Democracy and the cognitive elite

Buried within this argument seems to be the assumption that education is little more than a commodity. This contradicts the thinking that education for all benefits all. If even the less affluent are educated to some increasing degree the expectation is that even the lower strata of the population will be improved. Education is less a commodity than it is a quality. Improving the quality of life for an entire community does not lessen the quality of life for the elite. If anything, it enhances their quality as well. The challenge is in sustaining this quality of life. Though education is mostly an enviromental project (as compared to an inherited trait) - its prevalence will allow whatever educational elite to do more and with greter creativity. This is because they will not have to expend as much effort in th emundane aspects of their work that could be picked up by the better educated and more creative support people.

This is at best a glacial effort that will have only slight and incremental improvements. However, those improvements will lead toremarkable results. Look at the changes in our military - once a product of only brute force and willingness to handle "grunt work".. Now the requirements to use the weapons and prepare for confrontations are substantial. The same is true for handling the waste of society (it is beyond a shovel and a bucket on wheels) or any of the many other drudge jobs of only a few generations ago. Without broad education we as a society are again reduced to brute force and shovel and buckets.

And no, I'm not disparaging Catholics who don't use birth control as dumb. That's different.

Matt, I didn't type in all of Longman's comments. As I recall, he explained that we humans are failing to adapt to our current environment in such a way as to guarantee our survival over time. In fact, the choices we're making work against that.

Maybe Mike Judge's Idiocracy is a vision for the future after all...

A fascinating and sobering line of conjecture. To the "Demographic Winter" currently besetting especially Europe and Japan -- but not to the same degree, the U.S. -- I would add the fact of abortion. Since the liberalization of abortion worldwide over the past 40 years or so, there has also been a (I think) consequent demographic shift toward the birth of females of the species.

This tracks with the kind of shifts seen in male/female birth rates among many different mammalian species. In times of plenty, the birth of males seems to be favored, since more are needed to protect a robust pride of lions or a heard of water buffalo. At the same time, favorable environmental factors, say, on the African savanna -- plenty of water, vegetation, etc -- favor the moving off of males (lions) for the forming of new prides or herds.

In times of environmental hardship, birth rates of females out pace the births of males. It takes fewer males to reproduce and more females are needed for the survivability of the species.

Can current male/female birthrates around the industrialized world be tied to the rates of abortion? Is the human species itself reacting to a "threat" to its survival by producing more females? And does this also perhaps explain why, in industrialized nations, females seem to be maturing sexually at an earlier age than they did 100 or even 50 years ago? In fact, I found this from a scientific paper published in 1982: "The average age of menarche [puberty] in
the female has dropped from approximately 17 years to approximately 13
years. Thus, today maturation occurs about 25% faster than it did 100
years ago." ("Sexual Dimorphism in Homo sapiens," R.L. Hall, Praeger
Publishers, New York, 1982, page 279). This suggests, of course, that other factors besides increased abortion rates are also at work.

Hmm. The "Demographic Winter" the industrialized world is undergoing, for whatever reasons, will result in large scale societal changes -- first in Europe and then elsewhere -- unless the trend is somehow reversed.

Great post.

Social science data overwhelmingly demonstrate that on average, children who are raised in a stable two-parent household have tremendous advantages in learning over children born out of wedlock

Mixing cause-effect here. Higher IQ couples marry better and more carefully, so therefore "stable, two parent households" correlate with higher IQ, and their children do as well. It is lower IQ families who so badly need the protection of the culture, which liberals are wont to remove.

Darwinism assumes that organisms always breed up to the limits of their resources...there's one species that stands in exception to that.

This is simply not true. Longman needs to brush up on his demography, his history, and some basic genetic science.

Fact: there are plenty of humans breeding to maximum capacity today, generation after generation, they are just the current minority. Religious conservatives have large breeding families in the West, as does everyone in countries like Nigeria (TFR=5+ average). Longman needs to get out more.

Fact: Modernism is very fresh factor in our man-made environment; what we see demographically is merely the lighting-fast extinction of those who can't handle breeding in modernity, not the violation of Darwinian science. Modernism is a worse problem for breeding than erectile disfunction for most. Technology isn't going away, but those who can't breed to maxiumum capacity while using it are (see: Europe).

Fact: Our species has never been an exception to Darwinian law, and any creature made up of genetic material never can be. We are merely experiencing a large extinction of those no longer fit for breeding. This has happened over and over with humans, first with brain size, dimorphism, the pairing of sexual partners, farming, etc. Right now, it's merely religion and patriarchy that are required. Longman is confused because this is out of his experience: he's going extinct himself (one son) and surrounds himself with others like him (lives in DC), and is a social scientist, not a biological one.

