War on the Stupid (The Atlantic, July 2016)

[Vlerchan]

The 2010s, in contrast, are a terrible time to not be brainy. Those who consider themselves bright openly mock others for being less so. Even in this age of rampant concern over microaggressions and victimization, we maintain open season on the nonsmart. People who’d swerve off a cliff rather than use a pejorative for race, religion, physical appearance, or disability are all too happy to drop the s‑bomb: Indeed, degrading others for being “stupid” has become nearly automatic in all forms of disagreement.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-war-on-stupid-people/485618/

This article is one of the better examples of making obvious the social consequences of the advancement of Victimhood-culture that I have come across. It begins with the required victimisation of the subject*: lesser job prospects, harder time finding a mate**, etc., and then proceeds to outlined the manner in which those that are not-victim feel entitled to craft the world to the exclusion of the victims, along the way highlighting the policy-initiatives that have gone otherwise ignored. In the end it rejects meritocracy - highlighting that it began as a dystopian notion - and suggest we begin to craft our economy and society around the needs of the less intelligent.

Thrilling stuff, and I'm looking for thoughts. My own, is that embracing this is entirely self-defeating insofar as it has the likelihood of [1] imposing the largest costs on the low-skilled, [2] is built on unfounded fears with regards to technological advancement, [3] constrains human progress, and furthers the culture of mediocrity.

With regards to imposing costs on the low-skilled, and the reason it is especially self-defeating, is that:

Low-skill individuals are the largest consumers of low-skill labour products and interacting with this production in a manner that limits it is most upsetting to the low-skilled.
It's the unfortunate truth that because of the elasticity of supply of low-skill labour the wage-rate is relatively fixed. Creating incentives for people to remain low-skilled and remain in these jobs, only ensures their impoverishment.
The automation of low-skill labour tends to results in the expansion of demand for non-low-skill labour, which creates scope for greater social mobility.
There is an even larger problem when we consider the manner through which intelligence is signalled: Production, production of goods, but also the likes of production of clever VT posts. Production relies on both a combination of intelligence and effort - and where production isn't socially-privileged, because of its association with intelligence differentials, we see the annihilation of effort as a social virtue***. It is, perhaps, the most explicit endorsement of a culture of mediocrity that I have come across.

Towards the end, the author of the quotes piece does state that "[s]mart people should feel entitled to make the most of their gift" but I question to what extent that gift is worthwhile when it's stripped of it's social value (de-"glorified"). Incentives do matter, and any de-privileging of intelligence creates all the wrong ones. Rather than helping people remain less-educated at their convenience, we should be encouraging them to expand their minds, and re-skill (greater options for a practical education, for the academically-disinclined****).

There are, of course, the genuinely incompetent. But these are not the "majority" that the author refers to throughout the text. These are an unfortunate minority, and whilst we might do our best to help them, we shouldn't stop referring to them as an unfortunate minority.

---

* It's notable that within victimhood-culture, the subject is always painted as passive and lacking agency. Thus their advancement is the burden of the posed upper-class.

There'll be a post on this in the near future. It's something I have given a lot of thought to, alongside it's intersection with the language of historical racists and sexists.

** Encouraging even worse matching in the marriage market than already persists is a pretty hideous social position.

*** Though, without a doubt, markets will continue to reward it.

**** In fairness, the author also supports this. Though, I don't follow him that the increase of the technical content required for these courses is necessarily problematic.

[Judean Zealot]

God. I really do hate the liberal left. I don't see how you identify as a liberal in the face of of this sort of pathetic whinging. This anti "classism" faction truly is the preserve of the mediocre, the shallow, and the foolish.

[Vlerchan]

I don't see how you identify as a liberal in the face of of this sort of pathetic whinging.
I remain sure that history will remember my faction fondly.

Though, at this stage, it's probably safe to say that a lot of my reaction is being inspired by non-liberal sources.

[Flapjack]

I'm not sure what I think of this buddy, I know not everyone is suited for academics.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5Tcxw8Liw2g/Uj0ii71k86I/AAAAAAAAAFA/71K4JNCoFP4/s1600/Please-climb-that-tree1.pngIt does not mean they are stupid but might excel at other stuff!

One thing I do find really annoying however is how being stupid is becoming fashionable with people like joey essex teaching impressionable children that it is cool to not know the names of basic 2d shapes. No hate on joey himself though, if I got paid millions to act like an idiot I would!

[Vlerchan]

I'm not sure what I think of this buddy, I know not everyone is suited for academics. It does not mean they are stupid but might excel at other stuff!
This isn't a question of what makes people stupid or not.

