What we see in mainstream news is a complete dismantling of all Federal and state population stats----no one knows what real unemployment is---no one knows the real percentages by religious, cultural, race, age because we have had these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---far-right wing global 1% extreme wealth extreme poverty needing to create TOTAL CONFUSION WITH DIS----INFORMATION now pushed by our US universities---private and public.
We like this article---it is not authored but seems a voice from our US 99% black citizens making very good points. When talking EUGENICS we always think of 1% sociopaths---Asian, European-----we think tribal extinction in Africa tied to civil wars and selling African tribal members into slavery---all intended to protect that 'culture'. Our global 1% WHITE CITIZENS are indeed front and center in thinking themselves SUPERIOR---when all history books describe these megalomaniacs as ABSOLUTELY CRAZY.
Who is controlling all these MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---indeed it is our global 1% white OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE --global 1% brown OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE....Asian and Arabic/Persian.
Rather than sitting back and hoping MOVING FORWARD space colonization as eugenics will happen to another population group---let's just STOP MOVING FORWARD as 99% vs 1% because there are no winning population groups in MOVING FORWARD.
The global 1% must keep a small percentage of FOLLOWER PLAYERS thinking they are BROTHERHOOD so they are creating these stats----2/3 of Earth's population will be on MOON OR MARS----50% of US citizens will lose jobs to AI and robotics----when these numbers ARE FAKE.
(2/3) The eugenics of a Mars Colony.
tec314159 politics, Race, Sci-Fi, Science, social problems, Space Travel, Sustainability 05/31/2017 (1/3) “Man fears time…”
(2/3) The eugenics of a Mars Colony.
It hurt me to write this. And I promise it will hurt to read this. I’ve been putting this off for several months, and I’m not sure I should have written it. Please consider this carefully before you continue.
The plan, the engineering and the form of the problem.Elon Musk is planning on establishing a colony on the planet Mars (announcement video). He will attempt to send 1 million people.
There are many problems that have to be solved to make this possible. Many of them are technical: Access to clean water, power generation, and growing food. As difficult as they are, these problems are well-defined and well scoped.
In effect, he seems to be claiming that he and SpaceX will be able to construct an entirely new civilization from nothing but fine red dust. Even this, as absurd as it sounds, I would be willing to grant. Not just because of his track record, but because if the laws of physics don’t forbid it, we should assume that it can be engineered. Musk himself has talked about how some limits result from a lack of imagination about what’s possible. The trouble is knowing what limits are actually implied by physical principles.
There are other problems though, that aren’t as well defined. Who’s labor will make all of this possible? Elon hasn’t been able to shield the workers in his own factories from the weight of his ambitions. The value and the labor must come from somewhere, and the problems of power and exploitation have never been solved by anyone, anywhere, at any time in human history since agriculture.
So who will go to do the work of building this civilization out of the dust? It will fail without the presence of an underclass, like many of the first colonies in America before they began importing slaves like Baldwin’s nigger.
You don’t have to watch the entire video if you’re already familiar with Baldwin. It will help to understand my perspective here.
The socioeconomic pyramid, and its thermodynamic mode.I need an aside here to clarify something. In the writing that follows I will treat phenomena at the city, country, and international scale interchangeably. This is deliberate, and I think order for this to make sense I have to assume the global economic system has a special property. Notice if we think of it as a kind of ecological energy pyramid, we can zoom in on parts of it and still have a pyramid – essential properties hold at any scale. For me to freely swap observations about behavior at different scales, though, I don’t think it’s strictly required to be a pyramid. It may only be required that the global economic system have scale invariance. This is part of why I think some methods from statistical physics that rely on that symmetry may be useful in understanding it, but that’s another subject. And there’s another thing which is very important: collective behaviors are not necessarily the linear sum, or average of individual behaviors. Normal human intuition totally fails at this. A community may have some kind emergent ‘intent’ all its own that grows out of individual behaviors in subtle and unpredictable ways.
I don’t think Musk being entirely open about his motivations for going to Mars. He says he worries about asteroids, and other “eventual” extinction events, but his main concern is clearly human originated scenarios. Those other more astronomical events belong to some longer timescale that wouldn’t put his attempt to leave on such a short timetable.
Make careful note of the omissions:
Musk 1/21/2014: I think demographics is a real issue where people are not having kids in a lot of countries. Very often they say well we’ll solve it with immigration. Well immigration from where? If many parts of Europe have an average of 50 or 60% of what’s needed for replacement – or China for that matter – they’re at half replacement rate. Where exactly are we going to find 6 million people to replace the ones that were never born? I think people are gong to have to regard, to some degree, the notion of having kids as almost a social duty – within reason. If you can, if you’re so inclined, you should. Otherwise civilization will just die, literally.
The birthrate is inversely correlated to wealth, inversely correlated to education, and correlated to religion. So the more religious you are, the less educated, and the poorer you are the more kids you will have. And this is true between countries and within countries. In the U.S. the highest birthrate is in Utah, with the Mormons.
I think if you say what are the threats to civilization, the lack of people is obviously a threat to civilization. We are going to face in the mid part of this century – and particularly the latter part of the century – a demographic implosion the likes of which we haven’t seen including the Black plague. The math is obvious. When did China ever experience a 50% reduction in its population? Never. Basically pre-writing, because no one’s ever written of such a thing. Even the Black Plague – I think they might have [lost?] like a quarter, but never a half, yet Spain – birthrate of 50%. It’s as if someone went through and killed half of the population – or at least of the future population. There’s something better happen to turn this around. Otherwise, you have an inverted demographic pyramid and it’s going to – [gestures falling over] at this rate the only thing that will be left will be robots.
For a while I thought Musk intended to run away from the planet, like he ran away from South Africa. That he planned on leaving all of the human dross behind and remaking a world with what he believes are more worthy people. But his actual sentiments must be more complicated than that, and I can’t pretend to be able to read his mind.
When white Americans and Europeans make prognostications about the future, it is their habit not to take into account the agency of Africans, and other people of the global south. Their predictions usually reveal an implicit assumption that non-whites are some kind of mud people with no capacity for conscious thought or planning of their own . Often these countries are forgotten completely. But Elon Musk was born and raised under apartheid South Africa, a rapacious reader and fully aware of the world around him. He shouldn’t have this problem. This is why I think the omission was deliberate.
From the U.N. a few years ago (link):
The current world population of 7.2 billion is projected to increase by 1 billion over the next 12 years and reach 9.6 billion by 2050, according to a United Nations report launched today, which points out that growth will be mainly in developing countries, with more than half in Africa.
Musk omitted mention of Africa, and the years between now and this projected peak near 2050 because these years are the most dangerous. Before we have to deal with underpopulation, we will have to ask if the planet can support 10 billion people. I do not believe overpopulation itself is a problem – the problem has always been over-consumption. Birthrates are greater, as he says, for countries low in social development. But no country has ever advanced itself without a growth in externalities. For example in Brazil, the first among the emerging economies, deforestation of the Amazon burdens indigenous people with the costs of development, and overuse of water resources by industry and agriculture have created a dangerous situation for city-dwellers. Brazil’s birthrate has plummeted as it developed, and the education of women improved. But this was attended by a increase in externalities, which may actually be a form of dissipation, required by the second law of thermodynamics, that richer communities and countries are privileged to be able to shove off onto poorer ones .
Eventually this process must end or transition to another regime – and not because the planet has an absolute carrying capacity. That is, not due to the population alone, but the product of population and per capita energy and resource consumption. The latter grows at a rate larger than the decay of the former as a country develops, so that what is gained by a drop in fertility is more than lost through modernization. The most developed countries are therefore the greatest burden, and their externalities eventually consume the whole globe. The people at the lowest tiers of the pyramid, assuming this notion of dissipation is correct, do not have a “heat sink.” At the bottom there isn’t anything unload costs on except the planet itself. Ruin, mainly through climate change follows.
