Reason is the Most Important Driver of Human Moral Progress?

[Audie]

I'm not even sure that many people actually want a smart leader. I think one of the main criticisms of Adlai Stevenson when he ran for president was that he was an intellectual - as if that's a bad thing.

I think it was a Nebraska senator who years
ago who is said to have announced that

"Mediocre people need representation too!"

or more or less that

 

[Audie]

Depends by what you mean

Should be plain enough. That is was what he
claimed to be, that his accounts and
those written about him are true.

 

[joe1776]

That is because I'm not "smart" enough to believe intelligence can be quantified into a nice, neat easily testable metric.

We have to allow that possibility.

We have a habit of saying 'well that's the best we have', without considering bad information may be worse than no information at all.

The tools we use seem to have worked for a long time. Whatever their flaws, the highest scorers on any standardized test seem to separate the very bright from the average.

I guarantee countless IQ geniuses have no clue about how to function properly in real world conditions.

You can make that unsupported claim but you can't guarantee anything without the evidence to support it.

Smart people make better decisions. As a general statement, that's a fact accepted by smart people.

 

[Augustus]

The tools we use seem to have worked for a long time. Whatever their flaws, the highest scorers on any standardized test seem to separate the very bright from the average.

What's the evidence people who score highest on IQ test make the best decisions, contribute the most to society and therefore should be the sole decision makers in society?

You can make that unsupported claim but you can't guarantee anything without the evidence to support it.

You seriously have never met a highly 'intelligent' person (one who does well in tests) who lacks real-world smarts or seen highly intelligent people make ludicrously bad decisions (see global financial crisis for example)?

No wonder you are such a fanboy of those with high IQs

Smart people make better decisions. As a general statement, that's a fact accepted by smart people.

Smart people do, but smart people can't be identified by their ability to perform arbitrary meaningless tasks devoid of complexity, consequences, real world context or purpose. That's a fact accepted by smart people, although many 'intelligent' people can't see it as they are easily dazzled by pseudo-scientific metrics like IQ and don't really understand how the real world differs from pen and paper tests

Out of interest, what part of IQ testing do you think best relates to real world decision making capability under conditions of uncertainty and relating to complex systems? The random vocab? The 'guess which arbitrary number sequence we are thinking of even though it's not the only possible answer' parts? Mentally rotating colourful shapes and selecting a multiple choice answer?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hi
If you do not think that the eastern mindset has a very different cultural viewpoint on these things then fair enough.
If you think the lack of great power warfare is because of some moral superiority to our very near relations and not the fact that they cannot play that game because of Mutually Assured Destruction then fair enough.
If you think that MAD is an advance then fair enough.
If you think the rational approach to the problem of warfare is to farm it out to drones then ultimately AI then fair enough.
It is not so evident to me.
...............................................................
I don't think our "culture" has any moral standards in the realm of human sexuality... is it moral to cheat on your partner? It's wrong to get caught i suppose is what the moral ends up being when most situations are played out in the modern rational view. YOU have the right to do what YOU choose, you also should not cause pain to your partner but that is the lessor moral and now deal the cards........

..................................................................

Dan Carlins Hardcore History has an excellent Podcast on Human slavery through out history that might give you interesting things to think about. (Nothing religious or apologetic in nature) More economic than anything really.
...............................................................
Social media activism and identifying with oppressed people in some nebulous feel good group think way when you have no skin in the game is not morality it is merely peer group pressure and that is a dangerous thing to base anything on. I am not accusing you of any of these faults in your Personal Integrity you may have deeply thought out your moral stand but i do not think the majority give it anything more than a passing thought and just follow the herd.
...........................................................................
Nothing I've said claims that if there was a sudden catastrophic disaster that people would maintain that same level of morality.

Doesn't you admitting this show that you do not really believe in the underlying claim of the OP. If this progressive morality can be thrown out if circumstance changes and we reverted back to practices that are considered immoral now because they are not seen as necessary then is it really Morality or is it just fashion.

The facts show though that the people who stick to there moral convictions when catastrophes occur are the ones whose moral code is not theirs to change. Read some Solzhenitsyn about the gulags or about the conscienteous objectors in Germany or the AnaBaptists in the reformation and of course the christian victims of Roman oppression in their formative years. .

I can confidently say that if a castrophic disaster occured there are certain Christian brotherhoods who would follow the examples of those of the past and say NO we will not go against our morals. No we will not change our morals. Here i am not endorsing christendom, they will sell out every time. Followers of Jesus moral teachings on the other hand die for their beliefs rather than change them because is seems expedient or popular.

Peace

Hi
If you do not think that the eastern mindset has a very different cultural viewpoint on these things then fair enough.
If you think the lack of great power warfare is because of some moral superiority to our very near relations and not the fact that they cannot play that game because of Mutually Assured Destruction then fair enough.
If you think that MAD is an advance then fair enough.
If you think the rational approach to the problem of warfare is to farm it out to drones then ultimately AI then fair enough.
It is not so evident to me.

You REALLY should work on your reading comprehension. I have yet to write anything that states I think any of the various thoughts that you just claimed that I have. How does me claiming that we act in a more moral fashion today that in the past suggest that I think the rational approach to the problem of warfare is drones? Clearly you can't provide me with any evidence that we were MORE moral in the past, so you appear to be childishly making up a position for me that I do not hold or advocate for.

I don't think our "culture" has any moral standards in the realm of human sexuality... is it moral to cheat on your partner? It's wrong to get caught i suppose is what the moral ends up being when most situations are played out in the modern rational view. YOU have the right to do what YOU choose, you also should not cause pain to your partner but that is the lessor moral and now deal the cards........

Who, aside from you right now, has claimed that the only thing morally wrong about cheating on a spouse is getting caught? I find it very telling that you seem to think that causing pain to your partner is a lesser moral evil. If not, why would you even make such a statement, because I certainly don't hold that position, nor do I know of any other than you who has ever made the claim.

It is necessary to paint in broad strokes on this sort of forum, surely there are points of debate within some of the things i pointed out. I did not MAKE them up.... there is a counterview that exists and deserves to be debated not just thrown out..

I did point out how over half the planet live to a different view so in reality your are defending "western civilization" and i think most of the advances you point out are economic and technological and the underlying moral structure, in the broadest sense of the word (individual results may vary) has plummeted. Is there no value in that argument. Is there no grey, You admit that economic disaster may cause a regression of rational morality so how is that not VALIDATING my point that morality built on nothing solid are mere fades and could be adjusted if the economic conditions dictated it a necessary. Forced labour, conscription, reproductive engineering are all scenarios can easily be drawn from the underlying principles of pragmatic rationalism.

I will repeat it yet AGAIN. All you done is point out that human beings STILL practice immoral behavior. I have never once suggested that today we live in a perfectly moral world. NONE of what you have brought up demonstrates how in the PAST we were MORE moral that the immoral practices that you point out still exist today. Until you can list the ways we were MORE MORAL in previous centuries, none of what you've said has anything to do with the claim I have made.

So please, STOP telling me the horribly immoral things that we still do as a race today and START pointing how the morally SUPERIOR behavior that we used to exhibit in the past.

Doesn't you admitting this show that you do not really believe in the underlying claim of the OP. If this progressive morality can be thrown out if circumstance changes and we reverted back to practices that are considered immoral now because they are not seen as necessary then is it really Morality or is it just fashion.

Nope, since I have NEVER made the claim that the superior level of morality that exists within the world today is a permanent condition. Quit arguing with me about points I have never made and simply address the question at hand. HOW WAS THE WORLD A MORE MORAL PLACE IN THE PAST THAN IT IS TODAY?

 

[joe1776]

What's the evidence people who score highest on IQ test make the best decisions, contribute the most to society and therefore should be the sole decision makers in society?

Evidence isn't necessary since the conclusion is a logical deduction.

Intelligent people are better able to learn from their experience and training, to acquire knowledge, and to use that knowledge to make the best decisions provided they are organized into a decision-making structure that negates personal biases. A decision based on the majority vote of an expert panel would do that.

Smart people do, but smart people can't be identified by their ability to perform arbitrary meaningless tasks devoid of complexity, consequences, real world context or purpose. That's a fact accepted by smart people, although many 'intelligent' people can't see it as they are easily dazzled by pseudo-scientific metrics like IQ and don't really understand how the real world differs from pen and paper tests

It's true that many intelligent people don't function well in the world but you are ignoring the fact that less intelligent people have the same problem. So that factor cancels out and leaves us with the fact that intelligent people learn more from their experience and training. Their added knowledge has a positive impact on decision-making.

 

[PruePhillip]

Should be plain enough. That is was what he
claimed to be, that his accounts and
those written about him are true.

Sorry, you have lost me. Went back a few pages and I am still lost.
Was Paul the "real deal"? Is that a saying? Are you asking was Paul
an historic figure? That he was a preacher of the Gospel?

 

[Augustus]

Evidence isn't necessary since the conclusion is a logical deduction.

Intelligent people are better able to learn from their experience and training, to acquire knowledge, and to use that knowledge to make the best decisions provided they are organized into a decision-making structure that negates personal biases. A decision based on the majority vote of an expert panel would do that.

You are still mistaking a pseudo-scientific metric like IQ for a marker of real world competence and capability.

You didn't answer, what part of IQ testing do you think best relates to real world decision making capability under conditions of uncertainty and relating to complex systems? The random vocab? The 'guess which arbitrary number sequence we are thinking of even though it's not the only possible answer' parts? Mentally rotating colourful shapes and selecting a multiple choice answer?

 

[PruePhillip]

You are still mistaking a pseudo-scientific metric like IQ for a marker of real world competence and capability.

You didn't answer, what part of IQ testing do you think best relates to real world decision making capability under conditions of uncertainty and relating to complex systems? The random vocab? The 'guess which arbitrary number sequence we are thinking of even though it's not the only possible answer' parts? Mentally rotating colourful shapes and selecting a multiple choice answer?

Do YOU have a better metric of intelligence than the standard IQ test?
Or, do you have something to modify this test? I doubt 120 types of IQ
stood the test of time.

Being able to process and act upon large bodies of information is fairly
important for decision makers. Unfortunately, the higher your IQ the
harder it becomes to gain leadership - people don't like nerds.

 

[Moz]

Hi
If you do not think that the eastern mindset has a very different cultural viewpoint on these things then fair enough.
If you think the lack of great power warfare is because of some moral superiority to our very near relations and not the fact that they cannot play that game because of Mutually Assured Destruction then fair enough.
If you think that MAD is an advance then fair enough.
If you think the rational approach to the problem of warfare is to farm it out to drones then ultimately AI then fair enough.
It is not so evident to me.

You REALLY should work on your reading comprehension. I have yet to write anything that states I think any of the various thoughts that you just claimed that I have. How does me claiming that we act in a more moral fashion today that in the past suggest that I think the rational approach to the problem of warfare is drones? Clearly you can't provide me with any evidence that we were MORE moral in the past, so you appear to be childishly making up a position for me that I do not hold or advocate for.

