Political Ramifications of the IQ Distribution

[rousseau]

For a second, let's assume that human IQ distribution is equal amongst all groups in the world. That's not what this thread is about, so please don't
debate this. But under that assumption, let's do some analysis of what the human IQ distribution means for our political systems.

Let's also set aside the fact that IQ paints an incomplete picture of human intelligence. Let's assume that IQ represents the human ability to understand and solve problems.

For reference, this is the IQ distribution, after a quick pull from Google:

In this chart nearly 70% of peope fall within 15 points of the 100 point range. Analysis calls this 'average intelligence'. Based on evolutionary biology
I'll assume that this is the range of intelligence which allows people to most effectively produce and raise children. These people aren't so dumb
that they can't find a mate or raise a child, but they aren't so intelligent that they're likely to recognize objective meaninglessness, or be overly neurotic. They're just stable, average people, who largely conform to the society of their day, and live normal lives.

This means that about 70 out of every 100 people is of 'average' intelligence, with about 35 of those people being slightly below average. On each side
of this hump, there are 15% of people who are well below and well above average. Negating the lower 15% of the ability to affect change, that leaves roughly about 1 in 2 people who are above average in problem solving ability, 1 in 10 who might reach the level of systems thinking, and maybe 1 in 100 who would be considered non-conforming geniuses.

Impact on Leadership

I'm going to take a bit of creative license here and do some theorizing without direct evidence, but bear with me. In terms of political leadership
one of the main facets of our current systems is the necessity of being likeable to the masses to reach a position of power. Here, I'd argue
that it's actually people in the 'average' range of intelligence who most easily conform to this image. This would mean that people of higher than
average intelligence are actually filtered out even moreso from leadership, with this likely being even greater on the far end of the spectrum. So the first ramifications are:

1) People of above average problem solving skill are less likely to reach positions of political power. First due to pure probability, and second because politics is largely confined to a very specific skill-set that often excludes system thinkers.

and in consequence:

2) Fewer effective problem solvers are actually in charge of solving political problems, and so serious problems are met with ineffective solutions.

Impact on the Electorate

And more obviously, because 1 out of 2 people is below average intelligence, and very few are systems thinkers, people who actually understand
systems of the world are extremely rare. I'd argue the ramification of this is:

3) The idea of modern democracy where all men are created equal, and are actually able to make effective political decisions for themselves is false, and is actually a hindrance to political progress. Leaving political decisions open to public opinion can cause just as many problems as it solves.

 

[barbos]

Too late, imbecile is going to be sworn in in January.
I agree with you theory, in fact I had thought about it myself a lot. In terms of IQ people tend to like people of similar IQ.

 

[fromderinside]

So even though one is successful and manages to find ways to defeat others more experienced and seemingly brighter, you cling to your bromide that sames attract. Interesting and very wrong. We don't want to share a beer, we want to be led so we choose those who seem to be able to do that. IQ has little to do with it beyond its almost never someone who can't handle language and social performance.

 

[EricK]

Too late, imbecile is going to be sworn in in January.
I agree with you theory, in fact I had thought about it myself a lot. In terms of IQ people tend to like people of similar IQ.

Well, that at least would explain why I don't like anybody.

 

[barbos]

So even though one is successful and manages to find ways to defeat others more experienced and seemingly brighter, you cling to your bromide that sames attract. Interesting and very wrong. We don't want to share a beer, we want to be led so we choose those who seem to be able to do that. IQ has little to do with it beyond its almost never someone who can't handle language and social performance.

So you voted for Trump

 

[untermensche]

American political success has no connection to IQ scores.

You can get people with high IQ scores, average IQ scores, and your Reagan's, way below average.

But Reagan had other skills.

He made people believe they would be better off if only the rich could be richer.

 

[fast]

In terms of political leadership, one of the main facets of our current systems is the necessity of being likeable to the masses to reach a position of power. Here, I'd argue that it's actually people in the 'average' range of intelligence who most easily conform to this image. This would mean that people of higher than average intelligence are actually filtered out even moreso from leadership, with this likely being even greater on the far end of the spectrum.