And now in a bid to reach a higher position, people in many developing countries are immigrating to the wealthier countries that exploit their home lands. This effect, combined with the radical shift in the world population due to the wild incongruence in birthrates result in the present global racial tension, as racism is at the center of the process people use to create a moral pretense for systems of plunder. It is how privileged classes can maintain the absurd ideology that the poor owe the rich and not the other way around.
It is my view that the racism and nationalism of human beings virtually guarantees that they cannot withstand a such a rapid shift in the racial make-up of their countries without violence on a large scale. When you ask an American about over population, they are prone to say something that implies they think there are too many Chinese people alive, or that Hispanics have too many kids (offering no such concerns about Mormons). If I were to ask an Indian, I assume they’re liable to make some reference to people of lower caste, or Muslims. People who believe all human lives are of equal worth should recognize they are in the minority, or more likely be honest with themselves about what they are.
The people who voted for Brexit, Trump, and Le Pen know what they are, and they know what they don’t like. What they don’t like is this feeling that their countries are being taken over by people with colored skin. The basic process that is occurring now I have been anticipating for the last fifteen years, though my reasoning back then drew on personal biases from my own experience with people. I can’t express how heartbreaking it has been to realize the person I was ten years ago would have better anticipated the choice whites made in electing Trump, and I have felt myself a fool for having grown out of the slightest amount of cynicism. I used to joke about how easy it would be to Nazify the United States, and that when World War 3 began the U.S. would be the aggressor and its motivations would make the conflict indistinguishable from a race war . Americans have no armor against this, and repeating “this is not normal” won’t help: before the election Americans lived in a country with 20% of the world’s prison population, disproportionately black and brown (The New Jim Crow, Last Days of Solitary) and they were living with that like it was normal. It is a part of human adaptability to become accustomed (or willfully blind) to things that are horrifying.
Hans Rosling  suggested nothing short of a nuclear war would stop this population growth among the poorest billion, and we may yet have that. Even if apocalyptic maniacs like Steven Bannon and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are removed from power, the forces that put them in place are so much greater. But I am still a fool, and it makes me happy to be wrong about these things.
The eugenics of a Mars Colony.
Now, what does Musk really believe about the future, given that he’s not saying everything? He isn’t hiding any white supremacist style racism. Musk is either
unaware of how profound a problem racism and nationalism are in the futures he’s talking about,
trying very hard to ignore and feign ignorance of them.
believes these problems are more easily solved than those he is working on.
He seems to be like a Trekkie in that he believes the magic of science fiction should be able to solve this problem, without the intervention of any actual science. I find it hard to believe that he could be as daft as the rest of his class; all of the evidence he’s left indicate he’s accepted the privilege of not having to deal with the issue. I believe most whites genuinely don’t understand it, but I believe he does understand it and has chosen silence.
Now it is a feature of systemic racism and class structure, being dependent global properties, that their effects are robust to many kinds of individual behavior. By that I mean the system’s organization alone reproduces a proximate cause, and that there’s some large class of individual motivations that all correspond to the same macroscopic behavior. It may be our curse to participate in systems whose emergent malice lies beyond the reach of our intentions. Though this is not to excuse the feedback loops that appear between leaders and constituents (The Color of Law, still need to read this one).
And this is how the escape to Mars will reproduce a kind of eugenics, which selects on the correlates of socioeconomic status. And I dare to say Musk has already made this observation. He knows that like Tesla’s cars, access to Mars will have to be rich people first. His claim of making it so everybody can go means everybody in the developed world who is not poor, especially white Americans (who have on average 16 times the wealth of black Americans). He may believe it is unavoidable that if we want to go to Mars at all, it will have to be done like this.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN AS IF IT IS GOOD TO BE HEADING TO MARS-----ACTING AS IF THE GLOBAL POOR WILL NOT HAVE THAT PLEASURE......MORE PROPAGANDA.
There is a dread implication here I hope you’ll be spared noticing. It may be the worst thought that has ever stained my mind. It is nearly unspeakable. I will not reference this implication further.
If he believes the wealthiest people can just leave Earth behind he is wrong. His actions seem to indicate that he does believe that. This is why it was necessary to write the pyramid post first. Because it directly attacks the core vanity that causes Americans to misapprehend their relationship to the rest of the world, and wealthy people of all countries to the working class(Coates). Their success is not independent of class stratification, it requires it. No society has yet been able to function in any other way, and without an alternative the colony will fail like our civilization here is failing.
Again, the Mars colony has as much chance of success as American colonies did before they started importing slaves. For the Mars colony to function, they would have to bring not just people who can afford to go, but also enough labor as is made necessary by the exploitative thermodynamic mode of our societies.
We don’t get to run away from our problems. We face them and fix them, or else carry them with us wherever we go. Something fundamental about how humans live and relate to each other, our relationships as defined by flows of energy and resources have to be altered. And no one will escape without finally answering James Baldwin’s question, “Why was it necessary to have a nigger in the first place?” That the ruling class is terrified of this question and evaded it is the reason we are in this situation.
Most of us will remain on Earth, to deal with these problems and evolve as a species, if the laws of physics even allow it. To transcend the conditions of our lives or die. We are hurtling toward a singularity and flailing desperately for some guarantee of survival. This is humanity, in extremis.
There is nothing more FAKE then an ELON MUSK pretending he cares about a decline in population on Earth-----he and Bill Gates are tops in the goal of culling several billion of Earth's population in MOVING FORWARD thinking themselves as the EUGENIC superior----when the only talent GATES AND MUSK have---is lying, cheating, stealing, no morals or ethics, no US Rule of Law no God's Natural law----megalomaniacs are always DELUDED. Right now national media is trying to sell yet again to 99% WE THE PEOPLE who the GOOD BILLIONAIRES are and who those MAD HATTER billionaires are----when GATES and MUSK are top tier MAD HATTERS.
Everywhere we read that stat 2/3 comes up---these are the WINNERS----we are to believe these are the EUGENIC best-----and the global 1% have absolutely no intent of having that 1/3 on Earth as winners.
Each of modern history's far-right global 1% corporate fascists STALIN, MAO, HITLER each identified those same 5% players as has CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----as followers willing to do anything they are told. It has nothing to do with EUGENICS----SUPERIOR RACE----the global 1% are simply making those 5% follower players feel they are going to be made superior in society when in fact they are going to be made DEAD AND UNDER THE BUS.
When we read that a global 1% player from a US IVY LEAGUE has been chosen as a RHODES SCHOLAR ET AL it simply means those players---NOT SCHOLARS AT ALL----are working for those very OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% COLLEGIATE COLLEGES tied to KINGS AND QUEENS. OXFORD in UK is one----so we would not believe information released by OXFORD any more then we believe information released by global hedge fund Johns Hopkins.
'University of Oxford researchers Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne estimated in 2013 that 47% of total U.S. jobs could be automated by 2033'.
So, now US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are being told half of US workers will be replaced by AI---ROBOTICS. What do we know about displaced workers in US? We know REAL unemployment is close to 50% these several years after 2008 massive Wall Street frauds brought down economy----there has been almost NO RECOVERY IN UNEMPLOYMENT STATS no matter how many times mainstream media use stats like 4% unemployment. The US has been at 35-50% unemployment since 2009-----so when the prediction by OXFORD that ANOTHER 50% in US will lose jobs----that is 99% OF US WE THE PEOPLE---BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS.
