Some people like murder mystery novels. I much prefer intellectual mysteries like that in Garett Jones’ new book Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own: Over a decade ago I began my research into how IQ matters for nations. I soon found that the strong link between average IQ and national productivity couldn’t be explained with just the conventional finding that IQ predicts higher wages. IQ apparently mattered far more for nations than for individuals. In my early work, I estimated that IQ mattered about six times more for nations than for individuals: your nation’s IQ mattered so much more than your own. That puzzle, that paradox of IQ, is what set me on my intellectual journey. …
Well, or it could simply be that the national average IQ - which averages out individual differences - is tracking the quality of environment (nutrition, parasite load, etc) far more accurately than individual IQ does.
It takes a very major decrease in quality of life (compared to a developed country which lives well above starvation level) until IQ numbers start to drop substantiall - or, when you look at the causation wrong, it would seem that a modest IQ increase caused a very large wealth gap.
Did the book make a good case that they aren't reversing causation? We know that good nutrition, low stress, and lack of pollution cause higher IQ. Could the mystery be resolved if high national IQ and high wages are both caused by better technology?
Proof of stupidity is the prevalence of government. Jews have statistically high I.Q.s, yet statistically promote totalitarian (socialist, communist) government thus proving that high I.Q. scores have little to do with wisdom. High I.Q. generally just means a well-read conformist.
These examples would be an argument against both directions of causation. I think what you're really showing here is that when you have a bunch of natural resources they lead to a lot of money, but not necessarily good governance or schooling etc.
Makes sense! I think the disconnect I was having is because I was thinking about what the /initial cause of differences/ in IQ between nations was, which would seem to be health/income effects that later lead to the Flynn Cycle you mention, but for the book what you'd really be saying is that /at present/ X% of national prosperity is explained by IQ. Thank you for the clarification!
The argument does not work the other way, e.g. with North Korea/China, because one can argue that totalitarian communism is a strong enough depressor to keep a high smarts population down.
And one cannot counter that Islam is similar because the data doesn't support it (Islam is not a good predictor of national S when IQ is taken into account) and because Nauru isn't Islamic.
Even if a employer prefers IQ's neither too high nor too low a test can measure that.
I was thinking of the effect on morale and reputation if an employer admits it doesn't want high IQ workers. But now that you mention it, measurement may not even be possible; whereas a low IQ individual can't get a high IQ score, a high IQ individual can intentionally get a low IQ score. [R.B. Cattell had worked on some IQ tests which can't be faked low, but I've never seen them.]
[Bryan Caplan indicates that it does not seem that the legal threat is uppermost in employers' minds.]
Excellent review by this author. The one thing that scared me was I did not want to buy a book that's a Malcolm Gladwell type 20 page research paper made into a 200 page book. Hence I am a little off-put when I saw that the book is a "readable and informative book". Readable means prolix, or dumbed down for the sub-100 IQ crowd. However, I see on Amazon.com that the book is only 160 pages, which is fine, even if a dumbed down narrative. I've added it to my Wish List.
BTW, Hansen's belief that: "Governments with structures that fail to prevent the stupid and impatient from greatly influencing government policy. Such prevention might happen via restricting the franchise in democracies, by auctioning governance to a highest bidder" are essentially arguments in favor of the status quo, since the rich have the resources to buy governance. As such, these policies would perpetuate whatever Great Stagnation we're in now. Adam Smith warned against this kind of "conspiracy", FYI. BTW, capturing of government by the rich is essentially how the US government has largely worked, except for arguably brief periods such as when the Progressives ruled, LBJ Democrats, Andrew Jackson supporters, and arguably Clinton and Obama supporters (I'm a libertarian, and have voted all over the map, sometimes not at all since I'm overseas and it's a bit cumbersome to qualify for an absentee ballot these days).
Even if a employer prefers IQ's neither too high nor too low a test can measure that.
No, I think the reason they're rare is that employers can gauge IQ with sufficient accuracy with out any formal tests so why subject yourself to the threat of disparate impact lawsuits if you don't have to.
But the point remains that efficient pricing of IQ spillovers is explicitly opposed in many instances by policy. That's most obvious in housing.
"Benefits from the smart span such long social distances that they are not encompassed by shared social institutions with low enough transaction costs to allow deals to favor the smart. Maybe, for example, large metropolitan areas just can’t make effective deals on policies to favor attracting the smart, and pushing away the stupid."
This seems to me to make a lot of sense intuitively, especially for cities. You used to see a lot of cities try to implement policies to attract the "creative class," but these policies didn't seem to have any effect.
So should would it be good to encourage the intelligent to have more children?
