Are you suggesting that the quality of our leaders has risen because they are well-educated, or are you agreeing that education is not the answer on the grounds that both our leaders and our electorate seem to be increasingly well educated yet still manage to run a country in a manner which is manifestly a shambles. — Pseudonym

"Education" (h.s. diploma, b.a. degree, ma/phd, etc.) is one feature of the electorate and the elected. A given level of educational attainment means something, but that something might not translate into a well run or badly run civil society.

The U.S. is governed in the interest of the "ruling class" (shorthand for those with the most concentrated political power). Their interests are served quite well, and it isn't a recent development. Most governments are servants of their ruling classes.

One can look at our government as a conspiracy for the interests of the ruling class, and still find room for popular measures. After all, "the people" -- that 85 or 90% who are not and never well be in the ruling class -- need to be kept on board. It's much easier to control a few hundred million people if they think they are beneficiaries of 'the system' than if they feel like victims of a racket.

I'm not sure if you're supporting the theory or opposing it. — Pseudonym

I'm not supporting the theory that 'education' is the critical factor. The critical factor is class loyalty, and 99.9% of all politicians display loyalty to the ruling class. A very large share of the electorate also displays loyalty the ruling class too.

We have had a few episodes in our history where progressives trimmed the claws of the ruling class, and their efforts had enduring benefits. We had a long period of economic expansion after WWII and that was a pleasant experience for most people. But IF you want a country governed in the interests of all the people and not just the ruling class, then you are looking for revolutionary change.

The number of college educated people has been consistently rising over the past few decades, I'm not sure the same can be said for the quality of our leaders, so the empirical evidence would seem to contradict this theory. — Pseudonym

The overwhelming majority of Members of Congress have a college education. The dominant professions of Members are public service/politics, business, and law.

 18 Members of the House have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma;
 eight Members of the House have associate’s degrees as their highest degrees;
 100 Members of the House and 21 Senators earned a master’s degree as their
highest attained degrees;
 167 Members of the House (37.8% of the House) and 55 Senators (55% of the Senate) hold law degrees;
 22 Representatives18 and 2 Senators have doctoral (Ph.D., D.Phil., Ed.D., or D. Min) degrees; and
 18 Members of the House and 3 Senators have medical degrees.19 — Congressional Research Service

It would appear that there is a reasonable amount of education in Congress. Donald Trump has a bachelors degree in economics from Wharton School of Business (U Penn).

darn Neil deGrasse Tyson to heck — T Clark

Those dratted science types!

I was thinking more along the lines of how we might think — tim wood

In a (specific, limited way) we don't know how we think; most of our thinking is carried out by the non-conscious mind. Is it linear? or non-linear? Both at once, I would guess, but the style used is not available for inspection. "Distinguishing linear and non-linear thinking was a popular parlor game a while back -- what... 40 years ago? Or 'left-brain/right brain thinking, or 'visual thinking', and so on. I strongly suspect that the non-conscious brain uses all sorts of strategies to process information and project ideas which we (our conscious minds) become aware of.

Is this the best possible? Or maybe just the best we can manage? — tim wood

I don't know... just a guess -- our brains are probably doing the best they can do. In any event, what we can do for our brains is supply the best information we can get our paws on. We can also arrange our day so that the brain has time to absorb and process the good-quality information we ought to pour in. Go for a long walk, do simple chores (like dishwashing, folding the laundry...) sit down and stare into a corner, whatever method works.

Cephalopoda have tremendous camouflage capabilities which, alone, require a lot of brain. Given a lot of brain, it is perhaps unfortunate that they don't live longer (generally 2 years). There is a case of a deep ocean species that guards her eggs for almost almost 5 years -- very slow development at low temperatures. The mother is in pretty bad shape physically by the end of guard duty.

Our visitors from VZ'X planet might have exactly the same intelligence as we have, but altogether lack a feature which is central to our minds -- emotion. Our emotions are integral to our mental functioning, but ants, bees, and termites -- three highly successful organisms sharing the planet, do not have emotions. Intelligence without emotion might function very effectively without the well-known disruptions (as well as the well known advantages) that emotion drives bring.

If the VS'Xians had to travel a long way in time and space to get here, I would think the absence of emotions would be a damned good thing. Imagine a tank full of humans having to live in very close quarters for a century. Think of the carnage when our inhibited rages were let loose. Our ship would arrive with only a few survivors, or none at all.

"Intrinsic morality" seems to be limited to some very general things like empathy. We seem to be wired to feel (approximately) what other people are feeling. (We are not entirely unique among animals.) Most of our morality is extrinsic, and generally is compatible with whatever intrinsic tendencies toward kindness and cooperation we have.

Over the longer run of our biological evolution (say, last 300,000 years to pick an arbitrary number) we elaborated the capacity to productively live amongst others of our own kind in hunter-gatherer bands. Our primate relatives developed along similar lines.

We have employed language and culture for a long time to transmit across generations that which can not be passed along in genes, but our genes enable us to use culture and language.

