That's... very useful. Proof that it's necessary to limit decision making to those most capable of it, and thus that democracy is incapable of producing good results with the current status of humanity. (Though it's a perfectly valid system in an eventual future where humans have been genetically modified so that everyone is capable of understanding complex systems)
Comment has been collapsed.
The advantage of democracy is that it makes the leaders accountable to everyone, in theory. And while intelligence is a positive factor for a leader, there are other factors which are perhaps even more correlated with successful people, such as arrogance, selfishness, etc. Without democracy, for example, a leader would perhaps only be accountable to a small elite group, which need not have the best of interests.
It's a fundamental problem, and I agree with you to an extent. A decision maker should be good at understanding the world, but how do you, or I, or anyone decide who should that be?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sounds like a wish-fulfillment piece, written by someone already convinced of the "facts" and twisting perceptions to give a false impression. Granted, prejudice is a horrible thing, but far too often a person's ability to retain a belief or opinion that doesn't fall-in with whatever social tripe the populace is being fed on the tube ends up being labeled as such, when it's actually anything but. Not to mention, --and I'm honestly not trying to bait anyone with this--, the so-called "right wing," conservative mind is typically exhibited in higher intellects (and vice-versa). The problem, as stated, is simply that the "left" mindset forms opinions quickly, making many assumptions as to why someone has a certain, differing opinion on a given topic. Naturally, hilarity ensues. (And tears. Always tears.)
Comment has been collapsed.
10 Comments - Last post 29 minutes ago by hbarkas
365 Comments - Last post 37 minutes ago by VicViperV
151 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by aquatorrent
1,036 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Abletoburn
7 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by canis39
402 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by jonesy411
384 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by jonesy411
35 Comments - Last post 38 seconds ago by KoRayven
31 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by mrakotun
46 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by DeliciousDitherDino
16 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by VicViperV
1,629 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by aquatorrent
312 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by SJkr8
162 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by blankusername
Just wanted to share this study with anyone interested (link below). It demonstrates a negative link between cognitive ability and prejudice, as well as to right-wing or conservative ideologies.
What stood out to me is why individuals with lower cognitive ability tend in these directions, which is stated as a desire for psychological stability, order and for a way to understand a complicated world. It seems, from this study that those drawn to prejudice do so partly because they seek shelter in simple group structures which lead to less and less social interaction with out-groups (i.e. those outside of their group structure) and which seek to maintain the status quo. The desire for stability and to make simplified sense of a complex world lead to simplified ideologies - i.e. a way to understand the world that is within one's cognitive range.
I think we can all relate to being exposed to something beyond our ability to grasp (and if not, look into quantum physics), and can relate to the desire for a simplified version of that something.
Furthermore, coming at this from the vantage of veganism we might see that those who dig in their heels on their way of life may be doing so partly out of these tendencies, which is essentially a need to make sense of the world and an inability to make sense of current and very real complex systems. This, I think, opens the door for increased compassion on our parts.
It also indicates, to me, a need for those with higher cognitive ability, who are naturally more capable of openeness, empathy, understanding, etc, to assume heightened roles in setting social policy. But how is that to be accomplished in democracies where everyone, regardless of cognitive ability, votes? Those with lower cognitive ability will vote for those who fit into their group structure, even if it is against the benefits of the actual complex system of life on Earth (we definitely see our share of this in the world).
So, what do you think of the study? How does information like this effect your worldview?
What does a future society that takes this information into account, end up looking like?
How does one go about working on social change if it is not actually possible to convince people of it's validity, due to an inability to understand the complex system that makes the change necessary?
Article here
Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri
Psychological Science, February 2012; vol. 23, 2: pp. 187-195., first published on January 5, 2012
Comment has been collapsed.