DrZoidberg
Contributor
I read this as an affirmation.
-
Features
Political Ramifications of the IQ Distribution
- Thread starter rousseau
- Start date
I read this as an affirmation.
ronburgundy
Contributor
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 evolutionary speculation is highly problematic. It is critical to keep in mind that an IQ score of 100 (and thus of score within 15 points of 100) does not correspond to any objective level of intelligence, but rather is a purely relative number. The average is set at 100, so if the average level of intellect in objective terms of thinking abilities changes over time (and it does), the the score of 100 and the range around it change in what objective level of intellect they refer to.
Also, in modern societies where most of the hard intellectual work of figuring out how to create food and shelter in variable and harsh environments is done by a tiny % of humans, with the rest just having to show up and largely have it handed to them often for free, but at most in exchange for doing other things requiring less intellect.
Spawning kids takes very little intellect, and in fact far less intellect than preventing yourself from spawning them, and intelligent people often use their intellect to intentionally limit their reproduction.
These realities combine to mean that there is no reason to think that an IQ score of 100 is in any way what is optimal for anything, and whatever it does reflect changes over time.
As for political progress, it depends as much on ethics that have nothing to do with intelligence as it does on having the intellect to figure out how to achieve what is ethically in the interests of the populace. The notion of "all men are created equal" never was intended to imply equality in abilities, but rather equality in their rights and their ethical value, such that their goals and interests must be equally part of any collective/governmental goals and policies, and thus they must have a voice in what those governmental goals are. That doesn't mean they have a direct say in how those goals are achieved, which they don't under our representative democracy.
That said, yes, stupid people voting is a threat to progress, because they are more easily mislead about what the threats are, what the goals should be, and what policies can best achieve them. There is only one argument on any issue that is THE most rational, fact based, and coherent with shared ethical stances. There are countless arguments that can have more emotional sway or appeal, despite being counter to a voters interests.Intellect allows for better recognition of which argument is which. Thus, lack of intellect (or more often failure to apply one's intellect) creates a disconnect between how a person votes and what their interest are, which then transforms democracy into a positive consideration of all people's interest into a negative impact of irrational and dishonest arguments that undermine actual shared interests.
I disagree. While I'm not going to pretend like my original hypothesis is bulletproof, IQ should have some correlation with problem solving ability. By definition, an IQ test is a series of problems to be solved. Controlling for the environmental variability that can occur, someone with strong problem solving skills is more likely to score higher than lower on an IQ test.
And if you test a large set of randomized people, the environmental variability should nullify itself out, which will give you a moderately strong signal of how likely any given person is to be able to work logically through a problem.
There's all that, and that anecdotal evidence bears this out, such as Donald Trump being president of a major world power. If the IQ distribution proved that the majority of people were capable of rational thought, there's no way that would happen.
IQ is one of the most reliable aspects of psychology. I mean, it's not to say you can't find a doctor with an IQ less than 100; but if you do, well, best hope your life isn't on the line.
Elixir
Made in America
beero1000
Veteran Member
They were too irrational to be included.
IQ is one of the most reliable aspects of psychology. I mean, it's not to say you can't find a doctor with an IQ less than 100; but if you do, well, best hope your life isn't on the line.
It sucks, but there's the crux of it.
When defining a project in industry, in whatever field, one of the most important aspects of solving your problem, is knowing what the problem actually is. Unfortunately, with the way the world works, you can't tell half the population that they really don't know what's best for themselves.
Maybe ^^^ that's the problem that needs to be got around to improve democracy.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
If IQ has a correlation with problem solving ability then it shouldn't be a problem for you to produce a study that supports it? The reason we don't have them hasn't been for lack of trying. We're not sure what IQ measures. Right from the start, when IQ was invented, (by Alfred Binet) wishful thinkers have wanted to use it to prove intelligence. But it was always bullshit. While he was alive Binet was successful in explaining that the test wouldn't and couldn't measure intelligence in adults. After his death the wishful thinkers took over.
