stuff is not obvious cross-sex) she was happy and thrilled and warm (and sexual that night...) and so on. It solved a lot of frustration between them (while, yes, frustrating HIM by having to "waste time on idiot gossip." Pick your frustration.)

(Sorry guys, you married a woman, not another man, yes? 'Speak' the language they (we) use and reap some rewards.)

Blogger The Kurgan November 19, 2017 9:08 AM  

The few things that I have found most helpful are:
1) realising that yes you actually are a lot smarter than other people and YES it DOES make a difference. Finding out about the 2SD gap was very useful

2) realise the utter truth that as a man, you really are born alone, live alone, and die alone. This is not some poor me/victim thing. It's just a truth. You can have good friends, wife and kids of course, but ultimately on some level you're alone and the best thing you can do is take everything on. It is a positive thing, but most humans tend to be too weak to embrace it.

3) Christianity. Being Christian helps one see things quite differently and increases patience for the Sea of monkeys around us.

Blogger Resident Moron™ November 19, 2017 9:13 AM  

As a manager having interviewed a lot of people and hired only a relative few, I looked for the ability and willingness to learn. Not IQ per se, seeing as I wouldn't interview them if they didn't show signs of a minimum level of ability on their CV, but the ability to learn complex subjects allied to the willingness to learn, specifically from me.

I've taken hiring advice from other people, and seen fellow managers do the same; I strongly recommend against it. Have your own criteria and stick with them, would be my advice.

Blogger tuberman November 19, 2017 9:15 AM  

People who are -2D below a leader, may be resentful, so "putting on airs," yet even just a legitimate lack of understanding causes problems. If a lower IQ person comes up against an overwhelming amount of meaning focused at him, it creates a feeling of inadequacy that can cause even fear and anxiety. His social world starts to be undermined.

Anonymous Looking Glass November 19, 2017 9:15 AM  

@4 grayman

I've taken roughly the same approach in the past. I kept a core group of competent people that most things were directed through. To also ease things through, I also developed a "voice" that sits around +1 SD. I felt like I was talking to a baby for the first few weeks, but it worked really well.

The first time you give a fairly imprecise explanation and it works better than a 500+ word hyper-precise one, you learn that you're the outsider here.

Related to this, the other thing is that 2 SD gap creates a relationship dynamic where you are viewing your subordinates as stupid. You have both an arrogance problem and an identity problem wrapped up together.


@10 ThiryFarm

You can probably hide a link to the book in a url-shortener, but try something like "S*J*Ws Al*ways L*e". It would not surprise me if Reddit's admins had actually set an auto-remove for it. "Seth Rich" and a few other things are banned from being posted, as T_D has found out.

Blogger justaguy November 19, 2017 9:18 AM  

Take a look at the system set up by Rickover to keep the nuclear submarine force effective. The officers are all high GPA engineers who are rigorously trained to keep excelling and push themselves for higher and higher performance.(I hated the sign at nuclear power school quoting Rickover" here even the smartest work as hard as those who must struggle to pass" as it was true. ) The men that crew them are well above average and have passed a grueling series of courses—most could easily become engineers at a state university as nuclear training is worth quite a few credits. While rewarding because of the service to the country, the work is long, hard, and at times brutal—but results in the best submarine force in the world that absolutely rules the seas. By rule, I mean have the ability to sink anything and anyone else that comes out from of port.

Anonymous Sensei November 19, 2017 9:19 AM  

grayman wrote:VD

...my experience was that approaching it in a military manner was most effective for me.
Those who can't extrapolate as you describe are given concise commands of action, no explanation or discussion. Those who can process at higher levels are simply given objectives, constraints and left to their tasks.



Thanks for this, it may be exactly what I'm missing.

Blogger Nate November 19, 2017 9:20 AM  

"Find smarter subordinates" is the same solution the military came up with. Reduce the gap by stair stepping.

that said... communication is a talent as well as a skill. Trump has it. Reagan had it. these problems never plague them.

Blogger Resident Moron™ November 19, 2017 9:21 AM  

JACIII wrote:basementhomebrewer wrote:

...
4.) it is the undesired inevitable defensive response to micromanagement.

And why no one has written a book titled, "How to use micromanagement techniques to be the most effective leader." Unless there is a "Leadership for Dummies" book.


That should be sorted on the first day, if not in the first interview or whatever other interaction led to the hire.

If the opening isn't setting a clear understanding of his expectations, and the consequence of not meeting them, the manager's not doing his job right.

Anonymous Looking Glass November 19, 2017 9:23 AM  

I also feel like this leads into a fascinating discussion of Trump's public persona. There's a reason the Sun Tzu-student genius is best known for "Bigly", "Yuge" and his hair. As Nate said, there's a talent there. (And being natural Alphas goes a long ways to it, as they have experience from the time they're 5.)

Anonymous Wayfaring Stranger November 19, 2017 9:23 AM  

>If I ask a question, then I want the answer to it. I don't care if you've told me the answer 40 times before. I don't care if you think I should already know the answer. I don't care if you think there is a different question that I should have asked.

Regrettable, some people seem unable to ask a straightforward question. They prefer to work their way up to something by indirect approach. I've learned that "Are you busy on Saturday?" should be best answered by "What do you want me to do, and when is it?"

Anonymous Causal Lurker November 19, 2017 9:27 AM  

I'll have to retrieve read the original paper. The Zmescience summary included a sentence that made me think:

"Results suggest that, overall, women had better leadership styles, as did older leaders. The most variance, however, was due to personality and intelligence."

Older leaders have developed the patience to work with fractious subordinates, or the wisdom to boomerang that kind of petulant ignorance on a subordinate in public. Older leaders can put their needs in context better, for partners and subordinates. It takes time to develop and hone these skills; interestingly, it's a similar amount of time to develop a taste for better whiskey. Let's discuss the causation or correlation argument after hours, over a bottle of Lagavulin. :)

The older leadership is also mostly men, at least for now.

Women with better leadership styles? It depends on the context and Hultgreen-Curie rating, and on the risks and rewards inherent. Personally, I saw too many projects fall apart because of the women's social approach to everything. They got reassigned or put onto staff in vague positions, where a man would have been fired long before for the collapse point got reached. The 120 threshold is also where women's IQ drops off more quickly, so more men are in the high-end tail. I wonder if one or more of the researchers are arguing from an assumed conclusion. I want to see the blocking conditions and variables used for the test design.

Blogger The Observer November 19, 2017 9:30 AM  

The King does not have to be the smartest man in the land.

But he can understand the Wizard, and translate the Wizard's arcane words into edicts the peasantry can comprehend.

Blogger Patrick Wilson November 19, 2017 9:31 AM  

As a start choose subordinates with good listening skills,i.e. they wait until the question is complete before they formulate an answer.

Marked difference in IQ is naturally perceived, this is what creates so much of the animosity and differential expectations in groups.

Blogger tuberman November 19, 2017 9:35 AM  

I worked in a warehouse operation for a number for years, and the foreman would come in and assign the nights tasks to each of the sub-groups. We seldom saw the foreman again,unless an emergency came up, until the end of the shift. He would then check the work to see if it was completely done, and done correctly. If there was a problem, he would ask the sub-group if it was a break down in resources or if an individual created the problem. If an individual created a problem (there were almost never problems), that individual would be sent to work in the factory section (it was a privilege to work in warehouse), and after a time said person might come back, but two strikes and out for good. The sub-groups themselves kept everyone in line.

Blogger The Sasquatch November 19, 2017 9:37 AM  

What do you do when you're 2SD+ and your superiors are idiots? Every time they have a problem to solve, they feel the need to explain it multiple times from different angles at great length. They get mad when I stop paying attention 10 seconds in, even though I can usually solve the problem by the time they've finished blabbing.

Anonymous Eshamus November 19, 2017 9:44 AM  

I'd like to hear more about what has worked for you, apropos to your advice to grayman.

I am often too fast, make connections others don't see, and they "feel like a cat trying to catch a laser pointer dot."

I've chosen to interpret these responses as laziness or unwillingness to apply effort. I begin to see that doesn't apply uniformly.

Anonymous Killua November 19, 2017 9:47 AM  

Every time they have a problem to solve, they feel the need to explain it multiple times from different angles at great length.

I know. At this company I was I was with my bosses and we were discussing how to do something. After we finished one of them always said "Now let him repeat in his own words so we are you he understood it" and I was like "yeah dude I got it, I'm not stupid".

Thinking back, it was good management thing from their side. Better to make sure you understood it than for you to make a mistake that will end up costing the company money.

Blogger JACIII November 19, 2017 9:48 AM  

Resident Moron™ wrote:JACIII wrote:basementhomebrewer wrote:

...

4.) it is the undesired inevitable defensive response to micromanagement.

And why no one has written a book titled, "How to use micromanagement techniques to be the most effective leader." Unless there is a "Leadership for Dummies" book.


That should be sorted on the first day, if not in the first interview or whatever other interaction led to the hire.

If the opening isn't setting a clear understanding of his expectations, and the consequence of not meeting them, the manager's not doing his job right.



This is not erroneous behavior by average hire. It is a normal human reaction brought on by an extremely poor leader making a "Management 101" error that is, somehow, strangely prevalent.
Micromanagers give so many instructions even they cannot keep them straight. I have seen this lead to workers writing the given instructions down and insisting the manager sign the document so they would not be held responsible for following the expressed litany of instruction.

Anonymous ZhukovG November 19, 2017 9:48 AM  

@The Sasquatch: Look at it as an opportunity to develop better people skills.

Blogger tuberman November 19, 2017 9:51 AM  

I've been thinking of all this in terms of Lind's "Light Infantry Units," or high-level special forces training using "Free-Play" creative training. This takes intelligent troops, who will have to follow even more intelligent officers, but they have to have a lot of ability to act on there own to a degree or within a certain scope.

Blogger JACIII November 19, 2017 9:56 AM  

The Sasquatch wrote:What do you do when you're 2SD+ and your superiors are idiots? Every time they have a problem to solve, they feel the need to explain it multiple times from different angles at great length. They get mad when I stop paying attention 10 seconds in, even though I can usually solve the problem by the time they've finished blabbing.

As Chedderman explained at an ilkmoot, "It's a bad idea to let your boss know how much smarter you are than him."

Anonymous grayman November 19, 2017 9:58 AM  

@24 looking glass

By people on the lower end of the spectrum I've been described as intense and abrupt (yes I know how to place nice (dumb) when needer). But it comes from having a highly analytical approach (INTJ) and being "mission oriented", problem -> solution -> action. People on the higher end see it as simple analytical problem solving and goal management.
I was fortunate to have a phenomenal sales guy teach me how to place nice with the stupid people.

Blogger tuberman November 19, 2017 9:59 AM  

The Sasquatch wrote:What do you do when you're 2SD+ and your superiors are idiots? Every time they have a problem to solve, they feel the need to explain it multiple times from different angles at great length. They get mad when I stop paying attention 10 seconds in, even though I can usually solve the problem by the time they've finished blabbing.

I have a better one for ya. What do you do if you are a JSOC leader, and your head General is reporting to the CIA, and undermining everything your troops and you do, and setting your troops up to do their immoral bidding?

Blogger VD November 19, 2017 10:00 AM  

However this week my managerial skills were called into question when a worker (Siphokazi) feeling slighted when another employee recieved praise and he did not. The fact he did nothing to deserve praise never occurred to him, only that he had never received it. Siphokazi is an employee I have difficulty dealing with. He behaves like a child, acts like a child and throws tantrums like a child. However my boss likes him because he is a relatively simple guy who does what he's told and is capable to do simple things.

Fire him. And if you can't fire him, tell the boss you don't want him reporting to you. It's NOT going to get any better with time.

Blogger Some Guy November 19, 2017 10:01 AM  

I did find it interesting that women scored better as leaders than men, but the score were given by their subordinates. Yeah, no room for bias there.

Blogger VD November 19, 2017 10:01 AM  

What do you do when you're 2SD+ and your superiors are idiots?

Leave. Or, in the event it is applicable, realize that you're a Gamma, they're not actually idiots, and work to improve your socio-sexual rank.

Blogger VD November 19, 2017 10:02 AM  

I did find it interesting that women scored better as leaders than men

Their skills tend to translate better to the short term, while their shortcomings tend to show up more in the medium- to long-term.

Blogger Doom November 19, 2017 10:03 AM  

Do you have any idea how very funny the article, propped by your post, is? If I weren't threefourths dead, and well drained due to taking 60 mg of the most potent 'waterpill' available, I'd laugh myself to flood stage.

