Polskie Biuro Ksiegowe, Cennik

magnificent and progressive



Nel 1950, la percentuale di americani occupati in professioni manageriali e tecniche era del 17%, mentre nel 2000 era quasi il doppio, cioè il 33,5%. Questo significa che nel 1950 certe professioni, sicuramente ambite, appartenevano solo all'élite, e che richiedevano capacità particolari per potervi approdare. Siccome esiste una forte correlazione fra quoziente d'intelligenza e posizione social we can be sure that in 1950 for belonging to that 17% of people needed an IQ less elitist, corresponding to an average score of 114.5, and a minimum of 104.

becomes higher the percentage of employees in these areas become less elitist (of course), which means but also significantly lowers the IQ required to participate. The percentage for the year 2000, in fact, corresponds to an average IQ of 110.5 and a minimum of 98. Four points per game fewer than in 1950. The question is whether today's managers are less intelligent on average than those of 1950, means that their jobs are worse?

In fact, this is a way to put the matter that makes us understand a little 'better than what we mean when we talk about "IQ" (a topic that I have covered ) and which makes a great introduction to the fascinating phenomenon that is " Flynn effect. " The score I get in an intelligence test is not an absolute measure of my intellectual ability, but he says just as I place myself in the population that has the same age as me, if you are in that 2% of people with high scores (and then I have right to be part of the Mensa club), or return to a more modest 50%, or even below the average.

People who have been tested in 2000 can not be compared with those tested in 1950, which is not possible to conclude that, having obtained lower scores, then they have less intelligence (this, of course, regardless of whether the intelligence tests are reliable measures of note that mysterious quality called "intelligence"). All I can conclude is that many more people than in 1950, have the qualities required to gain access to professional managerial tasks. In reality, this would not be possible if there had been an increase in the average intelligence of the population (otherwise, where they would be caught all those managers?).

In fact, if the subject of 2000 was presented with the same IQ test the subjects' of 1950, we have seen an amazing average score of even 130 points (approximately), which would have been geniuses, but, again, only compared to the population of 1950. The intelligence tests, in fact, are reviewed periodically just to keep account of these differences, and the fact that the population seems to grow from year to year, "smarter", with an increase of about 0.3% per year. Three points per decade, and thirty points higher than at the beginning of the century, which means that today those who have average intelligence would have been a genius in 1900, and who today be classified, according to the score, as a mentally retarded man, would have been perfectly normal one hundred years ago.

The thing also has unpleasant and tragic implications: the U.S. is considered unconstitutional to condemn to death a person suffering from mental retardation (with an IQ less than 70), but to be considered delayed or not may depend on the circumstances, chance, to what has updated the test to which he has undergone. If the test is obsolete, this may result in two or three points more, which does not make much difference in almost any area, except in the case, where exactly can mean the difference between life and death.

But where does all this general increase of intelligence, which is unlikely, in such a short period of time, can be attributed to genetic causes (which ever the case be against, as are the people with lower IQs to reproduce more often)? The answer, I think, is just the beginning of this post: the company requires it, simply. This also means that what is measured by tests, whatever it is, is much more sensitive to environmental stress than was thought possible. The IQ is not designed, in fact, be a measure of the cultural background of an individual, but in theory should measure mental qualities that are independent from education received.

But is not that difficult to understand, once we reflect on, as is the evolution of a society as a whole, leads to profound changes in cultural and anthropological going to affect even in measurements of IQ. Think of the living conditions of most people in the early twentieth century. People who rarely saw pieces of the world beyond their own country, and were hardly able to conceptualize an experience that went beyond their immediate experience. People, above all, very concrete and anchored to the present, and therefore might have difficulties in abstract, hypothetical reasoning, which is precisely what is required per superare brillantemente un test d'intelligenza. La maggior parte di noi non ha particolari problemi nel fare uso della logica al di là di referenti concreti e specifici e nell'intrattenersi, anche per puro divertimento, in ragionamenti estremamente ipotetici, ma non possiamo aspettarci davvero che un contadino dell'inizio del secolo scorso, per quanto sveglio, messo di fronte alla sequenza di immagini in apertura del post, sia in grado di, o anche semplicemente interessato a, indovinare quale figura sia "logicamente" la successiva (ah, io non l'ho saputo risolvere).

Lo psicologo sovietico Lurija negli anni '70 raccolse alcune interviste a contadini abitanti in remote zone della Russia, che ci fanno forse capire quanto certe abitudini mental not to give too much for granted (cited and translated the book by James Flynn, What is Intelligence? ):

D. Where there is snow all the bears are white, in Novaya Zemlya there is always snow, what color are the bears there?
A: I have only seen bears, blacks, and I do not speak of things that I have not seen.
Q: What does this mean what I say?
A: If a person was not there can not say anything based on the words.

