34 replies to this topic

[caltrek]

I find this stress on "IQ" to be a little uncomfortable to me. As I have tried to argue before,  IQ tests are basically a test of what I would call "cultural competency". Usually, this involves such things as literacy, ability to understand and manipulate mathematical symbols, etc. Most IQ tests only sample across a fairly narrow range of skills. For example, I might score relatively highly on literacy, but my skills in the trades such as carpentry, electronics, plumbing, pest-control, IT support, etc. may not be all that well developed. An IQ test may be a very good measure of my literacy, but not very good at measuring these other fields and their related knowledge demands.  

 

I suppose one can argue that a high level of "general cultural competency" throughout the population correlates to a "successful society."   Still, that is slightly different than saying that a high level of "intelligence" correlates with a successful society.  Intelligence is more of an innate attribute.  Cultural competence, more of an acquired attribute.  Obviously, a high innate level of intelligence may be of help in more quickly acquiring a high level of cultural competence such as literacy. Still, intelligence is not the only factor.  Other things such as education, parental attention, access to a wide variety of information media, personal health, nutrition, etc. are also important factors.

 

Just my two cents for what it might be worth to the rest of the discussion.  

[TranscendingGod]

Iq is not a deterministic feature. If you believe the very limited psychometric data we have then why did the west have higher levels of development than east asia for millennia? Because there are factors other than IQ that helps determine national wealth. Other factors more important than IQ. This is still the case. Futurist I don't understand why you believe that IQ is the be all tell all... It's simply not the case.

[Futurist]

Iq is not a deterministic feature. If you believe the very limited psychometric data we have then why did the west have higher levels of development than east asia for millennia? Because there are factors other than IQ that helps determine national wealth. Other factors more important than IQ. This is still the case. Futurist I don't understand why you believe that IQ is the be all tell all... It's simply not the case.

The West was not necessarily more developed than East Asia for millennia; after all, East Asia developed gunpowder and the printing press first, did it not?

 

Anyway, I simply found the arguments presented in Garett Jones's book Hive Mind to be pretty interesting and convincing. I certainly don't think that IQ is everything, but nevertheless it is pretty important.

[Futurist]

I find this stress on "IQ" to be a little uncomfortable to me. As I have tried to argue before,  IQ tests are basically a test of what I would call "cultural competency". Usually, this involves such things as literacy, ability to understand and manipulate mathematical symbols, etc. Most IQ tests only sample across a fairly narrow range of skills. For example, I might score relatively highly on literacy, but my skills in the trades such as carpentry, electronics, plumbing, pest-control, IT support, etc. may not be all that well developed. An IQ test may be a very good measure of my literacy, but not very good at measuring these other fields and their related knowledge demands.  

 

I suppose one can argue that a high level of "general cultural competency" throughout the population correlates to a "successful society."   Still, that is slightly different than saying that a high level of "intelligence" correlates with a successful society.  Intelligence is more of an innate attribute.  Cultural competence, more of an acquired attribute.  Obviously, a high innate level of intelligence may be of help in more quickly acquiring a high level of cultural competence such as literacy. Still, intelligence is not the only factor.  Other things such as education, parental attention, access to a wide variety of information media, personal health, nutrition, etc. are also important factors.

 

Just my two cents for what it might be worth to the rest of the discussion.  

Well, Yeah, I'm sure that a lot of high-IQ people would fail to be plumbers and electricians if they had to do these jobs without any preparation or experience. That said, though, I also certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if it was easier, on average, for a high-IQ person to learn certain professions--especially more difficult and cognitively demanding ones, such as a computer programmer--than it would be for a low-IQ person.

[caltrek]

Well, Yeah, I'm sure that a lot of high-IQ people would fail to be plumbers and electricians if they had to do these jobs without any preparation or experience. That said, though, I also certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if it was easier, on average, for a high-IQ person to learn certain professions--especially more difficult and cognitively demanding ones, such as a computer programmer--than it would be for a low-IQ person.

