« Trade Secrets | Main | Avian flu futures market »
Is IQ what is truly scarce?
There is a new view -- or should I say an old view? -- percolating in the blogosphere: "There is something special about IQ. We must conserve IQ at very high cost, and gains in IQ will bring very high social returns."
In practical terms, "Conservation of IQ" is used to argue for limits on immigration, against various meliorist attempts, and possibly even for eugenics. I've heard it used to argue for outlawing marijuana, which of course destroys brain cells.
Imagine an evolutionary approach: given the Industrial Revolution and subsequent developments, perhaps IQ has higher social returns than was once the case. So we must rebuild our intuitions to favor IQ more than otherwise. When evaluating policy, one question is simply to ask whether it raises or lowers average IQ within a polity or region.
There is also a methodological argument: IQ is (arguably) prior to economic notions of rationality. Perhaps economists should treat rationality as an open variable and dependent on IQ.
I don't assign special status to The Conservation of IQ for two reasons. The first is the Flynn effect, or the fact that measured IQs have been rising steadily over time. This implies some combination of a) IQ gains come naturally under conditions of progress, and b) IQ statistics are to some extent phony and don't measure real intelligence. We can debate the mix, but either deflates fears that IQ is somehow especially scarce or endangered. These data also suggest that IQ is an artifice to be unpacked rather than a primary category.
Second, defenders of the IQ view tend to read evolutionary biology and intelligence research. My roots are in cultural history. Clusters of amazing achievement come and go pretty quickly, usually through some mix of environmental effects and luck. Look at Venetian painting. It was much better centuries ago, but I doubt if Venetian IQs have been falling. Once we see how such enormous differences can be explained by non-IQ factors, I again don't obsess over the variable.
I do think economists should study IQ more. And for sure I value it in friends. But when analyzing social problems, institutions, social psychology, and economic mechanisms still command most of my analytic attention.
A few of you had asked about IQ, I crammed my thoughts into this one post, so this is #04-07 in a series of 50. Do, by the way, save your thoughts on immigration for other posts.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 1, 2007 at 07:43 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
Steve Sailer must have made it into the top fifty, then.
"IQ" seems to hold the same meaning for some conservatives that "social class" holds for some liberals. It's this hard-to-measure phenomenon that separates everyone into groups that they can't do much to get out of.
Posted by: Noumenon at Mar 1, 2007 8:37:44 AM
A third possible explanation for the Flynn Effect: IQ is real, but the ability to take IQ tests has increased. A for phenomena like Venetian painting, IQ would seem to be a necessary but insufficient explanation. Nothing like the Italian Renaissance has occurred in areas of the world with low IQ.
Posted by: Dennis Mangan at Mar 1, 2007 8:42:51 AM
"b) IQ statistics are to some extent phony and don't measure real intelligence."
I'm not sure why you would take the Flynn effect to mean this. IQ is supposed to measure intelligence, not the inherent capacity for intelligence at conception.
Posted by: josh at Mar 1, 2007 8:56:01 AM
"When evaluating policy, one question is simply to ask whether it raises or lowers average IQ within a polity or region."
Using "average" seems particularly perverse. Would you really argue that a person of 160 IQ is likely to be more productive than if she had someone of 150 IQ to help her out?
Doesn't this just suggest a policy of encouraging all but the very smartest person to leave?
Posted by: Toby at Mar 1, 2007 9:01:48 AM
Paul Graham asks a similarly interesting question in his book Hackers and Painters.
He wonders how many Leo Da Vincis are currently walking the earth, but who are without
a Florence in which to flourish. I would guess that there are at least 5 Da Vincis in
the US alone, all of whose talents are untapped.
Posted by: Rue Des Quatre Vents at Mar 1, 2007 9:05:40 AM
Maybe average IQ is less important than the total number of high-IQ people within a given society. Suppose 100 new people moved into your town - five with an IQ of 180, the rest with an IQ of 95. The average hasn't changed, but I'm guessing this would be very good for your town.
Posted by: Mike at Mar 1, 2007 9:12:48 AM
Traits like courage, ambition and persistence in the face of adversity may be as important as IQ and they may enhance the positive benefits of high IQ. Perhaps they should be measured as well. Or does the IQ concept incorporate them?
Posted by: Robert Speirs at Mar 1, 2007 9:26:19 AM
After dealing with the public schools, I think a policy of investing in
people with high IQs when they are observed would make for sound public policy.
I have 2 "gifted" kids, and one "special ed" kid. We know both sides of the system.
For every dollar spent on special-ed, something like 4 cents is spent on our best and brightest.
This just seems so obvious to me, but I don't see much progress being made.
Posted by: krat at Mar 1, 2007 9:26:49 AM
The first is the Flynn effect, or the fact that measured IQs have been rising steadily over time.
Maybe. The wikipedia article does note that there is evidence suggesting that in England and Continental Europe, the Flynn effect ended sometime in the 1990s, and that there has subsequently been moderate regression. So I'm not sure we can count on that.
As far as cultural factors, yes, I think those are important, as you note. But we have little to no control over cultural factors, and we can't measure them yet in any event. All we have is generalities there -- vague ideas that this incentive will encourage that positive behaviour and so forth. On the other hand, I think that ceteris paribus, living in a high IQ society (or perhaps a society dominated by high-IQ individuals) is preferable to a low-IQ society.
Posted by: Taeyoung at Mar 1, 2007 9:29:18 AM
Does the "long tail theory" affect of culture - produced and consumed - distort the perception of contemporary "De Vincis"? Is there a paucity of genius, or abundance? Does niche culture hide brilliant individuals that seem to litter the memory of historical periods, or am I missing the point all together?
Posted by: steveintheknow at Mar 1, 2007 9:34:44 AM
It seems pretty clear that _at best_ IQ measures not one thing but a strange and unreasonable grab-bag of skills, no one of which has any special connection to what people hoped IQ would do. (Binet, to his credit, seems to have understood that much better than the Stanford folks who made the modern Hash out of his works.) There are many, many things wrong with most discussions of IQ, but the fact that it's not a single or natural thing is what's most deeply wrong with most of them.
Posted by: Matt at Mar 1, 2007 9:41:12 AM
The theme in the comments above seems to be that instead of worrying about average IQ's, we should worry about how to nurture people of high IQ's and connect them with opportunties to succeed. Krat is right that our society concentrates educational spending on bringing people from below up to average, and just about anyone who went to an American high school knows highly intelligent people who burned out or dropped out or downplayed their intelligence in order to fit in. Many other societies (such as India and China) do the opposite by focusing resources on stars.
IMHO, the right question to ask isn't how to raise the average level of IQ's, but whether marginal returns are better for improving average IQ's or for improving the development of people with high IQ's from precocious to productive.
Posted by: DK at Mar 1, 2007 9:54:20 AM
Perhaps another reason not to "assign special status to The Conservation of IQ" is that most of the people talking about the issue have high IQs and therefore will be inclined to think that high IQ is more precious or more important than it really is.
Posted by: jp at Mar 1, 2007 9:55:41 AM
"New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia raise the IQ of both countries." - Sir Robert Muldoon, former Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Posted by: amac at Mar 1, 2007 10:18:46 AM
IQ may well be scarce, but the notion that there is such a thing as "the truly scarce resource" has no basis in economics or logic. A lot of people seem to be confusing IQ numbers with general human capital, which is indeed extremely undervalued - phasing out our dysfunctional public schools in favor of a voucher-based system would remedy this.
Posted by: anon at Mar 1, 2007 10:47:50 AM
Apologies if I'm taking the conversation off at a tangent, but ...
I think one of the biggest disservices profs have done where the arts are concerned is to leave a lot of people with the impression that artists are smart, and that the greatest artists are the smartest artists.
I've spent almost 30 years in the arts and the media fields, I've met and yakked with working artists in all kinds of fields, I've talked with millionaires and Nobelists. And the one thing that has leaped out at me most is that there is no relationship between smarts in the IQ sense and artistic talent and/or achievement. I mean, once basic day-to-day competence has been taken care of. And often barely that. Artists who you'd think would be intellectual titans given the work they produce sometimes turn out to be dimwits. High-powered brainy people often struggle unsuccessfully with basic creativity in the arts sense.
Quick acknowlegement: sure, there are creative artists who are also smart, and sure there are smart people who are also creative in the arty sense. But they're so rare that it seems fair to call them exceptions.
As far as I've been able to tell, art-talent is far more akin to athletic talent than it is to smarts. It's more usefully thought of as being in the body and the instincts than it is in the head.
Small irreverent hunch so far as the "Why do profs and critics lie to us about this?" question goes. Art-history and lit-history teachers and profs and critics usually either don't know these facts, or hate them. After all, they're smart people who are studying and encouraging the study of art. Yet the artists whose work they serve are usually less smart than the profs themselves. And what the profs have to offer (smarts, information) isn't something that often plays much of a role in the actual creation of art. Where's the justice?
OK now, returning you to your usual programming ...
Posted by: MIchael Blowhard at Mar 1, 2007 11:30:56 AM
Michael -- I'm willing to buy that for visual artists and maybe even composers, but do you really think it's true for writers? It's hard for me to believe that someone could be a great novelist or poet (at least before about 1920 w/r/t poets) without having a high IQ.
Posted by: jp at Mar 1, 2007 11:38:02 AM
Perhaps it's irrelevant for immigration whether achievement for groups is primarily IQ or cultural. The point is to encourage groups with high performance and high potential for future gains.
We know quite well that certain subgroups of immigrant populations have both high measured achievement and high potential for achievement (judging from 2nd and 3rd generations. In contrast, the current immigration rules seem to select for groups with low iq, low achievement, and low long term achievement. (Again judging by 2nd generation test scores, crime rates, ability to finish college, rates of entrepreneurship).
