In another thread we considered whether a more intelligent population would have fewer social problems. Some comments brought out the intriguing idea that for matters of the functionality of society, structure and regime and therefore education may matter much more than intelligence. If we could educate a new ruling class, we could solve the problems a lot more directly than if we could if we raised everyone's IQ by 5 points.

>>2361
>>2360

But we could start right now, if we knew what to teach. Could we not simply start writing the curriculum and running people through it in akademic book clubs, magazine articles, political meetings, and online fora right now? The bottleneck may not even be ability to teach, but what to teach.

Bear with me here then and let's consider a thought experiment: a young prince and others who might be worthy of being his comrades are walking by in the marketplace, while you sit and discuss the ideal regime with some other philosophers. One of the noble youths sits down to speak with you. What do you tell him that will catch his attention and set him on the right path? What books do you recommend him to read? What mental and physical exercises? Suppose he is going to be your student for a year or two. What will we teach him?

https://www.anarchonomicon.com/p/the-warlords-reading-list-by-anarchonomicon?triedRedirect=true

So many problems of social policies are a result of social "sciences" being completely out of touch with natural reality. That's why Richard Dawkins'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_Mount_Improbable
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
-- and complexity thinkers like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Discipline
and
https://philippevandenbroeck.medium.com/v-ahl-t-f-h-allen-hierarchy-theory-1996-30b1e61a4276
give you the conceptual underpinnings for sensible policy.