Yes, by education.

Most people could get a college degree. It's mostly hard work. You don't need to be a genius. The few geniuses stay and do research, the normal people got out and apply what they learned to the world.

Mostly agree, but "The few geniuses stay and do research" is probably not true. I don't like the term "genius", but many of the best and brightest are put off by academic elitism and bureaucracy and leave, while at least some not particularly gifted individuals stay because they are more comfortable to play the academic game. One could even go so far to say that academia needs both of these types, but arguably, there are too many "game players" at the moment. (And of course, this is an oversimplification, and most academics try to play the game AND do useful research, but to different extents.)

This was more meant as an ideal than the description of the status qou. I agree with what you are saying.

What are some of the benefits of having game players in academia over a pure collection of dedicated nerds?

Somebody has to write the grant proposal. That's the person who will excel the quickest, regardless for talent in the underlying discipline.

> this number used to be in the low single percentages.

1970 or so it broke through, for reference.

> do you think we've all gotten that much smarter?

Yes but not in the way you imply. Having access to enough accurate information and being able to spend time efficiently to accumulate it, has catapulted large swathes of people into investing in a college education. These people who would have been stunted along the opportunity, genetic, and economic axes in the past. This is despite the horrendous increases, in costing, over the last 30 years (imo).

> Having access to enough accurate information and being able to spend time efficiently to accumulate it, has catapulted large swathes of people into investing in a college education.

factors you're leaving out that i find much more persuasive -- low interest rates, federally guaranteed loans, credentialism/professional guild dynamics. a degree costs more and gets you less than it did in the past, but you're forced to get one to have most professional jobs. it's an obligate gatekeeping tax, the piece of paper that says you're allowed to be middle class.

In the America that sent a man to the moon, only 5% of people had a college degree.

Contemporary USSR had 8%. That clearly explains why it hand't made it to the Moon!

If you factor in availability of resources, it is nothing short of amazing what the USSR achieved and how long they could stand up to the US. They probably would have put someone on the moon too, but that wasn't too important after the US was first.

The USSR achieved what it did at tremendous personal cost to its citizen. (Imperial Russia was basically just as harsh.)

Smarter at what? For many things, yes, and for other things, it's the same.

The number of children of rich people with college degrees was always high, and not because intelligence is heritable, but because money is.

Then again, intelligence is also heritable.

Then again, wealth also helps with the collegue degree if the heredity part of intelligence isn't working out for you that well.

We also inherit the universe. So we inherit a world in which certain qualities will make you better or worse off.

in the last four decades college has become orders of magnitude more expensive while wages have stagnated and almost all economic growth has gone to the very top, at the same time that the portion of the population with a degree has risen steadily

Well, it's because of the money system. People were told that working hard and smart is the path to success because people believe in the absolutism of morals even though there is no such thing in economics.

The acquisition of degrees is just a form of specialization to avoid the effects of the current money system. The reason why large cities are so rich is that international investors prefer established cities. When parents put money into investments and their children follow that money out of their hometown into a large city. Considering how much we do to compensate the bad influences of our money system I seriously wonder when nations are going to change it. Probably in 2030.

The problem isn't "free market" or "capitalism" although the adherents of those ideas tend to love the existing money system. Of course there are also other non reproducible assets like land and patents but I feel like properly taxing land should be more than enough. Patents only slow down progress, they shouldn't make things worse.

There are two fundamental problems: 1. The velocity of money keeps going down. It's not circulating at all. Meaning fiat currency is becoming less and less a medium of exchange and instead turns into a store of value just like Bitcoin. 2. Positive interest only works with either a growing supply of money at constant velocity or an increase in velocity at fixed supply. Basically inflation via endless debt growth if there is no productivity growth or population growth.

Combine this with the rise in neoliberalism in politics which basically runs into the contradictions of money at every corner. Global trade? Causes deflation which lowers interest rates. Less regulation? Businesses become more efficient. More deflation. Austerity? More deflation. Union busting? Lower incomes mean more deflation. You see, at some point you have created more deflation than the money system can survive. What breaks isn't the economy, it's the people that end up breaking. To be fair to neoliberalism. If there wasn't this pesky zero lower bound on interest rates it could have worked.

I've read an article about the "negative impacts" of negative interest rates and it mentioned a complete subversion of the standard response regarding competition for interest rates. Countries will end up competing to have the lowest negative interest rate. Isn't that absurd? Countries like Zimbabwe, Greece or Turkey who are net borrowers would see negative interest rates that would pull their economy out of the gutter and yet it is considered a negative effect. It's actually weird how that article never mentioned inflation, as if it was dead for some reason.

Maybe if you define smartness as academic smartness, which is learned on a course.

Practical smarts has probably declined as a result.

>Practical smarts has probably declined as a result.

I know the stereotype, but is there any evidence that “book smarts” and “street smarts” are mutually exclusive?

Is it possibly an artifact of an economy rewarding hyper-specialization?

It's an artifact of wishful thinking. People will go to great lengths to avoid thinking about the fact that some people are better than others; it's the biggest "inconvenient truth" of our culture.

>It's an artifact of wishful thinking. People will go to great lengths to avoid thinking about the fact that some people are better than others; it's the biggest "inconvenient truth" of our culture.

I'm not sure if the whole book smart / street smart thing is a good example of what you're saying. Wouldn't that just be an example of people becoming well adapted to their environment (or in fact manipulating their environment)?

I’m not taking innate ability here - which is something else - just there is finite time to learn so 3 - 6 years focused on academia is less time focused on other things.

Ok, I think that aligns with my statement about specialization. With finite time and incentives to specialize, I wonder if it pressures people against being generalists. I’ve often thought common sense is borne out of having many different, diverse experiences.