Unless social capital and measured iq are wildly uncorrelated, who really cares whether the underlying cause is cultural or genetic? If the cultural effects are strong enough and hard to affect, it's effectively AS IF it's all hard-wired.
Now if the US were willing to engage in massive, liberty destroying assimilationist tactics, that would be something else. But as it stands, do we have one iota of evidence that groups which stereotypically don't do well on iq tests fully converge to the American norm after 3 generations?
Posted by: cutter at Mar 1, 2007 11:42:08 AM
dk above, i think hits the nail on it's head.
Posted by: sa at Mar 1, 2007 12:00:12 PM
JP -- It being understood I'm talking only out of limited personal experience (but more extensive and more down-to-earth than most people's) ... Yeah, I've found it holds true for writers too. Fiction depends much more on imagination than it does on cerebration-power. And a poetry gift is more like having a good singing voice than it is like taking a test.
I think the reason many people think of creative writing as being dependent on smarts is that we've all gone to school, and that has led us to think of writing as being connected to school-type smarts. And certainly some kinds of writing are connected to smarts: good clear nonfiction, for instance. Expository prose. And critics and profs encourage us to think of writing as having to do with smarts. So we mistakenly assume that people who use words effectively are smart, because the people who could use words effectively in a school setting generally were indeed smart.
But art, even writing-art, isn't created in a school setting most of the time. It's more about questions like "do I believe in this character?", and "is this working for the audience?" Writing an effective story or poem has almost nothing to do with writing a winning term paper. Completely different activities, dependent on completely different sides of the personality. Charles Dickens was smart or not-smart as a person, but his fiction-talent had more to do with theatrical flair than with brainpower. As an artist, he was more like an actor than like a Smart Person. The verbal facility he had was just an accompanying and nice gift, akin to an athlete or dancer's physical prowess.
One handy way of picturing what's happened in highbrow fiction in the last four or five decades is that the intellectuals and schools got hold of it. (Great old joke: Post-bop is what became of jazz once the critics took over.) So a lot of recent highbrow fiction of the kind that gets serious consideration is in fact intellectually complicated stuff. But that just means that it's written largely to impress profs and critics, not that it's much as fiction. It's an intellectual's idea of fiction. Interesting and common phenomenon is that people in their 20s follow new highbrow fiction ... and then lose interest in their 30s, when they discover that, as adults, they're allowed to read to please themselves.
Anyway, a very interesting piece about the whole English-major, writing-about-fiction thing is this essay by Paul Graham.
Apologies for gassing on ...
Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Mar 1, 2007 12:29:17 PM
In practical terms, "Conservation of IQ" is used to argue for limits on immigration, against various meliorist attempts, and possibly even for eugenics. I've heard it used to argue for outlawing marijuana, which of course destroys brain cells.
What a load of collectivist nonsense. IQ may be valuable in some special way or it may not, but regardless of any of that, my IQ belongs to me, and that means I have the right to use it, or not, or move it around, or destroy it if I so choose. To argue otherwise is to claim that I belong to the state, which is the most morally repugnant notion ever conceived by man.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Mar 1, 2007 12:32:46 PM
A thought: economics relies on money, which is the forced projection of our preferences into a strictly ordered scale, which makes sense, because humans have to make choices to prioritize one thing over another when buying and selling.
There is, however, no reason why human intelligence should "naturally" conform to any sort of strict ordering. In fact, experience suggests otherwise -- the effects that influence IQ may be real, but IQ itself shouldn't be regarded as anything more than a bastardized average with unknown weights of those effects.
Posted by: Mycroft at Mar 1, 2007 12:37:58 PM
There is a good article by Linda S. Gottfredson that talks about IQ and g in the context of education issues. See http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005cognitivediversity.pdf
Seems to be quite consistent with everything I've read in this area, and is a good summary.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen at Mar 1, 2007 12:47:11 PM
All things being equal, higher IQ (whatever it is) is good. But to paraphrase Warren Buffett, its better to have a society of dumb yet honest people, rather than brilliant and malicious ones.
Posted by: cllam at Mar 1, 2007 1:00:21 PM
"...marijuana, which of course destroys brain cells"
Really? Could you cite any research?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8155
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172194,00.html
Posted by: Giovanni at Mar 1, 2007 1:13:17 PM
Michael -- Thanks for the response. I will have to give that more thought while I'm reading.
Posted by: jp at Mar 1, 2007 1:14:26 PM
Many of the important inovation are made by people with outstanding ability in a particular area, but are quite ordinary in other respects. IQ is the "average" of many seperate abilities, and a weakness in one will often produce extra effort in developing other abilities where there is a greater possiblity to excel. Many physicist are poor spellers and had trouble learning to read (even Einstein), while professional writers often show a weakness in the understanding of even basic math. This may be a part of the reason that "high" IQ people often do not fulfill their potential. Real accomplishment takes effort and focus as well as ability, and being good at everything, which is needed to score really high on an IQ test,is not always an advantage.
Posted by: joan at Mar 1, 2007 1:21:25 PM
I think we can agree that regardless of IQ, a person operating in a low-economic freedom society who cannot utilize productive capital produces less than that same person in a high-economic freedom society who can utilize productive captial.
It probably is true that high-IQ individuals can be more productive given access to the same capital, but clearly the world is missing much more capital than it is IQ.
The meta-effect is that perhaps having a higher IQ allows you to better appreciate economic freedom, but then again some of the smartest people I know are leftists...
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Mar 1, 2007 2:05:14 PM
So many fallacies…
1. The importance of IQ is an empirical matter. Whatever your ideological beliefs may be it is impossible to deny that IQ is the single best predictor of academic and economic success. Singe best predictor does not mean it explains everything, or close to everything. But more than hundreds of other variables people use.
2. The fact that IQ tests are an imperfect measure of true IQ is an argument for the importance of true IQ, hardly the opposite.
If *imperfect* measures of intelligence are the best single predictor of success in life, than logically true IQ is EVEN MORE IMPORTANT than what IQ-tests imply (essentially some of the variance is explained by variance in the test).
3. The premium for skill has been rising over the last 30 years. Some people mention human capital above. Both these measures are strongly linked to IQ.
In one of Murrays comparisons of Siblings with a sample of about 1000 people he found that
0% of those below 75
3% of those with IQ 75-89,
19% of those with IQ 90-110 went to college,
82% of those above 125.
These are staggering figures. It is simply silly to have a discussion of economic inequality in America and not mention IQ. By the way, unlike “class” intelligence is a well defined, consistent and measurable variable. Cowen is the one that is being fluffy here. It is furthermore nothing more than a straw-man that IQ should be able to explain everything to matter. It explains a lot, in a world where most social behaviour is hard to explain.
I would bet any amount of money that there is not one person in the Geroge Mason economic faculty that would score lower that average on an IQ test. I would even bet that there is almost not one person commenting here which belongs to the left half of the bell curve.
Do you think that is a coincidence? After all, if IQ is not that important, why do we observe these systematic patterns?
Posted by: Tino at Mar 1, 2007 2:36:58 PM
PS.
All economic departments in the US use the math GRE to screen their applicants, a pretty g loaded test.
Why bother,
“Once we see how such enormous differences can be explained by non-IQ factors, I again don't obsess over the variable.”
Why only “Logical-mathematical” intelligence? Why not measure all other intelligence? Linguistic intelligence (as in a poet), Spatial intelligence, Bodily kinesthetic intelligence, Interpersonal intelligence, Intrapersonal intelligence?
What about Passion? Creativity?
Oh, I forgot. Because this one works as a effective predictor of success, whereas the other are mainly fluff (before anyone starts: effective does not mean perfect).
Lastsly:
If IQ is not scarce I don’t understand why the market is paying such a premium for it. Cowen writes that it is not “especially” scarce. Well, I don’t know what he means by ”especially”, but from labour economics we know that IQ is the single best predictor of income (largely through it’s complement education of course). Since income is a reward for scarce resources in demand maybe that should qualify as “especially” scarce?
Furthermore, the social value of IQ is likely to be much higher than the private one. Almost all important development the last 500 years has come through the work of high IQ people. From Adam Smith to Watt to Einstein to Kilby to the scintists that drive technologi today IQ has been a neccesary (of course not sufficient, but that hardly makes it less important) factor of production.
Posted by: Tino at Mar 1, 2007 2:51:19 PM
I'd like to riff on MIchael Blowhard by arguing that IQ isn't the real issue. I have become convinced that achievement is based primarily on hard work. certainly an above-average IQ is helpful in many areas, but it does not lead to what we think of as 'genius' - i.e. high-level achievement, which is the product of deep thought and hard work.
for further thoughts on this I'd check out the blog of author David Shenck, who's working on a book on this (I think he overstates the case for nuture, but I think some of his arguments are compelling).
Posted by: David McDougall at Mar 1, 2007 3:14:15 PM
what I'm talking about is: what's scarce is expertise and dedication.
Posted by: David McDougall at Mar 1, 2007 3:16:30 PM
1) IQ doesn't measure everything about intelligence. Which is why people with extensive brain damage who can't run their own lives well enough to stay out of prison can still have very high IQ scores.
2) There are societies in which people of average intelligence -- including those at the low end -- can do things which in other societies are considered to require high IQs. Playing musical instruments, speaking two or more languages fluently, composing poetry, etc.
Which suggests we're not making full use of current resources.
Posted by: Dan Goodman at Mar 1, 2007 3:17:53 PM
Anybody else see Idiocracy recently? Great to watch in tandem with this conversation.
Posted by: Alex Ambroz at Mar 1, 2007 3:53:34 PM
Tino:
You do not know how Adam Smith, Watt, or Einstein scored on a IQ test, you are assuming your conclusion that people who make important contributions perform unusually well on IQ test.I know many Phd physicist who do not score very much above arerage on on IQ tests because of weaknesses in some of the subtests.