Morality -- rules for living together -- have become more elaborate over time (since... what, 10,000 years ago?). The family teaches basic morality, the group teaches more, and the individual internalizes the lessons which last a lifetime.

It's interesting that almost every person will, if comfortable, admit to fantasizing about immoral acts they wouldn't dream of carrying out if others were ever to find out or to observe them. We have to ask ourselves why such behavior is at odds with otherwise lawful and ethical people, and what drives them to value these contrarian acts for sexual or non-sexual reasons. — gloaming

Remarkably, there are a lot of things individuals won't do, even if no one is watching. Internalized moral remote control works pretty well.

Still, people not only fantasize about performing acts they think are wrong, many of us periodically carry these fantasies out. I'm not thinking of mass murder here -- more like petty theft, sexual peccadilloes, minor acts of vandalism, and the like.

Why do we perform these wrongful acts? Maybe it's a pressure release. Lots of us have been imbued with pretty rigorous moral systems that box us in pretty tightly. But we have urges to stake out individual autonomy, and sometimes that seems to mean violating the rules. It might be as petty as deliberately throwing the aluminum can in the garbage rather than the recycling bin, or maybe skimming off a bit of cash or stealing a little company property (at least some nice office supplies). Or, if we are more confident, things that slide into gross misdemeanors for which we are pretty sure we won't be caught (and generally we are not). Office furniture and computers have been known to disappear. Strange! How did that happen?

We might not condemn wrongful acts that other people commit. A few years back I had to admire the panache of the thief who used a backhoe to scoop a cash machine out of an exterior wall and haul it away for dissection. Immoral? Of course. I'd never do that. But still... the frontiers of free enterprise!

If there would be anything in my life that I would want to leave as a mark on human history, it would be to institute some kind of test to prevent people of such undesirable traits from ever taking office. — Posty McPostface

Yeah, well... what IS the secret of keeping people like Donald Trump out of office? I don't think he at all psychopathic; he seems to be quite narcissistic, but Trump is also bull headed about what he thinks he knows. The guy isn't well educated, and isn't very interested in learning. He's a stubborn jackass. Hee Haw, Hee Haw. As Martin Luther said back in the early 1500s, "The people are better off being ruled by a smart Turk (or Moslem) than by a dumb Christian." We've got the dumb Christian and a loose cannon -- very bad combo.

Just a fun fact that because we didn't have TV's back then his voice was heard through the radio instead. Just thought that was kind of a cool thing to consider. — Posty McPostface

People very much liked listening to him. Radio was relatively new in 1932, and hadn't previously been employed for political purposes to any great extent. When Roosevelt appeared in public (which was fairly often) handlers went to considerable efforts to plan his appearances so that the wheelchair and crutches wouldn't be visible. If Roosevelt had to walk a short distance in public, he was usually leaning heavily on the arm of a strong male assistant. He could stand at a podium and speak, but it required a lot of strain on Roosevelt to hold himself up on his crutches. For a major speech, such as at a political convention, more complicated gear was used to get him to the podium in his wheelchair.

It wasn't a secret that he had had polio, and that he couldn't walk, but he felt it was a PR problem.

I'm not ideologically advocating a certain type of personality, just a personality that does not display undesirable traits. — Posty McPostface

ALL personalities (everybody) will display undesirable traits at times.

I don't think there's a big chance of a 'true' psychopath making his or her way into the office. — Posty McPostface

I agree; people who are very psychopathic do not behave normally; they do not display loyalty, stability in projects, long term residence, etc. There psychopathic behaviors make them very poor candidates for public office.

I said a little psychopathy might make someone a more effective executive. The problem comes when there is more than a little psychopathic distortion present, but not enough to be terribly noticeable.

Maybe the next logical step is determining whether there is any truth in the claims that such and such an actual leader is disabled by some quality.

Most people have at least several minor flaws, and many people -- including famous successful ones -- have several major flaws -- and are none-the-less successful. Look at F. D. Roosevelt. Being confined to a wheelchair was a tremendous political liability (in that time, in that place). Roosevelt's methods of dealing with people could be quite opaque and manipulative. His marriage was not good. He broke a long-standing precedent in running for a third (never mind fourth) term. Was FDR altogether on the level?

John F. Kennedy also had some significant flaws in his health and character; Nixon too. Was Kennedy's many affairs while serving as president (2.7 years) unacceptable? What about his shaky physical health? Nixon? A lot of people loathed Richard M. Nixon for good reason before he became president. Tricky Dick had to assert that "I am not a crook!" Most presidents do not NEED to say such a thing.

Donald Trumps main liability seems to be that he had so little formal political experience before winning the election. But then, Eisenhower didn't have any political experience as such before he became president.

What makes it possible to groom generals are formally established ranks and grades through which careerists can climb. Universities (collectively) have a similar system, from bachelor past PhD, and the various steps along the tenure track. The US Senate and US House have a system of promotion too, but the parties themselves don't have a (visible, at least) system of advancement.

Political machines can monitor performance and advance leaders up the system, but without a machine the roster of personnel in politics is too fluid.