Q: In Germany there are no camels in Germany is the city B, there are camels in the city B?
A: I do not know, I never saw a German village. If B is a large city, should esserci cammelli.
D: Ma se non ce ne fosse nessuno in tutta la Germania?
R: Se B è un villaggio, probabilmente non c'è posto per i cammelli.

Non è che i contadini intervistati da Lurija non riconoscano le implicazioni e non sappiano fare un sillogismo, è solo che il loro atteggiamento pragmatico gli impedisce di prendere in considerazione situazioni meramente ipotetiche e di raggiungere conclusioni sulla base di premesse inconsistenti. Un atteggiamento anche sensato, che però non aiuta ad ottenere buoni punteggi nei test d'intelligenza, e sicuramente non aiuterebbe neanche a superare brillantemente un colloquio di lavoro alla Microsoft (famosa per i suoi quiz assurdi ed estremamente impegnativi durante i talks, such as: "How long would it take to take away all the land of Mount Fuji, the rate of one truck per minute?").

What has freed our minds from the slavery of the concrete and the immediate present, in addition to mass education, were the new media, newspapers, radio, television and now computers, the Internet, and videogames . And then the cultural revolution that led to everything. Most of our peers have at least a smattering of scientific knowledge, and learned to look through the lens of rational and scientific thinking. It's not just the fact that everyone can read and write and do basic arithmetic operations (which already is no small thing) to having emancipated, but the fact that each of us can have an opinion, whether right or wrong, on things like the economic policy of our government, Obama on health care reform, foreign policy of Israel, and to form those opinions are forced to think about what they're saying newspapers and TV, and then see something of à tip of your nose.

And the fact, too, that each of us is forced to use tools that have some degree of cognitive complexity, and that in many cases these instruments are with us for life, instead of school education that is often forgotten . Those who learn to use a computer just to browse or use email, or playing Tetris, acquire the skills or habits of mind that hardly lose, and they are the ones that can help you have a good IQ, and find a job. And if the work environment, in turn, is cognitively challenging, the advantage gained will be preserved for a lifetime.

The question we must ask is whether this is true glory. Acquired empirical fact, it seems now established beyond any doubt that there have been these advances in IQ (and even if we now expect to be coming to a stop or reversal of the trend, because it is not reasonable that such progress last forever), we can truly speak of an increase in intelligence, in a non-trivial way (ie to the tautology that intelligence is what is measured by a test)?

I doubt it. Not because I was not happy about the fact that some cognitive tools are now more widespread and more affordable for many people who once were excluded, but simply for the fact that it is still a mere instrument, which can be used well or badly . In a sense, the same factors that lead many people to appreciate, I know, the beauty of the solar system and the physical laws that make existence possible, bring others to make the chemtrail conspiracy theories, or those that the Pentagon was never hit by a plane. Or makes viewers of Quark, but also those of Voyager. Produces the readers of Gödel, but also those of Derrida. About

formula or those who believe in some conspiracy theories are stupid, without appeal, but will not necessarily result in such an intelligence test. The advantage of ignorant peasants and pragmatic than once that they had not much time to waste on this crap, lucky them. It follows that, even beyond some moralizing, not enough to provide some tools in education, but it is also the case of worrying about how they can be used. Not enough to teach biology, but should perhaps find a way to prevent a student to be seduced by the creationist theories, or from homeopathy. Not enough to teach economics, but we must find a way in which our schools do not come out of seigniorage. Otherwise, we regret the stupidity of our ancestors.

Why Does D2nt Say Unhandled Excession

if the truth were female

that the relationship between the philosophers and women has always been problematic has been enshrined, among others, Nietzsche's famous aphorism with a content at the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil : "Place that truth is a woman, and why not? Is not well founded suspicion that all philosophers, as they were dogmatists are understood little of women? [...]. It is certain that it has not been seduced. "

Poor Nietzsche had perhaps his reasons to put it this way: we know that was not very lucky with women. He had the bad habit of falling in love with those of others, which is always a good recipe for unhappiness. As Lou Salome, or Cosima Wagner. Some biographers claim that his break with Wagner was due not so much a philosophical and theoretical reasons, or the musician to anti-Semitism, as some want, but a strictly personal reasons, and indeed a rather intimate. Wagner reveals the doctor to Nietzsche to be concerned about the excessive tendency of onanism his philosopher friend, habit certainly favored by the presence of Cosima. Gossip Nietzsche not particularly appreciated. Fate, carrion, then that would not only be impractical to seduce women, but rather unlucky in those occasions when he attended a fee, since the tragic circumstances of his death can be ultimately traced back to this (no, it was the giddiness of nihilistic thought to make him mad, was most probably syphilis).

