
The rise and rise of the cognitive elite - robg
http://www.economist.com/node/17929013?story_id=17929013
======
maxklein
Well, that sucks for us normal people. Perhaps in a hundred years, the
cognitive gap will be so large that there will be little meaningful
interaction between the two groups.

I wonder who'll do the boring middle management tasks then. Perhaps those
people who can do mild intelligence, repetitive tasks will then be the highly
paid ones, seeing as all the geniuses will have a lot of competition.

~~~
j_baker
If the geniuses have a lot of competition, then they're not geniuses anymore
now are they?

And besides that, who says there aren't already highly-paid repetitive jobs
requiring mild intelligence? Accountants and lawyers come to mind (people from
both of these fields tell me they really don't require a whole lot of
intelligence and are pretty repetitive (although the accountants are quick to
point out that it's not _as repetitive_ as you probably think)).

~~~
jacoblyles
It's worth noting that part of the wage of lawyers and accountants is monopoly
rent extracted by strict licensing requirements that put hurdles in the way of
potential competitors. It doesn't matter if you can pass the bar or the
accountancy exams, most states will require that you also get a college (or
post-college) degree.

Credentialism keeps competitors and innovation out of fields like medicine,
accounting, law, and taxi services, maintaining high prices and high wages.

------
patrickgzill
This seems like a lot of hand-waving to try to justify outrageous situations
like those on Wall Street getting huge bonuses via government handouts; no one
begrudges athletes and celebrities their money, they are paid by the market.

~~~
omouse
Erm, there's another difference too: atheletes and celebrities do not have
their money tied to power; bankers do. When was the last time celebrities and
atheletes tried to get their friends into positions of power?

------
sayemm
Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray called it back in 1994 -
[http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-
Pape...](http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-
Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297035491&sr=8-1)

------
nazgulnarsil
just like to point out that IQ is not correlated with wealth _when educational
attainment is corrected for_. that is, smart people without degrees don't do
that well on average, contrary to the anecdotes.

~~~
netcan
Do you happen to remember any citation for this?

~~~
nazgulnarsil
looking for it now, someone pulled data from the GSS and did a regression.

------
joe_the_user
Summary: They debunk some statistics that claim that inequality leads to
various social ills but themselves make the far-less supported implications
that there is something "cognitive" about those individuals who now have a
large portion of the world's wealth - especially, it's a far leap from
statistics indicating those with a university education are paid more to the
implication that smart people get paid more.

For however little we understand these things, their claims might be true but
what stands-out is the distinction between the standard they hold the critics
of inequality to and the standards they hold their sort-of-pro-inequality
stand to.

~~~
sedachv
Take note of this quote from the article:

"And their findings about teen births, women’s status and innovation depend on
Scandinavia, a region with a mild and sensible culture that is equally evident
among people of Scandinavian stock who live in America."

The whole thing is basically an elaborate rationalization of racism through
the cliche of social darwinism. As much as I dislike stupid people, I hate
social conservatives even more.

~~~
m-photonic
I don't know, to me it looks like the bit about Americans of Scandinavian
stock is just a throwaway line that has nothing to do with the point they're
actually making, which is that the observed correlations are mainly just a
product of the fact that there are a few countries with low levels of
inequality that also happen to be exemplars of things like high life
expectancy or women's rights.

I don't think they're actually making any racial arguments in this article.
When they do mention race later on, it's to make the point that the
correlations of social problems with inequality don't have any more inherent
explanatory value than the correlations with race.

~~~
sedachv
"I don't know, to me it looks like the bit about Americans of Scandinavian
stock is just a throwaway line that has nothing to do with the point they're
actually making"

Then why go out of your way to use such a contentious statement? Why mention
this later on: "race is a far more accurate predictor of murder, imprisonment
and infant-mortality rates"? What does this have to do with the "cognitive
elite?" This is just "fuck niggers, heil nordic ubermensch" stated in
different terms.

Both the agendas of that article (racism and classism) can much better be
explained by the growing gender divide:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-
end-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-
men/8135)

Women are better in the knowledge economy than men, and sex is a much better
predictor of murder and imprisonment rates than race.

------
amenas
Cognition is enhanced the more it's used, well I believe even repetitive jobs
have room for innovation...

~~~
jbri
If it's repetitive, it can be automated (to varying degrees).

------
sown
In the past I've mentioned that I lack the talent that many of you have and I
was rebuked. However, when the economist says something similar I don't see
such protests. Why?