Their offspring will do with other generations have done, grown up and told the parents to take their beliefs and put them somewhere obscene.

I assume this also applies when the parents are ardent believers in scientific materialism.

Think about the meaning of 'meritocracy'. The highest achievers are the people who know how to work hard, regardless of their parents' lack of schooling. So, lawyers and market analysts aren't reproducing as much as plumbers. You aren't really lamenting the fact that there aren't more spoiled rich kids, are you? Do you really think it's them, that will be running the country in the next generation? (Think Paris Hilton, this generation of Kennedys?) This country has the advantage of always having new immigrants, who start at the bottom and work their way up, while the modern-day "Know-Nothings" complain just as much as the old ones did. (and what an appropriate name)

This reminds me of a similar thread going on on Dr. Jerry Pournelle's website "Chaos Manor".

The issue there was intelligence and the ability to reproduce. One of the items that came up in the discussion was student loan debt and the credentials system. Part of the "reproductive problem" is that the more-intelligent members of the society are steered into a formal-education/credentials system whereby they have to take on massive levels of debt in order to obtain the piece of paper that will let them become marginally employable. This leads to fewer resources and less time available for giving birth and raising children. The fact that the college-educated tend to marry each other only reinforces this; both partners will have massive debts to pay off, which makes matters worse.

Add to this the fact of an advertising-driven, marketeering-oriented economy, a set of social incentives emphasizing short-term gratification and easy sexuality over long-term thought, and one has a recipe for disaster in the making. Part of the solution may well have to be a decreasing of the emphasis on the college credential in favor of the more practical skills.

Trouble is, you're not likely to get that without ticking off some serious special interests and large forces in the economy. THAT may well be the most important political and social question of the coming century. All the others will likely be commentary and sideshows.

If nothing else, watching the question play out will be fun.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

>>>
It is lower IQ families who so badly need the protection of the culture, which liberals are wont to remove.
Posted by: mdavid | May 13, 2008 11:45 AM
>>>

As a liberal of the libertarian variety, I'm curious as to what specifically you mean by the protection of the culture.

The smartest people have the potential to move upward in life, get the best jobs, and make the most money. That's nothing new, and it's really nothing of concern. It's more of a concern when people stay at the top/move to the top because of family connections, and they lack the cerebral function to manage the position. GWB?

Since you cite GW Bush, how about a presidential counter-example? Woodrow Wilson was at least as bad a President as GW Bush. He got us into an unnecessary war that was a thousand times bloodier and more destructive than the Iraq venture. He imposed restrictions on civil liberties at home that would shock even Dick Cheney. Wilson wrapped up his term by presiding over a massive economic recession. He left office despised by the American public. And he was a thorough-going racist, even by the standards of his era: Woodrow took the trouble to eliminate the few civil service jobs that had previously been available to African Americans.

Wilson was anything but uneducated. The former head of Princeton was the most academically distinguished President in American history, and certainly among the most intellectually gifted. Yet as a political leader, he was just plain awful.

The elite is outsourcing America jobs,and creating a new group of people. They are call Squatters. Many Americans no longer own homes. Its the smart elite who has found a new way to sell out America,by sending America's monies into iraqis and foreign banks. it is the smart who is making millions off the fallen real estate market. There are just as many conseratives with littlle of no IQ who is becoming squatters in a failed economy. Conseratism means gettig rich by socializing other countries with American middle class jobs. Conseratives hate to give any asstance to Americans,but applaud outsoucing to other countries. Are these Traitors?

The smartest people have the potential to move upward in life, get the best jobs, and make the most money. That's nothing new, and it's really nothing of concern.

Actually, extreme meritocracy is quite new. Until the past half century, the Ivy League and other prestigious colleges were little more than finishing schools for young men from the "best" families -- there wasn't much correlation between academic credentials and IQ.

Today, the smartest people (or, more precisely, those most adapted to academic achievement) get the best academic credentials and have the best chance of succeeding financially in life. They marry people like themselves, and produce kids who start life with higher than average IQs and significant financial advantages.

This process, and not the Bush tax cuts or other lame explanations often given by the Left, is the major force widening the gap between rich and poor in America. And it is accelerating.