 

Yes, just as a person who had a higher level of education, greater parental attention when they were growing up, access to a wide variety of information media, were in good personal health, ate nutritious meals, etc. would probably also have an easier time of learning certain professions than somebody who was deprived in one or more of those things. I suppose my point is to be careful not to blame the victim, or for that matter, use IQ tests to compound the victimization.  

[Omosoap]

To me, success and power derive from chance. Someone who has it all (in terms of modern measures of success) was in the right place at the right time (or took advantage or powered over someone else/another nation), and born in the right family with the right genetics with a good upbringing. Putting all those things together, the vast majority of humanity does not have a chance in that sense. Just think of all the narrow times human civilizations of today almost went extinct or into a deep decay. Also, I do not believe the US, for example, is smarter than other nations, we just have borrowed brain power from other nations, especially nowadays, as the general US population is not very smart in my mind, if all the videos people mindlessly post all the time on the internet is any indication. Thus, IQ is not only a very poor measure of intelligence overall (people can be very smart, just not taught math or how to read), it is also a very random thing. Also, IQ is like a snapshot of the human brain in a point in time. Once someone becomes 70-80, dementia and other brain risks settle in, that even a high IQ can't always prevent. One can easily go from a high IQ to a vegetative state in one chance encounter/trauma/brain disease, is my point. Also, high IQ does not help with everything, aka, a fist fight in the street might be won by someone who has been fighting all his life, rather than the famous scientist with high IQ, just depends on the circumstance one is measured against. We have a bias to see poorer countries or countries with less technology as unintelligent, when in fact, there can be many other reasons a country has turned out that way, rather than mere intelligence. Also, we do the same with humans in the past, thinking they were dumb. But, yet, they made technological marvels we still get amazed by, such as the pyramids or the temples and city structures of Mayan civilization, or the ancient Chinese or European civilizations. Even early humans are turning out to be more intelligent than we gave them credit for. An ancient Mayan may not pass an IQ test, but he may beat us in innovations we never even considered in constructing a city or strategizing for the games they played etc. Besides, reading and math do nothing for someone living out in the jungle without modern civilization. Skill in hunting and foraging would be more important of a skill in such a society. Measure a society by the skills that are important to it, and you will find the equivalent to wealthy countries' innovators, creatives, scientists, and generally intelligent people. Usually, if someone doesn't find such people, they either aren't looking hard enough or haven't gained the trust of the people. 

[Omosoap]

Since this is the future of Africa topic thread that seriously got derailed by discussion of IQ, I will say that I think Africa has several aspects going well for it: lack of infrastructure (easier to deploy new technologies without having to rip out all the old infrastructure), younger population (more youth equals more intelligence and innovation potential, as when one gets older, there is more risk of brain diseases/slowing down on innovation, for most people), technologies that can more easily reach rural populations in Africa (Kenya has mobile phones even in tribes that still live as they did many centuries ago), and solid/less transient cultures (healthy, solid identities can result in a better foundation from which to spring into development). I did also read that Africa is the most genetically diverse continent, which could also be a positive in that diversity of genetics could lead to better navigation of hurdles that might challenge less genetically diverse populations (albeit there are negatives too). The hurdles to their future are: climate change, the slow splitting off of the horn of Africa, the heavy respect for elders (leading to more obedience and less challenging of the status quo, which is bad for innovation and new ideas), the effects of colonization (boundaries drawn that split up tribes and where enemy tribes share the same country, and systems of governance and education that are leftover from colonialism including lots of rote memorization and heavy handedness) and just the tropics area in general, where nature itself seems out to kill you constantly, so one is constantly in a struggle with it (huge thorns everywhere, dangerous animals (crocodiles, hippos, elephants, lions, etc), lots of mosquitoes carrying disease, locust swarms, heavy rain and severe drought cycles, intense sunlight, and crazy bugs/lots of poisonous creatures, to name a few). 

