No it’s not. Certainly not ‘exactly’! IQ is extremely important, even if it’s not everything that matters. And IQ was literally invented in the most prosperous periods in human history. Unless she thinks that old Rome was better than the 1950s.
-
-
I also think that immigration levels should be severely reduced or even stopped, but I simply think that IQ is a bad argument to use. It might work to convince 5-6% of the population who care about IQ, but it's unlikely to affect policy.
-
That it's a bad argument *to use*, I agree wholeheartedly. But no need to trash the concept in public. I don't trust people who deny IQ, to have a clue about anything.
-
Many "deny" it because they question the influence of heredity. Of course *we* know that IQ is highly hereditary, but we also know that Flynn effect exists. It's not obvious that when you take countries with low IQ and improve conditions there, the average IQ won't improve.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
IQ may be a crude measure but it can establish where the floor is for certain capabilities. We may know it takes 95-100 IQ on average to establish a complex civilization that lasts but it is harder to predict what happens when a 100 IQ group and a 105 IQ group become competitors.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.