A) INTRODUCTION
 
In the previous chapter I presented the content of my hypothesis of “volitional intelligence”. Said content can be summarized as follows: The factor that limits the intelligence of the overwhelming majority of the members of mankind is their respective own free will - not their genes or their environment. So, the one factor which alone explains men's intelligence is, in close to all cases, their own free will. It is only the minority of men who have chosen to develop an active intellect in early childhood – and the minority of men who are equipped with physically damaged brains - who perhaps lack any chance to develop an even higher degree of intelligence than they already have. For all other members of humanity, the truth is that they could raise the degree of their own intelligence to a considerable extent, if only they bothered to put forth the necessary effort.
 
B) THE NATURE OF VALID EVIDENCE
 
For a scientist, or an intelligent layman, to be able to induce an hypothesis from reality – he must perceive the evidence for the hypothesis himself. A report from another man about his alleged observations of events in reality in support of the hypothesis will not do. Take Galileo for example. Galileo based his induction that all bodies fall to the ground at the same speed, apart from air resistance (or water resistance if they fall through water, etc.), on his own direct perceptual observations. Galileo is said to have dropped iron balls of different weights simultaneously from a height and observed that the lighter iron balls hit the ground at the very same time as the heavier ones. [There are different accounts of this but, it is clear that Galileo did actually perform numerous empirical experiments of some kind on falling bodies.] Galileo relied exclusively on his own observations. The development of the science of physics would have been much delayed if Galileo had made the mistake of believing Aristotle's statement - that heavier objects fall to the ground faster than lighter ones - on the basis of mere blind faith in the authority of Aristotle.
 
So – I could only rely on my own personal perceptual observations to induce my theory - not on any of my fellow men´s reports of their alleged observations of some men´s minds. What kinds of perceptions might be involved? Since my theory is that a series of free choices - i.e. some chain of events in a man's consciousness - causes said man's own intelligence - only empirical evidence drawn from my own consciousness would suffice.
 
For - the only consciousness which any individual can directly perceive (by introspection) is his own. So - I find myself in the situation that the only empirical case of volitional intelligence "in action", the observation of which I can rely on, is the one which occurred in my own consciousness when I was younger! It would not be possible for me to set up experiments with hundreds of test subjects in which I measured the subjects' respective intelligence and simply asked them what free choices they had made in the past. And then concluded that (some of) their choices were related to their respective degrees of intelligence in a certain way. Because - if I asked the subjects whether they had chosen to develop an active or a passive intellect in the past - how could I be sure that they answered me truthfully?
 
So – my hypothesis is based on one, and only one, empirical case. Namely my own! It is in the nature of my hypothesis that this hypothesis cannot possibly be supported by more than one single empirical case taken from reality. And – I can never, ever turn my hypothesis into an objectively proven theory to any fellow man of mine. Because when I tell others about my evidence – how can they know for sure that the evidence really exists/has existed? (Remember that the evidence consists exclusively of events that occurred in my own consciousness. So, other men are obliged to either take my word for it that the events in my consciousness really happened – or not.)
 
So - I will forever remain the only individual in the entire universe who is convinced that my hypothesis is true (unless some other individual happens to induce the same hypothesis from events in his consciousness). I don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of proving my hypothesis to any other man. I can’t even prove the correctness of my hypothesis to myself – since a single empirical case is not sufficient to constitute conclusive proof! My hypothesis is doomed to remain only possibly - but with great probability (in my own mind´s eye at least) - consistent with the facts of reality. It is doomed to remain forever an unproven idea.
 
OK, to the point. What is the empirical evidence which I have had stored in my own consciousness?
 
The idea that intelligence itself could be volitional first occurred to me when I was writing an early version of my book, Bad Philosophy as a Cause of Psychosis, about sixteen years ago (i.e. I started working on said book in the fall of the year 2008. Said book was on the subject of philosophy and its relationship to psychology.
 
When I first decided to write said book, I began by writing a long autobiographical first chapter, for the sake of giving the reader empirical evidence for my ideas concerning the causation of my psychosis. Of course, I had to look back on my past life when I wrote that chapter. And then, when I reviewed my earlier life and recalled the events of my youth - it hit me! Certain of my free choices when I was young had greatly influenced my subsequent intellectual achievements as an adult!
 
There were precisely two events that I recalled, and which taken together caused me to come up with my hypothesis.
 
