In the linked article Charles Murray discusses cognitive homogamy. It was the first time I heard it coined and so I thought I'd post it here for those interested in the new class of American elite - the ones ruling us now. For some reason I don't feel threatened but actually comforted Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's a Brave New World
My apologies but the phrase cognitive homogamy to describe a new class of ruling elite seemed interesting from a linguistic POV.
Are the people thus described really the ruling class, the ones who make crucial policy on national and social issues, or are they merely an executive class, carrying out the administration of policies decided by their superiors? Sheiks or eunuchs? Linguistically, the phrase certainly resonates, though i might - with slight trepidation - suggest that it could well be applied to other insular groups, as well, regardless of income or influence level.
The author also wrote The Bell Curve and so he's always sniffing around for topics that generate a bit of buzz. It may be he's cherry picking data. Are they an executive class, carrying out the administration of policies decided by their superiors? Yes, but aren't they also the superiors? Regarding humans, we have seen a 5% decrease in brain volume over the last 10,000 years. Which may be because the mentally weaker of us were able to survive as agriculture took root Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I once read that each generation is scoring slightly lower than the preceding generation in terms of IQ (in the west). But in tribal societies IQ is raising. People think that tribal children are more connected and are learning to think differently. Thus their IQ raises. But what explains western kids scoring relatively lower? Some think it may be due to large swaths of the lower IQ having more kids. Made possible by social safety nets. It's interesting because this is what motivated Eugenic last century. That's actually why I thought the term cognitive homogamy was so striking as it seemed eugenic-esk to me. Which got me to thinking of A Brave New World where you have mentally-defined classes of humans with the intellectually superior 'alphas' on top and slightly mentally-retarded betas, gamas etc... happily breeding down below (and performing all the back breaking labor). Thus, when I look at our world I don't see Nineteen Eighty Four. I see a Brave New World. We're not restricted in information. We're swimming in it. To the point most people are swamped - and thus information has almost become meaningless (for the vast majority, who just tune out). Anyway, surely Aldous Huxley had eugenics on the mind when he was outlining his plot? At least at a subconscious level. Most people would have discussed eugenics in that time period. Is cognitive homogamy true? If so, are we breeding an upper caste of executives and superiors? Are we Miranda? Or are we the drunken sailors taking the first steps into a brave new world?
"Illegitimacy, crime, joblessness — these are not merely the much debated pathologies of a black underclass, Murray finds. They are white people problems too." How did a line like that manage to slip through a news source like the NY times?
And applying it selectively? By "superiors" do you mean they command workers in lower echelons? If so, then yes. Does that position make them superior in any biological sense? No. How much real control do they have over social organization or the future? None. In any case, if they are taking orders from a higher echelon, they are not the rulers. The caste being described is the tools of power: it doesn't matter how they think or whether they procreate, because they're plug-in replaceable. The actual rulers are not being studied, observed, described or defined: they are outside the scope of the article; their aims, attitudes and motivations are unknown. More people of all intellectual capabilities are able to survive when there is more food. More are killed in a siege when the population is concentrated in permanent settlements (ducks in a barrel) but more infants survive between wars. Brain-pan size is not the only determinant of intelligence or mental agility - see rats, crows and cattle. And that's just the vessel: very little actual brain tissue is preserved over 10,000 years - maybe in the odd bog-dweller and pharaoh, and even those, not in a condition to assess level of functionality. Over 10,000 years, or just since all public money is needed for weapons and spyware? What percent of the population was tested in 1975, in 1955, in 1935.... 1835? Where are tribal these societies found? How many generations have been tested? By whom is the test devised and administered? In what format? Connected to what? Think differently from what? Does that mean, they're more technologically orineted, therefore smarter than their less technological parents? Or they're going to western schools and so more adept at western IQ tests? Commercial television. Poor health, hard work, exposure to toxins, no leisure time, unsafe environment, no access to birth control, wholesome food or decent schools may also be factors. And look how well that turned out! Really? To me, it sounds like a bunch of smug, self-deluded fools who can't see their own obsolescence looming.
Management class is not altogether a matter of birth. Though it's easier for a child of professionals to become a professional, and though it's easier to become a high level manager when one's family is well-connected, children of the working class do get into university, and do aspire to these same positions. But they won't succeed unless they fit in. To gain admission, they must acquire the speech, the attitudes, the taste and style and appearance of the class they hope to join. Since social graces are essential to making connections, the better one looks and sounds, the nicer his table manners and clothes, the more easily he will be accepted. A female aspirant may not need as many qualifications if she is sexually alluring: many ranking executives take a second or third wife, later in life (that is, higher on the ladder), based almost entirely on physical attractiveness. The offspring of these pairings will be even prettier than the first litter. And, of course, they will have the advantage of excellent nutrition, pediatric and dental care, high self-esteem, protection from natural and human-caused damage, as well as a quality school and opportunities to develop both body and mind. They, in turn, will also have the widest possible choice of mates. Genetic advantage, familial advantage, social advantage - and in a culture that exalts beauty over all other human traits, the acute need to cultivate those advantages.
