Race, IQ, Genetics ... and Then What?
Here and there I still see people who are very eager to publicly (and incessantly) talk about scientific studies regarding IQ in different demographic groups, such as different races. Such people insist that they’re only after the truth, and are just being scientific and objective. But so far, every single time I have called them on it, a very different agenda and mindset quickly surfaces.
Just to be clear, I absolutely expect there to be different overall statistical patterns related to race (as well as culture, nationality, religion, and so on). If you picked two groups from opposite sides of the globe, and compared their overall traits, the likelihood of them having identical average intelligences is approximately zero. There will very likely be at least slightly different “bell curves” if you chart their IQs, just as there would be if you charted their physical strength, or how fast they can run, or how many numbers in a row they can remember, and so on. So it would not surprise me in the slightest if members of “Race A” had a slightly higher average IQ than members of “Race B.” And pointing out actual statistics is not, in and of itself, immoral or racist. The question is—and what I always ask the people who seem to obsess over this is—so what? Without even getting into their statistics and “facts,” and whether they are accurate, why does it matter to them?
If someone was really just curious, being actually scientific just to know more about the world and reality, great. There’s no truth that I’m opposed to people knowing. However, so far I have never talked to someone who obsessed over the alleged difference in average IQs between races, who didn’t also have an immoral authoritarian agenda they were trying to justify. And so far, every one began by denying having such an agenda, only to later demonstrate that they did.
Because, you see, the concepts of self-ownership and non-aggression don’t have an IQ threshold. “Oops, your IQ is only 70, so it’s okay for you to be enslaved or otherwise violently victimized.” No, it doesn’t work that way.
Oddly, a lot of people who oppose race-based injustice and victimization still get duped into arguing about statistics and studies, as if that is what matters. Instead, whether they want to argue about the data or not, anyone who actually values freedom and justice should begin and end such a discussion by pointing out that, when it comes using state coercion, it doesn't matter what the IQ of any group, or any individual, is. Aggression is wrong, against smart people, against stupid people, against all people. (And how stupid does someone have to be to not understand that?)
There is nothing new about the irrational and immoral notion that, if some categories of humans can be deemed “inferior,” then those categories don’t have to be treated the same way as the “superior” categories. And the agenda might not be something as openly horrendous as genocide or enslavement; it might be something along the lines of, “Well then our immigration policies should favor this group over that group.” But that still means initiating violence based on statistical patterns and probabilities, rather than using force only to defend against actual individual aggressors.
And just as this applies to IQs, it also applies when it comes to crime statistics. If Demographic Group A can be shown to, on average, commit violent crime at twice the rate of Demographic Group B, what does that mean? Does it mean that it’s okay to lock up, or otherwise initiate violence, against everyone who belongs to Demographic Group A, based upon what we think some of them might later do? Of course not. Again, knowing what the statistics are can be useful for trying to understand and solve problems, but never by mistreating individuals based on their categorization, by race, or nationality, or sex, or age, or anything else.
So no, when people harp on IQ as it relates to race, rarely are they “just being scientific.” Usually they are doing the collectivist, pack-mentality routine of trying to concoct an excuse to use authoritarian coercion again some other group of people, for the benefit of their own group. Ironically, these same people are usually the loudest to condemn communism, and the most eager to apply the “communist” label to anyone who doesn’t agree with them—despite the fact that they are just one more flavor of authoritarian, collectivist statist, and share a lot in common with communists. (Even the Nazis were, after all, national socialists.)
The principles of self-ownership and non-aggression do not change based upon race, or place of birth, or sex, or wealth, or education level, or IQ. When it comes to the “political” realm, voluntaryism is (by definition) the only truly tolerant position one can take, and no amount of attempted rationalizations, or appeals to “necessity” or “practicality,” or “scientific studies,” will ever change that. I own me, and you own you. That is, and will always be, the primary and fundamental starting point for a moral, rational society.
What always strikes me as funny as well, is the fact that these individuals almost never seem to comprehend that the various rubrics and tools used to measure IQ are NOT THE ALMIGHTY WORD OF ZEUS FROM THE MAGICAL MOUNTAIN. There are so many forms of intelligence and as someone who has worked with children for years now, some of the "slowest" kids according to the idiot teachers are some of the most perceptive and razor sharp.
But, I guess it's easier for folks like Chrissy Chase Rachels to publish articles about blacks being "proto-humans" and pretend that property and self-ownership do not apply to all.
Glad you've written this, Larken. Thanks.
I agree; IQ has almost fck all to do with true intelligence. I wrote a post on this subject a little while back. https://steemit.com/life/@mckeever/intellect-emapthy-true-intelligence
Killer article! Loved it. Couldn’t agree more.
It's a interesting post sir, ! Very good.
...you use MLK as a model for exhibiting the 'intelligent' argument?
...Someone that plagiarizes his way through to gain his degrees ...
(Not to be confused with great charisma.. he had more in his little finger than I have in my whole body..)
But yes I agree - intellect and intelligence are worlds apart.
IQ is not the same as intellect.
