Why is today's economy not the same as yesterday?

[Exnihiloest]

QI, QI, it's almost spring!

Equality in society is only in rights (and again ... theoretically). With nature, it is inequality.
When there is a difference of 20 or 30 IQ points, the one who has them in addition has understood the other before he has finished speaking, and will only be understood by him by putting himself within his reach (this which is difficult for him, but as he is aware of it, with training, he will succeed).
Needless to say, if he wants to get him to think this or that, it will be easy. It is precisely because the little IQ believes itself to be the equal of the other that it is rolled in the flour. Because even a small IQ can often access what a big one says and see his intentions, as long as he takes a lot more time for his reflection. But he is not suspicious because the small IQ always overestimates his competence (Dunning-Kruger effect). Meanwhile the big IQs are manipulating the world. It's nature's harsh law, whoever has the biggest brain dominates, which is why even a small IQ can dominate the animal world. Among the macaques Gadget would be king.

[humus]

With nature, it is inequality.

Yes nature is unfair.
Humanity has within itself the capacity to end injustice and inequality. All brothers (and sisters)!

I admit that I don't understand life in terms of IQ, I would say that everyone has a field of skills where they can see faster than
those who did not develop this skill. A sweeper is undoubtedly more relevant than me in housekeeping.
Everything that is human being accessible to another human, a matter of time, indeed.

I don't really like divisions (in categories) it only leads to conflict and more division.
We fall back on the weighting of injustice and inequalities to live in peace

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Blédina's IQ, he's the only one who claims to have one large huge, because we, right here, have never seen a shadow of it.

[Obamot]

Well, it may be confusing compared to the rest of his positions but I find that on this point Exnihiloest is right.

... While admitting that the theory of the “Great Reset” of the WEF passes to the plan of its application, did not those who conceived it not have insisted a little too much on vodka by imagining that we were not each other? didn't realize that they were going to tighten our belts? ...

the benevolence of large IQs the people no longer have, he doesn't even know where to find them, he no longer knows how to identify his elites. Its "intellectual" elites are today like them, the small IQs

It would be dishonest not to recognize it for my part.

I hope he doesn't take himself for a “big IQ”

[Ahmed]

Many are the interpreters or simply evoke the "people", phantasmagorical category from which, by definition, exclude those who mention it, which only reinforces the mystery ...

[Exnihiloest]

With nature, it is inequality.

Yes nature is unfair.
Humanity has within itself the capacity to end injustice and inequality. All brothers (and sisters)!

I admit that I don't understand life in terms of IQ, I would say that everyone has a field of skills where they can see faster than
those who did not develop this skill. A sweeper is undoubtedly more relevant than me in housekeeping.
Everything that is human being accessible to another human, a matter of time, indeed.

I don't really like divisions (in categories) it only leads to conflict and more division.
We fall back on the weighting of injustice and inequalities to live in peace

I wouldn't say that nature is unfair, but indifferent. They are blind mechanisms which obey only the laws of physics, life included. Nature has neither consciousness nor intention, but it comes down to the same thing on the question of inequality, which the stochastic phenomena of its functioning generate.
However, that's also why we were able to have evolution through selection. Putting all her eggs in one basket is incompatible with life, she would not have survived, which is why nature could not. Fortunately, we are not clones.

I also agree that the categories divide. Obviously, no one should be locked up, especially since the hypothetical boundaries between categories are generally blurred. But let's remain lucid. I suppose if you have to have an operation for a heart attack, you will rather see a qualified surgeon rather than a bonesetter. Well in the intellectual realm, it's the same. Certain intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, even accidentally politicians , have shown that they can enlighten us, so it is better to refer to them rather than to the first tweet of the first person.

[humus]

I wouldn't say that nature is unfair, but indifferent.

Let's say that from our self-centered point of view, it is. The one who is born without arms and without legs ...
From the point of view of nature, the question does not make sense, indeed.

But let's remain lucid. I suppose if you have to have an operation for a heart attack, you will rather see a qualified surgeon rather than a bonesetter. .

Absolutely, but this is a technical subject, with particular skills acquired or not acquired.
I am not a surgeon, I am not competent, although I would inquire a little before, or would take several opinions of competent doctors before I make up my mind. It all depends on how you feel during the first consultation. (Very often the body knows before reason, both can be wrong )

Well in the intellectual realm, it's the same. Certain intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, even accidentally politicians , have shown that they can enlighten us, so it is better to refer to them rather than to the first tweet of the first person.

Everything about the organization of society, we should all be involved, since we are all part of it.
Sometimes we can be surprised by the intelligence of a tweet as we can be surprised by the stupidity of a supposedly knowing. (without his dog).
We are wrong to delegate the organization of society.
By being more interested in it, we evolve, knowing included.

[Rajqawee]

Well in the intellectual realm, it's the same. Certain intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, even accidentally politicians , have shown that they can enlighten us, so it is better to refer to them rather than to the first tweet of the first person.

Everything about the organization of society, we should all be involved, since we are all part of it.
Sometimes we can be surprised by the intelligence of a tweet as we can be surprised by the stupidity of a supposedly knowing. (without his dog).
We are wrong to delegate the organization of society.
By being more interested in it, we evolve, knowing included.

Except that if we did not delegate "nothing", society as we know it would not exist, and the "greatest" decision-making level would be in the village.

Our society is a huge machine, every aspect of which no one has control. Just as the driver of a modern car does not understand its operation as a whole (or the user of his telephone), the mechanic does not master the operation of motorway flows.

So all the modern structures that we know exist only because we are able, precisely, to delegate. This is also true for social or political structures.

[mother]

Hello, qi is after all one of the biggest success factors after there is wealth, decision making and beauty, it is also a matter of timeliness and healthy eating, of taking care and care. in short, that's the essential. I'm not sure that it's the qi that impacts today's economy on the other hand wealth and beauty more and more. We are no longer in a world that no longer thinks , think of appearance as valued on TV and on social networks. These issues of transhumanism, they could put all of this on an equal footing.

[Rajqawee]

Hello, qi is after all one of the biggest success factors after there is wealth, decision making and beauty, it is also a matter of timeliness and healthy eating, of taking care and care. in short, that's the essential. I'm not sure that it's the qi that impacts today's economy on the other hand wealth and beauty more and more. We are no longer in a world that no longer thinks , think of appearance as valued on TV and on social networks. These issues of transhumanism, they could put all of this on an equal footing.

I think it is wrong. There is a windfall effect for some people who have qualities / characteristics which are, at some point, highly valued by society (beauty, footballing talent are good examples). But these same qualities / characteristics are only valued because big IQs have set up a system that brews a lot of money, and this system values ​​these qualities. In other words, yes, a footballer makes a lot of money, but it is "fair" because the football system is brewing incredible amounts. And the sponsors, TV stations, leagues and others, earn a lot, a lot more than the footballer. To caricature, the footballer is like the middle manager with a few shares of a company that is worth billions ...

These characteristics, in addition, can only be temporarily valued: intelligence has always been and still is. It is this which allows our societies to develop so much.
I have believed it for several years: our world has become so complex that without being smart, it becomes more and more complicated to make the most of it.