Ultimately, however, leftism is an intellectual position. It’s typically held by people who are either well-read, or at minimum understanding of the concept of fairness for all people (which requires abstract thinking and a good theory of mind). Very few people believe in leftism due to stupidity. That’s why it’s in Republicans’ best interest to keep people stupid.
Increasing intelligence of the general population would be a basal necessity for changing the economic system.
IQ is not a proxy for education, though. Raising intelligence without changing education wouldn’t accomplish much. People are kept stupid by means of propaganda, regardless of their intellectual ability.
I think as it is now leftism is an intellectual position, but historically I don’t think that’s always been true, when leftist movements saw more broad popular appeal like during labor organizing there were definitely dumb leftists.
The reason it’s in Republicans best interest to keep people stupid is that stupid people are much easier to propagandize to. Analyzing the information you’re receiving helps make you less likely to fall for blatant lies. (Leftists know we need better propaganda, but it’s also deeply cynical to think we need it.)
The reason it’s in
Republicansthe duopoly’s best interest to keep people stupid is that stupid people are much easier to propagandize to.FTFY
I don’t see why that would help. But if everyone’s empathy increased by 50% of the average amount of empathy, that might help. (Not that it is measurable, but this is obviously fantasy)
Probably not. Conflict doesn’t arise because people don’t have the right ideas, more so conflict is the result of material conditions and processes. The battle for resources, the right to surplus extraction, class struggle, imperialism, all of these result from the evolution of class society, and not because of intelligence.
Wouldn’t intelligence also be a material condition? How your brain is wired plays a significant role in how it interacts with the environment, so if humans evolved with a more intelligent brain it would significantly alter our trajectory from early civilisations, no? Would probably also kick off civilisations much earlier.
It would likely make a difference, but probably wouldn’t reduce conflict by much. Capitalism doesn’t exist because humans are evil, or unintelligent, for example.
Realistically, the world is too complex and too large to even remotely be able to predict the outcome of making everyone 50% smarter.
My best guess though is that it wouldn’t change much. If everyone is smarter, no one is smarter. High intelligence doesn’t automatically mean Mr. Spock. I used to be involved with Mensa and many of the people I met were nuts, lacked critical thinking skills, or were so full of themselves for testing well they were blind to external information. I myself am highly intelligent on paper, but if you looked at my life you would see a lifelong series of dumb choices and in many cases choosing the worst possible option even knowing it was.
What I mean is being smart isn’t as valuable a skill to have as one might think. Especially at the top end of intelligence, smarter basically equates to faster at solving problems. Raw processing power does play into it for sure but the difference between someone with an IQ of 130 and an IQ of 160 is how fast they finished the test.
The best way to make the world a better place would be to teach everyone critical thinking and emotional intelligence skills.
As an estimate, how many problems in your life do you think can be attributed to people thinking the wrong thing or being confidentially incorrect in general?
I agree with emotional intelligence being important, I think IQ and EQ should be consolidated as one because recognizing patterns in behaviour on paper isn’t that much different than recognizing patterns in shapes/numbers
I’d say less than 10%? The vast majority of my problems result from my own irrational actions and poor choices. I’ve had problematic idiots in professional and social settings but again the main issue in those cases are largely because I cannot stand willfully ignorant people. If I were more chill about morons, it’d be 0%. But that’s just me personally and I’m usually an outlier.
This is kind of a hot take, but I don’t think we should try to measure and assess IQ and EQ at all. The IQ test in use today tests very specific, very narrow types of intelligence and is not a meaningful measure. In a practical sense intelligence is mostly a matter of speed. Someone with a low or average IQ can solve any problem a high IQ person could, it would just take longer. At every step of thier journey a low IQ person spends more time. Learning the requisite knowledge, understanding the concepts, breaking down the problem, and crafting a solution. Most folks in that situation opt not to continue at some point along the way, but they would eventually get there with enough time and knowledge.
With EQ that’s learned behavior. Some people have a natural knack for it, but outside some types of mental illness, emotional intelligence can be taught.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
No chance. Have you seen what grad students and research professors are like at top universities? Especially during grant proposals? Competitive doesn’t begin to describe it. Cutthroat barely does.
