Bryan Caplan  

IQ and Immigration: Only a Slight Caricature

PRINT
Should the IMF Have Intervened... The Journal I'd Most Want to E...
Mr. Human Biodiversity: The average IQ of immigrants from Mexico is 11 points less than ours.  Therefore, let's hunt them down like animals and cast them back into the fiery chasm from whence they came!

Dr. Mainstream Intellectual: Only a monster like you would say such a horrible thing about their IQs! 

Me: ?!

P.S. I couldn't resist turning this into a little comic.


Comments and Sharing





COMMENTS (50 to date)
Dave Schuler writes:

That's not what worries me. What worries me is that it might be lowering the average IQ of both countries.

Anonymous writes:

I have foreign colleagues who must go through a very trying process to get their citizenship. A person from Mexico comes into this country and some claim that person should not have to go through the same process. What's more: they claim their opponents are racist. Tell me, why is someone from Mexico better than my Asian and European colleagues? As for "racism", why do Hispanic people from Haiti and other countries not get the same quick pass. There is no rational reason! The real reason: Mexicans tend to vote for Democrats.

Randy writes:

Numbers matter, for sure. But what good is IQ without population density?

Zdeno writes:

1) Actually enforcing immigration laws, a task that has always been quite humane and straightforward for any reasonably functional state =/= "hunting them down like animals."

2) Mexico =/= "a fiery chasm" and to the extent that it is, shouldn't that be another argument against the Mexicanization of the southern US? Especially in light of David Brook's observation that policy is only negligibly relevant compared to the quality of human capital?

Bryan, this is hardly a "slight" caricature. You are advocating for the continuation of one of the most radical, significant and unpopular policies in American history, and the only way you can justify it to yourself and your readers is with an embarrassing strawman.

Rule of thumb: When your posts start to read like Brad Delong's, it's time to re-examine your assumptions.

Cheers,

Zdeno

Nick Firoozye writes:

IQ is cultural. Over here in the UK, you have to know English well (British English) to do well on the IQ (Verbal Reasoning) tests.

Zdeno writes:

I have a suggestion, and since Bryan is someone who strikes me as an exceptionally intellectually honest person, I hope he'll take it under consideration:

I would like to see an online debate, involving several written exchanges, between Bryan and a prominent immigration pessimist. I doubt Steve Sailer would turn down the offer.

Bryan, if your beliefs are robust, they should be able to withstand this kind of scrutiny, right? And I know you're not one to rule out topics of discussion that are controversial or unfashionable.

As a starting point, could you give us a solid post outlining what you perceive to be the main objections to your pro-immigration views, and your responses to them? I'm sure it would be of great interest to your readers.

Cheers,

Zdeno

Pincher Martin writes:

Numbers matter, for sure. But what good is IQ without population density?

???

Flip your question around: What good is population density without IQ?

I can see more benefits from living in a country like Iceland (high IQ, low population density) than the Maldives (low IQ, high population density), and that's true despite Iceland's recent troubles.

Pincher Martin writes:

IQ is cultural.

Not true. Some IQ tests don't even use words.

Pincher Martin writes:

I, too, would like to see Caplan debate Sailer on this issue.

Pavel writes:

When was the word "intellectual" redefined to mean a person who avoids thinking?

SydB writes:

"Not true. Some IQ tests don't even use words."

Yeah, but the people who took the test grew up in a culture. Everyone grows up in a culture. Macro-culture, micro-culture.

It's not just about words.

Prakhar Goel writes:

Bryan,

The problem is worse than a drop in average IQ*. The problem is that some immigrants have negative value --- through crime, idiotic votes for bad policies**, and welfare.

The problem is not just immigration. The problem is immigration + democracy.

Also, no, just making a law that immigrants (and their children!) cannot vote is insufficient. Any politician/political faction which does give them the right to vote gains a near-permanent faction and this is too much of a lure for the median politician to resist.

* This is not really a negative as the number of people is increasing.

