Hardwired For Fear  

Yes, we are hardwired for fear. But how do we get around that? Since fear can sometimes help us, sometimes be an over-reaction, what can we do so our leaders don't "go ape"? Elect smarter leaders. It is my belief that people with a larger neocortex at least have the capacity to see fear for what it is, and more rationally judge that fear, and the appropriateness of the reaction. Brainier people are still under the same evolutionary restraints as regular folk, but at least they have a chance to talk themselves out of over-reacting.

President Bush's IQ is around 126, which I quote from memory. A couple years ago, I read something about his IQ being tested, like all military people, when he entered the National Guard. That just barely puts him in the top 10% of the population. For leader of the free world, that's not good enough, in my opinion. Like it or not, IQ is a strong variable which has a fairly large predictive component, concerning job competancy. My view is, the job of president of the United States has become so large, so important, and the consequences of the decisions of the one person holding the office so consequential, that it's time Americans started picking brighter Presidents.

I think, for most of American history, President Bush would have been perfectly fine, as president. But the world has become too complex for someone like Mr. Bush to be leader of the United States.

I'm a Canadian, and I have to say your presidential selection process is really screwed up. For the last 20 years, 2 families, the Bushes and the Clintons, have held the Oval Office. The U.S. has 300 million people, so there is lots and lots of talent in America. It just doesn't get to the top.

And now who is one of the leading candidates to be president? Hillary Clinton, wife of Bill. Ridiculous. What this tells me is there is a small group of people running the US. I call this nepotism.

It cost $1billion to run for president. How many people have the kind of social contacts to come up with that kind of money? George W Bush, son of a president, would have lots of connections thru dad. So he made it.

Bill Clinton made it on talent and brains alone, coming up from the lower middle class, but once he reached the top, he corrupted himself by stacking the deck in favor of his wife.

It's not that Hillary is not smart, or is not a good candidate. She is both. It's just that she represents the same narrow nepotism that has kept 2 families in office for 20 years. It is the same nepotism, and high cost of entry that keeps out most good people.

George W Bush barely made it to the top 10% of the population, in IQ. That means there are about 30 million Americans smarter than him. And this man has the top job? For shame. And for any Democrats reading this, John Kerry's IQ is slightly lower than Bush's. (it's true). He got to where he ended up, by marrying two rich women. Other than that, his accomplishments were meagre.

So, getting back to fear, the war in Iraq, and solving global warming by using our higher mental functions, well, the best way to do this is to reform America's political system to somehow come up with WAY smarter people than you presently have, running.

The political party that figures this out first will have a big advantage. If the Democrats start deliberatly electing a good percentage of candidates who are top military generals, top corporate executives, leading scientist and intellectuals, eventually this would pay off. Generally speaking, most people who make it to the top of most very large organizations, or win Nobel Prizes, tend to be very bright people. I read once that the lowest IQ of any winner of a Nobel Prize in Science was 138. Most of them are well over 140. Since, once again, there is a strong general statistical correlation between IQ and job performance, having a large body of very smart candidates would mean the Democrats would have a decided advantage over the Republicans, over time. And, brighter people can think further into the future, and plan and react to things that are abstract, yet real, like the danger from future global warming, rather than react out of fear, like America did after 9-11.

This same approach, based on intelligence and education, is exactly how the American Army became so good. When America became a volunteer army, educational requirements were stressed. The way the American military is structured, in terms of competing for promotion, it's very difficult to reach anywhere near the top of the military pyramid without plenty of high academic credentials. That very process selects out people for high intelligence, without even mentioning the word. This means most people running the Pentagon are very, very bright people, who are much brighter than the sitting president. Which is unfortunate, since he's their boss.

Anyhow, if you got the right person, with a scientific background, into the White House, you would get sensible policies on global warming through.

Summing up: Want to solve global warming, America? Stop electing guys who aren't up to the job.

I should point out that I'm actually an Australian - however I frequently comment on US politics partly because they affect the rest of us so much, and partly because the online media tends to have a heavy skew towards covering US news (particularly the sites I follow).

US politics is tending towards a type of oligarchy by my reckoning, which is a little different to straight neoptism.

How they fix this is beyond me (well - New Deal style progressive tax rates and resurrecting a lot of the liberal welfare state might do it, but those policies have their own set of problems).

One problem with trying to stack politics with "high IQ" (or talented) people is that by and large they presumably aren't interested in the day to day world of a politician. If they were, you could assume that the brightest would find a way to the top.

As for the US military, I don't have much knowledge of the people within it (the one guy I have corresponded with on a few occasions was certainly very bright though). Running a meritocracy is a great way to keep an organisation in good shape, but I'm not sure the US Army is totally merit driven.

If it was, how would you explain General Boykin ?

You're right. The General your referred to, is a nut. So my theory doesn't always work. Richard Nixon was a crook, but he was a very bright man, and being smart did not save him from being a disgrace, in the end, as president. Ronald Reagan was not as bright, but many people think he was a very successful president. So IQ is only one variable, albeit an important one.