C) THE FIRST PIECE OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
 
I recalled one incident which had occurred when I was 13 years old and living in the United States. I remembered myself standing in front of my best friend’s house in the spring or summer of 1967. It was in the afternoon. It was warm and sunny. I had a moment before knocked on my best friend’s front door because I wanted him to come out and play. But no one was home. So now I was standing alone outside my friend’s house, and I just happened to start thinking. I had nothing better to do at that time.
 
What I thought about was a certain something which I had heard in my confirmation instruction at the local Lutheran church. The pastor who was teaching us Lutheran kids had told us about the Christian creation myth – that story in Genesis about God creating the entire universe out of nothing in just six days. (On the seventh day, God rested instead of continuing to create stuff, according to the story.)
 
I pondered that.
 
I thought to myself, “Nothing is nothing. It has no attributes. What part of, or attribute of, nothing could give rise to light? What part of, or attribute of, nothing could give rise to the waters? What part of, or attribute of, nothing could give rise to the animals? And what part of, or attribute of nothing could give rise to man?” The answer struck me after a moment of pondering. Nothing is precisely nothing! Therefore, it just cannot be a cause of anything. That which is - just is. And that which is not - is nothing. I.e. it does not exist! Whatever exists cannot arise from a privation of existence. Existence just is. It is simply a “brute fact” (as one puts it in the English language) that our universe exists. And we cannot explain the existence of the universe by reference to something outside of existence - i.e. by reference to something which does not exist.
 
I had discovered the axiom of existence independently of the Greek philosopher Parmenides at the tender age of 13! I felt a vague pride in my intellectual achievement. But – I saw no greater significance to my discovery. I thought to myself that I had come up with an excellent argument against religion. From that point on in my life I was an atheist by conviction.
 
But I did not see any wider ramifications of my insight. In the months and years after my discovery of the axiom of existence, I never pondered “deep” philosophical questions again for many years. That - my free choice not to ponder further – might very well have been the explanation for the modest level of intelligence which I developed during my adolescence. I realized said fact, as I wrote that autobiographical first chapter of my book. And then I recalled a second incident from my youth.
 
D) THE SECOND PIECE OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
 
This incident occurred when I was twenty years old. At the time I was slowly recovering from a psychosis. I had been diagnosed with schizophrenia when I was 18 years old. I had been committed for a total of fifteen months to Ulleråkers Mental Hospital outside Uppsala during the years 1972 and 1973. I began to recover from the alleged schizophrenia while I was in the hospital. A few months before my twentieth birthday (specifically in January of 1974) I had become well enough to be released from the mental hospital.
 
Then, perhaps a couple of months after the day I turned twenty (i.e. in May or June of 1974), I found myself in the basement of my parents' villa on Lidingö (an island suburb of Stockholm). I was listening to rock music on my sister's stereo there in the living room in the basement. It was a warm, sunny summer day. I sat there, with nothing in particular to do - and so I reflected. I pondered my mental life.
 
I had at the time recently become aware of the fact that I had developed a tendency to daydream an awful lot of the time. I knew that I spent several hours each, and every, day spinning “weird” fantasies in my mind. I knew that this had to do with my psychosis. My psychosis manifested itself in the fact that I had become extremely introverted when I had become ill. I was aware by then that it was not “normal” to live, figuratively speaking, almost all the time in my own private inner world. I was aware that “normal” people focused much more on “reality out there” than I did.
 
While I was pondering and pondering – the thought struck me that I had a choice in front of me. “Should I continue to spend hour after hour spinning fantasies in my head?” I thought to myself. I knew that it felt good to do so. I experienced my fantasies as being entertaining and pleasant. But - what was the point? I realized that if I continued to spend several hours each, and every, day just daydreaming - then I would wind up wasting the entire rest of my life. I wouldn't accomplish anything by just daydreaming all the time. My life would just pass me by.
 
I thought to myself “Maybe I should make it a habit to focus more on reality out there - maybe I should resolve to do something meaningful with my life.” And I understood that the question of "doing something with my life" was essentially a question of doing something with my mind, i.e. with my consciousness. I realized that I would find it "harder" to focus on goals out there in reality. I realized that I would find it much "easier" and "more fun" to just “go with the flow” – and continue daydreaming hour after hour, month after month, year after year.
 