The dependence of income on IQ disappears when a regression includes education as one of the variables. If high IQ people were really scarce they would earn more, even without an education. The premium is paid for education.
Posted by: joan at Mar 1, 2007 4:06:00 PM
First of all a lot of you are repeating the common misunderstanding, by arguing that IQ isn’t everything. Of course not. But in order to be successful in important professions such as:
Scientists,
Academic,
Public intellectual,
Engineer,
Manager,
Physician,
Inventor,
Economist
You must have an IQ at least a standard deviation or two above average. Again, learn to differentiate between sufficient (which IQ is not) and necessary factor.
Economic growth and development has been based on new ideas and technologies. Only people with very high IQ are capable of coming up with these new ideas.
(Intelligence probably also matters when it come to institutions, but let’s forget that for now).
What a lot of you seem to do is a restricted range fallacy. “Im my lawfirm it is not the guy with the highest IQ that is the most competent”. Sure. But I also bet there simply is no one below average, or even below the 80th percentile of IQ. When you restrict the range to very high IQ people others factors become more important. But in the full range of the bell curve, you know, where reality is, IQ matters tremendously.
The difference between IQ and hard work or knowledge (although perhaps not creativity) is that one is close to exogenous and for most intents and purposes inmalleable in a given society. Effort is endogenous, responding easily to outside incentives.
No incentive or effort in the world will make a guy with an 85 IQ a successful professional. Yet there are as many people at or below 85 that there are above 115.
Posted by: Tino at Mar 1, 2007 4:17:58 PM
From Adam Smith to Watt to Einstein to Kilby to the scintists that drive technologi today IQ has been a neccesary (of course not sufficient, but that hardly makes it less important) factor of production.
Whoa, I didn't know Adam Smith got his IQ tested! You learn something new every day.
"The difference of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education. When they came into the world, and for the first six or eight years of their existence, they were perhaps, very much alike, and neither their parents nor playfellows could perceive any remarkable difference. About that age, or soon after, they come to be employed in very different occupations. The difference of talents comes then to be taken notice of, and widens by degrees, till at last the vanity of the philosopher is willing to acknowledge scarce any resemblance.
As it is this disposition [to truck, barter and exchange] which forms that difference of talents, so it is this same disposition which renders that difference useful. Many tribes of animals acknowledged to be all of the same species, derive from nature a much more remarkable distinction of genius, than what, antecedent to custom and education, appears to take place among men. ... Those different tribes of animals, however, though all of the same species, are of scarce any use to one another. ... Among men, on the contrary, the most dissimilar geniuses are of use to one another; the different produces of their respective talents, ... being brought, as it were, into a common stock, where every man may purchase whatever part of the produce of other men's talents he has occasion for."
Posted by: anon at Mar 1, 2007 4:18:41 PM
I've got nothing against IQ and IQ discussions. They're interesting, and I can't see any point in arguing with IQ, or with the idea that it's important.
That said, as a culturebuff, let me point out that culture and entertainment both are great big industries ("Titanic," anyone? Julia Roberts? Danielle Steel? "Friends"?), and that the kind of gifts that the "culture" thang demands don't have a lot to do with IQ. IMHO, of course. I think I read somewhere that culture products are the US's #2 export. Not a negligeable field!
Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Mar 1, 2007 4:25:13 PM
Joan:
We are not “assuming” that Einstein and Smith had high IQs, we can infer it from their life history. I do find it amusing how much people are willing to decieve themselds to deny IQ. Anyone here honestly thinks Einstein and Adam Smith (that entered college when he was 15) had lower than averge IQ:s? If so than please make this claim openly.
There are no physics Phd in the united stated with low IQ. In order to be accepted at an physics Phd program you need to score high on the GRE. Basically no one that does not have a high level of intelligence can do this.
Case in point:
The average, AVERAGE, of people with intended graduate major in Physics is 740 math. Incidentally physics majors also score exceptional on the verbal part, despite the fact that many are not American (head of the g factor?). Given how restricted the range of people that take the GRE the average person that takes the GRE intending to study physics (presumably below the average person that actually gets accepted, let alone earn a Phd) is 135.
So they score low on a *part* of the test? Maybe this is why they invented factor analysis…
“The dependence of income on IQ disappears when a regression includes education as one of the variables. If high IQ people were really scarce they would earn more, even without an education. The premium is paid for education.”
This is a spectacularly stupid argument. The value of a fast computer processor would be 0 if you outlawed programming and hardrive. Does that make the processor useless?
Posted by: Tino at Mar 1, 2007 4:36:16 PM
Joan:
We are not “assuming” that Einstein and Smith had high IQs, we can infer it from their life history. I do find it amusing how much people are willing to decieve themselds to deny IQ. Anyone here honestly thinks Einstein and Adam Smith (that entered college when he was 15) had lower than averge IQ:s? If so than please make this claim openly.
There are no physics Phd in the united stated with low IQ. In order to be accepted at an physics Phd program you need to score high on the GRE. Basically no one that does not have a high level of intelligence can do this.
Case in point:
The average, AVERAGE, of people with intended graduate major in Physics is 740 math. Incidentally physics majors also score exceptional on the verbal part, despite the fact that many are not American (head of the g factor?). Given how restricted the range of people that take the GRE the average person that takes the GRE intending to study physics (presumably below the average person that actually gets accepted, let alone earn a Phd) is 135.
So they score low on a *part* of the test? Maybe this is why they invented factor analysis…
“The dependence of income on IQ disappears when a regression includes education as one of the variables. If high IQ people were really scarce they would earn more, even without an education. The premium is paid for education.”
This is a spectacularly stupid argument. The value of a fast computer processor would be 0 if you outlawed programming and hardrive. Does that make the processor useless?
Posted by: Tino at Mar 1, 2007 4:36:17 PM
I think it is entirely safe to say that there has not been very much, if any, selective preccures put on most human populations for the last couple of hundred of years. When populations explode, it means that everything is going through to the next generation. This doesn't mean that natural selection cannot occur in expanding populations, just that in extreme cases where environmental factors lead to incredible fecundity, they are much much less of a factor.
In this context, it is very, very difficult to argue that we can evaluate policies based on their effect on the IQ of the population.
Posted by: Alex at Mar 1, 2007 4:47:38 PM
Now, on the other hand, if you are talking about how policies effect the IQ pool through a non-evolutionary perspective, I think there is a case to be made.
It is possible that the Flynn effect was caused by an increase in social mobility in the west. As the class you end up in becomes more dependent on your IQ and less dependent on your starting class, you would expect to see migration of high IQ individuals into the upper classes, even if the meritocracy does not eliminate dumb rich kids from moving down an income class (the abundant examples spring to mind).
Then you have people choosing their partners based on things like they both went to the same university, which used an IQ screen (SAT) as an admission criteria. So all these high IQ people get together and 'get down' as it were. If, as a result, the higher probability in bearing high IQ children in the high income bracket outweighed the lower probability of bearig high IQ children in the lower income bracket, you could see a net 'gain' in the average.
Keep in mind though, this intelligence-based segregation effect has to contend with the data showing that high income people have substantially fewer children than low income couples.
Also, sex selection mucks this up somewhat, as men and women select partners on obviously differnt criteria.
And even in this small example, the complexity of the system in question is inordinate. This whole problem reeks of the kind of thing which is interesting to dicuss, but disasterous in any way when used as motivation for legislation.
Posted by: Alex at Mar 1, 2007 4:58:59 PM
Every top econ grad department use the heavily IQ-driven GRE to screen applicants.
And yet economists, as these economists, as these comments show, turn around and try to pooh-pooh the importance of IQ.
Something does not compute...
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Mar 1, 2007 5:16:25 PM
In many fields such as economoics, IQ plays as visibly important a role as height does in the NBA. IQ-driven tests like the SAT and GRE are gatekeepers. Other economists talk about Jesse Shapiro or Larry Summers of Steven Levitt as being exceptionally smart, even among economists. Just as most people are too short to have a chance to become a top NBA player, most people are too low IQ to have a chance to become a top economist.
Like height, IQ appears to be driven by both environmental and genetic factors. Thus, Northern Chinese are getting taller due to better nutrition and so forth and are showing up more in the NBA.
Now, the interesting question is why all this is that-of-which-she-shall-never-speak in most of the economics profession. Why is the kind of anti-IQ ignorant bigotry expressed in many of these comments more socially fashionable than knowing what you are talking about when it comes to IQ? I leave it to the reader to work out how self-interest drives economists to put down and even lie about IQ.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Mar 1, 2007 5:41:31 PM
Mr. Sailer,
The effects of height disappear when one factors in years on professional basketball experience.
Posted by: josh at Mar 1, 2007 5:55:42 PM
BEGGING THE QUESTION
I've been noticing a lot of begging the question on this blog lately. The IQ supporters have essentially been called out on it for "inferring" that Adam Smith and Einstein had high IQs from their achievements, and then using the "fact" that they had high IQs to bolster their argument that high IQ individuals are responsible for great achievement.
Tyler does it too though: He assumes that IQ has not declined in Venice (and thus that the painters were not particularly high IQ) and then uses the fact that the old Venetian paintings were great to bolster his argument that high IQ is unimportant relative to other factors.
In both cases, the parties arguing are analyzing specific cases by assuming the very point that is being argued, and then using the result of their assumption-based analysis in support of the very point that they assumed.
I think everyone should be more careful to avoid filtering the data they use to support their arguments through the assumption that their argument is true.
Posted by: Doug at Mar 1, 2007 6:12:31 PM
Anyone here honestly thinks Einstein and Adam Smith (that entered college when he was 15) had lower than averge IQ:s? If so than please make this claim openly.
Adam Smith openly stated that there was little difference in natural talents between a philosopher and a common street porter. As a professor in moral philosophy, this claim was presumptively based on introspection and experience - can you please list your evidence on the contrary?
