Subotai,

I saw an old HBO interview with Parke Deitz and “The Iceman”, a contract killer in prison for life in New Jersey. What I found interesting was that many of the characteristics of the sociopath (low fear response, limited emotional connection to otherwise horrific situations) had positive utility in human society. Some of those “sociopaths” may be at work doing horrifically dangerous, scary and necessary jobs. The lack of those responses is probably a continuum and how those abilities/deficits are used would define whether someone is the slasher-type sociopath or someone with the stones to cut open a chest, stop a heart and sew in cardiac grafts with near-invisible threads. Neither one can flinch at bleeding, or cutting open another human. It’s the intent that defines a sociopath, at least from that school of thought. To do my job, you almost have to either build a compartment into which you put the “OH GOD I’M SHOVING A QUARTER-INCH STICK INTO THIS GUY’S NECK SO HE CAN HAVE DIALYSIS”, or you come with it hardwired. Me personally, I had to build it, and I gotta tell you, it’s rickety.

The really cool guy on the SWAT team that never panics, never gets too upset even when things are falling apart may share a substantial set of neural wiring with the criminal sociopath on the other side of the door that SWAT is about to breach. The difference is that the Good Guy has decided to accept a moral framework conducive to societal betterment, and the Bad Guy is in it for himself. Deitz would tell you that the difference between “positive” sociopaths and criminal ones is the degree of socialization they experience in childhood. This is not to imply that anyone who carries a gun or badge is a sociopath, or that people who are preternaturally cool are inherently dangerous, just that your 3% number probably includes some upstanding citizens as well as dangerous people.

And yes, I think the political classes are loaded with sociopaths.

————–

WRT the original question, normally I don’t talk about this but since LSE brought it up and we’re all sharing, I’ll chime in.

I don’t have a specific IQ reference number but I continuously scored in the 99th percentile on standardized testing through high school. I made it to the last cut of Presidential Scholars in 1986 (top 500 American HS students, at least according to the Presidential Scholars folks). I have a BS in Biology, an MD, and a subspecialty board certification in Diagnostic Radiology. I can count on one hand the number of people I have met that are hands-down smarter than I am, and I have never been a liberal in any sense of the word.

This, and 75 cents, will get me a Diet DP out of the vending machine. Of all the things that are overrated, intelligence as measured by IQ is probably the most overrated, particularly for politicians. I don’t particularly care that Obama reads Urdu poetry, I do care that his political philosophy and policy decisions derived from that philosophy are not going to work.

The reason that IQ is important to progressives is that they believe their alleged superior intellect entitles them to make decisions for others. I find that interesting because I know more, about more, than pretty much all of them and don’t feel that my intelligence and fund of knowledge gives me any cause or right to order their lives. I don’t know what works for them in their lives any more than my ability to read a mammogram means I know what makes that sound when the car starts acting funny. The real eye-opener for me was The Black Swan, and the concept that what you don’t know is far more important than what you do know. I don’t believe that concept will ever really sink in to the people who generate studies that suggest that conservatives would make great Morlocks but that’s because the concept comes from an asset other than intelligence. Namely wisdom.