The percentage of those going to university has increased substantially over the past 50 years. The university is now the home of the marginally more intelligent 105-115. The professional-managerial class is one of the least remarkable groups of elites to ever exist. Parliament was once filled with people like Edmund Burke and Edward Gibbon, now you would be lucky if you found someone half as remarkable both in intellect and achievements sitting on the back benches. Becoming an MP is increasingly a box-ticking exercise where the most unremarkable and mediocre get selected to stand for election.
Here in the States we currently are approaching 50% of the eligible populace attending post secondary schools. It is said that 40% of our Millennial cohort has some sort of post secondary degree! Even if there were Burkes and Gibbons to be found, is this percentage of the population what the universities were designed to educate, i.e. anyone with an above average IQ? Not hardly. If not to select the best and brightest, and perfect them, then what's a university for?
"The professional-managerial class is one of the least remarkable groups of elites to ever exist."
This most certainly applies to the United States as well. What drives those who control the United States is rapaciousness and power. The desire to improve civilization is not to be found in their psyche.
We in the Netherlands have circumvented the imbecility-problem by having a Party for the Animals. Speaking on behalf of The Animals will really let you shine!
It is my wish that all NL politicians join the Party for the Animals to create a dictatorship of The Animals (who have clearly a moral advantage over us and generally are much better humans than we are. Especially the vegetarians amongst Them (amongst The Animals)).
I would point at our previous deputy PM and secretary of finance, career-diplomat Sigrid Kaag as a prime candidate. Her CV:
Studied Arabic language and philology at Utrecht University, but obtained her bachelor's degree in Middle Eastern Studies at the American University in Cairo in 1985.
A master's degree in international relations from St Antony's College, Oxford;
A master's degree in Middle Eastern Politics and Economics from the University of Exeter. Kaag also studied at the French École nationale d'administration (ENA) and took the Foreign Relations course at the Clingendael Institute.
Her most noteworthy statement, made last year as high energy prices were causing high inflation and the gov handed out many B in financial compensation regardless of actual need:
As you say "What does it say about us". It says various things:
* we have basked in the delusion that if you vote Left you get Left and if you vote Right you get Right. Whereas increasingly of recent decades you get what the vast permanent centre-left bureaucracy wants. As a spin off of this, politics has attracted also rans rather than top people
* we have allowed our humanities/social sciences academia to veer off ever more into an up-itself parallel universe of ultra-left Wokeness; meanwhile pumping ever greater numbers of our young people through its sheep-dip who then go on to run all the permanent levers of power in society. Politicians then become a bit of a side-show.
* we have allowed a similarly distorted MSM to pump half truth/non-truth narratives at us, giving us the illusion than we know much more about the governance of our societies than we really do.
"A less satisfactory method is to track their education levels over time. Doing so reveals two countervailing trends: while the percentage of MPs with a university degree has increased, the percentage who attended Oxford or Cambridge has decreased (amongst Conservatives)."
Given our (USA) recent revelations wrt the President of Harvard, Dr? Gay, I'd propose that we not only have midwits in high places, but many got there through fraud! The high ground of academia here is taken over by the Left and their "diversity" efforts are beginning to become apparent. We have no shortage in the States with minorities that have been given university degrees without qualification-all in the name of promoting "diversity". This has spread to high level areas of study such as law and medicine. Until recently, the bad effects of the unqualified in such schools has been somewhat ameliorated through failure to pass bar and medical exams. The response now is to remove these exams when applying for license. Lord help us.
Your MP's sound like our Representatives. They wouldn't know basic math or basic bookkeeping if it bit them on the arse. They sure don't know how to balance a budget.
Rationalists talk about "effective altruism," but in my opinion the most effective form of altruism imaginable would be taking power away from these incompetents and redistributing it to people who aren't idiots. When will the "effective altruists" stop donating malaria nets and start advocating for REAL effectiveness?
To me it’s pretty obvious what happened. Starting around early late 1800s, very bright and studious people were naturally drawn to academics, often overcoming barriers to get in. They managed to accomplish remarkable things, both in research and private sector. People noticed this and naturally got the cause and effect wrong, thinking it was the education that made those people, not their temperament, intelligence, and natural curiosity. By the 60s governments starting pumping money into research and various forms of grants and loans to get people in schools, with zero correcting mechanisms or reliable measures for success.
