We Need Very, VERY Serious Help


It’s certain that the following is one of the most important problems society faces… and we’re not even allowed to talk about it.

A simple illustration can show it:

IQ: All Americans
IQ: All Americans

But, that’s just a simple bell curve, you say! Yep. That’s all it is. However, if you consider the curve to represent, say, the IQ of a population — let’s say: the population of all Americans — and the rightmost vertical line to be, say, the optimal IQ level required to succeed economically in America today.

At that point, the picture becomes very, very different, and the problem becomes obvious.

But, first some quick background: Social scientists seem to have arrived at a bit of a consensus: IQ, along with a fairly positive attitude toward work are extremely tightly correlated with economic, and therefore social and political, success.

I guess I should define what I’m talking about when I say “success.” It’s pretty simple: if you’re in the Middle Class in America, your life is pretty good — relative, that is, to just about all the rest of the world. So, IQ, along with a good attitude toward working are very closely tied to achieving and maintaining a Middle Class life in America; to success.

The above graphic is mono-dimensional. The population depicted is “All Americans.” Now, how about the graphic below?

IQ: All Americans, broken down by [category]
IQ: All Americans, broken down by [category]
I’ll call that image: A hypothetical distribution showing the IQ of All Americans broken down by [category]. The vertical line on the right is still the the optimal IQ level required to succeed economically in America today, while the vertical on the left is still the average IQ for all Americans. 

While the graphs themselves are hypothetical, this essay is not about hypotheticals. It’s about real, serious realities. Let’s call it Society’s IQ Conundrum. The SIQC. You can fill in your own [category].

Examine the graphs a bit, and you can see that, though they’re hypothetical, they represent an obvious, unavoidable truth: Defined populations always align themselves exactly like this — with some groups more left-shifted, and others more right-shifted — in any given country at any given time. 

More to the point: the above graph shows a slightly more precise, absolute, unavoidable truth: Any five identified sub-groups of any given population align themselves exactly like this — with some groups more left-shifted, and others more right-shifted — in any given country at any given time. 

Furthermore, as a given sub-group’s bell curve is situated further to the left, a smaller and smaller percentage of that population appears either close to, or to the right of, the line representing the optimal IQ for economic success.

You can substitute any other number for five groups, and the graph shows the same thing… and remains just as true. I showed five bell curves for a reason: If the category is race, then social scientists studying IQ distributions tend to focus on five main races in America: (1) Ashkenazi Jews, (2) Asians (broadly defined), (3) Whites, (4) Non-white Hispanics, (5) Blacks.

If you figured out that the racial sub-groups shown from left-to-right on the graphic are (A) Blacks, (B) Non-White Hispanics, (C) Whites, (D) Asians, and (E) Ashkenazi Jews, you get to move to the head of the class.

If you look at the vertical lines, you can see the real, serious dilemma facing us in America today: Since, IQ is such a reliable predictor for economic success in America, then some populations will inevitably succeed and fail at different rates, and we can predict those rates of success by measuring IQ alone.

Now: what do we do with the populations that score lower on the IQ scale, and that therefore succeed at lower rates? Especially since we can’t talk about IQ and race in the same conversation.

Race relations in America are fraught as it is… the above graphs show that they’ll only get worse. If, that is, we continue to forbid Americans to talk about the actual nature of the problem.

We do have sub-groups in America that have lower rates of success in America. By definition, that’s true of all societies at all times. Currently, those American sub-groups demand that we accept (1) their explanation for disparities in success rates, and (2) that we not talk about any other possible explanations.

The less successful American sub-groups’ explanation for lower levels of success is, of course: a diffuse, nationwide, conspiracy to prevent their success because of the color of their skin. However, what’s really at work is that the goal posts for middle class success — the required IQ — are moving rightward for all people, and they always will.

Technology is advancing at a blindingly rapid rate. That technology requires ever greater levels of technical sophistication to develop and maintain… while at the same time it’s rapidly replacing people in lower-skilled jobs.

The political Left constantly places ever more pressure on their underclass supporters to demand ever higher wages, placing ever more pressure on corporations to go without the higher-priced workers, making those now former employees largely unemployable… and, dependent on government services.

Leftists — Democrats, Socialists, the Race Grievance Industry, and all the various other Grievance Industries — know all this. It’s not rocket science. If they know it, and they do it anyway, then there’s only one possible conclusion: The Left believes the solution to the IQ conundrum — the SIQC — resides in a tiny class of ruling élites, along with a growing underclass filled with dependent people.

In other words, the Left doesn’t view Society’s IQ Conundrum as, well, a conundrum. For them, decreasing opportunities for increasing numbers of Americans represents an opportunity for the Left to obtain and retain… power. Permanently.