Posted by: anon at Mar 1, 2007 6:17:09 PM
In the May 2006 American Economic Review there's an article about attrition in Economics PhD programs. The average GRE Quantitative score was a 775, and average verbal of 568 for the top 40 schools or so. Considering most of the students were not US citizens, much of the verbal score was probably biased downward due to lack of familiarity with English. Nontheless, a GRE to IQ translator (at http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/GREIQ.aspx) suggests--conservatively because they equally weight the Quantitative and Verbal scores--an average IQ of around 139, or the 99.4 percentile.
Economists are like every other scientist, they love to talk about who is really 'smart': who hasn't heard a professor's anecdote about Samuelson and Arrow's impromptu analytical brilliance. IQ is like income, something we want more of, but publicly say doesn't matter.
That great poverty plan for people 3 standard deviations below you and your colleagues. Everyone at the ASSA meeting thought it made perfect sense. Its like these guys aren't maximizing their value function correctly (standard recursive technique--anyone can learn it).
To assume IQ mattered would be to reify IQ, admit genetics matter, appear patronizing, inegalitarian. Can't have that (but do keep kids with math GREs under 700 far away--pointless!).
Posted by: eric at Mar 1, 2007 6:22:35 PM
As to the Flynn effect, I suspect a great deal of the increase was simply due to much better nutrition (and medicine) over the last century or two. We're several inches taller for much the same reason
Also, I believe even Flynn has stated the effects have stopped in the last couple of decades.
Posted by: Roy at Mar 1, 2007 6:44:00 PM
Dan Goodman, I was unaware of #1. Could you provide some more info on the subject?
Posted by: TGGP at Mar 1, 2007 6:44:49 PM
Indeed, according to We are about as smart as we're going to get, says IQ pioneer the Flynn effect is over, says Flynn. A quote
"Now the man who first observed this effect, the psychologist James Flynn, has made another observation: intelligence test scores have stopped rising.
"Far from indicating that now we really are getting dumber, this may suggest that certain of our cognitive functions have reached — or nearly reached — the upper limits of what they will ever achieve, Professor Flynn believes. In other words, we can’t get much better at the mental tasks we are good at, no matter how hard we try."
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Mar 1, 2007 7:47:48 PM
It should be obvious that the industrial revolution raised the value of IQ. In the pre-industrial era, almost everyone was a peasant who did farm work almost all of the time. Only a small fraction of the population worked with their minds to any significant extent.
Beyond that, the pre-industrial era had other high(er) values. Physical strength mattered, as did resistance to disease and hardship. For hunters and warriors, hand-eye-brain coordination was crucial. Clearly, the rise of machine based production has diminished the premiums society places on strength or agility. Conversely, the complexity of modern society makes IQ quite important.
Check out IQ and the Wealth of Nations for evidence of a profound correlation between intelligence and national prosperity. It doesn’t matter if you think measured intelligence is an expression of education, culture, values, or genes, the linkage is quite strong. Of course, there is always the possibility that the study inverts cause and effect. However, the fast rise of the anomalies (countries with high IQs and low per-capita GDPs), strongly suggests otherwise.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Mar 1, 2007 8:02:28 PM
Doug:
You claim I am using circular reasoning, simply because you don’t understand what I am saying.
But before I start let me just take a second and ponder the fact that there are people here several people seriously questioning the fact that Albert Einstein had a above average IQ.
Amazing.
It is not circular logic to empirical facts to infer that Einstein or Smith had high IQ. There is historical data about those individuals. To this we can link systematic patters of behaviour that are known today.
People that like Smith are able to complete advanced education at a young age almost without exception have very high IQ (and yes I realize that the education system was somewhat different back than). People that do advanced physics or score very perfect math grades (which Einstein did as a child) also tend to have above average IQ, almost without exception.
There is therefore nothing strange or circular in pointing out that both those individual almost certainly had high IQ.
There are no great physicist or great Economists today that do not have high IQ. Knowing this about humans today it’s just childish to reduce to accept that the pattern was not true historically. Einstein did not have a extraordinary high level of abstraction and general intelligence, and claim that his innate ability had nothing to do with his success as a scientist.
“can you please list your evidence on the contrary? [that there is difference in natural talents between a philosopher and a common street porter”
IQ is largely, but not completely genetic. We know this beyond any reasonable doubt through massive research, for example on identical and non-identical twins.
According to the consensus view of the Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association the heritability of IQ for adults is 0,75.
Even if this is not the exact figure there is not doubt that the heritability is substantially higher than zero. To the extent that you think a successful philosopher or economist needs a high level of abstract thinking there is a innate difference between the average person and the average top philosopher.
Posted by: Tino at Mar 1, 2007 8:02:38 PM
I don't assign special status to The Conservation of IQ for two reasons. The first is the Flynn effect, or the fact that measured IQs have been rising steadily over time. This implies some combination of a) IQ gains come naturally under conditions of progress, and b) IQ statistics are to some extent phony and don't measure real intelligence. We can debate the mix, but either deflates fears that IQ is somehow especially scarce or endangered.
None of this holds water. For one, a rise in population average IQ is not the same as a population equalization of IQ. The Flynn Effect - which is over or near over for the developed world - has done precious little to close within-population IQ differences. The low IQ are still among us and these differences are mostly genetic. Furthermore it doesn't even tell us that between-group differences can be equalized, or even substantially reduced (in fact this is an empirical question with its own set of arguments). Race gaps within the US, for instance, haven't been reduced at all by the Flynn Effect.
Second, even if we knew IQ could be equalized, such knowledge in itself would tell us nothing of the mechanism to do it. Again the evidence shows us that we do not know how to effectively, much less easily, raise IQ scores.
Third, while the Flynn Effect may point to some measurement anomalies, this actually has minimal implications for the test, since the 'proof is in the pudding'; that is the tests are valid as far as they succeed in prediction.
So until evidence points to the fact that within-group and/or between-group differences in IQ can be ameliorated or equalized, we have to face IQ levels as if they had substantial economic consequences for individuals and society. We can't ignore inconvenient bits of reality with wishful thinking that they will disappear.
Clusters of amazing achievement come and go pretty quickly, usually through some mix of environmental effects and luck. Look at Venetian painting. It was much better centuries ago, but I doubt if Venetian IQs have been falling. . . Once we see how such enormous differences can be explained by non-IQ factors, I again don't obsess over the variable.
Venetian painting? Until you can quantify this vague, mixed bag of "environmental effects and luck" and use it to make predictions as strong as IQ for variables as relevant to individual and national progress, order, and well-being (i.e. not Venetian painting!!), then you have not given us a serious alternative.
when analyzing social problems, institutions, social psychology, and economic mechanisms still command most of my analytic attention.
I don't think it has to be an either-or issue. The important thing is that we don't leave out variables when they are clearly relevant to the problem under consideration; something you frequently do with IQ, which leads to inferior analysis and prediction.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Mar 1, 2007 8:07:32 PM
The first is the Flynn effect, or the fact that measured IQs have been rising steadily over time.
The Flynn effect is much debated. Some find surprisingly little evidence for any significant closure of the IQ gap. In a recent debate between Flynn and Murray, Flynn was noted for relying heavily upon intelligence test results for military personnel. The obvious problem here is that the military has altered the ASVAB substantially over the years. You can look around VDARE, Steve Sailer's site, and Gene Expression for some more reasons to call into question the idea that the Flynn effect will save us from idiocracy.
Steve Sailer points out one common sense objection to the Flynn Eefect.
Clusters of amazing achievement come and go pretty quickly, usually through some mix of environmental effects and luck. Look at Venetian painting.
Yes, look at Venetian painting. Look at any period of European cultural achievement. Just don't look at sub-Saharan Africa, then take a look back at Europe and East Asia, and then tell us the same thing.
I don't want to bring up the immigration angle, but needless to say, when it comes to any policy planning where IQ is concerned, those who are banking that we won't find genetically-based differences in intelligence among racial groups at the end of the day are taking one hell of a gamble with our future.
Posted by: mike at Mar 1, 2007 8:23:46 PM
Check out IQ and the Wealth of Nations for evidence of a profound correlation between intelligence and national prosperity. ... Furthermore it doesn't even tell us that between-group differences can be equalized, or even substantially reduced (in fact this is an empirical question with its own set of arguments). Race gaps within the US, for instance, haven't been reduced at all by the Flynn Effect.
This is utter garbage. Back in the 19th century, the so-called "Irish race" of "Africanoid Celts" was widely described by "genetics scientists" as insouciant, indolent and generally "inferior". Despite such racist prejudices, Northern Ireland is today a highly prosperous nation. Ironically, Flynn himself is an Irish-American.
As John Stuart Mill argued: "Of all vulgar modes of escaping from the consideration of the effect of social and moral influences on the human mind, the most vulgar is that of attributing the diversities of conduct and character to inherent natural differences."
Posted by: anon at Mar 1, 2007 8:42:59 PM
My problem is the way IQ is reduces to a single number that is then used to put people in boxes. Below is a list of subtest the are used to make up "IQ". If you look at the list,it is obvious that that someone could do very badly on some of them, which would lower their IQ, and still have the ability to get a Phd in physics or do well in many other fields. I do, in fact, know several physicist whos over all IQ score is in the average range. Einstein had diffculty learning to read so probably had some low scores on subtest that have high correlations with reading, but not with math.
stanford binet IQ test measures the following skills
Information: Similar to "Trivial Pursuit," this subtest measures fund of factual information. It is strongly influenced by culture. An American education and intact long-term memory will contribute to a higher score. Sample question (not really on the tests): "What is the capital of France?"
Comprehension: This subtest measures understanding of social conventions and common sense. It is also culturally loaded. Sample question: "What is the thing to do if you find an injured person laying on the sidewalk?"