I don't think our "culture" has any moral standards in the realm of human sexuality... is it moral to cheat on your partner? It's wrong to get caught i suppose is what the moral ends up being when most situations are played out in the modern rational view. YOU have the right to do what YOU choose, you also should not cause pain to your partner but that is the lessor moral and now deal the cards........

Who, aside from you right now, has claimed that the only thing morally wrong about cheating on a spouse is getting caught? I find it very telling that you seem to think that causing pain to your partner is a lesser moral evil. If not, why would you even make such a statement, because I certainly don't hold that position, nor do I know of any other than you who has ever made the claim.

It is necessary to paint in broad strokes on this sort of forum, surely there are points of debate within some of the things i pointed out. I did not MAKE them up.... there is a counterview that exists and deserves to be debated not just thrown out..

I did point out how over half the planet live to a different view so in reality your are defending "western civilization" and i think most of the advances you point out are economic and technological and the underlying moral structure, in the broadest sense of the word (individual results may vary) has plummeted. Is there no value in that argument. Is there no grey, You admit that economic disaster may cause a regression of rational morality so how is that not VALIDATING my point that morality built on nothing solid are mere fades and could be adjusted if the economic conditions dictated it a necessary. Forced labour, conscription, reproductive engineering are all scenarios can easily be drawn from the underlying principles of pragmatic rationalism.

I will repeat it yet AGAIN. All you done is point out that human beings STILL practice immoral behavior. I have never once suggested that today we live in a perfectly moral world. NONE of what you have brought up demonstrates how in the PAST we were MORE moral that the immoral practices that you point out still exist today. Until you can list the ways we were MORE MORAL in previous centuries, none of what you've said has anything to do with the claim I have made.

So please, STOP telling me the horribly immoral things that we still do as a race today and START pointing how the morally SUPERIOR behavior that we used to exhibit in the past.

Doesn't you admitting this show that you do not really believe in the underlying claim of the OP. If this progressive morality can be thrown out if circumstance changes and we reverted back to practices that are considered immoral now because they are not seen as necessary then is it really Morality or is it just fashion.

Nope, since I have NEVER made the claim that the superior level of morality that exists within the world today is a permanent condition. Quit arguing with me about points I have never made and simply address the question at hand. HOW WAS THE WORLD A MORE MORAL PLACE IN THE PAST THAN IT IS TODAY?

Hi

You REALLY should work on your reading comprehension. I have yet to write anything that states I think any of the various thoughts that you just claimed that I have. How does me claiming that we act in a more moral fashion today that in the past suggest that I think the rational approach to the problem of warfare is drones? Clearly you can't provide me with any evidence that we were MORE moral in the past, so you appear to be childishly making up a position for me that I do not hold or advocate for.

Fair enough.
I did attribute things to you that you never said.
I assumed that one of the planks of this belief in a MORE moral world was the lack of conflicts amongst the great powers. This is what has given the space for this more moral world isn't it?

So i thought that pointing out that the whole system is backed by the immoral MAD doctrine had relevance.
If there was no mad doctrine do you think that this moral progress you believe in would have manifested?

I would like to know though if you consider the MAD doctrine to be moral progress, immoral or just not part of the picture at all. It's not a trick or a trap i'd just like to know how you fit that big stuff into your worldview.
......................................................

How is pointing out that certain worldviews held by the majority of mankind are in tension with what you would call "moral progress". The OP is about HUMAN progress NOT western progress. Half of the world are in disagreement with what you call progress and are actively promoting their own counterview to the questions of rights and morality. It seems that we are progressing to some sort of ideological showdown in the near future.
If our reason progresses us to an extinction level event i would then have to question how reasonable it actually was.
.......................................................
Who, aside from you right now, has claimed that the only thing morally wrong about cheating on a spouse is getting caught? I find it very telling that you seem to think that causing pain to your partner is a lesser moral evil. If not, why would you even make such a statement, because I certainly don't hold that position, nor do I know of any other than you who has ever made the claim.

Fair enough. Some funny ideas here though. It seems that you agree that it is morally wrong to cheat on your partner.....WHY is it immoral in your estimation?
Biologically it is actually undarwinian to confine your genes to only one partner.
What objective measure can you apply to come to anything to do with morality as you see it?
Is cheating on your partner immoral because it violates some sort of natural law?
Is there such a thing as natural law?

It seems that you should believe that loyalty to ones mate is some sort of "social construct" and has no value in a world of reason. I would think that sexual morals based on religion are not an authority that you would like to endorse. In an internal moral struggle based on reason the affect on another is the lesser consideration when weighing the moral strengths of the issue. If the strength of your desire outweighs the strength of your loyalty is it immoral in a reasoned sense to follow the stronger desire?
........................................................

Until you can list the ways we were MORE MORAL in previous centuries, none of what you've said has anything to do with the claim I have made.
I did give you examples of who i believe showed a true morality.
True morality is what makes you take the hard road when things go bad. True morality is saying NO when the world is trying to force you to go along with the crowd.
True morality are the ones who go to the camps or the block rather than compromise or tacitly go along with the herd.
morally SUPERIOR behavior that we used to exhibit in the past.
If you have ever looked into the wars of religion triggered by the reformation, every now then then you will encounter groups that stood against BOTH sides and adhered to non violence and refused to be the pawns of their political masters. The consequenes were dire indeed.
I've mentioned the camps where it was an OLDER morality that caused religious believers to endure imprisoment and sometimes execution for their voluntary stand.