Once a sufficient critical mass of the population can no longer go from day to day without a growing array of government services, how much demand will there be for a “limited government” political movement?

At that point we’ll have a government big enough to give us everything and, of course, to take everything from us as well. By that point, there will be no need for political parties, or for arguments about this political thing or that, or for anything extraneous like personal freedoms and liberties. At that point, you certainly won’t need silly things like freedom of speech or assembly. You won’t need “religion,” because you’ll have a new, obligatory, “god”: your friendly government.

Or… we can actually decide what to do about the increasing need for a decreasing percentage of skilled Americans. And the decreasing need for an increasing pool of unskilled Americans.

One thing’s certain: We have to be able to speak honestly about IQ and race in America today, or else we have to realize that race relations will only get worse. The Left wants that to happen. We on the Right can’t allow that.

— xPraetorius

 

 

4 thoughts on “We Need Very, VERY Serious Help

  1. So, I’m really opposed to this line of thinking, to socio/economic theories around race and IQ. We falsely equate intelligence with economic success in the US, but that is epic fail to take other variables and social factors into account. Also, IQ is not equivalent to morality.

  2. I agree for the most part, IB. The problem is that the Social Science is out there, and busily measuring and measuring. At some point somewhere, someone is going to see whether there’s a correlation between IQ and economic success. And they did. The correlation is enormously tight.

    And at some point somewhere, someone is going to see whether there are differences in average IQ’s across defined populations. And they did. They didn’t really have to, though. An IQ distribution such as the one I drew is, of course, always true. No two populations ever have exactly the same average IQ. An important problem is: the averages differ by quite a bit.

    I also stated what I thin is obvious: if IQ is an important ingredient to population-wide economic success, and we’re unable to talk honestly about such things, then race relations — already troubled — will only get worse.

    My post simply points all that out.

    What you said at the end is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely on the nose, though, and that’s the exact point I was trying to make in my previous piece in which I went at it with Brothawolf. It’s in the Notes Section. I think it was one of the “Challenges” pieces. And the point is that no matter the IQ, or anything else about a person, he’s still a person, and should be automatically treated with respect and dignity until he proves that he doesn’t deserve it.

    I fear, for example, what the Left will do to lower-IQ, therefore less “productive,” groups if they take power permanently, but I can predict it: ghettoize them and impose on them the Left’s favorite thing from the previous century: Eugenics.

    That’s why we need to be able to have open discussions. Otherwise, we allow one side — the Left, who own the media, Hollywood, pop culture and academia — to decide what we’ll all think about it.

    This is true also, of all other issues, by the way. We don’t have open and honest discussions about nearly anything in America today!

    What I fear is what I posted recently: when we become a hugely mechanized, automated society, what will our increasingly inhuman, inhumane society do with the less technically able? I fear the answer to that, as mentioned above. Goodness knows we already slaughter babies today! We allow carnage to continue in American cities. We’re getting ready to kill off Grandma and Grandpa when they become inconvenient. Surely we can see a not-too-distant-future point at which we simply put a needle into the arm of the lower-IQ menial laborer when he’s no longer able to work! After all, the Left has already done its level best to kill off God, the One who tells us to love them all, no exceptions.

    More to the point, what will we do if we perceive that entire populations are less able to be “useful” in that not-far-off society?

    I agree with you, that I don’t like to talk in those terms, but other people are already, and if we don’t get out in front of it, then we all know who will, and it won;t go well for those with lower IQ’s.

    For one thing, we need to make sure that we allow for much more humane definitions of “productive” and “useful” than we have right now. A man’s “productivity” and “usefulness” don’t have to stop when he can no longer tote that barge, or bale that hay. A woman’s “productivity” and “usefulness” don’t have to come to an end when she can no longer produce children or widgets.

    The current definitions of “productive” and “useful” are how Iceland was able to “eliminate Down Syndrome.” By: aborting all unborn Down babies. The question is here, IB, I’m sad to report. It’s just a matter of who will be heard on it.

    I wanted to bring it up earlier rather than later. Later might be too late.

    Best,

    — x

  3. I’ve given an answer to this question before but since you bring it up again I will expand on the topic.
    This is a post of criticism but also one of hope.
    I believe that you are too much obsessed with IQ. Intelligence is not everything.
    This topic touches on these fundamental aspects that go far beyond race or inteliigence:

    – Is there any society where everyone has a chance to be successful?
    – Does technology make certain kind of people useless because they are no longer needed?
    – What can prevent people who are considered useless from being exterminated?
    – Are the factors for success constant or are they changing?