His personal unhappiness made him still keen observation of other people's misery, like that of Socrates, the paradigmatic example of the conflicted relationship between the traditional philosophical thought, male, abstract, logo and phallocentric, and other people's sex. The greek philosopher, lost in his speculations, viene continuamente molestato dalla moglie Santippe, donna stupida, ignorante, ma soprattutto concreta e quindi insopportabile, ragion per cui non stupisce che Socrate, una volta compiuti i doveri coniugali legati alla mera riproduzione, preferisca la illuminata compagnia degli efebi, e si intrattenga con questi in profondi discorsi sulla natura del bene e del male. La nascita stessa della filosofia greca sarebbe quindi dovuta al brutto carattere delle donne, un riconoscimento non so quanto lusinghiero. Certo è che piacerebbe conoscere pure la versione di Santippe.

L'espressione "amore platonico", con la quale si designa appunto il particolare tipo di rapporto che Socrate e i suoi followers entertained not only against women but of eros in general, it is one of the most misunderstood of all time. Today we mean by "Platonic love" a bond of friendship and mutual affection that does not find relief in sex, but with great sacrifice is sublimated in other ways (something similar to what Nietzsche was, after all), while in a sense This is the exact opposite. Platonic love is love without sex (there may be), but a love that is not love, why does not understand the sacrifice, the giving to another, the real attachment to a person other than himself, but is a love where the other is seen only as a tool for their spiritual elevation. Platonic love is precisely where there is passion and it so possessed of the senses, because the other is only half a view of a personal view. But the philosopher loves

sometimes arise even in the guise of the deceiver, perhaps trying to disprove the stereotype niche, in fact failing. The storyteller, skillful juggler of words, one who tries circuit encircles the truth as women take them to bed and then download them, open the newspaper every day and invents a battle of civilizations in which to launch and to which give prestige with their intelligence, and no matter what cause so much because the words and arguments are (in fondo è per questo che viene pagato un filosofo), ben rappresenta certi vizi della nostra epoca. Quella dell'immagine, dove non conta la sostanza, ma l'apparire, dove l'estetica è la disciplina più influente e seguita, ben prima della teoretica e della morale, dove l'atteggiarsi è tutto, e la camicia bianca sbottonata vale più di mille concetti. La tristezza di tutto questo, di questa insostenibile leggerezza, questa finta disinvoltura, fa appunto rimpiangere la serietà di un Socrate, che almeno nutriva un disprezzo genuino per le cose mondane.

"Un filosofo sposato è un personaggio da commedia", sostiene dunque ancora Nietzsche. Di all the characters in the history of philosophy, I can think of only one who has had a relationship, it seems, happy and rewarding experience with women. This is Paul Feyerabend, philosopher of relativism, the author of Against Method , also famous for being quoted by Ratzinger about Galileo Galilei (the cunning of reason: the biggest opponent of relativism, citing its Feyerabend) . In his autobiography, written a few months before his death, and precisely during the illness that killed him, Feyerabend says among other things how he participated as a Nazi officer in World War II, suffering a leg injury that made it impossible, for the rest of his life, walking without the use of a stick. Another thing was impossible because of injury, and that is just a normal sexual activity, but this did not prevent him ever to fall in love and be loved.

The essence of the philosophy of Feyerabend, in a nutshell, was "anything goes". Meaning that there are no recipes to find out the truth, that no philosopher can ever lay claim to claim to speak to a scientist, or any ordinary person for that matter, as it should think. He called himself an "anarchist knowledge." I, actually, I never had great sympathy for the relativist thinking, but you might opine, in the first place, that Feyerabend was indeed a relativist (doubted very notion of truth, or routes traditionally struggled to try to achieve?), and second, that was serious. He had a carefree attitude towards all, and primarily directed against himself. Honestly, self-deprecating, like Socrates, most of Socrates, was fully aware of playing a character, to be a troll who enjoyed violating every taboo. Defended astrology, voodoo defended, defended the Church against Galileo and Bellarmine (conscious of giving scandal). He did not because I believe that Galileo was wrong or astrology really had some validity, but because he feared that science would take the place of religion, as a unique and privileged sistema di riferimento.

Un atteggiamento pragmatico, non assolutista, quindi, che alla fine non può che risolversi in una maggiore saggezza pratica, nel rapporto col mondo e soprattutto con gli altri. Feyerabend è uno dei pochi filosofi che stanno simpatici a mia moglie, forse perché nella sua autobiografia, e soprattutto negli ultimi capitoli, non parla altro che di sua moglie (una giovane studentessa italiana con la quale si era trasferito da Berkeley a Roma), con entusiasmo quasi infantile. Una persona cattiva potrebbe persino dire che si era un po' rincoglionito. E le sue ultime parole parlano di amore nei confronti dell'umanità, un'umanità che si intuisce fatta di persone in carne e ossa, e non assunta come valore abstract.

And then for a photo, which shows that the "philosopher at work" (what I should do a little 'more often, maybe).