The MOST MORAL PEOPLE of the entire 20th century were the ones you NEVER hear of or even consider. They are the ones who said to the warring factions of this world NO... a pox on both your houses. And were willing to DIE for their stand. Their stand was directly inspired by the superior moral stand that early christianity professed.
............................................................
Possibly we are at cross purposes here.
The world is undeniably an less malevolent place to exist now that we have mastered certain technologies. Less unnecessary death and suffering, less poverty, less starvation... it seems you think this is driven by morals.... i think the progress is merely economic. It seems you do have a hint of sympathy as you agreed that a loss of prosperity may well lead to a moral regression.

So wouldn't your case be better stated that you believe "ecomic/technological" progress is the most important driver of human progress.

Peace
.

 

[Augustus]

Do YOU have a better metric of intelligence than the standard IQ test?
Or, do you have something to modify this test? I doubt 120 types of IQ
stood the test of time.

Maybe you'd like to try and answer:

What part of IQ testing do you think best relates to real world decision making capability under conditions of uncertainty and relating to complex systems? The random vocab? The 'guess which arbitrary number sequence we are thinking of even though it's not the only possible answer' parts? Mentally rotating colourful shapes and selecting a multiple choice answer?



To simplify: You can't quantify real world competence into a basic standardised metric based on some arbitrary paper and pencil test. Anyone who thinks you can is an idiot who should on principle be banned from holding any position of authority.

"Intelligence" is entirely situation dependent and what benefits you in situation A might harm you in situation B.

Put it this way, how many maths nerds from MIT with an IQ of 200 do you think could build a bigger drug Empire than Pablo Escobar or Felix Gallardo starting from where they did?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hi

You REALLY should work on your reading comprehension. I have yet to write anything that states I think any of the various thoughts that you just claimed that I have. How does me claiming that we act in a more moral fashion today that in the past suggest that I think the rational approach to the problem of warfare is drones? Clearly you can't provide me with any evidence that we were MORE moral in the past, so you appear to be childishly making up a position for me that I do not hold or advocate for.

Fair enough.
I

How is pointing out that certain worldviews held by the majority of mankind are in tension with what you would call "moral progress". The OP is about HUMAN progress NOT western progress. Half of the world are in disagreement with what you call progress and are actively promoting their own counterview to the questions of rights and morality. It seems that we are progressing to some sort of ideological showdown in the near future.
If our reason progresses us to an extinction level event i would then have to question how reasonable it actually was.
.......................................................
Who, aside from you right now, has claimed that the only thing morally wrong about cheating on a spouse is getting caught? I find it very telling that you seem to think that causing pain to your partner is a lesser moral evil. If not, why would you even make such a statement, because I certainly don't hold that position, nor do I know of any other than you who has ever made the claim.

Fair enough. Some funny ideas here though. It seems that you agree that it is morally wrong to cheat on your partner.....WHY is it immoral in your estimation?
Biologically it is actually undarwinian to confine your genes to only one partner.
What objective measure can you apply to come to anything to do with morality as you see it?
Is cheating on your partner immoral because it violates some sort of natural law?
Is there such a thing as natural law?

It seems that you should believe that loyalty to ones mate is some sort of "social construct" and has no value in a world of reason. I would think that sexual morals based on religion are not an authority that you would like to endorse. In an internal moral struggle based on reason the affect on another is the lesser consideration when weighing the moral strengths of the issue. If the strength of your desire outweighs the strength of your loyalty is it immoral in a reasoned sense to follow the stronger desire?
........................................................

Until you can list the ways we were MORE MORAL in previous centuries, none of what you've said has anything to do with the claim I have made.
I did give you examples of who i believe showed a true morality.
True morality is what makes you take the hard road when things go bad. True morality is saying NO w
............................................................
Possibly we are at cross purposes here.
The world is undeniably an less malevolent place to exist now that we have mastered certain technologies. Less unnecessary death and suffering, less poverty, less starvation... it seems you think this is driven by morals.... i think the progress is merely economic. It seems you do have a hint of sympathy as you agreed that a loss of prosperity may well lead to a moral regression.

So wouldn't your case be better stated that you believe "ecomic/technological" progress is the most important driver of human progress.

Peace
.

Fair enough.
I did attribute things to you that you never said.
I assumed that one of the planks of this belief in a MORE moral world was the lack of conflicts amongst the great powers. This is what has given the space for this more moral world isn't it?

So i thought that pointing out that the whole system is backed by the immoral MAD doctrine had relevance.
If there was no mad doctrine do you think that this moral progress you believe in would have manifested?

I would like to know though if you consider the MAD doctrine to be moral progress, immoral or just not part of the picture at all. It's not a trick or a trap i'd just like to know how you fit that big stuff into your worldview.

Not sure where you got the idea that I believe the MAD doctrine is what's responsible for increased morality in the world, since the two major advancements that I've mentioned is the ending of slavery as an institution and the advancement of women's rights, both of which preceded any MAD doctrine. However, I see how it can certainly be argued that the MAD doctrine has resulted in more moral behavior. The simple fact that the first half of the 20th century was plagued by global wide conflict and there hasn't been any comparable global conflicts since the MAD doctrine makes the MAD doctrine a moral principle. The only way that I can see anyone claiming that MAD is immoral is if they're arguing that it would have been more moral if we'd endured the death and destruction of another global war during the past 60+ years. How do YOU judge the MAD doctrine?

Fair enough. Some funny ideas here though. It seems that you agree that it is morally wrong to cheat on your partner.....WHY is it immoral in your estimation?
Biologically it is actually undarwinian to confine your genes to only one partner.
What objective measure can you apply to come to anything to do with morality as you see it?
Is cheating on your partner immoral because it violates some sort of natural law?
Is there such a thing as natural law?