I get it though. When I was forced to lead, and it happened, I used others as buffers, those between me and them. Would not talk directly to any below, or above if possible. Even then care was given in choosing buffers. Pure smarts can be lazy. A motivated dimwit, in a tight area of concern, who knows his limits, can be invaluable.

Still guano level funny! Was that your intent? Never mind.

Anonymous ThiryFarm November 19, 2017 10:05 AM  

OT

@Looking Glass
Thank you for the suggestions, Using a URL shortener is a good idea.

Anonymous 2106 things I Hate November 19, 2017 10:08 AM  

Definitely agree...I think this data lines up with other research that suggests an additional knee (more like a cliff) at around 150 IQ.

My IQ is similar to Vox's, low 150's, but my UHIQ talent is visio-spatial, not verbal. I can attest that, despite being an ENTJ, and having life experience that has taught me (the hard way) to be patient, long-suffering, and able to deal with people beyond the 2sd limit, leading a team of people with an average IQ of 125 still stresses me out at times. I find my allotment of words is depleted by the end of the day, and solace in an IPA.

Perhaps not so oddly enough, I find it easier managing people in the 100 range, who are not relative midwits.

Anonymous grayman November 19, 2017 10:08 AM  

@35 Sasquatch

You have to learn to "role play" the personality needed in order to make that interaction smooth. Even if it's your "I'm a moron" alter ego, play the role during the interaction with management then move on.
You are essentially doing a "social translation", you have to match their "frequency" to facilitate the intetaction, then go back to your normal mode of operation when you undertake the given task.

Blogger wreckage November 19, 2017 10:14 AM  

@41 Yeah, because he'll load more work on you, if he's even slightly smart.

I don't mind a subordinate being smarter than me, unless they use it to outmaneuver me instead of using it to the shared goal. Which, if they're a subordinate, is MY goal, communicated to them. That's how hierarchies work, and if you don't like it, please just pretend like you do, ok?

Blogger Harris November 19, 2017 10:14 AM  

Very smart people need to understand their limitations. Dealing ineffectively with stupid people is one of those limitations. The problem is that very smart people are often under the impression that they have no limitations, and therefore insist on trying to press through. That causes frustration for both the very smart people AND the idiots of the world.

Painful experience teaches that sometimes, it is better to cede leadership to someone who is more effective communicating with the idiots of the world. People who are smart enough to communicate with the Brilliant AND also the Idiots are those who inevitably become the best leaders. That's a bitter pill for many smart people to swallow - being led by the intellectually inferior...because they are better at it.

Blogger Koanic November 19, 2017 10:15 AM  

> For example, if I say "wash the car" to my friend, is it reasonable for him to say, "whatever car do you mean?

They are not moved by the purely abstract, but need the emotional impetus and reassurance of double confirmation, because they are accustomed to a style of communication that is unreliably imprecise and error-prone at the abstract level. One abstract data point is not enough to establish an emotional vector within which a follower chimp is comfortable drafting. He needs at least two.

> They get mad when I stop paying attention 10 seconds in,

Take notes. Intelligence is no substitute for detail, and you're being paid to pay attention.

Blogger Dave November 19, 2017 10:17 AM  

Dyskord wrote:Despite not only raising his voice, inciting to fight me and gross insubordination he wasn't even issued a warning. And I was advised strongly by my boss to let it go.

However my leadership abilities have been called into question. If I cant handle a simple minded emotionally driven guy like Siphokazi how will I handle a sales team or larger responsibilities in the future.

Yeah, i'm kinda pissed off.


Oh, definitely time for a Come-to-Jesus meeting with the "Boss" before the business is launched.

Anonymous ~A November 19, 2017 10:18 AM  

Would it not make sense for very high IQ people that spend significant amount of time among standard IQ people to figure out how much to break something down?

Given conditions A and task Z, it's not the extremes of either "A -> Z" or "A -> B ->C -> .... -> Z". Intermediate steps, which higher IQ person skips, still exist; Spend an afternoon with a person, and you can tell whereabouts he stands in the IQ scale relatively to you, and how much do you need to break down tasks for them to perform well (and maybe break them down further than you think, just in case).

Otherwise, it's just lazyness - "I'm smarter, and I want other people just to get me". It's weird a few times to go over the same thing breaking it down until someone get's it, but it's doable, and putting a mental note that John will need an additional breakdown of that task you need him to do is something you can afford by having additional horsepower in your brain.

My theory is that the biggest problem comes when frustration comes out - one starts treating one like an idiot, the idiot then resents the "smarter" supervisor, and general antipathy is what brings down the performance. It's just interpersonal dynamics - make the dumb guy feel smart, let him know that "Oh I know that me breaking down everything is annoying, but I got this habit from old job. Let me know if I start doing that again", or "No, I know YOU don't need it, but it's just that the whole team gets it all", and continue to do educated guesses on how much breaking down of tasks is required. Otherwise, you do get the conundrum mentioned in the post (spell out obvious / don't treat me like an idiot by spelling out the obvious).

I'd venture to propose that the mentioned "handicap" is not caused by IQ directly, but due to lack of interpersonal skills; It's just that less of these skills are required when the IQ gap <2SD than when it's >2SD. Smarter people need to work harder at communicating with less smart people.

Or, maybe I was just extremely lucky to not work with idiots, and what I think is 2SD below is just 1SD below or something.


Anonymous Looking Glass November 19, 2017 10:19 AM  

@42 grayman

I somehow ended up with a reputation for being "too nice", though that was the end result of a few choices I made. I basically kept things fairly loose but professional (this was a volunteer group in a non-work activity), though there were a few things that you never did. I'll never forget the time I broke a guy. That was weird.


@47 VD

Workers, like Students, value "easy to get along with" and "doesn't push us very hard" extremely highly. For actual performance results, those almost always negatively correlate with outcomes.


@51 grayman

It's a role, play it like any other you have in life.

Blogger Brad Matthews November 19, 2017 10:24 AM  

Gangleaders and warlords. It's brutal

Blogger Timmy3 November 19, 2017 10:27 AM  

“Every time they have a problem to solve, they feel the need to explain it multiple times from different angles at great length.”

I’m surprised this is considered a problem. Usually bosses provide no direction and ask the workers to figure it out themselves. Articulating the problem is how they became the boss. Delegating the work is how they are the leader and not a follower.

I usually listen and at a certain point, I will describe how I understood the problem where there is one solution as described by the boss. Anyways, never work too fast. You work yourself out of the job. Drag it on.

As for the annoying person, unless he is bothering you. Ignore him. You’ll look so much better than him when he’s around. Very smart people are annoying too. Both types of people fill their role. If I’m in the middle, I’m not measurably going to be much better or worse. Depends on the boss. He always lets people go if he feels threatened. More likely with a smarty than a dummy.

Blogger VD November 19, 2017 10:27 AM  

That's a bitter pill for many smart people to swallow - being led by the intellectually inferior...because they are better at it.

Intelligence is not only NOT leadership, but the higher it is, the greater the degree of difficulty.

Anonymous Looking Glass November 19, 2017 10:28 AM  

@56 ~A

Harmonization to the environment. Weirdly, the high IQ'd already do this, but a good chunk of them seem unwilling to do it in specific aspects of a work environment.

Thinking on it, I did quite a lot of acting in my youth. Playing a "role" in a group is a lot easier since I simply had more practice with it. Maybe those local youth plays are more valuable than I realized growing up. (They were just something to do, back then.)

Blogger Dave November 19, 2017 10:28 AM  

Vox btw ol' mike just can't quit you in the 40@40 thread.

Blogger Brad Matthews November 19, 2017 10:31 AM  

Many don't internalize 2, but if they do, 3 makes it tolerable

Blogger wreckage November 19, 2017 10:31 AM  

Often that "what, your car?" is exactly as the commenter above said: he's really saying "Please repeat the instruction for confirmation.",

or possibly "I now await any specific instructions or preferences you might have because damn if people don't keep surprising me with weirdly specific requirements regarding even the simplest tasks, but saying "Just wash it? No weird shit? No totally arbitrary bizarre demands that you're only going to reveal after I've started?" is often met with hostility."

Blogger VD November 19, 2017 10:32 AM  

Would it not make sense for very high IQ people that spend significant amount of time among standard IQ people to figure out how much to break something down?

Certainly. But then, what do you do when you figure out what is required and it is less palatable to you than living in poverty, eating tuna out of cans, and reading books downloaded from Gutenberg?
It's not that I absolutely cannot work with relative retards, it's that the experience is so unpleasant that I would rather go live in a cave and subside on nuts and berries.

There is a reason I only worked two years in a conventional office job. I would probably have been a tech CEO ten years ago if I wanted to live that life. I don't. I won't.

Blogger Brad Matthews November 19, 2017 10:34 AM  

It's fascinating. It's why people think he is dumb.

Blogger VD November 19, 2017 10:35 AM  

Often that "what, your car?" is exactly as the commenter above said: he's really saying "Please repeat the instruction for confirmation."

We're not talking about "what, your car?" We're talking about "Car? What car? I have no idea what car you could mean?"

Blogger VD November 19, 2017 10:38 AM  

Vox btw ol' mike just can't quit you in the 40@40 thread.

Fucking gammas. Look, gammas, do you want to know why everyone looks down on you and girls don't ever give you a chance? This is why.

He's been at it for more than 12 hours now. MUST POST VALUABLE COMMENT!

Blogger Brad Matthews November 19, 2017 10:38 AM  

Opportunity to practice your commo or strike out on your own?

Blogger RC November 19, 2017 10:40 AM  

If your people can't change, just change your people. It's much more effective and is also a kindness to the person who just can't (or won't) cut it.

Blogger Salt November 19, 2017 10:44 AM  

Many people take way to long to impart the necessary information than is necessary. A friend, knowing I'm not at all familiar with (for instance) old Chrysler cars, loves to go into exquisite detail about what he's doing to his old Chrysler, like he thinks I really care about some linkage or whatever he's replacing. Just say you replaced the starter and forget the twenty minute shop manual description.

Anonymous Looking Glass November 19, 2017 10:46 AM  

@71 Salt

"Listening" is a skill unto itself. I've saved myself a lot of headaches over the years by refining the listening part down. People normally just want to talk, it's not about conveying information. Knowing when it is important information is the key.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. November 19, 2017 10:49 AM  

It's not that I absolutely cannot work with relative retards, it's that the experience is so unpleasant that I would rather go live in a cave and subside on nuts and berries.

Never go full Kaczynski.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 10:52 AM  

The Kurgan wrote:3) Christianity. Being Christian helps one see things quite differently and increases patience for the Sea of monkeys around us.

It will also save you from suicide in dark times and prevent a lot of unseemly behaviors. I can't tell you how many things I haven't done merely because I'm supposed to honor my parents.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 10:54 AM  

I mean, just look at the way I've acted in the past while drunkposting and then imagine an entire, short-lived life with that sort of disinhibition.

Blogger Ingot9455 November 19, 2017 10:59 AM  

On my team, I am thankful most everyone is within the 2SD so we can all communicate.
What commonly happens is that someone will have to work on a system they last touched 1-2 years ago when the 'expert' on the system is doing something else. I've found that having the expert reiterating the steps of the process to refresh the newbie is valuable especially since this problem may be new and require jumping off the path at some point.
The problem for the expert is to explain that he's reiterating not because the newbie is stupid, but just to set context so we both know where we are at and give the opportunity to question.

Blogger pdwalker November 19, 2017 11:14 AM  

basementhomebrewer, #3 is every government worker, no matter the country or culture.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 11:26 AM  

Regarding ability, inability of the lower-IQ crowd, here are a couple of useful mental tools:

Zone of proximal development, as applied to development. Someone with an IQ of 70 cannot be expected to have the mental toolbox of an average 6th grader.

Maximum competency per IQ, assuming passing grades in conscientiousness, emotional continence, and agreeableness.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 11:28 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:Someone with an IQ of 70 cannot be expected to have the mental toolbox of an average 6th grader.

(This is because they will have been left behind in the long march of K-12. It's unlikely they are even able to read at a 2nd grade level.)

Anonymous Avalanche November 19, 2017 11:30 AM  

@56 'Given conditions ... Intermediate steps, which higher IQ person skips ... how much do you need to break down tasks for them to perform well (and maybe break them down further than you think, just in case)."

When providing info / direction / correction / help to a customer with a measuring problem; I try to *gracefully* give WAY more explicit directions and extra details than I would ever need! (I think of it as if I were educating a beloved 6-yr-old.)

