The Downside of Higher IQ

Dennis Mangan, Mangan’s, April 5, 2012

Satoshi Kanazawa’s new book, The Intelligence Paradox: Why the Intelligent Choice Isn’t Always the Smart One, is mainly an extended exposition of his Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis (“the Hypothesis”), which states that

Less intelligent individuals have greater difficulty than more intelligent people with comprehending and dealing with evolutionarily novel entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment.  In contrast, general intelligence does not affect individuals’ ability to comprehend and deal with evolutionarily familiar entities and situations that existed in the ancestral environment.

Evolutionarily novel entities that more intelligent individuals are better able to comprehend and deal with may include ideas and lifestyles, which form the basis of their preferences and values.  It would be very difficult for individuals to prefer or value something that they cannot truly comprehend.  So, applied to the domain of preferences and values, the Hypothesis suggests that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel preferences and values that did not exist in the ancestral environment and thus our ancestors did not have, but general intelligence has no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar preferences and values that existed in the ancestral environment.

On this blog, we’ve expounded at some length on the scientific findings on the subject of IQ, and the ways that IQ is correlated to life outcomes. To cite a few examples, IQ is positively correlated to income, education, health, and longevity, and negatively correlated to criminality and various other social pathologies. It would seem that, all things equal, having greater intelligence would be more advantageous for a person and, in aggregate, a society, than lower intelligence. Kanazawa is here to tell us that this may not necessarily be the case.

For example, it’s been noted that liberals and atheists are, on average, more intelligent than conservatives or the religious. Liberals and atheists themselves have often crowed about such results—and the conservatives and the religious have decried them and questioned their objectivity—but, if “the Hypothesis” has explanatory power, then the reason people hold the beliefs of liberalism or atheism has nothing to do with the superiority of the ideas themselves.

Kanazawa defines liberalism for the purposes of his book as a concern for non-genetically related others and the providing of resources to them. In that light, liberalism is profoundly evolutionarily novel. No human groups, whether in the environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA) or up to nearly the present, have been liberal; on the contrary, they have been concerned only about members of their own group. Likewise, no human groups have ever, on the whole, been atheistic; they have all been religious. (Kanazawa found the only evidence of significant atheism in formerly Communist societies.) Another way of saying all of this is that it appears that human beings are hard-wired by evolution to be conservative and theistic.

Now, what is general intelligence anyway? Without going too far afield, there is some debate as to whether intelligence is domain-specific or domain-general. Domain-specific psychological qualities are those that have evolved to solve problems that were frequent in the EEA, for example, a sense of direction or tracking ability. Because this ability was so important in the EEA, it evolved into a domain-specific skill, and there is no correlation between a person’s IQ and his ability to track his own whereabouts. A similar judgment can be made about psychological qualities such as the detection of cheaters or understanding what another person might be thinking. General intelligence, on the other hand, came about—such is the claim—to solve evolutionarily novel problems.

Therefore, those with higher intelligence would be more likely to engage in behaviors and to have beliefs in fields that are novel from the evolutionary standpoint, liberalism and atheism being two such beliefs. We might say either that less intelligent people are incapable of understanding liberalism and atheism, and therefore fall back on their hard-wired, evolutionarily derived beliefs, or that it takes an intellectual to believe stupid things.

One can see where this is going: the presence of higher IQ whether on the personal or societal level can lead to beliefs and behaviors that are evolutionarily disadvantageous. Here is the basis for Bruce Charlton’s “clever sillies” hypothesis (discussed by Kanazawa); in this light, a “deficiency of common sense” might be interpreted as “potentially maladapted to our evolutionarily derived nature”.

Kanazawa provides abundant evidence for those of higher IQ engaging in evolutionarily novel behavior and beliefs. Besides being more inclined to liberalism and atheism, the more intelligent are more likely to be night owls, to be openly homosexual, to be more fond of classical music—not because it is more complex, but because it is largely instrumental, which is evolutionarily novel—and to have fewer children. Men with higher IQ, but not women, value sexual exclusivity more; this is novel because of our polygynous past. Higher IQ people drink more, smoke more, and use illegal drugs more than those with lower IQ.

From these examples, it’s no stretch to see the downside of greater intelligence, both for the person who possesses it and for the society that contains large numbers of high IQ people. For those who wonder how modern Western societies can advocate policies and hold beliefs that manifestly harm themselves, look no further than the fact that the highly intelligent are in charge. This is the flip side to Herrnstein and Murray’s hypothesis that the U.S., and by extension other Western societies, have become technocratic and ruled by those with higher intelligence; it gives new meaning to William F. Buckley’s quip that he would rather be ruled by the first 300 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. It might also suggest that there are worse things than democracy.

Those who have some familiarity with Dr. Kanazawa’s published research will not find all that much new here, but the book does tie everything together quite well and in a way that elicits new understanding. Those unfamiliar with his work will find an exposition of an idea that can profoundly change the way one thinks about the world.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • WmarkW

    As someone who came to Amren from liberalism, and is also an atheist, I do endorse the belief that those groups are smarter than average.  Their biggest problem is, they don’t address the question “Are my beliefs consistent with living in a world in which most people are not as smart as I am?”  For example, sexual freedom is fine for those consciencious about the use of birth control and that take reasonable precaution against disease transmittal.  But is a disaster to transfer the freedom to lower-IQ populations that have neither the abilities nor motivations to prevent the downsides.  

    A liberal envisions the world he’d like to see and asks, “Why not?”  Unfortunately, he doesn’t try very hard to answer it.  Africa can be just like Europe and North America.   Every child can earn a college degree.   Women can achieve earning parity with men.  Why not?

    Read the new atheist authors (who I generally agree with wholeheartedly), and you’ll read multiple disparagements of the Catholic Church, southern-style Protestantism, and Islam.  But not a world about Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan.

    • If everyone is taught that people are all equal smarter people can only recognize it through world experiance.  They may also be tricked into thinking they are only meeting the bad apples and that someone out there is a huge mass of high IQ blacks that just keeps avoiding them.

