- INTELLIGENCE AGAIN -
INTRODUCTION
intelligence. for most people, just a vague, undefined concept. have you ever taken
the time to think about it? all men are created equal, they say. well, not really.
this is one of the more serious articles that this site has to offer. serious and well-documented.
ideas presented below are based on two fascinating books about intelligence: first of all, there's
"the bell curve", by richard j. herrnstein and charles murray. this book deals with the effects of intelligence
on human society (the authors' focus is on the american society, but their ideas can be applied universally).
second, there's "iq and the wealth of nations", by richard lynn and tatu vanhanen, which takes the same issue a step further, and studies relationships between levels of intelligence and, well, the wealth of nations.
we're going to present the conclusions of these two books below. most of this article is made of quotes from these two books. still, if you will read just two books this year, we suggest you read the two mentioned above.
PART I - iq level of a population
so let's get started now. think about intelligence for a little while. what comes to mind? a somewhat
vaguely defined human ability commonly associated with high grades in school or solving fun "brain teasers"?
it is sometimes thought that intelligence is just another personality trait, such as kindness or generosity.
and that all people haveit, just as all people are (or are supposed to be) kind.
well, think again. there's bad news for most people; and there's possibly some good news for you, if you're taking
the time to read this article.
the word intelligence describes something real and that it varies from person to person is as universal
and ancient as any understanding about the state of being human. intellligence is a unitary construct that determines
the efficiency of problem solving, learning, remembering and the performance of all
tasks ranging from complex mathematical and logical problems to simple reaction times involving the
speed of pressing a button on a keyboard when a light comes on. another definition positions intelligence as the
ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt efficiently to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in
various forms of reasoning, and to overcome obstacles by taking thought. now that covers a lot.
defining intelligence as accurate as possible is important, because intelligence is a concrete, measurable concept, which
constitutes one of the most important forces driving human society. so, here's more:
intelligence is av ery general mental capacity, which, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan,
solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.
take note that we're not talking about mere book-learning, a merely academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather,
intelligence reflects a broader, and deeper real-life capability for comprehending our surroundings - "catching on",
"making sense" of things - or "figuring out" what to do and how to do it. it's a mistake to associate intelligence primariliy
with academic skills, since it influences all human activities, from the operations of a worker on an assembly-line, to the
ideas and actions of a prime-minister.
an interesting issue with intelligence is that it can be measured by intelligence tests and quantified by the intelligence quotient (IQ).
all cognitive abilities are intercorrelated, that is people who do well on some tasks tend to do well on all the others. statistical analysis revealed
that the efficiency of performance on all cognitive tasks is partly determined by a common factor, designated as the g factor - for general intelligence
(the existence of which can be explained by some general mental power that determines the performance on all
cognitive tasks). in addition to g there are a number of specific abilities that determine the performance on particular types of tasks,
over and above the effect of g: verbal comprehension, reasoning, memory, spatial, perceptual, mathematical abilities, cultural knowledge and cognitive speed.
you can think of this as a hierarchical model of intelligence - a pyramid with g at the top, eight second order factors in the middle, and
numerous narrow, specific abilities at the base.
intelligence is measured by intelligence tests including verbal reasoning, non-verbal reasoning, mental arithmetic, vocabulary, verbal comprehension and perceptual,
spatial and memory abilities. the scores obtained in tests are expressed in a system in which the mean IQ of a national population is
set at 100 and the standard deviation is set at 15. thus, 96% of a population has an iq between 70 and 130, 2% an iq below 70, 2% above 130. the maximum ever recorded is
around 200. we have all seen the popular IQ test and maybe had a little fun with them; dismissed them as garbage if our score was unsatisfactory or bragged
to all our firends if the score was high. decades of research on hundreds of thousands of subjects all over the globe has showed that
IQ tests are a powerful tool in measuring human intelligence and, going a step further,
estimating probabilities for a wide range of actions or events, such as academical success or unemployment.
it is now possible to estimate one's success in life based on a 30 minute standardized intelligence test taken at the age of 12, for example.
there are other valued human traites beside g, but none seems to affect individuals' life chances so systematically and powerfully in modern life as does g.
think a bit about the implications of this. for now, take a look at the cognitive abilities at different levels of intelligence:
- IQ<76 (bottom 5% of the population): these indivudals are at high risk of failing in school and becoming elemnetary school dropouts, have difficulty in carrying out
apparently simple tasks such as reading a letter, filling in forms, understanding doctors' instructions and consistently fail to understand certain iportant aspects of the world in which
they live and so regularly find themselves unable to cope with some demands of the world.