I know this isn't the take a swig and pass it around thread (which might be where I should be), but I find it oh so fascinating that people are always a bit kinder to successful thieves. When one is of mere average intelligence and can see through the cow dung of his local fly by night manipulator that knows that perception and image is important, we oughtn't regard such a manipulator as being particularly successful at wielding the tricks of his failing trade. Like the thief that is not even suspected as one and thus not charged as one and thus not convicted as one has successfully (and oh so dandily) outwitted, thus far, the masses--and we all think (well, most of us) that there is no reason (such a quaint term) to think more negatively of the masterful criminal in our midst.

No reason my ass. Perception and image is important, and from a shiny ballroom dance to a gunfight in the hood to a hillbilly square dance to lovers lane to race car driver to business meeting the adaptable one can go, but don't give great credit to the smooth operators among us. Grand credit goes to the SHREWD operator who has honed the appropriate (yet quite often very unpopular) skills without barely a notice.

A person that you might not otherwise like can successfully (oh so very much successfully) leave you in utter jaw dropping awe if the wool was pulled back and you saw in ever so clear detail ... and so I argue that those of average intelligence will undoubtedly find themselves liking those that choose to use their skills to garner likability, and I would think such skills would be more prevalent among the smarter and craftier.

 

[beero1000]

For a second, let's assume that human IQ distribution is equal amongst all groups in the world. That's not what this thread is about, so please don't
debate this. But under that assumption, let's do some analysis of what the human IQ distribution means for our political systems.

Let's also set aside the fact that IQ paints an incomplete picture of human intelligence. Let's assume that IQ represents the human ability to understand and solve problems.

For reference, this is the IQ distribution, after a quick pull from Google:

In this chart nearly 70% of peope fall within 15 points of the 100 point range. Analysis calls this 'average intelligence'. Based on evolutionary biology
I'll assume that this is the range of intelligence which allows people to most effectively produce and raise children. These people aren't so dumb
that they can't find a mate or raise a child, but they aren't so intelligent that they're likely to recognize objective meaninglessness, or be overly neurotic. They're just stable, average people, who largely conform to the society of their day, and live normal lives.

This means that about 70 out of every 100 people is of 'average' intelligence, with about 35 of those people being slightly below average. On each side
of this hump, there are 15% of people who are well below and well above average. Negating the lower 15% of the ability to affect change, that leaves roughly about 1 in 2 people who are above average in problem solving ability, 1 in 10 who might reach the level of systems thinking, and maybe 1 in 100 who would be considered non-conforming geniuses.

Impact on Leadership

I'm going to take a bit of creative license here and do some theorizing without direct evidence, but bear with me. In terms of political leadership
one of the main facets of our current systems is the necessity of being likeable to the masses to reach a position of power. Here, I'd argue
that it's actually people in the 'average' range of intelligence who most easily conform to this image. This would mean that people of higher than
average intelligence are actually filtered out even moreso from leadership, with this likely being even greater on the far end of the spectrum. So the first ramifications are:

1) People of above average problem solving skill are less likely to reach positions of political power. First due to pure probability, and second because politics is largely confined to a very specific skill-set that often excludes system thinkers.

and in consequence:

2) Fewer effective problem solvers are actually in charge of solving political problems, and so serious problems are met with ineffective solutions.

Impact on the Electorate

And more obviously, because 1 out of 2 people is below average intelligence, and very few are systems thinkers, people who actually understand
systems of the world are extremely rare. I'd argue the ramification of this is:

3) The idea of modern democracy where all men are created equal, and are actually able to make effective political decisions for themselves is false, and is actually a hindrance to political progress. Leaving political decisions open to public opinion can cause just as many problems as it solves.

I don't think your claims are supported by the evidence. It definitely appears that people of above average intelligence are over-represented, at least at the very top of the political system. You might be right at smaller, municipal/state levels.

