Chapter 22 A Place for Everyone
Policy should consider that people have different levels of intelligence for reasons that are not their fault, and this affects how well they do in life. Throughout history, movements like socialism and the welfare state have tried to promote equality, blaming society for inequalities. However, there is a need to think differently. If someone has lower intelligence, it may not be fair for them to face income problems because of it. The focus should be on how people can live together peacefully despite their differences, suggesting a traditional view of equality that helps individuals lead satisfying lives.
Thinkingabout Equality as an Ideal
For many years, political thinkers from various cultures have attempted to find a balance among human differences and establish a concept of equality. Confucius viewed society like a family, emphasizing roles such as obedient sons and devoted wives. Greek and Roman philosophers also focused on social roles, believing that a virtuous few should govern the many, with the idea that most people served a distinct place in the community. These ancient thinkers did not believe in the concept that "all men are created equal," and they accepted inherent differences among individuals in status and duty. Instead of focusing on rights, they were concerned with obligations and duties based on social roles and relationships.
In modern times, thinkers shifted the focus from obligations to rights. Thomas Hobbes proposed that all individuals should have the same rights to liberty, suggesting that people should limit their freedom to avoid chaos. He saw a monarchy as preferable to the anarchy of total freedom. In contrast, John Locke challenged the ideas of Hobbes, arguing that people in their natural state are equal and should have a government that preserves this equality. Locke believed that while individuals might differ in abilities, their rights remain equal, which significantly influenced the American Founders.
However, the interpretation of Locke's ideas has led to confusion. Many contemporary thinkers view individuals as equal and devoid of innate differences, leading them to deny the influence of genetics on intelligence. Locke noted that while people exhibit different levels of understanding, this should not impact their equal rights. He argued that rights are about freedom from interference, not guarantees of equality in outcomes.
There is a modern tendency to view the original idea of equal rights as outdated, suggesting that it requires enforcement of equal outcomes instead. Some argue that the Founders did not address these complexities adequately. In reality, the Founders were aware of human inequalities and believed that a system of equal rights could create a better society. For example, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that people varied in virtue and intelligence but believed a "natural aristocracy" could lead the community well and should be elected by the public.
Others, like John Adams, recognized that societal inequalities are vital to forming effective governments. The Founders understood that different abilities and interests among men complicated governance and proposed that the government should structure laws to protect individual rights while allowing differences.
The idea of equality fails to appreciate human variation and often misunderstands the role of political intervention in shaping individual capacity. Historically, efforts to enforce equality have led to tyranny, as seen in communist states. The detrimental impacts of the egalitarian ideal can be observed in today's society, where mediocrity is sometimes forced upon individuals, leading to censorship of differing views and intelligence. The culture of equality discourages discussions that acknowledge differences among groups in society, leading to a sort of moral relativism.
In practice, this ideology has led to extensive restrictions on free expression and differences in various areas of life, such as education and art. While promoting some equality, it often stifles deeper moral conversations about virtue and truth. The once widely accepted principle of personal freedom—acting freely as long as it doesn’t impose on others—has morphed into an expectation of similarity in treatment across different groups, sometimes ignoring individual rights and freedoms.
The perspective presented stands firm that rights should be based on individual freedoms, with equality of rights being essential while rejecting the notion of enforced equality of outcome. There is a belief in reintroducing important concepts such as virtue and excellence into modern discussions, valuing the natural variety that arises in free societies rather than demanding uniformity. The original American ideas on human equality and happiness are seen as valuable guides for addressing current challenges.
Letting People Find Valued Places in Society
The main question is how policy can address two facts: people differ in intelligence for reasons beyond their control, and intelligence significantly influences success in life. The goal is to create a society where everyone, regardless of their intelligence level, can find a valued place, meaning they are missed when they are gone. This sense of being valued is connected to having both depth and breadth in relationships. If many people care about an individual, their place in society is stronger.
Most people in America are capable of finding valued places in society. Research shows that societal issues, like poverty and family instability, are mainly concentrated among those with low IQ scores. Those with average intelligence generally manage to navigate life successfully. Policies aimed at improvement will benefit everyone, reflecting the belief that most members of society are assets.