      It is also hard for smart people to imagine how stupid some can be. The teach a man to fish line assumes many things that do not happen in africa. It assumes 1. the people are teachable,2. they can be taught well enough to teach others,3. its safe for a fisherman to leave his family for a few hours, 4. someone will not just kill him for his fish, 5. there is some system to sell or commie share fish to the village.

    • Oil Can Harry

      Very well put, WmarkW. I think it’s safe to say many liberals have book smarts but lack street smarts/ common sense.

      A friend of mine is a brilliant Jewish leftist who loves opera, classical music and theatre. Very learned when it comes to history, science and art.

      Once I pointed out to him that on average Jews are smarter than blacks. His reply? “That’s not true. After all, I know some Jews who are REALLY dense.”

      • The_Bobster

        Book smarts don’t mean squat when the people writing the books are lying, as they have been over the past 50 years.

      • Earl P. Holt III

        Their judgement is questionable…

    • robinbishop34

      All the world’s a stage.

    • libertarian4339

       “A liberal envisions the world he’d like to see and asks, “Why not?” Unfortunately, he doesn’t try very hard to answer it. Africa can be just like Europe and North America. Every child can earn a college degree. Women can achieve earning parity with men. Why not?”

      With all due respect I’m going to have to disagree with the above.  I’ve encountered too many “intelligent” liberals to believe they’re, on average, above the norm for educated people.    If we compare college educated liberals to only conservative high school graduates, however,  that might probably prove true.  (But please note I’m not saying education increases I.Q. scores to any significant degree.)

      I don’t know if Murray and Hernnstein addressed this issue in The Bell Curve (I’ll look it up later.), but I do know they cited the average academic will score about 119 on I.Q. tests, which is above the white norm within the general population, but not anything spectacular nor above what the group average would be for conservatives that are college educated. But I have to admit I don’t have any supporting evidence of that assessment.  And the reason I cite academics is that the vast majority are rabid liberals.

      A truly intelligent person understands why the above propositions aren’t in vogue or are difficult to implement or change societally.  If he doesn’t he’s not really intelligent, but might have a good aptitude that allows him the ability to learn in order to acquire educational accomplishments.  The term coined to describe these kinds of people is “educated idiots.”

      It’s been my experience to note that liberals DESPERATELY want to believe their pie in the sky mentalities are above the norm,  and I’ve also noted that they turn to leftist academics to get that reassurance, usually never to someone objective on the subject of intelligence, so claims they make about being above the norm are really tainted like most all their ideas and agendas.

      I remember reading about a study conducted by far left academics that concluded poor whites scored higher on I.Q. tests and did better academically than wealthy blacks, and they were perplexed as to how this could be.    They had no answer for it.  Also, their conclusions that women can function as well in combat as men overlooks so many legitimate reasons why they can’t only someone that lacks normal basic intelligence would ever suggest otherwise.

      I think at some point more work will be done on the subject of intelligence and it will eventually be found that certain asjustments are going to have to be made and additional information will have to be included in order to get a more accurate assessment of intelligence.

       
       
       
       
       
       

    • Detroit_WASP

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  SOME PEOPLE ARE TOO SMART FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. 

      “Smart people” are indeed in charge.  And “smart people” have created a government where a woman with an IQ of 75 can get on welfare, free food, free housing, free cell phone and all she has to do is lay on her back and make more carbon copies of herself and her various baby-daddies.   She will likely have 4 or more children.

      Meanwhile, “smart people” work their butt off to pay the taxes so that the 75 IQ mom can get free stuff.   And….”smart people” have 0-2 children.  

      Do the math…does this seem “smart” to you?

      Of course there are other factors aside from intelligence at work here.  Democrats have made a business of “helping” the low IQ portion of our society and it is those Democrats that coerce smart people into make dumb political decisions.

      Here are some smart people who are in charge.

      Guam will capsize
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

      Or this woman
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE

      So, NO….not all of the people in charge are “smart” LOL

  • StivD

    ^INFP^

  • anarchyst

    Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen once remarked that “it is easier for an educated person to justify (and rationalize) evil.  This is why so many so-called “smart” people fall for the “multiculturalism and diversity” rackets.  Add to that, those who rationalize abortion . . . there are those who have no problem murdering humans AFTER they are born. . .” slippery slope”, indeed

  • EnLugal Sol

    “Higher IQ people drink more, smoke more, and use illegal drugs more than those with lower IQ.”

    Wait, what? It seems to be the other way around in Europe.

  • I’d just add that Jungian (M-B) typology is in some respects deficient. To 4 Jung’s functions of the ego: sensory, intuitive, intellectual, emotional; Italian psychologist Roberto Assagioli has added the 5th- imaginative.

    Imagination is not the same as intuition, but we could go about the subject for aeons …

  • I’d just add that I’ve always found this IQ stuff not very rewarding. It certainly has its merits in some specialized fields as a elimination tool for particular activities, but other than that….

    My experience with educated people (MSc, PhD) is as follows:

    * statistically, there seems to be a pattern in behavior and mental capacity of various people. But, essential ingredient is not IQ, but character, or “balls”

    * people from fields of exact & technical sciences are, statistically, what Germans call “Fachidioten”- specialized idiots. They are not only oblivious to other dimensions of life (social, sexual, emotional, religious, interpersonal, historical,..), but are somehow deficient in capability to comprehend anything outside of their special area- in which they may excel

    * liberal arts people are leftist zombies. Most are not able to think critically. While they do have a wider grasp on life- or are simply better informed- they do not have the ability to question “sacred cows” they’ve learned during college years. In sum- they are repetitive and dogmatic.

    * MDs and lawyers are yet another section. Those whom I know are mostly very materialistic & want to “grab” from life as much as they can. Very small portion is interested in anything beyond ego-pumping.

    There are some people who transcend these stereotypes, but if you ask me about these professional stereotypes, I’d say: scientists- zombies; liberal arts (sociology, psychology, literature, history,..)- dogmatists; economists & lawyers- practical egoists.

    • anarchyst

      Those with high-level autism (Asperger’s syndrome) tend to do well in technical fields while being weak in socialization.
      Although Asperger’s is seen as a deficit, I beg to differ.  I think the world has seen greater advances in science and technology BECAUSE of those with this high-level autism.

  • WmarkW

     NW — Diversitarian liberals DO accept the reality of black pathology.  They just don’t think it has a hereditary component.  They think the African enviornment stunted brain development, and oppression by whites in America has left a legacy of pathological behavior.  Hence, whites owe blacks whatever interventions are necessary to achieve parity.

    Denial of HBD turns race-based affirmative action into a combination circular argument and non-falsifiable hypothesis.  There’ll never be a way to escape it. 

  • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

     I happened to catch yesterday’s NPR Science Friday program about recent genetic studies.  The speaker has written a book (title!), and was fielding questions.  He comments made plain what some of us educated race realists have suspected; generalized (diversified) population concentrations halt evolution while smaller isolated groups proved the conditions necessary for creating a less stable genetic pool.  This is what provides for mutations that can be selected for advancing the species.

    In other words, miscegenation reduces the chances for further evolution while “inbreeding” actually increases them.   They have found this happening in various species living in isolation in zoos world wide.

      • IstvanIN

        Yes, we all advocate first cousins marrying.  Geeze.

    • JohnEngelman

      In their book, “The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution,” University of Utah professors  Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argue plausibly that a large gene pool evolves faster than a small gene pool, because there is more scope for favorable mutations. They also argue that non Negroes benefited from the small amount of inter breeding that occurred with Neanderthals after modern humans left Africa 50,000 to 70.000 years ago.
                                  
      http://www.amren.com/ar/2009/05/index.html      
                      
      Miscegenation increases genetic diversity and makes it possible for a breeding population to evolve faster. 

      • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

         NO, THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE AUTHOR SAID ON THE SCIENCE FRIDAY PROGRAM.  It is obvious you have  no training in science.  If you understood genetics at all you would know that inbreeding increases the chances for mutations and that humans evolved the most while they were living in small, isolated groups through the ages.  Large, generalized populations stop this process. 

        It is amazing how someone can hear what they wish to hear, interpret what they already wish to believe.

      • Kurt Plummer

        JE,

        >>
        …argue plausibly that a large gene pool evolves faster than a small gene pool, because there is more scope for favorable mutations.
        >>

        Mutation is a genetic resource which offsets the deleterious effects (reduced fertility being first) of consanguinity in small groups.  That which is strong, survives, in it’s offspring’s genes.  That which isn’t removes itself from the group.

        And so you -remove- harmful traits faster than you develop them, until you end up with a pure gene group whose environmental adaptations is better than the parent species.

        Darwin called this evolution by envrionmental isolate and the Galapagos are a sure proof of it.

        >>
        They also argue that non Negroes benefited from the small amount of inter breeding that occurred with Neanderthals after modern humans left Africa 50,000 to 70.000 years ago.
        >>

        Compared to what?  The Asians who didn’t?

        Advocating miscegenation between _unknown_ precursor groups whose genetic qualities as cultural adaptations we can only guess at is ridiculous as an argument for the concept itself or a more specific, modern, followon.

        Blacks and Whites produce children who are NOT better than their parents were.

        >>Miscegenation increases genetic diversity and makes it possible for a breeding population to evolve faster.
        >>

        Only if the trait from the outside donor is of sufficient utility (dominant expression) that it spreads rapidly through the group before it can be swallowed up and lost.

        White ‘Aryans’ moved down into India and disappeared.  Eaten alive by the massive genetic overburden of the subcontinent.  To this day, especially in the North, you will -occasionally- find the blond, blue eyed, remnant of a tragic cultural abyss.  But they are statistically insignificant and will become more so, as time goes on.

        The Parsi remain one of the most intelligent groups in India -solely- because they remained outsiders, breeding only within endogamous partnerings whose small numbers made them useful tools to the ruling classes.

        In the end, if attitudes like yours are anything to go by, whites will only be saved after we are rendered self-extinct.  And the other races (Indians, Hispanics, Blacks, all have ‘improve the race’ white fetishes but only because they know their own, massive, weaknesses and see our strengths more clearly than we do ourselves…) stop pretending they don’t want what we have, reincarnating our traits, garbled and mangled, by process of Genetic Engineering which we will no longer be around to complain about the ‘morality of’.

        Assuming they can.

        We should be moving, rapidly, into a time of exogenic genomics.  To IMPROVE what we have.  Because if we don’t.  We will be destroyed by the 80% of the world with <90IQs and TFRs of 4 or better.

    • JohnEngelman

      In other words, miscegenation reduces the chances for further evolution while “inbreeding” actually increases them.   They have found this happening in various species living in isolation in zoos world wide.                 
      – Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight    
                            
           Inbreeding among dog breeds leads to difficult personalities. One of the best friends I had as a boy was a dog named “Shamrock.” Shamrock looked like an Irish Setter. Actually, he was half Gordon Setter. Shamrock owed his personality to the mix. I have know Irish Setters since Shamrock. None were like Shamrock. 

      • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

         This is not in conflict with what the authors were pointing out.

    • s shadow

      The author, judging from your limited info given, is short sighted.  There is nothing at the molecular level of genes that make them more or less stable in small or large groups.   The attachment of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (see nucleotides on wiki) largely govern transmittable mutations.  How would a small vs large group affect that?  It wouldn’t.  A currently stable environment, having reached equilibrium with the genetics of its occupants over the milennia,  will have the fewest new mutations favorably selected for until the environment changes.  A case in point is the migration induced, environmental changes that our ancestors brought upon themselves multiple tens of thousands of years ago.  This new environment now selects for new traits that weren’t previously valuable. Use” foresight” in a thought experiment.  If a newly emigrated population experiences a particularly severe winter, a brutal process of selection will allow only those with the most foresight to literally survive.  If foresight is governed by fifty genes, then mother nature just selected for several of them.  What if in a few decades especially severe weather further culls the herd?  What if a favorable mutation in a gene governing foresight has randomly occurred?  Of course this novel gene would allow its progeny to better survive the rigors now that a changed environment made foresight so critical to survival of self and offspring.  Don’t think this happened just once.  I’m happy to report to you that most here have benefited from these changes or your bloodline would have died out 20-100000 yrs ago in a savage ice age.  Similar analyses could be applied to creative solutions to potentially fatal problems.  Elements of your group had to be smarter or you all died.  It’s my thesis that a changed environment steps on the accelerator of evolution hardest.