It's a question of given there is less-intelligent people, in what manner should we structure our economies, and societies.

[Flapjack]

This isn't a question of what makes people stupid or not.

It's a question of given there is less-intelligent people, in what manner should we structure our economies, and societies.

Well everyone has a vote so I think it is very important we try to educate everyone. I'm not sure how to do it but politics is turning into a reality tv show!

As for societies I don't think they're that big a deal. Just because they are stupid does not mean they cannot function in a society.

[Stronk Serb]

We shouldn't structure our societies to cater to the needs of the least intelligent.

[Flapjack]

We shouldn't structure our societies to cater to the needs of the least intelligent.
And what needs are these? How would you define a person with lesser inteligence?

[Vlerchan]

TheFlapjack

You should probably read the article I linked to in the OP. It clears up what we mean with the term 'intelligent' and the consequences that befall the less-intelligent, such as reduced job and mating prospects*. It suggests that we incentivise firms to reduce automation, amongst other things. In no part does it - or do I - suggest that the less-intelligent can't function or need help functioning.

---

* You can take the issues arising as those relating to their needs. Catering to their needs, would involve quashing these issues.

[sqishy]

I wasn't aware of there being a glorification of intelligence, so this article is a bit unexpected for me. Perhaps it's more of a US phenomenon.

[...]most people don’t possess enough of the version that’s required to thrive in today’s world.

It's a trend that higher IQ goes with a better chance to have a good life situation later on, but no necessity. I also feel that this intelligence being talked about extrinsic to the world the person is in (it is both extrinsic and intrinsic). How much of the world today would correspond to that of 1916, if we imagine that the most intelligent and successful people of today are instead in that era?


Among other things, the less brainy are, according to studies and some business experts, less likely to be oblivious of their own biases and flaws, to mistakenly assume that recent trends will continue into the future, to be anxiety-ridden, and to be arrogant.

If anything, the 'more brainy' people here are intelligent but in a narrow way, are certainly not wise, and not doing well on emotional intelligence. I don't see a problem with intelligence and recognition of one's poor aspects, happening together.


For me at least, intelligence (and also the lack of) is a topic that's more than just judging the ability for someone to be exceedingly good at constructing specific stuff in our world. We're all good at doing certain things over others, and an aspect of intelligence is involved in that, but I don't think the entirety of it can be summed up as that.

Hope I am not sidestepping this too much.

[Stronk Serb]

And what needs are these? How would you define a person with lesser inteligence?

Well, with the rising of automatization, we shouldn't keep manual jobs so that people who wasted their opportunities in life can have it easier.

[Vlerchan]

Perhaps it's more of a US phenomenon.
The author is probably engaging in striking exaggeration, since the U.S. seems to have a culture of anti-intellectualism that rivals that of Ireland.

But then it might be unfair to equate intellectualism with intelligence at the same time.

[Microcosm]

We could stop preaching self-indulgence as the best reaction to every opportunity for pleasure and instead promote a more analytical mindset.

Part of the reason people are becoming more and more stupid, or at least appearing to be so, is because liberals are shoving the ideology of focusing on yourself before everyone and everything else down people's throats, which makes people self indulge and bends society towards a damning lack of cohesion.

[sqishy]

The author is probably engaging in striking exaggeration, since the U.S. seems to have a culture of anti-intellectualism that rivals that of Ireland.

But then it might be unfair to equate intellectualism with intelligence at the same time.

I agree.

(Is the article this references, from the future? :D )

We could stop preaching self-indulgence as the best reaction to every opportunity for pleasure and instead promote a more analytical mindset.

My understanding of the topic here doesn't include indulgence, perhaps showing where it's relevant would help (you may be justified, but I can't see so yet).



Part of the reason people are becoming more and more stupid, or at least appearing to be so, is because liberals are shoving the ideology of focusing on yourself before everyone and everything else down people's throats, which makes people self indulge and bends society towards a damning lack of cohesion.

Yes, let's blame perceived societal-scale intellectual decline to a certain region of political views, because it's that simple!

You're also doing an extremist straw man picture of what liberalism generally means.

[Microcosm]

My understanding of the topic here doesn't include indulgence, perhaps showing where it's relevant would help (you may be justified, but I can't see so yet).

Self indulgence and individualism has had the effect of moving society towards the stupider end of the spectrum. I imagine that's because most people who are allowed to choose between mindless pleasure and advancement of humanity consider the latter to be too much work.

Yes, let's blame perceived societal-scale intellectual decline to a certain region of political views, because it's that simple!

You're also doing an extremist straw man picture of what liberalism generally means.

A certain region of political views can have a massive impact on society as a whole, and I believe it has.

