tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post938208439869813525..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Kanazawa on the disadvantages of intelligenceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75910990721303415752012-06-26T15:17:10.890-07:002012-06-26T15:17:10.890-07:00Paul Graham explained very well why smart kids don...<i>Paul Graham explained very well why smart kids don't fit in at school. It's because they're busy thinking about things that really matter, like ways to save the world (hence the love of sci-fi and fantasy), and care more about that than on figuring out how to navigate the artificial social survival camp that is a high school. They could figure out how to be popular -- what to wear, how to act, etc. -- but they have better things to think about.</i><br /><br />It's not so much smart kids not fitting in in Prussoid public schools, but the schools not fitting them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62957530911420750622012-06-23T14:47:33.227-07:002012-06-23T14:47:33.227-07:00"NOTA said...
At a guess, I think the stereot..."NOTA said...<br />At a guess, I think the stereotype of dysfunctional smart people is based on a kind of statistical sampling error. <br /><br />Consider a worlkplace with an average IQ of 100. The smartest guy there is *there*, not at someplace higher achieving. So the smartest guy in that workplace is probably carrying some baggage--lack of work ethic, no organizational skills, very rough background, etc.--which keeps him from going further. Every unusually smart person you observe in that environment is also carrying some baggage of that kind. And yet, this can happen even if there is no correlation between the baggage and the intelligence. <br /><br />The same applies really widely. The smartest guy in your class at State U was there, not in a better school, for some reason. Lack of ambition, lack of preparation, whatever."<br /><br />This makes sense. If I'm smarter than the people around me, it's probably because there are some things wrong with me such that the less-smart people can perform overall about as well as I can. If I didn't have anything wrong with me, my peer group would be smarter and more successful, and I would probably have close to the median intelligence for the group.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37077564787233244982012-06-22T10:58:59.523-07:002012-06-22T10:58:59.523-07:00>such a society would likely be very unstable a...>such a society would likely be very unstable and maladaptive at the group level, even if possessing a high IQ were adaptive at the individual level.<<br /><br />The mysterious multiplier effect.<br /><br />1. X number of smart people function together well.<br /><br />2. ("A miracle happens.")<br /><br />3. X+1 is catastrophe.<br /><br />>Society includes the farmers, yard-men, security guards, miners, janitors, cops, unemployed [??], supermarket stockers, truck drivers, etc. Imagine if all those people were equal in intelligence to the top Google executives and perhaps you'll see my point.<<br /><br />Every job could and should be done better. A more efficient janitor, a swifter stocker, a more careful and punctilious truck driver, a wiser cop, etc. are not to be dismissed as undesirable. There is no magical virtue in mediocrity.<br /><br />Not every very intelligent person is Mr. Peepers. As Charles Murray pointed out, prior to the cognitive stratification he tut-tuts about, intelligence (even very high intelligence) was much more distributed among the population in terms of job and social class. Various backwoods (or near-as-dammit) geniuses built not only a noticeable part of America's industrial structure, but also helped bring the Industrial Revolution to birth. Where did all the smart, capable, sharp-eyed adults go? Into the ghetto of government, education, "leadership," there to be warped into articulate but helpless or harmful fools.<br /><br />Society today is limping along on momentum, but to see the possible future of a mediocracy, look at large swathes of NAM-world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58084885286076168662012-06-22T09:29:20.577-07:002012-06-22T09:29:20.577-07:00homo economicus:
"Imagine if all those people...homo economicus:<br />"Imagine if all those people were equal in intelligence to the top Google executives and perhaps you'll see my point."<br /><br />Robots would be manufactured more easily and quickly to do those crappy jobs?heartistehttp://heartiste.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76315290153807368672012-06-22T08:05:41.201-07:002012-06-22T08:05:41.201-07:00Aaron:
From personal experience, being much smart...Aaron:<br /><br />From personal experience, being much smarter than your classmates and getting picked on for it leads to a pretty unhealthy focus on intelligence as determining your value as a person. It took me some years to get over that BS.NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-27806214628960323522012-06-22T08:03:22.975-07:002012-06-22T08:03:22.975-07:00At a guess, I think the stereotype of dysfunctiona...At a guess, I think the stereotype of dysfunctional smart people is based on a kind of statistical sampling error. <br /><br />Consider a worlkplace with an average IQ of 100. The smartest guy there is *there*, not at someplace higher achieving. So the smartest guy in that workplace is probably carrying some baggage--lack of work ethic, no organizational skills, very rough background, etc.--which keeps him from going further. Every unusually smart person you observe in that environment is also carrying some baggage of that kind. And yet, this can happen even if there is no correlation between the baggage and the intelligence. <br /><br />The same applies really widely. The smartest guy in your class at State U was there, not in a better school, for some reason. Lack of ambition, lack of preparation, whatever. <br /><br />Weird interests (SF instead of sports, say) don't count as dysfunction--stuff like utter inability to understand other people, or weird obsessions or phobias, do. But these exist in people of low and normal intelligence, too. There are plenty of poor dumb people who stumble through life with no clue what's happening in other peoples' minds, or unable to keep up withtheir paperwork and bills or find their car keys.NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38134316806888556492012-06-22T01:06:36.861-07:002012-06-22T01:06:36.861-07:00@NOTA