And while you may not be able to correlate precisely IQ/ intelligence, you can use the comparison that while you might be a world class basketball player at 4'9" if you have natural talent - - if you are 7' 3" withthe same natural talent ...the chances are, you will be more successful in that sport...
And so it is with IQ and intelligence (not intellect in the slightest)
(IQ is not a good tool on individual analysis, but on group trends and how it presents within a genetic sample.)
What other scientific metric would you use?
Isn't this in support of using IQ as a metric, then? - or just pointing out how stupid the teachers are? lol
The teachers were definitely stupid in that regard! For once, we agree.
😂😂...don't hold your breath!
I'm being supertrolled by an especially rabid one now. He just searches for posts on anarchy, talks shit and when explained basics of logic, he isn't having it. I will start a sect and make him my top priest. Sect "think for yourself"where I will order these morons to be and let be :D
If you want to build a happy, successful community you don't need to keep the slow people out, you need to keep the nasty people out.
Boom. I'm sure the greatest tyrants throughout history also had a high-ish IQ.
Well said. In fact, PERFECTLY said.
I am of the opinion that a person should be granted more freedoms when they show that they are ready and able to take on those responsibilities. This is one of the best ways of raising children.
So, we have a portion of the adult population who doesn't have the IQ necessary to survive on their own. And currently, we drop them on the door of the state to take care of, because we really don't want to be bothered by it.
We used to take care of them as a community. The village idiot slept in a spare room, or loft. And then was used to sweep boardwalks or deliver notes for their meals. Now, there is none of that, and the world has gotten much more dangerous for those slow of wit.
I have not yet thought of a good way of working this all out.
Because you cannot give them full rights, because they cannot be held fully accountable. Some of them cannot understand that putting a knife into someone causes damage.
Unfortunately, any thinking along these lines ends up with the state using this as a control mechanism, just as you said above.
Perhaps my ideas of providing minimum housing, food and clothing would take care of this. The community builds a room/tiny apartment for each person and creates several cafeterias. You show up, you get a room to sleep in. You show up, you get fed.
Then, these low IQ people will just sort of mill about ... as long as they are of the level of being able to cloth and feed themselves.
https://fee.org/articles/the-cruelty-and-carnage-of-the-minimum-wage-the-case-of-tad/
It is even worse today. It costs so much to even hire a person (even if there wage was $0/hour) that you cannot afford to hire charity cases. You cannot allow people to use your vacant building or lot.
To bad a great number of people never learned arithmetic (instead there were hammered with calculus) else everyone would see how bad the minimum wage was.
I used to work security patrols, and we'd charge $5000/month to drive around a factory 3 times a night.
I remember thinking how they'd be better off hiring a homeless guy as a night watchman.
Small utility room with a cot, fridge, TV, bottle of scotch every now and then. He'd be on site 24/7 and would cost a fraction of security patrols.
The union would find out and get the law involved, though.
But the union is the best thing that's ever happened to workers rights.
Unions are fine, as long as they're voluntary.
As voluntary as distress and duress are?
Depends on the source of the distress.
If it's coercion, then its involuntary and I have a problem with it.
but homeless guys don't want to be security guards.
Yeah, they're lazy bums, better purge them. /s
meh, they purge themselves. If they wanted to be security guards they would be security guards.
Of course, they are lazy bums and will "purge" themselves, any day now. What's it been, a few millennia by now?
If we are going to categorize people, let's at least do it in an ethical and moral way. Let's divide people up according to their desire to control others or not. I don't care what your IQ is as long as you do not initiate violence against others.
History proves too that people with seemingly higher IQ's are often predators. Therefore, we should distinguish and divide people according to their use of force to get what they want. Lots of "intelligent" people are fucking monsters. They are predators who should be culled from our society.
I disagree with most of the points you gave here, so rather than leave negative comments, I did a post instead.
https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/i-beg-your-pardon-i-never-promised-you-a-thorn-free-rose-garden
Cool. I made one too :D
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@evolutionnow/homage-to-my-fellow-voluntaryists
Excellent - Just replied to it.
I hope to know you better!
It very good, and everything I have come to expect.
😂
Yea... I hope you will know yourself better
Assumptions based on knowing nothing about me, but offering insight, is a very narcissistic trait, btw.
You can call it assumptions and they are to some extent. I see it as logical consequence of what you have let me know about yourself in your written words. I cannot describe anything you did not disclose about yourself. What I described, is the impression of you, based on presented ideas, like thinking non-aggression is childish etc. It is very arrogant and narcissistic for you to think that you are impossible to read... so complicated... you are not. You are very clear to me. I faced this faze of my spiritual development, therefore it is easy for me to see the issues I was struggling with before.
The ability to think is one of the gifts, the IQ of a person has a limit. Although IQ has been known level. Examples of the actions of someone who has a high level of IQ in creating something perfectly will still have someone who will help to perfect it, here we know that IQ is no level of numbers that we already know@larkenrose
Great!
A very important article.
The author Charles Murray always stated, that you have to judge everyone as an individual.
I was tempted to put in a comment in there that I was NOT trying to say that the authors of "The Bell Curve" are the authoritarian excuse-makers I was talking about.