I still think America should aim higher, on the IQ scale, for leadership. There are good people, of good character and judgement, at all parts of the IQ spectrum. So having a smart person, of good character, is the best combination.

I think Al Gore would have been a better president than George Bush. Al Gore tuned into the effects of global warming decades ago. Why did Mr. Gore tune in, so early? Part of the reason is he's a very bright man. George Bush is starting to tune in, a bit, decades later. That tells me he's a bit slower than Mr. Gore.

The American military does IQ tests on it's applicants. It selects out the best candidates, right from the start. Then it emphasises extensive education. That's why the education level, as well as the average IQ, of people in the American military is higher than the general population.

It doesn't work all the time. Sometimes idiots like the general you referred to, gets to the top. But overall, screening people for IQ will have the effect of minimizing idiots. And that's a start.

As to the US military being merit driven, I think it is. I have read that women are promoted as officers, at a greater rate than their percentage of the force would indicates. Also, thankfully, qualified black soldiers are promoted in equal numbers to white soldiers. That's why you end up with good black generals, like Colin Powell.

You're right about one thing, when you say, terribly bright people often are not interested in politics. That's why the leadership of political parties should have a policy of actively seeking top people to participate in the political process and apply for leadership positions.

You asked, how to fix the American system? Well, Bill Clinton was on a TV show, "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart". Mr Clinton said the greatest problem with American politics, at the national level, is that getting re-elected is so expensive, politicians literally spend half their time running around, raising money.

This has many negative effects. One big effect, that's not much reported on, is that Democrats and Republicans don't spend as much time, socializing, as they did in the past, before elections got so expensive. Right now, they're too busy running around, raising money, to get to know each other. This means they don't spend nearly as much time socializing, which means they don't spend nearly as much time listening to each other's points of view, developing inter-personal trust, and working out comprimises,and generally working out their differences. All this explains a good deal about the general level of antagonistic political hostility and distrust, at the national level, in the U.S. This also means politicians work far less hours, per week, on political issues, since they are usually too busy, being off raising money. So the nation's business is put on hold. Not good.

So the first thing to help change things is some sort of campaign reform, to alleviate the cost burden of getting re-elected. If they do this, politicians of all stripes can spend more time, in Washington, socializing, building trust, on a face-to-face basis.

Yes, I agree with your comments, that America skews toward oligarchy, for the general population, generally speaking. But "nepotism" exists at the extreme top, of the leadership totem pole. By that I mean those people who are extremely near the top of the political pyramid are far likelier to have access to the social connections and money sources required to compete for the presidency. (as I said, it costs a billion dollars to run for presidency.) That's why George W ended up president. His daddy was president. The senior Bush had the social contacts and access to people with money that are required to compete for the job of president. That meant his son, compared to the other people of equal or greater ability, in the potential pool of applicants, for the job of president, had a very large and unfair advantage in that competition, starting out. To me, that's a form of nepotism.

Bill Clinton made it on talent alone. Hillary, however, might become president because of her relationship with her husband. Adn that's not right. Right now, Bill is using his very extensive social network of extremely influencial people, to work for his wife, to get her elected. This means, like George W Bush, who had advantages based on family connections, Hillary also has extensive advantages, based on family connections, in the competition for top job, compared to other applicants. This means, far more than other people, she is likelier to end up president. She has an unfair advantage.

I saw American entrepreneur Donald Trump on his TV show the other day. His daughter is working for him, as one of his top executives. Coincidence? Hardly. His daughter is a bright, educated girl, but there are millions of bright, educated girls in America, of equal or greater ability. They don't get a chance to work for The Donald. The fact that it is Donald's daughter who ended up in an extremely lucrative position with her father's firm is no coincidence. Like George W Bush, or Hillary, some people have the kinds of social networks that give them decided advantages, in the quest for money and power, over less socially connected people. I call that nepotism.

Suppose for a minute that Hillary becomes president, and serves for two terms. Have a look back, then, eight years from now, to see what the past 28 years of American political leadership would have looked like, in 4 year increments:

Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton

Notice a pattern? Obviously. If that isn't nepotism, what is? There are 300 million Americans. So far, in the past 20 years, 2 families have dominated the White House. To me, that's a sign of a sick political system that doesn't let talent reach the top.

The worst part of nepotism is it excludes more qualified candidates. Instead, we get less than ideal candidates, like George W Bush. So, in short something should be done, to get fresh blood into the process.

So, my comments about nepotism were just talking about the extreme high end of American politics being unfairly skewed toward high level political connections, over ability. And that explains a lot about why action on global warming hasn't gotten anywhere, in the past 8 years. Thanks to nepotism, and other things, the dumb guy won. So, if liberal Americans are interested in solving global warming, we need to get more Al Gores into politics, and fewer George W Bushes.

Thanks for the conversation. You have a great blog.