At the very least, there is clear selection bias towards professional degrees at prestigious institutions. In the US system, of 541 elected officials in the current Congress, 64% of House members and 74% of Senators hold educational degrees beyond a bachelors degree, compared to about 10% of the general population. These are mostly MBAs, JDs, MDs, and PhDs.

Now, getting degrees doesn't necessarily mean they're smart but trying to argue that politicians are stupid or even average (as a group) is probably going to be a pretty steep hill to climb. That's not to say that they can't be wrong, or there aren't dumb ones out there, but they're probably smarter, as a group, than most other professions.

 

[rousseau]

For a second, let's assume that human IQ distribution is equal amongst all groups in the world. That's not what this thread is about, so please don't
debate this. But under that assumption, let's do some analysis of what the human IQ distribution means for our political systems.

Let's also set aside the fact that IQ paints an incomplete picture of human intelligence. Let's assume that IQ represents the human ability to understand and solve problems.

For reference, this is the IQ distribution, after a quick pull from Google:

In this chart nearly 70% of peope fall within 15 points of the 100 point range. Analysis calls this 'average intelligence'. Based on evolutionary biology
I'll assume that this is the range of intelligence which allows people to most effectively produce and raise children. These people aren't so dumb
that they can't find a mate or raise a child, but they aren't so intelligent that they're likely to recognize objective meaninglessness, or be overly neurotic. They're just stable, average people, who largely conform to the society of their day, and live normal lives.

This means that about 70 out of every 100 people is of 'average' intelligence, with about 35 of those people being slightly below average. On each side
of this hump, there are 15% of people who are well below and well above average. Negating the lower 15% of the ability to affect change, that leaves roughly about 1 in 2 people who are above average in problem solving ability, 1 in 10 who might reach the level of systems thinking, and maybe 1 in 100 who would be considered non-conforming geniuses.

Impact on Leadership

I'm going to take a bit of creative license here and do some theorizing without direct evidence, but bear with me. In terms of political leadership
one of the main facets of our current systems is the necessity of being likeable to the masses to reach a position of power. Here, I'd argue
that it's actually people in the 'average' range of intelligence who most easily conform to this image. This would mean that people of higher than
average intelligence are actually filtered out even moreso from leadership, with this likely being even greater on the far end of the spectrum. So the first ramifications are:

1) People of above average problem solving skill are less likely to reach positions of political power. First due to pure probability, and second because politics is largely confined to a very specific skill-set that often excludes system thinkers.

and in consequence:

2) Fewer effective problem solvers are actually in charge of solving political problems, and so serious problems are met with ineffective solutions.

Impact on the Electorate

And more obviously, because 1 out of 2 people is below average intelligence, and very few are systems thinkers, people who actually understand
systems of the world are extremely rare. I'd argue the ramification of this is:

3) The idea of modern democracy where all men are created equal, and are actually able to make effective political decisions for themselves is false, and is actually a hindrance to political progress. Leaving political decisions open to public opinion can cause just as many problems as it solves.

I don't think your claims are supported by the evidence. It definitely appears that people of above average intelligence are over-represented, at least at the very top of the political system. You might be right at smaller, municipal/state levels.

At the very least, there is clear selection bias towards professional degrees at prestigious institutions. In the US system, of 541 elected officials in the current Congress, 64% of House members and 74% of Senators hold educational degrees beyond a bachelors degree, compared to about 10% of the general population. These are mostly MBAs, JDs, MDs, and PhDs.

Now, getting degrees doesn't necessarily mean they're smart but trying to argue that politicians are stupid or even average (as a group) is probably going to be a pretty steep hill to climb. That's not to say that they can't be wrong, or there aren't dumb ones out there, but they're probably smarter, as a group, than most other professions.

Most of it coming from me is intuition. Would be useful to see the data.

 

[barbos]

Above average IQ is not that much. 105 is above average. I am talking about well above average - more than 130-140. IQ in that range is detrimental to social skills which are required by democratic process. And you should not not equate degrees with IQ. There are PhDs with IQ below 120, I mean sociology degree and other similar fields. And democratic process may bias toward average (for politician) IQ effectively selecting low IQ PhDs.
Mediocre majority does not really like outstanding minority.
In any case, not enough IQ in the congress is not really a problem, problem is not enough IQ in electorate, which elects assholes.

