Thinking About Race and IQ

RealClear Politics ^ | 16 Oct. 2026 | J. Peder Zane

[MtnClimber]

For all of our technological marvels, a No. 2 pencil and sheets of paper filled with oval boxes remain a key determinant of success.

Sure, plenty of high achievers didn’t ace the SAT, ACT, MCAT, LSAT, and GMAT. But the vast majority of wealthy and influential Americans notched high scores in the alphabet soup of standardized tests, which are key gateways to the American dream.

And yet, even as we invest these measures with tremendous power, we feel uneasy about them. Sifting and sorting, differentiating people by their abilities, may be crucial to a well-run society, but it also runs counter to our bedrock commitment to equality. Hence the common narrative that these tests simply reflect privilege; scores are not earned so much as bought by people who game a rigged system for unfair advantages. As the Black Lives Matter riots arose in 2020, this thinking led top universities to stop requiring test scores for admission – a policy many have now reversed after finding it difficult to assess applicants without them.

While the intelligentsia seeks to have it both ways on standardized testing, depending on and demonizing them at once, they remain committed to casting another effective measure of ability as beyond the pale: Intelligence Quotient tests. IQ may be scientifically sound and powerfully predictive of outcomes, but it is political dynamite because of the profound challenge it poses to the equality thesis. This concept holds that, by and large, we are all born to the same. Differences emerge almost immediately as the environment, especially family life and access to quality education, starts writing on the blank slates of our minds.

IQ challenges this narrative because it measures innate capacity. You can’t study for the test or hire tutors to boost your score, which remains

---

TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: divideandconquer; equality

[MtnClimber]

The bell curve is not a horizontal line.

[Tell It Right]

I’ve often wondered if nature or nurture or both account for the differences in IQ.

[JSM_Liberty]

“IQ challenges this narrative because it measures innate capacity”

Having had a couple of kids take multiple standardized tests I know that studying can improve your score

[kosciusko51]

No one complains when physical abilities are distributed differently by race. But when it comes to mental abilities, suddenly it becomes a problem.

All men are created equal with respect to rights, but not with respect to physical and mental abilities.

[Mr Rogers]

IQ tests are not the same as the SAT. And it is very plausible that genetics affect IQ - just as some breeds of dogs are smarter than others.

[ClearCase_guy]

Modern political sensibilities are afraid of hierarchy. The very idea that Person A may be innately smarter (”better”) than Person B is just deeply offensive to some people. It is not to be talked about.

[plain talk]

[Sicon]

Sifting and sorting, differentiating people by their abilities, may be crucial to a well-run society, but it also runs counter to our bedrock commitment to equality.

No, it doesn’t. The “equality” is equality of OPPORTUNITY, not outcome. Stupid, lazy, irresponsible people are generally not going to be terribly successful (the Kardashian family excepted).

[Vermont Lt]

Well....when it you put it like that.....

(And the libs are saying, “So, you think they are like dogs!)

LOL

[goodnesswins]

I am sure they factor in, but to me there are a lot of variables. Motivation, energy, etc.

[Vermont Lt]

“Stupid, lazy, irresponsible people are generally not going to be terribly successful (the Kardashian family excepted).”

---

I agree with the first part.

But I would argue that the Kardashians probably have IQs that are off the charts high. You don’t build the brand empire they have by being stupid. Playing stupid? Yeah. But they are dumb like foxes.

[Carry_Okie]

Sifting and sorting, differentiating people by their abilities, may be crucial to a well-run society, but it also runs counter to our bedrock commitment to equality.

There's nothing quite like a bogus virtue-signaling premise to start what is touted to be a thoughtful article.

[Sicon]

True. I was really just expressing my annoyance that they have made so much money, because for the life of me, I can’t understand why. Maybe that’s why they’re billionaires, and I am not.