'Highly creative' professionals won't lose their jobs to robots, study finds
By Erik Sherman
April 22, 2015
Many people are in “robot overlord denial,” according to a recent online poll run by jobs board Monster.com. They think computers could not replace them at work. Sadly, most are probably wrong.
University of Oxford researchers Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne estimated in 2013 that 47% of total U.S. jobs could be automated by 2033. The combination of robotics, automation, artificial intelligence, and machine learning is so powerful that some white collar workers are already being replaced — and we’re talking journalists, lawyers, doctors, and financial analysts, not the person who used to file all the incoming faxes.
But there’s hope, at least for some. According to an advanced copy of a new report that U.K. non-profit Nesta sent to Fortune, 21% of US employment requires people to be “highly creative.” Of them, 86% (18% of the total workforce) are at low or no risk from automation. In the U.K., 87% of those in creative fields
Google’s robot dog brings us one step closer to a cyborg uprising
The tech giant worked with robotics design company, Boston Dynamics, to bring to you Spot! This robotic dog can navigate itself, climb on rough terrain and even haunt your dreams.“Artists, musicians, computer programmers, architects, advertising specialists … there’s a very wide range of creative occupations,” said report co-author Hasan Bakhshi, director of creative economy at Nesta, to Fortune. Some other types would be financial managers, judges, management consultants, and IT managers. “Those jobs have a very high degree of resistance to automation.”
The study is based on the work of Frey and Osborne, who are also co-authors of this new report. The three researchers fed 120 job descriptions from the US Department of Labor into a computer and analyzed them to see which were most likely to require extensive creativity, or the use of imagination or ideas to make something new.
Creativity is one of the three classic bottlenecks to automating work, according to Bakhshi. “Tasks which involve a high degree of human manipulation and human perception — subtle tasks — other things being equal will be more difficult to automate,” he said. For instance, although goods can be manufactured in a robotic factory, real craft work still “requires the human touch.”
So will jobs that need social intelligence, such as your therapist or life insurance agent.
Meet BB-8, the cutest droid in the Star Wars galaxy
Move over R2-D2, there’s a new droid in the “Star Wars” universe and its name is BB-8. Here’s how the loveable rolling ball droid came about.Of course, the degree of creativity matters. Financial journalists who rewrite financial statements are already beginning to be supplanted by software. The more repetitive and dependent on data the work is, the more easily a human can be pushed aside.
In addition, just because certain types of creative occupations can’t easily be replaced doesn’t mean that their industries won’t see disruption. Packing and shipping crafts can be automated, as can could some aspects of the film industry that aren’t such things as directing, acting, and design. “These industries are going to be disrupted and are vulnerable,” Bakhshi said.
Also, not all these will necessarily provide a financial windfall. The study found an “inverse U-shape” relationship between the probability of an occupation being highly creative and the average income it might deliver. Musicians, actors, dancers, and artists might make relatively little, while people in technical, financial, and legal creative occupations can do quite well. So keeping that creative job may not seem much of a financial blessing in many cases.
Are you in a “creative” role that will be safe from automation? You can find out what these Oxford researchers think by taking their online quiz.
If citizens simply read this propaganda piece of media they would think ----MAN, I HAVE A CHANCE TO BE THAT CREATIVE GENIUS----after all that is to what all these START UP LOCAL ECONOMIES are about----finding that genius in a crowd. Know what? As we have shouted---only 1-2% of global population are those GENIUS/PRODIGIES. Please stop thinking your population group will be winners ---there is no intent of global 1% to make ANY OF GLOBAL 99% WINNERS.
A prediction of 50% job lose MOVING FORWARD from today is about right if we understand the US is already at about a 50% job loss from 2009.
Here is that perpetual GLOBAL 1% ringer trying to hold on to that 5% player and farm team
'But there’s hope, at least for some. According to an advanced copy of a new report that U.K. non-profit Nesta sent to Fortune, 21% of US employment requires people to be “highly creative.” Of them, 86% (18% of the total workforce) are at low or no risk from automation'.
'But would he qualify for the ultra-exclusive Pi Society, which takes only those with IQs in the top 99.999999 percentile'?
There is as with all population groups class distinction even among those found to be genius---far more people are at lower end of this tier ---Artificial Intelligence has goals of AI being able to out-think the best of human capital---those global 1% with no talent at all hate having to depend on WE THE PEOPLE to formulate all creative invention.
IQ: What Are the Odds You’re a Genius?
By Book of Odds
Stephen Hawking is charmingly evasive about his IQ. In 2004, he told the New York Times, “I hope I’m near the upper end of the range.” Chances are he is. His IQ is almost certainly high enough to qualify him for Mensa, the biggest high-IQ society on Earth—one in fifty people will meet its membership criteria. But would he qualify for the ultra-exclusive Pi Society, which takes only those with IQs in the top 99.999999 percentile?
Many geniuses haven’t. Had they been given the chance, the top minds behind the founding of Mensa, or even those behind the creation of IQ testing itself, might not have made the cut.
REMEMBER, the IQ measurements of last century have always been thought to be relative----the actual percentage of real genius/prodigy is very, very, very, very small----1-2% of global population.
HINT-----YOU DON'T RAISE A GENIUS-----PEOPLE ARE BORN WITH TALENT AS PRODIGY.
What distinguishes high IQ and real prodigy/genius is-----high IQ can understand the science/philosophy behind genius----they are not the CREATORS OF GENIUS.
This is why a STEPHEN HAWKING as with our adorable BIG BANG genius were not REAL prodigy.
As someone having read NATURE AND SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN for 40 years---it is sad to see them taken to far-right wing no oversight and accountability no pier review science writing---and this is an example of that.
These once great science journals are suffering the same effects of global banking product mill higher education in US-----the quality and public interest is gone.
How to raise a genius: lessons from a 45-year study of super-smart children
A long-running investigation of exceptional children reveals what it takes to produce the scientists who will lead the twenty-first century.
On a summer day in 1968, professor Julian Stanley met a brilliant but bored 12-year-old named Joseph Bates. The Baltimore student was so far ahead of his classmates in mathematics that his parents had arranged for him to take a computer-science course at Johns Hopkins University, where Stanley taught. Even that wasn't enough. Having leapfrogged ahead of the adults in the class, the child kept himself busy by teaching the FORTRAN programming language to graduate students.
Unsure of what to do with Bates, his computer instructor introduced him to Stanley, a researcher well known for his work in psychometrics — the study of cognitive performance. To discover more about the young prodigy's talent, Stanley gave Bates a battery of tests that included the SAT college-admissions exam, normally taken by university-bound 16- to 18-year-olds in the United States.
Early child development: Body of knowledge
Bates's score was well above the threshold for admission to Johns Hopkins, and prompted Stanley to search for a local high school that would let the child take advanced mathematics and science classes. When that plan failed, Stanley convinced a dean at Johns Hopkins to let Bates, then 13, enrol as an undergraduate.
Stanley would affectionately refer to Bates as “student zero” of his Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which would transform how gifted children are identified and supported by the US education system. As the longest-running current longitudinal survey of intellectually talented children, SMPY has for 45 years tracked the careers and accomplishments of some 5,000 individuals, many of whom have gone on to become high-achieving scientists. The study's ever-growing data set has generated more than 400 papers and several books, and provided key insights into how to spot and develop talent in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) and beyond.
“What Julian wanted to know was, how do you find the kids with the highest potential for excellence in what we now call STEM, and how do you boost the chance that they'll reach that potential,” says Camilla Benbow, a protégé of Stanley's who is now dean of education and human development at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. But Stanley wasn't interested in just studying bright children; he wanted to nurture their intellect and enhance the odds that they would change the world. His motto, he told his graduate students, was “no more dry bones methodology”.