 

[Speakpigeon]

For a second, let's assume that human IQ distribution is equal amongst all groups in the world. That's not what this thread is about, so please don't
debate this. But under that assumption, let's do some analysis of what the human IQ distribution means for our political systems.

Let's also set aside the fact that IQ paints an incomplete picture of human intelligence. Let's assume that IQ represents the human ability to understand and solve problems.

For reference, this is the IQ distribution, after a quick pull from Google:

In this chart nearly 70% of peope fall within 15 points of the 100 point range. Analysis calls this 'average intelligence'. Based on evolutionary biology
I'll assume that this is the range of intelligence which allows people to most effectively produce and raise children. These people aren't so dumb
that they can't find a mate or raise a child, but they aren't so intelligent that they're likely to recognize objective meaninglessness, or be overly neurotic. They're just stable, average people, who largely conform to the society of their day, and live normal lives.

This means that about 70 out of every 100 people is of 'average' intelligence, with about 35 of those people being slightly below average. On each side
of this hump, there are 15% of people who are well below and well above average. Negating the lower 15% of the ability to affect change, that leaves roughly about 1 in 2 people who are above average in problem solving ability, 1 in 10 who might reach the level of systems thinking, and maybe 1 in 100 who would be considered non-conforming geniuses.

Impact on Leadership

I'm going to take a bit of creative license here and do some theorizing without direct evidence, but bear with me. In terms of political leadership
one of the main facets of our current systems is the necessity of being likeable to the masses to reach a position of power. Here, I'd argue
that it's actually people in the 'average' range of intelligence who most easily conform to this image. This would mean that people of higher than
average intelligence are actually filtered out even moreso from leadership, with this likely being even greater on the far end of the spectrum. So the first ramifications are:

1) People of above average problem solving skill are less likely to reach positions of political power. First due to pure probability, and second because politics is largely confined to a very specific skill-set that often excludes system thinkers.

and in consequence:

2) Fewer effective problem solvers are actually in charge of solving political problems, and so serious problems are met with ineffective solutions.

Impact on the Electorate

And more obviously, because 1 out of 2 people is below average intelligence, and very few are systems thinkers, people who actually understand
systems of the world are extremely rare. I'd argue the ramification of this is:

3) The idea of modern democracy where all men are created equal, and are actually able to make effective political decisions for themselves is false, and is actually a hindrance to political progress. Leaving political decisions open to public opinion can cause just as many problems as it solves.

I think democratic systems have been designed so that there's a bias in favour of political organisation (not necessarily "parties"). This appears particularly true in the U.S. where the President, the so-called "most powerful person on Earth", has apparently less powers than people tend to believe. Even in France where the President is effectively elected by the People, much of the political power is in the hands of political organisations. In the U.S., it is an electoral college that effectively designate the President. And whatever the President still insisted on doing against Congress during a four-year term and at most eight-year term can be undone by his successors.

The point is that this makes the IQ of the President somewhat irrelevant. What really counts is whether he, or she, will nest successfully within some political organisation's nest. The President does appoints his personel but he doesn't have much choice. And even them will have to work within an administration which has to be made of people that are in effect already there. It's the system. Trump isn't derogating. His choices may make you furious but these people have effectively been around for quite a while and are not all idiots. It's a system and Trump isn't derogating in selecting his people from the pre-existing rooster. So, no surprise, he is not draining the swamp at all. The system is also pyramidal and in big countries it employs many many people and not all can have high IQs. So the bias has to be in favour of people who can get along without being total idiots, rather than high-IQs divas. The problem may be more dishonesty than low IQ. G. W. Bush's Neo-cons couldn't be said to be idiots. More likely they were essentially dishonest, and that's the reason for the outcome of his presidency. Democracies are more like hives and swarms than other systems. Political power is essentially issued from society. IQ is largely irrelevant.

