Geniocracy: A New System of Government

[Samadhi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geniocracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geniocracy
Has anyone read the book? It looks like a fascinating idea in which the MBTI could be incorporated. What think you?

[Zephyrus055]

The first problem with Geniocracy is that its identification of the short-comings of Democracy are flawed. Second, the reasoning behind its solution misrepresents the intellectual capabilities of the political elite and therefore defeats itself.

[Anonymous]

"The term geniocracy comes from the word 'Genius' and proposes a system that is designed to select for intelligence and compassion as the primary factor for governance."

Intelligence and compassion mean nothing without the context of perspective. For one thing, you don't need to have a Ph.D. to know how to govern well. For another thing, compassion means little without the right perspective. A lot of compassionate, intelligent people will never have a political perspective any deeper than wanting to stop Japan from killing whales or fighting for gay rights.

[Faust06]

Plato advocated the same thing in The Republic. Wont/can't happen.

[Tenderfoot]

I see no evidence that IQ is correlated with morality.

If I must be governed, then I want to be governed by good people, not smart ones.

That is not likely to happen in our lifetimes.

[Dethklok]

What? Even knowing nothing about the concept, I'm struck by the poor quality of all of your arguments against it.

*Goes to Wikipedia to find out what it actually is*

[cripple]

I see no evidence that IQ is correlated with morality.

If I must be governed, then I want to be governed by good people, not smart ones.

That is not likely to happen in our lifetimes.
Good people tend to do evil in the name of good.

I'd take smart people over intelligent and good people.

[Feller]

Revolutionary concept: smart and good people.

[Dethklok]

OK, so it really is what Anonymous quoted.


The first problem with Geniocracy is that its identification of the short-comings of Democracy are flawed. Second, the reasoning behind its solution misrepresents the intellectual capabilities of the political elite and therefore defeats itself.
Will you please be more specific?


Intelligence and compassion mean nothing without the context of perspective.
But this argument seems to cede the claim that intelligence and compassion are also important. What currently exists is a system whereby neither intelligence, nor compassion, nor perspective are safeguarded in either electors or elected. Besides which - if perspective is so key, why not simply include "perspective" among the selection criteria?


Plato advocated the same thing in The Republic. Wont/can't happen.
Nothing is stopping a community from forming on some island somewhere, making a flag and a pompous national anthem, and putting these principles into practice.



I see no evidence that IQ is correlated with morality.
I think that's what they were implying with "compassion." Indeed it seems to me that what people think of as "moral" behavior is really the intersection of intelligence and compassion - the reasoning ability to solve moral problems and the desire to act on these solutions rather than on the basis of one's own selfishness or greed.

[Roger Mexico]

LOL Raelians.

This is the old "meritocracy" idea, again. OK, fine, but the problem with any version of it boils down to how you assess merit. (and, of course, who gets to control the assessment process) In this case, the proposition is to be governed by people deemed meritorious according to the arbitrary standards of some amateur psychologists.

Amateur psychologists who want to build an embassy for aliens in Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlian_Embassy_for_Extraterrestrials).

[cordillia]

On the face this seems like a good idea. However, there are two problems in particular that I see with it. First, what evidence is there that more intelligent people are more capable of governance than less intelligent people?

Second, assuming that more intelligent people are better able to govern, there is still a documented history of abuse when one group is deemed to be 'superior' to another based on arbitrary criteria and rights are assigned based on that. Fiction gives us worlds like 1984 and Gattaca, while real life gives us everything from slavery to forced sterilization to genocide. Even if they system could solve these problems, there would still be things like sabotage and incompetence on the part of officials. How can you prevent systemic abuse in this type of system?

[Feller]

what evidence is there that more intelligent people are more capable of governance than less intelligent people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

[Abschaum]

Incorporating MBTI into that? No fucking way. Also, inteliigent people can be really fucking stupid sometimes when it comes to politics, especially if they don't have a genuin interest for it.

[cordillia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

That doesn't really answer the question.

[Feller]

That doesn't really answer the question.


Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, learning from past experiences, planning, and problem solving.

Planning? Problem solving? Communication? Reasoning? Those are essential aspects of governing, I'd say. I also think that all of these would at least be helpful.

[Walalaaa]

Planning? Problem solving? Communication? Reasoning? Those are essential aspects of governing, I'd say. I also think that all of these would at least be helpful.

Yes but the main problem is in how to measure "intelligence". A mere definition doesn't cover that one.