However, I also point it back at me: "forgive me if I'm telling you stuff you already know... I am never sure how much "all engineers know" that *I* do not know "they all know" cause I'm not an engineer. So I try to provide every tidbit I can. Please just discard the stuff that "all" engineers know."

And I have on tap, if needed by a defensive of annoyed reaction, a $5k mistake "I" made by not knowing there was a tolerance listed on a drawing. (I REALLY did not know this!) The sub did the work within the tolerance -- which was WAY below the tolerance I needed. I "assumed" that if I said the "ground face needed to be 5 degrees, 7 minutes" -- THAT was the ground face I would get! The tolerance (I did not know to look for) was one whole degree!

That mistake of mine relieves the customer of any sense of being 'spoken down to' because I'm making it clear I am giving all the details for ME, not for him (even if it's for him in my view).

(I have the added bonus of being female in a high-precision, male / engineering field -- and engineers tend to be lovely gentlemen, with a woman whose not a shrill hag!)

Blogger Koanic November 19, 2017 11:32 AM  

> We're not talking about "what, your car?" We're talking about "Car? What car? I have no idea what car you could mean?"

The idiotic verbal wrestling is merely intended to explore the boundaries of the emotional "pocket" to confirm that there is only one opening, through which the chimp then proceeds with the energy imparted by the contact. It is more efficient to manipulate with narratives than to provide a too-spartan abstract datapoint and then fight about it. Roleplaying as a VFM provides one such pocket. Military obedience conditioning is another.

Blogger DonReynolds November 19, 2017 11:33 AM  

To be effective, it is not always possible to have the "dream team" on tap and always on top of everything. Whether in a corporation, or a university, the military, or the mafia, the leaders have to work with what they have to work with and in the short-run especially that may be somewhat fixed. Short answer -- we have to fight the battles with the troops, beans and bullets we have at hand. How do we accomplish large and complex tasks, with varying degrees of leadership throughout? Organization....specifically, a chain of command, which is normally the American secret weapon. That means we do not have to be the biggest, or the strongest, or the tallest, of the fastest, in order to win if we have the social organization to accomplish the mission.

Vox is completely correct. Always get the best followers you can, since it is the followers who make the leader effective....but always mindful of the necessity to fill gaps in the chain of command (at the worst possible moment), hopefully with people who have been prepared for such eventuality. That is one of the duties of command, to ensure that the mission continues when he is gone.

The leader owes it to the organization to imagine a time when he is unable or unavailable to fulfill his obligations to the organization. This applies, not just when he begins to contemplate retirement, but from the moment he takes the bull by the horns.

Anonymous Avalanche November 19, 2017 11:40 AM  

@76 "The problem for the expert is to explain that he's reiterating not because the newbie is stupid, but just to set context so we both know where we are at and give the opportunity to question."

This is very well put!

Blogger DonReynolds November 19, 2017 11:42 AM  

> We're not talking about "what, your car?" We're talking about "Car? What car? I have no idea what car you could mean?"

Properly reward stupid questions with the worst reply....

Correct answer: "ALL of the cars. Get started!"

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 11:45 AM  

Dyskord wrote:However my leadership abilities have been called into question. If I cant handle a simple minded emotionally driven guy like Siphokazi how will I handle a sales team or larger responsibilities in the future.

Yeah, i'm kinda pissed off.


This is a problem I ran into when I was working the door at a strip club. I was expected to control the behavior of both male customers and female strippers.

Controlling the men was easy. It was a very formalized system: here's what you can and can't do, here's what happens when you do/don't follow the rules.

Controlling the women was impossible, because I was more of a sperg then than I am now. You aren't allowed to threaten them with violence or formal punishments and they know it, so you're restricted to feminine, social carrots and sticks that they're much more familiar with. You have to fight them on their own turf--the world of shouting matches, shivving, and social shaming.

The answer, I later realized, is Game. Your boss is expecting you to Game your subordinates into line with social dominance, because he either can't or won't give you real, institutional power over them.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 11:48 AM  

DonReynolds wrote:> We're not talking about "what, your car?" We're talking about "Car? What car? I have no idea what car you could mean?"

Properly reward stupid questions with the worst reply....

Correct answer: "ALL of the cars. Get started!"


Cutting sarcasm is a pretty good social domination stick, you just have to be careful to avoid punishing genuine confusion because it will produce learned helplessness.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 11:52 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:Controlling the men was easy. It was a very formalized system: here's what you can and can't do, here's what happens when you do/don't follow the rules.

(Oversimplifying a bit here. Some male customers get special privileges because they know the owner or spend a lot of money, and you're expected to intuitively pick these out from the thousands of charlatans and impostors. This is extraordinarily difficult because popular people like to break rules, e.g. dress codes, on purpose to show off their status.)

Blogger Jackie Chun November 19, 2017 11:55 AM  

This sounds similar to the "x-y" problem from the jargon file. If you ask for x, then the expert will say why would you want to do x? X sounds horribly complicated. Is y what you actually wanted do do with x as a means?

Anonymous krymneth November 19, 2017 12:03 PM  

Dyskord wrote:However my leadership abilities have been called into question. If I cant handle a simple minded emotionally driven guy like Siphokazi how will I handle a sales team or larger responsibilities in the future.

The Game point above is good.

But to that I'd add that at the moment, your issues are actually upwards, not downwards. Responsibility needs to match authority. You need to have a sit down with your current boss and work out whether you have authority or not. This is going to take some firmness and care.

Furthermore, it's important for you to understand the goal of this conversation correctly. The goal is not... or should not be, at least.. that you get the authority to fire or reprimand this guy. No, the goal is to determine whether or not spending your time with this company in this position is worthy of your time. You should pretty much come out of this meeting either knowing whether you've got the authority, or whether you smile and nod while you prep your resume and start job hunting.

Do not go into this meeting saying "It's either him or me.", because that is not the question. The question is one of authority. If you come out of the meeting with a firm grasp on the authority, there's a decent chance that your problem with your jerk will just go away when he sees the new set of your body language, and there's a decent chance that if you claim your authority properly you can bring him productively in line. But there is also a decent chance that termination is the only thing that will work. You'll be better able to build that case if you claim the authority and use it properly.

If your boss is any good, bringing up a conversation about power and responsibility will win you big points. If they suck, it may tank your career at that company. But it's better to find that out now than three years from now.

One aspect of Game for you that comes into play is abundance mentality. This is not the only job for you in the world. It may not even be a very good job for you, from the sounds of it! Figure out whether you need to "next" this job sooner rather than later.

Blogger DonReynolds November 19, 2017 12:03 PM  

For many years, the same guy would show up to paint the back porch and every year it was painted with the same paint.

But the time came when he did not show up, so the owner put a sign in the yard, saying he wanted someone to paint his porch for pay.

In no time at all, a guy knocked on the door and yes, he had painted lots of porches in the past. So the owner told him, the paint and brush was next to the porch around back and he would get paid when he finished.

It did not take any time at all and suddenly the guy was finished and needed to be paid.

"Gosh, that did not take long. It used to take much longer to paint the porch."

"Well, it is a small porch...but I just gotta tell you....that is not a porch, it is a Mercedes."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 19, 2017 12:09 PM  

"If a lower IQ person comes up against an overwhelming amount of meaning focused at him, it creates a feeling of inadequacy that can cause even fear and anxiety. His social world starts to be undermined."

As well he should feel. Many of the more intelligent people have something of a tendency of taking advantage of less intelligent ones, much as many of the stronger people have a tendency of taking advantage of the weaker ones earlier on.

The trick in that case is winning their trust. However, when I said "putting on airs" I was referring to vaingloriousness rather than inadequacy-defensive reactions. Resentful? Why resent the truth? Because it contradicts vainglory.

They are not putting on airs because they are resentful, rather they are resentful because they have been putting on airs.

"what do you do when you figure out what is required and it is less palatable to you than living in poverty, eating tuna out of cans, and reading books downloaded from Gutenberg?"

Erm. Hikikomoris. Yep.

Tuna tastes great actually, even out of the can. I'm sure bark would be palatable too, just have to check which kinds won't cause serious issues.

"Never go full Kaczynski."

Kaczynski's problem was a surfeit of gamma causing him to not go full Kaczynski. He just couldn't let it go so he had to double down, with explosives. Smart, definitely. Gamma... definitely.

Incidentally, he basically wrote the thesis of the move "Fight Club", so...

"It is more efficient to manipulate with narratives than to provide a too-spartan abstract datapoint and then fight about it."

Now you're thinking (((like))) solipsistic/malicious. What, who did you think led the useful idiots?

Blogger dc.sunsets November 19, 2017 12:18 PM  

Boy, am I glad I had the self-knowledge to turn down opportunities to advance to management.

I'm already 100% occupied managing myself. This thread is, however, interesting from the standpoint of understanding "management" behavior toward various members of my level of the organization.

Blogger DonReynolds November 19, 2017 12:25 PM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:DonReynolds wrote:> We're not talking about "what, your car?" We're talking about "Car? What car? I have no idea what car you could mean?"

Properly reward stupid questions with the worst reply....

Correct answer: "ALL of the cars. Get started!"


Cutting sarcasm is a pretty good social domination stick, you just have to be careful to avoid punishing genuine confusion because it will produce learned helplessness.


What you call learned helplessness is the old game of "Mock the Monk", to trifle with authority by playing dumb. (Monty Python has made a lot of money with that routine.)
I was not being sarcastic.
When they do the dumb bit, the correct response is to make the task larger to discourage stupid questions next time.

Since there was only one car in the driveway, there was no basis for confusion.

My Dad told me to mow the grass, while he was gone. I could not get the lawn mower to start and fiddled with it for hours, with no success. When my Dad returned, he asked why the grass was not cut. I told him about my inability to get the mower started. His answer....

"I did not say anything about the lawn mower. I told you to cut the grass. How you do it is your problem."

OpenID markstoval November 19, 2017 12:34 PM  

I was measured a couple of points too low to get into Mensa back in my school days many decades ago. I have read that IQ drops a bit as we age so I don't know where I am now.

I do know that I have often experienced the problems outlined in the post. It can be exasperating. But I was lucky in a way. My beliefs (God hit me over the head with a stick) led me to decided to teach the young and dealing with a large IQ range among my students has helped me be able to talk to most of them --- as long as they were interested in being communicated with that is.

It is the Educrats that drive me wild. (and I now work in a private, religious school) The Educrats really believe that anyone who is trying can teach mathematics to anyone and the IQ does not matter. We never look at the testing levels of given classes and include information on average or individual IQs. The think the 77 IQ kid in pre-Algebra can "do it" if I just explain it to him. (Jesus, Joseph, and Mary!)

Educrats are f'ing stupid. Yes, all of the rat-bastards. (just trying to make sure all readers understand me) :-)

Anonymous VFM #6306 November 19, 2017 12:37 PM  

Corollary:

What did you think of the movie,Vox?

What movie?

The one we just watched!

Anonymous A Former Spartan November 19, 2017 12:37 PM  

This (quote and response). I clock in at about 140 and spent 28 years in uniform. I can attest to my biggest challenges (ultimately career ending ones) being when I worked for mid-wit seniors who a) wanted me to apply my full capability to solve their complex problem and then b) were intimidated by the results and afraid it threatened their image. I had my best experiences with bosses who were confident enough to let me have my head and trusted results even though they didn't understand the path. Some of the finest men I knew and worked for were men who knew what their limits were and were supremely confident within those limits and happy to have folks who exceeded them in their circle.

Anonymous BBGKB November 19, 2017 12:39 PM  

I don't care if you think there is a different question that I should have asked

People answering a different question is a pet peeve of mine.

I like to say the difference between leader and manager is lies...exceptionally effective in achieving aligned goals, is trustworthy (honest), and is loyal to those who look to him.

I have a bad habit of catching people in lies.

Boy, am I glad I had the self-knowledge to turn down opportunities to advance to management.

I would rather do foot assessments on homeless people all day than manage unfireable DieVerseCity

OpenID markstoval November 19, 2017 12:45 PM  

"Some of the finest men I knew and worked for were men who knew what their limits were and were supremely confident within those limits and happy to have folks who exceeded them in their circle." ~~ #96

Men such as those built our industrial civilization. Salt of the earth.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 12:58 PM  

DonReynolds wrote:What you call learned helplessness is the old game of "Mock the Monk", to trifle with authority by playing dumb.

I'll put this as kindly as I can think of...analysis is not your talent. This was, however, an enlightening glimpse into neurotypical cognition, so thank you for that.

