X-Message-Number: 17213
From: "Mark Plus" <>
Subject: Re: IQ versus common sense
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 19:06:27 -0700

In Message #17206, Doug Skrecky wrote,

>  I used to be a member of Mensa, an organisation where even the  village 
>idiot has to have an IQ in the top 2% to join. People on  welfare showed up 
>at meetings. People who were apparently mentally >  ill showed up. One even 
>boasted about how crazy "it" was. In short >  lots of people showed up who 
>could not add two plus two and reliably >  get an answer of four. I am no 
>longer a member of Mensa.
>
>  This experience forced me to make a clear distinction between IQ and
>  common sense. If the entire population suddenly acquired ten extra IQ
>  points, nothing much would change. If the entire population suddenly >  
>was gifted with 10 extra common sense points, our society would be
>  transformed overnight.
>
>  Bums in the street would vanish, because begging is a harder way to
>  acquire funds, than working a job. Crime would plummet, because in >  the 
>long run crime usually really doesn't pay. Strife at the office, >  at 
>home, and at school would be reduced because it is pointless. The >  
>economy would boom, everybody would be happy, there would be no more >  
>wars, etc, etc.
>
>  The business world knows this. An analog of common sense called
>  Emotional Quotient (EQ) has been found to be correlated with business
>  success, while IQ is not. In the real world nothing can substitute >  for 
>good sound judgement. Unfortunately some people have it, while >  others do 
>not.

I have been thinking about this sort of thing lately while reflecting about 
my grandparents.  They were basically decent people -- the sort who worked 
hard, obeyed the law, made their children behave, etc.  But I could tell 
even as a child that they weren't all that successful in life, and it never 
occurred to me while growing up to go to one of them for advice about a 
personal problem.  I understood on some level that they didn't know that 
much, despite all their life experience.

I suspect the cultural belief about the "wisdom of the elders" is only 
partially true, a generalization that would have seemed more plausible in 
the past than today.  In premodern situations, old people were genuinely 
scarce, hence their advice was more valued.  Also, because the material and 
social environment changed slowly, if at all, whatever a person learned in 
youth would probably still be relevant in old age.  This certainly would 
have been the case for primitive technical skills like farming, 
blacksmithing and similar activities.  It was probably also true when it 
came to political or legal judgments.

Today, however, we are surrounded by a much larger population of people 
living to advanced ages, and, frankly, I'm not impressed by what I'm seeing. 
  I have to wonder if we can do better as a society than leaving the 
development of prudence and good judgment to whatever haphazard processes 
operating now.  Failure to solve this problem will have literally 
life-or-death consequences if we succeed in attaining radical life 
extension, for I don't think it would be good to have a bunch of really old 
people with youthful physiologies running about if they remain prudentially 
retarded.

Sincerely,

Mark Plus

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17213