I will quote here in a minute a passage that I think helps explain this. The book is “The Geography of the Intellect”, and it is so thoroughly politically incorrect that it was likely considered quite problematic in 1963, when it was first published. It discusses the common sense notion that intelligence is not spread evenly across populations and races. Would it not seem obvious that part of the reason successful people are successes is because they are intelligent–more intelligent, to the point–than others with whom they are competing? Was it not always obvious that Bill Gates would do more than his bus driver?
Did Europeans cultures not come to dominate the world because–for whatever reason–they were better able to harness intelligence? White people invented virtually everything. The Chinese invented paper: we perfected. The Chinese invented gunpowder: we effectively weaponized it, and invented dynamite. We invented motor cars, airplanes, computers.
Clearly, cultural factors were at play. We developed the Scientific Method. We adopted the notion of Progress. But particularly when political attention is paid to differential outcomes, we have to ask why we should NOT value our best and brightest, and why they should not be differentially successful, however we measure that.
Put another way, why is it that the black community, in general, seems both to value clinging to an identity that is congruent with ignorance, and to demand in clear conscience that they be granted all the rewards normally reserved for the best and brightest?
We do not have a hereditary aristocracy here. The overwhelming majority of millionaires are first generation, and most get there by having good ideas, working hard, saving their money, and investing it. If the goal is the eradication of poverty, economic growth is the only proven way to accomplish it. By and large, we have no poor people in this country any more. Our poor have access to luxuries undreamt of by European kings of only a century or two ago.
Here is the passage:
One final point should be made about the significance of differences between the average I.Q.’s of populations, regardless of whether they are defined in ethnic, national, class, educational or other terms. This is that comparatively small differences in average intelligence become very great differences in the very high I.Q. ranges. A decline in average psychometric intelligence of only a few points will mean a much smaller population of gifted individuals and it is, of course, this natural elite of gifted people and of geniuses which does most of the really creative work of the world, which gives civilization its shape, and the presence or absence of which determines which nations are to lead the world and which are to follow. After commenting on the fact that “anyone who thinks about the future must live in fear and terror,” Albert Einstein wrote: “This is due to the fact that the intelligence and the character of the masses are incomparably lower than the intelligence and character of the few who produce something valuable for the community.”
We can indicate the relevance of this to I.Q. frequency distribution as follows: first, let us assume that the distribution of I.Q.’s corresponds to the normal Gaussian probability curve of error. This is approximately correct, but fortunately not entirely so. Homo Sapiens produces more highly intelligent individuals than the Gaussian formula would allot to him.
Second, assume that the average I.Q. of a population declines by 15 points, possibly because of intermarriage with mentally less gifted groups, perhaps for other reasons. Under these assumptions, the production of highly intelligent people, those with I.Q.’s of 130 and over, would decrease from about 2.27% to about .13% of the population. In other words, a 15-point decline in average I.Q. would suffice to wipe out 92% of the minority with markedly superior minds. (Pages 154-155).
What has been the effect of the Welfare State? Has it not been, at least until recent years, to encourage the profligacy of the least able members of our poorest class? I am not going to take that claim and back it empirically–and it may be either wrong or unverifiable–but it seems likely to me.
Across the board, on average, I.Q.s have been rising for a century, but consider what we just read. Let us posit one group which remains static, and one whose average IQ goes up 15 points. That latter groups as a whole is going to produce 17 times as many unusually talented individuals as the first group.
Here is the naked truth: the average IQ among black Americans is approximately 10 points less than that of white Americans, which itself is approximately 10 points less than the average among Jewish Americans.
Given this, we would EXPECT far few leaders of unusual ability to arise among black Americans. We can EXPLAIN how, with something less than 1% of the world’s population, Jews have won some 40% (or very high number–I need to get going, so I won’t look up the exact number) of the Nobel Prizes.
It has been my understanding for some time that IQ is malleable, particularly across generations. Why is no one sponsoring an initiative to raise average IQ’s among black Americans? Guess.
Obviously, there is ample material here to offend many people. But let me ask you this: do realities we refuse to acknowledge disappear when we are not looking? And how can we change realities in intelligent ways without understanding what the starting point is?