Excellent post! Frankly, it seems like IQ is a better predictor in regards to this than the T score from a country's 1500 SAT score. But the countries that are outliers are certainly worth exploring further. Positive outliers, such as India, suggest that these countries might not be performing at their full potential IQ-wise right now, likely due to environmental factors. Meanwhile, negative outliers, such as Mexico, might suggest that these countries have more potential than their 1500 T score would give them. Brazil and Mexico have vastly different 1500 T scores, but it's very far from clear that Brazilians have significantly more intelligence potential relative to Mexicans.
Ultimately, though, what your research here shows, George, is that if we can use a large-scale voluntary eugenics program to massively boost IQ scores, then the 1500 T scores of immigrants' sending countries will become less relevant. Third Worlders are more likely to get quicker and easier access to IQ-enhancing technologies if they will live in the First World. Though one doesn't (or at least shouldn't) want the First World to become a dump either.
Quite interesting that Mongolia has such low T scores and yet has a relatively high average IQ and also was able to conquer much of Eurasia hundreds of years ago!
I haven't read the book (but I plan to), but considering Garrett Jones' previous work on IQ, it's hard not to interpret the "culture" that immigrants bring in a Straussian manner...
I certainly agree with Jones over Caplan on that part. It's just that I generally think adding people from a bad "culture" is bad because of the bad "culture" not because it creates diversity per se.
I think diversity is bad in itself and kind of self contradictory. For instance I’d be against hongkongers moving to Australia even though they work hard and don’t commit crime
Perhaps this is the case for everyday quality of life things, so if your country imports a lot of Hongkongers, as in Drew's example, you won't need to be any more worried than you already were about being attacked on the streets of your city, but the impact of even high IQ diversity on long-term politics and the health of your society is a different issue.
High IQ is no guarantee against ethnic conflict, because we've seen a lot of ethnic conflict between Europeans, but also, high IQ foreigners can work politically against the interests of the native population even in a peaceful environment, we see that with Jews and their role in creating anti-European narratives, and also with other high-IQ groups who may feel they need to align themselves with certain ethnomasochistic elements of the native population.
Of course, these things will depend on the number of immigrants, who they are, and the assimilation policies in your country. One option to avoid future issues is to absorb immigrants into the native population, and high IQ groups will most likely be easier to absorb, especially if they are from a close ethnic group. In addition to all of this, one also has to consider the genetic and cultural interests of one's own ethnic group, which in all likelihood, is best served as having an exclusive or quasi-exclusive territory.
Enjoyed your review, and your suggestion that Jones be more bold in expressing his conjectures.
Being a book it would have been conceived of some time ago, and that's the thing isn't it, the world has moved on, the Globalists are in charge; those who are not interested in borders or national character.
The book also, I assume, eschews discussion of ethnically stereotypical personality traits, because that and comparing brains between peoples are no-go topics.
The general idea, as I had understood it, is that people who had to plan for times of food shortage developed a character to suit: industrious, frugal, inventive, close-knit.
If such people move to a land of plenty, with an easy climate, how long before their future generations become soft. If I look around here I might be able to answer that.
Excellent post! Frankly, it seems like IQ is a better predictor in regards to this than the T score from a country's 1500 SAT score. But the countries that are outliers are certainly worth exploring further. Positive outliers, such as India, suggest that these countries might not be performing at their full potential IQ-wise right now, likely due to environmental factors. Meanwhile, negative outliers, such as Mexico, might suggest that these countries have more potential than their 1500 T score would give them. Brazil and Mexico have vastly different 1500 T scores, but it's very far from clear that Brazilians have significantly more intelligence potential relative to Mexicans.
Ultimately, though, what your research here shows, George, is that if we can use a large-scale voluntary eugenics program to massively boost IQ scores, then the 1500 T scores of immigrants' sending countries will become less relevant. Third Worlders are more likely to get quicker and easier access to IQ-enhancing technologies if they will live in the First World. Though one doesn't (or at least shouldn't) want the First World to become a dump either.
Quite interesting that Mongolia has such low T scores and yet has a relatively high average IQ and also was able to conquer much of Eurasia hundreds of years ago!
I haven't read the book (but I plan to), but considering Garrett Jones' previous work on IQ, it's hard not to interpret the "culture" that immigrants bring in a Straussian manner...
It would be hard to add anything over that Helen Andrews piece.
Hi George,
Have you ever checked the lifetime cost of an avereage somali immigrants in Europe?
No!
Immigration in and of itself isn’t a great cost? I may be missing something here, I thought it was quite costly
I certainly agree with Jones over Caplan on that part. It's just that I generally think adding people from a bad "culture" is bad because of the bad "culture" not because it creates diversity per se.
I think diversity is bad in itself and kind of self contradictory. For instance I’d be against hongkongers moving to Australia even though they work hard and don’t commit crime
Perhaps this is the case for everyday quality of life things, so if your country imports a lot of Hongkongers, as in Drew's example, you won't need to be any more worried than you already were about being attacked on the streets of your city, but the impact of even high IQ diversity on long-term politics and the health of your society is a different issue.
High IQ is no guarantee against ethnic conflict, because we've seen a lot of ethnic conflict between Europeans, but also, high IQ foreigners can work politically against the interests of the native population even in a peaceful environment, we see that with Jews and their role in creating anti-European narratives, and also with other high-IQ groups who may feel they need to align themselves with certain ethnomasochistic elements of the native population.
Of course, these things will depend on the number of immigrants, who they are, and the assimilation policies in your country. One option to avoid future issues is to absorb immigrants into the native population, and high IQ groups will most likely be easier to absorb, especially if they are from a close ethnic group. In addition to all of this, one also has to consider the genetic and cultural interests of one's own ethnic group, which in all likelihood, is best served as having an exclusive or quasi-exclusive territory.
I'm sure that your review would have been interesting, but it's behind a paywall.
Oh dear, I did not know this!
It seems only the narrated version is behind a paywall. You should be able to read the linked article now.
Thank you for whatever you did to fix this.
Enjoyed your review, and your suggestion that Jones be more bold in expressing his conjectures.
Being a book it would have been conceived of some time ago, and that's the thing isn't it, the world has moved on, the Globalists are in charge; those who are not interested in borders or national character.
The book also, I assume, eschews discussion of ethnically stereotypical personality traits, because that and comparing brains between peoples are no-go topics.
The general idea, as I had understood it, is that people who had to plan for times of food shortage developed a character to suit: industrious, frugal, inventive, close-knit.
If such people move to a land of plenty, with an easy climate, how long before their future generations become soft. If I look around here I might be able to answer that.