Schools saw the free money on the table, and knew if they don’t take it, someone else will while they fade into obscurity. Cargo cult science became the norm, as people who had neither the temperament, curiosity, nor intelligence were pushed into academia. The mentality instilled on them was that of beating the competition and climbing the ladder, not uncovering the truths of the universe. With unlimited money flowing, schools created entire departments with nonsense majors to absorb as many kids as they could. As the last generation of good scientists began dying around the 80s, those cargo cult scientists were now the mentors and textbook writers, and it all went to shit. Sad thing is, most bright students quickly see through the nonsense and flee to the private sector before the ink on their diploma is dry. Some stay and do good science, but they’re vastly outnumbered and not the activist type who wants to push for change, and rarely do much public outreach.
Sometimes I wonder if academia can ever be saved. I’m optimistic problems of producing good basic science will be solved, but most likely through a new kind of institution. As long as government guaranteed money is not behind those new institutions, their quality will remain as private sector loans will only go to solid prospects, and is quick to cut off bad ones
In general, I agree with your comments, except for" As the last generation of good scientists began dying around the 80s, those cargo cult scientists were now the mentors and textbook writers, and it all went to shit."
Even now, there are still some good scientists around, just fewer than before.
Yea I did note that later on. Good scientists are all outnumbered and also in their own isolated bubbles(through no fault of their own). But as far as people in leadership positions, public outreach, etc. is all taken over by cargo cult scientist. It’s only getting worse too.
These officials *are* definitely midwits, but I think your framing of them as "rulers" makes it harder to understand why these midwits hold the positions they hold. Most of the voting public wouldn't describe these elected officials as "rulers". Voters see these people as "representatives", extensions of themselves, members of their "in group" standing up for this shared identity and making the voter feel like they have a "voice".
So, it makes perfect sense that these people are especially charismatic specimens of the average person they are looking to represent. Policy isn't the point, it never was. People with IQs of 90-110 aren't going to see themselves as in-group with someone 130+ for a host of different reasons.
Parliamentarians are not elites. They are your typical silver spoon 110 IQ stop-gappers (includes grifters in [100-110IQ] academia) and pretend-debaters (115 IQ). The think tanks responsible for writing policies, law & international politics and supranational organizations whom are responsible for writing up domestic policies all over the world might be around 120 IQ (i.e. say RAND/Tavistock Institute). The elites (old money) who manage intergenerational dynastic wealth and are responsible for the creation of economic systems, international policies, have and whatnot might be around 130 IQ. Local entities will never be much more intelligent than the apex person; this was shown where the Nationalist Socialists had median IQs around 125-130 and were transferred to the states to be the head of NSA/EU committee/etc. The public facing entities can not be much smarter than the populace or it would get too technical and scientific and you can't control the crowd if you start talking about topological surfaces, game theoretical actions or whatever abstractions as to why a policy is implemented. Most of these people just receive PR training and do plausible deniability tactics or act as stand-in entertainment figures. It should be obvious regardless of what direction a policy is presented as, left, right, libertarian, radicalism -- it is always selectively tailored to be lead to an establishmentarian solution or incremental change towards something not beneficial to the public.
I am surprised that even educated people can't see beyond the ruse and still believe in a fictional account of being ruled by idiots, when it is just a WWE show for all the high-level policies that are pre-written ahead, especially 5,000-20,000 pages long and that their job is just to lead you to a sense of comfort, apathy or galvanization because nothing of importance has ever been talked about (i.e. why we need to bomb a location for geopolitical purposes, what's the current state of infrastructure/energy capacity in the world, etc).
And yes overtime, the level of discussion, debate and discourse has radically decreased since the 60-70s whereby now you just spew ad hominems or say '''see, A did bad, no B did badder''
Thanks for an interesting synopsis of the intellect of those in control.
"Overall, the evidence suggests that our elected representatives could be accurately described as “midwits” – people of above-average but unremarkable intelligence."
Since I live in the United States, I'll confine my remarks to those who control this country. Perhaps the term mid-wits is being too kind. Those that control the United States can be described as avaricious megalomaniacs. Their only concern is increasing their wealth and power. They are devoid of integrity and high intelligence.
"But in a democracy, “we the people” rule through our elected representatives. So what does it say about us that we have selected such mediocre intellects to fill that role?"
Do we live in a democracy? Are our representatives elected? The answer to both is no.
We live in a plutocratic oligarchy. But I am no fan of democracy; I prefer a meritocracy.
The only one I got right was the false positive tests question. What's odd is that it seemed much more obvious to me than any of the others. My brain is clearly rubbish and broken.
This is entirely normal in office-holders. The only numbers they really understand are donation amounts. They pretend to understand the polls but actually pay professionals to do that for them.