Well, or it could simply be that the national average IQ - which averages out individual differences - is tracking the quality of environment (nutrition, parasite load, etc) far more accurately than individual IQ does.
It takes a very major decrease in quality of life (compared to a developed country which lives well above starvation level) until IQ numbers start to drop substantiall - or, when you look at the causation wrong, it would seem that a modest IQ increase caused a very large wealth gap.
Did the book make a good case that they aren't reversing causation? We know that good nutrition, low stress, and lack of pollution cause higher IQ. Could the mystery be resolved if high national IQ and high wages are both caused by better technology?
Proof of stupidity is the prevalence of government. Jews have statistically high I.Q.s, yet statistically promote totalitarian (socialist, communist) government thus proving that high I.Q. scores have little to do with wisdom. High I.Q. generally just means a well-read conformist.
Maybe they're not familiar with it.
These examples would be an argument against both directions of causation. I think what you're really showing here is that when you have a bunch of natural resources they lead to a lot of money, but not necessarily good governance or schooling etc.
Makes sense! I think the disconnect I was having is because I was thinking about what the /initial cause of differences/ in IQ between nations was, which would seem to be health/income effects that later lead to the Flynn Cycle you mention, but for the book what you'd really be saying is that /at present/ X% of national prosperity is explained by IQ. Thank you for the clarification!
That claim is not very plausible given cases like https://en.wikipedia.org/wi..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wi..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... and so on. High incomes did not make these nations smarter.
The argument does not work the other way, e.g. with North Korea/China, because one can argue that totalitarian communism is a strong enough depressor to keep a high smarts population down.
And one cannot counter that Islam is similar because the data doesn't support it (Islam is not a good predictor of national S when IQ is taken into account) and because Nauru isn't Islamic.
See also http://www.sciencedirect.co...
No conspiracy theory. Just surprised it was not mentioned given how (seemingly) relevant it is.
Wondered if perhaps there was some particular reason.
Deliberate, or simply an oversight? I wonder.
OK, let's hear your conspiracy theory on the subject.
Funny that there is no mention of La Griffe du Lion's "smart fraction theory" in either the blog post "Hive Mind" or the comments.
Deliberate, or simply an oversight? I wonder.
Even if a employer prefers IQ's neither too high nor too low a test can measure that.
I was thinking of the effect on morale and reputation if an employer admits it doesn't want high IQ workers. But now that you mention it, measurement may not even be possible; whereas a low IQ individual can't get a high IQ score, a high IQ individual can intentionally get a low IQ score. [R.B. Cattell had worked on some IQ tests which can't be faked low, but I've never seen them.]
[Bryan Caplan indicates that it does not seem that the legal threat is uppermost in employers' minds.]
Excellent review by this author. The one thing that scared me was I did not want to buy a book that's a Malcolm Gladwell type 20 page research paper made into a 200 page book. Hence I am a little off-put when I saw that the book is a "readable and informative book". Readable means prolix, or dumbed down for the sub-100 IQ crowd. However, I see on Amazon.com that the book is only 160 pages, which is fine, even if a dumbed down narrative. I've added it to my Wish List.
BTW, Hansen's belief that: "Governments with structures that fail to prevent the stupid and impatient from greatly influencing government policy. Such prevention might happen via restricting the franchise in democracies, by auctioning governance to a highest bidder" are essentially arguments in favor of the status quo, since the rich have the resources to buy governance. As such, these policies would perpetuate whatever Great Stagnation we're in now. Adam Smith warned against this kind of "conspiracy", FYI. BTW, capturing of government by the rich is essentially how the US government has largely worked, except for arguably brief periods such as when the Progressives ruled, LBJ Democrats, Andrew Jackson supporters, and arguably Clinton and Obama supporters (I'm a libertarian, and have voted all over the map, sometimes not at all since I'm overseas and it's a bit cumbersome to qualify for an absentee ballot these days).
Even if a employer prefers IQ's neither too high nor too low a test can measure that.
No, I think the reason they're rare is that employers can gauge IQ with sufficient accuracy with out any formal tests so why subject yourself to the threat of disparate impact lawsuits if you don't have to.
But the point remains that efficient pricing of IQ spillovers is explicitly opposed in many instances by policy. That's most obvious in housing.
Why should rich countries waste opportunities and risk their own interest in order to ensure a sustainable future for the poor ones?
"Benefits from the smart span such long social distances that they are not encompassed by shared social institutions with low enough transaction costs to allow deals to favor the smart. Maybe, for example, large metropolitan areas just can’t make effective deals on policies to favor attracting the smart, and pushing away the stupid."
This seems to me to make a lot of sense intuitively, especially for cities. You used to see a lot of cities try to implement policies to attract the "creative class," but these policies didn't seem to have any effect.