Are you a poker player? If you are, then you must be familiar with "odds". It is like, what are the odds of flipping a coin 4 times and having it come up "heads" every time? That is a little different from the observation that a coin was flipped 4 times and came up "heads" every time. In the first case, the odds are 1 in 16. In the second case, the odds are 1 in 8. Do you see why the odds are different? If you don't there is little reason for you to continue reading this blog.
This blog is based on the assumption that specific human traits are "randomly" distribution and not "joint" traits. So that you can follow this bog, I am going to limit the traits that I am going to deal with. In the real world, there are a lot more traits in play. For my examples, I am only going to deal with two. (1) Hard Working and (2) Smarts. I am not going to define smarts as just IQ or education. This is the smarts that you were born with. It is the ability to deal with real world problems and come up with the right answers most of the time. With me on this one?
Whether we like it or not, we are in a time machine where our world keeps changing and we keep getting older. I am sorry, but you can not stop the parade. First, let's look at the world in 1900 and the demands of the time on us humans. What did it take from us humans to attain a good quality of life? The goal in this blog will be "good quality of life". Every thing will be compared to that base line.
Let's take all the people who lived in the USA in 1900 and see how many had the hard working attitude that it took to have this "good quality of life". My estimate is that at least 75% had it. Next, how many had the smarts to have this "good quality of life"? In my model, you had to have "both". Here, I am going to estimate that 75% had the necessary "smarts". Now, the 4th grade math.
If we multiply the above figures together, we get our estimate that 9 in16 were able to attain this "good quality of life". With me on this? That is a little over 50% of the population. If you were to check the history books, this number would seem reasonable. That was back in 1900 and humans have not changed all that much, so how has it affected "good quality of life"?
By all accounts, our current population in 2000 do not have the same hard working attitude that people had back in 1900. Agree or not, I am going to lower the figure to just 50%. Now, how about the "smarts"? Has the demands on "smarts" changed? Back in 1900 with the lower demands on smarts, I estimated that 75% had what it took, but now, the figure is no better than 50% and many feel that the number is even worse, but I am going to go with 50% even if some think it should be closer to just 25%. According to Darwin, people change over time, but the change does not occur very fast. Now the 4th grade math.
If we multiply the 50% for hard working times the smarts at 50%, we get 25% or only 1 in 4 of us humans have what it take to have a "good quality of life". That is a big drop from 9 in 16 just 100 years ago.
If you look at the changes in the world over the past 100 years, it is clear that "The Odds Have Changed". Complexity means that one needs more than "one" skill" to survive and the more skills that one needs, the less the odds that the average person will have all those skills. It is a mathematical certainty! The odds are the odds and we can't change them. No matter what we try to do, the spread between those who will be able to compete and those who can't will get wider and wider. All we can do is to try to prepare our children to be a part of the group that can compete.
PS---Back in 1900 I estimate that at least 50% of workers were born and raised on farms or in rural areas. It has been my experience that workers who were born and raised on farms or in rural areas are more hard working than those from cities. I think that you would agree with that. The big change has been that now in 2000 about 90% of workers come from big cities. Look at any big city to day and tell me what percentage of those people are hard workers. I think that 25% would be a high number. My point is that "the odds have changed" and no political candidate or party is going to change that!! Face the music.
This blog is based on the assumption that specific human traits are "randomly" distribution and not "joint" traits. So that you can follow this bog, I am going to limit the traits that I am going to deal with. In the real world, there are a lot more traits in play. For my examples, I am only going to deal with two. (1) Hard Working and (2) Smarts. I am not going to define smarts as just IQ or education. This is the smarts that you were born with. It is the ability to deal with real world problems and come up with the right answers most of the time. With me on this one?
Whether we like it or not, we are in a time machine where our world keeps changing and we keep getting older. I am sorry, but you can not stop the parade. First, let's look at the world in 1900 and the demands of the time on us humans. What did it take from us humans to attain a good quality of life? The goal in this blog will be "good quality of life". Every thing will be compared to that base line.
Let's take all the people who lived in the USA in 1900 and see how many had the hard working attitude that it took to have this "good quality of life". My estimate is that at least 75% had it. Next, how many had the smarts to have this "good quality of life"? In my model, you had to have "both". Here, I am going to estimate that 75% had the necessary "smarts". Now, the 4th grade math.
If we multiply the above figures together, we get our estimate that 9 in16 were able to attain this "good quality of life". With me on this? That is a little over 50% of the population. If you were to check the history books, this number would seem reasonable. That was back in 1900 and humans have not changed all that much, so how has it affected "good quality of life"?
By all accounts, our current population in 2000 do not have the same hard working attitude that people had back in 1900. Agree or not, I am going to lower the figure to just 50%. Now, how about the "smarts"? Has the demands on "smarts" changed? Back in 1900 with the lower demands on smarts, I estimated that 75% had what it took, but now, the figure is no better than 50% and many feel that the number is even worse, but I am going to go with 50% even if some think it should be closer to just 25%. According to Darwin, people change over time, but the change does not occur very fast. Now the 4th grade math.
If we multiply the 50% for hard working times the smarts at 50%, we get 25% or only 1 in 4 of us humans have what it take to have a "good quality of life". That is a big drop from 9 in 16 just 100 years ago.
If you look at the changes in the world over the past 100 years, it is clear that "The Odds Have Changed". Complexity means that one needs more than "one" skill" to survive and the more skills that one needs, the less the odds that the average person will have all those skills. It is a mathematical certainty! The odds are the odds and we can't change them. No matter what we try to do, the spread between those who will be able to compete and those who can't will get wider and wider. All we can do is to try to prepare our children to be a part of the group that can compete.
PS---Back in 1900 I estimate that at least 50% of workers were born and raised on farms or in rural areas. It has been my experience that workers who were born and raised on farms or in rural areas are more hard working than those from cities. I think that you would agree with that. The big change has been that now in 2000 about 90% of workers come from big cities. Look at any big city to day and tell me what percentage of those people are hard workers. I think that 25% would be a high number. My point is that "the odds have changed" and no political candidate or party is going to change that!! Face the music.