We could, certainly, require a psychological evaluation of candidates for high public office -- maybe the two presidential candidates (president and vice-president). We would need to agree on what characteristics were really unacceptable. Megalomania is not desirable, but most leaders have at least a mild case, not matter what the field. Narcissism is undesirable, but again, most leaders have at least a modest degree of self-adoration (you just about have to have it). Insensitivity is undesirable, but a certain amount of insensitivity is a desirable feature when it comes to critical negotiations. Psychopathy is mot all or nothing, and many good executives have a modest dose of psychopathy -- it makes it possible for them to carry out unpopular policies with confidence (like laying off 5,000 surplus workers whose labor is no longer needed).

We need to recognize that leaders are both necessary and dangerous.

So that's not realy a reason for me to avoid having my one son. — NKBJ

I'm not an anti-natalist, even if the world is going to hell.

Some people I used to hang around with painted themselves into a corner of high dudgeon, though with Marxism instead of Schopenhauer. They became really unpleasant to be around because their view of everything was so uniformly negative, sour. They had lost the sort of joie d'vivre revolutionaries really needs must have.

I'm not hot on existential dread either. I'm happily old enough now that death isn't that far away and life seems, therefore, quite pleasant.

some moments of unhappiness don't cancel out all the moments of actual happiness — NKBJ

Truth is told. What is good is good, what is bad is bad. We don't live in an average of the two.

It's also wrong to declare all striving in this world as a struggle — NKBJ

Most of the strivers I know don't seem to be suffering much from the struggle, 'der Kampf'.

People share with us, including you, that they have many serious psychological issues, many of which doubtfully are addressable by talk therapy, but are matters where medication is required. — Hanover

Individuals have to be at least reasonably mentally intact to state here that they have a serious psychological condition for which medication will be required. People in a psychotic state won't be posting here often, and if they do, it will most likely be obvious that the poster is non compos mantis. In any case, they won't be getting the wrong medication here.

Where talk therapy might be beneficial, none of us I believe are qualified to give it, and if any of us were, I really doubt we'd be as reckless to offer it through public postings through the tidbits we gather in these posts.

There are a batch of people here who are insightful enough to give free advice to people with garden variety mental illnesses. I haven't seen anybody say anything downright awful to a troubled person here, though I haven't agreed with some of the advice given.

Actually, the set-up of a moderated board is the equivalent of a walk-in DIY support group. People find such things useful. Look at AA.

Actually, we hand out advice that might be more dangerous than some of our psychological 'text therapy'. Like, "you should go back to college." Sure, go back to college, get a degree and end up hip deep in debt, maybe with poor job prospects.

People who say they are depressed are usually still functional and are perfectly capable of testing reality. Depressed people feel like shit, aren't sleeping well, can't concentrate, and so on -- but they are not incapable of sorting out really bad advice from advice which might be useful, or might not be. Depressed people aren't going to send you all their money, for instance, just because you said that would be nice.

Those with more major mental illnesses (like schizoaffective disorder, bi-polar people in mania, etc.) usually come off as very disturbed people, disturbance evident to just about everybody.

Besides, your average TPF internet psychiatrist usually refers the disturbed to a doctor anyway.

through Scientific American — NKBJ

Through, not IN Scientific American. The 5 quick and dirty tips are clichés, indeed. Such 'tips' are effective for people who are already happy-minded. Lots of people are, and in itself expecting to be happy isn't a fault. Schopenhauer isn't "happy minded" and not being "happy minded" isn't a fault either. But one can not flip a switch and reverse poles.

What Schopenhauer wants is not different than what most of us want when we post a thread or a comment: validation that our views can be taken seriously. I have been guilty of countering Schop's posts with negative responses, or self-help advice. I've probably suggested he should see a psychiatrist. What Schopenhauer1 is saying is not an SOS disguised as philosophy. It's unsettling philosophy because it undermines basic assumptions that are common in our culture: Life is good. Life is worth living. Our desire for children is good. Our children will be glad they were born. The future is full of opportunities. And so on.

One can question thee basic assumptions. In an over-crowded world, one heading for ecological catastrophe in the not-distant future, are you sure adding several more people to a consumption-intense society is a good thing? It's questionable. As your children and grand children live into the economical disaster, are you sure they will be grateful to you for bearing them into a world you knew was falling apart? Are you sure the future is full of great opportunities? Life may be good, but maybe the way we live isn't so good.

As Bob Dylan says,

It's a hard rain that going to fall.

You live in a time of "positive psychology" wherein healthy=happy, wherein negative=sick. The positivity of the times is shallow. People are expected to get with the program and cheer up, or at least, shut up about their darker views.

I have been very unhappy and depressed for years, and during those times felt like a failed outlier. "Negative expressions" are very unpopular. Perhaps I now have a brain tumor which is causing me to feel much happier and contented these days. Tumor or not, I agree that there is good reason to hold that the conditions of life are really quite unsatisfactory. Our hunter-gatherer brains now labor over mostly inconsequential tasks in gray cubicles for long hours, or are chronically unemployed and smoke dope to get through the day, find entertainment through the cable box, and so on.

Your threads have a monochrome leitmotiv, but that is not a great fault. Perhaps your threads would benefit from more novel approaches to the problem of life having no inherent meaning.

If life is absurd (unreasonable, illogical, preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, farcical, idiotic, stupid, foolish, insane, unreasonable, irrational, illogical, nonsensical, pointless, senseless...--but no joke) then there must be many angles from which to attack the bourgeois delusions about a purposeful universe, meaningful life, potential for happiness, and so on, not to mention other worldly schemes that make this world a processing mill for the hereafter.

Finding fresh approaches won't make your threads popular. The scintillating, positive-minded intelligences here will attack your views just the same, but a novel approach might drive a larger dose of cold rain under their shingles to spoil the faux perfection of their painted ceilings.

I believe reason also informs our emotions. — TheMadFool

It's a reciprocal relationship... feeling thinking feeling thinking experience feeling memory thinking perception thinking feeling... Then "a network and information flows in all directions". It gets complicated fast. And "we" are in that reciprocating engine, trying to make sense of it. We externalize ourselves, observe others, theorize.

So, whence come our preferences?

Emotions (from whence comes preference) are the mainspring of the mind. It isn't that "we think with the limbic system" rather, some thoughts are pleasing, and some are not. Which thoughts will be entertained most enthusiastically? The ones which please us.

I don't want to make it too simple -- the limbic system is shaped by experiences too, and prior thought, just as the cognitive systems are.

By "work" I don't mean formal, or even informal "work". I really mean a personal project that engages you. "Work" sucks -- that's why they have to pay people to do it. I say you don't even have to be "passionate" about it. I haven't been passionate about much in decades.

Do you like animals?
— Lone Wolf

Yes, I do. :_) — Posty McPostface

Are there squirrels around where you live? Gray squirrels are actually fairly eager to become acquainted with people. Humans are a handy source of free food, and it's fairly easy to entice them to eat out of your hand (peanuts work well for this). It's an opportunity to establish relationships with the rodent wing of creation and as members of that group, Sciurus carolinensis are a lot cuter than rats.

When I lived on Prior Avenue, I coaxed several squirrels into eating out of my hand. They'd sit on the porch and look into my kitchen window, waiting for me. I'd go outside, sit on the step and one would sit on my knee while the others waited impatiently for their chance.

Don't expect a deep relationship. Squirrels are pretty shallow creatures -- probably why they get along so well with us. Shallow but persistent. The gray squirrels on the U of M campus feel entitled. They follow people, and if you give them any encouragement they'll crawl right up your pant leg, if you have a McDonald's bag in your hand.

Another nice thing about squirrels is that they tend to die off In the winter or get run over, so you don't have the tedious business of breaking off summer-time relationships. Of course, you probably don't have a Season of Squirrel Death where you live, so let's hope you have lots of traffic.

These sorts of irrelevant asides are how I make it through my day. You?

Hmmm, "maybe a little eccentric". Perhaps, yes, at least a little. Some of us do not have a problem with the word "crazy" -- just to give you a heads up in case the word should appear in responses to your OP. On the other hand, you have been generating more threads on TPF lately -- all to the good. I'm sorry to hear that THIS is your only source of entertainment and intellectual stimulation. Have all the libraries closed? Is there no educational television? No National Public Radio (like the 1A. or Fresh Air?)

Don't let your disability become a second disability. There are good reasons for people to have disability status -- and I'm not knocking it. But it is important for persons who are disabled (or retired, or unemployed, or otherwise not working) to have on-going "work" of some kind which is meaningful. Your involvement in TPF is an example of on-going work.

I'd be a little concerned about being at home all the time, eating and laying in bed (wallowing). I think you should get out a bit more--exercise, social contact of some kind, sunshine (vitamin D), etc.

many people don't like IQ testing because it is used as justification for racial prejudice — T Clark

People do use IQ for that purpose, true enough. Plus
school performance
crime rates
unemployment
drug use
vocabulary
clothing styles (only a moron would wear something like that in public...)
imprisonment rates
absentee fatherhood
riots
school integration and school segregation
racial intermarriage

I mean, it isn't like people who are racially prejudiced are unable to find material which supports their point of view. And none of their evidence needs to be true, either.

So, I knew Clark Kent. Jorel? Who? I wouldn't have been able to say who played Superman if my life had depended on it, though I did see a Batman movie, a while back. I liked the Superman comic books from my childhood.

We had comic books and radio. Later television with 3 fuzzy channels. I think young children are smarter today because they don't have to depend on the drugstore's supply of comic books for stimulation. There are so many other forms of mental stimulation children get these days -- their mothers piping Mozart into their uteruses, gadgets in their cribs, TV without end, IPads, smart phones, electronic games (no Parcheesi for today's little Einstein), day care, pre-school, year round kindergarten, babies blogging before they can walk, etc.