      • Kurt Plummer

        SS,

        >>
        The author, judging from your limited info given, is short sighted. There is nothing at the molecular level of genes that make them more or less stable in small or large groups.
        >>

        Epigenetics.  The ‘third strand’ of DNA which controls when and for how long certain proteins activate to generate tissues (often repeatedly), is MASSIVELY effected by junk gene repetitions in DNA encoding.

        Ever hear the old saw:  “Oh, he looks/acts/is just like his -grandfather-….”?

        I personally believe that this is because there is in fact a rotational scriptor that passes the back and forth between the recombinant factors in meiosis (may even cue transcription) and thus acts to prevent a given length of DNA from developing transcriptor errors due to overuse.

        When Jews married the smart guys’ daughter back to her average uncle, it -was not- because of some geographic or cultural isolation in a given work field.  It was because they were -deliberately- investing in a eugenics program.  And had been, since before the European pogroms made of them cultural victims.

        Hence, whatever combination of long sequence ACGT haplotypes must be cut at the correct terminator, it’s likely that ‘some combination’ of the required NTs are present.  While recent research highlights the fact that the exact ordering of them is not important.

        Which is why, while for the rest of us, the association of IQ across generations is flimsy at best (most children of brilliant parents are operating at a level somewhere between their parent’s average IQ and the popultion group mean), to the Jews, it is near permanently fixed, between 112-116.

        A full MSD above our own.  Which is how 3% of the U.S. population essentially now runs it’s media, judicial, education and government.  As well as the stereotype finance.

        IMO, there is also a firm, medical, reason for why ‘Jewishness’ as a now acknowledged separate racial (prespeciation) genotype is associated with the _female lineage_. 

        Whether they act as catalysts or stabilizing fixers of the trait, Jewish women are defined as the bearers of Jewish lineage in a world which was almost exclusively patriarchal at the time the ‘7 generation’ rule was first instigated.  This could only happen if someone _smart_ decided to take a look at lineages and noted as certain pattern of partnerships which resulted in high IQ repetions.  Probably at first, skipping generations.

        As the specific DNA activations were in fact ‘reset’ by means of consanguinous breeding, they began to turn on over and over again.  Giving them the dominant edge in IQ.

        While also ensuring that the Jews have one of the largest burdens of congenital diseases in the world.

        Now that we know what to look for, we can do better.  Without the penalties.  And with exogenic genomics to ensure (3 of 5 fertilized zygotes) we get it right, every time.

        • s shadow

          Thank you for the erudite though somewhat cryptic reply.  I was dealing with the very narrow issue of  rate of heritable change in small vs large groups, not the much more expansive approach you have taken.  That said,  I don’t see how your discussion changes my thesis.  Heritable epigenetic change that persists will be governed by the same macro principles that the conventional double helix responds to.  If an unfavorable epigenetic change occurs and is inherited and it brings the demise of the individual or group, the change disappears.  If favorable, it is preserved and increases in frequency in this population.  The size of the group shouldn’t influence the rate of change per thousand individuals.  Environmentally imposed change still trumps group size.
          By exogenic genomics I assume you mean essentially genetic engineering.  It’s a distant hope.  The unintended consequences alone could hold us back 50 years.
          I am not in genetics research, so I can’t deal with the endlesss minute points clarified by the flow of data, that eventually comprise accepted macro theory.

  • VildanZulji

    Liberals are more intelligent? I rather think it´s the opposit. I can´t remember how much idiotic bullsh*t I´ve heard from their ilk. You can´t have a mature discussion with them and they are so stubborn with their opininion that logic and rationalism don´t work. I do have a high IQ, but am more on the right/conservative side.

    • JohnEngelman

      Narrow minded and intolerant people are on both ends of the political spectrum. 

      • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

         And you?

        • JohnEngelman

          I am always willing to listen to a good argument, and usually to a bed argument. What I look for are well documented facts, and logical reasoning. 

          • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

             But if you willfully interpret a completely contradictory meaning when it is written in plain language, the discussion is at full stop. Unless you admit the error.  It just seems that you want to find meaning that supports your point of view, even when it doesn’t exist or says the exact reverse.

          • JohnEngelman

            Please post a comment of mine where I did that, and explain how I did it. 

  • JohnEngelman

    liberals and atheists are, on average, more intelligent than conservatives or the religious.                     
    – Dennis Mangan, Mangan’s, April 5, 2012                                                     

    An assertion like this should be documented. According to Charles Murray’s most recent book, “Coming Apart: the State of White America, 1960 – 2010,” college graduates are less likely to believe in God than high school dropouts, but they are more likely to attend church regularly.                           http://amren.com/news/2012/02/book-review-coming-apart/

  • Anyone who thinks critically is a ‘racist’ according to our society.

  • Congo is Catholic 50%, 35% Protestant and others are mostly animists. Muslims account for ca. 1%.
    Other than that, I generally agree.

  • Psychometrics is a tricky field. Personally, I don’t think that IQ tests are of such an importance- they are  not completely irrelevant, but also one should be cautious not to attach to them such a huge importance. A few thoughts:

    * I’m skeptical about any tests as predictors of one’s success or failure in any field. Life is just too complicated and unpredictable, people change – axiologically, mentally, emotionally… their interactions with social and professional groups, family etc. frequently take a surprising turn… All in all, IQ tests are good for limited areas of expertise. So far, so good. But not more than that.