However, individuals with lower cognitive abilities often face challenges in finding valued places. Traditionally, it was easier for these individuals to find their niche. In the past, many worked on small farms or in various trades that did not require high intelligence, allowing them to integrate into their communities without feeling out of place. They could participate in community life and took on significant roles, especially in marriage and parenting, which were valued by society.
In contrast, in modern times, it has become more challenging for those with lower abilities to support themselves and fulfill family roles. The economic divide has widened, with higher-skilled individuals becoming more prosperous while wages for low-skill workers have declined significantly. This shift has demoralized many, stripping them of their valued place in the workplace.
Additionally, communities have lost many functions and opportunities for engagement. Critical roles that once existed in neighborhoods have been taken over by government systems, which has weakened the community fabric. Adults need involvement beyond work for a fulfilling life, yet many feel disconnected from their communities, which lack the shared responsibilities and connections that once defined them.
Although the cognitive elite often overlook these community changes, many people still find value and meaning in everyday communal activities, such as fundraising or supporting neighbors in need. These actions foster a sense of belonging and visibility, allowing individuals to contribute to their communities in meaningful ways.
To address these issues, it is suggested that a variety of social functions be returned to neighborhoods, or at least to local municipalities. This shift is not simply about efficiency; it can increase the opportunities for individuals to fill valued places in society. By restoring neighborhood roles and encouraging community involvement, people will likely experience a sense of purpose and connectivity that is essential for a healthy society. In summary, government policy should aim to rejuvenate neighborhoods to ensure they remain vital sources of human satisfaction and opportunities for all.
Simplifying Rules
By the end of the twentieth century, U.S. rules have evolved in ways that favor individuals with high IQs, making life more challenging for others. This trend affects various areas like criminal justice, marriage and divorce, welfare, tax policy, and business law. It has happened not through intentional acts of the cognitive elite but due to cognitive stratification. This complex system impacts not only lower cognitive groups but nearly everyone outside the cognitive and economic elite.
Over many years, a belief has developed that complicated versions of fairness and justice are better than simple ones. Therefore, rule systems have become more intricate, often leading to greater advantages for those who can easily understand complex rules. The cognitive elite does not perceive these complexities as troublesome, while they pose significant hurdles for those with lower cognitive abilities. This difference makes it harder for these individuals to succeed and can even obstruct opportunities they might otherwise have had.
One area where rules complicate lives is in making a living. Examples include intricate tax forms and the confusion faced by individuals seeking government assistance or trying to start small businesses. Such complexities can prevent those who aren't adept at navigating bureaucracy from accessing necessary resources and opportunities. The notion of "sweat equity," the idea that hard work can lead to success, has become less attainable. Today, chances for success often depend on one's ability to deal with complex regulations.
Credentialism adds further complications, as many jobs now require licenses, which can create unnecessary barriers. Although licensing aims to ensure competence, it often involves bureaucratic processes that do not directly relate to an individual's skill in performing the job. This trend reflects a decline in trust and personal relationships within communities.
The overall complexity of American life has grown, making it harder for everyday people to manage their lives. To address this, there is a call to simplify rules and acknowledge the costs associated with such complexities. The government should minimize interference unless absolutely necessary.
On the topic of morality, individuals are generally capable of distinguishing right from wrong, but complexities in societal rules and norms can cloud moral judgment, especially for those with lower cognitive abilities. The example of the criminal justice system reveals how complicating rules can lead to confusion regarding what constitutes a crime and the corresponding punishments. In earlier times, crime definitions and consequences were clearer, aiding moral understanding, while modern complexities create moral ambiguity.
Marriage has similarly become more complicated, with changing societal norms diluting the institution's significance. Historical incentives to marry have weakened, making it harder for those with lower cognitive abilities to understand the value of marriage. The legal system has also contributed to this dilution by equating nonmarital partnerships with marriage.