The institutions you describe are not indep...@NOTA<br /><br />The institutions you describe are not independent societies that reproduce, feed, and defend themselves. They are limited-purpose associations that exist only because the rest of society supports them in exchange for the specialized services that they offer.<br /><br />Society includes the farmers, yard-men, security guards, miners, janitors, cops, unemployed, supermarket stockers, truck drivers, etc. Imagine if all those people were equal in intelligence to the top Google executives and perhaps you'll see my point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71771335954654582262012-06-21T23:08:04.062-07:002012-06-21T23:08:04.062-07:00NOTA, well said. I'm not sure why anyone woul...NOTA, well said. I'm not sure why anyone would expect a society of Sailers and Derbyshires to be unstable. Boring, maybe, but dysfunctional? Why?<br /><br /><em>"If I recall correctly, things like social function and psychological problems start increasing once you reach an IQ above 130, after troughing in the 110-130 range."</em><br /><br />Are there any references for this? I know that's the stereotype -- the absent-minded professor and so on -- but is there evidence to back it up?<br /><br />Paul Graham explained very well why smart kids don't fit in at school. It's because they're busy thinking about things that really matter, like ways to save the world (hence the love of sci-fi and fantasy), and care more about that than on figuring out how to navigate the artificial social survival camp that is a high school. They <em>could</em> figure out how to be popular -- what to wear, how to act, etc. -- but they have better things to think about.Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15629153841120627618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61122284700138054062012-06-21T21:30:26.425-07:002012-06-21T21:30:26.425-07:00David F:
So how does your model account for the e...David F:<br /><br />So how does your model account for the existence of high IQ high achieving communities and projects? I mean, any good hospital is staffed ovwewhelmingly by people on the right end of the bell curve. Other than the people cleaning up, most everyone there is at least a pretty skilled person who had to get through some real training. And yet, hospitals. chock full of smart people, function passably well. <br /><br />Universities, tech companies, law firms, research labs--all are pretty functional organizations made up mostly of smart people, with hardly any really dumb people. These have their problems, but they hardly ever collapse into endless warfare between intellectuals who can't abide disagreement. Indeed, many really smart people enjoy working and socializing with other really smart people. <br /><br />At the extreme end, something like the Manhattan Project or Apollo Program was built on lots and lots of very smart people, who somehow managed to work together to do stuff that probably looked damned near impossible when they started. Similarly, Google, famously interested in hiring only the super smart, seems to be accomplishing a lot despite the terrible handicap of being full of guys with 150 IQs.NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-40096032725084920142012-06-21T13:33:45.030-07:002012-06-21T13:33:45.030-07:00I wonder if Kanazawa is thinking about, for lack o...I wonder if Kanazawa is thinking about, for lack of better terms, the normals, whose IQ's vary mostly as a function of genetic load, and the brilliant, who look a bit like they've been supercharged (per Cochran) with one or a few alleles of huge effect. The 'fat tail' on the right end of the IQ distribution comes from something besides lots of alleles of small, independent effects.<br /><br />Among normals the higher IQ do everything better because they are better: they have fewer genetic faults, so they're healthier, taller, more symmetric...all those things that don't really have obvious reasons to correlate with IQ.<br /><br />The geniuses, the people so smart that they'll be remembered for a long, long time, they often had fitness-reducing interests and priorities.<br /><br />'Course, Kanazawa could just be noticing that the strategy of having few children and taking really good care of them looks like failure when the children of stupid people who put almost nothing into raising them don't die from neglect, disease, weather and predators. That might be a temporary situation.<br /><br />On the gripping hand, Kanazawa thinks some silly things.robnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-73603162796614048182012-06-21T11:57:49.373-07:002012-06-21T11:57:49.373-07:00If I recall correctly, things like social function...If I recall correctly, things like social function and psychological problems start increasing once you reach an IQ above 130, after troughing in the 110-130 range.<br /><br />This makes sense from an intuitive person. The smartest people in a class tend to be "nerds" and frequently don't fit in and bullied.