IQ rates are dropping in many developed countries

[DamianTV]

How about this...

Public Skool. It wurks eggzactly as the Eleets endtended it two wurk. Indocktrinashun duz a booty guud, pas it on!

[Firestarter]

Several studies have shown that humans become (even) more stupid from watching TV.

For example one study followed 3,247 people over a 25-year period, whose average age at the beginning of the study was 25 years old.
The researchers then divided the people into four groups, depending upon the number of hours they watched television per day. Approximately 11% watched more than three hours of TV per day and were put in the high television-viewing group (353 of the entire Group). There were 528 low television watchers (16%).

At the end of the 25 years, those in the high television-watching group scored significantly lower on 2 of the 3 intelligence tests (56-64%): https://www.realnatural.org/excessiv...ve-impairment/

[Marenco]

Several studies have shown that humans become (even) more stupid from watching TV.

For example one study followed 3,247 people over a 25-year period, whose average age at the beginning of the study was 25 years old.
The researchers then divided the people into four groups, depending upon the number of hours they watched television per day. Approximately 11% watched more than three hours of TV per day and were put in the high television-viewing group (353 of the entire Group). There were 528 low television watchers (16%).

At the end of the 25 years, those in the high television-watching group scored significantly lower on 2 of the 3 intelligence tests (56-64%): https://www.realnatural.org/excessiv...ve-impairment/

[Anti Federalist]

No, that's not true. You've been deceived.

Some of the studies have already been posted.

I can post more...but I am not going to waste my time if you are just going to dismiss them as untrue.

[tfurrh]

Album inspired by the book

[r3volution 3.0]

(Import and surround yourself with idiots, and you will not escape enstupidation yourself - AF)

It's not contagious.

Cultures with IQs too low are a danger to liberty

No amount of intelligence will cure bad motives or rational ignorance.

Your mistake lies squarely in the belief that someone being a liberal and talking politics automatically means they should have a low IQ. If you've ever seen a Quetin Tarantino movies, you would know that he is indeed a genius. Not sure about the rest of em.

Indeed

Ideology consists mostly of values (not knowledge), and there's no reason to expect a connection between IQ and values.

If one is observed (as is claimed about high IQ and leftism), it's likely incidental (e.g. higher education is controlled by the left).

If Zoroastrians happened to control the schools, high IQ would be associated with Zoroastrianism.

[Swordsmyth]

No amount of intelligence will cure bad motives or rational ignorance.

But insufficient intelligence will always result in tyranny, either because the culture embraces obviously bad ideas easier or because they are too dumb to successfully resist attempts to enslave them.

[r3volution 3.0]

But insufficient intelligence will always result in tyranny, either because the culture embraces obviously bad ideas easier or because they are too dumb to successfully resist attempts to enslave them.

Intelligent people are no less likely to embrace bad ideologies, they'll only sophisticate them. The tenured Marxist at Harvard is much more intelligent than the trash burning hippy occupying Wall Street. This means that he understands the ideology more deeply (i.e. his head is stuffed with a more sophisticated version of the same bad idea).

[Swordsmyth]

Intelligent people are no less likely to embrace bad ideologies, they'll only sophisticate them. The tenured Marxist at Harvard is much more intelligent than the trash burning hippy occupying Wall Street. This means that he understands the ideology more deeply (i.e. his head is stuffed with a more sophisticated version of the same bad idea).

Intelligent people CAN embrace bad ideologies but stupid people are much more likely to, whether it comes from logical errors they make due to their own stupidity or from being hoodwinked.

[r3volution 3.0]

Intelligent people CAN embrace bad ideologies but stupid people are much more likely to, whether it comes from logical errors they make due to their own stupidity or from being hoodwinked.

People don't often reason their way to values.

[Swordsmyth]

People don't often reason their way to values.

The more intelligent they are the more likely they are to do so, stupid people are much more likely to take positions based on blind emotion and then refuse to change them when confronted with logic.

That's part of why stupid people are more likely to wind up with a tyrannical society.

[r3volution 3.0]

The more intelligent they are the more likely they are to do so, stupid people are much more likely to take positions based on blind emotion and then refuse to change them when confronted with logic.

That's part of why stupid people are more likely to wind up with a tyrannical society.