The overarching message is that society can and should simplify its rules and regulations. Increased government complexity does not have to mirror technological advancements. Instead, there is a push for more straightforward laws that everyone can understand. The goal is to return to a simpler foundation of law, which would make navigating life easier for individuals across all cognitive levels. It is seen as essential for creating an environment where values, such as the importance of marriage and ethical behavior, are straightforward and clear for all to comprehend.
Blanks Unfilled
The main ideas focus on two key topics: income distribution and demographic policies. It is argued that income distribution is unfair because many rich people do not truly deserve their wealth, and the poor are not at fault for their situation. Different social and psychological factors contribute to this unfairness, which makes solving poverty complicated. In rich countries, it is important that full-time workers earn enough money to live decently. Income supplements like the earned income tax credit can help improve the situation, even if they have some problems. It is clear that some type of income redistribution is needed, as returning to a completely hands-off approach is not realistic.
On the topic of demographics, having a higher average IQ in society is linked to fewer social problems and better economic success. The idea is that smarter women should have more children to raise the average IQ of society. However, current U.S. policies might encourage women with lower IQs to have more children. To address this, it is suggested that the government should stop giving financial support for low-income births and instead provide better access to birth control. Regarding immigration, recent immigrants tend to have lower success rates compared to earlier groups. It is recommended to change immigration policies to prioritize skills over family ties, as this could lead to a stronger society.
Conclusion
The main ideas highlight the importance of individualism and the need for policies that consider the differences in people's cognitive abilities. Many social problems come from a small part of the population, while most people can manage their lives well. Policies should support this independence.
In areas like education and welfare, it's important to acknowledge cognitive differences because policies often fail when they don't understand how people respond to them. Interventions aimed at helping those who are disadvantaged can sometimes be too optimistic about what they can achieve. While there is a lot of potential to improve education, especially for those with high ability, it’s important to judge people as individuals rather than by their group identities.
Additionally, the strength of individualism and community spirit in society is emphasized. Protecting and restoring this individualism is important, as reducing personal freedoms has weakened community ties. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure everyone can live a dignified life and to recognize that inequality exists, but it should not stop people from having opportunities to contribute as valued citizens.
Policy should consider that people have different levels of intelligence for reasons that are not their fault, and this affects how well they do in life. Throughout history, movements like socialism and the welfare state have tried to promote equality, blaming society for inequalities. However, there is a need to think differently. If someone has lower intelligence, it may not be fair for them to face income problems because of it. The focus should be on how people can live together peacefully despite their differences, suggesting a traditional view of equality that helps individuals lead satisfying lives.
Thinkingabout Equality as an Ideal
For many years, political thinkers from various cultures have attempted to find a balance among human differences and establish a concept of equality. Confucius viewed society like a family, emphasizing roles such as obedient sons and devoted wives. Greek and Roman philosophers also focused on social roles, believing that a virtuous few should govern the many, with the idea that most people served a distinct place in the community. These ancient thinkers did not believe in the concept that "all men are created equal," and they accepted inherent differences among individuals in status and duty. Instead of focusing on rights, they were concerned with obligations and duties based on social roles and relationships.
In modern times, thinkers shifted the focus from obligations to rights. Thomas Hobbes proposed that all individuals should have the same rights to liberty, suggesting that people should limit their freedom to avoid chaos. He saw a monarchy as preferable to the anarchy of total freedom. In contrast, John Locke challenged the ideas of Hobbes, arguing that people in their natural state are equal and should have a government that preserves this equality. Locke believed that while individuals might differ in abilities, their rights remain equal, which significantly influenced the American Founders.
However, the interpretation of Locke's ideas has led to confusion. Many contemporary thinkers view individuals as equal and devoid of innate differences, leading them to deny the influence of genetics on intelligence. Locke noted that while people exhibit different levels of understanding, this should not impact their equal rights. He argued that rights are about freedom from interference, not guarantees of equality in outcomes.
There is a modern tendency to view the original idea of equal rights as outdated, suggesting that it requires enforcement of equal outcomes instead. Some argue that the Founders did not address these complexities adequately. In reality, the Founders were aware of human inequalities and believed that a system of equal rights could create a better society. For example, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that people varied in virtue and intelligence but believed a "natural aristocracy" could lead the community well and should be elected by the public.