** This is the real issue. Crime is easily controlled given a sane government and so is welfare. However, our current system is setup to maximize the harm caused by incompetent voters.

Pincher Martin writes:

Yeah, but the people who took the test grew up in a culture. Everyone grows up in a culture. Macro-culture, micro-culture.

First, that wasn't the original claim to which I was responding, where the poster stated "you have to know English well (British English) to do well on the IQ (Verbal Reasoning) tests."

Second, your new broader claim isn't testable, is it? If you can reduce everything to culture, even micro-cultures, then you effectively deflect the problem of why abilities often vary more in areas considered cross-cultural, such as math. Apparently we should all be assimilating to Ashkenazi Jewish culture.

Besides, the people who most often appeal to culture as a reason for poor academic achievement and other negative social phenomena are often the same people who argue we must be multicultural.

It's not just about words.

Except that when you compare these often very different tests, there is a correlation in their results that is predictable for not just future results on tests, but other social phenomena.

I second Zdeno's suggestion heartily!
Bryan, you should be delighted to debate Steve Sailer in writing. You both are intellectually honest enough for the convo to shed light instead of heat.
I'm sure Sailer wouldn't turn down an offer to turn open-borders libertarians.

Joshua Lyle writes:

Prakhar Goel,

You're proving too much. The problem is that some natives have negative value -- by your standards -- through crime, idiotic votes for bad policies, and welfare. Moreover, available data suggests that natives, in aggregate, are criminal, idiotic, and welfare-receiving to a greater extent than immigrants. So, if those are grounds for barring entrance, then the relatively more severe versions should be grounds for exile, nyet?

And no, passing a law so that criminal, welfare-receiving, and idiotic natives (and their children! Unto the seventh generation! If we don't just put them under the knife and purge their seed from the land!) cannot vote is insufficient. Any politician/political faction which does give them the right to vote gains a near-permanent faction and that is too much of a lure for the median politician to resist.

guthrie writes:

Geez, guys! We need to unwind some sphincters!

This is called 'hyperbole', or 'being absurd to highlight absurdity'!

Bryan's poking fun at the use of IQ as an argument against immigration. He's saying it's a minor point made into the 'main point' for some. And if it is the main point of argument against immigration, then it really doesn't justify using force to 'keep 'em out'.

On the other hand, 'intellectuals' take the bait of this red herring and focus on the apparent insensitivity of value judgment based on IQ, instead of focusing on the insensitivity of forcing someone who's here, trying to better themselves and their family, to leave.

Which is what puzzles Bryan.

Get a grip guys! I know Bryan's sense of humor is a little off from most, and he could work on his delivery, but give him a break... he's an economist, not a comedian!

jb writes:

Pavel writes:
When was the word "intellectual" redefined to mean a person who avoids thinking?

At some point in the fairly recent past, "Intellectual" became synonymous with "Thought about issues for a while when they were young, came to some conclusions, and then stopped thinking"

Most of the people I know who would refer to themselves as "intellectual" are incredibly unwilling to consider any criticisms of their beliefs. I can present a polite, well-cited list of facts that demonstrate that some of their opinions are not fully informed, and they will simply go blank, letting the data flow past them into nothingness, and then resume the conversation as if nothing happened.

This is true of all three major thought-groups - Conservatives, Liberals and Libertarians.

infopractical writes:

Freedom is exactly the kind of value that makes IQ immigration irrelevant. Regardless of a person's IQ, they're generally (ahem, generally) going to rationally seek out better opportunity, doing what they can where they can.

So what if there are a few more low IQ people in America? Frankly, those IQs will probably go up in a generation and a little more in two after exposure to a more modern technological culture. They may not reach parity, but why does that matter?

If we're genuinely worried about average IQ then let's focus on ways to improve our educational system.

M writes:

[Comment removed pending confirmation of email address and for crude language. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring your comment privileges. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog.--Econlib Ed.]

