h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Tell my why you think I'm wrong."

We actually agree on this matter, for the most part. What I think you're WRONG about, however, is the presumption (in general) that the higher your degree the more intelligent you are. Regardless of age.

Now I see your point, admittance standards probably were more stringent in the past than they are today and --- in Britain at least --- money was less of a factor. (Though I don't doubt personal connections were *more* of a factor than they are today, while we're on the subject, and such connections are usually held by rich people.)

Returning to my premise: To be sure, there is a certain threshold of intelligence you have to have in order to comprehend the course material. (Assuming you actually EARN the grade, rather than paying for it through any one of numerous ways.)

BUT --- and this is the really important part --- no matter how intelligent you are you have to actually PUT IN THE WORK. (Or money.) That's what the degree is really measuring: your ability to commit to a task until you master it. It's measuring that more than it's measuring your intelligence.

Countless people who are actually "more intelligent" than PhD-holders don't ever get PhDs either because they don't have the interest to follow the curriculum that long, or because they're just too lazy to do it. Conversely, countless people who are "less intelligent" than High School dropouts make up for that shortcoming by having a stronger work ethic, and get higher degrees.


This is true no matter your age group.



And besides THAT, history is rife with super-intelligent people accomplishing really cool things despite having very little in the way of formal education. I'm not going to list them all because I don't have all night. Off the top of my head I could easily say Abraham Lincoln, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison (though I'm not personally a fan), John D. Rockefeller, blah blah, blah blah blah....


But perhaps you and I have a different definition of the word "intelligence."

A random question occurs to me. In the UK (and Europe in general) are athletic scholarships a thing?

I absolutely loathe how much money is spent by schools here for athletics here in the States, (especially Texas for Friday Night Football) with $70 million stadiums and coaches out earning high six digit incomes.

We have a LOT of students earning their way through higher education through sprots. Many of them major in either communication or "kinesthetics"(P.E.) aiming for careers either continuing in their sport, coaching, or possibly a broadcast career announcing sports.

What a waste. Why we tie sports to schools, I have no idea.

I was rather pleased when design engineers of electronics called on me from Germany, France, the US and of course across Canada. Also a fair number of highly placed people in federal governments and military of the US and here. I had the knowledge and experience of how the physical components work. Many that defy some "laws of physics". (I have called some simply 'rules' rather than 'laws') Bare knuckles education, perhaps.

I don't have any grand parchment to hang on a wall - though I was paying to maintain one for quite a wasted time. I only have about 35 to 40 papers of courses in the trades as well as most of those years having been well involved in community services and supports. The latter actually have more value to me than topping out some technical course.

Back to the original point though - something such as the leaving of the EU would be entirely based on the world that I have seen. Not intelligence, assorted papers collected or income.

Baron Grim - no, not really, though it exists to a small extent (Loughborough University is the sports university for example) - you do not get it to anything like the same extent as the UK.

Sorry, the USA should have finished that last sentence

"In MY country, furthering education is still a personal cost to nearly everyone. There is NO free university. "

Ah - so you're not a UK citizen, didn't know what the education situation is or was in this country, and therefore entirely unqualified to comment on this matter at all? Thanks for clearing that up.

Also, thank you for your service but please, don't bleat about the consequences of a choice you made. "I couldn't do X because I was busy defending my country" is an argument you can only make with any integrity if you had no choice, like the generation before my stepfather's. It's not an argument anyone IN THE UK can make if they're under about 90 years old.



@Mr. X:
You appear to have conceded my point. You're arguing the margins.

Also, I didn't say "higher degree = more intelligent". Every PhD holder I know (and I know a lot) admits that IN GENERAL getting one is mainly about hard work and choice of career path, rather than, per se, being brighter than a holder of a Bachelor's or Master's. I know at least one PhD who doesn't even hold a Bachelor's.

"It's measuring that more than it's measuring your intelligence."

