The suppression of the facts about IQ intentionally obscures the causes of differing educational and occupational outcomes. It makes charges of “systemic racism” seem more plausible. This meaningless phrase is based on the lack of equality of results. Blacks do less well than other groups in society, and commit violent crimes, and others, at alarmingly high rates. One in three blacks who dropped out of high school, an indication of low IQ, end up in prison. Low IQ is correlated with antisocial tendencies of narcissism, low conscientiousness and low agreeableness, low impulse control, and an R life strategy: live fast, die young, and do not worry about the future. The average black IQ is 85.
For my part, I tested out early at 135. Didn't make me rich, didn't keep me from making on occasion some breathtakingly bad life choices. But I was always able to recover, reinvent myself, learn what I needed to learn and press on. And more importantly, to not repeat the same mistakes. We all differ widely in terms of drive, determination, curiosity and ambition; our intelligence is the engine we harness to do as our outlook and ambition dictates. Life is a meritocracy, the best efforts of DIE types notwithstanding.
I just tried to send this to someone on Facebook and Facebook blocked it.
Oh, no...
Here we go.
Who believes in real science?
So many public schools make it their business to discourage higher learning or friendly competition.
So many students find it easier to languish in the position of a powerless victim who must be ‘protected’ from direct academic challenge. A powerless victim who is not responsible for anything they may say or do, no matter how cruel or selfish or racist that action is.
Too often these days, emotion rules over logic. Adult sized students are permitted to triumph via tantrumming and property destruction.
not surprised about IQ being 80% determined by genetics ... i’ve repeatedly noted that very intelligent parents tend to sire intelligent offspring ...
i’ve also noted that very intelligent folks excel whether they be a self-employed electrician or a self-employed arborist ...
Bookmark.
May be factual, may be cruel.
bfl
Seen it time after time over a 50 year working career. High IQ succeeds despite lack of formal education, low IQ fails no matter where they went to school, for how long, what degrees they acquired, or who boosted their careers. AOC is a prime example of the latter.
Bump For Later!
I think that Mr. Cocks oversimplifies matters. Intelligence is important, but so are other things like temperament, physical and mental health, culture, and even looks. I have an IQ sufficient to win a Nobel Prize, but I am deficient in some other areas, so I never even completed a postgraduate degree. Success in life depends on a lot more than IQ.
Google average IQ for each nation. Many African nations have IQ averages in the 60s.
This is a fascinating site.
The mention of the obscure, small, Upstate NY canal town named Oswego, piqued my interest. It is now an economically, depressed drug ridden, welfare community with the college on the edge of it, so provides a classic example of what the author contends.
FWIW, many years ago I recall hearing on Focus on the Family, that there actually was a window in a child’s life between the ages of 8-18 months where it was possible to actually increase your child’s IQ. Perhaps it really was more that it was the window at which you could maximize the child’s natural potential. Regardless, some of the things you could do was to interact with the kids eye to eye and one on one, talk to them with adult conversation (not baby talk), and to read to them. A lot.
Apparently, talking with them in adult terms actually exercises the brain in a way. Granted they do not understand everything that’s said, but apparently that is the point - challenging them in that way is very good for them intellectually.
The differences in IQ among the races pretty much reflect everything we see in the real world in terms of success in life.
It is my strong conviction that two groups of people who have significantly different IQ’s AND whose members are easily identified as belonging to one or the other group, will never be able to peacefully coexist together.
It’s a logically inescapable conclusion.
Hen I was young I read the Book of Knowledge, cover to cover. Tried to do everything they suggested experiment wise etc. Went to the library checked out all the books. When I was in the third grade I had read all the 6th grade books. I did all of this because I wanted to. Not because anyone encouraged me to. When I was in high school they tested my IQ and it was very high. I attributed to reading all those books when I was young.
I have seen no particular correlation between intelligence and business success, nor between intelligence and happiness. So, for me, IQ is simply a trait like eye color.
In fact, a high IQ may even be a handicap.
.
The professions that put the highest premium on IQ are the best paid and most prestigious.
Really?! Those low-IQ basketball players and football players with million-dollar contracts aren't members of the "best-paid" and "most-prestigious" professions?! Because being a sports star in modern America certainly doesn't place a high premium on IQ!
In a primitive tribal system, the smarter hunter gatherer might get an extra wife or two and a bit more food, but that is about it.
By getting an extra wife or two, he is doubling or tripling his reproductive success - which is really the only form of success that ultimately matters.
In actual fact, a very successful hunter might become chief of his tribe, and thus be entitled to a harem of several concubines. (Under natural conditions, the "Pareto Rule" which the author of this article frequently references applies also to reproduction.)
Thomas Sowell, in one of his books, rejects the notion that CEOs are overpaid. If the company is worth several billion dollars, then good and bad business decisions can have consequences worth millions or billions. In that case, it is worth paying a highly capable executive hundreds of millions of dollars given what is at stake. Trying to save money by paying the CEO less could easily be a false economy, costing the company far more in the big scheme of things.
Misdirection! The most-important criterion is paying the CEO a remuneration commensurate with his performance!
Unfortunately, the process of calculating his performance requires determining what would have happened if he had made other decisions (i.e., requires considering "alternate-world realities"). It is most decidedly NOT enough to "reward success" - because that success might, in fact, be attributable to factors in which the CEO played absolutely no role. The act of calculating the CEO's performance is thus equivalent to the CEO's performance, itself (= infinite regression). In other words: Only someone as smart and as diligent and as hard-working as the CEO himself is capable of determining if the CEO has delivered good work (i.e., is capable of determining if the company's overall success is attributable, not to "blind luck," but indeed to decisions which the CEO himself has made). The old "agent/principal" problem rears its ugly head yet again!
Regards,
The laws of Nature cause variations in mental aptitude. The Neo-racists who push Cultural Marxism want to undo the outcomes of natural selection based on natural ability with the doctrine of equity: equal outcome. With equal outcome comes the Marxist order of society where equal outcome means the redistribution of wealth.
“The threshold I.Q. level for a diagnosis of mental retardation has been progressively lowered over the years, in part because of awareness of the damaging social prejudice suffered by those labeled “retarded.” In 1959, the American Association on Mental Deficiency set 85 as the I.Q. below which a person was considered to be retarded.In 1992, the renamed American Association on Mental Retardation lowered the mental retardation “ceiling” to an I.Q. of 70-75,but many mental health specialists argue that people with I.Q.s of up to 80 may also have mental retardation. Flexibility in the I.Q. standard is important because tests given at different times may show slight variations due to differences in the tests and because of testing error — the standard error measurement on I.Q. tests is generally three to five points.”
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm