Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

That would work in a truly enlightened culture.  That is not the case for modern culture.

Modern culture has at its root, not some grand altruistic ideal, but the profit motive instead.

It is not as profitable to train the uncharismatic, short, ugly troll into a skilled asset. It is vastly more profitable to seek the "ideal candidate."

Them's the breaks.

[penguinofhonor]

Think about everything it takes to get him to that point though! Do we really need a janitor to get 13+ years of schooling, access to modern medicine, etc? And then if you want him to work for you, he has to be compensated enough that he can afford high-tech luxuries like televisions and refrigerators. All those resources are effectively being poured down the drain for a janitor. It's best to throw him into the woods at a young age and just get it over with.

And that's not even to mention the fact that most of these unskilled jobs exist to cater to the unskilled masses. If we culled the vast majority of the population, the demand for mindless jobs would be cut down just as quickly.

Sure, an unintelligent man can be trained. But why train an unintelligent guy when you can train a smart guy to a higher skill level in the same time?

[Orange Wizard]

It's best to throw him into the woods at a young age and just get it over with.

Again, if he can clean toilets or whatever while only consuming a minimum of resources, we absolutely should make use of that.
Throwing out perfectly viable human resources is not the way forward here.

And that's not even to mention the fact that most of these unskilled jobs exist to cater to the unskilled masses. If we culled the vast majority of the population, the demand for mindless jobs would be cut down just as quickly.

Interesting point, although culling population would reduce demand for skilled labour as well. Ultimately it depends on what our goal is. If it's, say, technological advancement, then we need to have that base of inferior population to support the engineers and scientists at the forefront of advancement.

[penguinofhonor]

If the resources he consumes could be better used by a stronger or smarter person, it is a waste to give them to him.

[wierd]

Often, the initially unskilled are the less likely to deviate from norms of operation. They become adept, and finally masterful in a skill only through aggresseive, dogmatic practice and adherence to the rules and requirements of that regimen.

This is contrary to the "maverick" innately skilled/intuitive employee.

The former will better create a stable, reliable workplace than the latter. This is a value in and of itself, that is often overlooked, because attaining it is costly, and the people it produces are considered boring and lacking in value by the upper management in most industries. (who are typically the maverick class themselves.)

Killjoys have a valued place in society. They help prevent "clever" solutions in accounting, help prevent "clever" cost cutting in quality to reduce unit price at the expense of safety, etc.

Accepting and embracing this fact is how we become an enlightened culture. But we dont do this. That is why we cling to the profit motive driven core, and why we have systemic dysfunction.

[Ogdibus]

As Lee Kuan Yew said: "Humanity is not equal."

Which is true. Let's say I have a drug that would allow the dumbest person alive to be as clever as the smartest, but it had the same effect on people of all intelligence. So, the smartest would be an order of magnitude smarter than the dumbest.

Is it equal to give them all this drug? Is it fair to give them all this drug? What should I do?

Why should the smartest man not have his full potential realised because it would make the drug enhanced dumbest person look bad?

The crates thing is dishonest. It presents a binary situation (the ability to see / not see) that is very rare in the modern world. If I cannot reach the highest shelf because a short person needed one of my crates to reach the lowest, is that fair on me? You would deny me my great potential to give someone potential that is essentially meaningless.

You should not ask if it is fair to take the giant's crates away. You should ask if it is fair to cut his legs off.

Being able to afford the cost of living is a binary situation.  Both sides of it are very common in the modern world.  It's true that a person's expenses can create a moving goalpost for income, though. 

You are using the analogy incorrectly.  Don't get too caught up in the symbols, or you'll lose sight of conversation's intended subject.  It's the meaning that matters.

That would work in a truly enlightened culture.  That is not the case for modern culture.

Modern culture has at its root, not some grand altruistic ideal, but the profit motive instead.

It is not as profitable to train the uncharismatic, short, ugly troll into a skilled asset. It is vastly more profitable to seek the "ideal candidate."

Them's the breaks.

That isn't the outcome of existing hiring practices, regardless of quotas.  People still use criteria other than technical qualification.  A lot of it is appearance.