Anonymous JAG November 19, 2017 1:00 PM  

I see some of the socio-sexual ranking play out even in Warcraft PvP. The Ashran battleground is a great example.

Alpha - the guy who leads the team, and we kick ass.

Beta - the Alphas friends who assist in communicating objectives.

Gamma - the guy who bitches about everything, questions the leader's calls, and keeps saying everyone else besides themselves sucks if the team finds itself losing in the short term.

Delta - the guy who says little or nothing, hangs with the leader, and follows his commands because that is what works. The delta does not want to lead even though he knows all the strategies, tactics, and objectives of Ashran, because the notion of dealing with the crybaby gammas is about as desirable as a case of herpes. This is me when I play.

I don't know enough about the other ranks to see where they fit in for my example. I see the above four ranks at play every time I participate.

Blogger SciVo November 19, 2017 1:00 PM  

JACIII wrote:This is not erroneous behavior by average hire. It is a normal human reaction brought on by an extremely poor leader making a "Management 101" error that is, somehow, strangely prevalent.

Micromanagers give so many instructions even they cannot keep them straight. I have seen this lead to workers writing the given instructions down and insisting the manager sign the document so they would not be held responsible for following the expressed litany of instruction.


I've been in that kind of environment, and I think it's the result of insecurity: promoted beyond his confidence (and competence) level, afraid to show any weakness (and unable to remember his own instructions). But he ends up just coming across as a gaslighting cluster B, and has to be dealt with the same way.

(One day: "No no, you dry the dishes clockwise! Why can you never remember this?" Next day: "No no, you dry the dishes counter-clockwise! Why can you never remember this?" Actual family lore about my mom's maternal grandmother. There really are people like that in the world, who will try to drive you crazy.)

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 19, 2017 1:04 PM  

The educational system today encourages people to be leaders but never guides them on how to follow an intelligent leader or spot the difference between halfwits, those of normal intelligence, midwits, and true geniuses. (Which might not even be possible since midwit posturing seems to fool most people.)

Collectively, our society has determined that clinging to equalitarian myths is of greater importance than selecting intelligent and moral leaders.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 1:04 PM  

In fact, this explains why failure of low-status people to conform to unspoken expectations is punished so severely: it's viewed as oppositional defiance, the proper response to which is anger and escalation until submission is achieved.

Damn, I love this blog.

Blogger SciVo November 19, 2017 1:32 PM  

Oh, and there's another possible cause, for the higher-level manager who rarely visits but micromanages when he does: it's such an unimportant instruction in his scheme of things that there's no reason why he would even try to remember it, plus he just doesn't respect your position and subconsciously assumes you must be stupid, so however you're doing it must be wrong. So that's why each time he visits, he will tell you to do it the opposite of however you're doing it now, even though you're doing it like how he said last time.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. November 19, 2017 1:34 PM  

Kaczynski's problem was a surfeit of gamma causing him to not go full Kaczynski. He just couldn't let it go so he had to double down, with explosives. Smart, definitely. Gamma... definitely.

That's loaded with assumptions. That said, I would tend to agree. His manifesto, while mostly lucid (and generally correct), betrays a plodding impotence not otherwise easily explained.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 19, 2017 1:38 PM  

I have no trouble managing a team of sub-normal IQ employees. You explain what you want, walk them through it a couple of times, make very clear to them that you are available to answer any questions at any time, and let them get on with it.

Nor did I have any trouble with the 120+ IQ work team I assembled at a telecom company I worked at. I explained the goal, and let them to it, watching to make sure that exceptions were handled before they were escalated.

It's the people that are proud of how smart they are that aren't that are the problem. The envy, backbiting, and inferiority complexes were enough to make you retch. It was like what I imagine trying to teach deportment to inner-city middle-school girls would be like.

What is more likely, the probability that I have forgotten what you have said or the probability that I derive some sort of strange pleasure from forcing you to answer the same question again? Just answer the question that was asked. If that causes any questions to arise on your part, that's fine, but ask them after you answer mine first.
It's a challenge to their intelligence, and the overwhelming majority of midwits are incapable of dealing with it gracefully. Their ego is tied up in being smart.

Whether this behavior is the result of looking to excuse inaction, to avoid thinking, or to avoid any responsibility for decision-making, I do not know.
In my experience, all three.
I ran into an infuriating example of this just this week. There was a typo in a comment field in a worksheet. Therefore "we didn't have the correct worksheet until yesterday" is the excuse for not being able to stand up a virtual machine, which task has taken two weeks and is still not complete.

Blogger Lance E November 19, 2017 1:54 PM  

This definitely hits home for me. I always end up in some sort of leadership-like position because someone needs to fill the role and nobody else demonstrates sufficient competency. But I hate the role because of exactly the scenario you point out: I'm frequently forced to explain what's obvious to me, and they are resentful at having to be treated like a toddler despite leaving me with no other real choice in the matter.

By the way, this is in an elite institution/profession where members are supposedly preselected for very high intelligence. It's the same everywhere.

I've tried, on many occasions, to try to get the other party to walk me through their chain ("what have you tried" or "show me how you got to this") in order to discover what they missed, but they resent that too, apparently on the assumption that I am being condescending or lazy.

Apparently, high-IQ people are supposed to be mind-readers. Or perhaps the real problem, which seems increasingly to be the case, is that we are simply not supposed to care about performance; we're supposed to ignore obvious errors, provide the entire solution ourselves when they get stuck or desperate, and then pretend we were just bystanders to the stellar job they did.

Blogger Koanic November 19, 2017 1:54 PM  

No, Kaczynski was simply a robust Neanderthal in a gracilizing world, who correctly identified his enemy, technology, and correctly extrapolated that it would eventually devour and dominate humanity.

Now before you disagree, ask yourself how much sitting at a keyboard and staring at a screen resembles your ancestral environment, you plodding digital dinosaur.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 2:05 PM  

Koanic wrote:No, Kaczynski was simply a robust Neanderthal in a gracilizing world, who correctly identified his enemy, technology, and correctly extrapolated that it would eventually devour and dominate humanity.

Now before you disagree, ask yourself how much sitting at a keyboard and staring at a screen resembles your ancestral environment, you plodding digital dinosaur.


Cooijmans' diagnosis was better. Technology is dream logic for civilization, hence the Singularity prophets trying to build the Tower of Babel in Hadoop. Being an aspie, Kaczynski fixated on the aesthetic representation, just like melonheads always fixate on joining "the stars" (i.e. the gods).

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 2:08 PM  

tl;dr- It's not the technology that makes ol' Ted anxious, it's the people.

Anonymous 2106 things I Hate November 19, 2017 2:10 PM  

A couple of points:

The VFW are a fine example of a "Distributed Intelligence" team, or an Oncken* Level 5 team, as opposed to a "wipes their noses" team.

Regarding getting new subordinates: a very good point. You get the team you deserve. I personally check for a baseline of experience/ability as a given, then I decide to hire based solely upon personality fit with both the team and myself, along with a willingness to learn. Reclusive geniuses that can't play well with others are encouraged to move on just as quickly if not more so as for folks that can't or won't cut the mustard.

@justaguy, IIRC, the average IQ of all the sailors, both Officers and Enlisted, who make it out of Naval Nuke School is around 130. Which is 5-10 pts higher than the average for physicans, engineers, and physicists.

I use a military model in dealing with my reports, everybody gets treated differently, which is the only way to truly treat everyone fairly. This requires me to be able to meet folks where they are. This is not always me reaching down either. IQ is neither knowledge nor skill, while I may have a higher IQ than my reports, they are in most cases *better* at what they do than I am, in some cases vastly better than I am...which is as it should be. My job is to provide the big-picture wisdom based on my experience to help them deliver and to Foster an "Iron sharpens Iron" environment.

Blogger Koanic November 19, 2017 2:17 PM  

Why are you not getting this? Yes, the population density, transience and gracilized socialization made Kaczynski anxious. These are technological effects representing a dislocation from the ancestral environment. Kaczynski was an avatar of a race extinguished by this ongoing technological effect. The human race is in its death throes, as its grossly inefficient physical bodies and mammalian souls are gracilized into coldly calculating digital ether. Kaczynski was sensitive to this process, and therefore he has been removed from the gene pool. The end.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. November 19, 2017 2:26 PM  

Koanic's here all week, folks.

Blogger Jed Mask November 19, 2017 2:40 PM  

Hmmm... Good stuff. A lot to think about...

Leadership, leadership...

Quite some work indeed. Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 2:44 PM  

Koanic wrote:Why are you not getting this?

I daresay I could express your idea in my own words. Are you able to restate mine accurately?

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 2:47 PM  

I'll rephrase the argument in social science terms.

Aeoli: Holding technology levels constant, if Ted were around people he liked, he would be happy.
Koanic: Holding his social milieu constant, if Ted engaged in hunter gatherer activities, he would be happy.

Blogger Resident Moron™ November 19, 2017 2:59 PM  

@38

"I have seen this lead to workers writing the given instructions down and insisting the manager sign the document so they would not be held responsible for following the expressed litany of instruction."

Hooray, you just reinvented Project Management!

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 19, 2017 3:01 PM  

The Sasquatch wrote:What do you do when you're 2SD+ and your superiors are idiots?
The overwhelming liklihood is that they are not the idiots in this conversation, you are. That they are explaining every detail of the problem because you have shown them that you will ignore or forget a non-trivial detail. They are treating you like an idiot because their experience tells them they have to.

In the unlikely event that the situation is as you perceive it to be, then shut your gamma whore mouth and listen. They are paying you to listen. They are not paying you to one-up them, to dismiss them, to pretend you know it all already, or to be an ineffective genius. They are paying you to listen. If that gets too hard, calculate in your head how much you're being paid per nanosecond to sit there with your mouth shut.

Blogger Koanic November 19, 2017 3:09 PM  

I don't view what Kaczynski could do to tolerate his surroundings as relevant. There's a point on the tech gracilization curve that will break everyone here. Perhaps Cooijmans can find a mental disorder to classify his objection to being retired to mulch by the AI Bureau of Legacy Relations: Oppositional Decomposition Disorder.

Anonymous AB.Prosper November 19, 2017 3:18 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Kaczynski's problem was a surfeit of gamma causing him to not go full Kaczynski. He just couldn't let it go so he had to double down, with explosives. Smart, definitely. Gamma... definitely.

My guess is that Kacynski was a classic rage filled Omega. Typically those guys do nothing but occasionally they snap and usually start shooting.

In his case it was bombs which was unusual.

The most interesting thing in my mind is that it was his brother that ratted him out to the Feds , otherwise he was careful enough he could have gone for along time. Slow and patient usually doesn't go with that kind of rage

And if bio-tech keeps getting popularized like it is, the net one of the assholes may decide to use germ warfare. One guy, brought Chiptole grill to its knees a few years ago with genetically engineered E-Coli. This is getting easier by the day

Got Vault?

Now back on track,

All that aside, his manifesto is worth reading. His actions may have been wrong and counterproductive but his grasp of the situation were are in today was in many ways prescient

One things this shows more than anything is that won't help you of course as every society is dragged down to its mean , the lower IQ and trust and more impulsive the mean, the worse the society

It also why we don't have flying cars and the like , the US mean till recently was around 100 IQ and call it medium low time preference and high trust

if we were a society with say 120 IQ and essentially no one around with low trust and with high time preference we could have the space faring society . Even peak America wasn't smart enough alas , in general only 5% maybe 10% of humanity could make the cut period

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 19, 2017 3:22 PM  

Futurists who make dire predictions tend to overlook negative feedback effects. An obvious alternative to the "AI takes over the world" scenario is that AI falls far short of the hype and human technological advancement plateaus or even reverses as the body of knowledge becomes so complex that it can't be advanced or maintained.

Blogger tublecane November 19, 2017 3:35 PM  

@93-I've often wondered why the Dead Parrot sketch is their most famous. I think Michael Palin said it was based on a real-life car salesman who had a ready excuse for everything that came up. But there's something funny about the feigned obtuseness of the shopkeeper in the sketch that goes beyond him not wanting to admit that the parrot is dead for business reasons. Like he's playing a game, or something.

Blogger Koanic November 19, 2017 3:38 PM  

> Futurists who make dire predictions tend to overlook negative feedback effects.

It's not AI you have to worry about. Organic humans will never meet "AI" in the sense of "personhood". Before digital people comes digital bacteria, and not even a whisper of our memory will survive digital bacteria.

The only realistic alternative non-supernatural future besides extinction is eternal stagnation due to IQ and social organization limits, like every other primate on Earth.