I'd argue by doing that, it's properly measuring your intelligence. But then we get into a debate about what intelligence is, and we all know where that got us on this site seventeen years ago, right?

"history is rife with super-intelligent people accomplishing really cool things despite having very little in the way of formal education"

Well... yeah. History, however, rather by definition, records the OUTLIERS. The unusual, the exceptions. The dull fact of the matter is that IN GENERAL, formal educational attainment is a reliable guide to general intelligence. It better be, otherwise what's the point?



"In the UK (and Europe in general) are athletic scholarships a thing? "

Not really. That said, your chances of admittance to an Oxford or Cambridge college won't be harmed if you're 6'4", built like a brick outhouse and have rowed for your school...



Back to Rev Nick:

"something such as the leaving of the EU would be entirely based on the world that I have seen"

So you'd believe you were qualified to hold an opinion on that specific matter? In which case - string theory or loop quantum gravity?

Brexit is divisive even on hootoo..

While I have read some stuff on string theory - and had a fair grasp of what it proposes - I have not had time to delve into loop quantum theory. So I have no opinion.

I have, on the other hand, worked and lived with people of many countries. I have some basic grasp on many of the national concerns they face as I do those in my own country. I have followed world events and politics for maybe 40 years, and voted in every level of election that I was eligible for. So while I will not say which side of the fence I would be on the Brexit vote - if I lived there - I would indeed be prepared to put my preference to ballot.

"I have read some stuff on string theory - and had a fair grasp of what it proposes"

Really, ya think?

Textbook Dunning-Kruger demonstrated right there.



To be clear on my position here: I'm not saying I understand the issues. I'm saying I know enough to know I DON'T understand. I also knew enough in 2016 to know that nobody in the government understood either. I have been proven absolutely 100% correct in that regard by the ongoing clusterfsck they've made of the negotiations thus far and the obvious lack of any plan or idea of how Brexit was going to work.

GIVEN complete ignorance of the possible consequences of a vote to leave, the only responsible vote was Remain. It's the kind of "I know what I'm doing" arrogance demonstrated above that have brought us to this state of affairs.

BTW, Hoo, here's something that a lot of really intelligent people are still working on that has real-world applications. I am sure that you can provide a substantive opinion with your proven great intellect.

Which of the many currently devised methods of data-to-analog modulations is likely to be most effective for relatively high-speed data transfer over the HF radio band? (of course, the reverse on the receiving end is important too. ) Simple text, graphics and video. And for most reliable consistent transmission and reception, multiplexing on 4, 6 or 8 simultaneous frequencies?

I know that LF and VLF are cool because components are bigger than a lot of people, but the sheer power needed (and speed) are non-starters. VHF and UHF are great - for site to site things that aren't too far "on the ground" from each other. They tend to attenuate rather quickly too. But HF works consistently, especially with SSB, for very long distances. Heck, it was our only link to the world's most northern inhabited community when satellite failed. And didn't need 2 or 3 satellite relays to get through.

I know that old school radio transmission seems silly, but it is one means of propagation that will always get through. Whereas satellite is not only costly as hell, but can drop out due to planetary or solar conditions.

I like that - "GIVEN complete ignorance of the possible consequences of a vote to leave, the only responsible vote was Remain"

It seems to be the reasoning in a lot of elections. I cannot guess what any candidate or party could or might do, but the current package hasn't destroyed us yet. So vote for who-ever has been doing it most recently.

Is this a site upgrade. I never knew that posts could show up in different colours. Or is it just me that can see them?

"I am sure that you can provide a substantive opinion with your proven great intellect."

Are you paying ANY attention at all? Because this seems a deeply stupid question, in the context of this thread. You *know* I can't provide a substantive opinion. You know further that I lack the arrogance of ignorance to attempt to bluff an answer, or to pretend I can. I don't know, and I'm comfortable admitting that. Which was my entire point. Happy now?

"I cannot guess what any candidate or party could or might do"

Category error fail - you again betray ignorance of what this is about.