Is there a test that can predict the effectiveness of a given person in governing other people? I don't know of one.

[Zephyrus055]

Will you please be more specific?

I mean that the short comings of Democracy that Geniocracy identifies are non existent, because election outcomes depend more on favor from the elite than on the masses. Furthermore, our elites are intelligent overall, and that consideration defeats Geniocracy's solution.

The real problem is that elites no longer find it in their best interest to be stewards to the country, and instead have incentives to be short sighted.

[cordillia]

Planning? Problem solving? Communication? Reasoning? Those are essential aspects of governing, I'd say. I also think that all of these would at least be helpful.

True. However, you could substitute 'governing' with 'driving' and have an equally valid statement, yet the best drivers are not necessarily the most intelligent, and the worst ones are not necessarily unintelligent. It's hard to say what effect a minimum IQ for driving would have, if any, because an arbitrarily high level of intelligence is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a good driver.

/caranalogy

[Feller]

However, you could substitute 'governing' with 'driving' and have an equally valid statement

No, you couldn't. Driving has little to do with any of the listed abilities.


Yes but the main problem is in how to measure "intelligence". A mere definition doesn't cover that one.

Is there a test that can predict the effectiveness of a given person in governing other people? I don't know of one.

I agree, this geniocracy idea is completely impractical. Cordilla's asking for "evidence" that intelligence helps govern is just silly though.

[Dethklok]

(A)ssuming that more intelligent people are better able to govern, there is still a documented history of abuse when one group is deemed to be 'superior' to another based on arbitrary criteria and rights are assigned based on that. Fiction gives us worlds like 1984 and Gattaca, while real life gives us everything from slavery to forced sterilization to genocide. Even if they system could solve these problems, there would still be things like sabotage and incompetence on the part of officials. How can you prevent systemic abuse in this type of system?
This seems a weighty argument. Yet, I think there is some precedent for second-class citizens receiving good treatment even when denied the vote; for instance, children are a protected class under the current system (and many might argue that they are too protected; CPS is pretty powerful.) The question is whether, and how, the interests of non-voters could be protected under the Geniocratic system.

As for your question of how to prevent systematic abuse, it is probably not possible to prevent such abuse. Yet, wouldn't selecting officials on the basis of compassion obviously reduce corruption along with the checks and balances already in place?



I mean that the short comings of Democracy that Geniocracy identifies are non existent, because election outcomes depend more on favor from the elite than on the masses. Furthermore, our elites are intelligent overall, and that consideration defeats Geniocracy's solution.
Yet the elite is not particularly compassionate. Nor is the elite uniformly intelligent; there are many stupid people among the rich, powerful, and famous. Nor do the outcomes of elections depend entirely upon the elite; clearly the masses exert some control over election results.



The real problem is that elites no longer find it in their best interest to be stewards to the country, and instead have incentives to be short sighted.
Compassionate people are evidently more likely to assume responsibility or stewardship of a thing they control. So even if the only change was to take power only from uncompassionate elites, this change should help to address the problem you raise.



However, you could substitute 'governing' with 'driving' and have an equally valid statement, yet the best drivers are not necessarily the most intelligent, and the worst ones are not necessarily unintelligent. It's hard to say what effect a minimum IQ for driving would have, if any, because an arbitrarily high level of intelligence is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a good driver.
Studies find that intelligent people are in general better drivers. Whether all intelilgent people are better drivers is irrelevant to the question of whether allowing only intelligent people to drive would reduce accidents. Likewise, I don't think it's fair to argue that because Geniocracy isn't perfect, it's no better than the current system - I think it's pretty clearly a step up from the present system.

[Accidental]

I mean that the short comings of Democracy that Geniocracy identifies are non existent, because election outcomes depend more on favor from the elite than on the masses. Furthermore, our elites are intelligent overall, and that consideration defeats Geniocracy's solution.

The real problem is that elites no longer find it in their best interest to be stewards to the country, and instead have incentives to be short sighted.

Everything you say is always so funny. Wait. You don't actually believe the things you say, right?

[cordillia]

Cordilla's asking for "evidence" that intelligence helps govern is just silly though.


Things that seem obvious on the surface are often not so clear when you start digging deeper. The premise "more intelligent people govern better than less intelligent people" is both unverified by science and anecdotally untrue. I think it is perfectly reasonable to step back and examine this assumption if you are going to propose a system that takes away the basic democratic rights of half or more of the population.

