Random Thoughts: 3
This post is a continuation of the previous one in this series and tells you what I think about IQ, race and achievement.
IQ is the modern version of an attested certificate of noble birth.
In previous ages, nobles who became rich and powerful through luck had to invent a series of scams to justify their abuses. Come to think if it- all of them got their fortunes through luck. Their version of why they deserved to abuse others came through the concept of noble birth. Some even suggested that their ancestors were gods.
Today people are less religious and therefore it is necessary to invoke a secular version of the concept of nobel birth. We call that IQ. It resembles the concept of noble birth in many aspects. Just like noble birth it is dependant on your parents, who coincidently were also successful because of noble birth (IQ). Of course this scam faces some problems such as explaining away unsucessful people who have high IQs. The new priests have a solution for that too.. a very high IQ is not desirable, or maybe it is not the right type of IQ.
There are many other problems with IQ. The tests have changed over the years, so you are not measuring the same thing unless you believe in the infalliability and impartiality of those who create them. Then there is the pesky issue about the ancestors of many professional whites being poor peasants when they came to the US. If you had measured their IQ in the begining of this century, it would be lower than their progeny. So what changed? Opportunities?
IQ and Race.
The most vociferous supporters of IQ are the often believers in the superiority of their race. Now that does not explain away more pesky problems such as the lack of evidence for complex civilization in pre-roman north europe, or why phonetic written systems, a lot of maths and many fundamental technologies were not discovered/developed in northern europe.
The real questions are:
Is a black jamican man who is good at seducing and making money off older, fat white women any less intelligent than a midwestern white guy running a successful business. Given that zero sum thinking and luck make Jamaica a poor place to start a high tech business, any person with the same skills and ability as a successful white guy is likely running some type of racket. Does that make him less intelligent?
If you lived in the amazon forest, would your high intelligence not make you better at recognizing, testing and using plants and animals. Surely you could not start ‘cray supercomputers’ when your biggest concern is avoiding murder by hostile tribes. So does an indian shaman in such a environment have the same basic intellectual ability as your average white professional? The funny thing is that with the exception of getting some infections, they could thrive in a western country, but you would not survive for long in their environment.
IQ and Achievement.
One of the most persistent beliefs regrading IQ is that it is somehow related to success. I would counter that success has more to do with status of parents, luck and chance.
All things equal, a child of priviledged parents will get many more passes for bad behavior and many more chances to make it. He/ she will also get more attention, better schools and a whole bunch of people who will help them climb up while pushing others down. They will also get help preparing for IQ tests, college admissions and in general will be able to concentate on what they want to do, without worrying about basics or repeated failures.
Luck and chance also favor those who have more connections and opportunities. Do you really believe that a priviledged white does not get many more chances/ passes even after education? Do you think that their contacts might make it easier for them to get funding for a new idea, which they stole from someone else. Maybe their contacts also make them less suseptible to predation by competitors.
Many believe that the modern version of sainthood, the Nobel prize, is a good proxy for achievement. Here is a insight from someone who works in science- it is usually the connected “politicians” who get credit for discoveries. The real innovators, now often non-white, either get a few scraps or more to keep them quiet. If you tried to trace back the real story of nobel prize winners, ypu would discover that many have a few skeletons in their closet- mainly related to uncredited people.
Political accumen is the only thing a nobel prize proves. I know that you do not like the idea that a lot of what you believe is a lie, but was a lot of what you once thought about women also not a lie?