Study: we don’t have the IQ to prevent ecological disaster

From the “SJW supplements science” department and the University of Central Florida.

High IQs aren’t going to be enough to stop an ecological disaster. It’s going to take social intelligence, too. That’s the conclusion of a new study co-authored by a University of Central Florida researcher and published Wednesday in the journal Nature Communications.

The findings could help identify why some groups better manage shared resources, such as water or fisheries, than others. And as Earth’s population is growing at a rate that is putting a strain on resources, finding ways to better manage them is critical.

“Especially in the case of common property, there is often an inbuilt tension between what is good for the individual and what is good for the group,” says Jacopo Baggio, an assistant professor in UCF’s Department of Political Science and lead author of the study.

“Individuals often have different cognitive abilities,” Baggio says. “For example, individuals with high general intelligence will be more able to discern patterns and dynamics of resources, and individuals with high social intelligence communicate more effectively and understand the mental state of others.”

Using a digital game to simulate a virtual ecosystem, the researchers found that when teams of people with high general intelligence, but low social intelligence faced a situation where resources became scarce, those teams depleted resources faster, harvested less potential resources and pushed the ecosystem to its limits.

But when both general and social intelligence were high, teams harvested a greater percentage of potential resources and kept the ecosystem from collapsing.

“It’s a way to really start to understand how individuals and groups interact and what type of individuals are more prone or less prone to favor group benefits over individual costs,” Baggio says.

General intelligence helped people figure out the rules of the game and how the resources, in this case digital tokens, regenerated, while social intelligence helped people cooperate to optimize performance, says Thomas Coyle, co-author of the study and professor of psychology at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

“In theory, people with higher levels of social intelligence are more effective in reducing conflict among group members and in getting people to work toward common goals,” Coyle says. “Such ‘people’ skills are important for managing shared resources.”

The work points to a need for education in diverse types of intelligence, says Jacob Freeman, an assistant professor of anthropology at Utah State University and study co-author.

“It suggests that our education systems should focus on cultivating both general and social intelligence to better equip groups to deal with complex, social-ecological challenges,” Freeman says.

Coyle says researchers are still exploring ways to improve social intelligence.

For the study, the researchers used a digital game where people collected virtual tokens in exchange for actual money. Participants were 216 undergraduates from two large universities in the Western United States. They were randomly placed into one of two experimental conditions: either a game where the conditions began improving and tokens continued to be replenished, or one where conditions began deteriorating and tokens did not regenerate fast enough.

General intelligence was represented by ACT and SAT scores provided by the universities. Social intelligence was measured using a short story test that estimated the ability of individuals to infer others’ intentions and feelings. The test is often used to predict social communication disorders, communication errors and the ability to infer the mental states of others.

###

Baggio is a member of UCF’s Department of Political Science and is a core member of the Sustainable Coastal Systems Cluster and the National Center for Integrated Coastal Research. He received his master’s in development economics and doctorate in international development from the University of East Anglia. He joined UCF in 2018.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
133 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 22, 2019 4:40 pm

Let’s run this “study” by Jordan Peterson and see what he makes of it. Should be interesting.

Rick C PE
February 22, 2019 4:43 pm

So what happened with the third group that should have been included – those with high social intelligence and low general intelligence? Would they have done better, worse or the same as the high intelligence group? No need for an answer.
High social intelligence is clearly code “socialists” and Venezuela has adequately demonstrated how well they manage resources.

I personally have very little interest in anything that comes out of university Political ‘Science’ departments. Always just political and not science.

TonyL
February 22, 2019 5:01 pm

The departments of Political Science and Anthropology have found their tickets to board the Global Warming Gravy Train. The lure of easy funding is irresistible.
We have seen this before with Feminist Glaciology.