Why we are teaching science wrong, and how to make it right
With the first SMPY recruits now at the peak of their careers1, what has become clear is how much the precociously gifted outweigh the rest of society in their influence. Many of the innovators who are advancing science, technology and culture are those whose unique cognitive abilities were identified and supported in their early years through enrichment programmes such as Johns Hopkins University's Center for Talented Youth — which Stanley began in the 1980s as an adjunct to SMPY. At the start, both the study and the centre were open to young adolescents who scored in the top 1% on university entrance exams. Pioneering mathematicians Terence Tao and Lenhard Ng were one-percenters, as were Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and musician Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga), who all passed through the Hopkins centre.
“Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society,” says Jonathan Wai, a psychologist at the Duke University Talent Identification Program in Durham, North Carolina, which collaborates with the Hopkins centre. Wai combined data from 11 prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies2, including SMPY, to demonstrate the correlation between early cognitive ability and adult achievement. “The kids who test in the top 1% tend to become our eminent scientists and academics, our Fortune 500 CEOs and federal judges, senators and billionaires,” he says.
Source: K. Ferriman Robertson et al. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19, 346–351 (2010).
Such results contradict long-established ideas suggesting that expert performance is built mainly through practice — that anyone can get to the top with enough focused effort of the right kind. SMPY, by contrast, suggests that early cognitive ability has more effect on achievement than either deliberate practice or environmental factors such as socio-economic status. The research emphasizes the importance of nurturing precocious children, at a time when the prevailing focus in the United States and other countries is on improving the performance of struggling students (see ‘Nurturing a talented child’). At the same time, the work to identify and support academically talented students has raised troubling questions about the risks of labelling children, and the shortfalls of talent searches and standardized tests as a means of identifying high-potential students, especially in poor and rural districts.
“With so much emphasis on predicting who will rise to the top, we run the risk of selling short the many kids who are missed by these tests,” says Dona Matthews, a developmental psychologist in Toronto, Canada, who co-founded the Center for Gifted Studies and Education at Hunter College in New York City. “For those children who are tested, it does them no favours to call them 'gifted' or 'ungifted'. Either way, it can really undermine a child's motivation to learn.”
Start of a study
On a muggy August day, Benbow and her husband, psychologist David Lubinski, describe the origins of SMPY as they walk across the quadrangle at Vanderbilt University. Benbow was a graduate student at Johns Hopkins when she met Stanley in a class he taught in 1976. Benbow and Lubinski, who have co-directed the study since Stanley's retirement, brought it to Vanderbilt in 1998.
“In a sense, that brought Julian's research full circle, since this is where he started his career as a professor,” Benbow says as she nears the university's psychology laboratory, the first US building dedicated to the study of the field. Built in 1915, it houses a small collection of antique calculators — the tools of quantitative psychology in the early 1950s, when Stanley began his academic work in psychometrics and statistics.
Brain stimulation in children spurs hope — and concern
His interest in developing scientific talent had been piqued by one of the most famous longitudinal studies in psychology, Lewis Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius3, 4. Beginning in 1921, Terman selected teenage subjects on the basis of high IQ scores, then tracked and encouraged their careers. But to Terman's chagrin, his cohort produced only a few esteemed scientists. Among those rejected because their IQ of 129 was too low to make the cut was William Shockley, the Nobel-prizewinning co-inventor of the transistor. Physicist Luis Alvarez, another Nobel winner, was also rejected.
Stanley suspected that Terman wouldn't have missed Shockley and Alvarez if he'd had a reliable way to test them specifically on quantitative reasoning ability. So Stanley decided to try the Scholastic Aptitude Test (now simply the SAT). Although the test is intended for older students, Stanley hypothesized that it would be well suited to measuring the analytical reasoning abilities of elite younger students.
Nurturing a talented child
“Setting out to raise a genius is the last thing we'd advise any parent to do,” says Camilla Benbow, dean of education and human development at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. That goal, she says, “can lead to all sorts of social and emotional problems”.
Benbow and other talent-development researchers offer the following tips to encourage both achievement and happiness for smart children.
- Expose children to diverse experiences.
- When a child exhibits strong interests or talents, provide opportunities to develop them.
- Support both intellectual and emotional needs.
- Help children to develop a 'growth mindset' by praising effort, not ability.
- Encourage children to take intellectual risks and to be open to failures that help them learn.
- Beware of labels: being identified as gifted can be an emotional burden.
- Work with teachers to meet your child's needs. Smart students often need more-challenging material, extra support or the freedom to learn at their own pace.
- Have your child's abilities tested. This can support a parent's arguments for more-advanced work, and can reveal issues such as dyslexia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or social and emotional challenges.
In March 1972, Stanley rounded up 450 bright 12- to 14-year-olds from the Baltimore area and gave them the mathematics portion of the SAT. It was the first standardized academic 'talent search'. (Later, researchers included the verbal portion and other assessments.)
“The first big surprise was how many adolescents could figure out math problems that they hadn't encountered in their course work,” says developmental psychologist Daniel Keating, then a PhD student at Johns Hopkins University. “The second surprise was how many of these young kids scored well above the admissions cut-off for many elite universities.”
Stanley hadn't envisioned SMPY as a multi-decade longitudinal study. But after the first follow-up survey, five years later, Benbow proposed extending the study to track subjects through their lives, adding cohorts and including assessments of interests, preferences, and occupational and other life accomplishments. The study's first four cohorts range from the top 3% to the top 0.01% in their SAT scores. The SMPY team added a fifth cohort of the leading mathematics and science graduate students in 1992 to test the generalizability of the talent-search model for identifying scientific potential.
“I don't know of any other study in the world that has given us such a comprehensive look at exactly how and why STEM talent develops,” says Christoph Perleth, a psychologist at the University of Rostock in Germany who studies intelligence and talent development.
As the data flowed in, it quickly became apparent that a one-size-fits-all approach to gifted education, and education in general, was inadequate.
“SMPY gave us the first large-sample basis for the field to move away from general intelligence toward assessments of specific cognitive abilities, interests and other factors,” says Rena Subotnik, who directs the Center for Gifted Education Policy at the American Psychological Association in Washington DC.
Julian Stanley established the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth in the 1970s.
In 1976, Stanley started to test his second cohort (a sample of 563 13-year-olds who scored in the top 0.5% on the SAT) on spatial ability — the capacity to understand and remember spatial relationships between objects5. Tests for spatial ability might include matching objects that are seen from different perspectives, determining which cross-section will result when an object is cut in certain ways, or estimating water levels on tilted bottles of various shapes. Stanley was curious about whether spatial ability might better predict educational and occupational outcomes than could measures of quantitative and verbal reasoning on their own.
Follow-up surveys — at ages 18, 23, 33 and 48 — backed up his hunch. A 2013 analysis5 found a correlation between the number of patents and peer-refereed publications that people had produced and their earlier scores on SATs and spatial-ability tests. The SAT tests jointly accounted for about 11% of the variance; spatial ability accounted for an additional 7.6%.
The findings, which dovetail with those of other recent studies, suggest that spatial ability plays a major part in creativity and technical innovation. “I think it may be the largest known untapped source of human potential,” says Lubinski, who adds that students who are only marginally impressive in mathematics or verbal ability but high in spatial ability often make exceptional engineers, architects and surgeons. “And yet, no admissions directors I know of are looking at this, and it's generally overlooked in school-based assessments.”
