I agree with your overall point, but I think the examples you give as reasons that misanthropes dislike low iq people is uncharitable. It seems like a lot of societal ills are caused by traits that seem to be correlated with low iq (e.g., correlation with crime and low iq). Doesn't mean it is logically or morally justifiable to try to prevent their existence, but it's a much easier case to be made than "some low iq people made fun of me."
"In a society of Einsteins, Einsteins take out the garbage, scrub floors, and wash dishes. What a mind-numbing waste of talent! "
People continuously don't understand this point; you need many, many enabling people for a single top-abstraction-level worker to function.
When people reject the need for any labourers whether through birth or immigration, what statement exactly are they making? That the jobs of cleaners, carers, security, etc etc simply don't need to be done? I would rather argue that the professional managerial classes (of which I am a card carrying member) could evaporate without impact, instead of the people collecting rubbish and looking after the young and old.
I don't begrudge stupid people having kids, since having kids is just about the most fulfilling thing possible to a human, and it's a great deal for the kids too. However, let's not pretend that there aren't social drawbacks to stupid people having a lot of kids.
In an ideal libertarian society, the stupid people would bear the fruits and costs of their own actions, and if they live side by side with "smarter" and more productive people it would only enrich everyone. In the real world, there is a very big government that interferes in everyone's lives, and the government must cater to the lowest common denominator, which is the stupid people. They also have an outsized say in how to stupidly run the government if there are more of them. Although in your ideal world, stupid people could not have any negative effect on anyone but themselves, in the real world they make a big difference for everyone, and it's unlikely that that will change in the foreseeable future.
The most crucial element in any and all idealized\optimized small "l" libertarian (keep away from Identity Politics & Planning. If U need a mnemonic letter to remind you why We Plan, how's about UTILITARIAN rather than my report card's many Unsatifactory grades...) society must be Critical Thinking with Group Discussion.
And the politicians are collectivist-minded because so many of the voters, including the high-IQ voters, are collectivist-minded. Even if everyone had a high IQ, the collectivists would find some group to be the target of their “concern.”
Well said. And even if you could, or did, or wanted to, create a cohort or society of “high IQ people”….there will always be someone who is the dullest tool in that shed.
Just think of the guy who finished last in the Olympic 100m final…that dude is faster than 99.9% of humans…..but still bringing up the rear in that moment.
And regression to the mean tends, on average, to raise the IQs of offspring over that of their lower-than-average IQ parents just as it tends to lower the IQs of offspring below that of their higher-than-average IQ parents. Life sucks for misanthropes—guess that's as it should be.
> In a society of Einsteins, Einsteins take out the garbage, scrub floors, and wash dishes. What a mind-numbing waste of talent!
In a society of Einsteins, many of those Einsteins would be working to figure out ways to automate taking out the garbage, scrubbing floors, and washing dishes, so no one would have to do those menial tasks.
When there are fewer Einsteins, some people are condemned to do menial tasks, because they're not capable of doing anything more productive and there aren't enough Einsteins to figure out how to relieve them of the burden. When there are more Einsteins, they're able to find ways to relieve everyone of many of the menial tasks.
The IQ question is nonsense, but people with negative Value Over Replacement Person in their chosen professions are, indeed, parasites. They take air, water, and food and depress wages by their mere existence, while not providing enough utility to justify their resource consumption.
To reiterate, the best McDonald's cashier is way more valuable than a graduate of a mid-tier law school. But we don't even ask people to justify their existences, much less scold them for not maximizing societal value.
You have not worked with enough lawyers from top tier law schools. Or maybe you have worked with too few from mid tier law schools. Plenty of overlap there in ability.
In fact, I'm a graduate of a mid-tier law school. I agree there's plenty of overlap in ability, and regardless of intellect, most of them (including me) provide way less societal value than a competent McDonald's cashier.
Er, reversion to the mean. Over just one or two generations the kids of high and low "I.Q." people will revert to the overall mean, and there is no knowing where future high "I.Q." people will come from.
Reversion to the mean is not nearly that fast. With the commonly accepted figure of heritability of IQ being between 0.5 and 0.8, after 3 generations reversion to the mean would mean that the descendants have moved about half of the way towards the mean from where their ancestors started (so about 92.5 instead of 85, after 3 generations).
I agree with your overall point, but I think the examples you give as reasons that misanthropes dislike low iq people is uncharitable. It seems like a lot of societal ills are caused by traits that seem to be correlated with low iq (e.g., correlation with crime and low iq). Doesn't mean it is logically or morally justifiable to try to prevent their existence, but it's a much easier case to be made than "some low iq people made fun of me."
