The level of intelligence or I.Q. possessed by an individual has long been touted as the primary catalyst for the development and progress of the human species. But is it ? ........ No! or at least not without a useful level of common sense or C.S.Q.


High I.Q.s abound amongst educators, politicians, lawyers, scientists and senior management. But is this attribute always used to advance the human cause? To the contrary it is quite often used to attempt to turn black into white or shades of grey, or otherwise to cloud the truth with variables and manipulated arguments rather than to solve and resolve. Another meeting, another enquiry, another variation on a very similar theme. Also research to support product rather than health, industrial advances for short term gain and long term degradation of the planet.

A recent example of intellect dealing with one of societies ever increasing problems ( unsociable behaviour / criminal activities and growing pressure on prisons) was to gather together numerous persons of high intellect to formulate schemes whereby offenders would not be incarcerated thus reducing associated costs and poor outcomes. Subsequent studies and surveys have suggested that this process is apparently working! But is it? Are we seeing less crime and are the streets safer?


A person of significant C.S.Q. then suggested that without a ‘fence’ or deterrent (jail term) many of these systems were doomed to fail. If you put a cow in a field with no fence regardless of most deterrent measures other than tethering, it will continue to wander further and further.  If you then construct a fence but leave the gate open eventually the animal will find its way through and again wander further. Which side of the fence it chooses to be on will then be determined by which side is more comfortable ( has reliable feed and shelter ) . Prisons are just one side of a fence and these have become more and more ‘humane’ or ‘comfortable’ and subsequently the difference between one side of the fence and the other is less obvious . In fact at times the prison side with its regular meals, access to TV’s computers, gym,  libraries and ‘ordered existence’ is the more appealing.


The individual of significant CSQ  suggested that prison sentences in many cases were essential but should actually be shortened ( reducing cost to the community) but also made less comfortable.


They also suggested that criminals should not be housed together for long periods of time so as to share trade secrets etc. If you have several rogue animals in a herd then it is best to firstly separate these out before they adversely influence the rest of the herd. However if you then house these rogues together they are more likely to encourage each others aberrant behaviour than reform As with a recovering addict you must remove them from the environment and human influences amongst which the problem arose. If not all other measures are usually a waste of time.


And on the subject of welfare. CSQ says quite simply

-  ‘No one should be paid for doing nothing!’ If you are rewarded for doing nothing then you will continue to do nothing.

Paid unemployed ( unless caring for children or the disabled) should be in gangs cleaning up the rubbish on the streets, planting trees, helping charities and other non profit organisations. And of course those of considerable IQ will retort with “ Oh but the cost of these systems!” , And the CSQ reply , Quite simply to achieve anything you need to invest and as any investor will tell you the initial costs can seem exorbitant but the end product makes it worthwhile!

A test for the Common Sense Quotient