Digit Span: Requires the repetition of number strings forward and backwards. Measures concentration, attention, and immediate memory. Lower scores are obtained by persons with an attention deficit or anxiety.
Similarities: This subtest measures verbal abstract reasoning and conceptualization abilities. The individual is asked how two things are alike. Sample question: "How are a snake and an alligator alike?"
Vocabulary: This test measures receptive and expressive vocabulary. It is the best overall measure of general intelligence (assuming the test-taker's native language is English). Sample question: "What is the meaning of the word 'articulate'?"
Arithmetic: Consists of mathematical word problems which are performed mentally. Measures attention, concentration, and numeric reasoning. Sample question: "John bought three books for five dollars each, and paid ten percent sales tax. How much did he pay all together?"
Performance Scales:
Object Assembly: Consists of jigsaw puzzles. Measures visual-spatial abilities and ability to see how parts make up a whole (this subtest is optional on the revised Weschler tests).
Block Design: One of the strongest measures of nonverbal intelligence and reasoning. Consists of colored blocks which are put together to make designs.
Digit Symbol/Coding/Animal House: Symbols are matched with numbers or shapes according to a key. Measures visual-motor speed and short-term visual memory.
Picture Arrangement: Requires that pictures be arranged in order to tell a story. Measures nonverbal understanding of social interaction and ability to reason sequentially.
Picture Concepts: A new subtest on the WISC-IV. Requires matching pictures which belong together based on common characteristics. Measures non-verbal concept formation and reasoning; a non-verbal counterpart of Similarities.
Picture Completion: Requires recognition of the missing part in pictures. Measures visual perception, long-term visual memory, and the ability to differentiate essential from inessential details.
Matrix Reasoning: (WAIS-III only) Modeled after Raven's Progressive Matrices, this is an untimed test which measures abstract nonverbal reasoning ability. It consists of a sequence or group of designs, and the individual is required to fill in a missing design from a number of choices.
Posted by: joan at Mar 1, 2007 8:51:18 PM
This is utter garbage. Back in the 19th century, the so-called "Irish race" of "Africanoid Celts" was widely described by "genetics scientists"
OK. But I think modern geneticists widely recognize that the Irish are, in fact, European. Meanwhile, real Africans continue to inhabit Third World countries.
Posted by: mike at Mar 1, 2007 9:15:42 PM
If economists don't like IQ, why don't they rely more on non g-loaded tests, such as GPA, history tests on econ, multiple choice tests for economics. I think it's pure hypocrisy: economists are in practice closet IQ fetishists at research universities (I clearly remember Casey Mulligan being advertised and perceived as being a zero in terms of any current ideas, but a great hire because he's so frickin' smart, which he is).
Economists brag about their realism vs other social scientists via their assumption of self-interest. But they are wimps on realism relating IQ (remember the JEL fatwa on Herrnstein and Murray to advertise their PC bona fides). It's clearly politic to pick your battles. So be it, but it's still wrong, and cowardly.
Posted by: eric at Mar 1, 2007 9:25:23 PM
Malloy wrote: "we do not know how to effectively, much less easily, raise IQ scores."
Practice taking IQ tests. Or just do some biofeedback.
Also, I think IQ tests are, in part, little more than intellectual conformity. I love the inferential number sequence problems, haha.
Posted by: BimetallismBaby at Mar 1, 2007 9:27:04 PM
The effects of height disappear when one factors in years on professional basketball experience.
Hmmmmm.....hmmmmm....lets think real hard about a possible reason for this which does not appeal to the strange notion that height simply doesn't matter in basketball.....
....hmmmmmmmm......
....hmmmmmmm.....this is such a perplexing one, but I'll hazard a a guess:
Maybe because players who cannot cut it have shorter careers.
If you're not very tall, you are at a disadvantage in basketball and are more likely to have a short career. In other words, you have to be exceptionally good as a short player to make it. Thus the level of individual success among basketball players, regardless of height, tends to converge over time. Just as you might expect when looking at practically any metric in any competitive field where the disadvantaged face elimination.
Just a guess.
Posted by: mike at Mar 1, 2007 9:39:19 PM
If economists don't like IQ, why don't they rely more on non g-loaded tests,
It is simply absurd to suggest that economists are "loading" their tests as a means of screening by IQ scores. For better or for worse, neoclassical economics relies extensively on formal mathematical models and statistical econometrics techniques. Given these requirements, using such scores as math GRE to screen applicants is quite rational.
Posted by: anon at Mar 1, 2007 9:50:16 PM
This is utter garbage. Back in the 19th century. . . racist prejudices
The source of group differences is revealed by evidence and inference not morality.
Practice taking IQ tests. Or just do some biofeedback.
No, see these two recent papers. Practice effects are hollow score gains, not genuine improvements in ability.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Mar 1, 2007 10:15:18 PM
Tino:
I don't misunderstand you at all, and your reasoning is STILL circular. You claim:
"There are no great physicist or great Economists today that do not have high IQ. Knowing this about humans today it’s just childish to reduce to accept that the pattern was not true historically."
Fine. Let's accept that statement as true for the sake of argument. You then take the argument further, applying your statement about humans today to Einstein and Adam Smith, to come to the conclusion that they had high IQs, based on their achievements in economics and physics. Fine, still a linear argument.
But then, when you use Einstein and Adam Smith to support a claim that high IQ individuals produce great achievements in physics and economics, you are closing the loop on a CIRCULAR argument, because the whole basis for your statement that Einstein and Adam Smith had high IQs is your prior statement that everyone who makes great achievements in physics and economics have high IQs.
NOTE, this does not mean your statements are FALSE (circular statements can be true, they just are not necessarily true), it only means that your claims about Einstein and Adam Smith add NOTHING to the strength of your argument, because the ENTIRE argument hinges solely on the initial question of whether or not all great physicist or great Economists have high IQs. If that initial statement is TRUE, then you have no need to look to Adam Smith or Einstein to support your claims about IQ. If the initial statement is NOT TRUE or is UNCERTAIN, then looking to Adam Smith or Einstein is misleading, because we have no direct evidence of their IQ scores, and thus we cannot determine whether or not their examples support your claim.
Thus, the arguments using Adam Smith and Einstein are at best superfluous and add nothing to your argument, and at worst, are fallacious and misleading attempts to attach validity to your argument--not by force of logic--but by associating your argument with men whom the readers of this board are likely to personally admire. Either way, such arguments (whether they are merely superfluous, or positively misleading) should be rooted out of the discussion--and your thought patterns--in order to enable everyone to focus on the relevant and dispositive data (which in this case would be the data that directly supports your initial hypothesis, that all great physicists and economists today have high IQs).
Posted by: Doug at Mar 1, 2007 10:22:26 PM
Tino,
Your problem is that you have no sense of humor or irony. The prospect of obviously high IQ people denying the existence of IQ should be a source of mirth, not outrage.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Mar 1, 2007 10:33:14 PM
anon,
Check out "IQ and the Wealth of Nations". The author recognizes that anomalies and provides explains for many of them. In some cases culture, in other cases politics (communism) have constrained apparently high-IQ populations. Conversely, oil has made Qatar quite rich irrespective of the talents of its natives.
Yes, Ireland of late is quite prosperous (you wrote Northern Ireland, you meant Southern Ireland). However, to get there Ireland adopted the mindset of a commercial nation.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Mar 1, 2007 10:40:28 PM
If IQ doesn't matter, then find me a nuclear physicist with an IQ of 85.
Posted by: mike at Mar 1, 2007 11:29:20 PM
As is often the case, Tyler has advanced a great discussion topic. Kudos to Tino--great, great posts. I worked in admissions for graduate programs and your are correct with respect to the GRE scores of applicants to PhD programs in Physics. Economics applicants also had very good scores. If indeed GRE scores are g loaded, then the state of Political Science and programs that end in "Studies" is not surprising.
Posted by: Robert at Mar 1, 2007 11:43:18 PM
Help me here guys. A few years ago there was a study demonstrating that amazingly Ivy League graduates had on average the highest incomes. What the study also showed was that persons who did not go to Ivy League Schools but could have gone (met admissions criteria) earned just as much as the Ivy League grads. Would suggest that there benefits (signaling and social networks) to an Ivy league education, but ultimately IQ is what drives earnings (on average). Who wrote the study?
Posted by: Robert at Mar 1, 2007 11:56:28 PM
Robert,
I believe the author is Krueger at Princeton.
Posted by: BimetallismBaby at Mar 2, 2007 12:15:50 AM
Jason Malloy,
Thanks for the links. I will have to peruse the studies more later. But, in terms of economic growth, I don't think it matters whether the gains are in a narrow task-specific domain or at the g-level. The division of labor alleviates this pressure. People only need to improve (become "smarter") at the narrow tasks they face.
Posted by: BimetallismBaby at Mar 2, 2007 12:42:55 AM
Tyler writes:
"Clusters of amazing achievement come and go pretty quickly, usually through some mix of environmental effects and luck. Look at Venetian painting. It was much better centuries ago, but I doubt if Venetian IQs have been falling. Once we see how such enormous differences can be explained by non-IQ factors, I again don't obsess over the variable."
Let's make the same statement about NBA basketball teams and height:
"Clusters of amazing achievement in the NBA come and go pretty quickly, usually through some mix of environmental effects and luck. Look at 1996 Chicago Bulls vs. the 2000 Chicago Bulls. The 1996 Bulls that went 72-10 weren't much taller than the lousy 2000 Bulls. Once we see how such enormous differences can be explained by non-height factors, I again don't obsess over the variable of height."
In the NBA statement, the conceptual fallacy is obviously restriction of range. Why isn't that clear to economists like Tyler in the Venice case?