    * we – and by this I mean Amreners who are not narrow-minded bigots- are aware that not only individuals, but groups of people possess some qualities & lack others. Within Caucasian groups, history has shown that British peoples are not very gifted for visual arts & music; Germans are lacking in common sense (not science, but common sense); Russians are frequently overwhelmed by extremism. These are stereotypes, but they have some roots in reality.

    Blacks are, as history has shown, not capable of higher-level organization, thirst for knowledge & motivation for either success or more intense fulfilled noble life. They’re oversexed, aggressive parasites &- not creative, except in literature (and this is rather below expected levels).

    In short- they are “dumb”, but threatening in packs. From the US to Jamaica to Africa.
    But- what this “being dumb” means ? I don’t think it’s explained by IQ tests. Perhaps expanded knowledge in brain physiology and genetics will solve the puzzle.

    The puzzle of:

    * being asocial
    * oversexed
    * incapable of learning proper grammar
    * not caring about anything non-Black
    * incapable of rational thinking
    * lacking in inquisitiveness
    * lacking in creativity
    * lacking in self-control
    * believing in all sorts of weird things
    * not future-oriented, incapable of planning their lives
    * lacking in strong family ties

  • An offside remark, regarding IQ & alcohol consumption-White Americans drink too much. North, South, West, East- no big difference. Not even close to Russians or Poles, but anyway- too much. The British are even  heavier drinkers (binge drinking etc.).

    Continental Europe (Spain, Italy, France, Germany,..) is much more balanced- wine & beer, not much vodka or whiskey.

    In the US- Blacks are not capable, IMO, to hold much liquor, and Indians are completely stoned.

    • JohnEngelman

      Racial groups that have been practicing agriculture the longest time have been drinking alcoholic beverages the longest time, and have the fewest problems. 

  • JohnEngelman

    Brilliant people do not have to worry about race replacement. 

    • ? Are you aware of the depth of stupidity you wrote ?

      • JohnEngelman

        Perhaps I should have qualified my statement by saying that in the United States brilliant people do not need to worry about race replacement. What matters here is performance, not pigment. 
         
        In Nazi Germany brilliant Jews had cause for concern. A number of them came to the United States and worked for the Manhattan Project. 

        • What are you talking about ? Brilliant people of all races- let’s take Whites, for example- want to fall in love, copulate, have children who look like them, grow old with their beloved spouses OF THEIR OWN KIND. Male or female, the difference is that brilliant females even more want to have a family life with their own men.

          I just cannot comprehend your lack of any ethnic loyalty- by “ethnic” I mean a conglomerate of race, culture, manners, personality,… I am White European and cannot be happy in family life without a White woman.

          And to hell with “brilliancy”. My God, I am disgusted with this eugenic sterility. Any person- whichever race- who looks down on their less fortunate or less gifted “tribal” cousins deserves only contempt.

          • JohnEngelman

            Among those who own and run the Unite States I do not perceive much concern for anyone who is not equally fortunate, regardless of race or ethnicity. I am not endorsing their indifference. I am describing it. 

          • JohnEngelman

            Bardon Kaldian,
             
            If you think I am indifferent to people like your grandmother, you misinterpreted me. 

             I believe there should be a safety net reasonably far from the ground for anyone whose misfortunes cannot be attributed to moral irresponsibility.

            Unfortunately many have gamed the system by having illegitimate children and expecting the tax payers to provide child support. In his book, “Coming Apart: the State of White America 1960 – 2010” Charles Murray points out that many of these are whites. http://amren.com/news/2012/02/book-review-coming-apart/

    • Kurt Plummer

      >>
      Brilliant people do not have to worry about race replacement.
      >>

      Said the office/IT guy watching the parade of high skill manufacturing jobs going overseas, thinking there would always be a need to manage what was no longer present in the States to control.

      Said the engineers, scientists, doctors and other unique skillset professionals.  Never believing that, in 2010, the top ‘downsize and outsource’ conditioned fields now on the chopping block of stock value selloffs would be those jobs which, sans a Cold War, would be ripped from the University as Corporate R&D fields.

      To be sent, chock-a-block overseas.

      A man who thinks his skills too precious to be sold at less than a 1,000 bucks an hour will be shocked when people actually will let themselves -die- rather than have the operation which saves their lives ‘because only he can do it’.

      Brilliant people are at deathly risk of being sideswiped from the pages of history for two simple reasons:

      1.  They number perhaps 10% of the total population.  And small numbers of elite capabilities are always hit hardest by disaster, be it  Cheetah or an Owl vs. Hyenas and Crows.  Or a professor that doesn’t realize that while his work -is- important.  It is so, only until the stupid decide they’d rather eat now than have the benefits of a new GE food to feed their 10 kids a decade from now.

      2.  They are not equipped to handle the life risks which make an aggressively dominant person more able to manipulate others into taking risks (or just flat out -taking- from) for him.  Blacks, with their native charm and dominant social pathologies, will be among those who make smart whites look like fools.  While dumb whites cheer them on because they have been -taught- not to feel racial loyalty.

      Whites need to be aware that while we are living in a post industrial world scene.  We are not living in a post racial one.  And the surest proof we have that we are still better than ‘them’ who would take everything we have lies in the certainty that they don’t consider what will happen when we are gone.

      And the majority of the world’s population, flooded over the protective oceanic barriers by social enablement industries as much as airlines, makes a slum (Kibera, Dharavi) of the U.S. as modeled upon their homelands.

      For that is what is happening here.  We are replacing the 100+ IQs with 80-something followons in the 80th percentile of world population.  And the globalist society will never get off the ground because of a Malthusian breeding deficit in capability vs. desire.