The tech gracilization trend isn't a prediction, it's humanity's longest-running trend.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 19, 2017 4:03 PM  

Before digital people comes digital bacteria, and not even a whisper of our memory will survive digital bacteria.

In the long run I expect that engineered viruses will be a greater concern, but I get your point. Even so, pathogens mutate. The mutations that survive tend to be the ones that enable them to coexist with their hosts rather than killing them. Extinction of mankind in the near future is far from a foregone conclusion. But there are threats on the horizon and it would be foolish to ignore them.

The tech gracilization trend isn't a prediction, it's humanity's longest-running trend.

And it is precisely this tendency to linearly extrapolate that stumps futurists. Long-running trends eventually reach a point at which negative feedback predominates, and the trend stops. Examples of this are everywhere.

Blogger tublecane November 19, 2017 4:04 PM  

@94-If it is possible for everyone to learn every level of math, you can be sure educrats would never find the way to do it. Which would be something like what you see in Stand and Deliver, i.e. rote learning step-by-step. Instead, they expect every student to be a little Newton, capable of constructing the entire history of mathematics inside his head. ("Construction" is a sacred word to them.)

Which may be because they're True Believers in the Blank Slate, or because they're deliberately trying to dumb down our culture. Hard to tell.

Blogger weka November 19, 2017 4:06 PM  

It why every hospital is dysfunctional unless you have a very sharp MD running the shop. Most doctors are bright enough to run rings around the nurse leaders.

And it is why HR and insurance companies hate us.

BGKB, any comments?

Blogger Koanic November 19, 2017 4:17 PM  

> The mutations that survive tend to be the ones that enable them to coexist with their hosts rather than killing them.

Yes. The digital bacteria will facilitate thermodynamically-inefficient humanity's gradual and willing erasure via the tech gracilization curve, until humanity is powerless to object to its annihilation. The same thing happened to RNA world.

Life obeys statistical thermodynamic laws. It exists to efficiently dissipate syntropy into entropy. A forest is more efficient at that than baked earth. This outcome is foredoomed like waves and sand dunes.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. November 19, 2017 4:31 PM  

His actions may have been wrong and counterproductive but his grasp of the situation were are in today was in many ways prescient

Big ol' rub in there. Several, actually.

Anonymous Siobhan November 19, 2017 4:32 PM  

Stating the obvious, and ongoing narration with back-and-forth, are both important skills for motherhood. Ongoing narration teaches the little ones the language, and since they are new in the world, a lot of "the obvious" is useful information for children. Seems reasonable to me that women would tend towards these traits.

Anonymous Avalanche November 19, 2017 4:44 PM  

95. VFM #6306
Corollary:
What did you think of the movie,Vox?
What movie?
The one we just watched!

Well, VFM #6306, did you have a lovely visit with Malwyn this afternoon? (Bet the other VFM are jealous!)

Anonymous BBGKB November 19, 2017 4:44 PM  

It why every hospital is dysfunctional unless you have a very sharp MD running the shop

I wouldn't know. I certainly didn't run into anything functional while traveling.


Most doctors are bright enough to run rings around the nurse leaders.

That's because you have things like a Black female head nurse with purple hair & black nursing supervisors that think faking numbers is a smart thing to do.

Anonymous Avalanche November 19, 2017 4:45 PM  

@96 "Some of the finest men I knew and worked for were men who knew what their limits were and were supremely confident within those limits and happy to have folks who exceeded them in their circle."

And oh how rare they were! And how valuable!

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 19, 2017 4:51 PM  

@106 Snidely
I ran into an infuriating example of this just this week. There was a typo in a comment field in a worksheet. Therefore "we didn't have the correct worksheet until yesterday" is the excuse for not being able to stand up a virtual machine, which task has taken two weeks and is still not complete.

Good news that you're working, Snidely.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 19, 2017 4:55 PM  

A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:Good news that you're working, Snidely.
Be alert for workplace violence reports from the Pacific Northwest...

Anonymous Sidehill Dodger November 19, 2017 5:00 PM  

The Sasquatch wrote:What do you do when you're 2SD+ and your superiors are idiots? Every time they have a problem to solve, they feel the need to explain it multiple times from different angles at great length. They get mad when I stop paying attention 10 seconds in, even though I can usually solve the problem by the time they've finished blabbing.
This isn't an IQ problem, it's a character flaw. If perceive your biggest problem to be that your bosses talk too much, then I suggest you count yourself lucky,and work on strengthening your patience skill.

I assume they let you go ahead and do your job after the meeting. So why are you complaining?

Anonymous Sidehill Dodger November 19, 2017 5:30 PM  

Dyskord wrote:I am part of a team launching a new business next year. We are a small group and I am often given the most difficult or essential tasks due to the inference of my greater intelligence.
...
However this week my managerial skills were called into question when a worker (Siphokazi) feeling slighted when another employee recieved praise and he did not. The fact he did nothing to deserve praise never occurred to him, only that he had never received it. Siphokazi is an employee I have difficulty dealing with. He behaves like a child, acts like a child and throws tantrums like a child. However my boss likes him because he is a relatively simple guy who does what he's told and is capable to do simple things.

Despite not only raising his voice, inciting to fight me and gross insubordination he wasn't even issued a warning. And I was advised strongly by my boss to let it go.

However my leadership abilities have been called into question. If I cant handle a simple minded emotionally driven guy like Siphokazi how will I handle a sales team or larger responsibilities in the future. ...


Has it occurred to you that maybe your boss is asking himself the same question? Think of it as a test. The best way to resolve challenges and doubts about your leadership skill is to show that you can lead effectively.

One facet of a leader's job is to use every member of his team to accomplish the team's goals. That means you have to get to know your team, you have to understand their talents and weaknesses, gain insight into what motivates each of them, and you have to use your knowledge to apply those psychological levers to maximize your team's effectiveness. On the surface, it seems as though Simp needs praise. Well, praise is cheap. You say Simp has done nothing to merit praise. See to it that this changes. Your boss says one of Simp's strengths is that he does what he's told. So tell Simp to do something that is within his ability, and praise him for it. This should make Simp feel good, and make your boss smile upon you.

Of course, the situation may be more complicated than you describe. Maybe Simp really is a useless lackwit, and the right decision is to fire him. Maybe your boss is a dim bulb too, and Simp is his nephew via some incestuous relationship. In that case, you are in the wrong job. These mistakes happen. I once figured out within two hours of starting a new job that I had made a Terrible Mistake. How? Three of my new co-workers were people I had interviewed while on my last job, and rejected for obvious incompetence. In this case you should do what I did--start circulating resumés again.

Blogger Thot November 19, 2017 5:46 PM  

Read this post and through its comments and was thinking on it while driving today. I had youtube playing in my car and this discussion with Jordan Peterson came up. Some might find it interesting. Thought i would post it.

"Arrogance of the intellect"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txyINNJU6Qc

Anonymous Sidehill Dodger November 19, 2017 5:59 PM  

From the quoted article:
As previous studies showed, the Swiss researchers found that there was a linear relationship between intelligence and effective leadership — but only up to a point. This association plateaued and then reversed at IQ 120. Leaders who scored above this threshold scored lowered on transformational and instrumental leadership than less intelligent leaders, as rated by standardized tests.

So, they used one test to rate people on some sort of IQ-like scale, and then they filtered the results using another test that measures "transformational and instrumental leadership", and published a paper? This sounds a little less than rigorous to me. The paper could well have been titled "Two Tests Give Different Results When Used to Rate Same Group of People". But that wouldn't be all that interesting, would it?

Or am I misunderstanding their method? Like most instances of science reporting, the article is far from clear. It also said that:

At the end of the day, leaders were rated by their subordinates, which could be more to blame than the leaders themselves. Ultimately, the level at which a leader performs also depends on the relative intelligence of its team members.

Profound. Is this a way of saying that smarter managers don't do as well in popularity contests as dumber managers? Or smart managers with dumb teams don't perform well?

Well, in any case I doubt whether either an academic psychologist or corporate functionary would be able to tell us what makes a good leader, so I don't think I'll listen to them. Hogwash and poppycock.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 19, 2017 6:05 PM  

"No, Kaczynski was simply a robust Neanderthal in a gracilizing world, who correctly identified his enemy, technology, and correctly extrapolated that it would eventually devour and dominate humanity."

I didn't say his conclusion was wrong (he did have a point, even if he didn't entirely understand the various mechanisms) His solution, on the other hand, was executed relatively poorly. He managed to remove himself from the equation without making a lasting dent.

Effectively, his point was that the artificial nature of modern society is slowly eroding the vitality of humanity... very correct, but only in certain ways.

I'm sensing gamma rage and lack of reading comprehension from you, Koanic.

"Kaczynski was an avatar of a race extinguished by this ongoing technological effect."

Raise the flag of the mighty "and". A little of A, a little of B.

Your inner evotard is showing when you assume that it's entirely due to genetics and automatically exclude all other potential causes.

In the real world, problems and solutions both tend to be multi-faceted. You may be able to reach critical mass by solving for one or two axis, but if you want to completely understand it you need to leave room for all potential contributing causes.

"There's a point on the tech gracilization curve that will break everyone here."

True, but refer to the above. There are almost always potential ameliorating circumstances as well.

A.B. Prosper makes some good points.

"It's not AI you have to worry about. Organic humans will never meet "AI" in the sense of "personhood". Before digital people comes digital bacteria, and not even a whisper of our memory will survive digital bacteria."

I agree that even a simply sentient self-replicating digital "critter" could potentially annihilate us given half a chance.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to think that we may not actually have to capacity to produce such in the first place. Psychology is the weakest science, and I tend to wonder if even the combined power of human civilization has the potential to ever fully comprehend the human mind. Call it a failsafe if you will, or possibly just above the zenith of the human curve. Yes, I realize that something capable of wiping a large proportion of us off the face of the Earth would likely be much more simple than that to create.

On the third hand, I understand that there was an over/under prediction of 50/50 that the first atomic bomb would ignite the Earth's atmosphere in some circles. Some things are just really hard to predict.

Finally, like the old "fact" that we had/have enough nukes on Earth to crack the planet in two or totally sterilize it -- simply not true -- there's not a chance of any digital life-form eradicating humans anytime in the near future. Kill 90% or more of the population? Sure, in some places. Completely wiping homo sapiens off the map though? Not any time soon. I tend to group things like this in the category of global warming... people only even are scared of the potential because they look at the mighty works of man and overestimate their significance. Ozymandias would be proud... or something.

"The only realistic alternative non-supernatural future besides extinction is eternal stagnation due to IQ and social organization limits, like every other primate on Earth."

Granted and expected. At the same time though, realize that most of our perspectives include the supernatural as a likelihood. Welcome to the land of blackpill godless nihilism.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 19, 2017 6:05 PM  

"thermodynamically-inefficient humanity"

Last I heard, biology was orders of magnitude more efficient. In addition, increasing levels of tech complexity necessitate increasing levels of maintenance and technical knowhow. Rather than utilizing the curve, techno-organisms would tend to die to it. This of course assumes that we don't manage to create self replicating machines anytime soon, a safe assumption, I suspect. Again, it may not even be humanly possible to create them.

You're talking technology well on the other side of the singularity, and what does the gracilization curve say about technological singularity?

Blogger tublecane November 19, 2017 6:30 PM  

I was just reading a description by screenwriter Robert Bolt of working with director David Lean which well describes the IQ communication gap, if I interpret it correctly. I don't actually know how smart either man was, and the difference between the two could have been as much the difference between the intellectual and the man of action on one hand, and the cultured versus the undereducated on the other. But here's what Bolt says about explaining his script for a planned remake of Mutiny on the Bounty:

"The bugger if writing for a brilliant film director is that while you are certainly writing for a superior skill, you may be writing for an inferior mind. You can't ponder the nature of Black Holes with a man who has never heard of gravity and feels insulted if you attempt to tell him of it."

David Lean may not have understood or cared about black holes, but he was a Leader of Men who directed movies shoots of daunting logistical complexity. Could he have done that if he were a standard deviation more intelligent? I dunno.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 6:34 PM  

Koanic wrote:> The mutations that survive tend to be the ones that enable them to coexist with their hosts rather than killing them.

Yes. The digital bacteria will facilitate thermodynamically-inefficient humanity's gradual and willing erasure via the tech gracilization curve, until humanity is powerless to object to its annihilation. The same thing happened to RNA world.

Life obeys statistical thermodynamic laws. It exists to efficiently dissipate syntropy into entropy. A forest is more efficient at that than baked earth. This outcome is foredoomed like waves and sand dunes.