Although studies such as SMPY have given educators the ability to identify and support gifted youngsters, worldwide interest in this population is uneven. In the Middle East and east Asia, high-performing STEM students have received significant attention over the past decade. South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore screen children for giftedness and steer high performers into innovative programmes. In 2010, China launched a ten-year National Talent Development Plan to support and guide top students into science, technology and other high-demand fields.
In Europe, support for research and educational programmes for gifted children has ebbed, as the focus has moved more towards inclusion. England decided in 2010 to scrap the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, and redirected funds towards an effort to get more poor students into leading universities.
On the fast track
When Stanley began his work, the choices for bright children in the United States were limited, so he sought out environments in which early talent could blossom. “It was clear to Julian that it's not enough to identify potential; it has to be developed in appropriate ways if you're going to keep that flame well lit,” says Linda Brody, who studied with Stanley and now runs a programme at Johns Hopkins focused on counselling profoundly gifted children.
At first, the efforts were on a case-by-case basis. Parents of other bright children began to approach Stanley after hearing about his work with Bates, who thrived after entering university. By 17, he had earned bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science and was pursuing a doctorate at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Later, as a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he would become a pioneer in artificial intelligence.
“I was shy and the social pressures of high school wouldn't have made it a good fit for me,” says Bates, now 60. “But at college, with the other science and math nerds, I fit right in, even though I was much younger. I could grow up on the social side at my own rate and also on the intellectual side, because the faster pace kept me interested in the content.”
“Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society.”
The SMPY data supported the idea of accelerating fast learners by allowing them to skip school grades. In a comparison of children who bypassed a grade with a control group of similarly smart children who didn't, the grade-skippers were 60% more likely to earn doctorates or patents and more than twice as likely to get a PhD in a STEM field6. Acceleration is common in SMPY's elite 1-in-10,000 cohort, whose intellectual diversity and rapid pace of learning make them among the most challenging to educate. Advancing these students costs little or nothing, and in some cases may save schools money, says Lubinski. “These kids often don't need anything innovative or novel,” he says, “they just need earlier access to what's already available to older kids.”
Many educators and parents continue to believe that acceleration is bad for children — that it will hurt them socially, push them out of childhood or create knowledge gaps. But education researchers generally agree that acceleration benefits the vast majority of gifted children socially and emotionally, as well as academically and professionally7.
Skipping grades is not the only option. SMPY researchers say that even modest interventions — for example, access to challenging material such as college-level Advanced Placement courses — have a demonstrable effect. Among students with high ability, those who were given a richer density of advanced precollegiate educational opportunities in STEM went on to publish more academic papers, earn more patents and pursue higher-level careers than their equally smart peers who didn't have these opportunities8.
Despite SMPY's many insights, researchers still have an incomplete picture of giftedness and achievement. “We don't know why, even at the high end, some people will do well and others won't,” says Douglas Detterman, a psychologist who studies cognitive ability at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “Intelligence won't account for all the differences between people; motivation, personality factors, how hard you work and other things are important.”
Some insights have come from German studies9, 10, 11 that have a methodology similar to SMPY's. The Munich Longitudinal Study of Giftedness, which started tracking 26,000 gifted students in the mid-1980s, found that cognitive factors were the most predictive, but that some personal traits — such as motivation, curiosity and ability to cope with stress — had a limited influence on performance. Environmental factors, such as family, school and peers, also had an impact.
The data from such intellectual-talent searches also contribute to knowledge of how people develop expertise in subjects. Some researchers and writers, notably psychologist Anders Ericsson at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author Malcolm Gladwell, have popularized the idea of an ability threshold. This holds that for individuals beyond a certain IQ barrier (120 is often cited), concentrated practice time is much more important than additional intellectual abilities in acquiring expertise. But data from SMPY and the Duke talent programme dispute that hypothesis (see 'Top of the charts'). A study published this year12 compared the outcomes of students in the top 1% of childhood intellectual ability with those in the top 0.01%. Whereas the first group gain advanced degrees at about 25 times the rate of the general population, the more elite students earn PhDs at about 50 times the base rate.
But some of the work is controversial. In North America and Europe, some child-development experts lament that much of the research on talent development is driven by the urge to predict who will rise to the top, and educators have expressed considerable unease about the concept of identifying and labelling a group of pupils as gifted or talented13.
“A high test score tells you only that a person has high ability and is a good match for that particular test at that point in time,” says Matthews. “A low test score tells you practically nothing,” she says, because many factors can depress students' performance, including their cultural backgrounds and how comfortable they are with taking high-stakes tests. Matthews contends that when children who are near the high and low extremes of early achievement feel assessed in terms of future success, it can damage their motivation to learn and can contribute to what Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck calls a fixed mindset. It's far better, Dweck says, to encourage a growth mindset, in which children believe that brains and talent are merely a starting point, and that abilities can be developed through hard work and continued intellectual risk-taking.
“Students focus on improvement instead of worrying about how smart they are and hungering for approval,” says Dweck. “They work hard to learn more and get smarter.” Research by Dweck and her colleagues shows that students who learn with this mindset show greater motivation at school, get better marks and have higher test scores14.
Benbow agrees that standardized tests should not be used to limit students' options, but rather to develop learning and teaching strategies appropriate to children's abilities, which allow students at every level to reach their potential.
Next year, Benbow and Lubinski plan to launch a mid-life survey of the profoundly gifted cohort (the 1 in 10,000), with an emphasis on career achievements and life satisfaction, and to re-survey their 1992 sample of graduate students at leading US universities. The forthcoming studies may further erode the enduring misperception that gifted children are bright enough to succeed on their own, without much help.
“The education community is still resistant to this message,” says David Geary, a cognitive developmental psychologist at the University of Missouri in Columbia, who specializes in mathematical learning. “There's a general belief that kids who have advantages, cognitive or otherwise, shouldn't be given extra encouragement; that we should focus more on lower-performing kids.”
Although gifted-education specialists herald the expansion of talent-development options in the United States, the benefits have mostly been limited so far to students who are at the top of both the talent and socio-economic curves.
“We know how to identify these kids, and we know how to help them,” says Lubinski. “And yet we're missing a lot of the smartest kids in the country.”
As Lubinski and Benbow walk through the quadrangle, the clock strikes noon, releasing packs of enthusiastic adolescents racing towards the dining hall. Many are participants in the Vanderbilt Programs for Talented Youth, summer enrichment courses in which gifted students spend three weeks gorging themselves on a year's worth of mathematics, science or literature. Others are participants in Vanderbilt's sports camps.
“They're just developing different talents,” says Lubinski, a former high-school and college wrestler. “But our society has been much more encouraging of athletic talents than we are of intellectual talents.”
And yet these gifted students, the 'mathletes' of the world, can shape the future. “When you look at the issues facing society now — whether it's health care, climate change, terrorism, energy — these are the kids who have the most potential to solve these problems,” says Lubinski. “These are the kids we'd do well to bet on.”
Below we see two discussions on public policy surrounding genius---and both are right----we have these several decades allowed the original definition of GENIUS be lowered in eyes of 99% WE THE PEOPLE---but those global 1% are looking for those OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASONS---the real inventive genius/prodigy and as we see below----that number is around 1% globally.
The global 1% are selling the INCLUSIVENESS of those 5% players by pretending they are exceptional or genius when they are not. These mainstream media and global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE academics writing these research papers KNOW THIS.
The global 1% are those OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE extreme wealth having NO TALENT----they want only those global 1% who have genius MOVING FORWARD----once artificial intelligence beats any of our human capital genius----those global 1% will not want our 99% genius/prodigies around. The first thing far-right wing extreme wealth extreme poverty global corporate fascism does is GET RID OF REAL ACADEMICS, WRITERS, THAT HAVE GENIUS
We think Brandon has it right ---and those less than 1% are the only citizens global 1% are interested in MOVING FORWARD. These will be the ones allowed higher education in COLLEGIATE COLLEGES-----along with the families of global 1% who are almost always average learners.