- 76<=IQ<=90 (20% of population): individuals trainable only for semi-skilled work - machine opertors, welders, custodians, and food service workers.
- 91<=IQ<=110 (middle 50% of population): trainable for skilled and lower white colar jobs, such as the skilled trades of electrician, plumber and the like, and clerks, secretaries and insurance
sales representatives. they are able to read and comprehend material in simple magazines, newspapers and popular novels.
- 111<=IQ<=125 (20% of population) can learn complex material fairly easily and most of them can qualify for management and the professions. only persons in this iq band can follow and understand
serious articles in quality newspapers and magazines or serious fiction.
- IQ>=126 (top 5% of population): only these individuals are able to do well in cognitively demanding occupations such as law, medicine, science, university research, engineering and senior management.
there is such a thing as a general factor of cognitive ability (g-factor) on which human beings differ.
all standardized tests of academic aptitude or achievemnt measure this general factor to some degree,
but IQ tests expressly designed for that purpose measure it most accurately. IQ scores match, to a first
degree, whatever it is that people mean when they use the word intelligent or smart in ordinary language.
a few ending notes: IQ scores are stable, although not perfectly so, over much of a person's life.
the iq level becomes hard to budge by the age children go to school. individual differences in iq stabilize at approximately age 6 (in the first few years of life
correlations are irreleveant).
properly administered tests are not demonstrably biased against social, economic, ethnic or racial groups.
finally, cognitive ability is substanitally heritable, apparently no less than 40 percent and no more than 80
percent (so, about 60% on average).
reflect on these ideas a bit, because their implications are very importnt, not just from a theoretical point of view, but for your own life as well.
in the next chapters we will see how intelligence is correlated with academic success, jobs and so on.
there's an obvious relationship between intelligence and academic success; an IQ test is the single most important predictor of success in school.
in fact, all academic standardized tests (such as the GRE and the GMAT) used in developed education systems (we're not talking about the romanian system here) test for the same thing - level of intelligence, and select students accordingly.
in recent decades, the top quartile of talent has been more effciently tapped for college. basically, studies show that college attendance is closely pegged to iq levels. think about this: the average iq score of high-school graduates is 106; the average iq score for college graduates is 116, while the average iq score for people with a professional degree is 126. see a pattern here?
furthermore, what we are seeing is the formation of a cognitive elite within the college system. everyone has heard of universities such as oxford, harvard or stanford. what's so great about them? they probably have exceptional faculty, courses and facilities. but here's more: over time, for one reason or another, these top universities have devised a process to attract the best available students (the selection process is based on standardized scores, so iq once again). basically, the most important asset of these schools is their students. so, while not necessarily providing far superior education, these schools provide employers with far superior students. besides education, these school provide an accurate "certification" of high iq for their graduates. and the university system is becoming more and more efficient in selecting the brightest of students.
cognitive stratification by education is followed by cognitive stratification in the workplace. in the 1990's, about 60% of american ceo's have graduate training, compared to just 9% in the 1900's. futhermore, there is a direct correlation between the level of income and number of years of education.smart people with advanced degrees from top schools get the best jobs. that's life. once again, studies have shown a direct strong correlation between income and iq levels. nowdays, more and more people with higher iq get into the best jobs, and get more money. the explanation for this lies in the law of supply in demand: people with high iq's are in short supply, while demand for their services from an increasingly complex economy is growing; thus, these individuals command higher prices (slaries) for their work.
once again, results of standardized intelligence tests are the single most important predictor of job success, regardless of job type. that's why standardized intelligence tests are also used for hiring reasons (where permitted by law). employers would probably appreciate the following information - the validity of different predictors of job performance: cognitive test score 53%, biograpohical data - 37%, reference checks - 26%, education - 22%. interview - only 14%, college grades 11%, interest 1%. the predictive power of tests derives almost completely from their measure of general cognitive ability, not measures of job-specific skills.