I didn't define liberalism as a whole in my post, I referred to a liberal belief.

[sqishy]

Self indulgence and individualism has had the effect of moving society towards the stupider end of the spectrum. I imagine that's because most people who are allowed to choose between mindless pleasure and advancement of humanity consider the latter to be too much work.


Preference against selflessness in view of what is more important, is not the same as exclusive selfishness.

The seeking of pleasure doesn't exist only in mindless egocentric form.

Even taking your scenario, rejection of "advancement of humanity" or not using one's intelligence to its best ability, does not equate losing that intelligence. It's not such a huge 'use it or lose it' situation.



A certain region of political views can have a massive impact on society as a whole, and I believe it has.

Socio-political views have a massive impact, but not in a directly proportionate way. Views dilute and intermix in how it effects people subconsciously. Cannot blame one political region for sociological processes that easily. Also, most people don't think of political left-right in most of their everyday interactions, so it's not like one big idea being played out in unison.

Taking your view, are you saying that liberalism has succeeded in having a world-scale societal change?



I didn't define liberalism as a whole in my post, I referred to a liberal belief.

You talked about liberals and their ideology, it sounds pretty general.

- - - - - - - -

I'm guessing that you see conservatism to be the preserver of intelligence, right?

[lliam]

In general I think, we all (humans) are stupid beings, cause it's proofed to me, we really don't use our given potentials in case of intelligence. So, personally it makes no difference whether a individual is very stupid or hyper-intelligent. In the end stupid remains stupid. Or such.

[Vlerchan]

Self indulgence and individualism has had the effect of moving society towards the stupider end of the spectrum.
Individualism is associated with stronger levels of patent-registration (innovation) and economic growth (/development). It's the strongest cultural implicate in economic development. It seems from the data that it promotes the use of critical thinking faculties.

I would also appreciate what dependent variable you feel you're observing when you're making this claim. Or is this just a general impression?

[Porpoise101]

Personally, I believe that this recent need for intelligent people means that we are moving forward as a world. In the past, according to the article, it wasn't necessary to be smart. But in the past, our world was not nearly as complex. The world in the past, especially in the post-war years (but also today), were almost exclusively run by an educated elite. Now, because of technology, the unintelligent have more voice and power. Because of this society should try to make smarter people and instead of catering to the stupid, help them rise up.

[Vlerchan]

Now, because of technology, the unintelligent have more voice and power.
I figure that this - and, by extension, the popularisation of governance: populism* - is one of the most detrimental trends of our time.

---

* Elitism, on the other hand, can cause issues where elites are capable of constructing barriers to entry - consider power medical and legal unions, but that's another discussion.

[Porpoise101]

I figure that this - and, by extension, the popularisation of governance: populism* - is one of the most detrimental trends of our time.

---

* Elitism, on the other hand, can cause issues where elites are capable of constructing barriers to entry - consider power medical and legal unions, but that's another discussion.
I figure that this trend in giving voice to the masses could be used for good. If we made a more intelligent populace, then we will no longer have such a strong dependence on an elite. Society will become much more equitable and democratic.

[Vlerchan]

I figure that this trend in giving voice to the masses could be used for good. If we made a more intelligent populace, then we will no longer have such a strong dependence on an elite.
I remember, before, pointing to a statistic indicating that people that commented on news items, tended to be of a lower education level. I figure this statistic is important. There is an inherent bias in technological development, towards the empowerment of the proletarian masses, whose opportunity cost is much lower.

Of course, I agree, that this does open doors, for more democratic and informed governance. But this presumes that we will see progression towards a more high-skill, middle-class society when current trends point towards increasing wage-polarisation. If it was the case, that I felt populism would be driven by the interests of the middle-class - open markets, legislative-individualism - then I would be a major proponent of it.

[ethan-s]

you know i was reading on wikipedia about my new favorite song. the article said the song was mocked because it might make some dumba$$ feel ba about his/her grammar. Really? come on!!

[sqishy]

I figure that this trend in giving voice to the masses could be used for good. If we made a more intelligent populace, then we will no longer have such a strong dependence on an elite. Society will become much more equitable and democratic.

Democracy has no necessity in being part of the possible future you speak of, just saying.


you know i was reading on wikipedia about my new favorite song. the article said the song was mocked because it might make some dumba$$ feel ba about his/her grammar. Really? come on!!

Who was it that said it would be 'insulting'?

[ethan-s]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_Crimes here is a link. Just scroll down to reception and take a look.

[sqishy]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_Crimes here is a link. Just scroll down to reception and take a look.

What point are you making from it? (I'm still not sure, may be my fault.)