Brandon Lumpkins, Adaptive Entrepreneur.
Answered Mar 12, 2015
I believe no one is a genius. I believe people's life perspections are different. But it's around .025% of 1%
If 350 million US citizens are all tied to fighting their way to being those global 2% ----then 99% US WE THE PEOPLE white, black, and brown citizens are headed for EXTINCTION.
Sheldon Cooper of BIG BANG is a great example of what US has called genius ---and actual genius---he started that series with everyone calling him genius---at the end of the series Cooper was unable to be that INVENTIVE PRODIGY/GENIUS.
What percentage of the Earth's population is considered genius?
Gwydion Madawc Williams, Read a lot about it, and think hard about the answers
Answered Jan 31 2016
'Genius' nowadays means something like 'extraordinary ability'. But since there's no precise definition for extraordinary, you can't say how many people would qualify.
As Robert Cottrell says, it's not about having a high IQ. Some high scorers achieve nothing of note. Winners of scientific Nobel Prizes don't always have IQs that would qualify them for Mensa membership.
Worth also looking at the origins of the word. The Oxford English Dictionary (full edition) tells us that it began as a pagan religious idea:
The tutelary god or attendant spirit allotted to every person at his birth, to govern his fortunes and determine his character, and finally to conduct him out of the world
It then shifted to something like talent or capacity:
4. Natural ability or capacity; quality of mind; the special endowments which fit a man for his peculiar work.
But then it separated out from similar words to gain the specialised meaning of extraordinary ability.
5. Native intellectual power of an exalted type, such as is attributed to those who are esteemed greatest in any department of art, speculation, or practice; instinctive and extraordinary capacity for imaginative creation, original thought, invention, or discovery. Often contrasted with talent.
It evolved informally into its present meaning, so there never has been a formal definition.
Note that a word separating out from similar words to gain the specialised meaning is quite common in English. 'Officious' once meant the same as contientious, but then evolved to indicate an excess. Much more strangely, 'terrible' and 'terrific' began with the same meaning as 'terrifying', but gained quite different meanings. And having been born in the 1950s, I was unaware that 'gay' might mean something very different from 'merry' until this became part of general cultural usage in the early 1970s. (It had been used as a code-word by homosexuals long before that, but the whole point of a code-word is that most people miss it.)
Ronald writes the generally accepted notion: ie, about 1.x% - but this is based on a biased sample, since a large portion of the Earth's population is illiterate and thus could not take a standard IQ test. In addition one must include a significant potion of the Earth's population that is malnourished, or afflicted with environmental hazards which have stunted their physical and mental capabilities.
Also, genius is herein defined by reference to a relatively small portion of human capacity, since an IQ test does not measure creativity, artistic, musical, athletic, or manual dexterity realms. Also, efforts to judge the IQ of geniuses in these fields quickly encounter the "Flynn Effect" as well as the paucity of large scale measurements in those realms.
For example, the estimated IQ of Mozart ranges from 143 to 165 - however there have not been many Mensa members who can demonstrate a musical ability anywhere near Mozart. Some children ranked about average intelligence can nonetheless perform mental tasks far in excess of standard measures.
IMHO, genius is not a unitary feature which can be strictly defined by performance on an IQ test. But using the Mensa formula, I would be comfortable with applying the term 'genius' to about 2% of any population using any test methodology.
Mensa recognises people who score the top 2% in IQ tests as being genius level, which translates to different numerical scores depending on the IQ test taken.
But to actually become a genius, you have to take your high intelligence and achieve something unique with it. Otherwise, you just remain a potential genius.
Eusebius Clay, C.E.O. of hardware start-up, profoundly gifted I.Q.
Answered Jul 17, 2016“As Robert Cottrell says, it's not about having a high IQ. Some high scorers achieve nothing of note.”
If an individual with an exceptionally high IQ were to achieve something noteworthy, someone with a lesser IQ, such as Robert Cottrell, might not even think that it's “noteworthy,” because his IQ isn't high enough to understand the achievement. This illustrates the absurdity of the human condition.
Ronald Freund, works at Freecie.com
Answered Mar 23, 2015
Mensa considered a person with a 2 percentile rate of the population as a genius, but the ranking are different on every scale, like an IQ of 140 is considered 1 percent of the population. An IQ of 145 to an 159 is considered a genius, and an IQ of 160 to an IQ of 175 is considered an extraordinary genus, it all depend upon how the IQ scales ratings are. The higher a person intellectual abilities are, than the less of the percentile it actual is.
Brandon Lumpkins, Adaptive Entrepreneur.
Answered Mar 12, 2015
I believe no one is a genius. I believe people's life perspections are different. But it's around .025% of 1%
ONE THING WE KNOW ABOUT HOPKINS----IT USES THESE TALENTED PROGRAMS TO CAPTURE OUR MOST TALENTED 99% -----BUT WE KNOW THESE ARE NOT TOP TIER GENIUS---THEY ARE RECRUITED AS 5% PLAYERS..........WE KNOW PATENTS FOR PRODUCTS ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD TO THESE GLOBAL 1% FAMILIES
'whose unique cognitive abilities were identified and supported in their early years through enrichment programmes such as Johns Hopkins University's Center for Talented Youth — which Stanley began in the 1980s as an adjunct to SMPY. At the start, both the study and the centre were open to young adolescents who scored in the top 1% on university entrance exams. Pioneering mathematicians Terence Tao and Lenhard Ng were one-percenters, as were Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and musician Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga), who all passed through the Hopkins centre'.
'Terry Tao and 'Cheating Strategically' (extra footage) - Numberphile
Our main Terry Tao interview is at: https://youtu.be/MXJ-zpJeY3E More extras to come... NUMBERPHILE Website: http://www.numberphile.com/ Numberphile on Facebook: http ...
youtube.com8 months ago'
CHEATING STRATEGICALLY------TERRY TAO
What TAO describes is indeed the process of making our 99% gifted global citizens into MAD HATTERS. The process of FORMULATION is another word for erasing all those societal constructs telling human capital what they are doing is wrong ----- JOHNS HOPKINS was indeed TOPS globally for stripping from talented citizens that notion US RULE OF LAW, MORALS AND ETHICS, NO GOD'S NATURAL LAW away----to create what we have today----those global 1% and a global 2% MAD HATTER academics thinking lying, cheating, and stealing is OK.
So, Terry Tao et al graduates of this Hopkins program ---and there are other far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, global corporate fascist institutions besides Hopkins----who is that talented citizen programmed to be NIHILISTIC in SCIENCE FOR SCIENCE SAKE. This same situation goes for a ZUCKERMAN----FACEBOOK ----A GOOGLE BRIN-----it is literally a brainwash to open talented people to NIHILISM.
THIS IS WHY WE THE PEOPLE ARE MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM---TOTAL NIHILISM TIED TO THOSE DASTARDLY 5% PLAYERS.
IT TAKES A SOCIETAL STRUCTURE OF A HITLER/MAO/STALIN TO CREATE THESE CONDITIONS OF FORMULATION-------THAT IS WHAT HOPKINS DOES BEST-----OF COURSE NOT THE ONLY GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE DOING THIS--
'Analysis + Authorization = Formulation
The definition of policy formulation can be represented by this formula:
Analysis + Authorization = Formulation
The tidy division of labor incorporates two distinct roles professional policy analysts, working both inside and outside government, use their formidable kit of analytical tools to study an issue and to devise policy alternatives which appear to address the issue at hand. This presumably brings theory and knowledge into policy formulation.