[SeedNotYetSprouted]

To me, success and power derive from chance. Someone who has it all (in terms of modern measures of success) was in the right place at the right time (or took advantage or powered over someone else/another nation), and born in the right family with the right genetics with a good upbringing. Putting all those things together, the vast majority of humanity does not have a chance in that sense. Just think of all the narrow times human civilizations of today almost went extinct or into a deep decay. Also, I do not believe the US, for example, is smarter than other nations, we just have borrowed brain power from other nations, especially nowadays, as the general US population is not very smart in my mind, if all the videos people mindlessly post all the time on the internet is any indication. Thus, IQ is not only a very poor measure of intelligence overall (people can be very smart, just not taught math or how to read), it is also a very random thing. Also, IQ is like a snapshot of the human brain in a point in time. Once someone becomes 70-80, dementia and other brain risks settle in, that even a high IQ can't always prevent. One can easily go from a high IQ to a vegetative state in one chance encounter/trauma/brain disease, is my point. Also, high IQ does not help with everything, aka, a fist fight in the street might be won by someone who has been fighting all his life, rather than the famous scientist with high IQ, just depends on the circumstance one is measured against. We have a bias to see poorer countries or countries with less technology as unintelligent, when in fact, there can be many other reasons a country has turned out that way, rather than mere intelligence. Also, we do the same with humans in the past, thinking they were dumb. But, yet, they made technological marvels we still get amazed by, such as the pyramids or the temples and city structures of Mayan civilization, or the ancient Chinese or European civilizations. Even early humans are turning out to be more intelligent than we gave them credit for. An ancient Mayan may not pass an IQ test, but he may beat us in innovations we never even considered in constructing a city or strategizing for the games they played etc. Besides, reading and math do nothing for someone living out in the jungle without modern civilization. Skill in hunting and foraging would be more important of a skill in such a society. Measure a society by the skills that are important to it, and you will find the equivalent to wealthy countries' innovators, creatives, scientists, and generally intelligent people. Usually, if someone doesn't find such people, they either aren't looking hard enough or haven't gained the trust of the people. 

 

 

Since this is the future of Africa topic thread that seriously got derailed by discussion of IQ, I will say that I think Africa has several aspects going well for it: lack of infrastructure (easier to deploy new technologies without having to rip out all the old infrastructure), younger population (more youth equals more intelligence and innovation potential, as when one gets older, there is more risk of brain diseases/slowing down on innovation, for most people), technologies that can more easily reach rural populations in Africa (Kenya has mobile phones even in tribes that still live as they did many centuries ago), and solid/less transient cultures (healthy, solid identities can result in a better foundation from which to spring into development). I did also read that Africa is the most genetically diverse continent, which could also be a positive in that diversity of genetics could lead to better navigation of hurdles that might challenge less genetically diverse populations (albeit there are negatives too). The hurdles to their future are: climate change, the slow splitting off of the horn of Africa, the heavy respect for elders (leading to more obedience and less challenging of the status quo, which is bad for innovation and new ideas), the effects of colonization (boundaries drawn that split up tribes and where enemy tribes share the same country, and systems of governance and education that are leftover from colonialism including lots of rote memorization and heavy handedness) and just the tropics area in general, where nature itself seems out to kill you constantly, so one is constantly in a struggle with it (huge thorns everywhere, dangerous animals (crocodiles, hippos, elephants, lions, etc), lots of mosquitoes carrying disease, locust swarms, heavy rain and severe drought cycles, intense sunlight, and crazy bugs/lots of poisonous creatures, to name a few). 

 

+1 Omosoap. All this IQ talk is giving me some stomach-churning Stefan Molyneux vibes.

[Futurist]

 

Well, Yeah, I'm sure that a lot of high-IQ people would fail to be plumbers and electricians if they had to do these jobs without any preparation or experience. That said, though, I also certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if it was easier, on average, for a high-IQ person to learn certain professions--especially more difficult and cognitively demanding ones, such as a computer programmer--than it would be for a low-IQ person.

 

Yes, just as a person who had a higher level of education, greater parental attention when they were growing up, access to a wide variety of information media, were in good personal health, ate nutritious meals, etc. would probably also have an easier time of learning certain professions than somebody who was deprived in one or more of those things. I suppose my point is to be careful not to blame the victim, or for that matter, use IQ tests to compound the victimization.