smarter people have increased productivity in any type of job - from jobs requiring unskilled labor to CEO positions. therefore, it makes sense to hire intelligent people for all jobs in a company. this would increase productivity, and lead to increased profits and reduced costs
another phenomenon is that more and more cognitive ability is rewarded: while salaries for unskilled labour remain more or less the same over decades, salaries for IQ-professions rise gradually over time. high iq occupations are high paid occupations - intelligence is rewarded
in general iq scores can be used to explain many other social phenomena, besides job success and education levels.
a low iq score is the top reason for poverty, being even more important than parents'socioecnomical status. the bottom line: if you could choose between being born poor and smart (1) and being born born rich and dumb, then your best shot would be the first option.
studies mentioned in the book reveal other fascinating correlations, such as: correlations between the mother's iq score and the child's poverty level; between iq scores and unemployment; between iq scores and the quality of parenting; iq scores and crime; or iq scores and civility (i.e. going to vote).
finally, it seems that different ethnic groups have substanitally different distributions of cognitive ability, that are not explainable by cultural bias and not easily altered by remedial steps. research has shown that, on average, levels of crime, poverty, income, education and so on, vary across different ethnic groups, in correlation with variations in iq levels. averages and standard deviations of iq scores vary between different populations, ethnic groups and geographic regions. this leads to interesting conclusions about a particular minority group in romania. due to the sensitive nature of this issue, i will not elaborate, but differences in iq levels between ethnic groups could explain behavioral and social problems (poverty, crimet, etc) of said minority group. furthermore, differences in iq levels could also explain differences in income levels in various regions of romania.
as stated earlier, intelligence is inherited in most part. this accounts for the iq differences recorded in various populations and countries (more on this later).
part II - INTELLIGENCE AND WEALTH OF NATIONS
and now we take a step further and extend our analysis to the world as a whole. the question to ask now is this: since iq levels influence the members of a population to such a high extent, what is the influence of iq levels for the world as a whole? is there a direct correlation between the average iq level of a population in a particular country and the country's economic status? the answer is yes.
intelligence of populations has been a major factor responsible for the national differences in economic growth and for the gap in per capita income between rich and poor nations.
the east-asian countries (japan, south korea, taiwan, hong kong, etc) count as some of the most developed countries in the world. thus, it comes as no surprise that compared to the british mean of 100, japanese, chinese and other oriental people have a mean of 105 (the average iq level is set at 100 points and is considered as a reference level for this analysis). furthermore, oriental people have higher iq levels than other populations even if they live abroad.
european peoples in continental europe, canada, australia, u.s, new zealand, latin america and south africa have mean iq's of around 100. people of south and southwest asia from turkey through the near east to india have mean iq's in the range of 78 and 90. people of latin america have mean iq's in the range from 96 in argentina and uruguay (populations largely european) to around 80 in countries such as guatemala and ecuador (populations largely indigenous native americans and metizos). nations of sub-saharan africa have iq's in the range of 65 and 75 and average around 70.
this data alone is enough to show some correlation between iq levels and economic status of countries and populations around the globe. but let's go on.
the widespread assumption of economists and political scientists that the peoples of all nations have the same average level of intelligence is seriously incorrect. because intelligence is a significant determinant of attainment and achievemnt in all areas of life, including earnings, these national differences in intelligence are bound to have some effect on national economic development and rates of economic growth. basically, the variance in levels of intelligence around the globe explains why southeast asia has emerged as a highly developed region, or why africa continues to remain poor.
in brief, the authors's research shows that: 1. intelligence is correlated with earnings, success in life, education and inversely correlated with crime, unemployment, poverty, etc at the individual level (as explained in the first part of this article). 2. studies have shown that average levels of intelligence in various regions of a country are correlated with a variety of economic, social and cultural phenomena, including levels of unemployment, earnings, education, etc. the explanation? selective migration - geographical segregation by intelligence over the course of generations. those with higher iq have done well economically and moved to affluent districts. those with low iq have done poorly and moved to impoverished districts. thus, affluent districts posses both genetic and environemntal factors to foster intelligence. 3. average levels of intelligence of countries determine their economic status.
lynn and vanhanen have centralized studies recording intelligence levels in 81 countries. iq levels follow:
europe
holland 102, italy 102, germany 102, austria 102, sweeden 101, switzerland 101, belgium 100, england 100, hungary 99, poland 99, norway 98, denmark 98, france 98, czech republic 97, spain 97, finland 97, russia 96, slovakia 96, portugal 95, slovenia 95, romania 94, ireland 93, bulgaria 93, greece 92, croatia 90. the conclusions are fascinating: notice how the level of development in western european countries mathces their populations' average iq level: the most developed countries (such as germany, italy, holland, sweden, etc) have the highest iq scores, while the least developed relative to the former (portugal, greece) have lower iq scores. on average, countries in eastern europe have lower iq scores then western european countries (although differences in development levels are also explained by the former communist regimes).
