"But more importantly, IQ research seriously undermines the moral case for redistribution."
The left rarely takes this approach, but, since IQ is a matter of genetic luck and is therefore undeserved, the moral case for redistribution is bolstered. Proponents of meritocracy would have a better case if we all started with the same abilities.
Indeed. I came to say the same thing. IQ is mostly genetic luck, so the *moral* case for high IQ people being more well off is weak. The utilitarian case is unaffected of course. We need people to be motivated to do great things, especially highly capable people. Low capability people also need to be motivated for all kinds of reasons, including the development of self-worth. And the moral case isn't gone anyway. Smart people who work their asses off are still working their asses off, while less-smart people watching Kardashians are not.
The genetically lucky nearly always end up at the top, either as top dog in a free-market economy or, if you try to take away my wealth, I will just become a commissar, become really good at talking about helping out the proletariat, and become top dog in the rent seeking industry. In the later case the less genetically lucky are left worse off.
“He won because he was the best” has a lot more moral authority than “He won because he got lucky.”
But Tyler's point is that to the extent that IQ contributes to being 'the best', being the best and being lucky are the same thing!
There are plenty of reasons to oppose redistributive policies, but we should acknowledge that outcomes in life depend a lot on luck. Obviously they are not entirely reliant on luck (incentives matter!) but IQ research demonstrates that you should increase your estimate of the luck factor in a meritocracy.
As our belief that IQ contributes to success increases in strength, we should marginally increase our esteem of redistribution.
Nozick made the point, responding to Rawls in A,S,&U, that it is potentially dangerous to consider our deepest aspects of self, like our intelligence, a matter of luck. If everything about ourselves--our IQ, our looks, our height--are matters of luck, the limits of redistribution to compensate for luck become overwhelming and omnipresent.
My opposition to policies like these relates to the incentives they create for people, the overbearing government required to implement them, and the fact that you cannot trust government to manage redistributive policies appropriately.
But, we should at least acknowledge that all else held equal, as luck forms a larger percentage of the reason somebody is successful, the greater the justification for government redistribution. Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that the case is strong enough to actually implement these policies!
As intellectually rigorous a guy as Caplan is, the fact that he does not consider the idea that high IQ is itself a matter of luck is somewhat hard to believe.
On the other hand, winning an Olympic medal also involves genetic luck, but we don't attempt to redistribute that luck away. I suspect is this because a permanent caste of Olympians (if there were such a thing) has relatively few consequences; a permanent caste of people who retain access to the best and most lucrative parts of modern life has many.
“IQ matters a great deal” I hear “inelastic factors of production.” IQ won’t change much in the short run, and perhaps IQ — rather than effort or environment — accounts for more of good (and bad) outcomes than we used to think".
IQ, alone, is not the relevant factor of production. On top of "IQ" you need effort (it is the same thing in sports, by the way, many talented athletes go nowhere because they are unwilling to put the gigantic effort you need to succeed, even when being very talented). IQ is just a "multiplying factor" of your effort.
And "effort" is a very elastic factor, so, it could be that "incentives" do have a major impact even if IQ is inelastic.
The relevant idea is not whether or not "being the best and being lucky are the same thing and so, we should increase our steem of redistribution"
The main discussions should be:
a) how we get the most out of the lucky winners of the genetic lottery? and, in particular, how redistribution affects (if it does) what we get from the winners?
b) What is "better" for the losers of the genetic lottery: what they can get from redistribution or what they get from the extra that we manage to get from the winners in the absence of redistribution ?
Given the effectiveness of "innovation" in improving even the losers of the genetic lottery (think of pcs, Amazon or smart phones) and the lack of effectiveness of government programs, I would tend to think that the extra that we could get from the winners with better incentives on the margin will greatly surpass the benefits of redistribution.
But certainly this is just and opinion and desperately needs to be fact-checked
It seems, Bryan, we have a situation of dueling intuitions. OTOH, most agree with the claim "We deserve what we achieve through our efforts." But OTOH, most agree with the claim "We shouldn't be penalized for the situation we were born into." Genetics including our IQ impacts on both claims.
As for Olympic medals: The second best player is not on the pic and got no medal - world No. 1 Novak Djokovic. Alexander Zverev won gold after first losing a set and then rattling of eight straight games against Djokovic.
Then. in the final, Zverev powered past Russia's Karen Khachanov, 6-3, 6-1
Now, if Khachanov had to play Djokovic in the semi-finals (or earlier) ...
You never observe "talent" alone. In a single sport event, you observe talent+effort+luck.
When you observe many events the "luck" component is greatly diluted. But effort and talent are impossible to disentangle even in the long run.