The percentage of those going to university has increased substantially over the past 50 years. The university is now the home of the marginally more intelligent 105-115. The professional-managerial class is one of the least remarkable groups of elites to ever exist. Parliament was once filled with people like Edmund Burke and Edward Gibbon, now you would be lucky if you found someone half as remarkable both in intellect and achievements sitting on the back benches. Becoming an MP is increasingly a box-ticking exercise where the most unremarkable and mediocre get selected to stand for election.
Here in the States we currently are approaching 50% of the eligible populace attending post secondary schools. It is said that 40% of our Millennial cohort has some sort of post secondary degree! Even if there were Burkes and Gibbons to be found, is this percentage of the population what the universities were designed to educate, i.e. anyone with an above average IQ? Not hardly. If not to select the best and brightest, and perfect them, then what's a university for?
"The professional-managerial class is one of the least remarkable groups of elites to ever exist."
This most certainly applies to the United States as well. What drives those who control the United States is rapaciousness and power. The desire to improve civilization is not to be found in their psyche.
We in the Netherlands have circumvented the imbecility-problem by having a Party for the Animals. Speaking on behalf of The Animals will really let you shine!
It is my wish that all NL politicians join the Party for the Animals to create a dictatorship of The Animals (who have clearly a moral advantage over us and generally are much better humans than we are. Especially the vegetarians amongst Them (amongst The Animals)).
I would point at our previous deputy PM and secretary of finance, career-diplomat Sigrid Kaag as a prime candidate. Her CV:
Studied Arabic language and philology at Utrecht University, but obtained her bachelor's degree in Middle Eastern Studies at the American University in Cairo in 1985.
A master's degree in international relations from St Antony's College, Oxford;
A master's degree in Middle Eastern Politics and Economics from the University of Exeter. Kaag also studied at the French École nationale d'administration (ENA) and took the Foreign Relations course at the Clingendael Institute.
Her most noteworthy statement, made last year as high energy prices were causing high inflation and the gov handed out many B in financial compensation regardless of actual need:
'This money will dampen inflation'.
Even moreso, prime ministers.
As you say "What does it say about us". It says various things:
* we have basked in the delusion that if you vote Left you get Left and if you vote Right you get Right. Whereas increasingly of recent decades you get what the vast permanent centre-left bureaucracy wants. As a spin off of this, politics has attracted also rans rather than top people
* we have allowed our humanities/social sciences academia to veer off ever more into an up-itself parallel universe of ultra-left Wokeness; meanwhile pumping ever greater numbers of our young people through its sheep-dip who then go on to run all the permanent levers of power in society. Politicians then become a bit of a side-show.
* we have allowed a similarly distorted MSM to pump half truth/non-truth narratives at us, giving us the illusion than we know much more about the governance of our societies than we really do.
https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
'We've' got what 'we' deserved, you could argue.
I'm sorry, it just says we're dumb.
"A less satisfactory method is to track their education levels over time. Doing so reveals two countervailing trends: while the percentage of MPs with a university degree has increased, the percentage who attended Oxford or Cambridge has decreased (amongst Conservatives)."
Given our (USA) recent revelations wrt the President of Harvard, Dr? Gay, I'd propose that we not only have midwits in high places, but many got there through fraud! The high ground of academia here is taken over by the Left and their "diversity" efforts are beginning to become apparent. We have no shortage in the States with minorities that have been given university degrees without qualification-all in the name of promoting "diversity". This has spread to high level areas of study such as law and medicine. Until recently, the bad effects of the unqualified in such schools has been somewhat ameliorated through failure to pass bar and medical exams. The response now is to remove these exams when applying for license. Lord help us.
Our major institutions select for dark triad traits, not intelligence. And certainly not for wisdom or morality.
Your MP's sound like our Representatives. They wouldn't know basic math or basic bookkeeping if it bit them on the arse. They sure don't know how to balance a budget.
Rationalists talk about "effective altruism," but in my opinion the most effective form of altruism imaginable would be taking power away from these incompetents and redistributing it to people who aren't idiots. When will the "effective altruists" stop donating malaria nets and start advocating for REAL effectiveness?
https://questioner.substack.com/p/inbreeding-and-leadership
Yes, meritocracy is the answer.
To me it’s pretty obvious what happened. Starting around early late 1800s, very bright and studious people were naturally drawn to academics, often overcoming barriers to get in. They managed to accomplish remarkable things, both in research and private sector. People noticed this and naturally got the cause and effect wrong, thinking it was the education that made those people, not their temperament, intelligence, and natural curiosity. By the 60s governments starting pumping money into research and various forms of grants and loans to get people in schools, with zero correcting mechanisms or reliable measures for success.
