JasSmith @ JasSmith @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

299

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah but I’m pretty sure the relative wealth/affluence of the neighborhood you grew up in is significantly more strongly correlated with overall life outcomes

That is, surprisingly, incorrect. A meta-analysis by Strenze (2007) showed that the predictive power of IQ is slightly stronger than that of parental socio-economic status (SES) (Table 1). Specifically, IQ measured before age 19 outdoes parental SES in predicting future educational attainment, occupational status, and income after age 29 (see “best studies” on Table 1). In other words, if you want to predict an adolescent’s success in adulthood along a given metric of success (e.g., income, educational attainment, or occupational status), it is more useful to know that adolescent’s IQ than to know the success of their parents along that same metric. In the conclusion of the analysis, Strenze (page 416) argues that this would be unexpected if the predictive power of IQ could be attributed primarily to its association with parental SES:

Despite the modest conclusion, these results are important because they falsify a claim often made by the critics of the “testing movement”: that the positive relationship between intelligence and success is just the effect of parental SES or academic performance influencing them both (see Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Fischer et al., 1996; McClelland, 1973). If the correlation between intelligence and success was a mere byproduct of the causal effect of parental SES or academic performance, then parental SES and academic performance should have outcompeted intelligence as predictors of success; but this was clearly not so. These results confirm that intelligence is an independent causal force among the determinants of success; in other words, the fact that intelligent people are successful is not completely explainable by the fact that intelligent people have wealthy parents and are doing better at school.*

The meta-analysis does find that parental SES also correlates significantly with the future outcomes of the child. However, because youth IQ and parental SES are correlated, it is possible that some unspecified portion of the predictive power of youth IQ is due to its correlation with parental SES (or vice-versa). To get a more precise estimate of the effects of youth IQ (independent of parental SES), we need to estimate the predictive power of IQ after controlling for parental SES.

Success is undoubtedly multi-factorial. Who you know is important. So is parental educational achievement, access to nutritional food, an absence of violence in the home, IQ, etc.

Thanks for the study. I agree on all points. This is the challenge with sociological research: it is unethical to conduct controlled studies. We will never have controlled IQ research. The study suggests we continue to perform better quality primary research, and I fully agree. Until then, as per the data in the study, the correlative evidence remains compelling. At least as far as sociological research goes.

I tend to think this research is more compelling and useful at the macro level. We should bear in mind that the correlative coefficient between IQ and income is only between 0.2 and 0.4. There are many other factors which also impact outcomes.

IQ is highly correlated with life outcomes like income, life expectancy, employment, and crime. Maybe it doesn’t measure “intelligence,” but it measures something which appears to be very important for modern society. There are undoubtedly different forms of intelligence which are not measured by an IQ test.

It seems you weren't the only one who didn't like that. The show was cancelled after season 5. We see this again and again. The Rings of Power. Sex Education. She-Hulk. Willow. Velma. Doctor Who. Ms. Marvel. Batwoman. The Wheel of Time. Writers who don't respect the source material, or think movies and shows are a soapbox instead of a medium for entertainment and creativity.

I agree. Undoubtedly someone is going to get very mad with your opinion and intentionally miss the point. Representation is fine. Shoehorning a specific minority into every plot line then beating the viewer over the head with the most juvenile and hamfisted messaging imaginable isn't helping anyone. It just makes for bad content. We have many examples of women and minorities in movies and shows written well for decades. It's only quite recently that writers appear to value representation and ideological messaging over the story, and I think for that they deserve criticism.

It's also used as a deflection of criticism. "Oh you don't like my show? Racist! Homophobe! Transphobe!" These accusations used to work quite effectively but they were so overused that people have kind of become numb to them now.

Trains are pretty safe but we're currently experiencing a bike crime epidemic. Which I suppose is itself very Danish.

It's the same in Denmark. You wouldn't want to do this in certain parts of Aarhus or Copenhagen.

Very soon protesting the use of LLMs is like going to be like protesting the advent of the television. There is no stopping it. We should endeavour to ensure it is used ethically rather than becoming puritanical about its use.

A transaction (like selling sex) requires two parties. If you make one side illegal, the act itself is illegal. The only distinguishing factor is who gets punished. Sex work can't exist without people buying it, so sex work is illegal. Sweden has chosen not to prosecute people who sell sex.

Which makes it illegal. If you prosecute either the customer or supplier of a good or service, you have made it illegal.

While I agree, people don't often think of countries like Sweden as very backwards.

Plexamp is mind blowingly good. Great UX. Perfect reliability. No discovery/ads up in your face. Just you listening to your music how you like it. Streaming is ROCK SOLID. Downloads work flawlessly. It just relies on proper metadata in Plex.

Most crime is a direct result of poverty.