It seems that you should believe that loyalty to ones mate is some sort of "social construct" and has no value in a world of reason. I would think that sexual morals based on religion are not an authority that you would like to endorse. In an internal moral struggle based on reason the affect on another is the lesser consideration when weighing the moral strengths of the issue.

I believe that proper morality is all based on an individual's ability to empathize. If there's something that you wouldn't want someone else to do to you, then you shouldn't do that thing to anyone else. Since I would not want my spouse to cheat on me, then it's seems obvious to me that cheating on my spouse would be wrong.

At the same time I DO believe that monogamy is a social construct. IF a couple chooses to have multiple partners and agrees to it beforehand, then there is nothing inherently immoral about having multiple partners. However, in such a case no one would be 'cheating' on the other, since this was the agreed upon arrangement from the start.

If the strength of your desire outweighs the strength of your loyalty is it immoral in a reasoned sense to follow the stronger desire?

If I was in a relationship and my desire to be with someone else was stronger than my desire to be with my current mate, it would not be immoral for me to follow my stronger desire. However, the moral way to go about it would be to inform my current mate that I no longer have a desire to be with them prior to starting a new relationship. Why? Again, it has to do with empathy. Since I would want my mate to be honest with me and break up with me prior to starting a new relationship, I feel that it's only right for me to do the same.

I did give you examples of who i believe showed a true morality.
True morality is what makes you take the hard road when things go bad. True morality is saying NO when the world is trying to force you to go along with the crowd.
True morality are the ones who go to the camps or the block rather than compromise or tacitly go along with the herd.

My question isn't who shows 'true morality'. The question is what are your examples of people in the past exhibiting 'true morality' more often than people do today? What evidence do you have that people in the past were MORE willing to abide by 'true morality' than people today are?

If you have ever looked into the wars of religion triggered by the reformation, every now then then you will encounter groups that stood against BOTH sides and adhered to non violence and refused to be the pawns of their political masters. The consequenes were dire indeed.
I've mentioned the camps where it was an OLDER morality that caused religious believers to endure imprisoment and sometimes execution for their voluntary stand.

The MOST MORAL PEOPLE of the entire 20th century were the ones you NEVER hear of or even consider. They are the ones who said to the warring factions of this world NO... a pox on both your houses. And were willing to DIE for their stand. Their stand was directly inspired by the superior moral stand that early christianity professed.

Again, where is your evidence that the number of 'people you never hear about' is LESS in the 20th century than it was in the past? You are claiming that in the past MORE people were willing to die for what's right instead of simply going along with the status quo. What are you basing this unfounded claim on?

Possibly we are at cross purposes here.
The world is undeniably an less malevolent place to exist now that we have mastered certain technologies. Less unnecessary death and suffering, less poverty, less starvation... it seems you think this is driven by morals.... i think the progress is merely economic. It seems you do have a hint of sympathy as you agreed that a loss of prosperity may well lead to a moral regression.

So wouldn't your case be better stated that you believe "ecomic/technological" progress is the most important driver of human progress.

Once again, I never once commented on WHY I think human beings are acting in a more moral manner than ever before. My ONLY claim has been that people are acting in a more moral manner today than ever before in history. I agree that much of our moral progress has been due to technological advancements that have led to economic growth. However, that doesn't change in any way shape or form the reality that we have progressed morally. You agree that it's 'undeniable' that there is less unnecessary death, suffering, poverty, and starvation. Having LESS of such things makes us a MORE moral society that we were when there was MORE unnecessary death, suffering, poverty, and starvation.

 

[Moz]

.

Hi
What a great reply. Thank you.

Here we go....i have been very general in my comments up to this point but you have given me some points of discussion here, the two major advancements that I've mentioned is the ending of slavery as an institution and the advancement of women's rights,

I do not think that is an untenable position that the ending of slavery was an economic inevitability and had little to do with morals except in a retroactive sort of way looking back as a conscience salving exercise. The two great emancipation's in the 1860's were the Russian freeing 23 000 000 serfs and the Americans 4 000 000 Slaves and neither event was based in the moral argument initially. I think that it was the relentless christian polemic against slavery that finally prodded the powerful to make a move on the issue when it became economically viable.

Womens rights are the same thing. I reject the idea that men and women were at each others throats throughout history. The picture at ground level is men and women working together to survive against the rich and powerful and a hostile natural world. I do not think there is a moral dimension to this either way. As we were able to produce more the burden of the home was lessened and women were free to pursue a wider world. I think that it is only natural for us to want our wives, daughters and mothers to be happy.
Tell me please when you think the average man had a better lot than the average women. For every oppression or compulsion that women were forced to bear there is one that men had to bear as well. Their are very few Kings and Lords in the broad sweep of humanity and ALL the rest were just playing catch up together as best they could.
..........................................................
On the MAD thing.
It is interesting to me that you can REASON to the conclusion that the threat of Global Extinction makes the MAD doctrine a moral principle because it stopped a hypothetical war. Surely human reason could have sorted this before it got to where it was. This is less than 80 years ago after all.
For me doctrine is unwise at its core and whatever expediency that is used to make it appear moral is self serving and shortsighted. To threaten every single life on the planet because you may be attacked is wrong at its core.
I'd like everyone to go out on the streets tomorrow and say either push the dam button or get rid of the weapons. Morals require skin in the game.
..........................................................
The simple fact that the first half of the 20th century was plagued by global wide conflict and there hasn't been any comparable global conflicts since the MAD doctrine makes the MAD doctrine a moral principle.

