Intelligence, no. We need empthy, self-love, unity.
this post was submitted on 10 May 2026
90 points (95.0% liked)
Asklemmy
54273 readers
526 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Intelligence isn't really one thing, so you have to be more specific.
I can see both sides. Smarter people would make the pie bigger. But a flat %increase would make the absolute intelligence gap even wider, which is what I think is the more relevant metric. Evil spirited smart people would manipulate stupid people even harder and that benevolent smart people may not do much to stop it.
Would the world be better? Maybe. Would the world have less conflict? I bet not.
Plenty of intelligent people that are absolute Ghouls and monsters.
No, but if empathy went up 50% and greed went down 50%, there would.
This is not about intelligence at all. School tells you that intelligence is important because it makes you a better worker for the corporations.
But if you think about a good person in life, their intelligence is not going to be top of the list of their best qualities.
People are so focused on intelligence that they often completely forget about other qualities a human being can have.
Personally I don't think intelligence is the solution, it would justake conflict more complex and thought out. You would need more empathy for a better world.
Exactly. There are lots of smart people making bombs.
Probably not. Conflict doesn't arise because people don't have the right ideas, more so conflict is the result of material conditions and processes. The battle for resources, the right to surplus extraction, class struggle, imperialism, all of these result from the evolution of class society, and not because of intelligence.
Wouldn't intelligence also be a material condition? How your brain is wired plays a significant role in how it interacts with the environment, so if humans evolved with a more intelligent brain it would significantly alter our trajectory from early civilisations, no? Would probably also kick off civilisations much earlier.
It would likely make a difference, but probably wouldn't reduce conflict by much. Capitalism doesn't exist because humans are evil, or unintelligent, for example.
I don't see why that would help. But if everyone's empathy increased by 50% of the average amount of empathy, that might help. (Not that it is measurable, but this is obviously fantasy)
There are people that only think about making things better for themselves no matter how it effects others. These people would just use that "extra" intelligence to up their game. So no, I don't think there would be less conflict.
I think part of the reason some of those people live that way is because they don't think through the effects of everyone else living their lives that way. Perhaps the stat boost to INT would give them the ability to follow that course of action to it's logical conclusion and therefore choose to live differently?
Exactly. If you do nothing about greed and selfishness/narcissism then nothing changes, you just have smarter greedy people. :/
Things like good public education make society more pleasant to live in for everyone including greedy opportunists and their families.
Same with balancing resource extraction against environmental stability.
What billionaires are doing seems totally illogical and self destructive even from a greed perspective.
Even if we assume theyβre thinking they can escape on a space ark it makes no sense to want to live in the cold, harsh, hostile environment of a space instead of on the one planet that we can naturally breathe on that also happens to grow delicious things and stuff.
From no perspectives can this be a smart move, I refuse to believe it!
load more comments
(1 replies)
There's all kinds of intelligence. If specifically emotional intelligence went up we'd be better off. If it's the kind that makes you good at day trading or computer science we'll just end up with more tech bros trying to decide who deserves to live or die.
No chance. Have you seen what grad students and research professors are like at top universities? Especially during grant proposals? Competitive doesn't begin to describe it. Cutthroat barely does.
Would they use violence though? We might still be better off with the paper conflicts that these people have with each other π€
Would they resort to violent conflict though? The question was violence, not competition at others' cost
Ultimately, however, leftism is an intellectual position. It's typically held by people who are either well-read, or at minimum understanding of the concept of fairness for all people (which requires abstract thinking and a good theory of mind). Very few people believe in leftism due to stupidity. That's why it's in Republicans' best interest to keep people stupid.
Increasing intelligence of the general population would be a basal necessity for changing the economic system.
IQ is not a proxy for education, though. Raising intelligence without changing education wouldn't accomplish much. People are kept stupid by means of propaganda, regardless of their intellectual ability.
I think as it is now leftism is an intellectual position, but historically I don't think that's always been true, when leftist movements saw more broad popular appeal like during labor organizing there were definitely dumb leftists.
The reason it's in Republicans best interest to keep people stupid is that stupid people are much easier to propagandize to. Analyzing the information you're receiving helps make you less likely to fall for blatant lies. (Leftists know we need better propaganda, but it's also deeply cynical to think we need it.)
