The dark truth behind the right’s IQ obsession | The New Statesman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 вер 2023
- US right-wingers are obsessed with IQ, from Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs to politicians like Donald Trump. Quinn Slobodian explains why the cult of IQ reinforces racist and sexist ideology - and where it came from.
Subscribe here: / @newstatesman
IQ fetishism on the US right has a history that goes back a century, to eugenicists and those in favour of restrictions on immigration. Its more recent revival can be dated to the 1990s, when culture-war campaigns against affirmative action (or positive discrimination) and civil rights legislation hitched themselves to the rising stars of neuroscience and genomics.
Historian and author Quinn Slobodian speaks to our global affairs editor Katie Stallard about the rise of the new tech right.
Read more: www.newstatesman.com/ideas/20...
-
The New Statesman podcast is now on UA-cam. Anoosh Chakelian and New Statesman colleagues including political editor Andrew Marr discuss the latest in UK politics news, helping you understand the forces shaping British politics today. Watch all the latest episodes of the New Statesman podcast: • The New Statesman Podcast
-
The New Statesman brings you unrivalled analysis of of the latest UK and international politics. On our UA-cam channel you’ll find insight on the top news and global current affairs stories, as well as insightful interviews with politicians, advisers and leading political thinkers, to help you understand the political and economic forces shaping the world.
With regular contributions from our writers including Political Editor Andrew Marr and Anoosh Chakelian - host of the New Statesman podcast - we’ll help you understand the world of politics and global affairs from Westminster to Washington and beyond.
Subscribe on UA-cam: / @newstatesman
Sign up to Morning Call, the daily UK politics newsletter from the New Statesman: morningcall.substack.com
Subscribe to the New Statesman from just £1 per week: www.newstatesman.com/podcasto...
It'll never work in the UK; the Establishment is maintained despite intellect, despite morality.😢
The 11 plus test was an IQ test and is still in use in parts of the UK
Maybe establish your premise before you make your argument?
I feel like this could have been so much better. The criticism seems to be ad hominem rather than direct refutes. For example, at 15:00, you say they say they think men have a higher average IQ than women. That isn't true, the average is the same, but the standard deviation for men's IQs is larger (well, according to their research). That would suggest the ratio of men to women increases as you get to the extremes, i.e. more men with higher IQs than women, but the exact opposite as well, more men with lower IQs than women. I don't feel like there was any substance in this and if this is a piece that is meant to pull someone out the rabbit hole, I think you missed the mark.
Lol, the aesthetic of pure intelligence on full display here. The motivation of this video is obviously not de-radicalisation or what have you. You missed the mark by about a mile.
@@lsobrien this video said basically nothing so I'm not sure that there was a mark
@@mitchio86 I'm sure the uploaders would be devastated to learn you got nothing from it.
@@lsobrien What is wrong with you? Do you need some medicine? Don't attack people for having a different opinion.
@@damagingthebrand7387 This is the problem with relying on NPC soundbites rather than engaging with what was said. I didn't attack anyone for having a different opinion, I highlighted how someone missed the point.
But if you couldn't see that, I doubt you will now.
In my family there were a number of gifted individuals. The realities are very different from simply being born to be successful. My paternal grandmother was a very intelligent lady, she was a housewife and was kept down by social class, she was very profound, suffered from depression, and never reached anywhere near her potential. My maternal grandfather was a genius, the single cleverest individual I'll likely ever meet, he could easily understand complex science from my PhD days without study, he had amazing processing power and a giant memory, yet he worked on a shipyard as a welder, suffered chronic depression, and was an alcoholic. My sister is likely gifted, but she is riddled with mental illnesses and is an alcoholic. Being gifted means being lonely and seeing the world in a way we mortals are unlikely to comprehend, which is probably why many of these individuals suffer from mental health issues and never reach their potential (social class aside). It's too simple to say the most intelligent people should rule.
Beautifully said, yet in a simple straight forward manner. I have similar experience, but in a different way.
@@youknow6968 Sometimes you can be gifted or maybe even on the autistics spectrum and even you can't see the simplest of things. There are all types of intelligence it's not that sample. Empathy and responsibility isn't in everyone.
@@csharpe5787 very true, but I find people worshiping iq, and those violently opposing it are from the same camp, which they don't realise, and I find mildly amusing.
IQ has it's value, and should be considered as such, part of a balanced evaluation. Not a sole metric of intelligence, but neither dismissed as irrelevant because of their personal fears, for whatever Reasons.
Balanced understanding of issues is never a bad thing, for that, you, the general you, requires courage.
My own life experience tells me that so say clever sheeple are stupid and highly prejudiced. Any failure is often labeled 'cockup theory', and when a regime minister appears to be incompetent, they never consider the possibility that x sheeple was chosen, because they're not that bright, but appear on paper to be smart. David Willetts Two Brains was flummoxed when he was told that science had proved that right wing sheeple were born with missing wheels and bolts, and why they can't even debate some serious issues.
Take Pierre Bourdieu, his ideas completely ignore the crimes of the elite. Maybe this is why many criminals are very bright, but failed academically?