Elected or appointed officials, however, have the final choice among alternatives presented. We like to think that they bring judgment, wisdom, and accountability to policy formulation. Both analysis and selection involve values, but this is often hidden in the case of the former, but certainly not the latter'.
When the 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE read media telling us of BRAIN-WASHING ----this is it----it is simply an indoctrination process that sells what are merely genius to thinking they are those .0001% truly genius/prodigy.
06/17/2010 05:12 am ET Updated May 25, 2011
Why Americans Will Keep Losing to Asian Genius
By Khanh Ho
This morning, while solving quadratic equations, doing my New York Times Crossword puzzle and playing chess on the tenth level with the personal computer, which I built, I made the terrible mistake of turning on the boob tube. There was a bald-headed CNN announcer, with a number of distinguished panelists, discussing the astounding academic success of yet another Asian group that was, once again, threatening to annihilate the entire American population with its massive brain power.
The story focused on a young boy from Hong Kong who played the piano, spoke flawless English and scored a crazy SAT score that was nearly perfect. The story’s hook was that in fact Hong Kong hordes actually spend less time in school but do much better on standardized tests than their American counterparts. Moreover, not only do they excel in math, these yellow hordes now also excel in English. The young boy was not atypical. He was one particle of a cresting wave that was edging out Americans who were too stupid to maintain their place of dominance within the global economy.
As an Asian American who entirely fits this stereotype, I guess I should be flattered. But I’ve heard this story enough times for it to stink like old fish. It’s the same old yellow peril story that is designed to shock us; it’s been retold since the 1880s when yellow peril discourse was what made us close our doors to any immigration possibilities for those of Asian extraction. We’ve heard variations of this story most recently in the eighties with the Japanese and the Koreans invoked as imminent dangers. We hear it perennially with the domestic Asian American population who are both admired and reviled — perpetual foreigners in this, their own country.
Normally, I ignore stories like this because their obvious racism can be incensing. However, today I suddenly realized that there was another way to think about the popularity of this story. While the yellow peril is part of a general xenophobia, this is not necessarily why it’s so popular. Rather, its recurring popularity is a result of the general American populace being too stupid to see the general fault in its premise.
So, as a much smarter Asian citizen whose knowledge eclipses the slug-like operations of your feeble little minds, let me enumerate how idiotic and addle-brained the puerile delight in this story is:
1) The young boy is not typical. He probably goes to a very elite international school where he picked up that American accent. Additionally, his parents probably spend a quarter of their income on private tutorial services designed specifically for his success in taking standardized tests. As a result, he probably spends MUCH MORE time in school, because school is privatized.
2) Furthermore, the lament upon America’s low tests scores doesn’t recognize the fact that overall we don’t need to have high test scores across the board for us to create a class that will continue our technological innovations. In fact, if you work at Wal-Mart, you don’t need to know much about math. It is only the most elite sector — a fraction of the population — who have to be intellectually proficient.
3) In the United States, this elite vanguard are doing just as well as the most elite sectors of Hong Kong. Indeed, they are doing much better, at greater numbers simply because the United States, unlike many other nations, has a vast population from which to draw a small percentage of scientists. Our 1% of top achievers, translated across a huge population, is many times more than Hong Kong’s 10%. Hong Kong just doesn’t have the numbers.
4) Finally, the United States will not lose its edge to the hordes this boy represents because, as a matter of policy, it has recruited this very population to man the scientific research base that powers American technological innovation. Even during the interview , the boy confessed that it was his ambition to work in the United States. However, even were he to fulfill this desire, he would not be taking away an “American” job. Rather, he would be taking positions that have been filled by a transnational intellectual class that has been working in the United States since the mid-sixties.
This last point is what is crucially missing. The United States is a nice place to live. It draws talent from across the world. This means, then, that an absolute ignoramus can still do quite well in an economy propped up by foreign intellectual labor. This truth, which has always been obvious to me, is probably not obvious to the typical American whose intellect is degraded by their sub-par intellectual footing. But now, armed with the knowledge that I’m a superiorly gifted human being, I realize I should not rub it in your faces, fellow Americans, in your absolute ignorance. Like all atrociously dumb people, you simply make the same pseudo-discoveries over and over again, just like you also belly-laugh and slap your thighs, guffawing at the same canned jokes from the same corny television sitcoms. So keep on with your yellow peril story, which no doubt will creep up again in another four months, perhaps in this incarnation, focusing upon a Javanese girl who has cloned a unicorn and played a concert on her xylophone at Carnegie Hall. Meanwhile, I will return to my daily dose of crossword puzzles and shut off the boob tube.
We can be SURE a Bill Gates and Elon Musk are no where near talented or genius---their families tied to OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% simply bought patents of inventions by our 99% geniuses and now PRETEND that global 1% are EXCEPTIONAL----
All of these employment stats are JUKED to sell propaganda aimed at one population group or the other. Our 5% freemason/Greeks are sold on the idea they are insider players who will keep getting those declining jobs-----those GEEKS AND GENIUS thinking they are those needed in long-term to work with that AI as kindred nihilistic spirits------those 99% white citizens thinking they will win over global 99% of black or brown-----those 99% Asian global labor pool being sold they are more educated and talented then US 99% when they are not----
Here we see divergent population stats.......what we know is this---if we KEEP MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES, 5G SMART CITIES----mixed with intentions of filling US cities with global 99% labor pool displacing 99% US WE THE PEOPLE---we will see US citizens black, white, and brown citizens falling into what will easily reach over 90% unemployment in only a few decades. That US 5% to the 1% will be under the bus by then as global 1% and their 2% replace our US 5% ROBBER BARON pols and players.
What we will see towards the end of 21st century -----even those global 2% allowed to think of themselves as GENIUS human capital companions to Artificial Intelligence will be UNDER THE BUS-------
THERE IS NO INTENTION BY THE GLOBAL 1% OF HAVING ANY HUMAN CAPITAL NOT TIED TO IMMEDIATE FAMILY ON EARTH----EUGENICS BY MEGALOMANIACS ALWAYS SEE THEMSELVES AS THE SUPERIOR RACE OF PEOPLE.
Robots could take over 38% of U.S. jobs within about 15 years, report says
Samantha MasunagaContact Reporter March 24, 2017
More than a third of U.S. jobs could be at “high risk” of automation by the early 2030s, a percentage that’s greater than in Britain, Germany and Japan, according to a report released Friday.
The analysis, by accounting and consulting firm PwC, emphasized that its estimates are based on the anticipated capabilities of robotics and artificial intelligence, and that the pace and direction of technological progress are “uncertain.”
It said that in the U.S., 38% of jobs could be at risk of automation, compared with 30% in Britain, 35% in Germany and 21% in Japan.
The main reason is not that the U.S. has more jobs in sectors that are universally ripe for automation, the report says; rather, it’s that more U.S. jobs in certain sectors are potentially vulnerable than, say, British jobs in the same sectors.
For example, the report says the financial and insurance sector has much higher possibility of automation in the U.S. than in Britain. That’s because, it says, American finance workers are less educated than British ones.
While London finance employees work in international markets, their U.S. counterparts focus more on the domestic retail market, and workers “do not need to have the same educational levels,” the report said. Jobs that require less education are at higher potential risk of automation, according to the report.
Other industries that could be at high risk include hospitality and food service and transportation and storage.
Analysts have said truck driving probably will be the first form of driving in the U.S. to be fully automated, as long-range big rigs travel primarily on highways — the easiest roads to navigate without human intervention.