Contemplationist writes:

infopractical

The actual argument is race-based IQ. Actually assimilation hasn't worked to improve the educational, IQ or employment opportunities of latino immigrants.

Two Hispanic scholars have documented this phenomenon in this book

In other words, the trajectory of assimilation and social mobility for latinos is nowhere close to that of erstwhile European immigrants even in the 4th generation!

Scrutineer writes:

infopractical - So what if there are a few more low IQ people in America? Frankly, those IQs will probably go up in a generation...

Maybe IQ improves (I don't have the data), but education levels stagnate or decline.

"Stephen Trejo and Jeffrey Groger studied the intergenerational progress of Mexican-American immigrants in their scholarly work, 'Falling Behind or Moving Up?' They discovered that third-generation Mexican-Americans were no more likely to finish high school than second-generation Mexican-Americans. Fourth-generation Mexican-Americans did no better than third." - David Frum

"Sadly and directly in contradistinction to assimilation theory, the fourth generation differs the most from whites, with a college completion rate of only 6 percent." - Generations of Exclusion: Mexican Americans, Assimilation, and Race, Vilma Ortiz and Edward E. Telles (via Steve Sailer)

Loof writes:

IQ tests have been, by and large, an historical process of institutionalizing racial prejudice in society and instilling narrow-mindedness in culture. Ranking immigrants as “less than ours” with a quotient from a theoretical intelligent test lacks real intelligence (when defined typically as reasoning, problem solving, critical thinking, and revision). Indeed, a hundred-year-old problem with IQ tests is inability to define “intelligence” and when defined the IQ has failed all (?) tests of validity = relevance + reliability.

Also, the testing industry, dominated by the USA, was rooted in the science of eugenics and the IQ was outstanding. Foremost eugenicists originally developed the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Positively, eugenics had a noble aim of improving the human race; negatively, in reality, eugenical excuses were used to “hunt them down like animals” and while not casting them back into the fiery chasm, the "animals" were cast into gas chambers.

Prakhar Goel writes:

@Joshua Lyle

I never claimed that anybody should be allowed to vote. I have no problems with an absolute monarchy. My only problem with measures like literacy requirements is that they are unsustainable (even in the historically short term) because of the aforementioned problems.

Given an absolute monarchy, there is no incentive to give anybody any votes because there are no needs for a voting bloc. Exile is not necessary.

No suffrage and and unlimited suffrage are both stable points on the time-scale of a few hundred years. Beyond this time scale, no system is stable.

Also, depriving somebody of a vote is not equivalent to "put them under the knife and purge their seed from the land!"

Carter writes:

I've forgotten why America needs more low income high school dropouts with criminal tendencies and ethnic grievances. But I'm sure there is a compelling reason.

guthrie writes:

Bravo infopractical and Loof. IQ is never an adequate justification to keep people from living here. Certainly not enough to give the State power to imprison and forcibly relocate someone.

Carter! Snark, snark snark! Of course there is no compelling reason! Neither is there any compelling evidence that 'criminal tendencies' actually means 'criminals', or that 'ethnic grievances' would exist apart from the negative attitudes displayed by presumptive nativists!

Pincher Martin writes:

So what if there are a few more low IQ people in America? Frankly, those IQs will probably go up in a generation and a little more in two after exposure to a more modern technological culture. They may not reach parity, but why does that matter?

In a nation of laws with a strong leaning towards individual freedom and away from collectivist impulses in government, I wouldn't be overly concerned about it. But that is not the kind of country we live in.

You are also misrepresenting the situation. There are not just a "few more low IQ people in America." The number of illegals, if they made up a state, would be as populous as Ohio, the seventh largest state in the union. And that large population is overwhelmingly made up of uneducated migrants who are neither culturally predisposed to getting an education nor naturally inclined to it.

In short, because of an unwillingness to enforce our laws, we are importing what looks to be a permanent underclass.