Most people are given paper and pencil IQ tests which are mostly achievement tests. That's the kind of test we all took when I was in school -- not the individually administered Stanford Binet test. For one thing, the subject has to read the test (an achievement in itself). Two, he has to be accustomed to formal test taking -- sit, pay attention to what you are doing for maybe two hours, don't fall asleep, etc. Third, the subject has to figure out abstract questions about drawings in the test -- like which of these "unfolded" pieces of paper makes which folded up solid shape?" and so forth. Subjects who are doing well in school are going to do better on this kind of test than students who are not doing well in school, regardless of actual, innate intelligence.

I am in complete agreement, but I see the ethos of IQ testing as part of supporting and maintaining exactly those aims, and it is those aims and the support system with it that need to be challenged, and that involves challenging piecemeal the individual supporting elements, such as the idea that IQ tests actually measure anything more than an ability to take an IQ test. — MetaphysicsNow

We could all write a 10 volume encyclopedia about what is wrong with the education system, and it would probably all be true.

I don't think there was ever a "golden age of education" -- in the US, Europe, or anywhere else, where the aims of the educational system were altogether benign. Societies made up of layers of increasing assets (bottom to top) are not inclined to operate egalitarian, 'open-ended' asset-sharing school systems. All of us live in that kind of society, and we all have been through school systems which are designed to maintain those layers of assets (or privileges).

The technological changes that took place during the 20th century in communication (commercial radio, television, film, recordings, print, etc.) and the economic changes that gradually eliminated a lot of unskilled factory labor--and even quite a bit of skilled white collar work--has left schools with a new and very difficult problem, which has by no means been solved: What do we do for all these students (millions) who are unlikely to find good jobs with good pay?

Like I said, some people (maybe 15-20% of the students) will need very good education to perform very good jobs, and they will get a good education. The rest... screwed from the get go whether they are as smart as whips or as dumb as oxen.

The kind of school that is designed for maximum benefit for each student, K-16, when described comes off sounding more like Alice in Wonderland, these days, than what is going on behind the brick walls of the little red school house.

I don't think everybody is born with the same intellectual potential, but everybody enjoys learning, growing, making the most of what they have, and being able to do interesting things with whatever talents they have. UNFORTUNATELY society is neither prepared nor interested in arranging its affairs to facilitate that happy outcome.

An aspiring young violinist from Kansas gets off the bus in New York City and asks the first passerby "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?" The New Yorker says, "Practice, practice, practice."

And the only thing that IQ tests have ever been able to tell about anyone is how good or bad they are at taking IQ tests. — MetaphysicsNow

It should be mentioned somewhere here that the 'best' IQ test, the Stanford Binet, is individually administered. It's not a paper and pencil test. There is some cultural loading in it -- like the question on the adult version, "Who wrote Faust?" Do you get extra points for asking the examiner "Which Faust -- the English one (Marlowe), the French opera (Gounod) or the German one (Goethe)?"

Asking an American "Who was Batman?" or "What was Superman's name when he wasn't Superman?" would be the equivalent of the 1910 French question about Faust.

However, under the current educational systems (the ones I am aware of anyway) those kinds of tests consign the majority of children to mediocrity and the suppression of potential through neglect. — MetaphysicsNow

By 'mediocrity' do you mean 'average'? Most people are 'average'. But it isn't testing that condemns children to mediocrity, it's the aim of education In the present society.

Maybe 20% of students in school need to be very well educated so that they can serve the interests of a technologically complex society under the control of an elite. 20% of the students are getting an excellent education, more or less.

If 80% of students are getting a run of the mill education, it is because more is not deemed necessary. A lot of today's students are not going to be doing complex tasks that require insight and theoretical thinking. This is a long-term trend, observed for the last 50 years, or so.

The emphasis one hears on getting a good education, going to college, does apply to some students. But it's over-reach for many students. Not that they are incapable of benefiting from excellent education; they could benefit if it was offered to them at a price they could afford, and for a long term purpose. It's just that 1/2 of all high school students being urged to go to college will lead to debt, dissatisfaction, and disappointment, because the number of jobs needing college education aren't in fact great enough to employ all those people.

I have been reading the diary of Victor Klemperer, a German (Jewish) professor; it covers about 13 years, up to 1945. He struggles to figure out "what does the average man think about... the war, the Jews, the rationing..." He is unable to come to a conclusion because "the German people" as represented in "the average man" is frustratingly kaleidoscopic. The pattern is constantly changing from person to person.

The same thing applies here: We try to understand what "the 300 million American people" think, as represented in bits and pieces of reportage, conversations with other people, and so forth. The picture we see, like Professor Klemperer, is kaleidoscopic, constantly changing from view to view.

see above.

The problem with research into IQ is that people are mostly interested in using it as justification for drawing conclusions about differences in intelligence between races. Is that where this discussion is going? — T Clark

This comment is the sort that can derail a discussion. White people's assumptions about the stupidity of black people were I'm place a long time before the first intelligence test was created.

Intelligence testing has been around for over a century. The Binet Intelligence Test was developed in France to help sort out children who performed poorly in school, but who didn't seem to be retarded (like, maybe they were just lazy) from students who were actually mentally retarded.

It was a worthwhile project. Some children have potential that can be developed in a classroom, and some children don't.

After racism people are likely to drag in the eugenics movement, which relied on such crude categories of deficiency that IQ tests were beside the point. (Single mothers on welfare with "too many children" were likely to attract the interest of eugenicists.) Eugenics lives on by the way, and quite properly, in the form of genetics counseling for people that bear serious transmissible genetic defects.

Testing is not a useless racist exercise.

IQ tests -- or any other kind of test -- are intended to distinguish between differing characteristics of individuals in a systematic (as opposed to anecdotal) way. The fact is, there are a lot of significant differences between individuals that make a difference in their future. The best intelligence and personality tests (Stanford Binet, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - MMPI) fulfill that discriminating function reasonably well. It's helpful to know which children in school may have more potential, and which may have less. It's also helpful to know which adults may be predisposed to develop (or have) features of mental illnesses.

It isn't the fault of the test if later some people use the results of the test to support unpopular and or dubious positions.

The problem with IQ tests is that people think they measure innate--untaught--intelligence and everything about intelligence. They do not. People also think that the results are valid for the rest of the person's life -- generally they are not. Most people usually get smarter over time, because IQ tests measure learning as well as native ability.

Intelligence does not necessarily cause achievement; it is simply correlated with it.

The relationship between IQ scores and achievement is an imperfect one, with many exceptions to the rule.

IQ scores have a limited “shelf life.” Their predictive value is relatively short range (like, how will a high school senior do in his first year of college -- not how well a high school senior will do in graduate school. — J.E. Ormrod — Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall 2010

Not all tests are created equal. Some tests are not worth the paper they are printed on. This is especially true of quickie personality tests. (The MMPI is not a quickie -- there are hundreds of questions to read.) Achievement tests (like you took in school) are not intelligence tests, though their function overlap.

"Social Work" is not a once-size-fits-all degree. The are bachelor level social work degrees, masters level social work degrees, and masters degrees with post-graduate training. Some masters level social workers have ACSW after their name -- meaning they are "academy of social work certified". Additionally trained masters level social workers can not only screen patients, they can provide the therapy in some clinics.

Should social works screen patients? MA level, sure. Sorting out the merely unhappy from the seriously depressed isn't all that hard--the janitor could probably do that. It's the more complex things like identifying borderline personality disorder, schizoid affective disorder, bipolar, schizophrenic, and such diagnoses that require higher level diagnostic training.

Social workers and doctorate-level therapists can't prescribe medicine, generally, but are qualified to provide therapy and support for mental patients. Psychiatrists normally do not actually provide much therapy--it's a rare practice that does. Mostly they write prescriptions, because medicine is often the main ingredient in effective therapy. All the good counseling in the world won't calm down a psychotic individual.

The only reason I am arguing with you over this is that people who live in fear of getting horrible diseases from environmental contact (door knobs, money, bus hand holds, bathrooms, etc.) tend to grossly overestimate their chances of infection.

I was working in AIDS education back in the 1980s and 1990s when a lot of people were going crazy with fear that they would get AIDS from a drinking glass, a public telephone, etc. These worried well suffered a lot from their unreasonable fear. One of the problems with fear of environmental infection (i.e., touching the death dealing door knob) is that there is no real way to protect yourself except to wear a hazmat suit all the time.

At least in the case of Ebola, people do wear hazmat suits to care for patients, pick up dead bodies, and clean up hospital rooms. Ebola is an outstanding exception, though. Hep C isn't Ebola. And you probably won't die from it for 30 or 40 years.

Health officials in the UK warn that a silent Hepatitis-C epidemic could be brewing. — GreenPhilosophy

If the UK is anything like the USA, the "silent Hepatitis C epidemic" definitely IS brewing. Hep C has a very long incubation period--decades. Otherwise it is pretty much a-symptomatic. Where there is blood-born practices like sharing needles or other kinds of works, HEP B and HEP C usually show up eventually and get passed along.

Hep C is usually transmitted by blood contact; so rolling up a bank note to snort dope -- and then sharing the straw with somebody else -- would certainly suffice to transmit a virus. However, assume the note ends up in circulation later (as it almost certainly will be). The chance of someone becoming infecting by Hep C from merely handling the note is more than zero but very, very small. Hep C virus, like other tough viruses, still can't live a very long time outside of an extant cell (viruses are obligate intracellular parasites).

In order for an epidemic to get going, transmission has to be reasonably efficient. Nose to nose is reasonably efficient. So is sharing needles, and sex where blood might be present (not all that rare). As far as I know -- I'd have to check this out -- Hep C carriers are infectious for a long time. Their opportunity to transmit the virus through the most efficient means is considerable.

As paper money (or coins) pass from hand to hand, bacteria, viruses, traces of DNA, drugs, etc. are added to and taken away. Most people never catch anything from money because paper to skin just isn't the kind of contact that is likely to lead to infection -- of any kind.