This wasn't an election. There were no manifestos. There were no parties. There were no policy statements. There were no *policies*.

In an election you *can* look at the card and say "Well, the lefties will likely raise my tax and fund the local hospital and school better, while the righties will cut my tax bill and let the school and hospital rot. That's what they've always done before, that's what their manifesto says this time, that's what those types of political parties are FOR."

Put simply - you absolutely CAN guess, with some degree of accuracy, what any candidate or party might do, because that's the whole point of a party - they stand for broadly predictable stuff. You might not be able to guess the *details*, but broadly you can rely on lefties to promote tax & spend, and the righties to promote lightly regulated private enterprise.

But in this case the choice was "Business as usual or... something else." Some of those proposing Leave put forward some policies - e.g. £350m a week extra to be spent on the NHS - but those were IMMEDIATELY and repeatedly demonstrated to be outright lies, and the Leave camp started disowning them before they'd finished counting the votes.

We were given a simple binary choice between not doing anything, and doing something which NOBODY could predict the result of. NOBODY had any clue how difficult it would be to do, how potentially damaging (or beneficial) it might be, or what it would cost. Nobody. This isn't my opinion, it's a fact you can verify by reading any newspaper.

Well, that was all fun, but the day beckons - a few hundred lives to affect today.

Here's something to parse and find many depths of error with. "The sky appears blue today". Go.

Getting back to the original topic heading, here is a website that tells how many more years of life a person can expect, on average:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2015-09-23

Even if you are in your 90s, you may still have a few years remaining (again, on average).

Two years after the Brexit vote, there might still be a lot of "Leave" voters still alive. How many? I would hesitate to guess, and prefer to leave the matter to those who wish to put in the time to figure it out.

"Two years after the Brexit vote, there might still be a lot of "Leave" voters still alive"

Well yes, obviously, it's only been a couple of years. My point was that statistically MORE of them will be dead than Remain voters, and at some point Remainers will outnumber them EVEN IF you assume that nobody changes their mind and even if you assume that the incoming cohort of younger people votes Leave in the same proportion. Demographically, sooner or later, Remain voters will outnumber the Leavers. I'm just interested to know whether that time has passed, is imminent, or in the far future.

Here's an actuarial website that tells you what the odds are of dying in the next year if you are ____ years old:
http://www.finder.com/life-insurance/odds-of-dying

If you are 71, your odds of dying are 2.55%, which exceeds the margin by which Leavers beat Remainers. Over two years, the odds would exceed 5%, so if the mean age of the Leavers was 71, only 95% of them would still be alive.

But I don't know the mean age.

"your odds of dying are 2.55%, which exceeds the margin by which Leavers beat Remainers"

I don't think the sums are that simple... If I've got some spare time, though, that's an excellent resource. Thanks!

Following the KISS principle, I look at 2 internet sources.

The one referred to by Paul, based solely on age, sets my odds of surviving one more year at 5.96%

One that deals with the mortality rates of congestive heart failure due to dilated cardiomyopathy, 50% will be dead within 2 years, while as much as 25% may exceed 5 years. I measure in around the 4.5 year mark. Very rough numbers - only looking at a linear scale as there are no others offered - would suggest that I have around a 21% chance of seeing my next birthday.

Put that damaged 21% against a simple "normal" of 5.96% - - - I have a fair 1.25% chance of seeing the age of 60.

* this all ignores general body abuse from being a farm kid, an assistant to a plumber in farm country (Canada), very physically involved in military needs for 37 years, and exposures to asbestos, PCBs, and a couple of toxic fires. Not to mention 47 years of smoking and a liking of brandy and Scotch whiskey.

You are in fact following the KICK principle (Keep It Complicated, Kokwomble).

KISS would suggest going entirely on the age-related figure, since this is the only one you're going to be able to generalise across a population. At the risk of repeating myself - none of this is personal, it's about the population figures and statistical demographics. Anyone taking it personally has misunderstood.