1,501 karma · joined August 31, 2009
Capitalism just deals with the results, in this case human capital.
Someone hard-working with a 130 IQ versus someone depressed or maladjusted with a 90 IQ are, in fact, in entirely different classes. It isn't "dangerous" to admit that, it's simply reality. Capitalism does a decent job handling those extremes.
Read back on your posts a few pages, respectfully requesting to be put on your alpha list as well. My email address is on my profile here, for the time being.
And many people are smart and strategic enough to be able to launch successful startups while sacrificing very little personally.
Persistence matters more than personal sacrifice, in my mind.
Amazon: Your current employees had already written much better responses than this within 48 hours of the NYT article coming out. What is this drivel supposed to accomplish? Why is PR rant hosted on Medium? Why are you exposing old employee personnel records? Why are you putting political operatives like Carney in charge of your PR?
Get it together guys. The NYT article is ancient history now and didn't merit further response. It was an obvious hit piece but your reaction has been quite poor.
So you're advocating that we select for charismatic, persuasive people of average intelligence? Seems like a rather short-sighted plan, considering this would describe most used car salesmen.
Personally, it would seem a bit unfair to me if I was born with a 95 IQ, in the cosmic sense at least.
To whom? Certainly not to most scientists..
Are you saying you don't see the advantage inherent to having a much higher IQ?
Almost like a neighborhood watch, one could say.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Dirty-secret-of-black-...
Who would you expose here, exactly?