It is hardly a simple fact. I am in a couple of battles over the slavery issue on a couple of threads atm. My main aim has been to point out that while slavery was a horrible institution it seems as though it was necessary and a net benefit to civilizational development. I get SHOUTED down by the comment that slavery was immoral period. It is good that you can see that complex situations can have solutions that can seem immoral to some.
So sometimes you think the ends justify the means.
............................................................

I believe that proper morality is all based on an individual's ability to empathize. If there's something that you wouldn't want someone else to do to you, then you shouldn't do that thing to anyone else. Since I would not want my spouse to cheat on me, then it's seems obvious to me that cheating on my spouse would be wrong.

At the same time I DO believe that monogamy is a social construct. IF a couple chooses to have multiple partners and agrees to it beforehand, then there is nothing inherently immoral about having multiple partners. However, in such a case no one would be 'cheating' on the other, since this was the agreed upon arrangement from the start.

If the strength of your desire outweighs the strength of your loyalty is it immoral in a reasoned sense to follow the stronger desire?

If I was in a relationship and my desire to be with someone else was stronger than my desire to be with my current mate, it would not be immoral for me to follow my stronger desire. However, the moral way to go about it would be to inform my current mate that I no longer have a desire to be with them prior to starting a new relationship. Why? Again, it has to do with empathy. Since I would want my mate to be honest with me and break up with me prior to starting a new relationship, I feel that it's only right for me to do the same.

I combined two of your points here as my comments will refer to both. I was referring to the general moral attitude that i perceive as dominant in our society. From your lovely description of your personal morals on these issues i applaud you(except the multiple partners but hey) I would assume from this one of three things
1 You had an excellent upbring with good examples.
2 You had a poor upbringing and worked hard and thought hard to find what you should believe in
3 You are naturally an empathetic type
I do not think any of these three examples are abundant in our society though. We may have more sexual freedom and sexual choice but that has been traded off against sexual morality in my opinion.
.........................................................
My question isn't who shows 'true morality'. The question is what are your examples of people in the past exhibiting 'true morality' more often than people do today? What evidence do you have that people in the past were MORE willing to abide by 'true morality' than people today are?

Well you can not be MORE willing than to give up your life so i am not sure what you are searching for. I think that people in the past were more likely to DIE for there personal beliefs than people are today i guess.
Human right watch publishes the list of conscientious objectors imprisoned by regimes around the world each year and they seem to mostly be religious types claiming an OLD morality. There are not many rational moralists in that club.
I think that sexual conduct, on the whole over the broad stretch of humanity, was more moral in the past.
I think the honesty of the system, your oppressor was easily identified, was more moral than the shadow game we live in.now You at least KNEW who was out to get you back then.
...............................................
Again, where is your evidence that the number of 'people you never hear about' is LESS in the 20th century than it was in the past? You are claiming that in the past MORE people were willing to die for what's right instead of simply going along with the status quo. What are you basing this unfounded claim on?

Evidence. Unfounded. The Gulag archipelago, Foxes book of martrys, Tom Hollands Millenium, The diocletian persecution, the decian Persecution, domintians persecution, Nero's persecution. The heresy triails around both sides of the reformation, The inquiston.
....................................................
Once again, I never once commented on WHY I think human beings are acting in a more moral manner than ever before. My ONLY claim has been that people are acting in a more moral manner today than ever before in history. I agree that much of our moral progress has been due to technological advancements that have led to economic growth. However, that doesn't change in any way shape or form the reality that we have progressed morally. You agree that it's 'undeniable' that there is less unnecessary death, suffering, poverty, and starvation. Having LESS of such things makes us a MORE moral society that we were when there was MORE unnecessary death, suffering, poverty, and starvation

Once again i do not see how you tie MORALITY to this in any way. We ended slavery because of economics and tech we have freed women because of economics and tech and medical stuff has helped women a lot as well. They tend to not die having kids anymore. Actually i think you are referring more to culture than morals. They are very different beasts at the bottom end of any analysis.

Yes we have looked back on our ancestors from our comfortable airconditioned boxes and judged them as somehow less because of the choices they were forced to make. We also know i think that for all our backward glancing moralizing that we are still the SAME people and could fall back into those old patterns pretty quickly.

So i guess i have to concede the point in one sense. Using the power of reason and science we have definitely made the physical suffering of life a lot more bearable for vast numbers of humanity. That is progress for sure. We seem to be in a very precarious position with all this progress though. It all seems very superficial and built on very shallow foundations. Most mid to longer term projections are not very encouraging on many different fronts. Human reason seems to have some very difficult chasms to traverse and i for one have no trust in men to even come close to getting it right.This Indian Summer of humanity has almost run its course.

Peace

 

[PruePhillip]

Maybe you'd like to try and answer:

What part of IQ testing do you think best relates to real world decision making capability under conditions of uncertainty and relating to complex systems? The random vocab? The 'guess which arbitrary number sequence we are thinking of even though it's not the only possible answer' parts? Mentally rotating colourful shapes and selecting a multiple choice answer?



To simplify: You can't quantify real world competence into a basic standardised metric based on some arbitrary paper and pencil test. Anyone who thinks you can is an idiot who should on principle be banned from holding any position of authority.

"Intelligence" is entirely situation dependent and what benefits you in situation A might harm you in situation B.

Put it this way, how many maths nerds from MIT with an IQ of 200 do you think could build a bigger drug Empire than Pablo Escobar or Felix Gallardo starting from where they did?

It has been noted that Einstein (for instance) forgot to wear his socks.
This is one example of the "absent minded professor" idea. But Einstein
could pass many different IQ tests with flying colors - that he forgot his
socks had more to do with being distracted by things on his mind than
forgetfulness. People had pointed out that had he devoted his talent to
the issue of socks he would have been the world's smartest sock guy.