Why does talking publicly about IQ make high IQ economists suddenly sound like they have low IQs? Could it have anything to do with the example of a very high IQ economist named Larry Summers losing the top job in academia because he spoke honestly and insightfully about the shape of the bell curves in IQ?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Mar 2, 2007 12:55:53 AM
I don't think it matters whether the gains are in a narrow task-specific domain or at the g-level. The division of labor alleviates this pressure. People only need to improve (become "smarter") at the narrow tasks they face.
Nope. The g factor is pretty much the whole story. Ree & Earles (1994) for instance found the correlation between g and job training success was 0.76. All the non-g portions put together added nothing to the prediction.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Mar 2, 2007 1:58:04 AM
"marijuana which of course destroys brain cells"
You have a citation for this? Other than from Czar Walters and his ilk??
Posted by: lee at Mar 2, 2007 3:10:23 AM
I have posted my own take on the original question: http://stonecity.blogspot.com/2007/03/snobbery.html
Posted by: sammler at Mar 2, 2007 3:20:12 AM
'Clusters of amazing achievement come and go pretty quickly, usually through some mix of environmental effects and luck.' Actually Charles Murray, the man who did more than any other to open the IQ debate in the 90's, seems to agree with you. In Human Accomplishment he argued that purpose, autonomy, organizing structure and transcendental goods were the main preconditions required for great cultural accomplisment. Intelligence was conspicuously absent.
There is a minimum level required, of course, Robert Lang would not be capable of creating such beautiful and intricate origami without an off the chart spatio-visual IQ. Michelangelo was a genius, but I doubt he would have achieved so much were it not for his intense spirituality, sense of divine purpose and love of Florence. Religion, or some kind of mad devotion, are required for the highest art, mainly because it is damn hard work.
Posted by: adrian at Mar 2, 2007 5:45:37 AM
Right. It's like how you couldn't have created the 1996 Bulls out of a bunch of random tall guys. On the other hand, you couldn't create any NBA team out of a bunch of guys of average height, no matter how fine all their other qualities. Thus, height is definitely a scarce commodity for the purposes of assembling winning NBA teams.
Similarly, in answer to Tyler's title question, "Is IQ what is truly scarce?" the answer is, of course IQ is scarce. Economics is the study of scarcity, so most everything is scarce to some extent. But, surely, any honest study of the world around us would suggest that IQ is one of key scarce factors along a host of dimensions. It's time for economists to start studying IQ.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Mar 2, 2007 8:29:22 AM
"conservatively because they equally weight the Quantitative and Verbal scores--an average IQ of around 139, or the 99.4 percentile."
Not to flatter ourselves, but I think much of the recent work in behavioral economics simply relfects the (painfully slow) process of economists realizing that not everybody is as smart as economists, and also realizing that it matters.
Posted by: Keith at Mar 2, 2007 9:32:30 AM
Steve Sailer wrote recently about the basketball player John Amaechi, 6'-10'' and 270 pounds, who played terribly because he didn't like the sport and was only in it for the money. Now at that height this guy could have been a brilliant player if he put in the effort and trained himself a bit, but he had no motivation and felt no sense of purpose in what he was doing. However all must be agreed that he had the POTENTIAL, whereas most people's height renders them unfit to be a fantastic basketball player. I think this is what Steve means by the 'restriction of range' he talked about in an earlier post in relation to IQ.
Likewise with the highest art or learning. The average guy in the street is incapable of creating great art as he is outside the required range (spatio-visual IQ for painting, architecture, verbal for poetry, literature etc). But within the range there remains a great divergence in artistic accomplishment, and I think that is where Murrays four preconditions have an impact. Dante and Albert Camus both had high IQ's, but the preconditions for Dante (belief, purpose etc) were much more condusive to artistic accomplisment than Camus' (atheist nihilism), and so despite both being 'in the range', their final output was wildly different in terms of high beauty and greatness.
Tyler - 'Look at Venetian painting. It was much better centuries ago, but I doubt if Venetian IQs have been falling.' Murray's four preconditions ended after Napoleon took over and gave it to Austria, and it's hearty individualistic nationalism was eventually subsumed into greater Italy. Nationalism is a good artistic muse providing purpose and inspiration - Michelangelo sculpted the David as a symbol of Florentine nationalism.
Posted by: adrian at Mar 2, 2007 9:46:49 AM
"Practice effects are hollow score gains, not genuine improvements in ability."
...
"Nope. The g factor is pretty much the whole story. Ree & Earles (1994) for instance found the correlation between g and job training success was 0.76. All the non-g portions put together added nothing to the prediction."
Note that these claims are glaringly inconsistent. It is quite revealing that "intelligence researchers" are not bothered by such logical flaws.
"Why does talking publicly about IQ make high IQ economists suddenly sound like they have low IQs?"
The reason economists do not take IQ seriously is that they understand how tiny differences in _natural comparative advantages_ can be amplified by positive feedback effects, making heritability statistics utterly spurious. The naïve social Darwinism of intelligence researchers has been thoroughly disproven.
Posted by: anon at Mar 2, 2007 10:46:03 AM
anon,
Note that these claims are glaringly inconsistent.
The claim that IQ generally cannot be increased by practice and the claim that success in job training is heavily dependent on g are not contradictory in any way that is obvious to me.
The reason economists do not take IQ seriously is that they understand how tiny differences in _natural comparative advantages_ can be amplified by positive feedback effects
Well, do they understand anything about minimal requirements as Sailer has been pointing out using his basketball examples?
If amplified natural comparative advantages could explain the wealth of nations, we might expect a world where national wealth and national IQ were much less consistently correlated.
The naïve social Darwinism of intelligence researchers has been thoroughly disproven.
You'll need something other than your word to back that statement up.
Again, if IQ is meaningless, then find me a nuclear physicist, any nuclear physicist, with an IQ of 85.
Posted by: mike at Mar 2, 2007 1:06:44 PM
mike:
The claim was not about "heavy dependence", it was about correlation. As any econometrician will tell you, correlation is a two-way street; also, to the extent that any job training is correlated with "general ability", it is statistically equivalent to an IQ test - that's supposedly the whole point of IQ testing! You can't have it both ways: either repeated training is correlated with g or it's not.
Well, do they understand anything about minimal requirements as Sailer has been pointing out using his basketball examples?
Steve Sailer's example involved height, which is clearly a stiff and inelastic variable. It's not clear that his example would apply to intelligence.
If amplified natural comparative advantages could explain the wealth of nations, we might expect a world where national wealth and national IQ were much less consistently correlated.
Not if the wealth of nations was a result of increased division of labor and general economic development, which would tend to raise measured IQ scores by incenting investment in human capital.
You'll need something other than your word to back that statement up. Again, if IQ is meaningless, then find me a nuclear physicist, any nuclear physicist, with an IQ of 85.
It's not clear what you mean here. My claim is that most proponents of the "IQ scarcity" thesis are implicitly modeling IQ as an absolute variation which is mostly due to genetic factors. It is much more likely that natural variations are much smaller than is generally thought and that their effect on job talents is disproportionately amplified by comparative advantage and specialization. This would make "IQ scarcity" a fairly meaningless concept.
Posted by: anon at Mar 2, 2007 2:08:30 PM
One thing I think might be important here: you probably aren't as good as you think you are (for most values of "you") at evaluating someone's intelligence based on conversing with them. I know people in my own field whose work I can judge, who range from verbally quick enough to make a living as stand-up comics, all the way to people who almost need to take each sentence in a conversation offline and think about it for awhile.
It's really common to hear people say stuff like "well, I talked to these three guys, and they're not all that bright." But while I'm sure verbal quickness and obvious intelligence are correlated with real intelligence, they're not the same thing.
I think there have been experiments showing that listeners evaluate the intelligence of the speaker differently when the speaker has an English or Boston accent than when he has a Texas accent. I've also heard the claim that you can make a character in a TV show or movie seem smarter just by making them talk faster. And you certainly can mistake education for intelligence in casual conversation.
Along with that, IQ is a composite of a bunch of different skills, right? People within some specialized field may have a very different distribution of those skills than others--for example, I'd guess that visual artists must have some amazing sense of spacial relationships. (It would be interesting to hear from Jason on this, since intelligence testing is something he studies.)
Posted by: albatross at Mar 2, 2007 2:22:41 PM
Of course IQ is a major factor in achievement. I will use temps as an example.
Back when I first became a temp as a 21-year-old former waitress, I was repeatedly told how fantastic I was. I didn't understand what I did that was so great. They asked me to do some filing and data entry and I did it, no big whoop. But because I easily completed every task I was given I was offered a permanent job with the company processing and managing all of their Accounts Payable. I had absolutely no accounting background, and all the training I had was on-the-job.
Fast forward 6 years and I'm still doing accounting, only now I have a job that under normal circumstances would require an accounting degree, except I proved to my employers that I can do the job as well, indeed better, than their degreed employees.
In the meantime, I have seen plenty of temps come and go and they are, with rare exceptions, extremely stupid. I mean, don't-know-the-alphabet stupid. The sharp ones have all been college students who temp during breaks. Woe betide the office that gets a middle-aged temp. Not only will he be stupid, but probably he has terrible work ethic as well.
Now some may read this and think, but what about those hardworking folks in between? Well, I'll tell you: the last two jobs I've had I was was recruited to replace hardworking people who were given promotions, like me, and they just couldn't hack it. They were great at data entry, but were clueless about information behind the numbers they were inputting.
IQ has very real effects. In my case it allows me to enjoy a middle-class life in a very expensive area without a college degree. Indeed, I am now finally attending college with the hope to one day earn as much as I earn now, only doing something that I enjoy more.
Posted by: Christina at Mar 2, 2007 2:25:20 PM
I think a bunch of the comments back and forth with Tino are based on a terminology issue: IQ is used both as the test and as the thing (g, general intelligence) that IQ tests try to measure.
You can try to evaluate someone's intelligence in the broad sense by their work--in fact, that's what we really care about. But there's no way I can see to find out how some historical figure would have done on an IQ test. It's clear that Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Smith, etc., were all very smart guys, but we don't have an IQ test score available for any of them.