[Feller]

Things that seem obvious on the surface are often not so clear when you start digging deeper. The premise "more intelligent people govern better than less intelligent people" is both unverified by science and anecdotally untrue. I think it is perfectly reasonable to step back and examine this assumption if you are going to propose a system that takes away the basic democratic rights of half or more of the population.

It's worth re-examining for a second, right before remembering that stupid people are stupid. I agree with you that the anecdotal evidence disputes geniocracy's status as a cure-all, but I don't see how you can truly question whether smart people will govern better than stupid people in general.

[Yuengling]

The premise "more intelligent people govern better than less intelligent people" is both unverified by science and anecdotally untrue.

unverified by science, sure. Ever been tested by science? probably not. anecdotally untrue? what do you mean? rumored to be untrue? anecdotal arguments are moot.

I am all about questioning things, but where does this argument go? Let's say we take a well rounded individual that significantly accels in every mental capability and gave him a team of 20 people to manage and accomplish a set of complex, mock government tasks. Then we take another well rounded man that has significantly lower than average mental capacities, with the same 20 people and the same set of rules. I fail to see the lesser one "governing" more successfully.

To break a whole through this example you could say that any "smart" ruler could be a genius at one thing but carry some fatal flaw to his detriment. That he could accidentally give way to some stedfast, retard hunchback, who combined hard work with good luck to win the presidency through a loophole. but before you prove that intelligence doesn't NECESSARILY win out every time, just speaking in general, when would a dumber ruler be better at ruling?

[Resonance]

unverified by science, sure. Ever been tested by science? probably not. anecdotally untrue? what do you mean? rumored to be untrue? anecdotal arguments are moot.

I am all about questioning things, but where does this argument go? Let's say we take a well rounded individual that significantly accels in every mental capability and gave him a team of 20 people to manage and accomplish a set of complex, mock government tasks. Then we take another well rounded man that has significantly lower than average mental capacities, with the same 20 people and the same set of rules. I fail to see the lesser one "governing" more successfully.

To break a whole through this example you could say that any "smart" ruler could be a genius at one thing but carry some fatal flaw to his detriment. That he could accidentally give way to some stedfast, retard hunchback, who combined hard work with good luck to win the presidency through a loophole. but before you prove that intelligence doesn't NECESSARILY win out every time, just speaking in general, when would a dumber ruler be better at ruling?
doesn't exist

pointless to speculate

will never happen anyway

[Dethklok]

unverified by science, sure. Ever been tested by science? probably not. anecdotally untrue? what do you mean? rumored to be untrue? anecdotal arguments are moot.

I am all about questioning things, but where does this argument go? Let's say we take a well rounded individual that significantly accels in every mental capability and gave him a team of 20 people to manage and accomplish a set of complex, mock government tasks. Then we take another well rounded man that has significantly lower than average mental capacities, with the same 20 people and the same set of rules. I fail to see the lesser one "governing" more successfully.

To break a whole through this example you could say that any "smart" ruler could be a genius at one thing but carry some fatal flaw to his detriment. That he could accidentally give way to some stedfast, retard hunchback, who combined hard work with good luck to win the presidency through a loophole. but before you prove that intelligence doesn't NECESSARILY win out every time, just speaking in general, when would a dumber ruler be better at ruling?
Yes, absolutely... although I can't help but think your argument would be more forceful if the spelling and grammar were better.

[cordillia]

Let's say you were to make a list of all the things that make a person an effective governor and found a way to quantify them. You would end up with a fairly long list. Some items on that list would have a greater impact than others, and each variable would correlate with the others in various ways. For instance, a high degree of confidence might have a strong, positive correlation with tolerance. The question then would be, what would correlate with intelligence, and how. What if intelligence was negatively correlated to lawfulness or charisma or mental health?

If someone was actually able to conduct a study like this, it is entirely possible that they would find that intelligence leads to better governance. However, it is also possible that higher intelligence would result in other, more important traits being edged out, resulting in a net negative. Or the trait could prove to be statistically insignificant.

Personally, I suspect that outliers at either end of the intelligence scale would have issues with governance. I, for one, wouldn't want either Forrest Gump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Gump_(character)) or Sheldon Cooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper) in charge.

[qualia]

I don't see how this really is anything but Aristotle's aristocracy with all the moral implications stripped out. And the moral bit was a big part of it, since at least to him, a really smart man would find morality kind of a "no duh" thing.