Schools saw the free money on the table, and knew if they don’t take it, someone else will while they fade into obscurity. Cargo cult science became the norm, as people who had neither the temperament, curiosity, nor intelligence were pushed into academia. The mentality instilled on them was that of beating the competition and climbing the ladder, not uncovering the truths of the universe. With unlimited money flowing, schools created entire departments with nonsense majors to absorb as many kids as they could. As the last generation of good scientists began dying around the 80s, those cargo cult scientists were now the mentors and textbook writers, and it all went to shit. Sad thing is, most bright students quickly see through the nonsense and flee to the private sector before the ink on their diploma is dry. Some stay and do good science, but they’re vastly outnumbered and not the activist type who wants to push for change, and rarely do much public outreach.
Sometimes I wonder if academia can ever be saved. I’m optimistic problems of producing good basic science will be solved, but most likely through a new kind of institution. As long as government guaranteed money is not behind those new institutions, their quality will remain as private sector loans will only go to solid prospects, and is quick to cut off bad ones
In general, I agree with your comments, except for" As the last generation of good scientists began dying around the 80s, those cargo cult scientists were now the mentors and textbook writers, and it all went to shit."
Even now, there are still some good scientists around, just fewer than before.
Yea I did note that later on. Good scientists are all outnumbered and also in their own isolated bubbles(through no fault of their own). But as far as people in leadership positions, public outreach, etc. is all taken over by cargo cult scientist. It’s only getting worse too.
These officials *are* definitely midwits, but I think your framing of them as "rulers" makes it harder to understand why these midwits hold the positions they hold. Most of the voting public wouldn't describe these elected officials as "rulers". Voters see these people as "representatives", extensions of themselves, members of their "in group" standing up for this shared identity and making the voter feel like they have a "voice".
So, it makes perfect sense that these people are especially charismatic specimens of the average person they are looking to represent. Policy isn't the point, it never was. People with IQs of 90-110 aren't going to see themselves as in-group with someone 130+ for a host of different reasons.
Parliamentarians are not elites. They are your typical silver spoon 110 IQ stop-gappers (includes grifters in [100-110IQ] academia) and pretend-debaters (115 IQ). The think tanks responsible for writing policies, law & international politics and supranational organizations whom are responsible for writing up domestic policies all over the world might be around 120 IQ (i.e. say RAND/Tavistock Institute). The elites (old money) who manage intergenerational dynastic wealth and are responsible for the creation of economic systems, international policies, have and whatnot might be around 130 IQ. Local entities will never be much more intelligent than the apex person; this was shown where the Nationalist Socialists had median IQs around 125-130 and were transferred to the states to be the head of NSA/EU committee/etc. The public facing entities can not be much smarter than the populace or it would get too technical and scientific and you can't control the crowd if you start talking about topological surfaces, game theoretical actions or whatever abstractions as to why a policy is implemented. Most of these people just receive PR training and do plausible deniability tactics or act as stand-in entertainment figures. It should be obvious regardless of what direction a policy is presented as, left, right, libertarian, radicalism -- it is always selectively tailored to be lead to an establishmentarian solution or incremental change towards something not beneficial to the public.
I am surprised that even educated people can't see beyond the ruse and still believe in a fictional account of being ruled by idiots, when it is just a WWE show for all the high-level policies that are pre-written ahead, especially 5,000-20,000 pages long and that their job is just to lead you to a sense of comfort, apathy or galvanization because nothing of importance has ever been talked about (i.e. why we need to bomb a location for geopolitical purposes, what's the current state of infrastructure/energy capacity in the world, etc).
And yes overtime, the level of discussion, debate and discourse has radically decreased since the 60-70s whereby now you just spew ad hominems or say '''see, A did bad, no B did badder''
Thanks for an interesting synopsis of the intellect of those in control.
"Overall, the evidence suggests that our elected representatives could be accurately described as “midwits” – people of above-average but unremarkable intelligence."
Since I live in the United States, I'll confine my remarks to those who control this country. Perhaps the term mid-wits is being too kind. Those that control the United States can be described as avaricious megalomaniacs. Their only concern is increasing their wealth and power. They are devoid of integrity and high intelligence.
"But in a democracy, “we the people” rule through our elected representatives. So what does it say about us that we have selected such mediocre intellects to fill that role?"
Do we live in a democracy? Are our representatives elected? The answer to both is no.
We live in a plutocratic oligarchy. But I am no fan of democracy; I prefer a meritocracy.
The only one I got right was the false positive tests question. What's odd is that it seemed much more obvious to me than any of the others. My brain is clearly rubbish and broken.
This is entirely normal in office-holders. The only numbers they really understand are donation amounts. They pretend to understand the polls but actually pay professionals to do that for them.