posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 05:51 PM
Smart people have done a lot more harm to us on the whole than stupid people. That's because they think they know what is good for the rest of us.
You can actually trust stupid people more than you can smart people because stupid people maintain a pattern and don't like to deviate from it. Get
them doing something useful and they'll keep doing it.
Now there is endless controversy over IQ scores, most of it engendered by left wing liberals who can't stand the thought of someone being somehow
"unequal" to someone else (except for themselves, of course), so they'll go out of their way to say that differences in IQ are the result of
culture and nothing else. So they come up with "social IQs" and all sorts of alternative methods of measuring intelligence that deviate from the
standard Stanford-Binet IQ test. I came across Someone's Counterbalance IQ test years ago that was slanted toward African Americans. It asked
questions such as, "If you add another child to the welfare roles, how much money do you get?" as a multiple choice test. (Now isn't that question
itself racist?) His point was obvious, but he didn't understand that asking factual questions like that does not constitute measurement of IQ.
But the fact of the matter is that the average IQ is 100. That means half the population has an IQ lower than that. And 100 isn't all that high.
These people will never be doctors or lawyers. They'll never be physicists, college professors, or stock traders. We, as a species, were never bred
for brains. The idea was for "equality of opportunity," but we've changed that to "equality of achievement." When you add stupid people into the
mix, this cannot be achieved.
We were bred to do menial tasks on the farm. to live in tribal-sized social groups of 100 or so people in an agrarian economy. When we actually did
that there was plenty of room for the IQ 100 and less people to be productive members of society. There was plenty of work in the fields. Being a
farmhand was productive, useful, accepted work. You don't need an IQ of 130 to do it, and it doesn't matter one whit if you can't find Indiana on a
map. There was no government-supplied welfare or unemployment that lasted for two years. If you didn't work, you didn't eat, and if you were
incapable of work, your family took care of you, supplemented by charitable neighbors.
So nowadays it's all broken apart. Our families are broken, leading to a lot of single Moms who think the government ought to be their husbands and
embark on a permanent life of welfare. You have a lot of people working minimum wage at retail decrying a lack of "family wage" jobs, the majority
of which have been moved overseas. Why? Because the Chinese will do it cheaper, be thankful for the work, and not demand the companies provide for
their every need.
So we've evolved into this entitlement mentality where if you don't do well, it is simply expected that the government will take care of you. Here
we've just had a major storm and the governor of New York has stated he expects the Feds to pay every single cent for the damage. In other words,
people expect the government to "make them whole" for every loss they incur. Anything that nature throws at you, whether it is a storm or a low IQ,
the government is expected to take care of.
In the technological society we live in it's a lot harder to provide work for stupid people. We try, like making McDonalds cash registers with
pictures of the meals to make it easier, but ask these people to make change by actually counting it out and they're useless. (BTW, I don't believe
ALL people working in these environments are stupid. There are plenty of geniuses working at McDonalds, but overall the issue remains.)
I don't pretend to know what ought to have been done here. Perhaps it is simply always out of our control, but I do see a lot of really smart people
coming out with stupid policy decisions that do the opposite of what they are intended to do. It just came out that the US spent an average of $60,000
per welfare family in providing those services. In other words, welfare is a business that provides jobs to welfare case workers. Now we have both the
recipients and the government employees alike saying, "You owe me."
Where this hasn't already fallen completely apart, such as in Detroit, for example, it soon will, because this mode of operation simply cannot