Evan writes:

Ummm. I'm not an expert on this, but isn't I. Q. directly correlated with political activity? That is, aren't high I.Q. people more likely to be politically active, and low I. Q. people far less likely to be? So shouldn't finding about Latino immigrants having low I.Q. making nativists less worried about them voting up a huge welfare state, not more?

I'd say that while worrying about increased crime might still be logical (because it is correlated with low I.Q.) worrying about low I.Q. people taking over the system is a little silly. It seems like only way they might influence politics is to give liberal do-gooders some more poor people to point at when they say a bigger welfare state is needed.

Also, is low I.Q. really correlated with having left wing politics? I can't say I've noticed that in my dealings with low I.Q. people. Most of the ones I know are religious conservatives. Should we be worrying about Latinos voting creationism into schools rather than voting for giant welfare states?

Steve writes:

You sound like you think IQ is a genuine measure of general intelligence so you do sound a bit like a racist. Just saying.

Chris T writes:

Loof - IQ scores also correlate well with virtually every important metric in modern industrial civilization. They're used because they have significant predictive power.

Chris T writes:

Steve-
IQ is designed as a measure for the current operational definition of intelligence. 'G', or general intelligence factor, is the correlation between separate domains within that definition. The correlation is positive and significant. While the underlying physical processes are unknown (although physical correlates have been found), the measure itself correlates to varying degrees with an array of life outcomes (education, income, health, etc.).

So, for the end it was designed for, measuring general intelligence, it does quite well.

Mercer writes:

I think a debate with Sailer could generate a lot of interest in this site.

Pincher Martin writes:

Loof,

You've been reading too much Stephen Jay Gould. Your historical revisionism is neither accurate nor scientifically interesting.

Racism was institutionalized in this country (and other countries) long before IQ tests rolled around. Eugenics was a movement that cut across traditional racial politics in the way we think of racial politics today. Even many liberals of the day were eugenicists.

But while the politics of the eugenics movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is interesting, it's also beside the point from a scientific perspective. Either IQ tests are predictively useful or they aren't. Either they can be permanently and dramatically manipulated or they can't. Either the IQ scores of population groups cluster together in predictable ways or they don't.

"Also, the testing industry, dominated by the USA, was rooted in the science of eugenics and the IQ was outstanding. Foremost eugenicists originally developed the Scholastic Aptitude Test."

Eugenicists also helped develop and propagate birth control and family planning. Do you think that's bad too?

D writes:

I like Bryan. He's for mare honest than most academics. But he would never debate Sailer.

Steve Sailer writes:

Eugenicists (e.g., Galton, Pearson, and Fisher) also discovered much of the field of statistics. Do you think that's bad too?

Tom West writes:

I'm pretty certain that a debate with Steve Sailer is not necessary. Bryan has made it pretty clear that his metric is the overall welfare of mankind and he thinks immigration is a net benefit overall.

Steve Sailer has called himself a citizenist, and made it clear that the only metric for benefit he considers is the welfare of *current* American citizens.

Given the divergent basic assumptions, I'm not certain there's much point to such a debate.

As well, Bryan may (or may not) be reluctant to legitimize some of Steven's more "interesting" views by publicly debating him.

If Steve chooses his words fairly carefully, the company he keeps, web-wise, is, shall we say, rather more inclined to spell out the implications of his words in all their not-so-glorious details.

Matt Flipago writes:

The funniest thing is that Hispanics actually tend to be less violent then whites, ESPECIALLY at the border, when adjusted for age groups and other factors. (Hispanics have the biggest violent crime in New England, not where the illegal immigrants are). Plus why would it matter about average IQ. IF that were the case, then we would need to kill off almost all the population save me and about a hundred people.
I kid, I kid, we just need me and some smart ladies.

Braden writes:

Funny and insightful, Matt Flipago. The "average IQ" argument is even sillier than the typical average income argument--see the "income per natural" method.

Henry writes:

Is a lower average IQ really a problem? Maybe as a proxy for things that cause negative externalities, but is it even a good proxy?

jlpsquared writes:

"Is a lower average IQ really a problem? Maybe as a proxy for things that cause negative externalities, but is it even a good proxy?"

