A question that came up in my mind while I was musing on Idiocracy and anti-intellectualism/science.
Is a (very) smart person inherently better or more deserving (of whatever) than someone of lesser intelligence? If so, how much? What kind of gap needs to exist? Does one IQ point do? What other context comes into play, especially given the issues I mention above?
Hell no.
He’s already going to enjoy huge benefits in life. A better ability to solve problems, the likelihood of a better job, etc. But the ideals that most of us hold value everyone pretty much equally.
The damnedest fool in the country has a vote that exactly cancels out yours. (Unless, hey, who knows, we might both vote the same way!)
No, and maybe less so, because this person might have less excuses for negative behaviours and less merit for positive achievements.
No. There are so many ways to have value as a human being-- kindness, perseverance, bravery, wisdom, athleticism, etc. Many heroic acts have been done by simple people, and many geniuses have caused death and suffering.
It’s not the gift that is important, it’s what you do with it.
Given that intelligence is decidedly non-linear, your question is not very meaningful. IQ only measures a narrow band of mental capability, tends toward cultural bias and fails to account for other important factors such as empathy.
The woman who can work out gauge field vectors in a way that depicts a workable model for a quantum gravity theory might rate 160 on the IQ test but might have few practical real-world skills. The 91-IQ dude down the street has an amazing affinity with cars and can make yours run like a top in a few minutes. And those really smart guys who created the mortgage-backed derivatives that crashed the economy, well, they really ought to be on a chain-gang.
Who “deserves” what?
An intelligent creature is more deserving than a dumb creature, for certain values of “intelligent” and “dumb”, but I’d say that applies only below a certain threshold. A human is more deserving of fair treatment than a dog, and a dog is more deserving of fair treatment than a rosebush, but I wouldn’t say a 150 IQ human is more deserving of fair treatment than a 80 IQ human.
“Dumb” person here.
I think it comes down to if you’re a good person trying his or her best. If you’re not ‘trying’, then yes, you’re shouldn’t be as entitled.
I’m not sure that “more deserving (of whatever)” is a useful concept, since it really depends on what the “whatever” is. Are smart people more deserving of being treated with decency and compassion? No. More deserving of getting into MIT? Hell, yes. (I suspect most of the other things one could possibly “deserve” fall somewhere on the spectrum between the two, even if most of us would err in the direction of equality if there is any question whatsoever.)
It entirely depends on what we’re talking about. An more intelligent person than average is probably going to be a better/more deserving choice as, say, a classroom teacher or an immunologist. A less intelligent person than average is probably going to be a better/more deserving choice for unskilled, repetitive work. Neither would flourish in the work of the other, so they’re not exactly “equal” in terms of worthiness for each job, but they’ve both got jobs they’re superiorly worthy for.
Better/more deserving of respect, medical care, the opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Of course not. Neither one is more deserving than the other.
It should also be noted that there does not appear to be a measurable correlation to intelligence in our genes, so if you expect great results from the gametes of a genius, you will probably be disappointed. Idiocracy is simply a silly concept with no more basis in reality (apart from the fact that stupid people are less likely to actively impart smartness to their brood) than the highly discredited eugenics notion. The “Darwin Awards” are of little or no value.
No.
That’s all that really needs to be said.
A person who relies on logic and solid evidence in making decisions is more deserving of respect than a willfully ignorant individual, regardless of the I.Q.s involved.
This question has been off limits for the last 60 years. Before Hitler, both views had strong support. Hitler believed that smart people were inherently more deserving than stupid people. Our society decided that anything to do with Hitler was wrong, and we adopted the alternate view that smart people are not inherently more deserving than stupid people.
One of the things I am seeing as I get older, is that people no longer automatically put questions like this into the context of Hitler and the Nazis. Does this mean that it is also now OK to draw comparisons to Nazi Germany when discussing this subject? Dunno. Interested to see if this post draws any critique.
Anyway, I was brought up in the explicit belief that dumb/stupid, young/helpless crazy/retarded people were deserving of more support and consideration. Smart people have to plan their own retirement.
Yes. Intelligent people are more likely to design and maintain the ideas and inventions that make life somewhat worth living. Dumb people aren’t inventing cures for cancer or finding ways to make renewable energy affordable.
So yes. That doesn’t mean dumber people should be mistreated, but brilliant people (of which I am not one) are more valuable than dumb people to the human race. I don’t see why that is even a controversial idea. Is utilitarianism not kosher?
I will note that, as I mentioned in my OP, the question plays into anti-intellectualism; some people refuse to believe, and dislike, those they think are smarter than them because they think those smarter people think that they are superior, and thus deserve more, deserve to make decisions on behalf of those “dumber” than them. (Hope that makes sense; the idea is clear in my head.)
I also note that I deliberately didn’t define what it meant to be a “better” person; I figured that it’s a “I know it when I see it” thing. Not many folks have addressed that yet, though.
Intelligent in what respect? Better/more deserving in what respect? Dumb in what respect? All of these terms mean different things to different people. Define your terms.
None of that implies the answer “yes” to the OP, though. The fact that more intelligent people will, or at least are capable of, bring more benefits (or at least more benefits of a particular kind) to the community than less intelligent people does not mean that they are more “deserving” of anything in particular. Nor does it mean that they are “better” than others except in the trivial sense that they are better at doing tasks that require intelligence. It doesn’t imply that they are morally better, or more virtuous.
That’s only one of the ways people can make life worth living. Here’s a notable counterexample to your argument:
Neil Baldwin (Keele University) - Wikipedia)
Asked to pick a limited number of people to survive a catastrophe, would your selection be randomly spread over humanity’s IQ distribution?
Deserving of what? Treatment as a human being? No. Selection for a job requiring complex skills and seat-of-the-pants application thereof? Yes.