But, in their rush to the cash, they have made a critical error. They make use of intelligence, and more specifically, a quantitative measure of IQ. This is their undoing.
Allow me to explain:
As we all know, some groups do relatively better on IQ tests, while others do relatively worse.
BUT: SJW theory dictates that the only reason for disparity between groups is blatant discrimination. Furthermore, if the disparities are between the sexes, it is sexism. If the disparities are between ethnic groups, it is racism.
{As an aside. James Damore was famously fired from Google for suggesting that women availed themselves of opportunities in the workplace differently than men because they had varied career goals. This contradicted the SJW axiom that all differences are solely due to discrimination, so the heretic had to go.}
Back to the paper:
What the authors did is far worse. By using a forbidden metric they are saying that some groups will be better at this task than others. This is a blatant use of implied racism to further a study goal. Therefore, the whole paper is racist, sexist, hateful, and doing violence to marginalized groups.
The authors will be burned at the academic stake for this.

{We could write Letters to the Editor to the campus newspapers of the universities involved, decrying the racism and bigotry of this paper. This would ensure that the SJW mobs get kick started properly.}

Claude Harvey
February 22, 2019 5:02 pm

Ever watch an academic try to run a real operation of any kind employing real people to accomplish tangible results? Ever watch a drunk try to push a chain down the road?

Reply to  Claude Harvey
February 23, 2019 10:14 am

This is just an anecdote; so take it for just one example.

I had a business acquaintance, a Prof at a large technical University in the Boston region, who did a truly groundbreaking study on why the Japanese ran circles around the industrial US. He wrote a very successful book on the subject and even coined the term now used for that industrial and management philosophy.

He later told me that he decided to cash in early on his discoveries and bought a bankrupt factory that produced a common product; he intended to apply his recommendations in order to make some money and to provide a real life example of his precepts. It failed.

He was subsequently convinced by another relatively famous person (in another field) that his talents would be much better utilized if he started an “Institute” to spread his concepts (that’s how I got to know the good Prof.)

Today, in part because of his institute, virtually every manufacturing company features the methods he introduced to the US.

The moral? Stick to what you’re good at.

February 22, 2019 5:03 pm

High IQs aren’t going to be enough to stop delusional visions of the future, either.

Remember, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s made up.”

drednicolson
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 25, 2019 12:35 am

Except big-L Lefties are rarely that honest. They’ll talk a good piece about being tolerant and open-minded, and how anyone on the big-R Right is a close-minded bigot, while simultaneously harboring some of the most hideous prejudices imaginable. They have open minds already made up.

February 22, 2019 5:07 pm

People who couldn’t make it in STEM subjects come up with this stuff….

February 22, 2019 5:08 pm

If AO-C represents where the US Democratic Party is headed, either we have nothing to worry about, or we have everything to worry about. The key is difference will be if her ilk gets the reins of power.

Apparently her ilk did get the reins of power in South Australia, Ontario, Sweden.

cbsjr42
February 22, 2019 5:10 pm

I propose a new name for social intelligence – LQ (Lemming Quotient).

Tom Abbott
February 22, 2019 5:22 pm

Social Intelligence in this context seems to mean Conformity.

If you conform to the group norm, then you are socially intelligent.

Red94ViperRT10
February 22, 2019 5:37 pm

High IQs aren’t going to be enough to stop an ecological disaster.

Well then, lucky for us there is no ecological disaster that needs stopped, now or in the future.

Donald Kasper
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
February 22, 2019 9:08 pm

There is nothing remotely interesting going on with climate, but there is a continuing group think hysteria going around. It acts like the flu, and is spread by talking hysteria to people around you.

Garland Lowe
February 22, 2019 6:57 pm

SOS “It takes a village”
I find it interesting that the participants are all milineals, in school and haven’t lived in the real world.
That’s a broad sample, uh maybe not.

Mike in MN
February 22, 2019 6:58 pm

They can really make any result they want. There is no penalty for being stupid anymore as the jobs these people have require no real or measurable beneficial output. I fear the end is nigh.

Robert of Texas
February 22, 2019 7:20 pm

I think I agree with half of this article’s point…The progressives DO NOT have high enough IQ’s to avert disasters – of any kind (as in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). This is already demonstrated in the once proud nation of Venezuela. California will be their next great achievement.

Conservative people however, might…Slow to adopt change, skeptic of things too good to be true, have decent work ethics, tend to pull together in hard times, do not feel entitled, do not want a nanny government, desire to be left alone to make their own decisions. These people just might have enough collective common sense to avert disaster after disaster. Maybe.

Good scientists are always conservative in nature (but not necessarily in their politics). Skeptical of any new theory until its been demonstrated through debate, challenge, and testing. I guess they no longer require any of those traits in modern science classes.

Gary
February 22, 2019 7:37 pm

The CBS tv show Survivor is a good example of the balance between what this artificial study is calling general and social intelligence. Those who get into the final group do well in both areas. And Survivor is a less contrived model for what this study is trying to measure.

brent
February 22, 2019 8:50 pm

James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change” Lovelock
Since it is Lovelock’s comment about human ignorance that is our subject today, it is well to point out that Lovelock himself lacks the mental capacity to see the inconsistencies in his theory, despite being given plenty of time to notice them, and being given the able assistance of many critics.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/2156/

Donald Kasper
Reply to  brent
February 22, 2019 9:07 pm

Realizing you are not a God and don’t run the planet is upsetting because this means you are going to ultimately die. Sorry.

Serge Wright
February 22, 2019 9:00 pm

Some examples of Social intelligence:
– The planet will become uninhabitable in 12 years
– Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels
– Renewable energy is more reliable than coal and gas
– The green new deal will create jobs and stimulate the economy
– The social cost of carbon

And to top of all this, they think they are smarter than the rest of us, LOL 🙂 !!!

Donald Kasper
Reply to  Serge Wright
February 22, 2019 9:05 pm

Social intelligence. Is this the thinking that led to two world wars? I am not aware of any person that agreed to world war.

Reply to  Serge Wright
February 22, 2019 10:38 pm

Good…. well my IQ is probably over 101…and I somehow know that all your points by the CAGW are false,,,good job.

Donald Kasper
February 22, 2019 9:04 pm

Don’t think for yourself as you are too stupid to grasp it all. Let elites in cliques determine things for you. Your role is to follow along. No, no critical thinking please. That just contaminates your response to what you are told. Got it.

Phillip Bratby
February 22, 2019 9:58 pm

“Political Science” – that well-known oxymoron.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
February 22, 2019 11:16 pm

How about anthropology?

The Romans tried what we would call socialism in their collapse phase. It didn’t work. In fact it made things worse. Well, worse for the people. Better for the government.

The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter – pdf. The good stuff starts in Chapter 4.
https://wtf.tw/ref/tainter.pdf

February 22, 2019 11:40 pm

A low IQ actually limits the capabilities to detect bullshitters, scammers and snake oil salesmen, and among them the climate apocalypse prophets.

So the article’s author is right (despite himself) : with higher population IQ, the “climate crisis” would be solved since it would not even exist.

February 22, 2019 11:51 pm

WANTED – STUPID PEOPLE

WANTED – TO JOIN EQUALLY STUPID PEOPLE

WANTED – AT And-Then-Theres-Physics

WANTED – FEEL INTELLIGENT

WANTED – BY SURROUNDING YOURSELF WITH MORONS

WANTED – GAIN IQ-CONFIDENCE

WANTED – AND BOOST SELF-ESTEEM

WANTED – LEARN TO IGNORE INCONVENIENT EVIDENCE

WANTED – WITHOUT FEELING GUILTY

WANTED – INTELLIGENT PEOPLE LIMITED TO ONE COMMENT PER THREAD

WANTED – BUT STUPID PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED UNLIMITED COMMENTS

.

You might think that I am being unfair to the morons at And-Then-Theres-Physics.

But let me make it clear, that some of my best friends are morons.

I made the mistake, of going to And-Then-Theres-Physics, to look for intelligent Alarmists.

Yes, I know that “intelligent Alarmists” are as rare as unicorns.

But I am an optimist, and unicorns might exist (where is your proof that unicorns DON’T exist).

The people at And-Then-Theres-Physics, made me sit in the corner, and told me not to speak unless spoken to.

I have never been good at keeping quiet.

I tried to be good. Honestly.

And I wrote the people at And-Then-Theres-Physics a polite letter when I left. My polite letter is displayed below.

https://agree-to-disagree.com/wanted-stupid-people

Reply to  Sheldon Walker
February 23, 2019 12:15 am

Intelligent alarmists exist (Otherwise, the climate swindle could not last so long), but they are blatantly dishonest (Otherwise, the climate swindle would not even exist).
The rule seems to be that an alarmist can’t be intelligent and honest at the same time.

Carl
Reply to  Sheldon Walker
February 23, 2019 5:19 am

Have heart. Unicorns must exist. Our NJ Guv is promising rainbow colored ones to all of us. Ergo…

Chaamhamal
February 23, 2019 12:13 am

Or maybe we don’t have the IQ to recognize eco wacko activism when it is disguised as science.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/03/hidden-hand/

Jacques Lemiere
February 23, 2019 12:34 am

the aim of the article is to disregard educated people in stem who don’t believe in the CAUSE.
Educated people out oF STEMhate to meet somebody who can debate on a scientific level and don’t agree with them..they look stupid..and THAT is the suprem insult.

Meh
February 23, 2019 1:09 am

Social intelligence really sound like “intelligence for dumb people”. Also the testing method sounds questionable at best, personally I use body language and voice pitch during social interaction to infer intentions and emotions, how would I ever be able infer them from text unless the text describes them? I mean, I’m sure I could guess a million things, but would have very little to back it up.

Reply to  Meh
February 23, 2019 3:28 am

My first thought was that social intelligence is another word for communism.

Jim
Reply to  michael hart
February 24, 2019 2:59 am

Social intelligence = mob mentality

Jim
February 23, 2019 3:06 am

Quote: “Study: we don’t have the IQ to prevent ecological disaster.”
True, but we have the arrogance to think we can.

Craig from Oz
February 23, 2019 3:13 am

The question needs to be asked is how many people involved in these studies are knowingly gaming the system.

Years ago I used to be on the list of a market research group that would, from time to time, bring in groups of people to workshop problems. They were good gigs. Light refreshments, 90mins of your time, paid in cash. Good times.

So we did one and the topic was Short Holidays and as a group we were asked where we would like to go for a short holiday (2 to 4 nights) and why. So we said “Melbourne”. Close. Good shopping. Catch some sport. See some friends.

“Okay”, said the mods, “if you couldn’t go to Melbourne, where else?”

“Sydney!”

“The Gold Coast!”

“Okay,” said the mods, “if you can’t go there, where else? Say… Canberra maybe?”

“Oh…” thinks the room, “Canberra is the ‘correct’ answer, is it?”

So, partly because Canberra is a total dump and partly because we all known knew it was the correct answer…

“Sunshine coast! Broken Hill! Perth! Back of Burke! Mum and Dads!”

“Look! You are going to CANBERRA!!!”

“Ummm… why would we want to go there? Can we go somewhere else? It’s OUR holiday.”

Maybe a bad example because Canberra honestly IS a horrible place filled with either public servants or those too young to be able to legally leave, but as a group we quickly worked out what was the ‘correct answer’ and concluded not giving it was going to be much more fun. To be able to do this you have to be at least up at the ‘average’ level of smarts. We knew what was going on, had already eaten our free light supper and knew there was no real down side to gaming the system purely for giggles.

So, what is more interesting when attempting to study human nature in an artificial situation is not trying to force the results onto the real world, but studying how people react when you start to push the experiment in a deliberate direction. Do they follow based on the grounds they believe following the moderator is the correct result with the best reward, or do they deliberately push back because they can see what is happening and see no downside to gaming the system.

This, I believe, would provide a much better understanding of human nature as well as reinforcing that (deep breath) It May Already Be Too Late(tm) and It May Be Worse Than We Thought(tm).

Not STEM Science, people. It’s really not that hard 😀