Stupidity and violence

[jogsxyz]

This sounds like another question from a right-wing TV host. Ask a question which is grey. Demand a black or white, yes/no answer.

[hmkpoker]

There's a difference between black/white and agree/disagree. White specifically means that the opposite of black is true, whereas disagreeing in this instance does not (i.e., voting disagree does not necessarily mean that more intelligent people are more likely to cause violence)

[vhawk01]

hmk,

Since you are the OP, I'm curious as to how you'd settle this. Obviously the largest violent incidents were probably set in motion or ordered by highly intelligent people. World leaders tend to be such. But would call starting a war to accomplish some goal you deem your society needs accomplished, or signing orders committing troops to battles and conflicts, to be a violent act?

Carlo,
The problem with this is that, by saying they aren't violent acts it sort of seems like I'm saying the leaders aren't complicit and that its 'all the soldiers fault.' Thats definitely not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that violence isn't what they are guilty of.

[Psycho Boy Jack]

who said violence was not sometimes the most intelligent way to solve a problem ?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Since you are the OP, I'm curious as to how you'd settle this. Obviously the largest violent incidents were probably set in motion or ordered by highly intelligent people. World leaders tend to be such. But would call starting a war to accomplish some goal you deem your society needs accomplished, or signing orders committing troops to battles and conflicts, to be a violent act?

[/ QUOTE ]

But there's more to a war than its leaders. How did the leaders get in there in the first place? War produces nothing of value to the economy, so to support a war in the absence of being attacked is certainly self-damaging (especially to the civilians) and defies common sense; and yet, such attacks take place, and require quite a bit of stupidity amongst the civilians to take place. One could argue that if the citizens are smart, such wars are far less likely.

I actually created this question on a small scale with more domestic violence in mind (gangs, robberies, murders, sexual assaults, etc.), but many people are interpretting it/viewing it differently. The question has a very cumbersome and possibly flawed element to it that I didn't realize until after I posted: the intelligence of the civilians is almost certainly going to alter the social structure, making it difficult to exclude other variables as equal. The conditions under which other variables could be excluded would imply that the change in intelligence, for better or worse, happened very recently and the subsequent social changes have not yet had a chance to take place. What I should have said was "other variables excluded," which would have more accurately captured what I meant to say, but meh, I'm counting on most of the readers not looking that far into the question [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[vhawk01]

Thats how I figured you had meant it. Violent behavior is very strongly correlated with low education. However, its much more likely that it is some third cause that raises the likelihood of both low education and violence, things like economic insecurity. Its hard for me to guess what a 'more intelligent' citizenry would be like, unless I assumed they were less likely to be malnourished, less likely to have substandard access to medical care, less likely to commit violent acts, and less likely to be an IV drug user as well.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Violent behavior is very strongly correlated with low education. However, its much more likely that it is some third cause that raises the likelihood of both low education and violence, things like economic insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure those three elements are intercausal (is that a word? It is now), and that an adjustment in any factor toward the positive will predict similar positive the others toward the positive as well, and similarly for the negative.

[ QUOTE ]
Its hard for me to guess what a 'more intelligent' citizenry would be like, unless I assumed they were less likely to be malnourished, less likely to have substandard access to medical care, less likely to commit violent acts, and less likely to be an IV drug user as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people would intuit that the socioeconomic conditions of a more intelligent population would be more favorable. With both factors ostensibly positive, I fail to see why any such person would believe that violence would not be less likely to occur in such conditions.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Carlo,
The problem with this is that, by saying they aren't violent acts it sort of seems like I'm saying the leaders aren't complicit and that its 'all the soldiers fault.' Thats definitely not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that violence isn't what they are guilty of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I see what you're saying and the question of interpersonal effects are mandatory. My difficulty is the question of intelligence.Many posts on this site have discuused the boon of intelligence and have cometotheIQ test, for better or worse. Others haave said that since a great scientist by common acclaim is a great scientist he is obviously the most intelligent and we have a self fulfilling prophesy.

All the above smacks of elitism, but so what?

We could go on and on and on and in reality we reach into politics which by common acclaim has nothing to do with intelligence [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

My perspective is that not only must one have a good intellect but also needed is an emotional stability(better word?). Emotionality can and does cloud our reason which curiously enough a Christian philosopher Aquinas call this a "sin".Go figure. This clouding of our reason can and does lead to untoward acts including violence.

Some are stronger than others and in this we might call "character".

As mentioned previously, many religious(of diverse beliefs) see the overcoming of our"lower nature" of utmost importance and it seems that "intelligence" or the lexicon of "most intelligent" has to consider this. The guide to this overcoming is directly related to reason but in no way should an exclusivity based upon "intelligence" as is commonly known be the standard of perfection.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
All other variables being the same, a society of less intelligent people is likely to have more problems with violence than a society with more intelligent people.

[/ QUOTE ]Violence is the result of limited resources. Stupidity does not matter, only the need to compete over limited resources. Well maybe not only, but it's the largest factor. Provided of course that both soceities can recognize limited resources. Smart and Dumb become violent. There is no way to tell if smart or dumb will be the ones over estimating a preceived limit in resource.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All other variables being the same, a society of less intelligent people is likely to have more problems with violence than a society with more intelligent people.

[/ QUOTE ]Violence is the result of limited resources. Stupidity does not matter, only the need to compete over limited resources. Well maybe not only, but it's the largest factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence influences the nature of the competition.