Sure: if someone with Ebola Virus bled on to some coins or bills, gave them to you a little while later and you had even tiny open wounds on your hands, you would probably get infected. Most viruses aren't quite that communicable--fortunately for us. That's why most of us won't die from money-transmitted diseases.

We live in a haze of bacteria, DNA bits, skin flakes, etc. (It's appalling, really, but that's just life.)

This foolish, stupid, screwed up view of the world is no defense against the harsh realities of a globalized economy.
— Bitter Crank

Are you saying that I got it all wrong, with projecting my own concern about these issues here? — Posty McPostface

No. The "fooling, stupid, screwed up view of the world" belongs to people who think that they will be rich someday, when there is less than a snowball's chance in hell of them getting rich.

Maybe I was born yesterday; but, I recall hordes of school kids doing a walkout requesting some action on gun violence to be undertaken by our great and caring leaders. — Posty McPostface

Yes, they did -- and good for them. But this was less fear driven than idealism driven. The high school students in Florida, managed to get their act together and speak-out on the side of a sane national policy towards guns and violence. I take my hat off to them -- they are doing what clear thinking sensible young people ought to do. It would be a good thing if clear thinking sensible older people also acted up about gun violence.

You really believe that? I find that hard to believe (?) I can post studies showing that special interest groups and a handful of elite have more power than what my vote can ever hope to do. Hell, you had Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation telling us that the Military Industrial Complex was getting out of hand in, back in 1961... — Posty McPostface

YOU know there are several groups of special interests and elites who control the balance of political power in the US Congress and President's Office. I know that too, and maybe a couple of million inquiring minds in the country know that, but most people are not aware of how extremely disproportionate the power the elites have is and how little the population at large has.

That's happened, and Eisenhower was right. What happened was that the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about had gotten big, and has since gotten a lot bigger. Armaments are a major export item and support a lot of jobs. Military bases bring income into the regions in which they are located.

On the other hand, wars have gotten a lot more expensive. Avoiding the body bag PR problem of Vietnam has led to war with low death rates (for us), and a lot of smart bombs, cruise missiles, drones, heavier armoring of vehicles, more electronic warfare, etc. etc. (Unfortunately, that doesn't mean our military activities achieve exactly what they are intended to achieve, but...)

I think a lot of Americans are aligned with the Military Industrial Complex's capacity to rain death and destruction (shock and awe) down on Islamic Enemies, or whoever else is next. Yes, there is human rights nattering about civilians getting blown up, but civilians have always been getting blown up in war. It's one of the great War Time Traditions. And in a cultural war of Islam Vs. Western CIVILIZATION, who is a civilian anyway? If it wasn't for all those other pesky nuclear powers, we'd probably should have just nuked the whole Middle East and been done with it. [These are not my personal views, mind you.]

SO THEN THE ALIGNMENT QUESTION: The people are aligned with what they believe the Government is doing, and why the government is doing what the government does -- most of the time. Every now and then the curtain is pulled back a little and people see that what the government is doing is not necessarily what they would like the government to be doing. The mismatch between belief and reality has to be egregious before people can really see it, because we are all drenched in a lot of misleading propaganda.

The People may not be aligned with my view of the government; the people may not be aligned with your view of the government. We are voices howling in the wilderness, RISE UP AND SMITE THE WICKED SONS OF BITCHES. Our howls are lost in the moaning wind of the wilderness, and the people are more likely to smite us for making too much noise.

I think the issue is that the goals of "the government" are not aligned with the interest of the common folk. I call this the alignment problem. — Posty McPostface

Noam Chomsky.

Posty, I just don't think most people object that much to most government activities. The People and The Government are reasonably well aligned, for better and for worse.

I'll grant that some people are angry, bitter and resentful, suspicious, fearful, and paranoid about policies and actions of the government. I'd describe the situation as a small pissy core of right-wingers (like western ranchers who want to graze herds on Federal lands for free) deploying rhetoric which resonates with a larger circle of people. In total, the pissy core and the pissy resonating chamber on the Internet might add up to 10% of the population. That's still 30 million. Enough to make a significant amount of noise.

It's really worrying when you see it in children, of all people, who are afraid to go to school because some mentally deranged person wants to shoot up the place. — Posty McPostface

Noam Chomsky.

And these fearful children aren't fearful and paranoid about the government, they are fearful and paranoid about armed lunatics killing them -- a not altogether unreasonable fear (as long as they don't get carried away with fear; 99.999% of children attending school will not be victims of deranged gun-toting NRA zombies).

Yeah, I guess so. It's the economy, stupid! Not really... — Posty McPostface

Noam Chomsky.

Yes, really. The industrial heartland (western PA, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, eastern Wisconsin) was hollowed out by corporations decamping first to the south, then to the Caribbean, then to Mexico, then to Asia, to find the absolute cheapest labor on earth. Japan and S. Korea (haven't been a cheap labor zone for decades -- they too outsource production to cheaper asians) wiped out a good share of the American car production base because the executives at GM, Ford, and Chrysler had their heads up their asses. Companies like Walmart rearranged retail with low wage big box stores (they weren't the first to do this). Computers, automation, mechanization, advanced technological devices (like RFID) have all forced dramatic changes (and reductions) in employment.