For what it's worth, whether some people have a low IQ due to the environment or due to genes, it would be utterly idiotic to blame the victim considering that they didn't actually do anything wrong. It's futile to blame someone for something that they have no control over, don't you think? This is why I have much more respect for someone who is a liberal hereditarian--as in, who supports a generous social safety net and possibly transhumanism in order to compensate people for their bad luck in life, whether due to their environment or due to their genes--than for someone who is a blank slatist conservative who aggressively wants to cut welfare and who believes that, if only the poor will pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they will successfully climb out of poverty. The former position is certainly respectable; the latter isn't--which just goes to show that hereditarians aren't always enemies and blank slatists aren't always friends.

[Futurist]

 

To me, success and power derive from chance. Someone who has it all (in terms of modern measures of success) was in the right place at the right time (or took advantage or powered over someone else/another nation), and born in the right family with the right genetics with a good upbringing. Putting all those things together, the vast majority of humanity does not have a chance in that sense. Just think of all the narrow times human civilizations of today almost went extinct or into a deep decay. Also, I do not believe the US, for example, is smarter than other nations, we just have borrowed brain power from other nations, especially nowadays, as the general US population is not very smart in my mind, if all the videos people mindlessly post all the time on the internet is any indication. Thus, IQ is not only a very poor measure of intelligence overall (people can be very smart, just not taught math or how to read), it is also a very random thing. Also, IQ is like a snapshot of the human brain in a point in time. Once someone becomes 70-80, dementia and other brain risks settle in, that even a high IQ can't always prevent. One can easily go from a high IQ to a vegetative state in one chance encounter/trauma/brain disease, is my point. Also, high IQ does not help with everything, aka, a fist fight in the street might be won by someone who has been fighting all his life, rather than the famous scientist with high IQ, just depends on the circumstance one is measured against. We have a bias to see poorer countries or countries with less technology as unintelligent, when in fact, there can be many other reasons a country has turned out that way, rather than mere intelligence. Also, we do the same with humans in the past, thinking they were dumb. But, yet, they made technological marvels we still get amazed by, such as the pyramids or the temples and city structures of Mayan civilization, or the ancient Chinese or European civilizations. Even early humans are turning out to be more intelligent than we gave them credit for. An ancient Mayan may not pass an IQ test, but he may beat us in innovations we never even considered in constructing a city or strategizing for the games they played etc. Besides, reading and math do nothing for someone living out in the jungle without modern civilization. Skill in hunting and foraging would be more important of a skill in such a society. Measure a society by the skills that are important to it, and you will find the equivalent to wealthy countries' innovators, creatives, scientists, and generally intelligent people. Usually, if someone doesn't find such people, they either aren't looking hard enough or haven't gained the trust of the people. 

 

 

Since this is the future of Africa topic thread that seriously got derailed by discussion of IQ, I will say that I think Africa has several aspects going well for it: lack of infrastructure (easier to deploy new technologies without having to rip out all the old infrastructure), younger population (more youth equals more intelligence and innovation potential, as when one gets older, there is more risk of brain diseases/slowing down on innovation, for most people), technologies that can more easily reach rural populations in Africa (Kenya has mobile phones even in tribes that still live as they did many centuries ago), and solid/less transient cultures (healthy, solid identities can result in a better foundation from which to spring into development). I did also read that Africa is the most genetically diverse continent, which could also be a positive in that diversity of genetics could lead to better navigation of hurdles that might challenge less genetically diverse populations (albeit there are negatives too). The hurdles to their future are: climate change, the slow splitting off of the horn of Africa, the heavy respect for elders (leading to more obedience and less challenging of the status quo, which is bad for innovation and new ideas), the effects of colonization (boundaries drawn that split up tribes and where enemy tribes share the same country, and systems of governance and education that are leftover from colonialism including lots of rote memorization and heavy handedness) and just the tropics area in general, where nature itself seems out to kill you constantly, so one is constantly in a struggle with it (huge thorns everywhere, dangerous animals (crocodiles, hippos, elephants, lions, etc), lots of mosquitoes carrying disease, locust swarms, heavy rain and severe drought cycles, intense sunlight, and crazy bugs/lots of poisonous creatures, to name a few). 

 

+1 Omosoap. All this IQ talk is giving me some stomach-churning Stefan Molyneux vibes.

Yeah, he certainly made some good points here. For what it's worth, though, IQ appears to be a topic of general interest to some or even many psychometricians. For instance, this guy:

https://en.wikipedia...iner_Rindermann

 

And of course the occasional economist such as Garett Jones or Bryan Caplan can also sometimes talk about IQ.

 

It might be prudent to offer more detailed commentary on Omosoap's points later on on my own part.

[Futurist]

To me, success and power derive from chance. Someone who has it all (in terms of modern measures of success) was in the right place at the right time (or took advantage or powered over someone else/another nation), and born in the right family with the right genetics with a good upbringing. Putting all those things together, the vast majority of humanity does not have a chance in that sense. Just think of all the narrow times human civilizations of today almost went extinct or into a deep decay. Also, I do not believe the US, for example, is smarter than other nations, we just have borrowed brain power from other nations, especially nowadays, as the general US population is not very smart in my mind, if all the videos people mindlessly post all the time on the internet is any indication. Thus, IQ is not only a very poor measure of intelligence overall (people can be very smart, just not taught math or how to read), it is also a very random thing. Also, IQ is like a snapshot of the human brain in a point in time. Once someone becomes 70-80, dementia and other brain risks settle in, that even a high IQ can't always prevent. One can easily go from a high IQ to a vegetative state in one chance encounter/trauma/brain disease, is my point. Also, high IQ does not help with everything, aka, a fist fight in the street might be won by someone who has been fighting all his life, rather than the famous scientist with high IQ, just depends on the circumstance one is measured against. We have a bias to see poorer countries or countries with less technology as unintelligent, when in fact, there can be many other reasons a country has turned out that way, rather than mere intelligence. Also, we do the same with humans in the past, thinking they were dumb. But, yet, they made technological marvels we still get amazed by, such as the pyramids or the temples and city structures of Mayan civilization, or the ancient Chinese or European civilizations. Even early humans are turning out to be more intelligent than we gave them credit for. An ancient Mayan may not pass an IQ test, but he may beat us in innovations we never even considered in constructing a city or strategizing for the games they played etc. Besides, reading and math do nothing for someone living out in the jungle without modern civilization. Skill in hunting and foraging would be more important of a skill in such a society. Measure a society by the skills that are important to it, and you will find the equivalent to wealthy countries' innovators, creatives, scientists, and generally intelligent people. Usually, if someone doesn't find such people, they either aren't looking hard enough or haven't gained the trust of the people. 

The US does probably steal some top brainpower from other countries; for instance, inventors:

https://twitter.com/...757124406169601

 

So, Yeah, the US did benefit in receiving of plenty of talented and/or hardworking immigrants over the last couple of centuries and also in having a lot of land and natural resources.

 

As for brain diseases and aging, Yes, they could certainly lower one's IQ. One does get slower with age, for instance. Ditto for ending up in a permanent vegetative state.

 

As for a fist-fight, you won't be able to win it head-on but if you're a smart inventor, you might be able to develop a drone or something that you could attack your enemies with! Or, alternatively, earn enough money to pay someone else who is big and strong to beat up your bully, like Steve did in American Dad:

 

https://en.wikipedia...Bully_for_Steve

 

Fair points in your last several sentences. And Yes, being able to hunt and forage was certainly more important 10,000 years ago or so than being able to do complex math or whatever.

[Futurist]

Since this is the future of Africa topic thread that seriously got derailed by discussion of IQ, I will say that I think Africa has several aspects going well for it: lack of infrastructure (easier to deploy new technologies without having to rip out all the old infrastructure), younger population (more youth equals more intelligence and innovation potential, as when one gets older, there is more risk of brain diseases/slowing down on innovation, for most people), technologies that can more easily reach rural populations in Africa (Kenya has mobile phones even in tribes that still live as they did many centuries ago), and solid/less transient cultures (healthy, solid identities can result in a better foundation from which to spring into development). I did also read that Africa is the most genetically diverse continent, which could also be a positive in that diversity of genetics could lead to better navigation of hurdles that might challenge less genetically diverse populations (albeit there are negatives too). The hurdles to their future are: climate change, the slow splitting off of the horn of Africa, the heavy respect for elders (leading to more obedience and less challenging of the status quo, which is bad for innovation and new ideas), the effects of colonization (boundaries drawn that split up tribes and where enemy tribes share the same country, and systems of governance and education that are leftover from colonialism including lots of rote memorization and heavy handedness) and just the tropics area in general, where nature itself seems out to kill you constantly, so one is constantly in a struggle with it (huge thorns everywhere, dangerous animals (crocodiles, hippos, elephants, lions, etc), lots of mosquitoes carrying disease, locust swarms, heavy rain and severe drought cycles, intense sunlight, and crazy bugs/lots of poisonous creatures, to name a few). 

In regards to infrastructure, the West and/or East Asia can help African countries build infrastructure if necessary. A lack of infrastructure also makes things such as economic growth harder due to it making mobility more difficult.

 

Agreed with the rest of your analysis here. Changing colonial-era borders might be difficult but everything else here might be capable of being fixed.

 

As for African genetic diversity, I've heard that as well. Is it true that a white Brit is genetically closer to a Han Chinese person than two black Africans are to each other? I previously heard this claim being made but I want to confirm its veracity.

[TranscendingGod]

No, the west was more developed than the east for millennia. Those few inventions you mentioned were much later in the development of East Asia. I'm talking about pre historical times until relatively recently when China took the lead for a while. This is well documented and it's the central them of Ian Morris's "Why the West Rules- For Now"

I recommend you take a more holistic approach to your highly simplistic and just plain wrong world view.

[Omosoap]

The San people or Bushmen that lived in the Kalahari and similar areas have one of the oldest genetic lines and one of the most diverse genetic lines of any humans on Earth. They live in Botswana and Namibia mainly. They also have a clicking language, a family of languages called the Khoisan, including some of the most complex languages on earth. Also, if one considers how many tribes make up the continent of Africa, and how diverse these tribes are in their looks and everything else, plus the fact that all homo sapiens came out of Africa during multiple migrations, it makes sense that they would also have the most genetic diversity.  

[caltrek]

For what it's worth, whether some people have a low IQ due to the environment or due to genes, it would be utterly idiotic to blame the victim considering that they didn't actually do anything wrong. It's futile to blame someone for something that they have no control over, don't you think? This is why I have much more respect for someone who is a liberal hereditarian--as in, who supports a generous social safety net and possibly transhumanism in order to compensate people for their bad luck in life, whether due to their environment or due to their genes--than for someone who is a blank slatist conservative who aggressively wants to cut welfare and who believes that, if only the poor will pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they will successfully climb out of poverty. The former position is certainly respectable; the latter isn't--which just goes to show that hereditarians aren't always enemies and blank slatists aren't always friends

 

I can accept that hereditarians should not always be treated as enemies. Certainly, there are genetically related disorders that affect health, including mental health.  

 

My point about blaming the victim extends beyond just whether one shows compassion for those who suffer from one sort of bad luck or another.  Or whether one makes moral choices akin to "blame" concerning such individuals.  It is also meant as a cautionary note regarding the possibility of confusing cause with effect.  A part of that is that I find the whole notion of reducing an attribute such as intelligence to one number or quotient.  Especially if such an intelligence quotient is then treated as being measurable by a single test or limited series of tests.  With all of these qualifications in mind, it almost seems nonsensical to talk or write about the "average IQ" of any large collection of people. 

 

Put another way, don't confuse cause with effect. Is poverty the result of a low IQ, or is a low IQ a result of what we call poverty?

 

If IQ, as I suggested previously, is a measure of cultural competency, then it would seem to naturally follow that those who live in a "highly enriched culture" will tend to have a higher IQ than one who lives in a "culturally impoverished culture".    Culture, in the case of most IQ type tests that I am familiar with, being very much tied to literacy and experience in mathematical reasoning.