So - the choice I was faced with was this:
 
Do that which is easier and more fun - but which does not yield any long-term dividends to speak of - namely, continue with my perpetual daydreaming.
 
Or - instead:
 
Do that which is harder and less fun – but which would give me a major reward later in my life – namely, the achievement of something of value out there in reality - by means of focusing my consciousness on it.
 
I weighed my two options against each other for maybe ten minutes. And then I decided.
 
decided that I wanted to do something with my life! I didn’t want to just daydream away the rest of my life. I wanted my life to mean something. And - for me to achieve some important goal out there in reality, I just had to start using my rational faculty in a meaningful way, in a better way than just spending it on daydreaming all the time!
 
And there was, in fact, an important value “out there in reality” that I wanted to achieve and/or defend – namely, political freedom. At this point in my life, when I had just turned twenty, I had already come to understand that political freedom is a crucial value for all men. I understood that a man must enjoy freedom to have a chance of achieving happiness in his life. I understood that existence in a tyranny is a hell-on-earth. And I understood that what was left of freedom in Sweden was slowly slipping away. I decided that I wanted to do something to try to save what was left of freedom in Sweden. I understood that saving freedom in Sweden must be first and foremost a matter of influencing public opinion. The people of Sweden must be persuaded to unite around the value of freedom. I decided on that summer day that I wanted to invest my own personal effort in helping to influence public opinion in favour of freedom.
 
But – I realized that I did not know what to say or write for the sake of persuading my fellow human beings to unite behind political freedom! So - I had to start by finding out for myself precisely why freedom was a value. It would not be sufficient to say “It is just self-evident that freedom is better than tyranny! It is just obvious that a liberal, capitalist society is better than a welfare state!” Because what was obvious to me was often not obvious to most of my fellow human beings. So - I decided on that summer day that I had to start reading books about politics. I had to learn the arguments for, and against, freedom. I had to learn precisely why freedom was a crucial value for all men.
 
I realized that it would turn out to be difficult for me to read books instead of just taking it easy and relaxing in my dream-worlds. But - I thought to myself, “I just must do it anyway – if I want my life to amount to something!”
 
So – the upshot of it all was that my contemplation on that summer afternoon resulted in the conclusion that I must get off my butt and begin to systematically plough through whichever books had historically played a major role in promoting the cause of freedom. Since I was ignorant of which those books might be, I realized that I would have to ask people around me to recommend good books for me to read, books on the subject of liberty. I had, in other words, decided that I must “develop my mind” by means of acquiring knowledge of an abstract subject matter (namely political science) for the sake of becoming able to do something meaningful with my life.
 
The choice which I made was in essence to get started on the development of an active mind instead of just letting my mind stagnate. On that summer day in 1974 I chose to equip myself with an active, rather than a passive, mind! That single choice initiated a gradual increase of my level of intelligence which continued many years into the future.
 
E) THE CONSEQUENCES OF MY TWO DIFFERENT CHOICES
 
As I looked back on my past life many years later, I realized that my free choice on that summer day when I had just turned twenty had carried with it life-altering consequences. Unlike the incident at the age of thirteen - this time around, when I was twenty - I decided to follow up my decision to begin thinking and reflecting with further mental effort. Namely, I made a point of following through on my decision to start reading serious books on politics. In the years that followed 1974, I read book after book after book on political freedom. I read books by such authors which acquaintances of mine recommended to me, such as Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Arthur Koestler and eventually (in the fall of 1979) Ayn Rand.
 
Looking back many years later, as I was writing my book on philosophy and psychology, it struck me that my intellectual abilities had increased significantly over the period of time during which I had invested intellectual effort in the reading of “difficult” books. As the years passed by in the second half of the 1970s, it became successively less, and less difficult for me to read those books and to absorb their content. And after I started reading Ayn Rand’s books, in 1979, my reading ability began to improve more rapidly than ever. I also began to write texts myself on the subject of philosophy. These texts became better, and better (“harder” and “more difficult”) as the years passed by - and I underwent more, and more “intellectual training”. It was a process in which my intellectual successes enabled further successes. I was, so to speak, “training” my mind by placing a strain on it! By choosing to exert my mind, I caused an increase in my own intelligence!
 
And it struck me that the other time – that time when I was thinking on a summer day way back in 1967 - when I was 13 years old - things had turned out completely differently afterwards. Precisely because I had not chosen to continue exerting my mind during the following years. Since I had not developed an active mind during my teenage years, my intelligence had stagnated during those years!
 
