I had recommended a read of this Ron Unz essay, but had failed to point out the consequences to IQ theology. I briefly remedy that omission here.
The IQ theology has the following creed:
1. IQ measures intelligence.
2. IQ scores are predictive of what economic and other successes of people.
3. IQ has a large genetic component.
Arguments have been made that even if 1 & 3 are wrong, nevertheless, the predictive value of IQ scores (2.) makes them valuable.
If Ron Unz' analysis is valid, then: since he shows that the very same population, genetically speaking, divided by a political boundary has different economic and IQ outcomes, and moreover, the higher IQ scores seem to be driven by better economic performance rather than vice versa, both tenets - that IQ is largely genetically determined, and that IQ scores are predictive, are undermined.
What seems to be true is that a society that extensively uses IQ scores to determine schooling and employment outcomes will find that IQ scores are predictive.
The IQ theology has the following creed:
1. IQ measures intelligence.
2. IQ scores are predictive of what economic and other successes of people.
3. IQ has a large genetic component.
Arguments have been made that even if 1 & 3 are wrong, nevertheless, the predictive value of IQ scores (2.) makes them valuable.
If Ron Unz' analysis is valid, then: since he shows that the very same population, genetically speaking, divided by a political boundary has different economic and IQ outcomes, and moreover, the higher IQ scores seem to be driven by better economic performance rather than vice versa, both tenets - that IQ is largely genetically determined, and that IQ scores are predictive, are undermined.
What seems to be true is that a society that extensively uses IQ scores to determine schooling and employment outcomes will find that IQ scores are predictive.