Can that question really be asked with a straight face? how about "But my 1 year old WANTS to play in the lion pen at the zoo, why shouldn't I let him?" I am sorry if I am flippant, but think about it for more than a liberal 3 seconds. Since IQ is a measure of general intellegance, and people with lower IQs will probably make lower IQ choices long term (life, religion, crime, food, whatever...) and we live in a democracy where majority rules, it stands to reason that over time we will get lower IQ federal policies. Do you really think W was a creation of the intectual republican elite? Or Sarah Palin?

I don't mean to be harsh, but hispanics are quite religious if we believe in a liberal democracy which values separation of church and state that doesn't scare away investors, than YES, I think it is important to have a higher average IQ.

Pincher Martin writes:

The funniest thing is that Hispanics actually tend to be less violent then whites, ESPECIALLY at the border, when adjusted for age groups and other factors.

I think you must be putting forward some variation of Ron Unz's argument, where he shows the U.S. Hispanic/white crime rates to be roughly similar once you control for certain factors like age and gender.

The problem with this kind of comparison is that it avoids the obvious counter-argument that if you control for age and gender, you tend to understate the degree to which Hispanics are filling up U.S. jails, since Hispanics are much younger and more male than the white population.

Also, I think you must have your tongue firmly fixed in your cheek when you write that Hispanics are less violent than whites especially at the border. Was that before or after Mexico's ongoing civil war began? Perhaps you should carefully qualify that statement by noting you are looking only at this side of the border and making the Unzian controls for age and gender.

D writes:

"Bryan has made it pretty clear that his metric is the overall welfare of mankind and he thinks immigration is a net benefit overall."

I'm under the impression that Bryan would agree with you but he also believes it's good for America specifically, along with "mankind" generally. Therein lies the disagreement.

Mr. Econotarian writes:

Lower IQ is a differentiator. As we know, division of labor improves everyone's lot.

Let the high-IQ people work on genetic engineering rather than toilet cleaning. The low-IQ people can work on toilet cleaning.

Freed from cleaning the toilets, the high-IQ people working on genetic engineering will eventually find a way for the low-IQ people to increase the IQ of their offspring if desired.

Then everyone is high-IQ, and we can spend our time engineering self-cleaning toilets...

Loof writes:

Pincher Martin assumes I partake in partisan “historical revisionism” and is blind to a hermeneutic phenomenology. He also assumes I’ve been “reading too much” Gould, which is completely false. He assumes a superior posture (apparently trying to put me in an inferior position) when talking about “not scientifically interesting” and “the point from a scientific perspective”. Yet, I've peer-reviewed work in science establishing a valid hypothesis. With all these false assumptions it’s reasonable is say or at least imply that he’s probably blind, certainly naïve, about the main assumption in IQ, “intelligence”, being wrong-headed in theory and practice.

I was involved, in the 1970s, determining the validity of IQ tests in education. The IQ was mostly irrelevant and very unreliable to resolving problems in the field, especially with no pivotal definition of "intelligence" on a stupid-smart scale: scientific management proclaimed on paper in peer-reviewed journals.

Further, with Steve Sailer sidekicking, there’s the forefinger pointing with “bad too” questions. While pointedly true, both bark up the wrong tree. There was a lot of good people and great scientists under the influence of the national “general will” in corporate-state institutions who believed they were doing good: gassing the “animals” at Auschwitz with great scientific management.

Pincher Martin writes:

Loof,

"He assumes a superior posture (apparently trying to put me in an inferior position) when talking about “not scientifically interesting” and “the point from a scientific perspective”. Yet, I've peer-reviewed work in science establishing a valid hypothesis."

