Moral Dilemma of Intelligence

by Dyske Suematsu  •  December 16, 2007

In my younger days, I simply assumed that other people were as intelligent as I was. I had no reason to believe otherwise. Nobody came to me with an admission or acceptance that my intelligence was superior to theirs. (Do I sound condescending and full of myself? Bear with me for now.) Compare this with someone who is physically superior. Most professional boxers, for instance, have a reasonable understanding of their own superiority. This understanding is crucial in using their physical strength appropriately. If they did not understand their superiority, they could get into all sorts of trouble. But, this does not hold true for intelligence. Why? Shouldn’t those with high IQs recognize their own intelligence and learn to use it appropriately in our society too?

What complicates this question is the fact that intelligence is arguably the most desired human trait in today’s world. Any suggestion that one race might have a higher average IQ than the others would provoke a tidal wave of anger, but the racial superiority in athletic ability is openly celebrated. We can quickly and easily admit that someone is physically stronger than we are. And, if we ourselves happen to be physically stronger than someone else is, we can also easily accept the superiority without feeling egotistical or condescending. Unfortunately this is not true with intelligence because we are all highly sensitive about it. It would take an enormous amount of fighting to concede that someone else is more intelligent than we are; and in most cases we are not willing to subject ourselves to such a fight. And, even if we do go through the fight, we would still rationalize it by coming up with different ways that we are more intelligent. These tendencies and defense mechanisms clearly show how important intelligence is to us.

Even if you happen to have superior intelligence, you could not bring yourself to accept it, because it feels too egotistical and condescending to see yourself as such. So, what do you do? You end up wielding your superior intelligence on everyone around you with no mercy. It’s like Mike Tyson not realizing his own physical superiority. The next thing you know, everyone around you is bruised and furious.

When I was younger, I behaved like Mike Tyson with my intelligence. How this commonly manifests is that you end up constantly trying to prove your own intelligence, because you are not sure. This means you would constantly challenge others to argue with you. To others, you appear as though you are trying to show off your own intelligence, but from your point of view, you are just trying to prove your own intelligence because you don’t know if you are indeed intelligent. In other words, your insecurity about your own intelligence manifests as bragging or boasting. If you already know that you are indeed intelligent, you would not have to do this.

Naturally, I was not a popular person. I suffered greatly from loneliness, and I struggled to figure out why, because nobody could or would come to me and explain that I had superior intelligence, and that I was wielding it like a little kid with a big gun. Firstly, nobody wants to admit that he is less intelligent than someone else is (especially when we are young). Secondly, if you see someone with a big gun, you try to stay away from him. I’m sure many of you are thinking now, “Gee, Dyske is full of himself.” Well, that’s the difficulty of this topic. Nobody wants to be seen that way, yet there are serious consequences if you don’t realize and accept your superior intelligence. It’s a double-bind situation.

In my late 30s, I began to realize that my intelligence was superior to many people around me. They were getting bruised by me, but nobody was complaining. They silently stayed away from me, or they kept a safe distance, this lead to my loneliness. At a collective level, we can see this reflected in the correlation between income and IQ (people with higher IQs earn more money than those with lower IQs). I would call this a form of bruising. When someone with a higher IQ does business with someone with a lower IQ, it is more likely that the deal would result in favor of the one with a higher IQ. People with high IQs live comfortable and enjoyable lives, while the people with low IQs suffer in poverty. It’s no different from a society of gorillas where the physically strongest live great lives while the weak ones suffer and perish. We humans saw this as unfair and uncivilized, so we developed moral codes and laws that prevent people from exploiting their physical strength, and systems to help those with physical disabilities. It’s perfectly legal to fight in court and slap someone with a big financial settlement, but it’s not legal to simply punch someone in the face. This is because we assume that everyone has a fair chance of winning if we fight with our intelligence.

If fairness and equality are the virtues that we strive for, we should prevent those with high IQs from taking full advantage of their intelligence. What I’m proposing here is the exact opposite of Social Darwinism. In order to accelerate the evolution of human species, Social Darwinism favors those with superior genes. I am proposing that we do the opposite by helping the genetically disadvantaged. Since this is exactly what our current society does with respect to physical strength, it is only fair that we do the same with intelligence.

People like Mike Tyson are not allowed to crush others with their physical power (except on a boxing ring). Our laws prohibit them from settling disputes and disagreements with punches. Yet, those with high IQs could unleash their power to their fullest extent and crush others with lower IQs, and force them to accept injustice. Our society can see this as fair only because we assume that we all have equal capacity to be intelligent.

The same logic applies to other inherited/genetic traits too. Our laws prevent beautiful people from taking full advantage of their looks. Employment laws, for instance, prohibit employers from hiring people based on their looks. (Admittedly, there are a few exceptions like fashion models.) The whole idea of “equal-opportunity” employment is to make the employment game presumably fair by evaluating people on the characteristics that can be learned and acquired by efforts, not on those endowed genetically by luck. But it is becoming increasingly clear that intelligence too is a quality we inherit by luck; so it is only fair that we apply the same logic of our “equality” to intelligence as well. It is not fair that those who are genetically endowed with high IQs can wield their powers to the full extent, while others are prevented from doing the same with their naturally endowed powers and advantages.