I think the main problem with IQ as a measure of human intelligence is that we're a social species. We haven't evolved to solve problems alone. We've evolved to solve problems in groups. A huge part of our brains is specialized to only focus on juggling social interactions. We've evolved to stand on the shoulders of giants. That would require a completely different type of intelligence test. It would also require a type of intelligence test that would be hard, if not impossible to design. Problem solving is about novelty and thinking in new ways. It's about association. It's highly context dependent. Good luck designing a test like that that is translatable across groups and time. If results aren't replicatable then it's not a reliable test.
Underseer
Contributor
I have to disagree.
Our current problems are the result of very specific and coordinated attacks on public discourse. Inject enough lies into the public discourse, and people will inevitably make more bad decisions. After all, information is the raw material out of which decisions are made.
Rich people and large corporations spent billions constructing a massive propaganda machine that objects an enormous number of lies into the public. Worse, the nature of the propaganda inoculated their victims to the truth.
Radicalized evangelicals spent billions constructing their own propaganda machine which has now to a large degree merged with the corporatist conservative propaganda machine. Slightly different lies, slightly different rhetoric, same effect: a large number of lies deliberately injected into the national discourse.
I think where we feel down was failing to build a wall separating boardroom and state while allowing the wall between church and state to crumble. Fix that, and I think we can get back on track. For all America's flaws, we have been lumbering slowly towards greater justice and less suffering. The progress may come on fits and starts, but progress is happening. Now is not time to give up.
Besides, what other system do you think is going to produce more progress? A communist technocracy? The Soviets believed that environmentalism was a capitalist plot and wouldn't allow Soviet soldiers of Asian descent to have live ammunition. They were hardly a model of progress. What else is there, bring back the nobility? Return to a feudal society? That's not going to make things more progressive. Some of the roots of modern racism originated in a Europe dominated by the nobility (such as from providing justification for colonialism).
Our current problems are the result of very specific and coordinated attacks on public discourse. Inject enough lies into the public discourse, and people will inevitably make more bad decisions. After all, information is the raw material out of which decisions are made.
Rich people and large corporations spent billions constructing a massive propaganda machine that objects an enormous number of lies into the public. Worse, the nature of the propaganda inoculated their victims to the truth.
Radicalized evangelicals spent billions constructing their own propaganda machine which has now to a large degree merged with the corporatist conservative propaganda machine. Slightly different lies, slightly different rhetoric, same effect: a large number of lies deliberately injected into the national discourse.
I think where we feel down was failing to build a wall separating boardroom and state while allowing the wall between church and state to crumble. Fix that, and I think we can get back on track. For all America's flaws, we have been lumbering slowly towards greater justice and less suffering. The progress may come on fits and starts, but progress is happening. Now is not time to give up.
Besides, what other system do you think is going to produce more progress? A communist technocracy? The Soviets believed that environmentalism was a capitalist plot and wouldn't allow Soviet soldiers of Asian descent to have live ammunition. They were hardly a model of progress. What else is there, bring back the nobility? Return to a feudal society? That's not going to make things more progressive. Some of the roots of modern racism originated in a Europe dominated by the nobility (such as from providing justification for colonialism).
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
I heard Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million.
Let's repeat that every now and then.
EB
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
2.1 million and still counting ....
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
This is done on a state by state basis. In the UK it's on a first past the post. Perhaps proportional representation could be introduced to the USA but this is likely to push votes to smaller parties yet this works well in Europe.
Meanwhile there's not much that can be done unless there are changes before the next election.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
This would explain why opinion polls got it so seriously wrong this time. Too many unsupported assumptions.
EB
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
They're too smart to let themselves be charted by a bunch of morrons.
EB
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Exactly.
EB
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
The point is that there's no good reason at all for a presidential election to not reflect the democratic vote to the last digit.
Similarly, for parliamentary elections, there should be no possibility at all that a minority in the country could get a majority in parliament.
EB
I admit this in the original post.
Let me ask you this then: what, if anything, do you think the repetitive findings of the IQ distribution does tell us about human populations?
If you administer a consistent test, and get consistent results, the results can't be completely arbitrary and meaningless.
I think you touch on a relevant point. I think it's just as relevant how susceptible the average human being is to lies and illusion, so the importance of socially conscious discourse given people are easily tricked is even greater. Unfortunately, that's not what we saw this election cycle, as you say.