That two drug barons did "well" is not a measure of their intelligence.
Issues such as cunning, ruthlessness, charisma and plain good luck
play their part.

 

[Augustus]

That two drug barons did "well" is not a measure of their intelligence.
Issues such as cunning, ruthlessness, charisma and plain good luck
play their part.

Functional intelligence is entirely environment specific and only relates to ability to perform in the real world. Understanding what needs to be done to be successful in whatever venture you are pursuing, and making decisions in complex environments under conditions of uncertainty.

In another life, they could obviously have been successful entrepreneurs in legitimate fields who would be lauded for their nous and business savvy.

Thinking you can create a massive multi-billion dollar drug empire from scratch and run it for years without exceptional functional intelligence requires the same error as thinking functional intelligence can be worked out into a number based on a pointless pen and paper test that has no real world application: it confuses classroom intelligence (controlled, predictable, follows rules, mistakes don't matter) for real world intelligence (uncertain, unpredictable, requires vision, initiative and creativity, mistakes may be fatal).

Strange that none of the people who insist IQ is a great way to measure functional intelligence are willing to justify their beliefs and answer the following (these are what IQ tests consist of after all):

What part of IQ testing do you think best relates to real world decision making capability under conditions of uncertainty and relating to complex systems? The random vocab? The 'guess which arbitrary number sequence we are thinking of even though it's not the only possible answer' parts? Mentally rotating colourful shapes and selecting a multiple choice answer?

 

[PruePhillip]

Functional intelligence is entirely environment specific and only relates to ability to perform in the real world. Understanding what needs to be done to be successful in whatever venture you are pursuing, and making decisions in complex environments under conditions of uncertainty.

In another life, they could obviously have been successful entrepreneurs in legitimate fields who would be lauded for their nous and business savvy.

Thinking you can create a massive multi-billion dollar drug empire from scratch and run it for years without exceptional functional intelligence requires the same error as thinking functional intelligence can be worked out into a number based on a pointless pen and paper test that has no real world application: it confuses classroom intelligence (controlled, predictable, follows rules, mistakes don't matter) for real world intelligence (uncertain, unpredictable, requires vision, initiative and creativity, mistakes may be fatal).

Strange that none of the people who insist IQ is a great way to measure functional intelligence are willing to justify their beliefs and answer the following (these are what IQ tests consist of after all):

What part of IQ testing do you think best relates to real world decision making capability under conditions of uncertainty and relating to complex systems? The random vocab? The 'guess which arbitrary number sequence we are thinking of even though it's not the only possible answer' parts? Mentally rotating colourful shapes and selecting a multiple choice answer?

You might like this video

I went to school with a guy who wasn't very bright. His father figured that a trade would be best for him
but he wasn't good at that, either. So his Dad brought him a truck. Fifteen years ago we were paying
this guy about $500 per hour for his trucks, front end loader and scraper to work out farm. The soil
left over he used in his garden business - on the side.
Does he have a high IQ? No, but luck, hard work, being sensible more than make up for it. There's a
lot of educated derelicts around.

I am considered to have "emotional intelligence" but that's not IQ. You can be the most stable, happy
person around but can't tie up your own laces.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Put it this way, how many maths nerds from MIT with an IQ of 200 do you think could build a bigger drug Empire than Pablo Escobar or Felix Gallardo starting from where they did?

I think motivation would be a greater factor here than anything else. Many of us just aren't inclined to be money-makers or want to dominate others - perhaps more inclined to pursuing knowledge - but intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) does seem to provide some guidance as to success in many areas. Possibly, awareness of what is entailed being the larger factor - that is, understanding the larger picture - which many of lower intelligence might not recognise.

IQ, explained in 9 charts

 

[Augustus]

I think motivation would be a greater factor here than anything else. Many of us just aren't inclined to be money-makers or want to dominate others

Which is why ability is environment dependent and we shouldn't use a completely arbitrary number as the basis for who'd be good at tasks across the board. It actually amazes me that intelligent people think this is possible because they have been fooled by pseudo-scientific rigour. Sooner or later, IQ test will be looked on like phrenology, graphology or scientific racialism in an "OMG how did we fall for that charlatanism" manner.

Also on motivation:

Role of test motivation in intelligence testing

... we examined whether motivation is less than maximal on intelligence tests administered in the context of low-stakes research situations. Specifically, we completed a meta- analysis of random-assignment experiments testing the effects of material incentives on intelligence-test performance on a collective 2,008 participants. Incentives increased IQ scores by an average of 0.64 SD, with larger effects for individuals with lower baseline IQ scores [0.98SD]... Collectively, our findings suggest that, under low-stakes research conditions, some individuals try harder than others, and, in this context [can significantly affect research findings]

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/108/19/7716.full.pdf

People become smarter when they have more motivation, and a large part of IQ is how well can you motivate yourself to perform mundane, arbitrary, meaningless tasks with zero real world application against strict time limit.

Some people are good a classroom learning and others good at real world learning. In the real world, I want the latter making decisions for me. IQ selection gives you the former and says nothing about the latter.

If you spent 1000 hours doing IQ training exercises, your IQ score would likely go up significantly. Your real world functional intelligence would be unchanged (or perhaps would have regressed due to wasting your time on dull, pointless tasks). Also individual scores fluctuate by 1 or more standard deviations which means someone who scores 110, could well be as IQ smart as someone who scored 130.

A good selection tool rules out bad options, and doesn't rule out good options. IQ tests don't do that. They work well in identifying learning difficulties, that's it.

IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

but intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) does seem to provide some guidance as to success in many areas.

Because it is a tool of selection. We give better opportunities to those who perform better in standardised tests.

If instead of IQ tests we made people play golf and gave better opportunities to those who did well then we'd se a correlation between being good at golf and success in many areas.

 

[Stevicus]

Functional intelligence is entirely environment specific and only relates to ability to perform in the real world. Understanding what needs to be done to be successful in whatever venture you are pursuing, and making decisions in complex environments under conditions of uncertainty.

In another life, they could obviously have been successful entrepreneurs in legitimate fields who would be lauded for their nous and business savvy.

Thinking you can create a massive multi-billion dollar drug empire from scratch and run it for years without exceptional functional intelligence requires the same error as thinking functional intelligence can be worked out into a number based on a pointless pen and paper test that has no real world application: it confuses classroom intelligence (controlled, predictable, follows rules, mistakes don't matter) for real world intelligence (uncertain, unpredictable, requires vision, initiative and creativity, mistakes may be fatal).

Strange that none of the people who insist IQ is a great way to measure functional intelligence are willing to justify their beliefs and answer the following (these are what IQ tests consist of after all):

What part of IQ testing do you think best relates to real world decision making capability under conditions of uncertainty and relating to complex systems? The random vocab? The 'guess which arbitrary number sequence we are thinking of even though it's not the only possible answer' parts? Mentally rotating colourful shapes and selecting a multiple choice answer?

It appears that you might be drawing a distinction between what is commonly known as "book smarts" versus "street smarts."

However, there might be other factors involved, such as in the example of a drug lord. A lot of what they do may be more in the realm of physical ability and emotional/social intelligence. They may face combat situations which can test an individual's ability to stay cool in a crisis or something of equal magnitude. I don't know that such a skill involves raw intelligence, or if it's due to a more emotional component.

Compare to a Harvard-educated CEO who may have been raised in privileged, insular surroundings - yet intelligent and educated enough to run a successful business. He might be able to thrive in circumstances of fair and lawful competition (which relies more on reason), while the drug lord requires a somewhat different skill set in order to thrive in circumstances of unfair and lawless competition (which relies more on brute force).

 

[Augustus]

It appears that you might be drawing a distinction between what is commonly known as "book smarts" versus "street smarts."

Compare to a Harvard-educated CEO who may have been raised in privileged, insular surroundings - yet intelligent and educated enough to run a successful business. He might be able to thrive in circumstances of fair and lawful competition (which relies more on reason), while the drug lord requires a somewhat different skill set in order to thrive in circumstances of unfair and lawless competition (which relies more on brute force).

To some extent, yes, but 'street smarts' sells it a bit short. I'd say real-world smarts, or perhaps wisdom.

Book smarts often fail in real world situations, for example: Long-Term Capital Management - Wikipedia

Many "less intelligent" traders make money because they understand markets and people and how to avoid being a sucker, real-world smarts, yet couldn't begin to understand the complex formulae of mathematical quants.

You might be able to quantify certain types of reasoning ability in a vacuum, but better reasoning ability also enables you to reason your way into holding stupid beliefs, and reason your way out of accepting any evidence that you dislike (see cited scientific studies above).

"Intelligence" also makes it easier for us to acquire and apply false information (anti-knowledge).

"Intelligence" is not wisdom, and wisdom is the only thing that really counts whether it comes from experience, intelligence, common sense or something else..

There is no rigorous way to quantify intelligence, just arbitrarily selected mental capabilities.

You might be able to quantify certain types of reasoning ability in a vacuum, but better reasoning ability also enables you to reason your way into holding stupid beliefs, and reason your way out of accepting any evidence that you dislike.

Book smarts also makes it easier for us to acquire and apply false information (anti-knowledge) which is often more harmful than ignorance. They are only helpful if you were trained correctly, or if you have the wisdom/smarts to identify and undo bad training.

IQ "intelligence" is not wisdom/real world smarts, and wisdom is the only thing that really counts whether it comes from experience, intelligence, common sense or something else.

However, there might be other factors involved, such as in the example of a drug lord. A lot of what they do may be more in the realm of physical ability and emotional/social intelligence. They may face combat situations which can test an individual's ability to stay cool in a crisis or something of equal magnitude. I don't know that such a skill involves raw intelligence, or if it's due to a more emotional component.

That's the point though. To be a successful drug lord you need both masses of real-world intelligence, and the qualities/nerves/ruthlessness to survive in the criminal environment. You need all to be able to thrive.

To be a great politician, you need masses of real world intelligence, and also the vision and political skills to be successful. Even then, a great peacetime leader might not be a great wartime leader.

In UK pre-WW2 there were countless ferociously intelligent MPs, yet most wanted 'peace in our time' and appeasement. Churchill was pretty much alone in his insistence that this only made things worse. This isn't because he had a higher IQ than everyone else, but because he understood this aspect of the real-world better. He was a great leader because his skillset fitted the environment. Had he been born 60 years later we might well never have heard of him. That is why simplistic standardised "intelligence" metrics are worthless in a complex, non-standardised world.

IQ doesn't measure independent thought, vision, foresight, opportunism, the ability to be a risk taker/risk averse in the right situations, creativity, and countless other things that are generally far more important than "IQ intelligence".

It also can't legislate for people who are below average at most things, yet excel at one thing in particular. When choosing someone to do task A, I'd prefer someone who was excellent at task A, yet awful at tasks X,Y, Z, rather than choosing someone who was slightly above average at tasks A, X, Y, Z.