  • anarchyst

    Those with high-level autism (Asperger’s syndrome) tend to do well in technical fields while being weak in socialization.
    Although Asperger’s is seen as a deficit, I beg to differ. I think the world has seen greater advances in science and technology BECAUSE of those with this high-level autism.
    In addition, those with Asperger’s tend to ignore invalid criticism and are generally MORE race-concious and realistic than those with more highly developed “social skills”. Those with Asperger’s are more likely to perceive real “truth” despite how uncomfortable “truth” can be.

  • No

    I haven’t read Kanazawa’s book, nor do I intend to.  I’m probably much too stupid and low-IQish to understand it anyway.

    But I do question the notion that liberals have higher IQs.  From what I can tell, it’s mostly Kanazawa himself claiming that and he’s basing his conclusion on ONE major study:  The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year.

    Of course, I’m sure all who self-identify as liberals support his conclusions . . . but it doesn’t make it so.

    Furthermore, basing his hypothesis on the notion that higher IQ people will align with “evolutionarily novel preferences and values” seems to DISPROVE his argument.  We are living today in a western world that has been subjected to 60 years of rampant liberalism and the wheels are coming off.  When everyone who matters is a liberal, then Conservatism and even white nationalism would be the “novel preference.”

    That tells me that it is modern conservatives who are the true rebels adopting “evolutionarily novel preferences and values.”

    Finally, from what I’ve read of Kanazawa, he, like most liberals, plays fast and loose with the term “liberalism.”

    Modern liberalism is distinctly different from that of John Locke and what Benjamin Franklin understood.  There are similar aspects, such as rejection of organized religion and the “divine right of kings” (which translates today into the rejection of capitalist nobility).  But the old liberalism probably had more in common with modern conservatism than today’s hippy-dippy liberals do.

    Let’s face it, Mr Kanazawa . . . no society has ever proven that concepts like “equality” or “multiculturalism” or “wealth sharing” actually work.  They may SOUND good and even “intelligent” . . . but, from an evolutionary point of view, these ideas are suicidal.

    So is Kanazawa arguing that it is the ADOPTION of ideas and not their END RESULT that matter?

    Oh well, my brain hurts . . . I better take my low-IQ, gun and Bible clinging self and go watch another re-run of Mr Ed, the talking horse, while sipping on a cold one and scratching at the fleas on my dirty t-shirt.  

  •  Henri Poincare, one of the greatest mathematicians in history, had IQ below 100. He took Binet’s tests and turned out to be dumb re test criteria.

  • Frosty_The_White_Man

    Can you see it now? Negros have science on their side!
    “Whatchoo talkin bout honkey? Dis chink says book learnin is fo restards!”
    Seriously though, we now have an explanation for White dominance. Higher average IQ with a bicultural tendency to repress suicidal behavior. Prosperity is our enemy. Collectively, Whites feel immune from the consequences of their actions.

    • Jacob Eagleshield

      Yup,and white man is also responsible for every major war the world has ever endured,as well as genocide,destruction of the environment.
      America was a paradise before white eyes came. Then,after turning Europe into an open sewer,he brought his diseases and filthy habits here and started all over again.

  • anarchyst

    Look at all the “smatest guys in the room” that engineered the crash of 2008 and our present crop of “hahvahd” (Harvard) “scholars” running this country to ruin.
    COMMON SENSE cannot be taught – – either you have it or you don’t.  I would dare say that most “college graduates” do not.
    Chec out the McGuffey Eclectic Readers . . . they were used in the one-room schoolhouses of the 19th century and are still available.  MOST “college graduates” would have considerable trouble with the last two volumes in the series.
    A college “education of today is more akin to “indoctrination”. . . the left is firmly in control of primary, secondary and college education.
    The pursuit of a TRUE education doesn’t take much in the way of money, merely determination and utilization of the many free resources available on the internet and elsewhere.
    I have been ridiculed and marginalized by some of these so-called “educated” people because of my lack of a “degree”.  However, I am able to discuss many esoteric subjects with anyone from high-school graduates to PhDs.  The look on the faces of these so-called “educated” people is priceless when after stimulating discussions and debates, they find out that I do not possess a college “degree”.
    The college “degree” is used as a “gatekeeper” to “screen” potential employees since aptitude tests were outlawed under “civil rights (for some)” statutes.  (See Griggs v. Duke Power).
    White males are the primary targets of discriminatory “civil rights (for some)” practices.

  • anarchyst

    There are many forms of intelligence that do not get measured by the traditional Stanford-Binet IQ test.
    One can be proficient in engineering and be deficient in social skills.  One can be a skilled mathemetician but unable to change a car tire.  One can be proficient in music, can be a “total klutz” and still lack  “common sense”.

  • Kurt Plummer

    >>
    And, yes, the “intuitives” are more intelligent. I know that by talking to both types of people.
    What we need is White intuitives who are racially conscious . . . who know what it is to sweat in the hot sun . . . who respect ALL men . . . but who love the brethren (Whites).
    >>

    You’re not thinking clearly.

    1.  The above article delineates ‘the new system’ by which knowing what you know is a warning never to exercise that knowledge or be socially repudiated for it under the ‘lacks common sense’ (be nice to the low IQ people) understanding of ethics as a means to exploit what we don’t acknowledge.  It effectively will cull those with the -will- to express what they know because they don’t want to go along to get along.  Since it means that, if not they then their children will hit  dead end where ‘respect’ means being outbred until ‘getting along’ is no longer possible.  13% of this nation are black.  And with all the crime and social enablement they get -now- imagine what will happen in 2060 when we are 35% of the population and they are closer to 20.

    2.  It is -highly- unhealthy for either individuals or society to shape themselves to accomodate the lowest common denominator.  Capitalism has got to go because it violates several key principles of thermodynamics.  Remove capitalism and replace _dumb_ (high sun exposure = high free radical counts which age your entire body but are especially destructive to the delicate neural processes in the grey matter) labor with robotics and suddenly you have alienated both the wealthy who maintain the class system so that they may profit, a penny per back per process, from the ownership of systems.  And the poor, who look to make-work jobs to give them a leg up into middle class living.  I live in a homeless shelter, I see the kinds of ‘guaranteed 4hrs at $9.75’ jobs that are handed out.  And they are not worth half that.  Which is to say that when you burn up resources to create virtual work product ($$$ as 1s and 0s) something has to give.  Either the value of currency has to adjust to the availability of finished goods and services relative to the glut of overpaid labor.  Or you flat out have to deny labor it’s ‘for a good days work’ reward as vestible future.  By encouraging lifestyles that devolve around the immediate as ‘sensory’ pleasure of not just blacks but mestizos and native Americans.  So that they in fact -never- rise to the level of immediate payout.