Of course it is too simple. Which is why politics isnt overrun by geniuses. They know too well they arent necessarily the best people for that specific job.
These tech bros never talk about the financial and educational advantages that they have benefited from. I wonder why.
It does take considerble skill to be be born white with a penis. Just saying. When it is soemones main assets or considered achievments it gets a bit more tragic.
Jeff bezos is the perfect example of someone with high IQ
Google his academic background In mathematics and engineering
He worked at the best hedge fund( De Shaw)as a quant until he left to start Amazon
His dad was a Cuban refugee and he grew up poor but the top of his class
Jeff bezos is not a mistake or a weird coincidence. He's smart and creative but brave enough try things. Most people in tech are smart if not all high IQ but being brave to try things is genetic most likely
Any time he says something like that, I like to remember how Musk got a $465m loan from the government to fund Tesla and SpaceX got a $278m contract from NASA before it had flown a single rocket, another $396 million from NASA and $15m from DARPA before the first Falcon 1 launched, and then $1.6bn from NASA before Falcon 9 was developed.
Both of his biggest successes are welfare babies.
@@TheMagicJIZZ Um... Dude. Did you just make all of that up, or did you hear it from some bloke in the pub?
His ADOPTIVE dad was a Cuban refugee (who himself came from a family that owned a successful business). His real dad was an alcoholic American. His adoptive dad was a university-educated Engineer who worked for Exxon, and Jeff's Maternal Grandfather was a Regional Director of the US Atomic Energy Commission. It was his adoptive dad who gave Jeff a quarter of a million dollars to start Amazon.
So, basically, your idea that Bezos grew up poor is nonsense, at least from the age of 4 onwards after his mother met Miguel, and your arguments about genetics don't make a tremendous amount of sense when you consider his biological dad was a drunk.
Bezos was extraordinarily privileged, both in terms of the wealth he could tap into for both his education and his business plan, and he was extraordinarily privileged in terms of who his adult relatives were. Please don't pretend he had some Rags-to-riches American Dream upbringing. It's inaccurate and it's insulting.
@@peterclarke7240 this right wingers, dont read and a very linear (black and white) view of the world. Because that fact that you didn't watch a movie only show one clip and decided to describe the whole movie. They are so shallow. I think its boiled down to anti-blackness, the need to defined blackness (in their imaginations that is to remind where they think their should be).
We in the UK living in a society where many things we need to do (to get a job, comply with the law and official procedures, pay taxes, etc) are complicated. Many websites that are trying to sell me things feel like an IQ test that I'm not doing well at. I have above average cognitive ability and just about cope, but it's tough and frustrating. I cannot really imagine how confusing it must be for many, many people in the UK. Too much of life has become too complicated. I don't understand why or what to do about it, but it's a problem.
Yes definitely. Also to be frank, there is a string correlation between IQ/intelligence and socio-economic status. So with regard to what you're saying, a lot of people are who really need a leg up suffering because they struggle to navigate the help and opportunities that are out there
Totally agree, I don’t have any academic qualifications. But I have over fifty years of life experience. I was homeless at 14 and survived on the streets myself until I was 19. That’s real skills, especially to turn my life around, I’m now married with three successful adult children, but I’m seen as beneath someone with a degree etc. IQ is nonsense, common sense, the ability to remain calm and focussed under pressure and in a crisis. Logic, analysis are much better than how high your number is. Codswallop.
@@EuphoricPower-fy9nv Might you have been more successful in education if your early life had been easier?
Absolutely life has become complex.
@@matthewleitch1 without a doubt, but I don’t dismiss the skills I have in its place. I’d even argue my skill set outweighs any “bits of paper”
IQ without EQ(emotional quotient)doesn't mean anything. Intelligence without empathy is dangerous. We can see that every day
True but I would say that empathy without intelligence can be misplaced which can also be dangerous.
You admitted IQ means something by saying "intelligence without empathy is dangerous", implying that IQ is a meaningful measure of intelligence.
@@MichiruPosterYes, the measurement of IQ is based in fact, scientific and social. Yes, the devotion to measurement of IQ is mendaciously preserved by many who have attained superior positions in our societies, regardless of whether they themselves really deserve to be positioned there. Both you and I know people who are either more intelligent than ourselves or else less intelligent but - and this is where I hope that both you and I can agree - the measurements of intelligence need to be cast loose from their moorings on the dock owned by arrogant, racist, entitled and sociopathic grifters and be allowed to develop into a finer measurement.
That’s not how it works , most intelligent people have more empathy because they can see themselves and others in meta position.
@@rr1309 That's interesting. Where are you getting this information from? Are there studies you can cite, to back this up?
The IQ test was created by 2 French psychologists, Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon to help identify kids struggling in school and give them a more individualized help. Unfortunately, a Stanford University professor, Lewis M. Terms completely misunderstood the objective of the test and created its modern "version" pushed by idiots. Intelligence and brain spasticity are too complex to measure.
Tell that to some of a the few wannabe fascists in the comments section.