Would they use violence though? We might still be better off with the paper conflicts that these people have with each other 🤔
Would they resort to violent conflict though? The question was violence, not competition at others’ cost
Personally I don’t think intelligence is the solution, it would justake conflict more complex and thought out. You would need more empathy for a better world.
Exactly. There are lots of smart people making bombs.
Absolutely not, some of the smartest people I’ve ever met have zero emotional intelligence. You can be incredibly accomplished academically and still be totally unable to work productively with others. A lot of these people lean towards aspie/AuDHD supremacy as well funnily enough - they think everyone else is just far too irrational to agree with their horrendously undeveloped philosophies.
I think the world would have less conflict if the average “emotional intelligence” went up 50%
No, there would be less conflict in the world if we were to cure people from psychopathy, sociopathy, narcissism, racism and other ails that lead to destructive selfishness.
Intelligence isn’t really one thing, so you have to be more specific.
Intelligence, no. We need empthy, self-love, unity.
I can see both sides. Smarter people would make the pie bigger. But a flat %increase would make the absolute intelligence gap even wider, which is what I think is the more relevant metric. Evil spirited smart people would manipulate stupid people even harder and that benevolent smart people may not do much to stop it.
Would the world be better? Maybe. Would the world have less conflict? I bet not.
Well, if we look around today, some of the best minds in world are busy making people click on ads
I remember 20y ago thinking the internet was creating a sort of intellectual “travelator”, where some people would get on and be launched far ahead of the rest. The result would be a huge division in intelligence across society, which would lead to a feeling of disenfranchisement and civil unrest.
So no, if everyone’s intelligence went up by 50% of their own intelligence, you’d just have more of the same problem.
I believe public education is vital, but we didn’t place enough emphasis on the importance of uniform funding across districts and states, rather than having “good schools” and “bad schools”.
No, we would just use it for better confict
No, the conflicts would simply be more damaging.
Humans, regardless of intelligence, are destructive. More intelligence just means more destruction.
We are the Fermi paradox made flesh.
points at everything humans have built look at everything humans have destroyed
I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the collapse of the AMOC.
For the ten millionth time, its capitalism
And humans built it.
“Humans” can be violent, short sighted and ignorant when people stop thinking critically and start applying dumb, impractical abstractions to complex and ever-changing objective reality – and then stubbornly pretend like the dumb abstraction is objective truth.
On a thread about being more intelligent to prevent human suffering, don’t be on the side of stupidity and suffering by pretending that a deeply contradictory social order that directs all human activity toward the production of war and human suffering, is the only social order humans have ever been capable of producing, let alone, will ever produce.
You’re entitled to be a misanthrope and hate humanity, but entitlements granted by capitalism on one side, are paid for with victimization on the other side. Being on the side of the victims, but receiving entitlements (often unintentionally) means that the victimized class both hates them self for their even involuntary role in in the victimize/entitlement social relation, but also unable to imagine anything different.
Ultimately, it is a fear of freedom that prevents humanity from advancing beyond capitalist social relations. But fear in some inspires courage in others. And in that courage, is hope.
A lot of societies produced war and suffering long before capitalism existed.
And many didn’t, and none produced the kind of mass industrialized war capable of dozens of millions of casualties. But yes their ruling classes still waged war for the same reason as our ruling classes do. So it isn’t a problem of human nature, but a problem with having a ruling class.
But never before have the underclass actually held the tools and means of production, and been as directly opposed in every rational interest, as the exploiting and exploiter classes produced by capitalist social and economic relations. Furthermore, the working classes are broadly opposed to war, broadly in support of rational, secular government, human rights, and freedom of association. But because the education and dissemination of info to the masses is overseen by the ruling minority, people lack the ability to name the problems which we face.
So our social forces that produce war, are imperialism, which is a historic stage of capitalism. So we can concretely identify specific tendencies in a society built by people, name them, and subsequently resist them; rather blaming all problems of society on “human nature”. We can be much more accurate and specific than that. And the moment we are, we have an imperative to do something. Which is why fatalism is so convenient for people who fear freedom.
That’s how people who consider themselves rational and scientific end up falling for apocalypse myths; with facts underwriting eschatology. I think there would be less conflict and difficulty in the world if people were 50% less gullible.