And that is relevant because this two factors have different levels of "personal merit" (although you can alwasy argue that the ability to push yourself to the limits is genetic ... and we would be back to square one)
It seems to be mostly genetic: http://www.iapsych.com/articles/deary2012.pdf cites various studies finding that genetic variation explains more than 50%, & perhaps as much as 80%, of variation in intelligence. (However, these studies were mostly done on middle-class people in rich countries, who are rarely exposed to severe disruptions of brain development from, e.g., childhood malnutrition or lead contamination.)
Yes that is my point! Bryan suggests that IQ research makes libertarian policy more compelling, but if IQ is primarily related to the luck of genetics, then what Bryan describes as the meritocracy of intelligence could be referred to also as a meritocracy of luck.
Sure, if relative intelligence is largely determined by genetic inheritance it makes sense to say that those who are highly intelligent are lucky to be so. But so what? Does it follow that people of high and low intelligence should be given equal opportunity to become brain surgeons? Or that brain surgeons should be paid no more than ditch diggers?
Nope it does not follow. I was simply pointing out that Bryan's point is that IQ research suggests that the moral intuition of "he won because he was the best" is supported over "he won because he was lucky." I come to the opposite conclusion which is that if intelligence is correlated with financial success and intelligence is mostly a matter of genetics than IQ research bolsters the "he won because he was lucky" moral intuition just as much as the "he won because he was the best" intuition.
People aren't granted wealth and status simply for getting high test scores. Leaving aside such aberrant means as theft, fraud, and politics, the rewards of which are precariously contingent, people in capitalist societies generally earn wealth and high status by producing goods or services that are of high value to others. Having high intelligence may give one a potential to do that, but accomplishing it generally requires sustained effort and mastery of relevant expertise through study. If I earn a princely income by providing goods or services for people who willingly pay for them without fraudulent inducement, I submit that I have as much right to that income as any ditch-digger has to his.
"People aren't granted wealth and status simply for getting high test scores." I'm not arguing against that. I'm merely wondering (rhetorically) why IQ correlates so strongly with income. I think you either believe 1) high IQ people work harder or 2) that an important reason for that correlation has to do with the fact these people are smarter and the market values that. If you believe 2, then research that suggests IQ correlates with income bolsters the idea that your income is going to be a result of genetic luck of the draw. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing that we should redistribute as a result of that or that there are no other factors.
Your point is sound, but it's not quite that black and white. Smart people are not bestowed wealth without working pretty hard. The argument is more like: less smart people have a lower limit to what they can accomplish than smart people. Or maybe even: It's a lot harder for less smart people to be highly successful than smart people.
Smartness isn't the only thing though, right? For example, looks and height (for men) make a big difference. Physical strength and stamina? Maybe the biggest: being less smart and born into a highly functional family plus social and religious network is probably worth many IQ points in terms of lifetime happiness. Hell, having a high IQ itself may make a person more prone to isolation and depression.
The government can't even out all these things and probably makes it all worse for trying.
Of course, someone could make the argument that "working hard" or having a good work ethic is itself genetically determined, and so a matter of genetic luck. If everything is genetically determined, everything is genetic luck. In this sense, it is impossible for anything to be either deserved or undeserved--it just is.
If you take that to it's logical conclusion, however, you get to the Progressive's notion of "therefore, sterilize the low performers so their bad genetics are out of the gene pool." If everything is genetically determined, such that everything is just luck of the genetic draw based on your parents' input, obviously the thing to do is look at the low performers and remove their genetic input. At least as obvious as redistribution, that is. After all, why continue to support the under producing (and possibly criminal!) when they cannot better themselves?
That's the argument as I recall, at least. Personally, I have noticed that luck has very little to do with achievement except in very rare cases. Mostly it seems to be about 10% luck and 90% doing things right over and over.
1. Not saying I agree that is everything is genetically determined, but once you open the it-is-genetically-determined door (as in IQ is genetically determined) then don't you open it up to the argument that every good trait is genetically determined?
2. You are assuming a zero-sum game. It does not follow that we remove the low performers--just pay them their marginal product. Leave redistribution to help out the low productivity producers up to private actors (families, churches etc.). Don't see how it your conclusion follows.
Yes, it gets to free will eventually, which is easy to argue against. But without going that far, I agree that things like health, energy, the ability to get restorative sleep, decent eyesight, etc. are all genetic to some extent. Thus, the purely moral case for some people having more than others is hard to make. The utilitarian case holds though. Most every desirable outcome is a function of genetics plus effort and making good decisions. It's impossible to split these apart and reward people according to their effort (or fraction of outcome within their control or some such). A practical solution is to reward for merit/outcomes and live with the unavoidable inequalities that result. If you want to layer a very minimal safety net on top of that, reasonable people can disagree.
"But more importantly, IQ research seriously undermines the moral case for redistribution."