All ultimate values are based on feeling, not reason. So, as far as that goes, there's no difference between how high and low IQ people reach them. Intermediate values can be arrived at by reason, and higher IQ people are more likely to do this, but it doesn't give a better result if the ultimate value from which they began their reasoning isn't a good one. The professor and the trash-burner may both begin with the ultimate value "equality is good." The professor will work that out into a sophisticated theory; the trash burner won't. They'll vote the same way.

[Swordsmyth]

All ultimate values are based on feeling, not reason. So, as far as that goes, there's no difference between how high and low IQ people reach them. Intermediate values can be arrived at by reason, and higher IQ people are more likely to do this, but it doesn't give a better result if the ultimate value from which they began their reasoning isn't a good one. The professor and the trash-burner may both begin with the ultimate value "equality is good." The professor will work that out into a sophisticated theory; the trash burner won't. They'll vote the same way.

Or an intelligent man might come to the conclusion that equality is good and that meritocracy and liberty are the true equality.

[r3volution 3.0]

Or an intelligent man might come to the conclusion that equality is good and that meritocracy and liberty are the true equality.

As I said, which ultimate value a person lands on has nothing to do with intelligence.

Moreover, as I was explaining in the other thread, ideology is rarely the driver of political behavior (at least as to the more important political issues, such as economic policy). Even if there were a connection between high IQ and good ideology, most people (of whatever IQ) are going to be acting on material self-interest, not abstract ideas.

[Swordsmyth]

As I said, which ultimate value a person lands on has nothing to do with intelligence.

Moreover, as I was explaining in the other thread, ideology is rarely the driver of political behavior (at least as to the more important political issues, such as economic policy). Even if there were a connection between high IQ and good ideology, most people (of whatever IQ) are going to be acting on material self-interest, not abstract ideas.

I disagree with the priority that you give to material self-interest but it is an important factor and stupid people are much more likely to be short-sighted about it and endorse bad policy.

[r3volution 3.0]

I disagree with the priority that you give to material self-interest but it is an important factor and stupid people are much more likely to be short-sighted about it and endorse bad policy.

It's true that more intelligent people tend to have lower time preference (the better you can see the future, the more likely you are to care about it), and this should effect things like savings rates, the age at which people choose to have children, propensity to commit certain kinds of crimes - but it should have no effect on voting behavior. A highly intelligent person who wants some free$#@! knows that whether or not he personally obtains said free$#@! will have virtually no effect on economic growth, and even less (if any) on his own income-earning potential. His gains from the obtaining free$#@! will always outweigh his losses, if any. If he's driven by material self-interest, he will vote for the free$#@!, no matter the long term consequences to other people.

[Swordsmyth]

It's true that more intelligent people tend to have lower time preference (the better you can see the future, the more likely you are to care about it), and this should effect things like savings rates, the age at which people choose to have children, propensity to commit certain kinds of crimes - but it should have no effect on voting behavior. A highly intelligent person who wants some free$#@! knows that whether or not he personally obtains said free$#@! will have virtually no effect on economic growth, and even less (if any) on his own income-earning potential. His gains from the obtaining free$#@! will always outweigh his losses, if any. If he's driven by material self-interest, he will vote for the free$#@!, no matter the long term consequences to other people.

He is more likely to realize that his actions may harm his own interests in the long run or by setting a precedent that allows other to vote themselves free stuff from his bank account and if he thinks far enough ahead to care about his children and grandchildren he is even more likely to come to better conclusions.

It's funny because although I admit that the mechanism is not perfect (I even insist on that because of what I am about to point out) this is the entire basis you have for your flawed theory that monarchy is the best route to liberty and you are now undermining it in order to serve your globalist cultural-equivalency position.

[r3volution 3.0]

He is more likely to realize that his actions may harm his own interests in the long run or by setting a precedent that allows other to vote themselves free stuff from his bank account and if he thinks far enough ahead to care about his children and grandchildren he is even more likely to come to better conclusions.

He will always be a net beneficiary, as would his children or grandchildren if he chose to pass on his winnings.

It's funny because although I admit that the mechanism is not perfect (I even insist on that because of what I am about to point out) this is the entire basis you have for your flawed theory that monarchy is the best route to liberty and you are now undermining it in order to serve your globalist cultural-equivalency position.

To the contrary, this problem with democracy is the core of the argument for nondemocratic government.

