He doesn’t say stupid, you are mischaracterizing what he is saying. He is saying that if you are slightly below average IQ you will have a very difficult time keeping up with the information processing abilities of occupations that involve rapidly changing abstractions, esp. those such as law, which require high verbal fluidity. He also states that it is not impossible for average IQ persons to be somewhat successful in those positions, as long as they are extremely high in conscientiousness (I would likewise add that someone high in IQ but low in conscientiousness would have a difficult time in long term success).
He is also very clear that a high IQ has absolutely zero correlation with moral wisdom, which is a fallacy that many in our culture tend to buy into.
He is approaching occupation in terms of what is most suitable to a person that will lead to the most successful outcomes, that those occupations are as virtuous as the person who occupies them, and people tend to be more happy and fulfilled with occupations that suit not only their capacities, but also their personality predispositions.
Thanks for explaining. He’s pretty good; I got connected to him on Facebook after hearing he and Camille Paglia in conversation.
How do his views square with people like obama, who have below average IQs, but an exceptional ability to mimic their more intelligent brethren, thus giving the appearance of having superior intelligence?
So are you saying that people with lower abstraction capacity would do better in work with concrete skills like plumbing, masonry, carpentry, trucking, nursing, etc.