It is the ideal system, but as he pointed out a few thousand years ago, it's incredibly easy to fuck up and ends up with plutocracy or oligarchy, which is the worst system one could possibly have. I vote nay. Give me a Polity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_(Aristotle)), please.

[Yuengling]

Let's say you were to make a list of all the things that make a person an effective governor and found a way to quantify them. You would end up with a fairly long list. Some items on that list would have a greater impact than others, and each variable would correlate with the others in various ways. For instance, a high degree of confidence might have a strong, positive correlation with tolerance. The question then would be, what would correlate with intelligence, and how. What if intelligence was negatively correlated to lawfulness or charisma or mental health?

I think first you would have to define intelligence. I really have yet to find a unified and fully agreed upon definition of this. Perhaps that is why no one has been able to adequately measure intelligence.

[Resonance]

I think first you would have to define intelligence. I really have yet to find a unified and fully agreed upon definition of this. Perhaps that is why no one has been able to adequately measure intelligence.

why do people still not take this for granted

[Yuengling]

why do people still not take this for granted

what do you mean?

[Resonance]

what do you mean?

I mean most people still believe intelligence is some kind of intrinsic, scalar attribute. Most people recognize that there are 'different kinds of smarts' but few even realize it, much less know how varied ability can be.

[Yuengling]

I mean most people still believe intelligence is some kind of intrinsic, scalar attribute. Most people recognize that there are 'different kinds of smarts' but few even realize it, much less know how varied ability can be.

For a while I had my own definition of intelligence, it was simply the rate at which one learned. Modeled by prodigies as Mozart and such. Started to doubt this though...

[Resonance]

Started to doubt this though...
That's good.

[Yuengling]

That's good.

Doubt is always good.


...or is it...

[Dethklok]

Let's say you were to make a list of all the things that make a person an effective governor and found a way to quantify them. You would end up with a fairly long list. Some items on that list would have a greater impact than others, and each variable would correlate with the others in various ways. For instance, a high degree of confidence might have a strong, positive correlation with tolerance. The question then would be, what would correlate with intelligence, and how. What if intelligence was negatively correlated to lawfulness or charisma or mental health?

If someone was actually able to conduct a study like this, it is entirely possible that they would find that intelligence leads to better governance. However, it is also possible that higher intelligence would result in other, more important traits being edged out, resulting in a net negative. Or the trait could prove to be statistically insignificant.

Personally, I suspect that outliers at either end of the intelligence scale would have issues with governance. I, for one, wouldn't want either Forrest Gump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Gump_(character)) or Sheldon Cooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper) in charge.
Cordillia, I think the problem is that you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Even on its face, a dispassionate observer would expect that intelligence should be correlated with a variety of positive outcomes - and that is exactly what research finds:


Variables correlated with IQ:
Achievement motivation
Altruism
Attitudes, cognitive abilities, 'abstractness of' integrative complexity
Artistic preferences and abilities
Craftwork
Creativity; fluency
Educational attainment
Eminence, genius
Emotional sensitivity
Extra-curricular attainments
Health, fitness, longevity
Humor, sense of
Income
Interests, depth/breadth of
Involvement in school activities
Law-abidingness
Leadership
Linguistic abilities (including spelling)
Logical abilities
Media preferences
Memory
Migration (voluntary)
Military rank
Moral reasoning and development
Motor skills
Musical preferences and abilities
Occupational status
Occupational success
Perceptual abilities
Piaget-type abilities
Practical knowledge
Psychotherapy, response to
Reading ability
Social skills
Socioeconomic status of origin
Socioeconomic status achieved
Sports participation at university
Supermarket shopping ability
Talking speed
Values and attitudes
Vital (lung) capacity

Source: Jensen, 1998 The g Factor

Note the many abilities relating to intelligence on this list, including everything from supermarket shopping to leadership to artistic ability. But most relevant to this discussion is the relationship between measured intelligence and occupational success. Linda Gottfriedson is probably the most cited researcher in the field of intelligence and job performance, and in the abstract of her 1997 article "Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life" (Published in the journal Intelligence), she writes:

Personnel selection research provides much evidence that intelligence (g) is an important predictor of performance in training and on the job, especially in higher level work... The more complex a work task, the greater the advantages that higher g (intelligence) confers in performing it well.

To give this a sense of concreteness, I'll add that further in her article she provides a list of occupations by average IQ score. At the top of the list we have a variety of white collar positions, many of them bearing an obvious similarity to the job title of "governmental official:"

Attorney, Research Analyst, Editor & Assistant, Manager (Advertising), Chemist, Engineer, Executive, Manager (Trainee), Systems Analyst, Auditor, Copywriter, Accountant, Manager (Supervisor)


Around 100 IQ we have more mundane positions:

Cashier, Clerical (General), Inside Sales Clerk, Meter Reader, Primer, Teller


And at the bottom of the list we find the more "hands-on" occupations:

Assembler, Food Service Worker, Nurse’s Aide, Warehouseman, Custodian & Janitor, Material Handler, Packer


So, seriously, arguing that "all else being equal, intelligence won't confer a performance advantage to a smarter elected official over a duller one" is interesting only as a rhetorical exercise. The question of what intelligence correlates with has been researched to death, and the results are deeply unsurprising.

I think it's much more interesting, and much more controversial, that the geniocratic platform wants to incorporate compassion in its selection criteria. Compassion is much harder to measure objectively, does not have nearly the same wealth of research backing up its benefits, and is conceptually much easier to question at a useful trait in a leader or voter. For example, might compassionate people lack the stomach for making the hard choices which often arise in national history? Might compassionate rulers not themselves focus short-sightedly on present human suffering in such a way that they neglect other problems which indirectly cause much more suffering in the long term? I tend to think the answers to these questions are "not really," or "yes, but not to the same degree that selfish, greedy, and egotistical people will tend to wreck, ruin, and destroy things around them for personal gain," but it's wide open to debate in a way that this intelligence thing really is not.

[cordillia]

Due to the feedback here, I think I phrased my original statement poorly, and I would like to revise it. I agree that intelligence, all other things being equal, conveys an advantage. However, I wonder if a higher level of intelligence tends to come with other, negative attributes that might drown out the positives, or if intelligence is so much less important than some other attributes that it can be overlooked in their favor.

@Dethklok: Finally, an answer that presents some real evidence, and it definitely is compelling. Given this information, I think it is very likely that intelligence is, on its own, positively correlated with good governance. I wonder if, given these correlations, it is actually intelligence that leads to this success, or certain of these attributes (with intelligence being used as a rough measure). I also wonder if anyone has ever done a similar study looking at all of the factors that lead to good (and poor) governance.

Ironically (given the topic), there has been a word coined based on the author's name: Jensenism, the theory that an individual’s IQ is largely due to heredity, including racial heritage. He has stated in several papers (including the one in 1998) that black people have a genetic predisposition to low intelligence. He's either insane, or extremely brave.

Also, I read the book. It expressly advocates eugenics, central elements of both communism and fascism, and (of all things) pedophilia, as well as the creation of a form of 'pre-crime' where people are forcibly 'treated' if tests show they have high levels of chemicals in their brain associated with aggression. Regardless of whether the general idea has merit, the book is at best pseudo-scientific trash.

[Dethklok]

Regardless of whether the general idea has merit, the book is at best pseudo-scientific trash.
As to that, I wouldn't be surprised; it was, after all, proposed by Rael.

[proverbs6:13]

The thresholds proposed by the Raëlians are 50% above the mean for an electoral candidate and 10% above the mean for an elector.

Positive correlations for IQ taper off at 25% above the mean. Also I'd like to add that non-voters would predominantly be of below average IQ anyway.
So this idea rests entirely on the political honesty of a tiny group of geniuses who are to be distinguished from one another by an electorate who definitely won't understand their arguments. The only way the system would work is if the candidates refused to become corrupt, the electorate blindly chose the best one and they then instituted their fool-proof plan for prosperity, remember they still have to get civil servants to implement it. How is that not the exact same aspiration that democracy has?

[Tenderfoot]

I don't understand why any of you want to have intelligent people doing the following:


To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.
—P.-J. Proudhon, "What Is Government?", General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.

It's as though you're saying "Since we are slaves, we must be owned by a master. Therefore, we should hope that the master who owns us is extremely smart."

I would prefer an exceptionally stupid master. It would be easier to kill him.

[Dethklok]

This obsession with intelligence grows wearying. The idea is to have voters and officials selected for intelligence and compassion together.

Yes, an intelligent and uncompassionate overlord is indeed simply a master. But add compassion and things are a bit different. In fact, my son has an unstoppable tyrant controlling every aspect of his life. Is he worse off for having someone to call "Daddy?"