The left rarely takes this approach, but, since IQ is a matter of genetic luck and is therefore undeserved, the moral case for redistribution is bolstered. Proponents of meritocracy would have a better case if we all started with the same abilities.
Indeed. I came to say the same thing. IQ is mostly genetic luck, so the *moral* case for high IQ people being more well off is weak. The utilitarian case is unaffected of course. We need people to be motivated to do great things, especially highly capable people. Low capability people also need to be motivated for all kinds of reasons, including the development of self-worth. And the moral case isn't gone anyway. Smart people who work their asses off are still working their asses off, while less-smart people watching Kardashians are not.
The genetically lucky nearly always end up at the top, either as top dog in a free-market economy or, if you try to take away my wealth, I will just become a commissar, become really good at talking about helping out the proletariat, and become top dog in the rent seeking industry. In the later case the less genetically lucky are left worse off.
“He won because he was the best” has a lot more moral authority than “He won because he got lucky.”
But Tyler's point is that to the extent that IQ contributes to being 'the best', being the best and being lucky are the same thing!
There are plenty of reasons to oppose redistributive policies, but we should acknowledge that outcomes in life depend a lot on luck. Obviously they are not entirely reliant on luck (incentives matter!) but IQ research demonstrates that you should increase your estimate of the luck factor in a meritocracy.
As our belief that IQ contributes to success increases in strength, we should marginally increase our esteem of redistribution.
Nozick made the point, responding to Rawls in A,S,&U, that it is potentially dangerous to consider our deepest aspects of self, like our intelligence, a matter of luck. If everything about ourselves--our IQ, our looks, our height--are matters of luck, the limits of redistribution to compensate for luck become overwhelming and omnipresent.
Yes, I agree.
My opposition to policies like these relates to the incentives they create for people, the overbearing government required to implement them, and the fact that you cannot trust government to manage redistributive policies appropriately.
But, we should at least acknowledge that all else held equal, as luck forms a larger percentage of the reason somebody is successful, the greater the justification for government redistribution. Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that the case is strong enough to actually implement these policies!
I don’t believe IQ inheritance is lucky or undeserved and those who win the game of capitalism because they are smart deserve the spoils.
As intellectually rigorous a guy as Caplan is, the fact that he does not consider the idea that high IQ is itself a matter of luck is somewhat hard to believe.
On the other hand, winning an Olympic medal also involves genetic luck, but we don't attempt to redistribute that luck away. I suspect is this because a permanent caste of Olympians (if there were such a thing) has relatively few consequences; a permanent caste of people who retain access to the best and most lucrative parts of modern life has many.
“IQ matters a great deal” I hear “inelastic factors of production.” IQ won’t change much in the short run, and perhaps IQ — rather than effort or environment — accounts for more of good (and bad) outcomes than we used to think".
IQ, alone, is not the relevant factor of production. On top of "IQ" you need effort (it is the same thing in sports, by the way, many talented athletes go nowhere because they are unwilling to put the gigantic effort you need to succeed, even when being very talented). IQ is just a "multiplying factor" of your effort.
And "effort" is a very elastic factor, so, it could be that "incentives" do have a major impact even if IQ is inelastic.
The relevant idea is not whether or not "being the best and being lucky are the same thing and so, we should increase our steem of redistribution"
The main discussions should be:
a) how we get the most out of the lucky winners of the genetic lottery? and, in particular, how redistribution affects (if it does) what we get from the winners?
b) What is "better" for the losers of the genetic lottery: what they can get from redistribution or what they get from the extra that we manage to get from the winners in the absence of redistribution ?
Given the effectiveness of "innovation" in improving even the losers of the genetic lottery (think of pcs, Amazon or smart phones) and the lack of effectiveness of government programs, I would tend to think that the extra that we could get from the winners with better incentives on the margin will greatly surpass the benefits of redistribution.
But certainly this is just and opinion and desperately needs to be fact-checked
It seems, Bryan, we have a situation of dueling intuitions. OTOH, most agree with the claim "We deserve what we achieve through our efforts." But OTOH, most agree with the claim "We shouldn't be penalized for the situation we were born into." Genetics including our IQ impacts on both claims.
As for Olympic medals: The second best player is not on the pic and got no medal - world No. 1 Novak Djokovic. Alexander Zverev won gold after first losing a set and then rattling of eight straight games against Djokovic.
Then. in the final, Zverev powered past Russia's Karen Khachanov, 6-3, 6-1
Now, if Khachanov had to play Djokovic in the semi-finals (or earlier) ...
You never observe "talent" alone. In a single sport event, you observe talent+effort+luck.
When you observe many events the "luck" component is greatly diluted. But effort and talent are impossible to disentangle even in the long run.
