Where there has been no progress and backsliding in average IQ scores, this should be taken as an indictment of the policies at play in those times and places.
eg: A beautiful person will have much more options in dating, while an ugly person will not, or have no options at all. I know, it is unfair, but there is a clear case that humans have different worth in a society, and it depends on their abilities. A top scorer (aka Ronaldo, Messi, or Zlatan) in soccer, will have much higher worth in the market then a mediocre one. Their output is directly measurable, and yes, they have much much different value and they are worth more than an average player. Their presence in a team creates more ticket sales and more viewership into the sport. So, they are clearly worth more to that sport at least. If you think sports are valuable at all to a society, then they are probably worth more to the society as well. If you think sports are useless, then they are probably noise. But it seems that our society values sports and performance.
As I said, IQ is not the only one. Beauty, physical strength, height, prowess, performance in arts, acting ability, creativity are other ones. Yes, a sub-average IQ person, that happens to be a great athlete will do well. So, a person with high IQ, but sub-average athletic ability, or beauty.
The author mentions that it is 'unfair' that companies select their candidates by their IQ, while it is clear case that companies are simply acting on their self interest (IQ is highly co-related to output in today's information age).
And, while I agree we should do more to improve early childhood education, and honestly start at even pre-natal care, to make sure that we do whatever we can to raise IQ.
But I don't agree with his recommendation to resist automation at any cost, and not to value IQ at all. History has shown that societies that did resist progress, the average person suffered for it, (feudal Japan, Russia, or China in the 19th century, are examples where centuries of backwards economic values, and resisting to automation resulted in much poorer societies overall).
"Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids. You wanna work here - close!" Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross
I would add a qualifier here - "in some situations". As human beings per se we all are "worth" the same.
When acting in a specific capacity, however, your ability to perform in that capacity determines your objective worth in that role. And of course it's pretty obvious that some occupations are better suited for ppl with different abilities. Master programmer will (most likely)be a worthless pro running back and (most likely)vice versa.
The thing is - ppl are very accepting of the physical differences between individuals but contrary to what the article is saying - intellectual differences are way more of a taboo.
As for the dating thing, dating someone far more or less beautiful than you comes with some problems, but sometimes is worth it. There are lots of people at all levels of beauty, so I don't buy the idea that you might have no options due to ugliness.
But why should that be? If someone, for whatever reason, is less able to produce utility, does that mean that person deserves less of that which is produced? That they should experience a worse life because of their lesser talents?
And if someone is, for whatever reason, more able to produce utility, do they deserve more? Should we divert resources to improve their life at the expense of others?
You can argue that inequality is necessary to create incentives. I don't personally believe that's true, but I understand the argument as a reasonable moral position. But to argue that some people are morally worth more than others is to discard the very notion of human equality.
Your point isn't "hard to swallow", rather it is the conclusion of a moral framework which many find abhorrent.
If we are to measure the worth of a person the value that they contribute to society is the most obvious way.
A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing. People don't deserve things for existing. They are given a chance to contribute and if they fail to take advantage of that chance they are not rewarded.
The belief that everyone, despite the decisions that they have made over the course of their life should be treated, rewarded, and respected equally is abhorrent.
The ideology you are promoting would have a wife and child beater be treated equally to a doctor.
Well thank you for being honest enough that I don't feel the need to argue against you. Your hostility towards humanity speaks for itself.
>The ideology you are promoting would have a wife and child beater be treated equally to a doctor.
And the ideology you are promoting would have the disabled murdered for being unproductive. And indeed, it already has.
Don't put words into my mouth. I don't promote punishing people for not being contributing members of society I promote not rewarding them.
Your ideology promotes punishing success and rewarding idleness and stupidity. The world needs more intelligent people and society should work to reward positive traits.
Punishment and reward are relative in a connected economy. If you think that "A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing." then you are proposing their murder via starvation.
>Your ideology promotes punishing success and rewarding idleness and stupidity.
My moral premise is the society should strive for the creation of the greatest utility for humanity. Withholding utility from some group humans, for whatever reason, directly harms that goal.
It can be argued that an unequal allocation of resources to individuals creates more overall utility by creating incentives, and I'm receptive to that argument, although I don't agree with it.
But arguing that the less productive individuals deserve less means your moral premise is no longer about creating the greatest utility, it's about creating utility for those you deem worthy.
Look I'm not arguing against your imagined dystopia and I'm not a radical like you are. People in society are charitable and do provide basic needs for those that can't earn enough to feed themselves.
>My moral premise is the society should strive for the creation of the greatest utility for humanity. Withholding utility from some group humans, for whatever reason, directly harms that goal.
Your statement is factually incorrect. If we are to say that utility as you say is money then intelligent people are better at allocating resources than intelligent people. An intelligent person that is a good investor will invest in technology that they can leverage to create more.
If an intelligent person is given a significant amount of money because of their contributions to society, and then this person uses that money to create a new technology, utility has already exceeded the case where the less intelligent person and the more intelligent person are given the same amount of money.
>It can be argued that an unequal allocation of resources to individuals creates more overall utility by creating incentives, and I'm receptive to that argument, although I don't agree with it.
Ignoring rewards unequal allocation of resources gives those that can make better use of resources more.
>But arguing that the less productive individuals deserve less means your moral premise is no longer about creating the greatest utility, it's about creating utility for those you deem worthy.
It's not about who "I" deem worthy. I don't promote a central authority ran by me that ranks people and rewards people based on their worth. I promote allowing people to use the resources they have access to as they see fit and if the vast majority of society believes it's correct to give all their money to one person due to that person's contribution to society I believe we shouldn't interfere in that process.
I'm not talking about the system. I'm talking about your morality. If you say "A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing." then you are making a moral statement that deems that person less worthy.
My premise is that all people are equally worthy of a good life. If distributing resources unequally helps everyone to have better lives through greater productivity then that is a justified utilitarian decision. But calling that pragmatic decision morality, and saying that people are "worth" more or less as a result, is what I object to.
And to address your points about "wife beaters", since you seem to think they are more obviously "less worthy" than others: No, I still think they are equally worthy of living good lives. They should be prevented from harming people, and if that requires a worse quality of life (i.e. as a result of imprisonment) then that is justified. But punishment for punishment's sake is just turning harm into even more harm.
IIRC, there is a high correlation with those who get caught in certain kinds of crime and IQ.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008043...
>You can argue that inequality is necessary to create incentives. I don't personally believe that's true, but I understand the argument as a reasonable moral position. But to argue that some people are morally worth more than others is to discard the very notion of human equality.
This statement is a twisted idea of equality. People are born equal but they do not remain equal. A doctor is not equal to wife beater.
Jesus christ, are you capable of reading? I never suggested
> Lower than average intelligence does not cause people to become "wife beaters"
This is what lack of emotional intelligence looks like. If you can't figure out how what you typed could be interpreted in this way by others, I feel very badly for you.
According to whom? Why do they have the authority to say? You can say that person A produces more economic output than person B, but the true worth of that is subjective.
Higher IQ doesn't necessarily mean you're more competent, it means you're better at solving certain kinds of puzzles. Unless it is your job to solve that kind of puzzle you should directly measure what you care about.
I also don't see how a preference for high IQ scores is inextricably linked to the notion of progress.
It is the one measurable attribute which is most strongly associated with positive life outcomes, flat out. There are also different kinds of intelligence. This is really just to say that there are different kinds of competence.
The more competent people are at solving problems, fixing things, and getting along with each other, the better life is. That's all it is.
Provided that the candidates have had similar educational opportunities, I would guess that a traditional exam is a better measure of someone's ability to be good at useful work because preparing for an exam requires studying, which is a kind of work. On the other hand, if you have to compare candidates who have not had similar educational opportunities, something similar to an "IQ" test might be better, though you will end up selecting some people who turn out to be good at very little besides solving those kinds of puzzles, and who are perhaps lazy and disorganised to boot.
This type of rhetoric is what put an incompetent lying reality television star in the White House. Signaling to people they are worth less than others hurts them on an emotional level regardless of veracity. People who are emotionally hurt can and will make problems for you.
People with high emotional intelligence understand this, will avoid pressing that button, and will achieve better outcomes in their endeavors as a result.
So did everyone else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
3 points per decade = 15 points per 50 years. So this shows that immigration to the US had no impact on the IQ of this group.
Whole developed world has very similar IQ levels to United States, except for China, Japan, Korea which have higher average levels: https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country
My point is that 15 points per half-decade is just baseline. Doesn't mean we've picked up any useful correlation.
There are US sub-populations that have lagged. Genetics does not explain this, as overseas populations with the same genetics have not lagged.
Flynn effect is fascinating me - if it holds in the future we'll have, in developed nations, an average IQ of 130 (by today's standards) in 100 years. That's a LOT. It'd, roughly, mean that ~17% of people would be capable of graduating from today's Ivy League schools without problems (145 IQ or more). And there would still be the (new) top 0.5%. But whether it will hold is anyone's guess.
Black IQ Gains in Britain, Kenya and Dominica
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/black-iq-gain...
Eyeferth Study -- Children of Black American servicemen in Germany had the same average IQ as German children:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study
Thomas Sowell's survey of the work of Arthur Jensen and others. Basically, the patterns around the Flynn Effect are everywhere, and it shows up in Black populations as well. There is also a mention of a study of Black children raised by white families, which found the average IQ of that population to be 106.
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/27/archives/new-light-on-bla...
It isn't holding, especially in isolated populations that are easy to measure like Iceland.
Most probably it was due to the increasing ubiquity of K-12 education and fewer bad childrearing habits (smoking/drinking while pregnant, lead exposure, no vitamins).
Then, look at differentials in the US that came after 1950.