Others, like John Adams, recognized that societal inequalities are vital to forming effective governments. The Founders understood that different abilities and interests among men complicated governance and proposed that the government should structure laws to protect individual rights while allowing differences.
The idea of equality fails to appreciate human variation and often misunderstands the role of political intervention in shaping individual capacity. Historically, efforts to enforce equality have led to tyranny, as seen in communist states. The detrimental impacts of the egalitarian ideal can be observed in today's society, where mediocrity is sometimes forced upon individuals, leading to censorship of differing views and intelligence. The culture of equality discourages discussions that acknowledge differences among groups in society, leading to a sort of moral relativism.
In practice, this ideology has led to extensive restrictions on free expression and differences in various areas of life, such as education and art. While promoting some equality, it often stifles deeper moral conversations about virtue and truth. The once widely accepted principle of personal freedom—acting freely as long as it doesn’t impose on others—has morphed into an expectation of similarity in treatment across different groups, sometimes ignoring individual rights and freedoms.
The perspective presented stands firm that rights should be based on individual freedoms, with equality of rights being essential while rejecting the notion of enforced equality of outcome. There is a belief in reintroducing important concepts such as virtue and excellence into modern discussions, valuing the natural variety that arises in free societies rather than demanding uniformity. The original American ideas on human equality and happiness are seen as valuable guides for addressing current challenges.
Letting People Find Valued Places in Society
The main question is how policy can address two facts: people differ in intelligence for reasons beyond their control, and intelligence significantly influences success in life. The goal is to create a society where everyone, regardless of their intelligence level, can find a valued place, meaning they are missed when they are gone. This sense of being valued is connected to having both depth and breadth in relationships. If many people care about an individual, their place in society is stronger.
Most people in America are capable of finding valued places in society. Research shows that societal issues, like poverty and family instability, are mainly concentrated among those with low IQ scores. Those with average intelligence generally manage to navigate life successfully. Policies aimed at improvement will benefit everyone, reflecting the belief that most members of society are assets.
However, individuals with lower cognitive abilities often face challenges in finding valued places. Traditionally, it was easier for these individuals to find their niche. In the past, many worked on small farms or in various trades that did not require high intelligence, allowing them to integrate into their communities without feeling out of place. They could participate in community life and took on significant roles, especially in marriage and parenting, which were valued by society.
In contrast, in modern times, it has become more challenging for those with lower abilities to support themselves and fulfill family roles. The economic divide has widened, with higher-skilled individuals becoming more prosperous while wages for low-skill workers have declined significantly. This shift has demoralized many, stripping them of their valued place in the workplace.
Additionally, communities have lost many functions and opportunities for engagement. Critical roles that once existed in neighborhoods have been taken over by government systems, which has weakened the community fabric. Adults need involvement beyond work for a fulfilling life, yet many feel disconnected from their communities, which lack the shared responsibilities and connections that once defined them.
Although the cognitive elite often overlook these community changes, many people still find value and meaning in everyday communal activities, such as fundraising or supporting neighbors in need. These actions foster a sense of belonging and visibility, allowing individuals to contribute to their communities in meaningful ways.
To address these issues, it is suggested that a variety of social functions be returned to neighborhoods, or at least to local municipalities. This shift is not simply about efficiency; it can increase the opportunities for individuals to fill valued places in society. By restoring neighborhood roles and encouraging community involvement, people will likely experience a sense of purpose and connectivity that is essential for a healthy society. In summary, government policy should aim to rejuvenate neighborhoods to ensure they remain vital sources of human satisfaction and opportunities for all.
Simplifying Rules
By the end of the twentieth century, U.S. rules have evolved in ways that favor individuals with high IQs, making life more challenging for others. This trend affects various areas like criminal justice, marriage and divorce, welfare, tax policy, and business law. It has happened not through intentional acts of the cognitive elite but due to cognitive stratification. This complex system impacts not only lower cognitive groups but nearly everyone outside the cognitive and economic elite.
