Lisbon, Portugal - End of Ramadan
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
Who exactly are the 'low IQ populations incapable of creating their functional societies'?
Here you go: https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php
You didn't answer the question, unless you meant to reference everyone on that list form Singapore down.
Which one of those are 'low IQ populations incapable of creating functional societies'?
You're obviously not going to get an unassailable answer, becuase there is no exact cutoff point, and the aggressive tone you've approached this with tells me that there is no answer that is going to satify you.
However, if you press me I'd say the line is somwhere around 85 to 90, or about one standard deviation below the mean.
The US army doesn't accept anyone with an IQ under 83, because they've found that these people are not useful for anything and including them make it hard to maintain order.
I'd expect the ability to create and maintain an innovating and stable society to requre more brainpower than the absolute minimum for functioning in a strictly organized system like the army, so a bit above that doesn't sound unreasonable.
Anything under 79 is considered mentally retarded (with the higher range being classified as 'borderline retardation').
IQ is heritable, about level with height. And a nation having a low IQ average is not just a problem because they'll lack people who innovate and create and organize and stabilize. That too, but an even bigger problem is the strain the low IQ put on a society. IQ correlates with everything from financial success, health, life expectency, level of education, social status, emotional maturity, and productivity - to crime, impulse control, ability to delay gratification, violence, poverty, religious fanatisism, and competence.
With an average IQ of 85, 15% of your population is going to be in the 60s and lower. These people are extremely high maintenance, any country would struggle with more than a few % of people in this range, and especially countries that otherwise lack infrastructure due to the upper ranges being capped too (i.e. you'd expect Singapore to do better if you imported 1/4 of their population's worth of under 60 IQ indivuduals, because the population numbers above 100 are still going to be significant - not so with 85 average countries).
Does this satisfy you, or were you looking for something more like: "Now that you mention it, you're right, we can't know for sure, so therefore that must mean that IQ has no impact whatsoever on nationbuilding!".
Just give me a range if you can't provide a firm answer. I don't expect you to say 93.763.
Seems reasonable enough. But if I look at your list, that means that many people who are proven capable of having a civilization have an average IQ that is lower than that. Are the Egyptians too retarded to have a civilization, while the higher IQ peoples who were then living in dirt in the north? Indians have an average IQ of 81. But the Indus Valley civilization was a great one. Same for Iran, which according to the list has an average IQ of 84, but the Persian Empire was one of the greatest in world history.
As far as I know, IQ correlates less with negative characteristics in populations with a lower average IQ. That is, while a white person with an IQ of 75 will be emotionally stunted as well, a black person will not be (at least not necessarily).
IQ is highly heritable in developed Western countries, because all the environmental 'efficiencies' have already been reaped. That is not true for parts of sub-Saharan Africa. If you're starving and living in mud huts, that is not going to bring the best out of whatever genetic endowment you do have (and there's a chicken and egg problem there). The fact that blacks in Western countries still underperform, suggests that there may be a genetic element to it, at least for some black populations.
Not really, it's just that you dismissing entire populations as 'low IQ'. It also makes little sense, because testing individuals on IQ is pretty cheap and reliable. If you don't want to import low IQ individuals, that is more effective than letting in retards if they are from 'high IQ countries' and denying entry to high IQ people from 'low IQ countries'.
Note that I'm not accusing you of anything for not wanting immigration. I oppose any and all immigration myself. It's just that your rationale would not make much sense.