[Swordsmyth]

He will always be a net beneficiary, as would his children or grandchildren if he chose to pass on his winnings.

Not if his society is irretrievably harmed, it doesn't matter if you get a 10% larger piece of the pie if the pie shrinks 30%.
And as I said, he opens himself up to being pillaged far more than he is able to pillage, especially since the more he acquires wealth the larger a target he makes of himself.

To the contrary, this problem with democracy is the core of the argument for nondemocratic government.

But the monarch is just as susceptible to the forces you cite while being far less restrained in his ability to kill the golden goose to get an extra egg.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not if his society is irretrievably harmed, it doesn't matter if you get a 10% larger piece of the pie if the pie shrinks 30%.

That depends entirely on the distribution of gains and losses, which brings us to:

But the monarch is just as susceptible to the forces you cite while being far less restrained in his ability to kill the golden goose to get an extra egg.

The majority of voters reap all the gains, while bearing only a fraction of the cost (in terms of lost economic growth).

The monarch reaps all the gains, but bears all of the cost (in terms of lost economic growth - i.e. his own future revenues).

By analogy, it's possible for the majority of shareholders to profit at the expense of the corporation.

It isn't possible for a sole proprietor to profit at the expense of his own business.

[Swordsmyth]

That depends entirely on the distribution of gains and losses, which brings us to:



The majority of voters reap all the gains, while bearing only a fraction of the cost (in terms of lost economic growth).

The monarch reaps all the gains, but bears all of the cost (in terms of lost economic growth - i.e. his own future revenues).

By analogy, it's possible for the majority of shareholders to profit at the expense of the corporation.

It isn't possible for a sole proprietor to profit at the expense of his own business.

The monarch doesn't reap all or even most of the rewards unless he is excessively tyrannical and the temptation to increase his slice of the pie at the expense of total pie size is just as strong or stronger because he has much more power and much less opposition.

[r3volution 3.0]

The monarch doesn't reap all or even most of the rewards unless he is excessively tyrannical and the temptation to increase his slice of the pie at the expense of total pie size is just as strong or stronger because he has much more power and much less opposition.

Say the plan is to collect $100 in tax and distribute it to the ruler(s), which will result in $150 in lost economic output.**

For a coalition of 51/100 voters, each gets 1/51st of the gains ($1.96) and bears 1/100th of the cost ($1.50), for a net gain of $0.46.

Whereas a monarch gets 1/1 of the gains ($100) and bears 1/1 of the cost ($150), for a net loss of $50.

Do you see how the voters have an incentive to do this, while the monarch does not?

**This is the present value of the loss, based on the voters' and monarch's time preference, which we'll assume are the same

[Swordsmyth]

Say the plan is to collect $100 in tax and distribute it to the ruler(s), which will result in $150 in lost economic output.**

For a coalition of 51/100 voters, each gets 1/51st of the gains ($1.96) and bears 1/100th of the cost ($1.50), for a net gain of $0.46.

Whereas a monarch gets 1/1 of the gains ($100) and bears 1/1 of the cost ($150), for a net loss of $50.

Do you see how the voters have an incentive to do this, while the monarch does not?

**This is the present value of the loss, based on the voters' and monarch's time preference, which we'll assume are the same

The monarch doesn't reap 100% of economic output unless he is taxing his people at 100% which would be an extreme of tyranny rarely seen in history.

[nobody's_hero]

The monarch doesn't reap 100% of economic output unless he is taxing his people at 100% which would be an extreme of tyranny rarely seen in history.

Where democracy went wrong is when we gave people with nothing to lose and everything to gain, an equal voice as those with little to gain and much to lose. That cat is pretty much out of the bag but if there's ever a reset we would have to go back to property owners being the only ones allowed to vote, if voting were to be tried again after such a collapse.

(not necessarily replying to you but I can sometimes see how 3.0 gets so infatuated with monarchy because it seems like that would be an ideal situation where the king has everything to lose and therefore gets the only voice, but I don't think it's gonna make for the best economic results unless the king is gonna do all the work himself, people who work for themselves are generally going to be more productive)

[r3volution 3.0]

The monarch doesn't reap 100% of economic output unless he is taxing his people at 100% which would be an extreme of tyranny rarely seen in history.

Of course, but that doesn't matter.