[Loud Whispers]

Sure, an unintelligent man can be trained. But why train an unintelligent guy when you can train a smart guy to a higher skill level in the same time?

Because there's not enough intelligent men

Otherwise yeah, go for the one most able to maximize their potential

[penguinofhonor]

If we kill everyone except the intelligent men, there will be enough.

[wierd]

that is because "ideal" has many subjective facets.

In social settings, the aesthetic qualities of the person factor in, because people innately prefer to be around "pretty" people.  Naturally, when selecting candidates, HR people select pretty people, when the talent pool is otherwise evenly matched.

In some cases, they favor being pretty over being competent.

For obvious reasons, you are better off not working for such places that do this latter.

Again though, this is because of the profit motive holding the roost over the enlightened mind's ownership thereof.  The other workers have intangible "profit" from having a hot co-worker, over an ugly/mousy one.

I dont experience physical attraction, but I understand its influence, if in a mechanistic fashion. It still boils down to percieved profit, and expectation of profit.  being titillated by hot co workers is a form of profit, especially to those attracted to positions of power or authority.

The world would be much better off if robots did the hiring.

[Loud Whispers]

If we kill everyone except the intelligent men, there will be enough.

No there won't, we'd just be left with intelligent men without any support network

It's like putting scientists in a seedbank and giving them no food

Wasted

[wierd]

There is also the sadly true reality that follows from trying to put people on even footing.

1) people dont want to compete, if an easy ride is possible. You see this in US education, vs No Child Left Behind. If there is a statistically disadvantaged demographic, recieving state assistance for thier statistical disadvantage, they have precisely zero motivation to abandon being disadvantaged.

2) The people who are innately inclined to be top performers are discouraged, actively, by having the deck stacked agains them, and by the continual refusal of resources they need to truly reach thier potentials. See problem 1. The demotivation turns them into bottom feeders.

I do not believe that humans are currently capable of having an enlightened society. Our evolution as a social species has not equipped us sufficiently for this capacity yet.

[Loud Whispers]

Contrast: Singapore

[Fniff]

If we kill everyone except the intelligent men, there will be enough.

No there won't, we'd just be left with intelligent men without any support network

It's like putting scientists in a seedbank and giving them no food

Wasted

Well, if they can't survive without stupid people, they weren't very intelligent in the first place, were they?

[wierd]

by that tone of argument, what does it say about those that permit the collapse to occur, having identified that it is a problem?

[Ogdibus]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

that is because "ideal" has many subjective facets.

In social settings, the aesthetic qualities of the person factor in, because people innately prefer to be around "pretty" people.  Naturally, when selecting candidates, HR people select pretty people, when the talent pool is otherwise evenly matched.

In some cases, they favor being pretty over being competent.

For obvious reasons, you are better off not working for such places that do this latter.

Again though, this is because of the profit motive holding the roost over the enlightened mind's ownership thereof.  The other workers have intangible "profit" from having a hot co-worker, over an ugly/mousy one.

I dont experience physical attraction, but I understand its influence, if in a mechanistic fashion. It still boils down to percieved profit, and expectation of profit.  being titillated by hot co workers is a form of profit, especially to those attracted to positions of power or authority.

The world would be much better off if robots did the hiring.

Appearance isn't just sex appeal.  It's all preconceived notions based on visual observations.  Your appearance is used to guess your race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, wealth, education, values, and social class.  All of those things end up mattering whether the employer intends it or not.

You're talking about a pretty extreme case.  Usually what I see is a mix of both.  They aren't weighted equally. 

There is also the sadly true reality that follows from trying to put people on even footing.

1) people dont want to compete, if an easy ride is possible. You see this in US education, vs No Child Left Behind. If there is a statistically disadvantaged demographic, recieving state assistance for thier statistical disadvantage, they have precisely zero motivation to abandon being disadvantaged.

2) The people who are innately inclined to be top performers are discouraged, actively, by having the deck stacked agains them, and by the continual refusal of resources they need to truly reach thier potentials. See problem 1. The demotivation turns them into bottom feeders.

I do not believe that humans are currently capable of having an enlightened society. Our evolution as a social species has not equipped us sufficiently for this capacity yet.

Could you provide examples of each?  Keep in mind that we are talking about classes of people.