Over many years, a belief has developed that complicated versions of fairness and justice are better than simple ones. Therefore, rule systems have become more intricate, often leading to greater advantages for those who can easily understand complex rules. The cognitive elite does not perceive these complexities as troublesome, while they pose significant hurdles for those with lower cognitive abilities. This difference makes it harder for these individuals to succeed and can even obstruct opportunities they might otherwise have had.
One area where rules complicate lives is in making a living. Examples include intricate tax forms and the confusion faced by individuals seeking government assistance or trying to start small businesses. Such complexities can prevent those who aren't adept at navigating bureaucracy from accessing necessary resources and opportunities. The notion of "sweat equity," the idea that hard work can lead to success, has become less attainable. Today, chances for success often depend on one's ability to deal with complex regulations.
Credentialism adds further complications, as many jobs now require licenses, which can create unnecessary barriers. Although licensing aims to ensure competence, it often involves bureaucratic processes that do not directly relate to an individual's skill in performing the job. This trend reflects a decline in trust and personal relationships within communities.
The overall complexity of American life has grown, making it harder for everyday people to manage their lives. To address this, there is a call to simplify rules and acknowledge the costs associated with such complexities. The government should minimize interference unless absolutely necessary.
On the topic of morality, individuals are generally capable of distinguishing right from wrong, but complexities in societal rules and norms can cloud moral judgment, especially for those with lower cognitive abilities. The example of the criminal justice system reveals how complicating rules can lead to confusion regarding what constitutes a crime and the corresponding punishments. In earlier times, crime definitions and consequences were clearer, aiding moral understanding, while modern complexities create moral ambiguity.
Marriage has similarly become more complicated, with changing societal norms diluting the institution's significance. Historical incentives to marry have weakened, making it harder for those with lower cognitive abilities to understand the value of marriage. The legal system has also contributed to this dilution by equating nonmarital partnerships with marriage.
The overarching message is that society can and should simplify its rules and regulations. Increased government complexity does not have to mirror technological advancements. Instead, there is a push for more straightforward laws that everyone can understand. The goal is to return to a simpler foundation of law, which would make navigating life easier for individuals across all cognitive levels. It is seen as essential for creating an environment where values, such as the importance of marriage and ethical behavior, are straightforward and clear for all to comprehend.
Blanks Unfilled
The main ideas focus on two key topics: income distribution and demographic policies. It is argued that income distribution is unfair because many rich people do not truly deserve their wealth, and the poor are not at fault for their situation. Different social and psychological factors contribute to this unfairness, which makes solving poverty complicated. In rich countries, it is important that full-time workers earn enough money to live decently. Income supplements like the earned income tax credit can help improve the situation, even if they have some problems. It is clear that some type of income redistribution is needed, as returning to a completely hands-off approach is not realistic.
On the topic of demographics, having a higher average IQ in society is linked to fewer social problems and better economic success. The idea is that smarter women should have more children to raise the average IQ of society. However, current U.S. policies might encourage women with lower IQs to have more children. To address this, it is suggested that the government should stop giving financial support for low-income births and instead provide better access to birth control. Regarding immigration, recent immigrants tend to have lower success rates compared to earlier groups. It is recommended to change immigration policies to prioritize skills over family ties, as this could lead to a stronger society.
Conclusion
The main ideas highlight the importance of individualism and the need for policies that consider the differences in people's cognitive abilities. Many social problems come from a small part of the population, while most people can manage their lives well. Policies should support this independence.
In areas like education and welfare, it's important to acknowledge cognitive differences because policies often fail when they don't understand how people respond to them. Interventions aimed at helping those who are disadvantaged can sometimes be too optimistic about what they can achieve. While there is a lot of potential to improve education, especially for those with high ability, it’s important to judge people as individuals rather than by their group identities.
Additionally, the strength of individualism and community spirit in society is emphasized. Protecting and restoring this individualism is important, as reducing personal freedoms has weakened community ties. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure everyone can live a dignified life and to recognize that inequality exists, but it should not stop people from having opportunities to contribute as valued citizens.