"In a society of Einsteins, Einsteins take out the garbage, scrub floors, and wash dishes. What a mind-numbing waste of talent! "
People continuously don't understand this point; you need many, many enabling people for a single top-abstraction-level worker to function.
When people reject the need for any labourers whether through birth or immigration, what statement exactly are they making? That the jobs of cleaners, carers, security, etc etc simply don't need to be done? I would rather argue that the professional managerial classes (of which I am a card carrying member) could evaporate without impact, instead of the people collecting rubbish and looking after the young and old.
I don't begrudge stupid people having kids, since having kids is just about the most fulfilling thing possible to a human, and it's a great deal for the kids too. However, let's not pretend that there aren't social drawbacks to stupid people having a lot of kids.
In an ideal libertarian society, the stupid people would bear the fruits and costs of their own actions, and if they live side by side with "smarter" and more productive people it would only enrich everyone. In the real world, there is a very big government that interferes in everyone's lives, and the government must cater to the lowest common denominator, which is the stupid people. They also have an outsized say in how to stupidly run the government if there are more of them. Although in your ideal world, stupid people could not have any negative effect on anyone but themselves, in the real world they make a big difference for everyone, and it's unlikely that that will change in the foreseeable future.
The most crucial element in any and all idealized\optimized small "l" libertarian (keep away from Identity Politics & Planning. If U need a mnemonic letter to remind you why We Plan, how's about UTILITARIAN rather than my report card's many Unsatifactory grades...) society must be Critical Thinking with Group Discussion.
Tio Mitchito
"If you produce less, you earn less".
Yes, and, unfortunately, the collectivist-minded politicians will continue to shovel money to those folks.
And the politicians are collectivist-minded because so many of the voters, including the high-IQ voters, are collectivist-minded. Even if everyone had a high IQ, the collectivists would find some group to be the target of their “concern.”
Well said. And even if you could, or did, or wanted to, create a cohort or society of “high IQ people”….there will always be someone who is the dullest tool in that shed.
Just think of the guy who finished last in the Olympic 100m final…that dude is faster than 99.9% of humans…..but still bringing up the rear in that moment.
And regression to the mean tends, on average, to raise the IQs of offspring over that of their lower-than-average IQ parents just as it tends to lower the IQs of offspring below that of their higher-than-average IQ parents. Life sucks for misanthropes—guess that's as it should be.
whoops, apologies I made the same point without seeing your comment..
> In a society of Einsteins, Einsteins take out the garbage, scrub floors, and wash dishes. What a mind-numbing waste of talent!
In a society of Einsteins, many of those Einsteins would be working to figure out ways to automate taking out the garbage, scrubbing floors, and washing dishes, so no one would have to do those menial tasks.
When there are fewer Einsteins, some people are condemned to do menial tasks, because they're not capable of doing anything more productive and there aren't enough Einsteins to figure out how to relieve them of the burden. When there are more Einsteins, they're able to find ways to relieve everyone of many of the menial tasks.
Yes. Bryan bizarrely wants to condemn more LOW IQ drones to a bleak existence of endless repetitive menial work
The IQ question is nonsense, but people with negative Value Over Replacement Person in their chosen professions are, indeed, parasites. They take air, water, and food and depress wages by their mere existence, while not providing enough utility to justify their resource consumption.
To reiterate, the best McDonald's cashier is way more valuable than a graduate of a mid-tier law school. But we don't even ask people to justify their existences, much less scold them for not maximizing societal value.
You have not worked with enough lawyers from top tier law schools. Or maybe you have worked with too few from mid tier law schools. Plenty of overlap there in ability.
In fact, I'm a graduate of a mid-tier law school. I agree there's plenty of overlap in ability, and regardless of intellect, most of them (including me) provide way less societal value than a competent McDonald's cashier.
In short, smart or stupid, the world is generally worse off for any one person existing.
Bravo!
Not sure if that pith was sarcastic or not, or directed at Dr. Caplan or me.
I won't respond lest I misinterpret you.
It was praise directed at BC. 😊
Er, reversion to the mean. Over just one or two generations the kids of high and low "I.Q." people will revert to the overall mean, and there is no knowing where future high "I.Q." people will come from.
Reversion to the mean is not nearly that fast. With the commonly accepted figure of heritability of IQ being between 0.5 and 0.8, after 3 generations reversion to the mean would mean that the descendants have moved about half of the way towards the mean from where their ancestors started (so about 92.5 instead of 85, after 3 generations).