let's continue:
north america and australia: new zealand 100, australia 98, u.s.a. 98, canada 97.
east asia: hong kong 107, south korea 106, japan 105, taiwan 104, china 100.
south and southwest asia: singapore 103, israel 94, malaysia 92, thailand 91, turkey 90, iraq 87, lebanon 86, iran 84, india 81, nepal 78, qatar 78.
southeast asia and the pacific islands: indonesia 89, samoa 87, tonga 87, philipines 86, fiji 84, marshall islands 84.
latin america and the caribbean: argentina 96, uruguay 96, peru 90, surinam 89, columbia 89, brazil 87, mexico 87, cuba 85, puerto rico 84, ecuador 80, guatemala 79, barbados 78, jamaica 72.
africa: marocco 85, egypt 83, zambia 77, congo (brazzaville) 73, uganda 73, south africa 72, sudan 72, tanzania 72, kenya 72, ghana 71, nigeria 67, guinea 66, zimbabwe 66, congo (zair) 65, sierra leone 64, ethiopia 63, ecuatorial guinea 59.
the iq of populations in the rest of the countries has been estimated based on their ethnic composition and their neighbours. next, the authors studied the correlation between iq levels and macroeconomic indicators such as GDP, GNP anb economic growth rates from 1850 to date. research shows this correlation exists, and it is pretty high (for statistics fans, correlation strebgth lies between .5 and .65 for various groups of countries and time periods). to put it in plain words: countries with higher iq populations make more money and, in turn, their populations are rich. this state of facts can be explained by the research and development activities and projects carried out in the countries with smarter people; this research allows for the discovery and implementation of new technologies, which lead to increased work productivity: these countries produce goods that are both expensive and in high demand (from audio-video equipment to cars). poor countries produce goods that are both cheap and in low demand.
therefore, iq levels of populations are the most important factor determining the wealth of nations (iq levels explained 52% of varioations in per capita income in 1997). it is not the only one though. all former and actual communist countries have GDP levels that are lower than expected based on their iq levels. this can only be explained by the extensive damage that the communist system has inflicted upon these countries' economies and socieites. it is expected that in time, this negative influence will fade away, and these countries will reach GDP levels that are expected based on their inteligence. just one example: in 1998 romania had a per capita GDP of $5,648, while the expected value based on iq levels is $13,069. the situation is similar for all former communist countries. we can only hope that differences between actual and expected GDP levels will diminish overtime. in fact, this process is already taking place in countries such as croatia, hungary, poland, slovakia, slovenia and the czech republic.
another interesting point for romania is that in 1930, the expected per capita income was $2,520, while the actual level was only $1,219; since there was no communist regime in romania in 1930, the reasons for this differences are low adoption of western technologies, political instablitiy, inadequate social and political institutions. this is a frightening though, since these reasons are still present in the romania of today. does this mean that expected per capital income levels will never be reached in romania? interesting thought.
the authors' conclusion is that a combination of a relatively high national iq, a market economic system and a democracy has been needed to create the circumstances in which it was possible to invent and efficiently adopt the modern technologies necessary
to produce high per capita income. therefore, smart people earn more money; the aggregated effect of this leads to smart populations earning more money than less smarter once. furthermore, smart populations produce smart leaders, which create conditions for accumulating wealth, and discovering and/or implementing new technologies. intelligent ecnomic management is required to produce the right conditions for economic growth: introduction and maintenance of a market economy, promotion of competition and free trade, the prevention of the growth of monopolies, the setting of interest rates at the optimum level in order to attain full employment with minimum of inflation, the promotion of education and vocational training in order to produce a skilled workforce. are any of these things happening in romania to a significant extent? not really.
the theory of the market economy as the most efficient way of organizing production for economic growth was formulated by adam smit in 1776. this theory was understood and implemented as early as the 18th century by the more intelligent political leaders of the world. in turn, implementing and maintaining a market economy led to economic growth in rich countries. wise leaders and smart decisions lead to desirable results. it's as easy as that.