So, in the year 2008 or the year 2009, I came up with this hypothesis which I call the volitional intelligence idea. I had induced this idea. I began by observing (through memories combined with introspection) that I had made a certain kind of choice (namely, to develop a passive mind) when I was 13 years old - and this choice had been accompanied by a certain consequence (namely, that my intelligence had subsequently stagnated). I also noticed that on another occasion (when I was 20 years old) I had made a different species of choice (namely, that time around I chose to develop an active mind) and this, different choice, had been accompanied by a different species of consequence (namely the circumstance that my intelligence had increased quite significantly over the years that followed said choice). Furthermore, the thought occurred to me that if I - who was handicapped by the effects of a psychosis, could - by choosing to put a strain on my grey cells - acquire the ability to grasp such a “difficult” and abstract subject matter as a systematic philosophy of reason (namely Objectivism) - then surely the majority of my fellow men (who were not handicapped by the after-effects of a psychosis) must also be able to grasp it. If only they bothered to try hard enough, that is.
 
But - since most men in fact seem to lack the ability to grasp such an abstract subject matters as philosophy at all - I must conclude that a huge majority of humanity suffers from a lack of intellectual ability - which is self-inflicted. A huge majority of the members of mankind possess only a modest degree of intelligence because they choose never to go to the trouble of raising it to a higher level. Most men are volitionally ignorant and stupid! The Eddie Willers of mankind are not just innocent victims of the Kants and Marxes of mankind – as Ayn Rand seemed to think. The common men of mankind could see through the sophisms of the modern intellectuals – if only they tried hard enough to do some independent thinking.
 
F) THE ”FOIL”-TYPE OF EVIDENCE
 
My volitional intelligence hypothesis is, furthermore, supported by massive amounts of empirical evidence that a large majority of the members of mankind do not try hard at all to strain their grey cells. This evidence is, but of course, indirect. But still – it is massive!
 
I can only infer the idea that a large majority of men neglect to do any “hard thinking” from the behaviour of theirs which is perceivable “from the outside”. For – I certainly cannot see directly into the minds of the majority of my fellow men - and observe their thinking. (Or, rather their non-thinking!)
 
But – the outward behaviour of a huge majority of men gives the lie to their mental passivity. For example - most men eschew the kind of recreational activities which are of such a nature that they strain the subject´s grey cells. Few men choose to read books on “difficult” subject matters such as philosophy, popular science, political theory, and so forth for example. The statistics over book sales paint a clear picture. The books of non-intellectual authors such as Stephen King and J.R.R. Tolkien sell millions of copies per year. Serious authors such as Edward Gibbon and Ludwig von Mises sell only a few thousands of copies each per year. And many adults nowadays read nothing more intellectually challenging than comic books and manga!
 
Most men devote their spare time to relaxing, rather than straining, their grey cells. Most men develop hobbies such as gaming, bowling, taking the dog for a walk, visiting the local pub, watching television, and so forth. Few men embark on long-range programs to increase their store of abstract, non-job-related knowledge.
 
Most men only engage in hard thinking in connection with their line of work. Now, that is something.
 
But it is not nearly enough! All men need to widen their horizons if they wish to safeguard their own interests. They cannot defend their liberty, for example, if they content themselves with being ignorant of philosophy. But an overwhelming majority of men adopt the attitude “Oh! Philosophy – who needs it?”
 
The slow progress in the West of the philosophy of Objectivism is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence available to me that cognitive slacking rather than cognitive effort is the norm. Probably well over ten million Americans have read Atlas Shrugged by now. Yet one prominent Objectivist intellectual estimated back in (circa) the year 2010 (based on the size of the Objectivist movement´s central mailing lists at that time) that the number of serious Objectivists at that point in time, all over the world, was a mere ten thousand. So – only one in a thousand readers of Atlas Shrugged “got the message”! The rest – i.e. 99,9% just tuned out and - shrugged!
 
So - the empirical evidence is all around us that only a very small minority of men are not simply indifferent to the realm of abstract knowledge. Close to all “common men” remain concrete-bound throughout their entire lives. They evidently do not value their minds – which are their basic means of survival - much at all!
 
No wonder that close to all men today are men of modest intelligence! And no wonder that the world today is going to hell in a hand basket!