There is no need to. Everybody who listens to Charles Murray knows that he is not an authoritarian.
I'm a teacher in Germany. My students come from all over the world. At the moment I have lots of refugees from Afghanistan and Africa. I have read the Bell Curve a long time ago.
But I'm also saying so what?. Should I give them lower grades, because statistics say, that they are not as intelligent as Europeans?
Of course not! They get their grades based on their achievements and not based on their skin color.
These kids have managed to come from Afghanistan to Germany, mostly by foot and have managed to cross borders without getting caught.
If they would be idiots, they wouldn't have managed to do this.
And besides that, these kids have a very freedom loving mindset. They have seen by themselves, how governments have fucked up their countries.
You don't have to tell them that governments are the problem and not the solution.
It depends on the Government, take Iceland for example, all those Icelandic Anarchists.
Also, People naturally confuse the absence of a functioning government because a pretender exists with the similar name Corporation as the Government it's impersonating and take the products of that corporation as those of a lawful or functional government because indeed it was Anarchy that the founding fathers referred to as Self Rule, and it was from anarchy that we began then and anarchy is where we are looking at for our destination. What we need to establish is our common sense and rights, here in America we have inherited Freedom, Sovereignty, and Independence, with Self Rule, and a system of Common Law which functions not upon written law but Common Sense, it's a folly to forgo our inheritance simply because the housekeepers have turned our country into a Thieves and Murderer's Den.
But aren't the US a proof, that not even the best constitution can't protect you from corrupt politicians.
You Americans still have much more freedom than we Europeans, but as far as I can see your freedom gets more and more restricted.
The constitution despite what the rest of the world thinks is not our protection against government, it's our Countries protection against the Federal Power, which isn't government in the sense of a country therefore, but government in the sense of a confederation of Countries, much like the UN isn't any one's government but an interface between countries, and so then the constitution only applies to the states which formed it, and only if they are active, because otherwise there's nothing to protect, should the states have stopped functioning and showing up and equally should the Federal Power have done the same then there isn't a Federal Power to protect from. We have freedom and are quickly losing it because people believe their country is America, imagine what would happen if anyone in Europe thought that EU or UN was their country and they kept that thought and passed it down generation after generation. People would soon enough join the ranks of the UN in thoughts they are serving a Country and forgetting that they belonged to a certain country and not an alliance of countries. That's exactly what happened here, people thought the Articles of Confederation were dissolved by the constitution, and 100 year later people like Lysander were concluding that either the Constitution caused the Government or was powerless to stop it, thinking that it applies AT-ALL to them or is their Government. So would the UN soon enough could open up charters in all the nations that don't have a functioning government and start offering services and soon enough people think that those things are indeed Government because they do the same function, and if it becomes inefficient and outright immoral people start blaming the Corporation for not being a proper Government, yet the main difference between a Corporation and a Lawful government is in the capacity it operates under, with a Corporation owing it's explanation to its Shareholders and Trustees and lawful government owing their existence to the actual People it claims to serve and such relationship can't be confused, the employer and the employee, and if it is then it's time to begin from the beginning, a la Declaration of Independence. There's no Anarchist in Iceland because people haven't confused their capacity and roles.
One needs 12 years of indoctrination camp to over-complicate what a 3yo already starts understanding, like that. You have no idea how ridiculous this sounds to anyone who is not in your cult. How often do you have to repeat this to yourself, praying to your masters? Iceland is so great? People thought they were a collective, not individuals, therefore a majority can gang-rape, a minority and this is not being confused, because majority is hallucinating this to be moral? How about you visit me and I and my buddy force you to pay for the pizza, when you want a burger? If you refuse we will decide how long to lock you up in a room. We can beat you up whenever we want. You do not get basics of peaceful coexistence. This is why you think this convoluted nonsense is logic. Dumb shit always seems like logic, to people who were trained not to get logic
You didn't address anything said above, but you proceeded to attack my character at length without rhyme or reason. Tell me again about all those Iceland Anarchists LMAO.
There is also the serious difference, these people have never trusted the governments. The trust was in the families and the surrounding environment created. When I was allowed to spend six years in this culture before the first Iraq war, I could clearly feel the distrust of their rulers.
" have an immoral authoritarian agenda they were trying to justify. "
That's not fair, some are just racists without any particular agenda besides trying to make themselves feel smarter. People who have a lot or racial pride or identity seem to mostly have no actual accomplishments of their own to be proud of.
Leftists do the same thing when they start advocating for different gun laws for "urban" people. It's stupid no matter who does it, if you look closely more often than not rates of criminality/police abuse/ abortion correlate with poverty rates more than anything else.
Reflected thoughts. The groups we are talking about is put together by individuals anyway, and in any of the groups mentioned the smartest one will be a lot smarter than the dumbest of the other group. The smartest person in the "dumbest" group can easily be smarter than the smartest individual in the smartest group as well, so... The idea of this having any practical importance is in at its best absurd, at its worst extremely dangerous. Good post.
I have been wanting to write something similar but never could have put it together this well.