Suppose you own a business.
--You have to decide how much to pay yourself versus how much to leave in the business for reinvestment.
--If you decide to increase your pay, you bear the full cost, in the form of reduced growth (less future pay).

It's just the same with a monarch.
--He has to decide how much to tax versus how much to leave in the private sector for reinvestment.
--If he raises taxes, he bears the full cost, in the form of reduced growth (less future tax revenue).

[Swordsmyth]

Where democracy went wrong is when we gave people with nothing to lose and everything to gain, an equal voice as those with little to gain and much to lose. That cat is pretty much out of the bag but if there's ever a reset we would have to go back to property owners being the only ones allowed to vote, if voting were to be tried again after such a collapse.

(not necessarily replying to you but I can sometimes see how 3.0 gets so infatuated with monarchy because it seems like that would be an ideal situation where the king has everything to lose and therefore gets the only voice, but I don't think it's gonna make for the best economic results unless the king is gonna do all the work himself, people who work for themselves are generally going to be more productive)

People without property have rights and things to lose too.
But you are right that restricting franchise is the right way to go, people who get any money from the government should lose their vote as just one example.

[Swordsmyth]

Of course, but that doesn't matter.

Suppose you own a business.
--You have to decide how much to pay yourself versus how much to leave in the business for reinvestment.
--If you decide to increase your pay, you bear the full cost, in the form of reduced growth (less future pay).

It's just the same with a monarch.
--He has to decide how much to tax versus how much to leave in the private sector for reinvestment.
--If he raises taxes, he bears the full cost, in the form of reduced growth (less future tax revenue).

And it's the same with voters as it is with a monarch, they are like stockholders instead of a single owner.
The temptation to loot the company's assets for a temporary bonus is there for both.

[r3volution 3.0]

And it's the same with voters as it is with a monarch, they are like stockholders instead of a single owner.
The temptation to loot the company's assets for a temporary bonus is there for both.

Yes, the voters are like stockholders (as I said in post #110), which is exactly why they don't have the same incentives as a monarch. Shareholders can profit at the expense of their corporation; a sole proprietor cannot profit at the expense of his business (i.e. at his own expense). I've already explained why this is the case; I even provided a mathematical illustration. Here it is again:

Say the plan is to collect $100 in tax and distribute it to the ruler(s), which will result in $150 in lost economic output.**

For a coalition of 51/100 voters, each gets 1/51st of the gains ($1.96) and bears 1/100th of the cost ($1.50), for a net gain of $0.46.

Whereas a monarch gets 1/1 of the gains ($100) and bears 1/1 of the cost ($150), for a net loss of $50.

Do you see how the voters have an incentive to do this, while the monarch does not?

**This is the present value of the loss, based on the voters' and monarch's time preference, which we'll assume are the same

Here we have one and the same policy, profitable for voters, not profitable for the monarch.

Change a few words and this applies equally to corporations versus sole proprietorships.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, the voters are like stockholders (as I said in post #110), which is exactly why they don't have the same incentives as a monarch. Shareholders can profit at the expense of their corporation; a sole proprietor cannot profit at the expense of his business (i.e. at his own expense). I've already explained why this is the case; I even provided a mathematical illustration. Here it is again:



Here we have one and the same policy, profitable for voters, not profitable for the monarch.

Change a few words and this applies equally to corporations versus sole proprietorships.

Both can take a temporary bonus at the expense of the business and both will be tempted to.
It happens throughout history with businesses and kingdoms.

[r3volution 3.0]

Both can take a temporary bonus at the expense of the business and both will be tempted to.

Yes, both have an incentive to take present gains at the expense of reduced future gains. To what extent they do this (how much they value present gains over future gains) depends on their time preference. What you're not understanding is that, in the example I presented, they have the same time preference. The "cost" is expressed as present value (i.e. already discounted by their time preference). And yet the voters have an incentive to carry out the destructive policy, while the monarch does not. Why? Again, not because of time preference (they have the same time preference). It's because the voters only bear a fraction of the cost, while the monarch bears the whole cost.

You understand that what I'm saying about corporations isn't in any way controversial? There are laws designed specifically to prevent the majority from doing the kind of thing which I'm demonstrating they have an incentive to do. Google "shareholder oppression," for example. Note that there are no similar laws relating to sole proprietorships, because there don't need to be, because a sole owner obviously cannot oppress himself. All I'm doing is applying this logic to states.