This is not correct. There is a correlation but no evidence of directionality. It could be that crime causes poverty, or that third correlates cause both. Sweden saw a massive rise in crime following the large migration of Middle Eastern refugees following the 2015 Syrian Refugee Crisis, and they decided to study it. Translation below:

https://bra.se/rapporter/arkiv/2023-03-01-socioekonomisk-bakgrund-och-brott

Most people who come from a socio-economically less favorable background do not commit more crime than people who come from a more favorable background, and it also happens that people from a more favorable background do commit crime. This means that even if there is a connection between socio-economic background and involvement in crime, that connection is weak. It is not possible to appreciably predict who will commit crimes based on knowledge of people's socio-economic background.

Other risk factors have a stronger relationship with criminal behavior:

When compared with factors that research has identified as risk factors for crime, such as parenting competence, the presence of conflicts in the family, school problems or association with criminal peers, the research shows that these have a stronger connection with criminal behavior than socio-economic background factors. The same applies to risk factors linked to the individual himself, for example permissive attitudes or impulsivity.

They found that cultural factors were far more correlated with criminality than socioeconomic status. This is corroborated by the fact that white collar crime remains so prevalent. If poverty caused crime, white collar crime would be almost non-existent, but it is prolific. It turns out that some people are just greedy. Or mean. Or violent. Or selfish. Or don't care about how their actions might harm others. Sociopaths in particular exhibit all of these antisocial behaviour. They are unable to feel genuine remorse for hurting others, and no amount of money you give to them will ever change that.

FYI you can definitely watch while your network is offline. You just net to tell it that you're happy with that (it's not activated by default for security reasons).

• In your Plex server settings, go to Network, enable "Show Advanced".
• Near the bottom, find the textbox that says List of IP addresses and networks that are allowed without auth
• In this field, enter the local IP address of any Plex client(s) you want to keep using if your internet (or the Plex cloud) is down.
• A example: 192.168.0.50
• Save the setting, done.

#Important thing to be aware of:

What this setting does is tell your local Plex server to simply give any Plex client that connects from that specific IP full admin access to your Plex server, ignoring any account restrictions. This means that if you have things in place to restrict access to some libraries (kids blocked from 18+ movies etc) those restrictions will have no effect. Also if you have the option set to allow file deletion, then any client from that IP could also delete items. And they could of course change any settings in your Plex server. So your kids can watch anything on your server, if you have a guest in your network and they browse to the Plex web interface, they can mess with things.

Because of that I would recommend to limit the amount of IP's you enter in that field to the absolute bare minimum. For example, only whitelist the "main living room device" plus one device you to admin the server, such as a laptop.

If you want to whitelist multiple devices, this is a example:

        192.168.0.50,192.168.0.77,192.168.0.80


  

If you want to whitelist a entire network, these would be examples:

        192.168.0.0/24 (this means 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.0.255)

    192.168.0.0/16 (this means 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255)


  

And of course those involved network devices should use static IPs in your home network.

Ditto. There is a crowd on Lemmy who seem to get angry whenever people are happy to pay for software and I do not understand it. Surely we want developers to be paid for their hard work? Don't we want them to able to comfortably live?

We've got a good balance of socialism and capitalism here in Denmark. There are strengths and weaknesses of both. This is why modern societies have some combination of the two. Societies which try to go all in on any one ideology like communism tend to collapse.

Exactly. We used to exile or execute them. Modern society is almost tailor made for a sociopath to thrive. They don't have the same kind of internal moral compass that others do, so they don't feel bad when they hurt people. They rely almost exclusively on external deterrents (and incentives). This means harsh sentences and high certainty of detection and conviction. Sadly many people have an ideological aversion to prison, and we're seeing less and less per capita spending on law enforcement and prisons in the West.

I don't think so. The Dutch Republic (17th century) is widely regarded by economic historians as the first capitalist economy in practice. It was wildly successful and generated massive quality of life improvements across the nation. Industrial revolution followed soon afterwards, which marked the transition in Britain to "modern capitalism." This saw the greatest leap in technological innovation, lifespan, food, medicine, etc, in human history.

No system is perfect and one could point to many imperfections, but I see few notable systemic failures of capitalism along the way. It seems to rarely give rise to dictators and famine, as we see with states which attempt communism. On the contrary. Capitalist nations tend almost universally towards increased rights for women and minorities, democracy, and scientific pursuits.

To steelman your position, a notable exception could be the Weimar Republic. However I would credit their hyperinflation to unsustainable debt burdens placed on them by other nations following WW1, forcing them to print currency unsustainably, thereby hyperinflating the Papiermark.

That's a key phase of communism as prescribed by Marx.

1. Violent revolution to overthrow bourgeois democracy.
2. Centralised control, redistribution, re-education.
3. Implement glorious and free democracy again.

They keep getting stuck at 2 for some reason. It's almost like power corrupts or something.