Political Impact of Generalized Perceived Intelligence

Selecting a leader has been a challenge for humans well before written and even oral history. Without belaboring what is know about this process, humans apply selection methods using one or more of the following  characteristics:

• Physical characteristics
• Beauty - facial biometry, ethnic features, adornments
• Physique - height, strength
• Physical abilities - weapon prowess, stamina, dance, wrestling
• Perceptual abilities - excellent sight, hearing, olfactory,

•  Psychological characteristics
• Bearing - 'presence', confidence,eye contact
• intelligence- proven decision making, problem solving, invention
• Oratorical skills -

• Social Characteristics
• Status - including companion status
• Friendliness
• Usefulness Characteristics
• Providing for individuals or group - hunting, gathering, tool manufacture
• Dispute resolution
• Spatial memory - navigation, resource location,
• Combinatorial Characteristics
• Dispute resolution
• Organization skills
• Hunting
• Manufacturing
• Building
• Animal care/management

• And so forth

Any particular individuals may use different selection methods when choosing a leader. Each selection method may use a combination of the above characteristics. These combinations may weight each characteristic differently. And, finally, an individual may use different methods in different circumstances.

For example, one is likely to use Method A to select a soccer team captain, Method B to select a raiding party leader, and Method C to choose a person for president.

Or, one may use Method A when in a particular emotional state and Method B when in another emotional state.

Not only are the methods we use complex but also complex is the selection of the method. Further, both are typically not a conscious act.

With the above discussion as a background, let us consider the thesis of this post. Psychologists have known for many years that intelligence is not unitary. While there has been considerable dispute among psychologists about the number and characteristics of these several intelligences,the over arching belief is not disputed.

[Well, it is disputed by Progressives who cling to the discredited notion that "g" adequately explains human intelligence and is measured by traditional intelligence tests. This belief was and is the basis of the eugenics movement which underlies Progressive thought and was the basis for Germany's "final solution' during WWII .]

Without getting involved in the arguments over the number and the nuances of the kinds of intelligence, most psychologists would agree that there are at least the following types: emotional intelligence, social intelligence, abstract reasoning intelligence, musical/mathematical intelligence, and kinesthetic intelligence.

Practical support for this notion is provided by the US military's ASVAB does a good job of recognizing various kinds of intelligence. It has demonstrated better predictive power than the WAIS in military applications.

I propose that humans make a fundamental error when applying leader selection methods. This error is one of expectations. Regardless of which method is selected and the characteristics evaluated by the method, humans then generalize the results of their selection. Positive selection leads to the expectation of positive scores on other, disparate, unmeasured  attributes.

As a young child will fail to correctly evaluate two objects' weight based solely on their visual appearance, so too will adults fail to correctly evaluate a leader's full ability set based upon their selection method.

A trivial example is provided by the well known fact that in a one-on-one political race the more attractive candidate has a considerable [need to research exact number] advantage. Other positive appearance influencers are known to be: height, oratorical skill, movement (Carter appeared taller on TV because he walked like a Southerner), accent, hair, lack of glasses, clothing/style, and facial expression.

People who select politicians based on these characteristics expect their choice to be intelligent, warm, a good decision maker, considerate, and thoughtful. [need to add reference]. Clearly such a relationship is strictly chance. While appearance really is an indicator of genetic uniformity and good looks are frequently associated with less childhood stress, such characteristics are not well correlated with outstanding capabilities as a leader.

Even in those individuals who use a selection method well purposed to political leadership make the generalization error. This is noticed when evaluating leaders with which one disagrees.

We often hear people say things like "That guy's an idiot! How did he get elected?"

Here the individual is applying the generalization error in reverse. A leader is seen not to possess a desired characteristic of leadership. Humans then question the leader's abilities in all other areas of leadership.

The 'guy' in question undoubtedly has excellent social skills, is capable of raising large sums of money, and probably is better than average looking. Further, this 'guy' likely sounds like those who elected him and dresses appropriately. He is very likely to be well spoken or can at least read a teleprompter convincingly. He is very likely to be tall and have 'prescience' .

At the same time he may be morally bankrupt, not be able to ride an ATV, have zero ability to operate let alone fix a computer, and have no understanding of economics or farming.

Is he a good leader? That depends on what he is being asked to lead. Is he an incompetent moron? That also depends upon what he is asked to do.

Recognizing our propensity to generalize from our selection characteristics to other, even hidden, characteristics of potential leaders could lead us to choose better leaders. Of equal importance, it could lead us to better appreciate those who we or others have chosen as out leaders.