Posted by: albatross at Mar 2, 2007 2:28:07 PM
IQ is pretty accurate.
Also I think IQ is not really a set of different skills it is more like "processing power" that exhibits itself in a number of areas.
A good test uncovers that processing power and will get about the same answer at 6 as it does as 30 (I note that I got IDENTICAL scores in a formal testing environment over something like that period) i.e. IQ IS fairly inelastic like height (although both are effected by environment also). However it is of course difficult to have such a good test.
> The naïve social Darwinism of intelligence researchers has been thoroughly disproven.
I think the problem here is a confusion regarding what is being claimed (since I guess so many people are involved)
1) Clearly genetics don't 100% determine IQ - that would be ridiculous (food for example is a factor)
2) Clearly genetics have a huge effect on IQ - to deny that is also ridiculous
The suggestion is that it is 70% hereditable - well, if it was 10% hereditable the social Darwinists would still be correct in saying that it matters.
Also IQ is closely related to success, but not always a specific measure of success. For example a poor artist might have a high IQ and be a success at making fancy art but not making money because he never really wanted to make money.
Posted by: geniusNZ at Mar 2, 2007 4:04:38 PM
The suggestion is that it is 70% hereditable - well, if it was 10% hereditable the social Darwinists would still be correct in saying that it matters.
I'm not disputing the degree of heritability as observed by statistical correlation etc. What's unclear is the _economic_ significance of inherited variation: social Darwinists assert that it has an absolute effect on job talents, as opposed to a comparative impact through specialization effects. This claim is extremely dubious.
Also IQ is closely related to success, but not always a specific measure of success. For example a poor artist might have a high IQ and be a success at making fancy art but not making money because he never really wanted to make money.
If such a poor artist is adequately satisfying his wants, he is economically successful by definition.
Posted by: anon at Mar 2, 2007 4:51:49 PM
Steve Sailer's example involved height, which is clearly a stiff and inelastic variable. It's not clear that his example would apply to intelligence.
In what sense is IQ highly elastic? Studies show that IQ among identical twins tends to be very similar, while among fraternal twins it tends to vary in a way more typical of that of ordinary siblings. This indicates a strong genetic, as opposed to environmental, component. Other studies show that IQ is very stable over the lifetime of individuals. It doesn't change much over time.
Not if the wealth of nations was a result of increased division of labor and general economic development, which would tend to raise measured IQ scores by incenting investment in human capital.
Well then, we are at a chicken-or-the-egg point. Is economic development the product of intelligence of a population or is intelligence the product of economic development? I'm much more inclined to believe the former, especially when you see persistent lags in IQ scores among not only people from the Third World but also their descendants in the First World. The existence of a few wealthy but low-IQ Arab states would be further evidence for this. Places like Qatar are very developed economically, yet the population continues to have approximately the same mean IQ as its much poorer and less developed neighbors.
If economic development is the result of intelligence, we can find perfectly explicable reasons why this would be the case. If intelligence is the product of economic development, then all possible mechanisms to date seem inadequate and inconsistent in explaining why. It isn't enough to propose that economic development somehow might lead to increased intelligence and rest your case there, you have to provide some mechanism as to why it would increase intelligence and then provide empirical evidence to support it.
For example, saying increasing division of labor increases the mean intelligence of a country is pretty abstract. How does a division of labor lead to increased intelligence if evidence suggests intelligence tends to be fixed before most people enter the labor market. Why haven't minorities who's ancestors trace from consistently low-IQ regions of the world benefited to the same extent as those from high-IQ regions in the same economic environment. Is the division of labor in a place like China really dramatically more diverse than that of Mexico? If not, why do the Chinese score higher than the Mexicans on IQ tests (with a much lower per capita GDP to boot)?
Saying economic development leads to greater intelligence rather than vice versa seems like an instance of what Steve Sailer has termed "Occam's butterknife."
Posted by: mike at Mar 2, 2007 4:52:41 PM
You can't have it both ways: either repeated training is correlated with g or it's not.
I think you've misinterpreted something, but I'm not sure. See the papers I linked above.
The g factor highly predicts training success. The training does not increase g. Practicing the test increases an IQ score, but not the g factor extracted from the test.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Mar 2, 2007 5:21:46 PM
In what sense is IQ highly elastic?
IQ scores may or may not be elastic: the evidence is murky on this point. Human capital is quite elastic, and it's definitely correlated with economic achievement.
I'm much more inclined to believe the former, especially when you see persistent lags in IQ scores among not only people from the Third World but also their descendants in the First World.
Group differences in IQ scores seem to be related to ethnical and cultural factors rather than simple geographical origin. Among minorities, stereotypes and discrimination also play role, as with Irish immigration to the United States in 19th century.
If economic development is the result of intelligence, we can find perfectly explicable reasons why this would be the case.
This is ridiculous position. What's the mean IQ of North Korea? Are Kong Kong and Singapore residents so much smarter than their neighboring countries? Has the intelligence of Japanese people dropped in the last decade?
The existence of a few wealthy but low-IQ Arab states would be further evidence for this.
These countries are heavily dependent on their natural resource endowments. For various reasons, such dependence tends to depress overall competitiveness and economic development, a concept known as the "Dutch Disease".
intelligence tends to be fixed before most people enter the labor market.
This is clearly untrue. For one thing, some jobs are less stimulating than others: people who expend their whole life in such menial jobs find no occasion to exert their cognitive abilities. They naturally lose the habit of such exertion, and become less intelligent as a result.
the Chinese score higher than the Mexicans on IQ tests (with a much lower per capita GDP to boot)?
It's probably a result of China's Confucian culture. Chinese childrens are very obedient to their parents and elders, and they place a high importance on education.
Posted by: anon at Mar 2, 2007 7:10:06 PM
IQ scores may or may not be elastic: the evidence is murky on this point.
Murky in what way?
What's the mean IQ of North Korea?
I'm saying that a relatively high mean IQ is a minimum requirement for a high level of development. I'm not saying that economic development is an inevitable consequence of high IQ. You'll be hard pressed to find me any state (outside of a few oil-rich Arab microstates like Qatar) that has a mean IQ of 80 yet is highly developed. Yes, of course, if you pursue Stalinism with any vigor, you're going to run your country into the ground economically no matter how bright your population is. I have little hope, however, that a nation like Zimbabwe will ever be South Korea economically.
I don't know what North Korea's mean IQ is. I'm not aware of any data on the matter. I'll bet it is still likely higher than the mean IQ of Mexico, however.
Group differences in IQ scores seem to be related to ethnical and cultural factors rather than simple geographical origin.
OK. But clearly ethnic groups have their origins in geographical areas. That is what I'm referring to.
For various reasons, such dependence tends to depress overall competitiveness and economic development
Again, you've proposed no plausible mechanism for how things like 'economic development' or 'labor division' are supposed to increase IQ in concrete terms. Yet, you are already appealing to other abstractions like 'lack of economic competitiveness' to attempt to dismiss seeming anomalies. At this point, your arguments in favor of 'economic development' as a cause for an increase in intelligence doesn't appear to constitute anything beyond an appeal to 'spooky economic action at a distance.' That might work in quantum physics, but it doesn't work in social sciences. How about providing some concrete examples of how economic development might increase IQ that can be examined and debated?
This is clearly untrue. For one thing, some jobs are less stimulating than others: people who expend their whole life in such menial jobs find no occasion to exert their cognitive abilities. They naturally lose the habit of such exertion, and become less intelligent as a result.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that a stimulating job environment noticeably increases IQ in younger (or older) adults. Likewise, I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that a dull work environment substantially diminishes IQ.
I certainly don't see any evidence that work environment is likely responsible for IQ differences on the order of, say, a standard deviation such as we see between African-Americans and white Americans or between Arabs and Europeans.
Posted by: mike at Mar 2, 2007 8:30:26 PM
The usual results on IQ heritability and inelasticity are only valid if at all, under a static and unchanging economic and cultural environment since expression of heritable variation in terms of IQ scores (which is measured by statistical heritability tests) is heavily dependent on said environment. This is even when there's no nurtural variation at all within given economy or society. It is clearly fallacious to use these same results as argument that general economic development cannot increase IQ or is dependent on absolute level of IQ.
Posted by: anon at Mar 2, 2007 9:46:45 PM
The interesting question which gets back to Tyler's original post is whether the number of high-IQ people is a scarce enough resource that it's limiting growth in some or all countries.
Assume that the IQ distribution is given and we can't change it. Assume there are some jobs which require at least an IQ of C to do well. (Think of mechanics or clerks.) Let's call the portion of the population with IQ>C, P.
If your economy doesn't need at least P people in those high-IQ fields, then the supply curve for those jobs is relatively elastic--there are plenty of people smart enough to be good mechanics or clerks, say, but mostly they're working on farms or something. In this region, your economy can grow relatively quickly even if growth requires the high-IQ fields.
At some point, your economy can hit the point where further growth requires more than P fraction of the population in high-IQ jobs. At this point, the supply curve for high-IQ people becomes inelastic, and economic growth is limited by lack of smart enough people.
In reality, this is a pretty simple model. Perhaps there are good substitutes for many high-IQ occupations, though it's not clear that there are. Two incompetent mechanics are probably not able to do everything that one first-rate mechanic can do. Barely-literate clerks will probably not add much to the functioning of businesses or bureaucracies. But there surely are some substitutes--putting the rare doctors behind a wall of nurses and specialized technicians to handle the routine stuff, moving the really clever mechanics to the factory where they design the gadgets, and making the maintenance of the gadgets as simple as possible.