    Let’s be perfectly clear. There was never and there will never be ANY kind of society where EVERYONE can be successful if by successful we mean that the person in question can reach a certain level of income or wealth.
    There also was never and there will never be ANY kind of society where EVERYONE starts with the same conditions. How successful can a person be who is born deaf, dumb, blind and a paraplegic?
    Live doesn’t seem be to be terribly fair but how fair is it that one innocent man bore the sins of the whole world?
    God is good. HE knows the full picture and I leave that discussion for another day.
    Whether we like it or not, these are the facts and the only question therefore is: How can we maximize success for the greatest possible number of people?

    The problem you mention goes beyond race because, if intelligence is genetically determined then it is not too hard to imagine that there will be at some point in time possible to determine a person’s intelligence based on a DNA sample taken from that person’s body (an unborn baby or any other person).
    As you rightly mentioned, in any kind of group intelligence is distributed allong a bell curve. Why stop at certain races?
    In fact, this is precisely what the nazis did. They didn’t exterminate just the Jews but also all Germans whom they deemed useless (mentally disabled persons etc.).
    A regime that exterminates persons based on their usefulness (either prebirth or later) will have no qualms about terminating persons from any group if these persons don’t make the cut.

    The biggest flaw in your model is that if there is such a thing as an optimal IQ then this IQ is a fixed value.
    The first humans were hunters and gatherers and their survival and economic success required a certain skillset.
    That changed when THE most important technological revolution happened: the invention of agriculuture.
    Agriculture required a different skillset but it also raised productivity and at a certain point a farmer could produce much more food than he needed for himself and for his family.
    If agriculture could produce more food than was needed did the hunters and gatherers become useless? No, they just produced different things and traded them for food with the farmers.
    Increases in productivity don’t mean that people become useless. They produce different things instead.
    Technology is also the great equalizer. In primitive agrarian societies the strongest guy with the biggest muscles and the greatest stamina was the most successful guy.
    That changed when machines where developed that required less muscle power.
    Technology was also the great equalizer in warfare. Suddenly the guys who could use their swords and their guns faster and more efficiently defeated the guys with the greater raw physical power.
    Technology is an equalizer in so many ways:
    – Low IQ persons can perform calculations thanks to computers and calculators.
    – Advances in medical science and pharmacology made it not only possible that people with severe conditions could lead normal lives but they can also become productive members of society. Just one example: drugs for mentally ill persons.
    – Technology has reduced the advantage of physical strength and speed.
    It is easy to imagine that technology develops machines and/or software that allows low IQ persons to do the tasks only high IQ persons can do today.
    Why should that happen? When lots of people become “useless” there is an incentive to use these untapped “resources”.
    The first one who develops technology that allows these “useless” people to do “high IQ tasks” has a big fat killer productivity advantage that will make him filthy rich.
    Technology has always changed the skills(some genetically inherited, some learned) that are required for success.
    It is easy to imagine that technology can shift the value of “optimal IQ” to the left.
    Science and technology and the free market can make the numbers of “useless people” minimal and maximize wealth for the greatest number of people.
    Now, a word about the poor. As Jesus said: “For ye have the poor with you always.”
    Poor and rich are relative terms. In any given society you will have a top 10% richest and a bottom 10% poorest.
    In wealthy western societies unemployed people living on welfare live in many ways better than a medieval king would (better health care, higher life expectancy, warm water, shower, car , flat screen tv etc.).

    How can we prevent “useless” people from being exterminated?
    Spread the message of hope and make sure that the state stays the hell out of our lives as much as possible.
    In ancient Sparta it was the state that decided whether a newborn baby was allowed to live.
    In nazi Germany it was the state that decided who should live and die.
    Spread the message of Christ and the message of intrinsic human value.

    1. Excellent post and reply, ar! Thank you for it! I especially appreciate the critique. I don’t have time to respond in full just now, but will endeavor to do so as soon as possible.

      Two quick things: I don’t disagree with a single thing you said, and endorse it all wholeheartedly. Except for one thing: I’m not obsessing on the notion of IQ, just remarking that social scientists are beginning to talk about it openly, and some with quite a bit of alarm (Jordan Peterson, for one).

      As you know, the idea of killing Grandma and Grandpa was absurd just 15 years ago. But, those forward-thinking Europeans have become quite used to it, and are expanding it into a growth industry over there. How do you think that the Left — the fathers of Eugenics, Euthanasia, abortion and such — will address people who are less “useful,” or “productive?”

      Let me just say this: my two posts are meant to do only one thing — get us on the Right talking about how we address such inequalities in a humane way,before the Left imposes a brutal, deadly “final solution” on such things. Words chosen on purpose.

      A fuller response as soon as I can.

      Best,

      — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s