[kosciusko51]

Flowers for Algernon

“I feel a lot better today, but I guess I’m still a little angry that all the time
people were laughing and making fun of me because I wasn’t so smart. When
I become intelligent like Dr. Strauss says, with three times my IQ of 68, then
maybe I’ll be like everyone else and people will like me and be friendly.

I’m not sure what an IQ is. Dr. Nemur said it was something that
measured how intelligent you were-like a scale in the drugstore weighs
pounds. But Dr. Strauss had a big argument with him and said an IQ didn’t
weigh intelligence at all. He said an IQ showed how much intelligence you could get, like the numbers on the outside of a measuring cup. You still had
to fill the cup up with stuff.

Then when I asked Burt, who gives me my intelligence tests and works
with Algernon, he said that both of them were wrong (only I had to promise
not to tell them he said so). Burt says that the IQ measures a lot of different
things including some of the things you learned already, and it really isn’t any
good at all.

So I still don’t know what IQ is except that mine is going to be over 200
soon. I didn’t want to say anything, but I don’t see how if they don’t know
what it is, or where it is-I don’t see how they know how much of it you’ve
got.”

[ek_hornbeck]

Two black scholars, Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, expressed a prevailing view about this issue in their recent interview with Cofnas when they acknowledged that the data about race and IQ – which has found African Americans, as a group, score about 15 points lower than whites and Asians – was accurate but questioned the point of discussing it. “Why do we need to talk about that?” McWhorter asked. “What is the point in how we are organizing society … [in] show[ing] us that black people have the lowest IQs?”

This is a valid question that certainly deserves an answer.

If the goal was just to make black people feel worse about themselves (as the left likes to claim), then there would be no point, particularly because group averages don't tell you very much about any specific individual's potential.

However, the racial gap in IQ has real explanatory power - it accounts for why collectively, blacks account for the lion's share of crime and poverty in America. Lower average IQ isn't an excuse for either, but it is an explanation, and it also underscores the fact that "white racism" is not the correct explanation for black socio-economic dysfunction. If "white racism" were the problem, then Asians would similarly underperform in America, but they don't - in fact Chinese an Korean Americans tend to earn slightly higher the average white American.

[redangus]

I think we should turn this against the woke Left. When they argue that your race is destiny i.e., all Whites are born racists, we respond that if race is your destiny, then IQ tests show that Blacks are 15 pts dumber than Whites and Asians and so should be excluded from schools and jobs requiring higher IQs. Basically, DEI and AA are worthless and will have no beneficial effect. You are who you are.

[JesusIsLord]

I’ve often wondered if nature or nurture or both account for the differences in IQ.

It stands to reason that it's both. If a child is born into a family that doesn't nurture or doesn't know how to nurture their child to be their best intellectually - that child will not have the IQ of a child nurtured to be their best intellectually. Nature also plays a role. We're not all the same (equal) physically or intellectually. Can exercise and training help improve a child/person physically - yes, but only to a degree. If you were born to be 5'6" you can't exercise yourself to be 6'1". Our reflexes, agility etc. are mostly genetic.

Bottom line: We're all different. We each have our talents and our lack of talent. We (or our parents) can develop us (improve us) physically and intellectually to a point.

[bk1000]

“Sifting and sorting, differentiating people by their abilities, may be crucial to a well-run society, but it also runs counter to our bedrock commitment to equality”

Equality of opportunity, or equality of results? The former is good. The latter is not possible.

[sphinx]

Ashkenazi Jews score about one standard deviation above “whites,” defined as non-Jewish people of European ancestry.

East Asians score somewhere between Ashkenazi Jews and whites.

The Indian subcontinent is a crazy mix of peoples, but I’ve had several acquaintences with broad international experience casually say that, as a group, Tamils are the smartest people they’ve ever encountered. A glance at the math and engineering faculties at elite universities that still maintain standards lends some support to this, though our perceptions in the U.S. are skewed by the fact that we get mostly bright, well-educated students and immigrants from India.

The left has decided that IQ tests are white supremacist.

Because lying is what the left does; it’s the only way to sustain its narrative.