It seems pretty obvious that some jobs just require a lot of intelligence, and can't be substituted well at all. If some mysterious disease killed everyone in the world with an IQ over 120, we'd still have most parts of our society, but we'd probably have a heck of a time developing new drugs or space probes or keeping Moore's law going. I'm assuming here that those things are much, much harder for people with lower IQs; enough so that just throwing ten researchers at the problem that would have taken one smart one isn't a solution.
If we assume high-IQ people are a resource that limits economic growth, we probably ought to regret the large numbers of smart people going into zero-sum stuff like tax law.
Posted by: albatross at Mar 2, 2007 11:30:46 PM
anon & mike - Lynn and Vanhanen's 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' put North Korea's avg IQ at 106 despite famines, widespread malnutrition and brainwashing.
anon - 'It's probably a result of China's Confucian culture. Chinese childrens are very obedient to their parents and elders, and they place a high importance on education.' China's avg IQ was rounded down to 100 in IQWN, but is probably higher. Lets remember that China's population includes what like 800,000 people who could only be described as peasants? I'm sure large numbers of them are uneducated beyond a rudimentary level, and yet they still score high on IQ tests.
'expression of heritable variation in terms of IQ scores (which is measured by statistical heritability tests) is heavily dependent on said environment.' - I think that North Korea's 106 IQ, and endless twin stuides, have disproved the environment-IQ link. Beyond severe severe malnutrition or a mother never speaking to a child, environment doesnt impact on IQ all that much.
Posted by: adrian at Mar 3, 2007 4:02:21 AM
At this point, the supply curve for high-IQ people becomes inelastic, and economic growth is limited by lack of smart enough people.
If this was the case, high IQ people should earn a larger compensating differential in poor countries than in rich countries, which would incent massive "brain drain" from the _developed_ to the _developing_ world! This is not what we observe, and compensating differentials are well explained by the usual factors, such as human capital accumulation, risk, and the pleasantness or difficulty of work.
Posted by: anon at Mar 3, 2007 7:55:04 AM
> What's unclear is the _economic_ significance of inherited variation
my suggetion in the secong paragrah you referenced was that the economic signifiance is if anything an underestimation of the true significance. ie that IQ is more significant than the tool you are trying to rate it by.
> Are Kong Kong and Singapore residents so much smarter than their neighboring countries?
as it happens - apparently so. this is probably a result of a brain drain to those cities. But of course IQ i not the only variable that matters, things like 'having resources' or 'sensible policies' also matter. But no sane country would intentionaly destroy resources or intentionally instigate stupid policies just because they dont 100% determine sucess.
> It's probably a result of China's Confucian culture.
That is a common argument - except that it demonstrably isn't true since education from school age doesn't seen to make much diference to IQ. More likely high IQ societies tend towards education oriented culture.
An interesting comparison is life expectancy - which seems loosely related to IQ (as well as GDP).
> If this was the case, high IQ people should earn a larger compensating differential in poor countries
who cares about being a greater percentage richer than your neighbour when you could be richer in absolute terms?
Posted by: geniusNZ at Mar 3, 2007 3:27:08 PM
I also suggest it works the following way
1) think of an area of land from history "how long has this country had a reasonable degree of civilization" (this could be a cause or an effect or both)
2) now think where are those people now? how much have they intermarried with other groups?
3) highlight those on costal areas, especially peninsulars.
just like you could use similar arguments to talk about skin colour.
Both of which seem to relate reasonably well with what we observe.
RE (1): I think about 4000 years is enough to make a very significant difference to IQ of a group if selection pressures are in the right direction. significant differences might even occur in just a couple of hundred years.
Posted by: geniusNZ at Mar 3, 2007 3:43:53 PM
who cares about being a greater percentage richer than your neighbour when you could be richer in absolute terms?
It's not just a relative matter - you're not accounting for differences in cost of living and purchasing power. If the intelligence researchers' statistics about national IQ's were correct, high IQ people in the third world could live like kings.
Posted by: anon at Mar 3, 2007 4:51:46 PM
anon:
I think you need a couple other assumptions or parts of the model to know which way brain drain would go between societies. For example:
a. Country A is just richer than country B, due to more natural resources or history or whatever. They're both at the same point in the development of their economy. Country A could plausibly bid away most of Country B's smart people, even if Country B started with more smart people than Country A.
b. Country A has developed a lot further down the path toward needing smart workers than country B. This bids the wage for smart workers up in country B relative to country A.
Both of those have brain-drain in the direction of poor to rich countries, and (b) seems like it plausibly describes the world as we see it now. Alternatively, you could have something like:
c. Country A has a surplus of very smart people, enough that their economy, though very rich, isn't able to use them all up. Country B is very short on smart people, but has enough money (maybe due to natural resources) that it can bring them in from country A.
This might be a description of how the brain-drain functions in big oil-producing countries.
All this is oversimplification, and I'm not claiming any accuracy for this model. But it seems like this is what's being assumed when we talk about high IQ people as a critical resource, and it does seem plausible at first glance.
Posted by: albatross at Mar 3, 2007 7:05:34 PM
Countries does not need "money" to bid for smart people: they need productive opportunities on the margin. (Indeed, natural resource money is counterproductive since it raises overall cost of living: this is the mechanism of the Dutch Disease.) If the marginal smart worker is more productive in country B relative to country A after adjusting for local purchasing power, that's the way brain drain will go. Again, the brain drain evidence does not support the view that "smarts" have an absolute significance irrespective of local economic conditions.
Posted by: anon at Mar 3, 2007 7:19:30 PM
Well then, we are at a chicken-or-the-egg point. Is economic development the product of intelligence of a population or is intelligence the product of economic development? I'm much more inclined to believe the former, especially when you see persistent lags in IQ scores among not only people from the Third World but also their descendants in the First World.
Mike: how would the "persistent lags in IQ scores" you refer to among the word's poor nations clarify the chicken-or-the-egg point either way? Clearly, if intelligence in a population is furthered by economic development, then lack of economic development in a poor country would tend to calcify persistence of low IQ scores. Just the opposite would presumably occur in rich countries.
What you seem to be contending is that low IQ scores condemn an already poor nation to indefinite poverty. But this seems to be strongly contrary to common sense. There are numerous examples of nations that have begun to grow strongly after sensible economic policies are put in place. Surely if you were you correct in at least a few of these, low IQ scores amongst the populace would stop economic development in its tracks. Indeed, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, it would appear that Indians are more intelligent than Japanese, because per capita GDP is expanding more rapidly in India than in Japan.
Posted by: Jasper at Mar 3, 2007 7:22:49 PM
Mike: how would the "persistent lags in IQ scores" you refer to among the word's poor nations clarify the chicken-or-the-egg point either way?
I referred to persistent lags in IQ scores from those who's origins trace from low-IQ regions of the world (like Africa or Latin America) versus those from high-IQ regions (like Europe or East Asia) in the same economic environment (like the United States).
Clearly, the economic condition of Europe or Africa doesn't much matter if you've been living in the United States your entire life.
Posted by: mike at Mar 4, 2007 5:18:53 AM
"I referred to persistent lags in IQ scores from those who's origins trace from low-IQ regions of the world (like Africa or Latin America) versus those from high-IQ regions (like Europe or East Asia)"
Aren't you confusing 'low-IQ-regions' with 'darker skinned people regions'? I mean, the origins of Latino's in the States trace back for a considerable part to Europe (yes, Europeans did immigrate to Latin America as well) and Asia (think about the native Americans).
Peoples do not have a certain geographical origin, they tend to migrate. To list an example: both the Finnish and the Hungarians migrated to Europe from the same region (close to the Urals, I believe) in the 12th century; think about the linguistical similarity in the Finnish and Hungarian languages. However, Finland is (and has been since about 1850) economically far more succesful than Hungary. What then explains the divergence in welfare (which started before the Soviet oppression, mind you)? Is the cold climate of Finland more conducive to intelligence than the hot summers of Hungary. Or do soft variables such as culture and institutions play a bigger role than race?
Posted by: JSK at Mar 4, 2007 11:03:16 AM
JSK,
"However, Finland is (and has been since about 1850) economically far more succesful than Hungary"
That's an interesting claim. However, the standard reference database (Historical Statistics for the World Economy) doesn’t support your statement. The first available data point is for 1870. The Finland/Hungary per-capita GDP ratio was 1.044. However, by 1890, Hungary was richer than Finland (ratio 0.938). Hungary remains ahead of Finland until the eve of WWI. In the 1920s, Finland was typically 10-15% more productive than Hungary. Given the turmoil in Eastern Europe in this time period, this is not surprising.
In the 1930s, Finland was significantly richer than Hungary with per-capita output ratios ranging from 1.109 (1930) to 1.353 (1937). Predictably, WWII changes everything with the Finland/Hungary ratio starting at 2.140 in 1946 and then falling (not rising) to 1.640 in 1968. The ratio then rises to a peak 2.809 in 1997 and starts to fall.
“Aren't you confusing 'low-IQ-regions' with 'darker skinned people regions'?”
Of course, I can’t speak for Mike. However, skin color is clearly not the germane variable. Many Asia immigrants are relatively dark skinned. Indeed, they faced intense discrimination in the U.S. at one point in time. That hasn’t prevented them from becoming highly successful in American society. Koreans provide a case in point. They came from a country that was then (not now mind you) still quite poor. However, that hasn’t prevented them from excelling in our nation. Nor has skin color.
Of course, I could have used the Chinese, the Japanese, etc.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Mar 4, 2007 5:35:16 PM
Peter Scaeffer:
Asian immigrant succeeded in US because they were industrious and hard working people. However if you had tested their IQ in the 19th century (California Gold Rush, etc.) they would score pretty low.
Posted by: anon at Mar 5, 2007 10:24:15 AM
anon,
The actual immigrants might have tested low, given that many were illiterate. However, the next generation would have tested rather high. Asians have been succeeding in American schools as far back as I can find records.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Mar 5, 2007 2:10:39 PM
check yourself here :)
Posted by: