The dark truth behind the right’s IQ obsession | The New Statesman 

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.

How to explain how Trump became president if we live in a meritocracy?!

There’s a small minority of the right but obsessing is a strong word.

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?

IQ without EQ(emotional quotient)doesn't mean anything. Intelligence without empathy is dangerous. We can see that every day

Dummies should be in charge...? We have that in UK already.

These tech bros never talk about the financial and educational advantages that they have benefited from. I wonder why.

It'll never work in the UK; the Establishment is maintained despite intellect, despite morality.😢

The concept of meritocracy is much older than the 1950s - it is the very basis of Plato's Republic.

Maybe establish your premise before you make your argument?

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.

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.

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.

Was the movie idiocracy racist?

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.

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.

Blank slate fetishism is worse tha. iQ fetishism, as at least IQ fetishism has some data to back it up.

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.

Can I just point out that Jimmy Saville was a member of MENSA...a rather limited test of a persons merit I would think.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Frankly we need to see more Inuits (and more pygmies) in the NBA. Where the hell are they?

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.

because it underpins technological advancement and economic growth, duh! that's why.

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.

The welfare and quality of life of everybody depends on the skills and work of intelligent people.

Quinn's summary of The Bell Curve convinces me he did not actually read it.

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.

The real spirit of Christmas is taking a portrait video and uploading it in landscape.

IQ isnt everything ofc but to dismiss it as right wing, racist, sexist or as a cult is intellectual dishonesty.

THE TORIES ARE OBSESSED WITH IQ ? HOW COULD BORIS ; DAVID; LIZ HAPPEN ??

why not ? surely anyone can have aspiration

H G Wells Time Machine?

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.

I.Q. has its uses and its limitations can't we just accept that

Eugenics 2.0

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?

🤣 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.

He's reyt.

I think their obsession has to do with the lack of meaningful intelligence - they're not my idea of 'Homo Sapiens'.

25.30 an interesting perspective for pandemic lockdowns

High so-called intelligence is no substitute for sound judgment.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

Because they sadly lack it in buckets

because they lack it

AI can have a higher IQ score than any human.

Because it matters.

Im not obessed with IQs lol, i think that is exclusively right wing men and the far right

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?

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.

It wasn't science fiction, it was satire!

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.

Let me guess - you think IQ is rayciss. How tedious.

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"

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.

It's simple, they don't have much of it...

Dunning Kruger, you mean? Also, a British book in the 1950s is not the source of meritocracy, it's Social Darwinism.

I thought meritocracy was a good thing. Is it bad, now?

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.

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.

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.

Einstein said there is only a very short step from genius to madness.

Very interesting video.

Ironic isn’t it? Considering how they are running the country.

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.

Doing well until you had to mention Putin 😢

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....

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 🤪🤪🤪😁 ).