political leaders that had not been intelligent enough to understand the basic principles of the market economy have ruined their countries and economies. the communist system is a very good example supporting this thesis. less able leaders could not grasp the concept that million of selfish individual decisions could lead to better results than one single centralized decision. the best surviving example of these differences in economic systems is the situation in north and south korea. communism is not the only example: when the english government nationalized coal mines, transportation, communications and the steel industry, it lost the race with germany: england's growth rate was twice as lower than germany's.
two more interesting points:
#1: ok, so there are some differences in intelligence across ethnic groups. why does this happen, though? here's one theory: man first inhabited the warmer regions close to the ecuator. individuals who migrated to temperate zones were faced with new challenges: cold weather, larger animals to hunt, etc. so, natural selection came into action once again and selected only the individuals that could face these challenges, i.e. the brightest ones. well, who knows?
#2: ok, so market economy plays an important role in nations' accumulation of wealth. why did market economy first appear in europe? because europe was a fragmented region, composed of numerous small states and provinces; market economy - the competition between numerous entities - emerged as a natural process. enterprise was free in europe. innovation worked and paid. by contrast, take china for instance: china became a centralized state in the xvi-th century, and this restricted development and innovation.
and the upsetting conclusion: countries will not converge at some point in the future towards the same level of wealth and the same standards of living for their citizens. unfortunately. the gap between rich and poor countries will continue to grow; the only exception to this trend are the former communist states. by introducing reforms and a market economy, these states have a shot at becoming rich and taking their place in the hierarchy of developed states. this is not impossible, and it has happened before: take japan, for example. an isolated state with autocratic rulers until the xix-th century, japan introduced a market economy in 1867. we all know the results.
so, what can there be done for the poorer countries of the globe? several approaches:
- improving nutrition quality. the lack of essential vitamins, minerals and proteins in pregnant women has a negative influence on children and their intelligence level. nutrition deficiencies in children continue to negatively impact their development.
- improving healthcare - certain tropical diseases can also have a negative influence on intellicenge levels.
- improving education - education does not improve intelligence levels, but certain basic abilities (reading, basic math, writing) can greatly benefit economic development.
- deal with dysgenic fertility - people with lower intelligence levels have more children than people with higher intellicenge. in time, this leads to a decrease in average intelligence levels across populations. the proposed solution is to promote contraception and education programs.
the book's conclusions are:
- we need a new international moral code based on the recognition of significant national differences in human mental abilities, and consequent econonic inequalities. the populations of the rich countries may have to accept that they have a moral obligation to provide financial assistance to the people of poor countries for the indefinite future, just as within countries rich people pay taxes to support poor people.
- aid programs of rich countries directed towards poor countries must be continued, and a part of these resources must be directed towards raising the intelligence level of populations, as discussed above.
only by admitting the fact that differences in mental abilities are a major cause for variations in economic development across nations, can the differences in wealth of nations be reduced.
WELL?
as we have seen, intelligence plays a crucial role in the lives and development of individuals, populations and nations. standards of living and levels of delveopment are a hot topic today; since it is such a key element for development, you'd think that intelligence would be a major concern of leaders, policymakers and politicians. well, not really. the Variation in human mental abilities is a major taboo in today's society.
today's society is deeply affected by a major social trend, with frightening prospects: the decrease of average levels of intelligence. the major cause for this trend is that people of lower intelligence tend to have more babies than more intelligent people. since intelligence is in most part inherited, the average level of intelligence decreases. by the way, the conclusion that intelligence has a high heritability implies that there are genes that determine intelligence. the first of these genes in normal populations was discovered in the late 1990s by chorley et al (1998). it lies on chromosome 6 and possesion of the gene, or more strictly, the allele (alleles are alternative forms of a gene), confers about 4 IQ points to an individual's level of intelligence. all men are created equal? the genes seem to disagree.
people are not created equal. this is not good or bad in itself, it's just a fact and ot cannot be changed, at least at this point. society needs to take this fact into consideration when planning for its members.
another problem is immigration: some countries that receive a large number ofimmigrants, such as the u.s., find that the iq of the immigrant population is lower than their national iq, while countries that provide immigrants, such as romania, find that a part of their brightest people leave for other countries.
these are trends that affect all countries of the world to some extent. unfortunately, no one seems to notice and no measures are taken to correct this trend. an effecive approach is for governments to promote large scale contraceptive education programs for the poorer segments of populations.
the decrease in levels of intelligence can have frightening effects in the future. if the number of intelligent people decreases, everyone is worse off, including dumb and poor people. intelligent people hold most key jobs in today's society. basically, the advancement of society today is driven by a small percentage of the population - managers, entrepreneurs, inventors, policymakers, artists, teachers, scientists, etc; these are the groups that create wealth, which benefits society as a whole: a bright scientist might come up with an invention that would double the productivity of labour and increase the standards of living for everyone, or a visionary entrepreneur might found a company that would create wealth for thousands of shareholders and employees. if the levels of intelligence decrease, such bright scientists and visionary entrepreneurs will be increasingly hard to find.
intelligence levels do not drop abruptly and you'd think that several iq points do not make a difference. still, as we all know, intelligence is distributed across the bell curve. a decrease of several points in the average iq level leads to a dramatic decrease in people with iq levels over 120 in that particular population, for example. a decrease of 4 points in the average iq level can lead to a decrease of 50% in the brightest individuals of a population. and that's exactly where we look for our leaders or inventors. for progress.
at the other end of the curve, you have the less gifted people. in the u.s. 48% of the poor, 66% of high school dropouts, 64% of able bodied men who did not work and 62% of men ever interviewed in jail all came from the bottom 20% of intelligence. does it make sense for society to have intelligent or dumb people?
governments usually promote programs directed towards the less gifted people: the poor, the less bright and so on. this sometimes leads to a situation where governments support stupidity, by extensive welfare systems directed towards the unemployed, for instance - people who aren't smart enough and unwilling to get a job, so they just live on unemployment aid, contributed by the working force.
unfortunately, you very rarely see programs directed towards the gifted members of society. after all, they are the ones that are supposed to drive progress and development. but no one cares. it seems much more reasonable to help the poor and the needy, but it's not logical. help the intelligent and they, in turn, will help everyone else. that should be the foundation of any social policy. but it's not.
furthermore, today's democratic and egalitarian society tends to level society, decreasing opportunities for bright individuals. the education system has been adjusted to attend to the needs of the less gifted, while the more intelligent generally waste their time in schools. books and curriculars are dumbed down and concentrate on the median population of students. there are special programs for the dumb, but no special programs for the gifted.
it's about time that society gave meritocracy its due. and that policy took into account all the above mentioned issues and found a place for all according to individual ability. what society needs is equal rights for all individuals, but not equal outcomes.
you might have seen the movie gattaca, where in the near future babies can be screened at birth, and a drop of blood can accurately predict each baby's chances of having heart disease, or lung disease, or whatever in the course of their lifetime; in the movie this information was used by employers to deny access to certain jobs to high-risk individuals. that was science-fiction. now let's see reality: at six years of age a child can take a 30 minute standardized test that can predict his chances of going to jail, dying in poverty, getting a college degree, getting a job as a janitor or a CEO, and tens of other elements. sounds like science-fiction, but it's not.
based on the two readings, this author's conclusion is that the role of cognitive abilities in today's society and politics must be reconsidered. the political system in use today has to be reformed. democracy is the best system we have, but it's not the absolute best. more and more political leaders are losing their most important feature: representing the interests of a population. this trend is stronger in less developed countries, such as romania.
voting has become an automated process and elections routinely place in power people that do not represent the people, and are unable and/or unwilling to carry out their mission: to promote social and economic progress.
everyone in romania (and in other countries as well) is dissatisfied with politicians, but no one takes a look at the political process itself, the process that put these poeple in power.
the process can be improved. some people do not posses the necessary information or do not care enough to cast a rational vote. therefore, i believe that today's voting system must be changed to reflect variations in intelect, by giving higher weights to the votes of brighter people. this way, we can achieve a rational voting process, in which votes of people who have the ability and the willingness to analyze and understand political, social and economic phenomena are more important than the votes of the rest. a 30 minute standardized test can evaluate intelligence levels and weigh each person's vote accordingly. people who do not want to take the test get the lowest weight.
the political system in practice today involves the selection of candidates for society's leadership positions (presidents, members of parliament, etc) through elections. it is expected that elections, as practiced today, will select the brightest leaders. but the process is flawed. a significant part of the population is unable and/or unwilling to make a rational decision in this case. it is more reasonable to expect that the brightest members of society will select the brightest among them to lead, with better results (wfoster).