The reason itβs in ~~Republicans~~ the duopolyβs best interest to keep people stupid is that stupid people are much easier to propagandize to.
FTFY
If you mean emotional intelligence then yes. Being able to solve puzzles better (standard IQ) doesn't mean squat to reducing conflict of the puzzles you solve are how to exploit others more
Realistically, the world is too complex and too large to even remotely be able to predict the outcome of making everyone 50% smarter.
My best guess though is that it wouldn't change much. If everyone is smarter, no one is smarter. High intelligence doesn't automatically mean Mr. Spock. I used to be involved with Mensa and many of the people I met were nuts, lacked critical thinking skills, or were so full of themselves for testing well they were blind to external information. I myself am highly intelligent on paper, but if you looked at my life you would see a lifelong series of dumb choices and in many cases choosing the worst possible option even knowing it was.
What I mean is being smart isn't as valuable a skill to have as one might think. Especially at the top end of intelligence, smarter basically equates to faster at solving problems. Raw processing power does play into it for sure but the difference between someone with an IQ of 130 and an IQ of 160 is how fast they finished the test.
The best way to make the world a better place would be to teach everyone critical thinking and emotional intelligence skills.
As an estimate, how many problems in your life do you think can be attributed to people thinking the wrong thing or being confidentially incorrect in general?
I agree with emotional intelligence being important, I think IQ and EQ should be consolidated as one because recognizing patterns in behaviour on paper isn't that much different than recognizing patterns in shapes/numbers
I'd say less than 10%? The vast majority of my problems result from my own irrational actions and poor choices. I've had problematic idiots in professional and social settings but again the main issue in those cases are largely because I cannot stand willfully ignorant people. If I were more chill about morons, it'd be 0%. But that's just me personally and I'm usually an outlier.
This is kind of a hot take, but I don't think we should try to measure and assess IQ and EQ at all. The IQ test in use today tests very specific, very narrow types of intelligence and is not a meaningful measure. In a practical sense intelligence is mostly a matter of speed. Someone with a low or average IQ can solve any problem a high IQ person could, it would just take longer. At every step of thier journey a low IQ person spends more time. Learning the requisite knowledge, understanding the concepts, breaking down the problem, and crafting a solution. Most folks in that situation opt not to continue at some point along the way, but they would eventually get there with enough time and knowledge.
With EQ that's learned behavior. Some people have a natural knack for it, but outside some types of mental illness, emotional intelligence can be taught.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
No, there would be less conflict in the world if we were to cure people from psychopathy, sociopathy, narcissism, racism and other ails that lead to destructive selfishness.
There's a difference between IQ and EQ.
Absolutely not, some of the smartest people I've ever met have zero emotional intelligence. You can be incredibly accomplished academically and still be totally unable to work productively with others. A lot of these people lean towards aspie/AuDHD supremacy as well funnily enough - they think everyone else is just far too irrational to agree with their horrendously undeveloped philosophies.
I think the world would have less conflict if the average "emotional intelligence" went up 50%
What does it even mean for one person to be 50% more intelligent than another person?
Surely that's just meant as a general concept and we don't need to split hairs on the definition of that? Imagine an IQ test or whatever else people normally understand when using the word intelligence, and that such a person would get 1.5 times as many questions right
Measuring intelligence is not like measuring a cup of flour. The IQ tests are not wholly scientific. So the premise of your question is not without controversy. But if we disregard that, then: no. Very clever people still bicker and get rubbed the wrong way. Intelligent people follow populists. Conflict is not solely the result of low intelligence. We might have different types of conflict (there are fewer incidences of fisticuffs at the chess club than at football) but not fewer.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There'd be more conflict for a little while as the people finally come together to overthrow our oppressors, but after that I imagine things would settle down. It wouldn't be perfect, because there would still be conniving people who do everything they can to take more than their fair share, but a populace with significantly more intelligence than today will be much harder to exploit, even if our oppressors become more intelligent as well.
Well, if we look around today, some of the best minds in world are busy making people click on ads
Conflicts in the world dont come from the lack of intelligence. Its class conflicts that are at the root of everything else
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next βΊ