@fferrando...Very true what you said. Measuring intelligence is very very complex and one can not do that with ''numbers and test''. Intelligence presents itself in various ways and manners. But the basic principle is recognizing a problem and organizing the mind to solve a problem(s) humans face in society. This where adaption, emotion, abstract thinking, long term thinking, pattern recognition, objectivity, rational thinking, observing skills etc all come into play.
I’m reading the growth mindset and it talks about being able to ‘improve’ intelligence which I’m not sure about to be honest. I don’t think intelligence is totally fixed but some people seem to struggle to learn and remember more than others. Obviously everyone can learn new things and skills and I agree a ‘fixed’ mindset is detrimental
"Spasticity" = plasticity?
While intelligence is not a linear trait and is multidimensional in nature, IQ has been shown to correlate with a broad range of positive outcomes in terms of lifetime earnings and social mobility even after controlling for family income and socioeconomic background. Intelligence is real, whether we like it or not, and if we fail to accept that we risk creating educational systems that disserve broad swaths of society
Dummies should be in charge...?
We have that in UK already.
The concept of meritocracy is much older than the 1950s - it is the very basis of Plato's Republic.
but the word was coined in the 50s
Which isn't actually a very well argued book. There are holes the size of saturn in the arguements that are made.
just because the word has a greek root doesn't mean it was used by ancient greeks - plenty of people coin new words using greek or latin suffixes and prefixes!@@DeliciouslyMild
@@IndustrialBonecraftI agree, but I don't think they were arguing that Plato's Republic was correct or well argued, simply that the notion has existed in some kind of literature since then. But yes, the whole metallic soul content thing is shite.
That the word is based on two Ancient Greek words does NOT prove that ancient Greeks used the term “meritocracy”. The general concept is of course much older than the 50s, but the video isn’t wrong about the term being coined in the 50s by a sociologist
Re the bell curve and IQ, the consveration here seems to focus on whether the ideas are unpalatable or not, not whether or not they are true.
I think what is essentially going on here is:
- progressives want everything to be equal, but most things are not equal
- some things that are not equal can be made more equal by political action, eg material wealth, and progressives support ideas that equalise those things
- somethings unequal things can't be changed to become more equal, eg a clever person can't give some of his/her IQ to a stupid person as could be done with material wealth; progressives have no answer here so they pretend that IQ isn't a real thing
19:30 seems to give a firm view as to the 'truth' (The illusion of genius) beyond the simple immorality/distastefulness of the IQ 'science' as proposed by alt right types.
@oliverhickman7220. I think defining a person as well dumbasss or intelligent based off eurocentrism and self alleged geniuses that don't understand Marxist dialects is kinda unpalatable in the age of consent, go with choosing a less "smart" Yes to enlightenment in virtue ethics.
Sure - if you'd like to learn more about why they're untrue, I recommend Shaun's video on the topic.
Even if it’s true (it’s not), who cares? IQ is not a measure of human worth. If you have three kids, do you value the lowest IQ one the least? This is just Nazi “useless eaters” ideology for the modern age.
It's wrong to think that IQ is the one and only measure of ones worth but, that said, there is a very robust and sound body of academic research demonstrating positive correlations between IQ and various measures of socio-economic outcomes. These are strong correlations but like most complicated subjects, the causal relationships are difficult to fully establish. This becomes especially difficult when the subject of race enters the picture (there was one chapter in The Bell Curve on those correlations) because it is, rightly, an emotionally charged subject. Putting aside race, there is plenty of research demonstrating that there is a genetic component to IQ - twin studies/ adoption studies for example that attempt to separate genetic from cultural contributions. This is not "fringe" research and I think it's worthwhile to systematically and responsibly study what drives socio-economic outcomes in the hope that policy could use this to improve outcomes for all.
@dougnyc8324....The Bell Curve ''racial dimension'' is not emotionally charged. It's just that pseudo-science backed by a think thank presented IQ aspect in correlation to race as objective fact. When in reality it's nothing in that chapter was factual but just a continuation of intellectual eugenics and pseudo-scientific racism of the old which was very popular in the US. Also, when you analyse the writers of the Bell Curve.....there already should be bell ringing. 🔔
What you need to be cautious of in studies of this type is focusing on one particular proposed causative factor because they result in skewed results. For example, looking at 'race' may overlook issues like diet, language and cultural assumptions. The relative wealth of an individual's family may also affect things like diet; education/training in how to problem solve and possibly even coaching in how to pass IQ tests.
The way it stands at the moment, this is nothing more than a quasi-scientific excuse for elitism. Any further research must be more stringent in its methodology.
The science is not the biggest problem with The Bell Curve (though there certainly are problems with their science). The bigger problem is their leap from that science to their policy prescriptions.
For example, they say that the stratification of society into a "cognitive elite" and a lower class would be "apocalyptic" and result in the end of "American civil life as we have known" with a "deteriorating quality of life for people at the bottom". They then go on to propose ending affirmative action in college admissions - a policy which would, if you accept all their scientific and other premises, in fact SPEED UP the apocalyptic stratification that they say they want to prevent.
They also propose cutting all welfare payments to single mothers in the hope that they would therefore have fewer children. Not only woud this immediatelycause the "deteriorating quality of life for people at the bottom" that they say they're afraid of, if you accept their argument that single mothers are less intelligent, they will also lack the intelligence to understand the policy change and plan accordingly, and so the policy will not prevent anyone from having any children. In fact, since higher incomes are correlated with having fewer children, and countries that have enacted welfare policies for single mothers find that those women then have fewer children, if they wanted single mothers to have fewer children there is an argument to INCREASE welfare payments rather than decrease them.
This is the bigger problem with The Bell Curve. In the first half, it presents some sort-of-ok sort-of-shaky science about intelligence. Then in the second half it presents policy proposals that have almost nothing to do with the science of the first half, without doing any of the political or socioeconomic legwork that would be required to justify those policies. It's half of a middling-to-poor science book sellotaped to the second half of a bad sociology book.
@@fang_xianfu Thank you for the thoughtful reply to my comment. I was responding to points made in the interview where the study of IQ was dismissed as fringe when there is a large body of sound academic research proving otherwise. That is a fair criticism of the book, once the subject veers into policy or race it may become impossible to reasonably discuss. It's been many years since I read the book, my recollection was that while the policy recommendations played right into a conservative narrative, they were more circumspect about potential outcomes and feasibility. At the time, I thought it was a good discussion to have provided the precondition that the unwavering goal be to improve the outcomes of those disadvantaged. I realize now that precondition is just not possible to achieve.
@@operationgoldfish8331 You're writing as if we were still in the 1800s. Statiticians developed partial correlation tests over a hundred years ago which can estimate correlation coefficents that account for compounding variables.
Was the movie idiocracy racist?
The left would argue that it is, absolutely.
The 'fixation on IQ' is not the result of some proto-fascist agenda, as both interviewer and interviewee clearly wish to suggest, but the result of decades of study of psychometrics. Just to pick out one of the many dishonest misrepresentations in this performance, the Bell Curve approach does not say that women are less intelligent than men: it suggests that the curves are different for the two sexes, so that women are more similar to each other than men statistically, meaning that the tails of the curve at both ends extend further for men: so that there are both more men of very high intelligence and more extremely stupid men. IQ research comes up with uncomfortable results, so it is natural that a lot of people want to rubbish it. This is unfortunately part of the anti-science fashion that has invaded society for reasons nobody should be proud of.
The idea that an entity as complex as a brain, said by some to be the most complex object known in the universe, can be characterized in any regard by a single number is ludicrous - an example of an obsession with single number merit functions (one-numberitis) taken to extremes.
They have to link it to SAT scores to give it 'merit' lol
Can I just point out that Jimmy Saville was a member of MENSA...a rather limited test of a persons merit I would think.
Mensa tests intelligence not morality. Many decent human beings are in mensa and many evil bastards, intelligence is a quality unto itself
My nan smoked 20 a day and lived to 100. Therefore smoking is healthy.
Or
Anecdote isn't that useful
Assume for a moment that the thing you don’t want to be true is true: that cognitive ability is unevenly distributed, and isn’t easily modified. What political consequences would follow from that?
To me it would mean that the people who are at the top of society are mostly there not because of their own efforts, but because they won the genetic lottery. And those at the bottom are mostly there not because of their own indolence, but because they didn’t. It’s a really good argument for compressing income disparities through high redistributive taxation. It’s not any kind of argument for Nazism.
Yes absolutely. The subject doesn't need to be such a hot potato. Quite frankly I think that a large percentage of the population who didn't win the genetic lottery in regards to intelligence don't have a problem with being defined as such, if it means more wealth/quality of life distribution. However, we have selectively bred for intelligence through most of human history, partly as an indirect choice, as moderately high intelligence tends to correlate with pro social traits (what some people here are terming emotional intelligence). So we should try not to deincentivise this
@@DuaneJasper You couldn't if you wanted to, unless of course your getting elected depended on the votes of the less intelligent and easily deluded. Then you could create an education system designed to do this, like DeSantis in Florida. This would be self limiting though as the graduates of such an education system would not be able to fully participate in a scientific or engineering based economy, much as the situation that the red states suffer from already.
The obviousness of a genetic lottery, or for that matter any lottery of birth or circumstance doesn't directly imply a counterbalance is required. Sure if you put me behind the veil of ignorance I'd aim for a rather egalitarian society where everyone can be happy, but ethics vary from person to person: to play devil's advocate, why not just let the lucky be lucky and the unlucky perish or suffer?
If a person on the left accepts the premise that intelligence differences are real, consequential, and largely genetic, the proposed solutions will be different from somebody who denies the validity of IQ such as this author. The first group might argue for universal basic income. The second group might argue that a medical school should be forced to treat somebody with an IQ of 70 the same as somebody with an IQ of 150.
The Flynn Effect shows us that environmental factors are real too. Maybe people with lower IQs have worse childhood nutrition, are exposed to lead, or can’t learn because of other stresses in their environment. We could either
A) fix those problems
B) call the IQ test racist and cover our eyes
I have a high IQ and suffer from it. You wouldn't want a high IQ as you basically have to witness stupidity constantly and not question it, or try to offer basic improvements.
I can relate 😂
It's a lonely existence
IQ tests and the results are on solid ground scientifically, what's immoral is how many people particularly in the United states seek to use them. My mother is a social worker (speech therapist) who works with children who have learning difficulties. One young boy was referred to her by his teachers as being "slow" but in reality he had a serious speech inpediment along with being naturally introverted, he was aware that his speech was very poor and become self conscious about it and the whole thing was a vicious cycle.
It was an IQ test that let my mother and the other social workers know that the young boy didn't have any serious cognitive disabilities since the IQ test didn't ask him to answer questions verbally. They were able to direct his treatment in the right direction and he's now doing incredibly well.
Another example is a guy who scored around 75, social workers would use that information to make sure he get's into the right type of job along with whatever additional help he needed.
I am temporarily deaf due to a medical condition, and it strikes me how much I have to ask people to repeat themselves and how often I interrupt or speak over people because I can't really tell that they're talking. It's no wonder that deafness was considered to be a learning disability for a long time. It's left me wondering how poor our assessments of intelligence might be since they're often based on verbal reasoning.
@@fang_xianfu It's also common for a child whose suffered trauma to have issues with speech or communication more widely. Kids who grow up in abusive homes where they face violence for asking questions/complaining/speaking end up in terrible ways. IQ tests are frequently used to diagnose if this might be the case.
I'm against IQ tests being used to hurt people but there's a movement on the left which seeks to invalidate every aspect of them and all they'd end up doing is hurting many of the young kids they claim to be helping.
Love the channel. but maybe the interviewer give a bit of push back...isn't scientific method a-moral, is it not useful to categorise people on some level (job interviews etc.), are all people in tech idiot uber for skateboard boys?
The real spirit of Christmas is taking a portrait video and uploading it in landscape.
I don’t see how any of this IQ nonsense relates to what the vast majority of people believe a meritocracy is or should be. Having said that, I also don’t think it is controversial to say that the cognitive traits/behaviour (including intelligence) of someone’s parents is a strong indicator for theirs. Just as is the case with height and practicality every biological trait.
Finishing Michael Young's book (10 pages to go). This book has so much more depth than explained in this video. The main one is a consequence of a form of common sense determinism that recreates the very class system that it sought to destroy
I advise everyone to read this book, along with The Tyranny of Merit by Michael Sandel.
Thanks for the heads up. I hope that I can find the books on "used vgc", however. 🎉
No luck. Most offers are around the £50 mark.
What is the name of Micheal young’s book?
@@brofrombrum8502 My apologies. The name of the book is The Rise of The Meritocracy 1870-2033
It is out of print, so keep scouring ABE books, Amazon and Oxfam. I just got a copy of my own (I've been reading one from my Uni library).
Got the book for £17 and then saw one for under a tenner! Just keep scanning. They turn up from old library stock. Really worth the effort.
@@brofrombrum8502 Dunno, I hate baseball.
If new creation of wealth in a society is linked to ideas then to discount the potential pool of ideas to those that fit into a certain mechanism for testing intelligence is likely to create a shortfall in the area of versatility of differing interests and their corresponding viewpoints based on experience.
That is just a ressurgence of Social Darwinism. The rise of fascism in the industrialized north is based in the iseology of Social Darwinism.
What i would like to know is where is is coming from in post millenium society.
Social Darwinism sucks. Social Engineering, instead, please.
Multiculturalism
I don't see anything wrong with educated social groups to be encouraged to have children. The problem is that this group has relatively few children. And frankly vice versa... OK, so I am unashamedly middle class and I think eduction is a good thing. If you want to see a comic/serious take on it, see the film Idiocracy.
As someone from the left with similar opinions on IQ to those on the tech-right, I think Mr Slobodian is missing at least some of the point:
1) some people are more intelligent than others,
2) that trait is genetic,
3) I strongly disagree that the racial bell curves are significantly different - however even if they were, they are bell-curves, meaning that there's a non-zero probability that the most intelligent person on Earth is from the "race" (ridiculous word), with the lowest average IQ, and equally if you want the top, say, 5% that's going to be in the long tails of all ethnic groups anyway.
4) if you (as a nation or society) automate the jobs that are "simple" enough for the median human to be outperformed by the best AI (and why _wouldn't_ you?), what should the median human (and the 49% that are less talented) do?
5) If you don't automate what would be the effect on that society's competitiveness compared to some other, competing society that does?
And lots of others...
There is a presumption here that everyone knows what intelligence is? I would be very interested to hear their definition of intelligence. Then we might understand what is being referred to.
Frankly we need to see more Inuits (and more pygmies) in the NBA. Where the hell are they?
Caveat emptor I have done well from IQ tests been made to take them, done well been given prizes and opportunities as a result. Two things, the 1990s seems very late to become interested in this rather out dated idea. Additionally the questions they ask are somewhat slanted. I should also add I'm circa '78 and in the UK. The logic puzzel parts are rather fun but the questions about history et al are just general knowledge questions.
Mensa puzzles lured me into doing their official written tests, during crisis of confidence as full time mother. I was not Mensa material! I was on curve expected of A/B grade Russell Group graduate, but interestingly slipped to top 33% when “cultural” factors removed. Point being that higher test results skewed in favour of my social demographic (general knowledge of white middle aged middle class)
It's because they're stupid. As a teenager I was tested and had an extremely high score - 164 - higher than class mates who were far more gifted than I. At the time I took the test I was obsessed with logic puzzles, assembly programming and analytical language which obviously primes you to perform well in such a test. That's proof enough that the test is of very debatable value. I believe that it has limited use as part of an assessment for aptitude and, at a broad level, it can aid in identifying cases where education is failing. The question is, of course, how effective it is compared to alternatives.
Numbers and test scores are not measurement of one intelligence. Intelligence is very complex and dynamic and covers many areas. Recognition, adaption, emotion, long term thinking, abstract thinking etc.
IQ tests are a measure of your ability to do IQ tests
IQ is only a measure of your ability to problem solve, it's doesn't mean you know everything. I suffer from a high IQ, to understand what that means, I suffer from the opposite of the Dunning Kruger effect.
@@godsgod1677 And knowing things is education, not intelligence. There are plenty of educated idiots - many of them politicians.
@@onlineonlineaccount2368this is true but all of these things are very correlated. People who are high in a few of these are more likely to be high in the others etc.
The welfare and quality of life of everybody depends on the skills and work of intelligent people.
Blank slate fetishism is worse tha. iQ fetishism, as at least IQ fetishism has some data to back it up.
The only good thing to come out of the IQ idea is interesting puzzles. Otherwise it’s in the category of personality testing and astrology, and worth the just entertainment disclaimer.
Just like doing maths puzzles can't tell you if you're good at maths? IQ tests pattern recognition and reasoning skills. Only people with low IQ can't seem to understand the purpose of an IQ test. the people who argue against them are coming from a political standpoint, not a scientific one.
I.Q. has its uses and its limitations can't we just accept that
Because they sadly lack it in buckets
The Right: Interested in reality.
The Left: Interesting in bending reality to their worldview.
25.30 an interesting perspective for pandemic lockdowns
Michael Young blatantly draws on Plato's Republic, both in terms of the defn of meritocracy and its fall.
Why should we be surprised that intelligence, however defined, is normay distributed? The problem is not that their are differences among people but how society can makebthe most of it while preserving the dignity of all individuals.
Silicon Valley, the largest donors to the Democrats, is right wing?
H G Wells Time Machine?
09:00 The idea mentioned that allowing low IQ groups in (let's assume for a second that there are low IQ groups. I.e. even *if* that is true) the alternative interpretation if you do think about how evolution works is that your best option is to accept the immediate 'drag' in favour of the fact that you are going to increase mixing and genetic diversity (the latter being absolutely necessary to avoiding the dead ending of any species), which will bring those supposedly low IQ genetic groups up on average, increasing overall productivity over the course of generations, whereas barring those people from entry on principle of group identity ensures you just make your perceived problem worse. Further, that mixing will lead to the non-IQ based gaps in that supposedly high IQ genetic group being improved over time also. I have no idea what the correlations might be - and I would bet none of the IQ fetishists have actually bothered to check.
Given these tech companies all claim to be about 'betterment of humanity', it strikes me that short term profit motive can create all kinds of rationalisations that work against the outcome you say you want, can't it?
I mean, that or they're just cynically using talking points to justify unjustifiable discriminatory behaviour.
The point is that more mixing means that the baseline quality across the board of everyone will go up over the course of generations, not down. You'll also *increase* the chances of producing a truly exceptional individual, *and* because the baseline is higher they'll be more exceptional than the folk we have today. More mixing = more mutation = more useful mutations spreading. That's the whole point of evolution. People who conclude segregation by group is a good thing for 'the human race' a a whole are absolutely not paying attention to the science (and to be clear people who are in favour of *forced* mixing are also just talking about eugenics by another name. Both ends of the spectrum are BAD.)
why not ? surely anyone can have aspiration
🤣 The number of comments talking about "my IQ score"! You guys might want to look into other kinds of tests that assess your compulsiveness and social awareness. unfortunately there's no test for ego-regulation I don't think.
This is a fascinating, important and informative interview! I have been waiting for some of the major clues that it provides. As a resident of the UK i was particularly in the Crowe and Canary Wharf connection.
How to explain how Trump became president if we live in a meritocracy?!
THE TORIES ARE OBSESSED WITH IQ ? HOW COULD BORIS ; DAVID; LIZ HAPPEN ??
IQ isnt everything ofc but to dismiss it as right wing, racist, sexist or as a cult is intellectual dishonesty.
You can have a lower than avg IQ but earn more money, be better in other areas, work harder etc. Some ppl will rest on their natural talents or higher IQ. Also its about who you know in business and politics, not just IQ
because it underpins technological advancement and economic growth, duh! that's why.
Let's take an extreme example. Imagine you were to form a country composed entirely of people with severe learning disabilities. How would it go?
you'd end up with Brexit and a tory government
because they lack it
UK politicians - especially prime ministers - tend to be highly educated, yet make the most appalling hash of things. Empirical evidence suggests that educated people can possess appalling judgment and have poor decision making skills. This suggests that institutionalised education is overvalued. It has been said that a university education teaches one to think, but clearly it is likely at best to teach one to think only within the confines of whatever discipline one is studying. But the essential fallacy with IQ is that each individual is an idiosyncratic combination of strengths and weaknesses that cannot be meaningfully expressed by a single quotient. This is not to say that there cannot possibly be generalised differences between peoples cognitive abilities based on ethnicity or gender.
A high IQ without learning to back it up is useless. I have an IQ of over 140, it blocked my employment chances as I was younger, "too smart", too intelligent", but all I wanted to do was work.
That's the same Mr Crow, who has a large collection of a certain type of memorabilia?
I think their obsession has to do with the lack of meaningful intelligence - they're not my idea of 'Homo Sapiens'.
AI can have a higher IQ score than any human.
Right, so we deal with it in two ways
1) We realize that AI could lead to a crisis of mass unemployment
2) We can dismiss IQ as a “fetish” like this author and whistle past the graveyard
Me and my sister both had IQs >150. I went on to win at chess and am completing my PhD in biophysics and she became a teen mum, was unemployed and then went into sales. Guess who’s richer? 😂 I largely work with people with IQ >150 and never once have we talked about IQ. It’s pointless. The only people who talk about IQ scores are people who never achieved anything in life apart from that IQ score.
@TheRealTobyStarling...IQ is a mute point, because that what makes world move around. Yes intelligence is important to make good discision that are rational and well thought before its implemented. Its more of western/eurocentric discours to focus on IQ yet in our daily life most people don't focus on it. Because the intelligence of person is not measured by ''numbers and test scores. But how the mind organizes itself to solve problems he or she is observes and is confronted with and what type of applicable solutions one can implement. This in all areas of life health, food supply, education, housing, security/protection etc. You can have someone who has a so called high IQ and place them somewhere in the middle of jungle he or she will have hard time to survive, despite being called a smart/genius.
But here we are, witnessing someone with an IQ > 150, talking about IQ scores. However, a native English speaker who can't even get basic grammar right ('Me and my sister' and 'finance, and art.' in your profile description) is highly unlikely to have such an IQ. But the big red flag here for me is that you supposedly know that most of the people you work with have an IQ > 150 despite none of them saying anything about their IQ. It sounds very much like wishful thinking. Like self-deception. The average IQ of someone with a PhD is 125. This is high, but as many as 5% of the population has that. However, only 0.03% has > 150. Even if biophysics might be more challenging than the average PhD, it's completely unrealistic that you and the vast majority of your student friends are > 150.
@@iShriek I probably wouldn't assess his IQ on the basis of bad grammar (he could be a non-native English speaker), and I wouldn't dismiss out of hand the possibility that a high-IQ person is not living up to her potential, but yeah, everything else is a red flag and not very believable.
@@iShrieknice breakdown lol
@@Scruffed He is English, I checked him out.
Whats really concerning about this counter argument is that there’s little push back on the science only on the prescribed outcomes. If the science is correct then surely we would be foolish not to follow it? If it’s wrong or flawed then expose it using science.
That's not what they're discussing here, but it has been discussed at length. Shaun's video on the topic is very good.
@@fang_xianfu that’s my whole point. Without exploring this point the rest is pointless
@@Normskiblue I don't really see why. The video is about right-wing politics in America, it's not a book review of The Bell Curve. As I say, that topic has been done to death many times and is at this point very uninteresting.
If you insist, it can be summarised as the science in the book being a mixture of completely uncontroversial statements (eg, there is a relationship between designated racial groups and scores on tests like the AFQT) and complete schooboy errors (eg, 60% heritability of intelligence would mean that 60% of any one person's intelligence is explained by their genetics and 40% by other factors). Talking about either of those is a waste of time since they're so foundational.
The real meat of why The Bell Curve is a terrible book is that it jumps from this basic understanding of some of the science about intelligence to "and therefore we recommend removing welfare payments for single mothers" which is just an absurd leap from the supposedly scientific basis.
Eugenics 2.0
Very interesting video.
It wasn't science fiction, it was satire!
One of the common parts of an IQ test is the 3D figure rotation test (Given this figure, which of those on the other side match it ?)
A very little-known fact is that pigeons massively outperform humans on that task. So the next time someone discusses their IQ, just remind them - "Yeah, but you're not as smart as a pigeon"
That sounds fantastic - do you have a reference for that? Would love to read the paper, but it didn't turn up in a quick Google search
@@peteremmrich7069 Hi Peter, I'd posted a reply, but somehow it went missing (YT glitch maybe).
I don't have a study reference, I read it in a book on Comparative Psychology when I was at Uni (about 30 years ago). Tried finding it in my notes but it's not there. AFAIR, for humans, response time becomes slower the more rotations are needed to match the correct figure. It scales linearly for humans (as one might expect) but for Pigeons, the graph is almost flat. The test for the Pigeons was a food reward test where they had to peck the correct image. IIRC, raw response time was also faster for the pigeons.
Hope that helps.
I can't be certain but this seems to be false based on a little googling. (Post here if you have evidence to the contrary. I'm happy to be proven wrong.) But even if it were true, so what? Nobody's arguing that for IQ tests to be valid humans must outperform all other species in every possible dimension.
Are you aware that women are not as good as men in that 3D figure rotation test? Their ability to think in 3D being the reason behind the lower results. However, women exceed most men in straight language tests.
He's reyt.
Because it matters.
@@BesthinktwiceFor a lot of jobs there’s a floor. Most people below a certain IQ will struggle. Having excess IQ above that floor might not he as useful as you think. A person with an IQ of 70 is going to struggle to be a theoretical physicist, but a person with an IQ of 135 might be a better physicist than a person with an IQ of 190.
In Charles Murray's next book: "Losing Ground", he goes on to absolve the Ownership Class of any sense of responsibility to anyone other class. Don't get too bogged down in parsing out what Murray wrote. He quotes the work of Dr. Hernnstein from Harvard University. (Hernnstein, conveniently, was dead at the time of publication). Hernnstein, a Behavioral Psychologist, was a quack and no one worthy of note, other than to resurrect the old Army IQ test results from 1919. Hernnstein was also roundly criticized for speaking out on Learning Theory and Intelligence Outcomes - an area of study in which he did no work, and sharing his unqualified opinions.
Perhaps an ability quotient. For example, before having a vote on issues, shouldn’t you at least understand them. Not to Ph.d level, but at least enough to comprehend the broad outlines, be able to distinguish between accurate information and misinformation/rubbish, know how to discover more details if wanted. Consider Athenian democracy, all citizens (N.B. Citizen would now cover all men and women) all could vote, no elites or privileged sections.The old eugenics arguments (See C.M.Kornbluth’s darkly amusing’The Marching Morons’) about a genetic elite are nonsense, people in extreme tails of demographic curves will mostly likely have children nearer the population average. Opportunities make the difference not genotypes.
It would be used for ideas control. Folks with nonconsensual minority ideas on a subject would be deemed wrong, fail the exam, lose their vote, making their ideas selectively ignorable.
Einstein said there is only a very short step from genius to madness.
Im not obessed with IQs lol, i think that is exclusively right wing men and the far right
In a radio interview 10 yrs ago , Indian mathmatician ,surmame Subrumanium ? , said mathematics is divided into 3 main branches , Geometry..Applied..Theoretical , he said the worlds best mathematicians , in each branch , cannot get their heads around the other 2 branches .New maths in the 60 / 70s was fraught , I believe anyway , for the above reasons ...(now , back to the colatz conjecture 🤪🤪🤪😁 ).
That's complete rubbish, Mathematics is in its nature, very simple and easily understood by most people if they haven't been told from an early age that it is hard. Discovering new maths now on the other hand is something else that requires genius.
It's simple, they don't have much of it...
because its the gateway drug to bell curve bs. quantifying savant level intelligence for example vs. other intellectual gifts (linguistic, rhetorical, artistic, interrogative) on a single metric is an absurd notion for self-satisfied pedants.
What a lot of people overlook is if a high IQ rolling place like Silicon Valley were to be purely stratified on the basis of IQ, Blacks would make up atleast 20% of the tech population. Currently, Blacks account for no more than 4% of the tech employee population of half a million. The average IQ in Silicon Valley, is estimated at around 120. Numerically, the are more than half a million African Americans, with IQs in the 120 range and above, enough Blacks to take up every tech job in Silicon Valley without making any adjustments for IQ. But what is really at play in Silicon Valley, is Asians, have a reputation for being obedient, hardworking, somewhat docile, and easy to integrate with the existing Asian workforce. Plus ofcourse they bring the IQ of 120 which is common to over half a million Blacks or Whites. Asians and Whites benefit tremendously from the inferences of high IQs without objective testing.
There’s a small minority of the right but obsessing is a strong word.
I thought meritocracy was a good thing. Is it bad, now?
Only when done by capitalists and fascists is meritocracy good. When done by communists and socialists meritocracy is bad. Just ask an American.
Dunning Kruger, you mean?
Also, a British book in the 1950s is not the source of meritocracy, it's Social Darwinism.
Ironic isn’t it? Considering how they are running the country.
I take that The New Statesman is 'woke'
Maybe because stupid people simply cannot do what smart people can... But stupid people are being placed into highly complex positions, for reasons other than their intelligence, skills, competence and hard work....
Like box ticking you mean, to keep up with the PC crew and that self feel good virtue signalling clout, its like a drug to the feeble minds, very addictive like power?...
If this guy believes that is is not possible to "breed" smarter people by having smarter people having children, he may need a biology class.
Didn’t Hitler try that ? Now who said “ with my looks and your brains” to which the reply was “but with my looks and your brains “ !!!
@@californiadreamin8423 Something being possible is not the same thing as it being good.
@@DeliciouslyMild You breed horses do you ? Never heard of “ inbreds”.
@@alexpotts6520 right, whatever you say.
@@californiadreamin8423 he did, but that was mostly on blond hair and eyes. Not really smart.
It also worked.
Doing well until you had to mention Putin 😢
Let me guess - you think IQ is rayciss. How tedious.
Back to the farm, boy.
High so-called intelligence is no substitute for sound judgment.