    If we do not stop creating cogs within cogs as a societal mechanism that worships inefficiency (robots can work 24:7:365 and get paid -nothing-) we will end up with a 12 billion population in 2100 where every Continent is saturated with mud-hut level societies and there is no ‘free’ resource system to exploit for -anyone-.

    All because the capitalist system has taught even the wealthy that property is nothing except the power to convert into more virtual work produce (potential energy) for conversion into something else.  This idiocy will destroy us.  Because we are no closer to FTL than we were a 1,000 years ago.  And earth’s resources, as well as the genetic pool of not-missing-link populations you want to dedicate them to uplifting, are both vanishing beneath a horde of the Malthusian Stupid.

    If Mensa doesn’t teach a firm understanding of this ‘upper limit’ to potentialist (what you call intuitive) reality, then, truly, your membership in the IQ club is a label with no attached value as understanding of what is important.

    It saddens me that your experience of blacks has taken from you the rational ability to see what they represent as a threat to this society wherein ‘respect’ is in fact _submission_.  I see a lot of that around here too.  And it’s always the white who regrets it, after his freedom to be more is gone.

  • Kurt Plummer

    Depending on which of the 16 PTs you feel ‘Liberals’ belong to, it’s fairly easy to see that the traits they hold versus those which they express are differentiated by reactionism.
    A green leaf is not really green but the color which it reflects back to the incident light source, rather and absorbing.
    So to are contradictory personality traits not always suitable to expression within a given social norm ‘easy to take outside the group’ where you are a stranger anyway.
    I believe that this is an evolutionary psychology of expression related to both filial/sibling imprint and nicheing.  And to the need to recognize and inclusively coadopt as ‘gene traitor’ conditioned behaviors which -deliberately- mark someone as an outsider.  Someone who doesn’t fit the mold of established social hierarchies as much as skillsets.  Introverted/Extroverted traits of the MBTI is simply the way the mind entertains itself as a flip between external and internal perspective interactions when operating in a dominant alph or beta submissive character norming condition.  By adjuncting itself with the perceptual ‘not them’ vibe of other outsiders, you gain the ability to move from beta to alpha as a function of alliance.
    Hence you get an influx of fresh blood.  As a means to stave off viability issues in small populations with an otherwise high inbreeding curve.
    As applied to the modern social condition where high IQ children of upper class parents are isolated, there is almost certainly a brittle ego condition involved as well.
    Poor people work together as a unit and develop highly intrictate social adjustments by which they trap others into expectation.
    A little rich kid who never had that ‘Oops, there ya go, tripped again!’ experience is going to refuse to play the game where they are not part of an elevated personal privilege condition (social retardation is as much a function of time in as personal preference of association) and so rebel by automatically finding someone that -social rules- state can make no overt demands upon them.
    With blacks, who are the discard element of all civilized peoples, this is a slippery slope condition of defending inferiority to justify internal superiority.
    As a separate internal condition of psyche.

  • Kurt Plummer

    >>
    High intelligence is most important, because it helps to solve problems, manage a hi-tech society, and create new ideas and things; it is necessary but not sufficient to sustain an orderly and pleasant society.
    >>

    There is a subversive, subconscious, reality assumption at play here:  If whites were not burdened by blacks would they be ‘at risk’ to themselves?  History indicates not, even though we have had the means to destroy ourselves, utterly, for the better part of a century now.

    >>
    Great minds do not always or often think alike – Roger Scruton, Bertrand Russell, Pitirim Sorokin, Cardinal Newman, Friedrich Nietzsche, for example – but they can usually debate in a civilized manner.
    >>

    The old saying that simple minds are simply amused applies here.  In that only a clever idiot would waste their time debating the number of angels who could dance upon the head of a pin. 

    But only a wise fool would import a population of low IQ, low social cohesion, high psychopathology given races who breed heavily and -with whom- they don’t ever intend to breed (yearly average is on the order of 1.3% IIRC).  Purely to have a lower class of menials who will replace them.

    Valens pulled this stunt with the Goths and got his head handed to him, literally, at Adrianople when he wouldn’t make ‘sufficient accomodations’ to his new wage slave populace.

    >>
    Second level high-IQs are also notoriously susceptible to conflicting ideologies – the liberals and multiracists, religious cults, for example.
    >>

    Only a radicalist moron would conflate his personal beliefs with the needs of the society which supports his ability to have so much free time as to own an opinion.

    Yet where _the system_ (of handouts to the lower half as bribes and tribute to avoid open conflict) is flawed, those whose view of life is restricted to ideology (think for me, please!) structured views, often hasn’t the time adopt new ones so much as try to ‘stay loyal’ to what he/she has been taught, in the hopes that they will slog through.  All the while being told, by those who imparted such dogma, that they are ‘racist’ for wanting what they want, for themselves.

    This breaks down cohesion within a society which is racial because genetics favor certain group solutions as genetic domains of inherent skills as conformity.

    Blacks cannot create or sustain what we have.  Nor can Mestizos or most Asians (average IQ in  rural China is _91_).

    So the question becomes, not who is right or wrong, morally, about race.  But why you -want- to hang an albatross around your neck.  Especially when it is certain to outbreed you and outcriminalize you.  Into the grave.

    >>
    Therefore a restraining hand of experience, tradition, “conservative prejudice” and social co-operation is needed.
    >>

    NO.  What is needed is a group of white individuals who have had enough.  And are willing to say, explicitly:  “We have been betrayed into poverty by our fellow whites.  And they leave us now to drown in an ethnic floodtide of violence and loss of social privilege as a replacement agenda.  We don’t deserve this.  We want OUR LANDS BACK.”