So then show some evidence for it. Throwing out a vague résumé of the important work you did on IQ decades ago isn't going to get it done. And given your earlier sweeping historical revisionism about the origins of IQ testing as "an historical process of institutionalizing racial prejudice in society and instilling narrow-mindedness in culture", as if society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries needed psychologists and other social scientists to help it institutionalize racism (or narrow-mindedness), I think we can safely assume your résumé-polishing is a bit of personal revisionism. Does the passage of time make your personal feats more golden and your enemies' motivations more evil?

"There was a lot of good people and great scientists under the influence of the national “general will” in corporate-state institutions who believed they were doing good: gassing the “animals” at Auschwitz with great scientific management."

You're a little vague about all these "good people and great scientists" who thought they were "doing good" by implementing genocide.

But let's put that aside for now. Obviously science can be used for good or evil purposes, from saving a life to ending a life. That purpose, however, doesn't establish its scientific truth.

And that's something you don't want to talk about. Rather than directly address the question of whether IQ describes something which is scientifically true or not, you slur more than a century's worth of scientists with an historically-ignorant broadside.

Loof writes:

Pincher Martin,



Why continue with naïve behavior? Assuming “résumé-polishing is a bit of personal revisionism" is naïve; as is assuming I’ve “enemies” and believe in “evil”. Perhaps it’s you who feels in terms of enemies and evil, so slur those perceived as such, which you wouldn’t do with friendlies.

I’ll be less vague: the peer-reviewed work referred too was in this millennium. And, a few references regarding top German scientists and medical research: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6806/full/407823b0.
html

http://jbworld.jbs.st-louis.mo.us/science/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/nazi_research.pdf

Perhaps you were pointing at you, not me, regarding “personal revision” and being “historically-ignorant”. The people and scientists involved were not doing good “by implementing genocide”, as you said. You revised what I said: doing good implementing “scientific management”. The term “genocide” was first used at the Nuremburg Trials. “Scientific management” refers to the systematic development of the Final Solution with a plan after 1942. Before that time about a million Jews were killed; but not with scientific management in an efficient industrial process. Those involved with the Final Solution worked professionally, many scientifically, and believed they were doing good to resolve the problem of the Jews being “untermensch” (sub-human) - and were, by and large, indifferent to their plight.

So, yes, I admit there is something in the IQ stupid-smart scale that’s scientifically true for some solutions to problems – but, certainly not on the same scale as the sub-human-superior human scale using scientific truths for the Final Solution.

And, how is it I “slur more than a century’s worth of scientists’? This was about the science of eugenics and in my first post said: “eugenics had a noble aim of improving the human race.” They thought they were doing good.

arnie writes:

I have doubts about the 11 points of differential. Some responders in the above posts would discount the IQ test as culturally-bound and therefore not a good metric. I don't know. What if the test is somehow actually easier for mexican immigrants than for US-born natives? No way to know, but if true than the intelligence difference is understated.

Mr. Econotarian has the best post above.

Silas Barta writes:

Sorry for getting to this late, but I think you should add one more panel to your comic, without a cow saying ... whatever it is cows say when they're worried about their fate, which they should be, since people want to hunt down and expell low-IQ beings.

Pincher Martin writes:

Loof,

"Why continue with naïve behavior? Assuming “résumé-polishing is a bit of personal revisionism" is naïve; as is assuming I’ve “enemies” and believe in “evil”. Perhaps it’s you who feels in terms of enemies and evil, so slur those perceived as such, which you wouldn’t do with friendlies."

You've herded all the scientists who have studied IQ over the last century into a tiny ugly corner by suggesting they are actual Nazis, crypto-Nazis, or involved in institutionalizing racism. There's nothing naïve about calling you out on such bullshit debate tactics.

"I’ll be less vague: the peer-reviewed work referred too was in this millennium. And, a few references regarding top German scientists and medical research: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6806/full/407823b0.
html

http://jbworld.jbs.st-louis.mo.us/science/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/nazi_research.pdf"

Not very helpful.

Your first link goes here. Your second link goes here (page not found).