That's what makes people feel jacked around and abused. Getting sacked at Toys R Us, with no severance, when the executives who took the company into bankruptcy are getting golden parachutes, tends to piss people off.

The government isn't guiltless in all these changes, but if a group should be crucified, it would be the corporation executives who should be nailed up on crosses first. Unfortunately, many Americans tend to think of themselves as workers who happen not to have made it to the top YET. They will be rich someday; they just happen to be broke right now. This foolish, stupid, screwed up view of the world is no defense against the harsh realities of a globalized economy.

One change that occurred after 9/11/2001 was the deployment of the term "homeland" as in "Homeland Security". The US hand not previously employed such a term. It was a significant rhetorical move, similar to changing the name of the War Department to the Defense Department in 1947. "Homeland" has connotations quite different from "the nation" which is the previous term applied to our collective selves.

Homeland Security isn't "national defense against foreign enemies". "Homeland Security" is an internal force activity. It was under cover of "homeland security" that the intelligence services of the country proceeded with mass surveillance of domestic electronic communication. It was under Homeland Security" that the intrusive and demeaning "theater of safety" has been conducted at national airports. Homeland Security turned the crosshairs of surveillance and intrusion inwardly on Americans themselves.

What's the underlying source of all this fear and paranoia? — Posty McPostface

One of the things that stimulates paranoia and fear is erratic change and uncertainty. Americans, like people all over the world are more subject to unexpected changes and uncertainty; it's destabilizing, especially when some of the changes mean worsening conditions, and some mean improving conditions.

Lots of people are getting jacked around by economic forces directed from distant locations, and people think the government is behind it. Sometimes the Gov is behind it; other times, not.

As Hanover mentioned, negative thoughts about "government" have been floating around in this country since the Puritans set up shop in Boston.

We have had an extreme wing of the Paranoia Party for a long time. They used to have to depend on the U.S. Mails to communicate with each other. For the last couple of decades we have had improved electronic communication which has greatly facilitated the outreach efforts of the Paranoia Party Public Relations Office. They are now able to promote their shit as cherry pie and they would like everybody to have a piece.

However: Annoyance, suspicion, anger, dissatisfaction, disgust, unfulfilled expectations, and such feelings directed toward the government are much, much more common than fear of persecution. They are also different. I don't feel much fear, but I do often find the performance of the government unsatisfactory and at times disgusting. Don't conflate fear with disgust.

Just say NO to fear and paranoia.

I like the guy, but Professor Chomsky is just about 90 years old. Maybe he isn't writing fresh, interesting analyses anymore. I mean, one can't keep pulling fresh political analysis rabbits out of the hat forever.

You say the Bible can't be used to justify it today. I asked why. — chatterbears

You can not use the Bible to justify slavery BECAUSE the Bible is not a foundational document for any state, with the possible exception of Israel -- and Israel doesn't allow slavery. You can not use the Bible to justify slavery because the Bible is not an accepted normative source with respect to slavery. The Bible is correctly considered irrelevant to any discussion of present day slavery. (All this applies as well to the 17th - 19th century when western countries were engaged in slavery or slave trading. Slavery wasn't practiced then because biblical people practiced slavery; modern people practiced slavery because it was immensely profitable.

In a secular society, religious documents may at most be advisory, but they aren't and they can not be normative. In other words, for western nations it is irrelevant whether the bible endorses or denounces slavery. It just isn't relevant. Secular law overrides any and all Biblical rules.

Further, I don't (and most people do not) accept the Bible as the "literal, dictated word of god". Only fundamentalists accept the Bible that way. Most Bible-using religious people take the Bible as a document which reflects the will of god as perceived by human beings. Some Bible-using religious people accept the Bible as an entirely human document in response to their faith.

I am familiar with the Bible, including the dreary passages you quoted. No where does God say to Moses, "You know, you Jews don't have any slaves. It is my wish that you practice slavery. Go get yourselves some slaves, then my day will be just perfect."

You, as an avowed atheist, have no business expecting people to take the Bible literally. You don't even believe God exists, so you can't seriously think that God had any wishes in the matter at all. If you want to declare yourself as some sort of fundamentalist believer of whatever religion, then you would at least be consistent.

As it is, your dogged insistence on a literal interpretation suggests that you like playing games with literalism. It's a boring game.

This is your interpretation — chatterbears

And just what other interpretation is there?

Why can't the Bible be used to justify slavery? — chatterbears

Go right ahead and use the Bible to justify slavery, but tell us where in the Bible god commanded us to practice slavery.

And it doesn't make any difference -- especially to you, an self-described atheist. True enough, people do now, and have long used the Bible to justify whatever was convenient for them. This is normal behavior -- justifying our practices when other people object to them.