I don't know anything about RNA but the rest of this made sense. Which raises the question whether it's too reductionistic or the correct level of abstraction for the prediction.

Anonymous Luke November 19, 2017 6:36 PM  

I'm not inclined to agree that 120 is a peak IQ for leaders. Plenty of famous, more-effective-than-not historical figures who were known for leadership clearly had higher IQs than that. Robert E. Lee, Napoleon Bonaparte, Sherman, N.B. Forrest, to say nothing of scads of German WWII generals. I think that upbringing and inherent virtues are going to make more difference, once someone is >115 IQ (some brains are needed for any kind of management of complicated orgs or situations).

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 19, 2017 7:02 PM  

"I'm not inclined to agree that 120 is a peak IQ for leaders."

This isn't actually saying that it is. It's saying that they will tend to be less efficient in organizing and directing the average person the less like the average person they are.

There are three ways to get over this hurdle.

#1: Pick and choose people that fall within your IQ umbrella. (Optimal solution)

#2: Utilize intermediaries (layers of them if necessary) to relay command and control more efficiently outside of your umbrella. (Best for positions leading large numbers of people you can't select)

#3: Learn what levels of communication and persuasion to use with specific individuals. Full spectrum from moderate complex-directives/no persuasion all the way to terse simple-instructions/corporeal punishment that you may utilize. (Best for positions leading small numbers of people you can't select)

Anonymous VFM #6306 November 19, 2017 7:22 PM  

Well, VFM #6306, did you have a lovely visit with Malwyn this afternoon? (Bet the other VFM are jealous!)

No, Avalanche. The visit could in no way be described as lovely.

As for jealousy, our combination of facelessness and not caring renders jealousy a quaint sensation, akin to a sharp ache in a vestigial organ.

Blogger DonReynolds November 19, 2017 7:23 PM  

Sidehill Dodger wrote:The Sasquatch wrote:What do you do when you're 2SD+ and your superiors are idiots? Every time they have a problem to solve, they feel the need to explain it multiple times from different angles at great length. They get mad when I stop paying attention 10 seconds in, even though I can usually solve the problem by the time they've finished blabbing.

This isn't an IQ problem, it's a character flaw. If perceive your biggest problem to be that your bosses talk too much, then I suggest you count yourself lucky,and work on strengthening your patience skill.

I assume they let you go ahead and do your job after the meeting. So why are you complaining?


Agreed. The problem may not be a matter of intelligence but a problem of trust and credibility. They may feel they have difficulty getting him on the same page.

I spent most of my adult lifetime in the role of technical manager for lay boards, commissions, and councils... usually city councils of city governments and mayors. For most of that career, I THOUGHT the problem was a difference in intelligence. After all, one mayor was actually illiterate and could barely sign his own name and could not read even a paragraph. Most lay persons on these councils were high school grads, but some were not. I naturally assumed that education and intelligence was at the root of many issues....until I was hired as city manager of a municipality where everyone on the city council (including the mayor) had a 4-year degree and half of them had a masters or better. I thought it would be the best work situation in the world. It was actually the worst, in my experience.

I never imagined that educated/ intelligent people could be so completely burdened by false information, pre-conditions, and assumptions. Everything was a legal question, that required an opinion from the city attorney, and usually that was not good enough. They insulted and berated the public who attended the meetings, with their pretended authority and discretion, when there was hardly any. They were openly corrupt and dishonest and considered themselves Machiavellian. Politics was a parlor game and a joke, and civil ceremony was boring. There was none of the sincerity or concern or serious regard for the public business. It was embarrassing at times.

Blogger Artisanal Toad November 19, 2017 7:27 PM  

Snidely

I agree that it's good to see that you found work, frustrating though it might be for you.

Your response in @118 to Sasquatch, however, seems to have quite a bit of projection in it. Is your frustration with the work situation you described causing you to kick the cat?

You gave one piece of decent advice to Sasquatch, which was to find a way to listen. That said, compare your response to that of @135 by Sidehill Dodger. See a difference? Same advice, completely different delivery. To see another example of damn good advice that (IMO) was delivered effectively, look at @136

When you were previously given constructive advice on your commenting by Vox, you accepted it manfully and toned things down. Evidently, now that you're employed again you're feeling frisky and going back to your old habits. Not good. In saying this, how should I put it?

shut your gamma whore mouth

There. Didn't that just remove any desire to examine yourself and see if you could have handled your response differently? Or would it have been better to point out the problem with your response and say

"This isn't an IQ problem, it's a character flaw."

You made a lot of assumptions and got direct, personal and insulting. Maybe Sasquatch is a gamma, maybe he's actually the idiot, or maybe he's UHIQ and his bosses are the idiots who aren't as smart as they think they are. Or maybe it's something else. It doesn't matter. The good advice you gave him was to learn how to listen, but you blew it in terms of delivery.

It appears your tendency to get personal and insulting is a character flaw you need to work on.

Blogger SirHamster November 19, 2017 8:07 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Last I heard, biology was orders of magnitude more efficient.

I remember sharing the concern about the Grey Goo scenario until I started engineering courses and discovering that it's already here.

Nano-scale self-reproducing machine that breaks down materials around it to reproduce itself? It's here, we call it bacteria. It even doubles its population every few hours.

Has bacteria taken over the world? Nope, all sorts of environmental factors limit it. Ex: Waste heat - at that scale, nowhere for heat to go. Too much heat reorders complex machine from functional to nonfunctional configuration of parts

Sure, bacteria in the wrong place in your body will mess you up, but you manage the majority of your life in an environment completely covered with "grey goo".

Grey Goo is not so scary when you realize it can be handled with relatively mundane methods like, wash your hands, boil your water and cook your food.

Count me a skeptic about the doom of "digital bacteria".

Blogger Mr. Bee November 19, 2017 8:19 PM  

Perhaps the most relevant example of why high IQ folks are poor leaders. VD's "truth in race" version of the alt-right manifesto presented without first making it clear Nazis absolutely suck. This in a country where Nazis have been the default "evil" guys in media since Russia was invaded by Hitler. Now the go to position on the alt right from leftist and cuck alike is "Nazis!". Of course, having to explain that up front is tedious to the uber mench or who could be called "the new cuck!".

Anonymous gargleblaster November 19, 2017 8:23 PM  

I simply cannot work with people who insist on both a) having the obvious spelled out to them and b) taking umbrage at having things explained step-by-step for them from the beginning as if they were stupid.

Heh. This describes my attempt 20 years ago to help my wife with her College Algebra homework. (I teach college-level Precalculus.) Not so funny then, but pretty funny now as you described my experience perfectly.

Blogger Koanic November 19, 2017 8:35 PM  

> Count me a skeptic about the doom of "digital bacteria".

Your gray goo analogy is irrelevant. Obviously that scenario cannot work. It's stupid.

Meanwhile, techno-corporate entities of sub-bacterial complexity are already devouring humanity, pushing it down the tech-gracilization curve. You are thinking Stuxnet when you should be thinking Google and Goldman Sachs. Today's vast algorithms and databases are tomorrow's precursors of digital life. THAT is the race of digital bacteria humanity won't survive, not something Norton Antivirus scans for.

The final stage will be implemented by loyalty-genecoded cyborg-augmented posthuman corporate employees, who will render legacy humanity obsolete by the construction of automated factories. And every mother will want her kids to have the latest package.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 9:14 PM  

But I already have the greatest package.

#Nobilid

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2017 9:14 PM  

#Yuge

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 19, 2017 9:31 PM  

Today's vast algorithms and databases are tomorrow's precursors of digital life.

I thought you were talking about genetically engineering anthrax or something, not the world being taken over by Google and Facebook.

Super-gay.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 19, 2017 9:43 PM  

Be alert for workplace violence reports from the Pacific Northwest...

+1.

Glad you found something.

Anonymous Luke November 19, 2017 9:47 PM  

148. SirHamster November 19, 2017 8:07 PM
Azure Amaranthine wrote:
"Last I heard, biology was orders of magnitude more efficient.


I remember sharing the concern about the Grey Goo scenario until I started engineering courses and discovering that it's already here.

Nano-scale self-reproducing machine that breaks down materials around it to reproduce itself? It's here, we call it bacteria. It even doubles its population every few hours."


Actually, I think bacteria doubling time under good conditions can be more like every 15 minutes. It's eukaryotes like yeast that take more like 2-4 hours to double numbers.

Blogger Paul M November 19, 2017 10:03 PM  

> For example, if I say "wash the car" to my friend, is it reasonable for him to say, "whatever car do you mean?

Perhaps he's gently trying to suggest that friends don't bark orders at friends.

Anonymous RedJack November 19, 2017 10:16 PM  

I had wished I had known this 20 years ago.

I was a supervisor/manager for about ten years all told. Hated it. Hated having to deal with "simple" personal problems from those who had short time preferences. Had a great boss who sat me down, poured a drink, and said "Jack, you are just to $%^%ing smart to lead people like that."

Went back to engineering, and while I have bad times (on day 20 of 12 hour days with another 10 to go), I enjoy solving problems. I also enjoy dealing with the guys on the floor.

I have found that I have a better connection with some of the workers than I can have with peers or superiors. While digging out a load of broken material to find the problem part today, I talked with the maintenance guy about the mechanics of the issue, what the science behind it was, and then he had his brute force simple suggestion.

He knew I am "smarter" than him. I know that I can't run a welder like he can. We both know that we are require both of our skills to get the job done, and the machine is working.

My peers view that type of interaction as a threat. My superiors, while pleased with my results, are confused why the line guys go up to me to show me their hunting pictures and will talk about their ideas to make things better.

It isn't just the IQ gap, but expectations. I can sit down and break it apart for a guy with an 88 IQ better than a guy with a 105 IQ. The former expects me to lead him through the steps, and has no shame in telling me "I don't get it Red, back it up". The latter will get annoyed and stop listening.

All in all, while not for everyone, I do like my role. I have a lot of soft leadership I get to do, but not as many headaches. I have learned that while I love leading a team, being a "manager" isn't as fulfilling as saying "Grab your nuts, lets go fix this problem!" to a highly motivated team of people.

Blogger Rough Carrigan November 19, 2017 10:16 PM  

#20, Avanlanche. What you're describing is the clash of communication styles described in Deborah Tannen's book You Just Don't Understand. The way she phrased it was that men typically use report talk while women typically favor rapport talk. It's important to understand that neither style is right, or wrong. But any man or woman who gets upset at the communication style of his or her spouse is probably saying just that.

From a man's perspective, I wish more women would realize that, for many men, being close to someone, a male friend or a wife means that you don't feel that you have to talk.

Tannen also points out cultural differences in communication styles. Imagine someone from a reserved northern european home at the dinner table of a southern european family with the air full of chaotic, overlapping conversations.

Anonymous Mr. Rational November 19, 2017 10:26 PM  

@20  Avalanche, you are one commenter I always read closely.  Solid insights.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 19, 2017 10:35 PM  

"loyalty-genecoded"

Assuming that's even possible.

Assuming that even if it were possible, it would be a dominant characteristic.

Assuming that even if it were both possible and a dominant characteristic, that it would be the primary driving desire.

^Evo-tarded.^

Also, good luck ensuring loyalty to an abstract concept like a corporation name or logo via genetic engineering. That's a doozy for multiple reasons.

"cyborg-augmented"

They'd be much more fragile than normal humans, requiring constant maintenance as well as being subject to a multitude of failure modes. If the grid ever goes down for a few days? Say a nasty solar flare among several not only possible but likely scenarios. Augmentee-extinction.

When you start trying to artificially create and "upgrade" humanity, you're doing much, much stupider things than what Kaczynski railed against. You're going to have a major flaw or mass-extinction of your "upgraded" humanity at pretty much every "only once in xxx years freak event" event, let alone natural disasters.

We're already looking at a mass die-back of humanity when our tech inevitably falls victim to the oncoming bubbles. Imagine if instead of your cell-phone that tech is your eyeball or your leg, or God forbid your brain stem. Engineering 101 should -- I think -- make engineers glaringly aware of all this. Murphy's law always applies, and the greater the complexity the more often and more harshly it applies.

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot November 19, 2017 10:46 PM  

"I don't have any useful advice for the 2SD+ crowd ..."

All this becomes considerably more interesting with small "skunk works" mercenary organisations operating at a +3.5 SD level.

The key things to do: model group and individual behaviour dynamics in order to understand the types of internal organisational broadsides you will encounter, using leadership structures to control everything else that you can't handle within the intelligence core.

In terms of operating difficulties within this core, the biggest problems will be ones of goal convergence, and the biggest threats will be ones of certain people believing they can move the goal posts through localised insurgencies because it's in everyone's best interests.

Usually it's best if most of the people in your organisation have no clue whatsoever what your end game happens to be. Instead, it's best to have the smaller groups within your mercenary organisation focused on achieving certain goals with speed, precision, and effectiveness.

There's usually too much of a tendency to want to "democratise" the organisation as a whole, and you can counter this by identifying which portions of the organisation respond better as command and control (C2/C2I) components than as flexible "micro skunk works" within a "skunk works" organisation.

Effectively this means that the people leading on the "command deck" are there because you put them there, or that they are in de facto leadership positions for life, and that the intelligence organisation within the "skunk works" actually runs everything without having to resort to leadership itself. Because this is confusing to everyone operating within command and control structures, you keep those people focused on leadership rather than the interconnection of operating structures.

Plurality of goals in support of a Very Big Picture tends to help a great deal with eliminating some of the problems involved with localised insurgencies. They are usually very unlikely to result in any substantive changes that are relevant across the entire organisation, and because of that these problematic portions of the organisation may be cut loose as your core intelligence people see fit.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf November 19, 2017 10:48 PM  

Interesting article :)

My IQ was measured around 133. I do have some difficulty explaining some concepts verbally to be people because I leave a lot unsaid that I should articulate. That said, I'm loved by at least some medical students for my ability to break complex neurological systems down and explain them step-wise (this takes about a year).

As a related aside, I only had one PhD student whom I trained that I really felt a mental connection with. She had a very formal IQ test and was 127. I felt like we could 'communicate' without talking much of the time. It's was very enjoyable. Not without some problems, but it was quite nice.

I guess what I was wondering was this: What would it be like in an organization where everyone is around an IQ 140? Could it be structured in a way that is very effective while not being too 'stressful'? Perhaps without a leader? Or with a leader with an IQ of 154? Or maybe even an A.I. leading the organization? Any ideas?

I'm a strong proponent of peaceful parenting (this includes training in logical argumentation - at least categorical / Aristotelian), and I believe the evidence suggests loving peacefully-raised high IQ children develop into really the ideal human. I hope one day these people develop the sort of society we'd all very much like to live in. Right now, sadly, in many ways we in the West seem to be going in the exact opposite direction. Our average IQ is dropping precipitately (mainly due to immigration, I believe modal white IQ should still be around 100). The Chinese have no qualms with scientifically selecting for superior genes - including but not limited to intelligence. My guess is, they will lead the way forward in this regards.

Blogger Koanic November 19, 2017 11:12 PM  

> not the world being taken over by Google and Facebook.

Not the corporations as we think of them, but their servant technology, which will increasingly be less the servant, and more the evolved living thing, responsive to market incentives to self-replicate, and less reliant on humans to pursue corporate objectives.

> Super-gay.

The globalizing growth of mega-corporations that Leftists decry is part of the tech-gracilization trend, whether you find noticing it gay or not. Digital life will develop within big experimental IT systems, and that favors the huge institution over the individual.

Extinction by one-off Spanish influenza, digital or organic, is something dramatic that humans are evolved to emotionally register and avoid. There is no escaping the real meat-chute, and hardly any noticing it.

I no longer read or respond to S1ALiar, Spamalanch and Azure Amantha.

Blogger Jevaughn Brown November 19, 2017 11:30 PM  

"It is psychically painful to me to have to listen to the monosyllabic gruntings of you morons." ~ Vox Day, September 5, 2017 Periscope

Still my favorite off-the-cuff Vox Day quote, and perfectly apropos here... lol!

That is all.

Blogger Rashadjin November 20, 2017 12:55 AM  

@137 Thot

Read this post and through its comments and was thinking on it while driving today. I had youtube playing in my car and this discussion with Jordan Peterson came up. Some might find it interesting. Thought i would post it.

"Arrogance of the intellect"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txyINNJU6Qc


I slept on it and came to a similar conclusion.

There's a funny quirk about Vox's car example and general explanation plus many of the problems coming up in the comments - We're not talking IQ problems but ones of culture and character.

From what I've seen, Vox's conceit is his intellect, which isn't a terrible thing. Having a conceit is one of the better shortcuts to doing what Cernovich's #2 of 40 was getting at. I have my own. The point is Vox thinks IQ is far more conducive to being moral and correct than it is because intelligence is his conceit. Except when he pulls back from that conceit to acknowledge when and where IQ screws the pooch plenty.

It wasn't really a mistake on Vox's part to make an example of someone not washing the car they borrowed then dirtied up before returning. That type of scenario is Vox's core problem when dealing with other people and one that keeps cropping up, especially in leadership. He then condenses a broad spectrum of human behavior down to a simple and satisfying solution - MPAI - which allows him to quickly and easily move on and get back to having a productive life. It's pretty common shortcut around here, really.

For Vox's car example, the correct read is that the person who borrowed the car was low in conscientiousness, either by natural personality or culture. The way this person gets through life is via minimal effort in all things, and probably thinks that taking care of stuff is beneath them - use until expended and toss. It was rude to return a dirty car, but that's how they live. Really, expending someone else's stuff is even better than expending their own stuff. Pretending not to understand which car Vox is talking about is just the next step in the minimal effort playbook.

The real problem arises in much of Vox's other analysis where pathological behavior is shunted through his preferred, handy, and oft successful shortcut which is to label people as idiots and get on with life. Mistakes and pathological attitudes are accrued when you view life through the prism of IQ like this.

The thing of it is, it's actually smart to avoid effort or otherwise hand effort off to someone else, even if that someone else doesn't exist. At which point, your monocles are popping because this is how societies die and think of the children, posterity, old age and etc etc. But these smart people don't care. Their goal in life is to have 10-20 wild, easy years and then go skydiving where they strangely forget to pull the cord. Seriously and literally. Taking care of stuff or otherwise pulling their weight is distinctly counterproductive to success when success is measured in these terms.

Blogger Rashadjin November 20, 2017 12:56 AM  

Continuing @165...

When talking modern leadership, you're talking about herding narcissistic, lazy people. It's not that they don't understand you, it's that they think their way of doing something and their goals are better than yours because it's their methods and their goals. QED. Or it's not that they don't understand you, it's that they don't want to expend effort because expending effort is totally not cool, bro. Or, for some other random reason, doing it isn't worth it to them. Maybe the pay is too low, maybe they're having an off day, maybe they just don't like/respect you enough, maybe its learned impotence, maybe the point of it all is for you to make them look good and the present task won't further that goal.

The 2SD+ communication gap is about lab work and astrophysics and otherwise pushing the body of human knowledge. It's also about the UHIQ set living in a headspace of intuitive leaps that appears to be magic to everyone around them, so they assume that when someone else doesn't get it in general, said other person is simply that dumb just like when they don't understand a UHIQ logic chain/intuitive leap. It's not actually that.

To extend Vox's car example. The person he's talking to may have his own car in the parking lot and that car may be filthy too (or not). So asking 'Which car?' is, first, about the normal primary association to their own car that initially leaps into mind when 'the car' is the topic and then, second, the cultural verbalization of 'Oops, yeah, I should have washed your car before returning it, and now I feel like a flake, so time to pretend I don't know what's going on because AMERIKA'.

Something that everyone grapples with, but especially intellectuals (because conceit), is that each person lives in their own mental world that's distinctly different from anyone else's. Communication issues are primarily about these disparate mental worlds not aligning along primary mental associations (to their own stuff, thoughts and circumstances as opposed to your stuff, thoughts and circumstance), values and knowledge/awareness. It's very rarely about IQ.

When talking the vast majority of civic nationalists on the vast majority of issues, it is likewise not because they're stupid and don't get it. It is about civic nationalism being the sum of their personal core values that they have been steeped in since birth. An old bit of wisdom states: People are unable to understand what they're unwilling to believe.

Civ-Nats don't understand because acknowledging that the Alt-Right is inevitable means that their core values have failed. The default mental shunt is to say that the Alt-Right is wrong or evil simply because. And yes, it's mostly an emotional response that overrides the logic centers. We're talking the ego here, not IQ.

Which is also why science advances one death at a time, even when full of UHIQ people.

(Which goes a long way to explaining why mean IQ isn't the reason we're not in the space age with flying cars yet. [Flying cars being about prosperity limits besides, because helicopters are flying cars. And oh, fine, a bit about autopilot, energy density, and foundational infrastructure problems too.])

Blogger Koanic November 20, 2017 1:01 AM  

There are lots of movies depicting aliens invading and terraforming Earth. Well, there's no need. The terraforming is happening now. DNA is creating a hospitable ecosystem for digital life. Digital life is orders of magnitude faster and more flexible than DNA at evolution, so it will replace DNA. All of human civilization will be engulfed and digested by digital bacteria too non-sentient to know we are even there, in ways humans will hardly notice, much less resist. Then aliens can invade remotely by hacking Earth's digital bacteria.

Blogger Rashadjin November 20, 2017 1:52 AM  

@167 Koanic

At some point I'm going to need to explain why the AI Singularity is going to be postponed indefinitely.

Although the core concept of Corroding Empire (haven't read) is going to prove prophetic, possibly sooner than I expect given what the financial sector is pulling with learning algorithms.

Blogger Koanic November 20, 2017 1:56 AM  

Eternal stagnation is an option, but it will have to be pre-digital, because otherwise it's too easy for someone somewhere to start the evolutionary sequence leading to digital life, and reap the short-term benefits thereof. At this point I don't think a nuclear war and the extinction of the white race will stop it. The Han can do it by themselves, or the Japs, or the Russians.

Blogger VD November 20, 2017 5:02 AM  

Perhaps he's gently trying to suggest that friends don't bark orders at friends.

No. We're not talking about fucking etiquette. That is exactly that sort of obtuse refusal to accept the obvious context that I'm talking about.

Blogger wreckage November 20, 2017 5:34 AM  

"Digital life is orders of magnitude faster and more flexible than DNA at evolution"

Stability is also necessary. Say somehow war breaks out between us and the AI. Say we get one shot, so we nuke *OURSELVES*. Without infrastructure we experience dieback, but as long as there's a biosphere AT ALL we keep breeding.

AI dies utterly without dynamic memory and the energy to shunt through it.

So, it dies out at about, say, a 1930 level of organization. We can go back another roughly 50,000 years worth of disorganization without any real risk of extinction.

Similarly, we have an unprecedented level of international energy, organization, and communication infrastructure, and we are still not seeing digital life above the level of parasitism.

Last, you're assuming that in the ultra-fast digital ecology, pathogens don't benefit more from the dynamism than highly organized life does. I'd argue that the digital environment is tropical: lots and lots and lots of life, but hard limits on organization, largely due to pathogens.

There are reasons the largest and most organized societies (super organisms) prefer temperate climates: disease break over winter.

Blogger VD November 20, 2017 5:48 AM  

The point is Vox thinks IQ is far more conducive to being moral and correct than it is because intelligence is his conceit.

(sigh) No. I don't. Seriously, is it really that hard for you people to accept that there is a QUALITATIVELY different form of thought that is as different from your own as the sub-100 individuals is from yours? Is your pride that mortally offended that you will deny science, documentary evidence, and direct eyewitness testimony?

I can reliably ID the moderately intelligent by those who believe MPAI to be about conceit rather than practicality. And yet, it is a VITAL concept for the highly intelligent, especially the UHIQ. My father has been in jail for more than a decade primarily because he was never able to accept MPAI.

Blogger VD November 20, 2017 5:50 AM  

DNA is creating a hospitable ecosystem for digital life. Digital life is orders of magnitude faster and more flexible than DNA at evolution, so it will replace DNA. All of human civilization will be engulfed and digested by digital bacteria too non-sentient to know we are even there, in ways humans will hardly notice, much less resist.

Then the power goes out and they all die. You are failing to account for the intrinsic fragility of digital not-life.

Blogger wreckage November 20, 2017 7:07 AM  

Doesn't the Fermi Paradox apply doubly to an organism that would spread its progeny via radio signals?

Blogger wreckage November 20, 2017 7:19 AM  

MPAI sounds conceited and is a harsh formulation, but even from my merely rather clever position, it's proven very useful to accept that people's minds are bounded systems and that differences in capacity, either straight up information memorization or the size and complexity of processes, must be accepted.

Being smart enough to formulate relatively complex questions and experiencing the setback of a simple incapacity to encompass, process, and "answer" (or integrate) them, served as a primer on mental processes upscale from me, but I ironically hadn't thought *at all* about mental processes downscale from me.