And that is relevant because this two factors have different levels of "personal merit" (although you can alwasy argue that the ability to push yourself to the limits is genetic ... and we would be back to square one)
But why are they smart? Is intelligence the product of hard work or genetic luck of the draw?
It seems to be mostly genetic: http://www.iapsych.com/articles/deary2012.pdf cites various studies finding that genetic variation explains more than 50%, & perhaps as much as 80%, of variation in intelligence. (However, these studies were mostly done on middle-class people in rich countries, who are rarely exposed to severe disruptions of brain development from, e.g., childhood malnutrition or lead contamination.)
Yes that is my point! Bryan suggests that IQ research makes libertarian policy more compelling, but if IQ is primarily related to the luck of genetics, then what Bryan describes as the meritocracy of intelligence could be referred to also as a meritocracy of luck.
Sure, if relative intelligence is largely determined by genetic inheritance it makes sense to say that those who are highly intelligent are lucky to be so. But so what? Does it follow that people of high and low intelligence should be given equal opportunity to become brain surgeons? Or that brain surgeons should be paid no more than ditch diggers?
Nope it does not follow. I was simply pointing out that Bryan's point is that IQ research suggests that the moral intuition of "he won because he was the best" is supported over "he won because he was lucky." I come to the opposite conclusion which is that if intelligence is correlated with financial success and intelligence is mostly a matter of genetics than IQ research bolsters the "he won because he was lucky" moral intuition just as much as the "he won because he was the best" intuition.
People aren't granted wealth and status simply for getting high test scores. Leaving aside such aberrant means as theft, fraud, and politics, the rewards of which are precariously contingent, people in capitalist societies generally earn wealth and high status by producing goods or services that are of high value to others. Having high intelligence may give one a potential to do that, but accomplishing it generally requires sustained effort and mastery of relevant expertise through study. If I earn a princely income by providing goods or services for people who willingly pay for them without fraudulent inducement, I submit that I have as much right to that income as any ditch-digger has to his.
"People aren't granted wealth and status simply for getting high test scores." I'm not arguing against that. I'm merely wondering (rhetorically) why IQ correlates so strongly with income. I think you either believe 1) high IQ people work harder or 2) that an important reason for that correlation has to do with the fact these people are smarter and the market values that. If you believe 2, then research that suggests IQ correlates with income bolsters the idea that your income is going to be a result of genetic luck of the draw. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing that we should redistribute as a result of that or that there are no other factors.
Your point is sound, but it's not quite that black and white. Smart people are not bestowed wealth without working pretty hard. The argument is more like: less smart people have a lower limit to what they can accomplish than smart people. Or maybe even: It's a lot harder for less smart people to be highly successful than smart people.
Smartness isn't the only thing though, right? For example, looks and height (for men) make a big difference. Physical strength and stamina? Maybe the biggest: being less smart and born into a highly functional family plus social and religious network is probably worth many IQ points in terms of lifetime happiness. Hell, having a high IQ itself may make a person more prone to isolation and depression.
The government can't even out all these things and probably makes it all worse for trying.
Of course, someone could make the argument that "working hard" or having a good work ethic is itself genetically determined, and so a matter of genetic luck. If everything is genetically determined, everything is genetic luck. In this sense, it is impossible for anything to be either deserved or undeserved--it just is.
If you take that to it's logical conclusion, however, you get to the Progressive's notion of "therefore, sterilize the low performers so their bad genetics are out of the gene pool." If everything is genetically determined, such that everything is just luck of the genetic draw based on your parents' input, obviously the thing to do is look at the low performers and remove their genetic input. At least as obvious as redistribution, that is. After all, why continue to support the under producing (and possibly criminal!) when they cannot better themselves?
That's the argument as I recall, at least. Personally, I have noticed that luck has very little to do with achievement except in very rare cases. Mostly it seems to be about 10% luck and 90% doing things right over and over.
1. Not saying I agree that is everything is genetically determined, but once you open the it-is-genetically-determined door (as in IQ is genetically determined) then don't you open it up to the argument that every good trait is genetically determined?
2. You are assuming a zero-sum game. It does not follow that we remove the low performers--just pay them their marginal product. Leave redistribution to help out the low productivity producers up to private actors (families, churches etc.). Don't see how it your conclusion follows.
Yes, it gets to free will eventually, which is easy to argue against. But without going that far, I agree that things like health, energy, the ability to get restorative sleep, decent eyesight, etc. are all genetic to some extent. Thus, the purely moral case for some people having more than others is hard to make. The utilitarian case holds though. Most every desirable outcome is a function of genetics plus effort and making good decisions. It's impossible to split these apart and reward people according to their effort (or fraction of outcome within their control or some such). A practical solution is to reward for merit/outcomes and live with the unavoidable inequalities that result. If you want to layer a very minimal safety net on top of that, reasonable people can disagree.