The intelligence curse

One of the more curious politican interventions of recent days has been claim that George Osborne thinks Iain Duncan Smith is "thick." I say this is curious not because of the tedious matter of whether Osborne really believes this, but because it's not at all clear that intelligence is a great virtue in politics.

Casual empiricism makes me suspect so. Harold Wilson was brilliant at Oxford, but was a much less successful PM than Thatcher, Blair or Churchill who weren't noted intellectuals. And intelligent men such as Oliver Letwin, Tony Wright and David Willetts (to name but three) haven't had stellar political careers.

One reason for this lies in the nature of politics. Many political problems are either insoluble, or have quite simple solutions which are unsellable (basic income, voluntary jobs guarantee, drug legalization). For the former category intelligence is useless, for the latter unnecessary.

But there's another reason. It's that intelligence (in the narrow sense of IQ or book-learning) can crowd out other virtues. For example:

 - If you're so brilliant you can pick things up quickly, you'll not develop the determination and stickability you need to cosy up to dullards, sit through interminable meetings or plough through red boxes.

 - Intellectuals want to say something interesting. And this leads them into "gaffes". Keith Joseph's flirtation with eugenics is the most notorious British example of this, but Larry Summers has made a career of it.

 - Intellectuals are, very often, out of touch; they might well therefore lack the political antennae which tells them what'll sell and what won't.

 - Intelligence can lead to one of two possible drawbacks. Sometimes, it can breed indecisiveness, which might have been Wilson's problem; being able to see both sides of a problem can rule out clear and decisive leadership. At other times, it might lead to overconfidence and hubris. The poll tax, remember, was the idea of intelligent people. 

But here's the thing. All this doesn't just apply to politics. I suspect it's true of many other careers.Miriam Gensowski has estimated (pdf) that, among high-IQ people, the link between IQ and earnings is not significant; it's conscientiousness and social skills that matter more. Beyond a certain level, then, intelligence doesn't matter. And even across a wider ability spectrum (except perhaps at the very low end)  it matters less (pdf) than many believe (pdf).

Personally speaking, all this is consistent with introspection. I suspect that if I had a higher IQ (and I have no idea what my IQ is), my life wouldn't have been much different - and if it had been, I might well have been poorer rather than richer. If I'd had better social skills, ambition or a capacity to tolerate boredom, however, I might well have been more "successful". I know it's dangerous to generalize from personal experience (especially mine!) but mightn't this be more widely the case?   

Another thing: for Christ's sake, don't claim that IDS's advocacy of workfare and benefit caps shows he's thick. The idea that people would agree with us if only they were more intelligent owes more to self-love than to serious thought.

Comments

[Alex]

It may not be as successful, but Perhaps it is what is needed in the world these days. When we are so obsessed with the short term goals to keep our government in power, to balance the budget and to respond immediately to every issue that comes up, the long term sustainable solutions and lasting effects are ignored in favour of today's polls, or the rapid speed which politics happens at.

[Martin S]

John Rentoul tweeted this today: "For an intelligent person, @CJFDillow has some daft, unworkable ideas (basic income, drug legalisation)"

I quite like Rentoul but I'd like to see some argument about this. Has basic income ever been trialled?

Unless he means *politically* daft and unworkable. In which case he agrees with you.

Some of the logic behind basic income isn't very different from working credits, is it?

[william]

High IQ could be a drawback to a political career. That's probably why Osborne has got so far with so little beyond a cosy circle of chums.

But being thick has even more drawbacks. I think what you're contrasting here is high IQ vs. moderate IQ; the latter does probably have a few advantages.

[FromArseToElbow]

Apart from being an overcooked advert for Matthew D'Ancona's book, this incident is better read as an example of the snobbery and argot of the government's inner circle.

The phrase "a bit thick" is pure public schoolboy-speak. It is less a considered judgement on someone's IQ and more a sneer at their "not getting it", i.e. a lack of insider knowledge. IDS is clearly being isolated (much as Andrew Lansley was) ahead of the inevitable chop come the trainwreck of Universal Credit.

The whispers about his intellectual ability should be understood in the context of his infra dig education (a state comp followed by military school and Sandhurst). His "deficiency" is that he (like the vast majority of us, both clever and stupid) didn't attend a private school and Oxbridge.

This has little to do with the value of intelligence in the field of politics.

[Strategist]

I quite like Rentoul

What on earth is likeable about John Rentoul?

[oldcobbler]

"Wilson...was a much less successful PM than Thatcher, Blair....".

Judged by what criteria ? For example, I don't recall there being 3 million unemployed under Harold Wilson, nor our being involved in illegal and futile wars in the Middle East..............

[Boursin]

Yes, and Wilson won four general elections. Three of them only barely, admittedly. But it's still an achievement that eluded both Thatcher and Blair.

[redpesto]

"Intellectuals are, very often, out of touch; they might well therefore lack the political antennae which tells them what'll sell and what won't."

The entire career of John 'The Vulcan' Redwood in a nutshell. And he can't even sing.

[just passing]

Martin S asked:

> Has basic income ever been trialled?

Yes, it has, most notably in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

Broadly speaking, it showed exactly the benefits for which a basic income is advocated - freed from the pressure of having to fund survival, people became more creative, better educated, and crucially no less interested in productive activity. And there were some unexpected benefits, too - fewer hospital visits; not only were people less stressed, they were less physically ill and less likely to be injured at work, too.

The bottom line: Basic Income is so obviously an unalloyed good, and so counter-intuitively not at all a licence for idleness, that it's politically doomed.

[3ipka.net]

Экономические аспекты Украины
3ipka.net

В США за последние 20 лет минимальная
величина удельного веса передовых технологий в экономическом росте оценивалась в 15%, а максимальная – в 50%.

В данное время в высокоразвитых
странах на удельный вес новых знаний, которые воплощаются в спецтехнологиях, оборудовании,
подготовке кадров, организации производства, приходится от 70 до 85%
прироста валового внутреннего продукта (ВВП)

Итак, основные тенденции развития научно-технической сферы в Украине выявились
противоположные тенденциям, которые сложились в развитых странах.
Их можно изменить только после возникновения положительных изменений в самой экономике.

Особенно важный фактор для обеспечения условий инновационного развития экономики –
создать на уровне государства модель прикладной науки,
которая бы предусматривала комплексный подход к созданию и поддержки приоритетов.

Необходимо обеспечить ориентацию субъектов экономики на
разработку и освоение комплексных технологий, с минимальными
потерями потенциала, которые обеспечивают
согласование именно технологии,
техники и спецоборудование, организованной работы
и управления на стойкий выпуск продукции
в широком диапазоне мощностей с одинаковой производительностью.
такую ориентацию государство может поддерживать за счет налоговых льгот и льготных условий финансирования (кредитование).
Внедрений комплексных технологий по перспективным направлениям развития производственно-технологической структуры экономики будет содействовать не только возрастанию эффективности производства, но и ликвидации.

[Warren Ward]

I am a democratic socialist, and loath many of the things Churchill said and did, for example his attitude to those dominated by empire and his reluctance to grant women the franchise to name but two. However his stand against Hitler and the Nazis was absolutely critical in their demise and Churchill was, without a doubt, a person of very high intelligence. Karl Popper thought he was an intellectual heavyweight, and not for his political or historical writings, but his epistemological thinking.

[ajay]

Few thought he was even a starter,
There were many who thought themselves smarter,
But he finished PM,
CH and OM,
A Peer and a Knight of the Garter.

--Attlee, on himself. (He got a Second in History at Oxford.)