"Perhaps you were pointing at you, not me, regarding “personal revision” and being “historically-ignorant”. The people and scientists involved were not doing good “by implementing genocide”, as you said. You revised what I said: doing good implementing “scientific management”. The term “genocide” was first used at the Nuremburg Trials. “Scientific management” refers to the systematic development of the Final Solution with a plan after 1942. Before that time about a million Jews were killed; but not with scientific management in an efficient industrial process. Those involved with the Final Solution worked professionally, many scientifically, and believed they were doing good to resolve the problem of the Jews being “untermensch” (sub-human) - and were, by and large, indifferent to their plight."

As I said before, science can be used for both good and evil. The fact that the Nazis used industrial efficiency and "scientific management" to systematically murder millions of people does not put either industrialism or science beyond the pale.

And neither does it indict the scientific value of IQ tests, which to my knowledge was not part of the process the Nazis used for eliminating any group. Certainly it would not have been part of the reasons to eliminate German Jews, unless Hitler was looking to lower the average IQ of Germany.

"And, how is it I “slur more than a century’s worth of scientists’? This was about the science of eugenics and in my first post said: “eugenics had a noble aim of improving the human race.” They thought they were doing good."

Yes, but you introduced that qualification in the same way that someone might say, "the original Communists had the noble aim of improving society [before they were inevitably taken over by murderous thugs]."

Tom West writes:

Pincher Martin, those studying IQ and race correlations have a bad reputation for a good reason. Why would anyone study in a field where there is no possible good outcome?

Unless, of course, you define good as providing 'scientific' cover for advocating policies of racial restriction, containment, or expulsion.

How much real science could be done in a field called "Would the rest of mankind be better off if the White race was eliminated?" Would you trust the science of people who chose that field?

There are certain fields that nobody goes into unless they already know the results they're going to get.

Loof writes:

Pincher Martin,

Appreciate the discussion: interesting, if not so polite. Apologize about the links: interesting, but not needed.

And again, why continue with naïve behavior? i.e. saying “there’s nothing naïve about calling out on bullshit debate tactics”. It’s rather raw anytime emotionally calling out “bullshit”; and more than a bit naïve revising what’s perceived in something not said, not meant: like “worked professionally, many scientifically” changed to “murderous thugs”. Thugs usually refer to the brown shirted brutes with low IQs violent on the street. What I talked about were people in institutions, many in the “herd” of scientists, some with very high IQ, truly believing they were doing good working on the Final Solution. Perhaps these scientists would be somewhat stupid if tested by the theory of Emotional Intelligence (EI): even mentally enslaved by hate propaganda that views others as evil, enemies, sub-human, etc. Generally, the German people, good and bad, smart and stupid, appear as propagandized sheep with the Fuehrer shepherd: a weakness of the human species, more or less, to be emotionally mislead.

Look. There’s a lot of good science within the study of IQ. I’m not being stupid about that. But, there are problems with IQ’s validity as science – with all scientific theories about intelligence: problems of definition, being falsifiable, falsely judgmental, etc. Arnie’s post expressing doubt about the accuracy of a 11-point differential between Mexican immigrants and America’s population speaks to this; then, he stated there was no way to know if the differential is correct. There might be a rough & ready way.

The science in the Theory of Multiple Intelligence (TMI) suffers similar validity problems as IQ, perhaps more so; still, it’s not so culturally biased nor narrow-minded. With 8 stupid-smart scales, some of its intelligences roughly include the IQ: mainly Logical-mathematical intelligence and somewhat with Verbal-linguistic intelligence. It’d be interesting to cross reference alike aspects then use the two types of tests to see if they derive similar differentials.

Also, to be fair, use the more broad-minded and less culturally biased TMI to test for other forms of intelligence. Perhaps the immigrants are smarter in other ways: i.e. Naturalistic intelligence, which relates to how smart one is in a natural environment. Farmers excel in this form of intelligence, though “coyotes”, leading illegal immigrants into the US would have to be among the smartest to do what they do – but they may, on average, have a bit lower IQ than the average American.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top