<br /><br />Look at the most successful businesspeople and politicians (NOT academics) - spheres where you need social intelligence to succeed. Most of them have reasonably above average IQ's, but very few of them are geniuses.akarlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08322298490656235467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81202764889998390062012-06-21T11:39:11.723-07:002012-06-21T11:39:11.723-07:00"Lastly, consider the Jews. The Nazis killed ..."Lastly, consider the Jews. The Nazis killed them in the millions. So, doesn't this indicate that Jews are evolutionarily unfit and the Nazis are fit? In 1942, the answer would have been: "Yes, obviously it does indicate that." But where are the Nazis now?"<br /><br />Everyone on the internets is Hitler. His fitness approaches infinity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86123567541567071802012-06-20T22:44:17.989-07:002012-06-20T22:44:17.989-07:00@Turin
You didn't read what I wrote. I was i...@Turin<br /><br />You didn't read what I wrote. I was imagining a society made entirely of Steve Sailer/John Derbyshire-level IQ's, and pointing out that such a society would likely be very unstable and maladaptive at the group level, even if possessing a high IQ were adaptive at the individual level.<br /><br />I am not disputing that a society with a higher <i>average</i> IQ will likely be more successful than others. I am pointing out that variation in IQ within a society is probably necessary for the society to function.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76412222720105640422012-06-20T22:42:03.874-07:002012-06-20T22:42:03.874-07:00Simon, I haven't discovered it. It seems some ...Simon, I haven't discovered it. It seems some people have forgotten it; I am reminding them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74738701852871032902012-06-20T21:44:13.552-07:002012-06-20T21:44:13.552-07:00David:
"Lastly, consider the Jews. The Nazis ...David:<br />"Lastly, consider the Jews. The Nazis killed them in the millions. So, doesn't this indicate that Jews are evolutionarily unfit and the Nazis are fit? In 1942, the answer would have been: "Yes, obviously it does indicate that." But where are the Nazis now?"<br /><br />Congratulations: You have discovered that as environments change, the definition of fitness changes. Which is what evolution through natural selection is all about.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57673410610152539162012-06-20T20:44:12.436-07:002012-06-20T20:44:12.436-07:00"[W]ho could seriously argue that an IQ of 11...<em>"[W]ho could seriously argue that an IQ of 115 isn't a great advantage in any number of practical ways over an IQ of 100? Or that an IQ of 100 isn't a huge advantage likewise over an IQ of 85?"</em><br /><br />Exactly. And you don't have to be in an academic field for that to be true. You could be digging ditches, and the 115 guy is going to learn faster just how to poke his shovel into different kinds of dirt, what grip and movement move the most dirt for the least pain, etc. <br /><br />Now, it may be true that a 160-IQ guy may get so bored with digging ditches that he wanders off thinking about the meaning of life and gets fired. But he can afford that, because he can pick up a job doing about anything he knows a little about, or teach as a last resort. Maybe the 85-IQ guy won't get bored as quickly with digging, but if he does, how many other options does he have? Which one is at greater disadvantage?Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15629153841120627618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30610945565147095502012-06-20T20:01:40.078-07:002012-06-20T20:01:40.078-07:00"I am sure I am not the first person to think..."I am sure I am not the first person to think of this. Is there some politically incorrect thinker who has argued this?"<br /><br />Volkmar Weiss: The Population Cycle Drives Human HistoryFredRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-32068784923803092872012-06-20T19:46:26.893-07:002012-06-20T19:46:26.893-07:00Woody Allen/ Mia Farrow's son's life serio...Woody Allen/ Mia Farrow's son's life seriously limited by too much intelligence <br /><br />http://yegs.org/yegs-hall-of-fame-ronan-seamus-farrow-1987/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18333580705273007552012-06-20T18:25:46.934-07:002012-06-20T18:25:46.934-07:00"Not only does the intelligence of the smart ..."Not only does the intelligence of the smart people make the success of Pamela Anderson even possible; the top ones also make and keep more money than Pamela Anderson ever could..."<br /><br />Maybe, but she still makes more than you.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-44097125689225623202012-06-20T18:22:13.828-07:002012-06-20T18:22:13.828-07:00"
Imagine a society in which everyone was as ..."<br />Imagine a society in which everyone was as intelligent as the smartest people you know.<br /><br />I think they would all kill each other, or starve. Everyone would have their own idea of how to run society. They would instantly deconstruct or warp any myths, religion, or moral codes to suit their individual preferences. Few would submit to anyone else, and no actual work would get done."<br /><br /><br />- You're way off. Throughout history, higher IQ societies have achieved more than lower IQ societies. In fact, before the PC obsession, they usually overran the lower IQ societies, and made them into slaves, or killed them off, and took their property.Turinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62087908229223565072012-06-20T18:19:23.648-07:002012-06-20T18:19:23.648-07:00I think intellectuals are discriminated against be...I think intellectuals are discriminated against because 1) there is an unstated backlash against Jewish liberalism, 2) jealousy over success, and 3)we live in a country of average-IQ types and anything different is ridiculed.Crowdernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62676529748050263212012-06-20T17:31:26.139-07:002012-06-20T17:31:26.139-07:00"There's an implicit but unstated "a...