Intelligence is a tantalizing subject due to its magic â€œwowâ€ component. But it is also the one measure liberals will never, ever, discuss.
I found this â€œavoidanceâ€ technique fascinating in that it is quite a â€œtellingâ€ characteristic. Even Donald Trump mentioned that some topics are â€œnot discussed.â€ Another more personal example is, while making a speech to (organizational) members of a black labor union, I noticed how, despite being a fairly responsive audience in general, they became (almost) deathly silent when I mentioned â€œpensions.â€ People reading this will automatically assume that the audience is â€œsensitiveâ€ to pensions because it is perhaps something they â€œreallyâ€ desire. But you are wrong; it had nothing to do with being sensitive. It had everything to do with the fact that they want â€œmyâ€ pension (on an organizational basis) while vociferously arguing something else as a technique to distract â€œmyâ€ attention from their real intention.
There are more examples of this in every area of social design, but suffice it to say that when liberals (organizationally) go silent on the issue of intelligence, they have something up their sleeve which begs our attention as well as our intention.
Since I am only a middle-class, middle-drawer type guy, unfortunately with the ability to look up and down, I had to look around for guidance. Then Doug Detterman popped up via Dr. James Thompson;
Now he looks back at 50 years of intelligence research, and avers that it is much more important than curing cancer, controlling global warming or ending poverty. He also regards teachers and schools as over-rated, since they only account for 10% of pupil achievement. Five decades dedicated to finding a satisfactory answer to a simple question: why are some people smarter than others?
His answer: a traffic jam. All the modules of the brain have to go through a central hub, and the poorer the connection the lower the intelligence.
However, I have also previously been influenced regarding the intelligence effect by a top drawer South African, Garth Zietsman. His point of departure to any problem was (in my re-collection), the question: â€œwhat would the intelligent man do?â€ Since then he co-authored a book which states that;
[T]he correlation between national IQ and rates of unemployment is r = -0.756
Clearly you can make your own deductions as to why entire organizations (i.e. not just individuals) that espouse the dogma of liberal-democracy would want to keep quiet about that. However, Dr. James Thompson wrote about “The Intelligence of Governments” in 2015 wherein it is stated that:
Good governance is a highly complex cognitive task.â€
As well as:
As in previous studies (Rindermann et al., 2009) the level of the top ability group (â€œintellectual Â classesâ€, â€œsmart fractionsâ€, â€œrocket scientistsâ€, â€œthe team in the tailâ€) had a stronger impact on Â economic performance. Cognitive capitalism is built upon intellectual classes.
At this point I would agree with those saying â€œenough with all this clevernessâ€. Letâ€™s look at a tantalizing example of â€œworst practiceâ€ as was also described in this article:
An example of worst practice is revealing. According to Schmidt (2009, pp. 11ff.), until the mid-1980s the Washington, DC police force was one of the best in the USA. Applicants were selected for police academy training based on a general intelligence test and a background investigation. The mayor, Marion Barry, eliminated this procedure with several consequences: the drop-out rate among the police increased (80% of the new hires were incapable of completing the required training); the content of academy training was eased; the police officers being produced were Â frequently incompetent (murder indictments were dismissed because the reports written by the Â Â Â Â officers on the scene were unintelligible, solution rates for murder cases declined, firearms accidents soared because officers did not know how to use weapons properly, and crime on the police force became more common).
The worst case example shows that an â€œorganizationâ€ that appeared to be intelligent, somehow became unintelligent. But such a deduction is not true since only the Mayor changed and what a change it was. Somehow this has been memory-holed forever, after the disastrous reign by a Mayor-for-Life as described by the (liberal) New York Times:
Mr. Barry was a charismatic yet confounding politician. Admirers saw him as a Robin Hood who gave hope to poor black residents. His detractors saw a shameless rogue who almost ruined the city by stuffing its payroll with cronies and hacks and letting services decay. Indisputably, he was a political Lazarus with a gift for convincing his followers that their hopes and disappointments were his, too.
Itâ€™s quite clear (to me) that one guy in power is capable of turning a thriving, intelligent organization on its head. It is also clear to me that people can learn, but organizations cannot. If organizations are supposed to be intelligent, how do they learn actually and how would one measure it? These questions have not been answered and require top drawer study because all modules of the organization do not go through a central hub: poor connections and low intelligence. Is that where weâ€™re at in 2016? Is that why liberals are hiding their â€œintelligenceâ€?
Is it because they actually want (and only) want low intelligence voters in contradiction to their highly intelligent donors? Therefore, is it fair to say that the average intelligence of liberals is somewhat in question? Is it fair to say that any policy to do with equality/inequality is completely flawed if not an outright lie? If they distract from their intelligence using politics-of-fear, then in my opinion, it is absolutely disgusting.