On Human Race: IQ
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:56:22 — 221.8MB) | Embed
Hosts
Corey J. Mahler
God has given to men many attributes, and these attributes are not evenly or equally distributed. Some men are taller than others; some men are faster than others; and some men are more intelligent than others. The subject to human intelligence — IQ — makes many uncomfortable for a number of reasons, but it is no less real and no less a part of God’s good ordering of Creation than is height or any other attribute.
Intelligence is largely genetic — overwhelmingly so, in fact. If your parents are or were intelligent, then it is very likely that you will be so as well. This holds even more true for human populations (e.g., races), as they share a common genetic pool. Some races are more intelligent than others. IQ is not the same from one nation to the next.
Now, the issue of human intelligence can certainly be, in and of itself, a fascinating area of study or research, but that is not our primary concern; rather, we are concerned with how human intelligence interacts with the Church. Is there a minimum intelligence for the preservation of the Church and her treasury of God’s Word and truth? Can the Western Church survive if all her members are replaced with foreign souls? Can the Church survive the ongoing replacement of Europeans by alien peoples?
These are not idle questions and the answers are not so much a matter of life and death, but of eternal life and eternal death. We have been given a sacred trust — the Word of God and His bride, the Church. Whether we will be faithful or flounder remains to be seen, but the present trajectory is most certainly grim.
Subscribe to the podcast here.
Show Notes
Further Reading
Parental Warnings
- Some of the terms used in this episode are considered offensive in modern speech, but are all used in their technical sense.
- The show notes include an image and video clip with a number of expletives.
Errata
- When discussing the four-sigma numbers at ~00:07:21–00:07:38, I (Mahler) failed to note that I was working with a decimal chart and did not convert from decimal to percentage (which I should have done) and so stated — twice — that the four-sigma portion of the population is “point one percent”, when, in fact, I should have said that it is 0.001%. Point one percent of one when working in decimal (1.0 being 100) is, in fact, 0.001%, but it is decidedly unhelpful not to mention that one is working with a decimal chart, and thus implying 0.1%. (It is actually 0.000892201505099236%, but I suspect I can be forgiven for rounding.)
Current Sponsor(s)
Coming soon?
Support the Podcast
Comments?
Join the discussion on Telegram, visit the feedback form or comment below.
Steve Sailer speculates that Africans with average ~70 IQ are malnourished versions of 85 IQ American blacks who are, umm, well-nourished. In other words an avg 85 IQ ceiling, with an environmental suppressor. Your thoughts?
Part of the difference in black IQs is the admixture of White blood — blacks in the US are on average around 15–20% White, genetically. Nutrition can, of course, account for some differences in IQ, but even well-nourished Africans in some parts of Africa will still score 70 or below.
There are limitations with iq tests, for instance, more educational background, both knowledge and brain exercises, can increase iq, independent of genetics.
Additionally, the E. Asian iq is severely overstated, both in that iq tests don’t properly capture creativity, socialization, etc.–and that the lowest students are not captured in their statistics. Most low-functioning students in Europe and Asia are shuttled into technical high schools and do not go to college. These aren’t tested. China is egregiously over represented in iq, as their internal passport control system does not count up to 50 percent of the student populations in a handful of coastal cities (the only places tested with PISA.) The 50 percent cohort are itinerant seasonal laborers in Western sweatshops. Since they are illegal, their kids aren’t counted in the tests.
(I know this because, during my very finite experience as a teacher, we were threatened with privatization, brow-beating, under the false auspicious of Gates/Soros/Bush NGOs that ‘we’ weren’t doing our jobs as teachers in the face of ballooning minority enrollment, the absence of White middle class students, and the general diminishment of youth in our electronic pop-culture nation.)
Yes, the Chinese in particular play games with their numbers (and this is a well-known issue). As to the malleability of IQ: IQ itself is not particularly malleable, even if nurture may determine where you fall within the range that nature made possible for you. You can certainly suffer loss through injury and age, but ‘gaining’ IQ points would simply be a matter of performing better on the test due to experience, not any actual gain in IQ. The tests are not perfect (and they are decreasingly reliable as you go up in sigma at the higher end), but they are good enough for policy and other purposes.
Boy…yawl are some arrogant pricks. A 167 IQ? If must be hard be around us dumb fools. Have a few slices of humble pie please. I enjoyed the podcasts up to this point.
There is nothing of arrogance in the stating of facts. As to that specific number, I have personally seen the results that include it. False humility is no less a sin than is arrogance.
The graph is showing people in between 100-115 are “capable of low end professional jobs”. What is the difference between a productive member of society and capable of a low end job professional job. So only people of 115 iq or above are capable of mid level professional jobs? Seems a little misleading.
A person can be a productive member of society without performing what is termed a ‘professional job’. There is nothing shameful or discrediting about digging ditches, sweeping streets, or other so-called “menial” tasks. Society will collapse without janitors just as surely as it would collapse without princes.