There is movement between the classes. Most people in my upper middle class elite group came from humble immigrant working class european people who didn't expect an easy ride and had to work hard (and live in lucky times) to get where they are. My kids are way more spoiled that I was, and I had it easy compared to my parents. My kids expect a certain life style, and they have chores to do and homework and we expect more than a C grade from them, but they don't "get" how much hussle is involved in making a living. I will kick their butts to get established, but a lot of their generation may wind up living off their parents at home. So other immigrant kids who take risks and work hard will be the new elites.

Old money is a different story, but with inflation and the old saying "a fool and his money are soon parted", those humps will be levelled out with time as well.

I understand what you're saying, Erin. I've met my share of really smart people who couldn't figure out how to screw in a light bulb. I should have highlighted the word potential a little more.

I know that I'm limited by my intelligence. I couldn't be an engineer for NASA. I couldn't be a really good civil or criminal attorney. I couldn't be an excellent doctor. I could be an excellent assistant to any of the above mentioned people(scientist, lawyer, doctor). Those who are the brightest have higher paying choices open to them, but it doesn't mean that they take advantage of their abilities. Quite often, very bright people are more abstract thinkers, and they need people who are more practical and concrete in their thinking to make ideas work.

This process, and not the Bush tax cuts or other lame explanations often given by the Left, is the major force widening the gap between rich and poor in America. And it is accelerating.

Actual numbers refute that.

Anna: Another side of the issue are meritocratic married couples with infertility (close to 20% and rising). A whole slew of causal factors are to blame...but don't go overboard in assuming that couples who won't birth children (yes, even in their twenties!), don't want to.

That's a good point. It's less popular to consider that falling birth rates in the West (especially among the higher IQ set) are entirely a matter of choice.

The NY Times recently had an article on lifespan and intelligence (in lower animals, based on animal behavior research.) Lower-intelligence animals within a species were longer-lived; the theory was that brain power (even if your nervous system is as simple as a fly's) is physiologically expensive. The brain perhaps takes away energy and resources from the lower regions, so to speak. Lower animals which live longer have more chances to reproduce (especially if their lifespans are pretty short to start with.)

We see this now - the biggest differential between higher- and lower-IQ people is probably the *age* at which they first start having kids. Sixteen to eighteen (for a woman) is substantially more fertile than 25-30. IOW, having a child earlier is a "shorter lifespan strategy" - and according to The Bell Curve is associated with lower IQ.

Simon, allow me to quibble a bit. You said:

"Today, the smartest people (or, more precisely, those most adapted to academic achievement) get the best academic credentials and have the best chance of succeeding financially in life."

If by the smartest people you mean those who excell in the hard sciences (such as physics) and their applications (engineering of various stripes) I agree with you. But excelling academically today in what used to be called the liberal arts is a whole different animal - and which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with smarts or ability. Receiving a degree in those fields is pretty much indicative of squat.

Scurvy Oaks: "... crises that somehow, amazingly manage not to come to pass. ;)"
ask the children whose lives this Fairy Godmother
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/holocaust-hero-who-saved-children-dies/20080512084809990002?icid=1615988631x1202132873x1200304345
saved about how imaginary their nightmares were... you may get a different answer...

Just kidding. I mean dumb as in low IQ.

"and it would seem that the cognitive dissonance among these "elites" qualifies for my definition of dumb: they're gambling that future generations (which were not born, nurtured or defended by any one remotely related to them economically or biologically) will feel obliged to take care of their needs economically or biologically, a gamble on the altruistic faith of others for which there is no political mechanism of assurance"

I agree. That is dumb of the cognitive elites.

I assume this also applies when the parents are ardent believers in scientific materialism.

That's not a belief system.

Incentives don't work. They aren't working in Europe and Russia.

Actually, Slavic Russian birthrate has increased markedly recently- not to replacement level, but a good bit closer. The correlation with improved economic conditions and prospects is said to be extremely obvious.

(The decline of the crude Soviet Era social and cultural condition, and overpopulation, though horrid, probably also helps.)

Fact: there are plenty of humans breeding to maximum capacity today, generation after generation, they are just the current minority. Religious conservatives have large breeding families in the West, as does everyone in countries like Nigeria (TFR=5+ average). Longman needs to get out more.

Presumably, you know the Latin root of the word 'proletarian'. And why that was derogatory term.

Fact: Modernism is very fresh factor in our man-made environment; what we see demographically is merely the lighting-fast extinction of those who can't handle breeding in modernity, not the violation of Darwinian science.

I don't see the upper middle classes of any country either shrinking or becoming any more theist. It's the middle classes and working classes and poor that are where the decline concentrates.