Which would explain a lot of what need to be explained about Obama's presidency I think.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So even though one is successful and manages to find ways to defeat others more experienced and seemingly brighter, you cling to your bromide that sames attract. Interesting and very wrong. We don't want to share a beer, we want to be led so we choose those who seem to be able to do that. IQ has little to do with it beyond its almost never someone who can't handle language and social performance.

So you voted for Trump

Given you answer I'm confident one of us did.

 

[fromderinside]

Above average IQ is not that much. 105 is above average. I am talking about well above average - more than 130-140. IQ in that range is detrimental to social skills which are required by democratic process. And you should not not equate degrees with IQ. There are PhDs with IQ below 120, I mean sociology degree and other similar fields. And democratic process may bias toward average (for politician) IQ effectively selecting low IQ PhDs.
Mediocre majority does not really like outstanding minority.
In any case, not enough IQ in the congress is not really a problem, problem is not enough IQ in electorate, which elects assholes.

I'm really not picking on you barbos. You just put all the BS in a nice neat little package. A president is elected based on customs and feelings mostly. This year was a change year after 8 years of democrats in the WH. As for feelings they were trending toward democrats as the economy was recognizably getting better. What Trump captured is the nostalgia vote. Its probably why he chose to become a republican since that is the party of the old fart. We failed to retool in the fifties after the war and we failed again in the seventies. As a result others became better at we'd been best at. We didn't send jobs oversees we lost them to emerging markets and more efficient systems.

Baseline

Trump chose to exploit feelings of loss by the masses of whites and the feelings of uncertainty in the aged. That he succeeded is evident in the vote count. Mostly Hillary got her vote out. Its just that trump benefited from a change election and by bringing people out of the woodwork feeling nostalgic and vengeful.

As a governing metric IQ rates right up there with the number of raisins one has in his home. Since lower income correlates with lower IQ one can argue, falsely, that IQ is related to for whom one votes. One will also find that raisins in household correlate with lower IQ. They're cheap damnit.

 

[barbos]

So you voted for Trump

Given you answer I'm confident one of us did.

Given your answer and the fact that I could not even if I wanted to vote for Trump I conclude you voted for Trump.

 

[Tigers!]

One will also find that raisins in household correlate with lower IQ. They're cheap damnit.

I love raisins and my IQ is wonderfully high. Be careful of your correlation. Cheap, yes and tasty.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Let's assume that IQ represents the human ability to understand and solve problems.

Which is false. So the rest becomes an excercise in hypotheticals.

IQ tests measure the ability to solve IQ tests, only. I've had my intelligence tested in all manner of ways. I have a very high IQ, but tend to come out somewhere in the middle of the field compared to other engineers when doing more concrete problem solving tests.

I scored the same on IQ as my sister. And she was a fucking genius. One of the smartest people I've ever met.

 

[untermensche]

And the more exposure one has to kinds of thinking tested on IQ tests also raises one's score. Especially at a very early age.

IQ tests look mainly at early exposures to modes of thinking. Exposure those raised in poverty in US slums do not usually get. Some also look at visual imagination skills.

They do not look in any way at real world skills, like the ability to lead or get along with others or emotional stability.

 

[fromderinside]

I love raisins and my IQ is wonderfully high. Be careful of your correlation. Cheap, yes and tasty.

Isn't self testimony a bit like Trump saying " I heard......" followed by something bigly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is it fair to say that we've entered into idiocracy when an political candidate uses the word "bigly" in a sentence and still gets elected?

 

[Tigers!]

Is it fair to say that we've entered into idiocracy when an political candidate uses the word "bigly" in a sentence and still gets elected?

Kevin Rudd spoke in such a way that no-one could understand him and still got elected as Australian PM.

- - - Updated - - -

I love raisins and my IQ is wonderfully high. Be careful of your correlation. Cheap, yes and tasty.

Isn't self testimony a bit like Trump saying " I heard......" followed by something bigly.

Self-testimony is always sincere.