But I realize that a law that prevents people from taking advantage of their intelligence would be entirely unrealistic and impractical. This is a dilemma that no one would want to talk about, partly because there isn’t any practical solution. It is a big taboo, because, if broken, it could undermine the fundamental stability of our society. For instance, if we accept that intelligence is unfairly distributed, trying to resolve a conflict through rational discussions would be seen as uncivilized. We see a fight between a heavyweight boxer and a lightweight boxer as uncivilized. In many rational arguments (our primary method of conflict resolution), what is happening is exactly this; a fight between a lightweight and a heavyweight boxers. Using standardized tests for school admission would be seen as uncivilized too. It would be like the tallest students getting the first picks of the best schools. In this way, every social system would have to be reevaluated for its fairness. It would be quite chaotic. This is partly the reason why we have and will continue to have a powerful force opposing to acknowledge the unfairness of intelligence. Meanwhile those with low IQs are getting bruised and beaten every day.

For the record, my IQ isn’t that high. The last test I took indicated that my IQ was around 135. (It was the average among the people I know.) Even though nationally my IQ is above average, obviously there are plenty of people who are more intelligent than I am. But even with a 135 IQ, there are plenty of people around me who could get bruised by me. This puts me in a double-bind; I am screwed if I accept that I have superior intelligence (I would be seen as egotistical), and I am screwed if I don’t accept it and win all the arguments to get my ways. For me to pull back and to go easy on someone, is a form of condescension that I could not accept without accepting my superiority. If I see everyone else as my equal, then I should do what I want others to do to me, which is to use as much intelligence as they have in negotiating or arguing with me.

Suppose someone said to you, “Look, I am not as intelligent as you are, so I cannot win an argument with you.” If someone were willing and able to admit this about himself, the moral dilemma would be resolved. It would be equivalent to someone half of your size admitting that he could not physically fight with you. But who could admit to his own inferior intelligence? Not many people could, which adds to the complication of the problem. Both people with high IQs and low IQs are conspiring to deny our innate differences in intelligence. It’s like a kid who is half of your size insisting on fighting with you. What is the right thing to do? If he really wants to fight as equal, the only honorable thing is to give it all you’ve got. But in this process, you would end up beating up a bunch of kids half of your size, which would not make you a popular person.

Noam Chomsky makes a public spectacle out of this. Some of his opponents call it “intellectual intimidation”, but they would not fully admit their intellectual inferiority; so they get bruised by Chomsky. I can see that Chomsky is a sincere and honest person, so he cannot bring himself to admit that he has superior intelligence. He has no choice but to go at it with all he’s got. You would love him if you happen to agree with what he is saying, but you would hate him if you happen to disagree, in which case he would be a brutal and merciless enemy.

This is an interesting paradox. Those who are too humble to admit their superior intelligence would use it fully, and bruise everyone around them like Chomsky does. Those who are aware of their superior intelligence would be more reserved and careful about how they use it. But, to be able to do this, they would have to secretly acknowledge their superior intelligence. This is the only way they could hold back their full intellectual capacity; they hold back because they see others as inferior. So, which one is really egotistical and condescending?

This is similar to the double-bind situation of feminism. The feminists want to be treated equally. Their ultimate goal is equality, not a reversal of power, which means that typical gentlemen who hold doors for women go against the ideals of the feminists. The men who do not hold doors for women, the men who do not let women have the better seat at a restaurant, and the men who do not pay for women on dates; they are the true supporters of feminism. But what happens to these men? They are not respected, and they are unpopular with women. In other words, those who are well-liked and well-respected by our society are those who accept their own superiority, but do not ever voice it or admit it. It’s like the gays in military: Don’t ask, don’t tell. Women don’t want to ask how their men are truly perceiving them, because if they do, they would ruin the mood and miss out on all the romantic gestures and lavish gifts. Men don’t want to tell the truth about how they perceive their women, because they like having someone around who constantly reminds them of their superiority. In the same way, if you want to be respected as an intelligent person, you need to acknowledge your intellectual superiority but never admit it to anyone else. You should see most other people as inferior to you, and go easy on them, but never reveal the fact that you are being easy on them. As condescending as this may sound, this is how most people want to be treated. Blind honesty is simply not seductive (as I am being anti-seductive here by writing and admitting all this.).

Fortunately for me, much of this dilemma about intelligence is in the past. These days, I simply avoid arguments unless the other person happens to also enjoy and appreciate logical arguments. I used to feel that this was insincere and dishonest, but I’m older and a bit wiser now; I see no point in pushing something that people do not appreciate. But the dilemma still remains in situations where the fights and the competitions are unavoidable, like in business, in politics, and even in love relationships. There is much value and power in our ability to reason, but the question is: When does our use of intelligence change from use to abuse? I don’t really have an answer to this, so it remains a dilemma.