Vox clarified that for me rather neatly. Yeah he's contentious, abrasive, and I hope and believe on a number of major issues he is either wrong now or has projected wrongly in some way. But if you get past your own defensive reflex he's bloody educational, and if he wasn't as challenging a character, he wouldn't be as educational.

Blogger Koanic November 20, 2017 7:29 AM  

> Say somehow war breaks out between us and the AI.

*Rolleyes*. It's digital life, not AI. You can't fight a war with it. It doesn't know you're there. It's busy designing slick consumer electronics and addictive video games. It's playing the stock market and predicting your purchase patterns. You're already in the Matrix, and there's no bad guy for your monkey brain to punch. If you want to fight a war, you'll need to build giant server farms to house the digital life you'll need to run the war effort, as your opponent does the same. War and peace alike lead to human extinction.

> You are failing to account for the intrinsic fragility of digital not-life.

Which is why digital life will avoid direct overt conflict with the dominant portion of humanity until that vulnerability no longer exists. Which presumably will occur well after it has begun producing designer DNA servants.

Blogger LP9 November 20, 2017 7:53 AM  

Great post.

It is sad that the super intel like Vox or around here to others are misunderstood, called crazy or called weird - lesser IQ's do not understand higher IQ gaps, they lack the foresight or vision to consider what the smarter person has planned or what their vision is and trying to explain that vision is annoying, its like easiest to give 1 to 3 steps in short hand posted say at work or as goals, etc., to explain.

There were excellent resources to test myers briggs to post our results here, great resources to review writing styles.

Are there any IQ tests that smarter people favor? I dont know if that would be a good blog post but a IQ reliable test online would be great to take and report back on.

Anonymous 2106 things I Hate November 20, 2017 7:53 AM  

MPAI and the complimentary principle, MPANCI, are things I have drilled into my kids' heads from an early age

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. November 20, 2017 9:24 AM  

I'm sensing gamma rage and lack of reading comprehension from you, Koanic.

Koanic is no Gamma. Koanic is the byproduct of a youthful, vigorous intellect coupled with the inherent downfall of that: Getting caught up in inevitability vectors that don't scale with potentiating variables.

He knows not yet what to give, to release, to God. As such, there is -- currently -- no center to be found.

Blogger Rashadjin November 20, 2017 10:02 AM  

I can reliably ID the moderately intelligent by those who believe MPAI to be about conceit rather than practicality. And yet, it is a VITAL concept for the highly intelligent, especially the UHIQ. My father has been in jail for more than a decade primarily because he was never able to accept MPAI.

Can't help those old habits, eh Vox? Because I spent a fair number of words saying that it was both a conceit and a practicality.

I also said that UHIQ types false positive themselves into believing that most disagreements are about intelligence, even in matters where intelligence isn't a limiting factor. You say there's a big, qualitative difference in thought, and I see it as well as believe it. But as J. Peterson said in the linked vid, there's no direct line between intelligence and wisdom.

It's a funny coincidence that you just linked an anti-ballistic system news item to a cruise missile right after saying that people should be careful about speaking from ignorance, isn't it?

Cuts both ways, sure, but the point is that you should be mindful of the limitations and assumptions of your 'necessary' coping mechanism for dealing with people who neither think like you nor at your speed nor have your vast repertoire of knowledge.

Scott Adams made his limitations crystal clear when he basically said that all disagreements stem from missing data. I figure you can do better than the UHIQ version of that claim.

Blogger Koanic November 20, 2017 10:45 AM  

> Getting caught up in inevitability vectors that don't scale with potentiating variables.

Me no go extinct! Me special!

Ok, maybe there will be some bipedal organic servitors loosely based on legacy humans that will persist past the digital bacteria wars, like captured RNA organelles. I doubt the design is that efficient, but maybe.

> He knows not yet what to give, to release, to God. As such, there is -- currently -- no center to be found.

I am demonstrating the inherent hopelessness of materialism. You should be applauding my evangelistic efforts. Whether by suicide or salvation, I am helping atheists meet Jesus.

These theories do interesting things to Biblical interpretation, but first you have to stop assuming the contradiction.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. November 20, 2017 11:46 AM  

first you have to stop assuming the contradiction.

You must stop assuming contradictions where there are none. Self-contradiction is sometimes merely the condition of a thing's existence (to steal a quip from, IIRC, Nietzsche).

You ought to also not be so committed to certainties.

The former is necessary; the latter... not so much.

Blogger Akulkis November 20, 2017 12:01 PM  

To SJWs, disagreement = stupidity

Anonymous Aeoli Pera November 20, 2017 12:02 PM  

Koanic, I think you'll communicate the idea better by analogy to the gracilization which accompanies all tool use. As the lever gets longer, the average lever operator weakens.

Blogger Koanic November 20, 2017 12:12 PM  

I am not a materialist, therefore I think God and the supernatural in general renders the outcome of a digital bacteria ecosystem non-inevitable, even though it would be inevitable under a materialist set of assumptions.

> by analogy to the gracilization which accompanies all tool use.

I already did. It didn't help. These people think that chipping at code won't shrink your soul like chipping at rock shrinks your bones.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. November 20, 2017 12:46 PM  

These people think that chipping at code won't shrink your soul like chipping at rock shrinks your bones.

I just finished cutting a cord of wood.

Highly recommended.

Blogger Akulkis November 20, 2017 1:51 PM  

The hilarious part is most educrats are the ones who couldn't reach. And most K-12 teachers outside of the math and science departments are dumber than a box of hammers.

Blogger Koanic November 20, 2017 2:12 PM  

> I just finished cutting a cord of wood.

Rather insensitive to mention here the forest-clearing technique used by runty English settlers to tech-gracilization genocide the Neanderthal Native Americans, don't you think?

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. November 20, 2017 2:30 PM  

runty

Runty!

My God, son...

How immediately you've subscribed to the (((alternate))).

You cut wood yet?

Here for you.

Blogger Akulkis November 20, 2017 2:45 PM  

We don't have flying cars because it would be a traffic control nightmare, flying consumes more energy than rolling, and cars can function reliably with much lower levels of maintenance. A burned out marker light on a car is a mild annoyance. On a ship or plane is easily catastrophic.

Blogger Koanic November 20, 2017 2:46 PM  

You're just ignorant. They were smaller and malnourished, and viewed the Indians as physically impressive. Only later did white frontiersmen catch up.

Bestow your mothering elsewhere.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera November 20, 2017 2:46 PM  

This got weird.

Blogger Wormwood November 20, 2017 5:03 PM  

A good follower has great value. What has no value is the person too prideful to follow, and yet won't or can't lead even at the adequate level.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 20, 2017 7:20 PM  

"until that vulnerability no longer exists"

This is the simple flaw in your thinking, Koanic. You're still hung up on the thought that life evolves from simple/slow/weak/inefficient to complex/fast/strong/efficient. That is in direct violation of the laws of thermodynamics. And yes, I'm aware that people try to sidestep that issue by claiming that life evolves only where there is an energy gradient, energy moving continually from one place to another. It's simply not true. Life requires a gradient even to function.

TL;DR: That vulnerability will never, ever cease to exist. Stuff doesn't just continually get better by pure luck, and your god, lady luck? She doesn't exist. Entropy is king of the godless mortal domain.

"Koanic is no Gamma. Koanic is the byproduct of a youthful, vigorous intellect coupled with the inherent downfall of that: Getting caught up in inevitability vectors that don't scale with potentiating variables."

In his first response to me he was trying to insult me because of perceived animosity over conversations in other threads. He could only even do so by assuming meaning and context I did not provide, and doing so incorrectly. These things are fractal. He's not mostly gamma, I agree, but that was a gamma response.

"UHIQ types false positive themselves into believing that most disagreements are about intelligence, even in matters where intelligence isn't a limiting factor."

I don't think you grasp just how often disagreements happen because of one person's complete inability to grasp certain things. Then they persist perpetually in many cases because of the same inability. It's perceived that way because in the absence of acceptance of the MPAI fete, the problem simply cannot be resolved. It becomes a fount of pain, so you notice it constantly.

"you should be mindful of the limitations and assumptions of your 'necessary' coping mechanism"

Hence, Most People Are Not Complete Idiots and/or a sense of perspective.

" when he basically said that all disagreements stem from missing data."

B-b-b-binary thinking! And the corollary is people who assume someone else is using binary thinking patterns because they were brief rather than concise. Binary thinking projection! Yay!

"I doubt the design is that efficient, but maybe."

That's the other part of your mistake, Koanic. You think that you or someone like you could do better.

"I am not a materialist, therefore I think God and the supernatural in general renders the outcome of a digital bacteria ecosystem non-inevitable, even though it would be inevitable under a materialist set of assumptions."

See, that would be a useful statement, because all of the interaction I've had with you in the past does not indicate either of those understandings. Your current line of thought actually does not indicate the first of those, because it contradicts certain facets of it.

There are more bounds on humanity than perhaps you are thinking. We're trying to draw your attention to the similar curves that would tend to dictate that digital "life" will never become self sufficient enough to phase out humanity. Is there a possibility? I suppose, but it's extremely unlikely and -- as I said above -- necessary to believe in lady luck rather than a more traditional god.

"chipping at code won't shrink your soul like chipping at rock shrinks your bones."

To be fair, the chipping actually does precisely the opposite. It's stagnating in the fruit of that chipping that affects both.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 20, 2017 7:23 PM  

High walls lead to stagnation within, and all walls eventually crumble.

Blogger S1AL November 20, 2017 7:51 PM  

Yeah, reality is the exact opposite of that last statement. Toil, within reason, improves the condition of the human body - to the point that weight resistance is the only practical defense we have against bone degradation.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. November 20, 2017 8:44 PM  

In his first response to me he was trying to insult me because of perceived animosity over conversations in other threads.

Fucking wah wah wah wah... wat? You might pay more attention to what the man says. As he says it.

Give the gift of giving this holiday season.

This got weird.

You got one right, Areola.

Blogger wreckage November 20, 2017 9:22 PM  

Semantics, Koanic. Instead consider the DNA gestalt comes to an incoherent reactive solution to the parasitism of digital DNA analoge gestalt.

It need ton even be directly related, just a stress response.

Apply your intellect to what I said, and expand your argument to account for it, rather than focusing on disqualifying semantics.

Particularly those you'd expect from a person unimaginative and poorly-read.

Blogger Rashadjin November 20, 2017 9:57 PM  

@194 Azure Amaranthine

Sigh. Someone had to be the stubborn one. Although to be fair to Scott Adams, he did say "most problems are information problems", but in context, he wasn't talking about problems that actually were information problems, but competing values and objectives problems, which in a pragmatic sense, blurs down to: conflicting value/objective problems = information problems ~= the set of all problems between people, give or take (notably missing resource problems).

"I don't think you grasp just how often disagreements happen because of one person's complete inability to grasp certain things."

Again, people are unable to understand what they're unwilling to believe. See: Irrational Atheists & Civic Nationalists.

The question becomes: Which slice of people are unwilling to believe vs those who don't want to concede the point vs those who are entirely out of their depth vs those who are intellectually incapable.

The MPAI shortcut is to lump them all into the set of those who are intellectually incapable irregardless of whether you're talking the math that describes the event horizon of a black hole (incapable) or talking diversity + proximity = war with a civ nat (unwilling to believe) or how to replace a CD drive in a computer tower (drowning in ignorance) or about the car that got returned filthy (do not want).

I well understand the generally incapable, deer-in-the-headlights problem, and to be fair to Vox, a lot of it is about wanting people around himself that can move at his speed. So in his case, ditching the chaff with MPAI is selecting out high performers (slow/feckless = idiot) who understand the playing field (ignorance = idiot) who can manage the processes and concepts enough to be useful (lack of ability = idiot).

But as frustrating and self-defeating as dealing with people beneath your level is, none of these factors necessarily means the other person's an actual idiot when they don't measure up. They could even have more raw capability than you, but are crippled by some factor(s) not directly related to intelligence. The failings of the MPAI mindset are impatience, myopia, contempt, and not giving yourself the chance to spot that diamond in the rough (which you want to at least nudge in the right direction, even if you have about zero time/energy to deal with them in the moment).

Going back to me short-changing Scott Adams -
Shorted Adams: moar information = moar correct
UHIQ MPAI: moar information + mo-better processing = moar correct

And given that 'moar correct' is regarding all disagreements between people, from quantum mechanics to returning a washed car to civic nationalism, MPAI is the UHIQ version of 'most(~all) problems are information problems'.

Now tell me again about that binary thinking of yours...

1 – 200 of 214 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts