Within an Ethnostate

submitted by SoylentCapitalist from (self.debatealtright)

How do you guys feel about an IQ stratified system within an ethnostate? In a capitalist society such as the US there is already a natural divide between high IQ and low IQ individuals and the wealth difference between them, although this isn't as well organized as it could, or should be in my opinion.

For instance, say if WAIS-IV becomes mandatory for all schools, jobs, and universities, so that people with higher intelligence quickly get organized and put on a path towards increasing the efficiency of them innovating for the average and below average population. In return for this innovation and making their job easier, they go through the hard physical labor that is necessary for a society to function.

Then, on that account, wouldn't you rather see politicians with higher overall intelligence?

all 28 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I think intelligence is important but so are other traits like loyalty to the nation, empathy for different classes and morality. I think a purely IQ stratified society would cause class struggle between the high IQ and low IQ classes. There will be winners and losers in every society but if the disparity is too large between classes it will lead to resentment between classes. The school system needs to make it easier for the gifted to bring out their potential while also making sure the gifted build healthy bonds with their not so gifted peers. I think every person should be forced to work a physical labor job or a low class job regardless of social class. The upper class has a large responsibility of taking care of the needs of the nation and its lower class, if they despise the lower class like shit liberals it will be just a rerun of the United States.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The school system needs to make it easier for the gifted to bring out their potential while also making sure the gifted build healthy bonds with their not so gifted peers. I think every person should be forced to work a physical labor job or a low class job regardless of social class.

It would be fair to have everyone at a young age at least work a mandatory physical labor job for a couple years, regardless of IQ, and thus also reducing some of the conflict between high IQ and low IQ social class.

There will be winners and losers in every society but if the disparity is too large between classes it will lead to resentment between classes.

I believe this resentment will be offset by the fact that a constant stream of innovation specifically meant for making physical labor easier, including managing mental illnesses, brings these two classes together. I see it involving less conflict than the divide between rich and poor in the US.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It would be fair to have everyone at a young age at least work a mandatory physical labor job for a couple years, regardless of IQ, and thus also reducing some of the conflict between high IQ and low IQ social class.

In essence, I think that's the purpose of mandatory military service. Could make it civic service where they help maintain and beautify their communities too. Might help reduce imperialistic militarism.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't think that would be effective, the people of different IQ levels would mainly associate with those similar to them and just create different cliques within military units and breed mutual distrust.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Perhaps but in a closed environment like that, those kinds of issues would be able to be better managed, don't you think?

Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There are already communities that exist like this, maybe not anywhere near 100% of the population but what about the existing voluntary military service, does this cliquishness happen? What about things like the US's americorps? or peacecorps? Or other programs? How does it work out in countries that do have mandatory universal military service?

We can look at how it has turned out other places that have tried similar things already.

Personally I would like something like this, I always wanted a "coming of age" service period like this, maybe I would have been happy with americorps but I never did it. It seems like it would really give a sense of pride in the community and induction into the period of adult responsibility to take care of one's country, together with the others of one's generation.

Come to think of it, stuff like this might help people out a lot with that feeling of meaning and purpose people seem to turn to marxist stuff or other interest groups for.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

Class collaboration requires shared experience.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The upper class has a large responsibility of taking care of the needs of the nation and its lower class, if they despise the lower class like shit liberals

Yeah I kinda feel this is not so dissimilar from the system we've already got.

This explains a lot about our current system -- liberals do tend to be higher-iq afaik. And they don't necessarily do a better job of running stuff with their smart theories and stuff, even though it sounds really good. And why they have such a desire to protect minorities or whatever, they think it's their role in society to be loyal to the lower classes. And why people from lower classes think it's condescending, because it is. Idk if it's really possible to really help someone properly if you're thinking it's their role to be beneath you.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am not sure what the actual solution to this problem could be. Attempting to maximize the individual potential of a population is going to lead to stratification of different classes even if society attempts to obfuscate the stratification by avoiding the formalizing of IQ tests and gifted programs. A hierarchy is going to emerge inevitably and the gifted classes are generally going to mingle with the classes the most like themselves. Even if the nation attempts to harmonize the classes through national education, military service and physical labor jobs there is probably going to be a clique of the gifted classes and less gifted classes.

It seems like a problem that can't really be helped.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It seems like it's supposed to be ok as long as everyone can contribute to the best of their ability. I don't think distorting people's perception of their own ability is the answer, it just leads to problems down the line.

To me natural authority doesn't feel bad. Like it feels like there's a difference between someone who's just doing what they like and is really good at it, vs. someone who's actively trying to insist they're better, is domineering, whatever. Like I don't feel bad asking someone for their thoughts about something I think they're good at, or something I think they have good judgement about. It's extremely natural. Maybe like some people feel about teachers who don't seem to know what they're talking about as well as their students, this is an example of unnatural authority. The teachers are supposed to think they know stuff, and the students are supposed to think they don't know stuff, whatever the situation actually is. It feels like it distorts natural, positive behavior.

It's also not stable since people's abilities change and new techniques are developed etc, but that's not a problem because everyone's fully included at whatever their ability is anyway.

Does it have to necessarily be a problem that there are differences of ability? idk.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I think it is usually a mistake to try to create an "inferior" class that you're trying to rely on for physical labor. I don't really think it's that much better if you do it from your same race than if you do it from other races. Your population should be made of people you actually want to breed with, because it will happen anyway based on proximity. And the non-laborers would get out of touch with actual labor, what it's like, what matters regarding it. This is better done with automation.

How would you deal with it if the high-iq did not actually keep up their end of the bargain? I.e. didn't actually manage to innovate or run things well, or became decadent, or betrayed everyone else?

It does kinda seem good for the high-iq to get organized with each other quickly. It would leave a lot of people out... probably including me... but it does seem like a positive thing as long as IQ is a real thing. To the extent it misses things, it will create a false structure where those entrusted with running things are not best equipped to use it, and try to perform their function anyway, and important genetic traits are bred out as high-iq are prioritized for reproduction.

What's the point of keeping non-high-iq around? I guess that's part of why these ideas get so taboo... isn't it the case that lower-iq people really are kinda just a burden, and everyone really will be better off if they were just gone? Now, not that they just supported their higher-iq kinsmen however they could? It's a difficult reality to face if that's really the case. It's not very much fun to go through life never being able to contribute and knowing things would be better if you weren't there.

You could look into historical caste systems to see what's worked well and what hasn't. I heard there is some mobility in the Hindu caste system for example, if you really feel called to the role of a different caste.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Thanks for the detailed response which I’ll respond to when I can later today, but I did want to address this specifically now:

isn't it the case that lower-iq people really are kinda just a burden, and everyone really will be better off if they were just gone?

People with higher IQ’s are very prone to mental illness. They lack various other things such as work ethic that make people with low IQs far better suited for these jobs. Work ethic advantage is most likely just a result of having to try harder their whole life but on average is the case nonetheless. I’ll cite some sources when I can get to my computer.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

People with higher IQ’s are very prone to mental illness. They lack various other things such as work ethic

It's possible these are environmental effects from having to exist around lower-iq people. Mental illness because everyone else seems insane and it seems like there's few who really understand (perhaps alleviated with better social skills training for the high-iq, like stuff that helps people be good managers for whatever projects they think are important). And because, well, there are a lot of terrifying possibilities in the world, but understanding practically how to deal with that can help too.

And like you said, work ethic might be environmentally influenced, it's unfortunately easy to try to "coast" if you can do things easier than classmates, and you have to deal with crabs-in-a-bucket mentality.

Idk if I find this convincing, even if I'd like to. Do you have a sense there's a value to low-iq even if you haven't yet articulated it or find the information to support it? Or are you trying to find a reason to not be mean or to figure out a place for people?

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you have a sense there's a value to low-iq even if you haven't yet articulated it or find the information to support it?

Low IQ in of itself as far as I'm aware is not valuable besides getting along with other low IQ individuals. Which is basically the inverse of what you stated for high IQ, which I agree with to an extent, but due to illusory inferiority I speculate most of the high IQ population is more likely to believe they're the one who is insane at a younger age. Being born low IQ does present a different set of problems in which I would classify their struggles as valuable.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

due to illusory inferiority

illusory inferiority?

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Illusory superiority is where average people and below average are overestimating their ability at a task, therefore higher IQ's begin to underestimate their ability.

One of the main effects of illusory superiority in IQ is the "Downing effect". This describes the tendency of people with a below-average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with an above-average IQ to underestimate their IQ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

[–]antireddit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

IQ tests dont really test some important areas of cognitive ability very well, have no bearing on important (and probably largely genetically inherited) behavioral traits, and do not measure frontal lobe brain function-which is crucial if one wants to have a flexible, creative, humane and properly functioning society. They also dont test artistic ability(real artistic ability, the kind exhibited by people like Rembrandt or Mozart or Davinci, not some trashy bullshit where you splatter paint on a canvas and call it art).

Just have a society that is a true meritocracy and values and rewards proven real world ability as well as academic ability. IQ tests are a small but valuable part of that puzzle. Western Europe thrived without modern IQ tests for hundreds of years. Life is the greatest IQ test.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Creativity also correlates positively with those who score high on IQ tests. It does however, cap out at around 120 IQ.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00254/full#:~:text=Below%20an%20IQ%20level%20of,intelligence%20or%20above%2Daverage%20intelligence.

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

increasing the efficiency of them innovating for the average and below average population

Put another way - decreasing the demand for average and below-average people. No one would sign on to this. Low-IQ Stu is supposed to work a crap job so that his betters can gradually innovate away jobs like his? That is not a long-term solution. It probably would lead to the same class animosity we see today, because it has the high-IQ people preach as if they like the low-IQ people, while acting against the material interests of the low-IQ people. They would look like two-faced liars.

Your system rests on trying to make everyone comfortable, thus it is fundamentally materialistic. We can already see today that materialism cannot solve some important problems. We want the lower and upper classes to live harmoniously and respect/trust each other. The first step should be to arrive at a state where both groups actually encounter each other in regular, meaningful, and hopefully positive ways so that that trust can form. In contrast, we've had decades of sorting in which the smart people from all over have been vacuumed up and deposited in the places which happen to have universities and intelligence-based companies. It's hard to trust people you've never met.

Charles Murray's book Coming Apart has lots of insight along these lines. I recommend it to you.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Put another way - decreasing the demand for average and below-average people. No one would sign on to this. Low-IQ Stu is supposed to work a crap job so that his betters can gradually innovate away jobs like his? That is not a long-term solution. We can already see today that materialism cannot solve some important problems.

Good point, but I will say when automation becomes widespread in this society, materialism isn't nearly as much of a necessary concern and allows us to focus our efforts completely on other issues. We approach this faster with an organized IQ stratification. At the rate technology is heading, I'd say we are headed here anyway, which also means already decreasing the demand for average and below-average people. That doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.

Overall, thanks for the perspective and book recommendation.

[–]avena_sativa_3 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

wouldn't you rather see politicians with higher overall intelligence?

There's a correlation between IQ and morality?

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, but there is a correlation between IQ and competency. But you do make a good point that politicians still won't have a good moral compass. There is, however, a correlation between IQ and empathy.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There is, however, a correlation between IQ and empathy.

There isn't? Why did you cross this out?

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I remembered seeing a correlation for this in the past but after trying to find it again I couldn't and it seems most studies are stating there is no positive correlation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting, I had remembered something similar (and it seems inaccurate) too. Thank you for correcting your comment.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can think of numerous social issues that would arise from this and I don't really think any of the proposals to mitigate that here would improve that situation, especially if people's IQs are public knowledge. I imagine it's end result would just be a greater rise in class conflict and mutual distrust, I mean even if you make the high IQ do mandatory service with the low IQ or make them do hard labour I doubt the social differences would be removed.

I think you could implement a system based upon merit and intelligence without formally stratifying society along the lines of IQ, with things like thorough examinations (like they had in Imperial China) and other institutional methods to test an individual's capability.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't understand what you're asking.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Basically, see Indian caste system:

https://ourjourneytoindia.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/castesystem_castes1.jpg

The feet are needed for the head to innovate, and make the job easier for the feet, which are the laborers. I'm asking how people would feel about such a system organized using IQ.