But robots won’t necessarily replace so many human workers. The report highlights several economic, legal and regulatory hurdles that could prevent automation, even in jobs where it would be technologically feasible.
For one, the cost of robots — including maintenance and repairs — could still be too expensive compared with human workers. And in the case of self-driving vehicles, questions remain about who is liable in an accident.
In other words, moving robots outside of a controlled environment is “still a big step,” said John Hawksworth, chief economist at PwC in Britain.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Friday that he wasn’t worried about artificial intelligence taking over American jobs.
“I think we’re so far away from that that it’s not even on my radar screen,” he told Axios Media. “I think it’s 50 or 100 more years.”
Mnuchin also said automation would enable human workers to do more productive jobs at higher wages. “It’s taken jobs that are low-paying,” he said. “We need to make sure we are investing in education and training for the American worker.”
Automation could end up creating some jobs, the PwC report said. Greater robotic productivity could boost the incomes of those behind the new technology, which Hawksworth said could flow into the larger economy.
Sectors that are harder to automate, such as healthcare, could also see a rise in jobs, he said.
Our Asian global labor pool may well think they are more educated and talented than US college grads---they have been sold that these few decades----and our Asian global 99% are less likely to understand MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1%---please educate broadly on all public policy dealing with what makes the US a strong freedom, liberty, justice, and pursuit of happiness nation---the OPPOSITE OF MOVING FORWARD.
Japanese making Shanghai their home
The top destinations for Japanese expats are revealed, with Shanghai proving particularly attractive
10 December, 2010 The top 10 countries for Japanese expats have been revealed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their Annual Report of Statistics on Japanese Nationals Overseas.
Australia saw the biggest increase with the Japanese expat population rising seven percent to 71,000. The United States still hosts the most Japanese with 384,000, while the United Kingdom saw the biggest drop among the top 10, down 5.7 percent to 59,000.
The winners in global labor pool 99% being brought to US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will be Japanese 99% steeped in AI and robotics for these few decades---their 5% have fully embraced the replacement of Japanese 99% of workers with AI-------it is that societal acceptance that will drive who those global 1% and their 2% filling US cities will be. Our Asian Foreign Economic Zones have had AI and robotics global factories so their 99% of citizens are already trained in global factory robotics assembly and working beside robotic machinery. Our 99% of global labor pool from developing nations do not have access to REAL INFORMATION so they do not know GOALS OF GLOBAL 1% ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE and space colonization.
This is why 99% US WE THE PEOPLE will be sidelined with ever-growing unemployment---sidelined in accessing REAL 4 year university education----and sidelined in our own US political system as global 1% and their 2% replace our US 5% pols and players.
LET'S SIMPLY STOP MOVING FORWARD BY KEEPING GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES AT BAY AND STANDING UP AS CITIZENS---99% BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS VS A GLOBAL 1%----EASY PEASY.
More and more those dastardly 5% US pols and players are having no connections to family or community---they are simply SHOW ME THE MONEY---we need to give these players black, white, and brown citizens THE BOOT.
We see above if Japan has a shortage of citizens necessitating ROBOTICS it is because these few decades pushed 99% of Japanese as EX-PATS.
Why Japan will profit the most from artificial intelligence
The country’s shrinking population and aversion to mass immigration mean it is well placed to embrace robots and AI in the workforce
By Gavin Blair
7 Aug 2017
A resident of the Silver Wing Social Care elderly care home in Tokyo’s Chuo Ward chats happily to a staff member in the facility’s communal area, while in a nearby room another senior is being helped by a rehabilitation specialist to walk again after a fall last month. These workers never take a day off, never complain and don’t need to be paid, for they are robots.
Silver Wing Social Care provides a glimpse into the future of Japan and indeed other industrialised nations as they follow its path to ageing societies and labour shortages. The company’s flagship care facility began using robots to help care for residents four years ago after being selected by the city government as a test project.
Japan is entering uncharted territory for a modern economy. A consistently low birth rate has shrunk the working-age population by around 10 million since its mid-1990s peak, with another 20 million set to disappear from workplaces in the coming decades. The situation is becoming critical, with nearly 1.5 vacancies for every jobseeker and chronic shortages in sectors such as nursing care, manufacturing, construction and parcel delivery.
At a time when the government is pressuring companies to cut infamously long working hours, raise wages and ensure holidays are taken, and in a country still unwilling to countenance mass immigration, robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) look to be the only solutions.
“We tried out various kinds of robots to see which would work best for us. We’ve gradually increased their use and now have 20 different models operating, including robots for nursing care, rehabilitation, communication and recreation,” explains Silver Wing’s Yukari Sekiguchi, who oversees the programme.
The company’s staff used to regularly injure their backs lifting residents, leading to them being off work or quitting the profession altogether, a major problem given the tight labour market. Workers can now use robots they stand inside to help them do such heavy lifting.
“A lot of people thought that elderly people would be scared or uncomfortable with robots, but they are actually very interested and interact naturally with them. They really enjoy talking to them and their motivation goes up when they use the rehabilitation robots, helping them to walk again more quickly,” says Sekiguchi.
Japan may be the best-placed country to cope with the advance of automation – it’s likely to cause less unemployment than elsewhere, given the shortage of workers and lifetime employment practises. Unemployment has fallen to 2.8 per cent and a record-high 97.6 per cent of new university graduates found jobs by the start of the business year in April.
The situation should be a boon for workers, but gains are being distributed unequally. Despite the tight labour market and many companies logging record profits, wage inflation remains stubbornly sluggish.
“There is a shortage of manual workers, but an excess of white-collar workers, especially middle-aged men,” says Naohiro Yashiro, a labour economist and dean of the Global Business Department Showa Women’s University in Tokyo.
“The government has set an inflation target, but it’s not happening yet. My explanation of this mystery is there is a kind of structural reform going on. The seniority based wage system, whereby employees’ wages in Japan rise rapidly with their age is not sustainable anymore, with the ageing of the population,” says Yashiro, an adviser on labour economics to three prime ministers.
Companies are thus trying to halt automatic salary raises for workers in their 40s and 50s, and increase pay for younger ones, with one largely offsetting the other, according to Yashiro.
It is these mid-level workers who would normally be most at threat from the oncoming wave of robotics, AI and other new technologies. But in Japan, they should be saved from unemployment, if not wage stagnation, according to Dr Martin Schulz, senior economist at the Fujitsu Research Institute.
“Much of the debate about automation squeezing workers out of the labour market is not an issue in Japan. Wages at the lower end won’t be squeezed much because automation is costly, so the cheapest workers won’t be replaced. At the top end, people with skills are usually helped by digitalisation because they benefit from new systems,” says Schulz.
“The squeeze would be at the mid-level. But they are comparatively protected in Japan by labour regulations. So they are not hit as hard as they are in, for example, the UK or US, where we are seeing political disruptions as a result of this,” says Schulz, referring to the Brexit vote and election of Donald Trump.
But neither the government’s employment reforms nor automation are the solution to Japan’s labour problems, according to Toyonori Sugita, owner of Daimaru Seisakusho, a metalworking factory just outside Tokyo.
“If we put up wages and reduced hours as the government is suggesting, we’d go bankrupt. But the shortage of workers in technical industries is terrible now,” says Sugita, who is looking at bringing back skilled workers in their 70s.
“Automation isn’t the answer either. The type of work that can be automated is going overseas to other Asian countries; work that requires high levels of technical skills is what remains in Japan and can be profitable,” says Sugita.
“We need more workers from overseas, from the Philippines and places like that. If the government is going to do something, it should promote that,” adds Sugita.
But with advocating mass immigration still seen as political suicide in Japan, the march of the robots looks set to continue. ■