<i>"There's an implicit but unstated "all else being equal" attached to that. All else is very rarely equal."</i> <br /><br /><br /><i>Can anyone cite any studies that correlate "negative" traits with high IQ?</i> <br /><br /><br /><br />There does not have to be a correlation for all else to rarely be equal.<br /><br />Our theoretical perfect person would score very highly on intelligence, and also on strength, dexterity, charisma, positive mental attitude, good looks, and an array of other attributes.<br /><br />In practice it's highly unlikely that one person is going to exceptionally blessed in all those departments. Just scoring in the top one percent in any one of them takes a lot of luck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82971843657783138702012-06-20T16:33:59.040-07:002012-06-20T16:33:59.040-07:00"I wonder if there's a sort of naturally ...<i>"I wonder if there's a sort of naturally occurring negative feedback loop where intelligence produces civilization and then civilization allows stupider people to have more kids, eventually causing the downfall of civilization?</i> <br /><br /><br /><i>I am sure I am not the first person to think of this. Is there some politically incorrect thinker who has argued this?"</i> <br /><br /><br /><br />I'm pretty sure Adam Smith mentioned this (the tendency of the lower classes to be more fecund than the upper classes) in The Wealth Of Nations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65697427983711398682012-06-20T15:40:55.068-07:002012-06-20T15:40:55.068-07:00>Pamela Anderson probably makes more than anyon...>Pamela Anderson probably makes more than anyone on this board<<br /><br />Pamela Anderson is a tool of the smart people who invented, produce, and distribute TV, who often use many other such tools. Not only does the intelligence of the smart people make the success of Pamela Anderson even possible; the top ones also make and keep more money than Pamela Anderson ever could<br /><br />In a mediocracy (mediocre + cracy), many intelligent people (though not every single one) are sandbagged and even crushed. Every possible obstacle is routinely placed in their way; their frustration is immense; the rank injustices they must face as a matter of "normalcy" are numerous, and many of these people fall by the wayside, broken. And their complaining about it results in an even worse fate for them.<br /><br />An analogy would be a crooked or unreliable culture, the kind Hernando de Soto decries as an impediment to Western-style political freedom and economic development. In such a culture, property rights are not properly secured; so large enterprises requiring long-range cooperation are virtually impossible to form. Now imagine living in such a culture. Let's say you create a brilliant design for a spacecraft. Well, your spacecraft will never be built; in fact, you will probably be lucky to get even a pittance as a housemaid or enforcer for some mafia chieftan. From the perspective of the corrupt rulers, you're a "loser." However, in a decent culture, built by decent, basically honest people, the kind whom de Soto respects, you would have a chance - if not to build a spacecraft - then at least to live within a legal framework securing your property and have a successful business. You would be a "winner."<br /><br />Or consider the USSR. Were the "losers" there evolutionarily unfit? Or, was the system that crushed them evolutionarily unfit?<br /><br />Lastly, consider the Jews. The Nazis killed them in the millions. So, doesn't this indicate that Jews are evolutionarily unfit and the Nazis are fit? In 1942, the answer would have been: "Yes, obviously it does indicate that." But where are the Nazis now?<br /><br />It is a mistake to conflate a given political miasma and the fundamental conditions of human survival. The junk-America around you today is not necessarily going to be "reality" in five years; nor was it "reality" fifty years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43426998512200381782012-06-20T14:13:35.753-07:002012-06-20T14:13:35.753-07:00SFG:
"I wonder if there's a sort of natur...SFG:<br />"I wonder if there's a sort of naturally occurring negative feedback loop where intelligence produces civilization and then civilization allows stupider people to have more kids, eventually causing the downfall of civilization?<br /><br />I am sure I am not the first person to think of this. Is there some politically incorrect thinker who has argued this?"<br /><br />you rang?<br /><br />http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/prosperity-is-the-problem/<br /><br />re: the social value of IQ. you can tell the value of some human trait quite easily by how many people would be willing to accept possessing its opposite, or at least be indifferent to possessing its opposite. not many people would choose less smarts over more smarts. and that really gets at the crux of liberals' visceral fear of discussing group differences in smarts: they know it matters.<br /><br />now whether the social value and the evolutionary value of a human trait align is another question entirely. if you like nice things, you would have to concede based on historical and present day evidence that meddling in the forces of evolution might be necessary to preserve your nice things.heartistehttp://heartiste.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com