I think there is something to the low IQ thing!
I am in a location that gets infrequent snow, and we happened to get a good bit over the weekend. County offices closed, businesses closed, and schools are now going to be closed for the third day in a row.
Local Facebook and NextDoor groups are blowing up with people outraged at the decision to close schools tomorrow, even though most roads are perfectly fine. I've been driving around since Monday (I do have 4x4).
The outrage goes something like this:
"I can't believe they're closing schools again, the road in front of my house is totally clear! It's ridiculous! This is an outrage!"
Well ok, the roads in front of YOUR house may be clear, but when you get to the hilly and more rural areas of the county--where school buses still have to drive--those roads are very treacherous right now. A school bus drove off a hill and flip just a few years ago when it it hit a large patch of black ice going around a curve. This is not a theoretical issue.
There is just a really large contingent of people who just cannot think in "what ifs" or beyond their immediate "right now" situation. (And to be clear, if they were saying "the schools should have had alternative plans for dangerous school bus routes" I would agree! It's just the idiocy of "me me me, now now now" that is striking.)
It turns out, having an aristocracy/peasant divide in society makes perfect sense...the only real contention is how that dividing line gets drawn. I'm so tired of subhumans being treated like fully functional members of society. It's all a farce.
I'm not convinced that there's a significant difference between the aristocracy and the peasant class in terms of who can think in terms of "what if."
That's almost certainly true, but the point I'm driving at is that the position of aristocrat ought to be filled by those who can tell you about skipping breakfast whereas those that did have breakfast should be the ones toiling in the mines for their local lord.
Yeah, and an ideal aristocrat should also have an internal monolog and be able to visualize an apple in detail.
True enough.
We'd all like to be governed by philosopher kings, but unfortunately we get easily corruptible and manipulatable midwits instead, who are themselves corrupted and manipulated by delusional midwits.
As Heinlein said, "intelligence" or "science" doesn't provide moral wisdom or equate to competent leadership.
What people are really using various words for is to try and explain "good decision making" for problems that arise in the future. Which very easily slips to "I want someone to be able to tell the future"
Someone who's assessment of a situation and decisions that can turn a 50/50 good/bad decisions into a 55/45 in charge is what builds civilisations. Unfortunately there's no way to screen for that in any meaningful way.
Philosopher-kings are great, but its the sophists who gave Socrates the ol' hemlock tea, and it's hard to filter sophistry when seeking intellectuals.
The point of the aristocracy was that the day to day work of survival was removed, so people could be brought up to learn how to make decisions with good judgement. If your society is on a boat and everyone spends 24/7 trying to survive, no-one is steering. Having someone taken care of so their childhood can be spent learning how to navigate a boat, and learn the weather so they can make good decisions when it comes time to decide which way will avoid the storm is a really good idea. The idea that aristocracy is purely superfluous is a modern retroactive rewriting. Aristocracy meant you were born into a position of responsibility.
No it doesn't, we shouldn't have non thinkers to begin with, they'll eventually grow in number and kill us.
There are jobs that need to get done, and always will, where thinking is a clear detriment.
Name one. I can't think of one job where not thinking is better than thinking the right way, and that includes jobs like "suicide bomber"
It's more like... Thinking too much could be detrimental. Consider worker bees. They just work and don't think about a year from now, or next week. Same with people. Maybe they can envision the weekend, but most only think about the immediate.
The guy who holds the stop/go signs on roadworks, when the radio tells him, he flips it.
The distribution curve exists and needs to be accounted for. Denying its existence is a retarded strategy. You can't just wave your hands and make a society devoid of these individuals because more will keep spawning in until the end of time, even if you get a eugenics program off the ground.
I agree with the first half and question the second half. If we say, got rid of 90% of the people without inner monologues, what do you think the subsequent generation would be comprised of? Do you think after like five generations it would rebound back to 60-80%?
Regression to the mean. It would take a long time to change that distribution curve. I'm thinking it would be measured in centuries. A good 600 years at least before we can start to breath easier about letting up on the eugenics. That also assumes you start with a White population and not a bunch of third world animals.
So you don't think having enough mental capacity to consider positions you aren't is has much to do with genetic predispositions?
See my other comment about it taking centuries to start seeing results. Even then, you still have a distribution curve even if it shifts to the right. The retards may spawn in lower numbers but they'll still spawn.
yeah i fully agree. especially in light of these grifting 3rd worlders in government leader positions. An aristocracy or monarchy even would be infinitely better than the bureaucracy the west has now.
I would even debate that a christian monarchy is the best form of government, one whose leaders are groomed from birth to answer to God, and would not be swayed by (((others))) at the expense of their own citizens. At the end of their life, they will stand before God and be judged