Modernism is a worse problem for breeding than erectile dysfunction for most. Technology isn't going away, but those who can't breed to maxiumum capacity while using it are (see: Europe).

Europe is merely rationally reducing population size. It has a population density that can't be sustained long term, nor is there the need for the manual labor of the late Agrarian Age or early Industrial Age.

Every people past the middle Industrial Age point of its development reduces population back to sustainable levels. The children of fundamentalists and patriarchalists are not any different once their regressive and often delusional familial environment comes into full contact with the society in which they really live.

Fact: Our species has never been an exception to Darwinian law, and any creature made up of genetic material never can be. We are merely experiencing a large extinction of those no longer fit for breeding.

Well, a good number of the champions of Modernity, like the champions of Christianity, were/are people whose priorities were never those of breeding anyway.

Secondly, real elites have never been fooled that intelligence or being elite- in fact anything truly important- was genetic or easily taught. The world is full of refutations of it. They look around and don't see a social need for adding greatly to the pool of average or even somewhat above average children.

This has happened over and over with humans, first with brain size, dimorphism, the pairing of sexual partners, farming, etc. Right now, it's merely religion and patriarchy that are required.

Hmmm...and Rod talks of 40% single mothers?

Longman is confused because this is out of his experience: he's going extinct himself (one son) and surrounds himself with others like him (lives in DC), and is a social scientist, not a biological one.

No, he's simply operating on a mistaken definition of Darwinism, and that mucks up his thinking in very embarrassing fashion. (They always find fools for these agitprop films.)
-"Darwinism assumes that organisms always breed up to the limits of their resources," Wrong. (They breed to the limits of their environment as a whole.)
-"and this is what causes the competition, the survival of the fittest under the theory." Wrong. (Most selection pressure is due to broader environmental constraints such as weather, diseases, and predators.)
-"And yet, here we look and see there's one species that stands in exception to that." Wrong. Humans are just intelligent enough to limit or reduce unsustainable numbers at times, even when sufficient food is available. Jews would not have survived in exile if everywhere they'd gone they'd simply bred up to the numbers they could feed.

It *is* ironic that the lower intelligence people in a society will reproduce most, and even think themselves somehow superior for it. The high intelligence people know that in the big picture, it simply doesn't matter much who reproduces. (Well, mental disorders and retardation do cluster in the worst off classes- but the disasters that result cause a lot of carriers to die out.)

"If by the smartest people you mean those who excel in the hard sciences (such as physics) and their applications (engineering of various stripes) I agree with you. But excelling academically today in what used to be called the liberal arts is a whole different animal - and which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with smarts or ability. Receiving a degree in those fields is pretty much indicative of squat.

Posted by: cb | May 13, 2008 4:46 PM"\

I remember when I was an electrical engineering student (8 kids ago), we used to say some pretty mean things about the journalism majors, and even worse things about communications, and womyn's studies, majors. How many of these guys are now counting themselves among this 'cognitive elite', and worrying that they aren't reproducing? It looks like another "hey, only pro-lifers are having babies, and (gasp) NONWHITES!" story.

Yeah, but Rauschenberg was 82. He came of age artistically, so to speak, back when "credentialism" was far less ubiquitous than now.

"The absolute population of Europe and Japan may fall dramatically, but the remaining population will, by a process similar to survival of the fittest, be adapted to a new environment in which no one can rely on government to replace the family, and in which a patriarchal God commands family members to suppress their individualism and submit to father."

Trying to link this to Japan in any way kills his point. The fact is, Japan has been a conservative, patriarcical society for more than a millenium - God had nothing to do with it. Since 1955, Japan has been led by yet another conservative government (since '93 with the Komeito and LDP working together). Indeed, loking at the statistics, while Christianity is present (1% vs. 0% over 400 years), it is still irrelevant to Japan and always will be. Why? Because Japanese society is communalistic. By that I mean that the need to not break away from the community (required of Christians in Japan for various reasons) is simply too strongly rooted in the Japanese mind. As the saying goes, "the nail that sticks up (Christians, in this case) will get hammered back down. Japanese do not function without a connection to the community. That's why every year around Obon and Golden Week and Oshogatsu, the majority of those who live somewhere other than their native city go back home. That's why shame works there where it doesn't here. Here, we require guilt as a motivator to stop a behavior.

Basically, by assuming that patterns that may exist in Europe also exist in Japan, his entire point becomes moot, as it is clear he has no idea what he is talking about.