    And it would happen.

    Probably not here.  But perhaps in Canada or South America.  Where the white expat communities of wartime Germany do exceedingly well in running a society both separate from and dominant over, the Indian/Latino subclasses.

    >>However, it is better even for the stupid to live in world in which the intelligent have the upper hand rather than the stupid, who will let conditions rot and are more susceptible to social violence – that does not mean that high-IQ groups cannot cause mass-destruction through warfare, but they are also more likely to meet the problems of war, starvation, dysgenic breeding, than its low-IQ victims.
    >>

    IQ as a function of elitism goes to extremes which rapidly become self-centric.  IQ put us where we are as a function of 1,000 years of the rich inheriting wealth (as nutrition, mate choice and better education/opportunties) to gain intelligence through defacto monetary eugenics.

    In the process becoming ever less interested in sustaining the racial resources of _shared genes_ by which we can sustain what made us who we are:

    Beautiful.
    Kind.
    Intuitive.
    Creative.
    Wise.
    Restrained.

    As much a rawly intelligent.

    IQ thus has to be divorced from the full spectrum of racial realities as defining WHO WE ARE.  And what we want to remain.  As a people separate from the rampaging hordes of breed-to-cosmopolitan-nothingness of slumped hybrid gene traits.

    Which characterize the blacks, hispanics and most of Asia (average Indian IQ = 84).

    >>
    “All is race” said Disraeli, but again though race is necessarily most important, it is not everything. >>

    All may not be race.  But only by removing the racial consideration as ‘fairness’ of set asides and blackmailed tribute, can you begin to ask yourself, in a purely mono-ethnic society: “What is the next step _for us_?”

    Because I have no interest in seeing an endless horde of consumerist slaves hopping on a slave treadmill to power a civilization whose social norm runs something like this-

    1-18:  Institutionalized Daycare.
    19-30:  Real Job Training.
    31-45:  Paying for your replacement.
    46-65:  Slaving to become ‘financially independent’ and _failing_, as your body fails.
    66-75:  Ten years of savings, nothig for your kids.  Waiting to die or become destitute in a
                  world where there is no SSI.

    We had more certainty of dignity a century ago than we do now.  And it has everything to do with seeing each other, as ONE RACE.  A family.

    Beginning the process of publically announcing how we will improve Our White Family, by breeding and by investment in our children’s future as more than ‘tenants’ in a global corporate empire (Exogenic Genomics and Robotics are the key) can only happen if we are no longer shamed or beholden in any way, to the other races who seem to think we owe them all the gifts of who we are.  Including our genes.

    We don’t.  We never will.  We owe them.  Nothing.

  • WmarkW

     Human BioDiversity

    Usually, in internet discussions it means that the human population has a range of hereditary skills that no amount of work can overcome.  I never had a chance to run the 100 in under 10 seconds.

    By extension, it refers to the belief that differences in mental ability also could have a hereditary component, and that this is a field worthy of evidence-based study, instead of mouthing dogmatic platitudes that every kid can go to college with a reasonable chance of success.  Taken further, it means that the hereditary component of intelligence might correlate with ethnicity, and that this is also a field worth of evidence-based study.

  • profwatson

    IQ is limited. I know high IQ people who may do very well at their job and make a lot of money, but are as dumb as a post in every other area of their life. It doesn’t matter how much a person’s income is, the important thing is how well they manage the income that they receive.

  • Mike Lane

    I can’t say I buy the “liberals have higher IQ than conservatives”, because liberals are some of the most dogmatic people on Earth. Also, where did they find such data in the first place? The only rational explanation, if true, would be that those who have high enough intelligence to enter colleges are the ones being brainwashed.

    • Jacob Eagleshield

      Ted Cruz has a high IQ Can you imagine that loon with his finger on the nuclear button?

  • Interesting Steel

    Higher IQ groups partake in more “novel” behaviors according to this article, that may not correlate to more evolutionarily advantageous outcomes. I think this is only seemingly so and should not be so easily dismissed nor is it necessarily non evolutionarily advantageous. Novel ideas and beliefs are responsible for many innovations in science and technology which have had a profoundly positive impact on survival and general welfare. One does not have to look far to see for example Darwin’s “novel” idea of natural selection in place of creationism or advances in math or physics like Einstein’s idea of general relativity that changed the way we see the world. Invariably, these individuals had different ways of seeing the world and were more able to come up with discoveries. How often are nobel prize worthy discoveries or major advances made by the ordinary populace? Secondly, the remark that “Higher IQ people drink more, smoke more, and use illegal drugs more than those with lower IQ,” should not be overlooked as potentially being a side-effect of living among less intelligent majority and perhaps a by product of their influences and behaviors. Who would venture that the concept of “the cool guy” came about from the upper intelligent strata? Would Hemingway be so renowned as a drinker if it weren’t a masculine image projected by lower IQ individuals and want to be alpha males? One cannot be so sure. Also mentioned is the idea that higher IQ may make one ” more fond of classical music” because it is different and not because its complex. This does not seem very likely. Classical music is an older form of art and also was a higher form of art in regards to class society. Individuals may choose to learn an instrument because it was something that those of earlier times valued as a high class activity and one that requires leisure time to devote oneself to close study of music. Therefore individuals now who prefer classical music still value it for its class based perception much as they learn Latin instead of Spanish or French. Moreover let us not forget that variety is the spice of life. It brings about changes much like the mutations that occur in DNA coding and in sexual reproduction that give rise to better forms of genes and, in the case of ideas and beliefs, more profound discoveries and inventions.

  • Jacob Eagleshield

    How do we know for sure,that God did not create evolution as a way to get the world moving?

  • Jacob Eagleshield

    What good is a high I.Q if you can’t tie your own shoes or pick out a shirt without your mommy? My father calls them ‘educated idiots’