What You Didn't Know About IQ | Kevin M. Beaver and Stefan Molyneux



hi everybody this is stefan molyneux from freedomain radio a thrilled to have dr. kevin beaver with us he's a professor at Florida State University and is an expert on biosocial criminology and yes you will not leave this interview without knowing exactly what that means it's the biological and environmental factors involved in crime and anti-social behavior he has published a wide variety of books and articles recently a study with five colleagues on what to me is a very surprising results on the degree to which parenting has in effect or rather a non affect on IQ versus the role that genetics play thank you so much dr. Bieber for taking the time today well thank you for having me was this a surprise okay before we get into the ribbon whether it was a surprise for you what were the results that you found in this study yeah so basically what we did in this particular study is we were interested in examining the the effects the different parenting measures different measures of the home life had on intelligence in adolescence and early adulthood and there's obviously a lot of research out there linking different dimensions of parenting and different dimensions of the family to variation in IQ scores but what much of this research does not take into account is the role that genes play and what I mean by that is that parents and children obviously share 50% of the genes and so if we don't take that into account any so called parenting effect or any so called environmental effect might really just be a unmeasured genetic influences that are being sort of picked up by those environmental measures and so we wanted to address this issue and address this possibility that others have raised and that others have written about I mean in an empirical way and so what we did is we exploited an adoption based sample and we compared on whether the parenting behaviors of adoptive parents predicted IQ scores of their adopted adolescents and and and ultimately they matured into young adults and so we were looking to see whether parenting in adolescents predicted IQ and adolescence and adulthood and what's very eloquent about this design is is that the parents adopted parents and their adoptive children don't share any genetic material and so any effect that would be detected would be sort of strong evidence of a causal effect and when we actually analyzed the data in this way the results revealed that the parenting measures had virtually no effect no statistically significant effect on the IQ of their children in adolescence and adulthood which is of course quite shocking to to a lot of people against the analogy that popped into my head is that I mean we certainly know how to traumatize children through child abuse and so on but have negative effects on their brain development and social development but to me good enough parenting is sort of like height you can stunt a child's growth by not giving the child enough food during stages of development but you can't make the child taller than its genes are going to allow would that be very close as a way of looking at it no I think it's a great way of looking at it and you know most parenting is good enough I mean even in our study where we're looking at variation in parenting there's not the parents that show up consistently that are locking their kids and you know the cupboards or the closets and only feeding them bread and water once a day with that type of parenting environment have an effect certainly it's going to have an effect but when we look at parenting even quote unquote bad parenting in most samples and in most environments is relatively good enough that it's not going to have a dramatic effect or a drastic effect on IQ and the other thing is in our study we were looking at parenting related influences that were occurring during adolescence so we were not looking at the way that parents raised their children in the very first few years of life we were looking at parenting behaviors that were occurring in adolescence and whether those parenting behaviors linked up with adolescent and early adulthood IQ yeah I mean I think it would be fairly safe to assume that the parenting had not undergone radical reversals from early early life but so I've assumed there'd be some continuity of parenting from early childhood to through to adolescence yep absolutely I mean and that's what research shows a parenting is it has to be highly stable and so you wouldn't expect to see drastic differences that occur over those different developmental time periods now when I talk about IQ in this philosophy show people particularly younger people are quite confused because maybe they never heard of the bell curve or the other books which seemed to indicate that IQ is a fairly strong predictor of long term life direction and success and so on so if we're going to think about IQ why should we care about it at all what does it predict or to what degree does it influence where people end up well IQs one of those variables I'm one of the very few variables that predicts most everything that we look at so it predicts health outcomes it predicts mortality early life mortality it predicts how much money you'll make over your life course your salary whether or not you'll have contact with the criminal justice system I mean so it predicts a wide array of behavioral and social life outcomes and so I think that therefore if for no other reason to study it there's there's probably only an one maybe two other variables that we could really even think of that would have such diverse effects that are detected across a wide range of heterogeneous ampuls and that's a consistent effect it's a consistent finding and the degree to which its genetic of course is the degree to which it is a challenge to to change right I mean studies that I've read have indicated that you can't really budge you even you can certainly budget downwards through through negative problems or lack of stimulation so on but budging it upwards seems to be quite challenging I think I read somewhere that the testing between the ages of 11 and 77 found it's a basically a 2 in 1 chance that your IQ won't budge by more than a few points even over that wider time period absolutely I mean intelligence is one of the most stable traits that we know of and so where you fall in relation to everybody else at say the age of 10 is going to be a very good predictor of where you fall and respect in in contrast to everybody else at the age of 60 or 70 so you don't see much change at all over the life course and the change that you do see tends to be relatively minor so maybe a couple IQ points up for a couple IQ points down which is probably nothing more than just pure randomness um yeah absolutely would you would you say that socioeconomic status is less of a predictor than IQ for life direction and go and where you end up so is SES less or less strong of a predictor than IQ is that what yes yeah yes absolutely I mean if you look at if you look at intelligence it's going to predict quite strongly all of these various life outcomes and SES tends to have significant effects but it depends on what you're looking at I mean when you look at criminal behavior SES doesn't have that strong of an effect on individual criminal involvement and so without a doubt these two things are tied together SES and intelligence so trying to pull one apart from the other can be difficult but what we see is that when we look at those if we were just to look at individuals from say low SES areas or low SES families the respondents or the participants who have the highest IQs tend to have very positive outcomes and so it appears that the individual differences in IQ are one of the strongest sort of predictors of these life outcomes and that's regardless of what type of SES background they come from right now with regards to criminality the literature that I've read dr. beaver seems to go in a number of different directions and I can almost feel the ideological confirmation bias running like a rich whore of self-delusion through these these articles but that does seem to be some correlation between eight to ten point lowering in IQ and an increased likelihood of criminal behavior of course some people say well yes but it's the lower IQ criminals who tend to get caught but this even holds true with self-reported crime which would not I think would which would control for that what in your view is the relationship between the IQ bell curve and the criminality bell curves yeah I mean it's a really great question and there are many different mechanisms that might link the two together I think to start with what I'd say is that there's a among criminologist there's a lot of those who simply reject the possibility that IQ is even related to crime and so you talk about an ideological bent that things if you were to go comb through the criminological literature published in criminology journals by criminologist or other social scientists you see very very little detail very little studies very few studies examining the role that IQ plays in the development of criminal behavior and that's largely because at least in my view that it's sort of one of those those ideological stances it's a political minefield if you will if you were to walk into looking at those associations much of the literature that you do see that has come out that's looked at the link between IQ and crime or the link between IQ and different types of antisocial behaviors and typically comes from individual difference research or personality researchers and so there's not a lot of research not a lot of contemporary research that's looking at how and in what ways sort of the IQ bell curve would map up the variation in criminal behavior and I think that's really handicapped our ability to explain in detail and to sort of unpack the mechanisms that are at play that's going to tell us how and in what ways variation and IQs going to contribute the variation in criminal behavior but there's no doubt there's going to be multiple sort of pathways if you will um that link to two together we just don't have a lot of empiric evidence testing those different pathways and I think you mentioned one like differential detection you know stealing a car outside of a police station probably not the best idea and it's probably something that's going to get you caught well who's the more the most likely people to do that probably individuals with lower levels of IQ lower levels of intelligence but there are there other factors that could play a role as well um in terms of being able to channel your resources and your skills into pro-social versus antisocial behaviors and so if you're of higher IQ you should be able to adapt to the environments in a way that's going to be a much more pro-social advantage it's going to lead you into pro-social activities things like going to college getting a job getting a high-quality job staying on task excelling at that job being able to follow directions and so on and so forth so it's really going to confer an advantage in terms of being able to be adaptive um why do you think it is politically incorrect to study IQ and and crime I guess if it's considered to be environmental then there would be things that the government could do unlike the sort of failed Head Start program of things that society could do to improve IQ but if it is genetic then if you are going to map genetics with crime is that is that where the sensitivity is I just I have a little trouble understanding why it's it's taboo yeah I mean I think it's a great question um you know I it's going to be because of a number of different factors that intersect together you've got IQ that's intersecting with crime it's intersecting with this high heritability or this high genetic effect it's also intersecting with SES that's also intersecting with race differences and so depending on the story the people were to tell it could be quite difficult to explain away why we see differences between IQ in different racial and ethnic groups and why different racial and ethnic groups might be more or less involved in criminal behavior and people start to get a little bit worried about what this might mean in terms of implications in terms of policy recommendations in terms of explanations and in terms of how society might view that the potential causes of crime and so what we tend to see is most criminologist sort of bury their head in the sand and just not even talk about it so we we don't even in my home field of criminology we don't really even talk about intelligence I mean the research that I published on intelligence and crime hasn't been published in criminology journals it's been published in individual differences journals personality journals and that's because trying to get a fair shake at these criminology journals it just wouldn't happen and and that's why there's so very limited research at least in my view on crime and IQ and how the two are mapped together yeah I mean and with all the caveats being that nobody knows the answers to this of course high rates of criminality within the black community are often explained you know history of slavery racism in society in particular in the police department and so on one alternative explanation which again is to my knowledge not verified and may never be verified is to say if criminality is associated with lower IQ and if the data which is talked about by charles Murray and Darren Stein in the bell curve is correct and Blaxland score a standard deviation below whites and even below Asians then if lower intelligence is associated with higher criminality and if blacks are testing for lower intelligence that may be a contributing factor is that is that a fair way to summer it sometimes that's what some of the people are concerned about and taking it a step further if IQs relatively immutable and so your IQ score is relatively immutable there's nothing that we can do I think that's the part that that scares people so it if IQ is a cause of crime let's say and we know IQ scores vary across racial groups and and so what does that mean well how could we prevent crime if we can't change our hue scores and so then it drums up all the concerns about will there be a new huge new eugenics movement and what can be done and all that stuff and so I think it really skin there's people away from he even moving into the area of studying IQ and crime in a scholarly and sort of transparent way and of course I've been among the general population who aren't particularly well-versed in statistics and so on I think there would be a concern of promoting a racism because although looking at IQ scores across a general population may help us to understand very broad social trends it does absolutely no good in evaluating any particular individual and people may conflate those two differences and you may end up with a negative view of a group which is unjustified in dealing with individuals within that group absolutely I mean what we what we learn from statistics and from statistical procedures that are published in journals does not translate in being able to talk about individuals so we we might know that there's this association or we might find that there's a robust association between low IQ scores and criminal involvement but that doesn't mean that if you or anyone you know has a low IQ score that they will for certain go out and commit crime all we can talk about is what's found in the sample and what's detected sort of at the aggregate level if you will but it tells us nothing about individuals and it can't be applied to individuals yes I'll be that's certainly a very important point to make that the vast majority of people or a significant majority of people with low IQs have nothing to do with criminal behavior it's a it's a minor tendency now as far as the IQ tests go what I found interesting was so much that I found interesting was the degree to which there are various aspects of the IQ tests which seem to have different relationships in predictions of potential criminality for instances of verbal intelligence a lowering of verbal intelligence or of deficiencies in verbal intelligence seem to be somewhat related to increase potential for criminality has that been your understanding of it as well yes I published some work looking at verbal IQ and criminal involvement and that's exactly what we found is that we detected some significant associations between between the two and we didn't have measures of performance IQ or spatial IQ or things like that so we were forced into focusing on verbal IQ and the question always comes up why is this the case why do we see this and again you know there's not enough research out there to really get at those underlying mechanisms that might account for the statistical Association but it's where I mean some of this makes sense I mean it makes it can make intuitive sense if we're just sort of speculating as to what's going on in it and you know it if you're unable to express yourself through words or you're deficient and being able to sort of verbalize it's going to get you into situations you might not be able to get out of it's going to put you in a situation where it might be very difficult to find your way out of it other than doing something wrong right you know you may be more likely to express yourself through physical aggression then through you know sort of talking your way out of a problem I always talk to my students and say you know think about if you get pulled over by a police officer for speeding some people are just very gifted verbally linguistically and they can talk their way out of it and that might sort of explain at least some of the reason why certain verbal IQ might be linked up with different types of antisocial behaviors criminal involvement arrests things like that well and it's about what is it we usually say to children who are being aggressive you know use your words right I mean and I think that's exactly and use them in a way that's effective so I mean if you were pulled over for speeding you can you can try to talk your way out of it one way to for certain get a ticket would be to look at them look at the police officers they will wire you out fighting real crime you know that's going to get traffic it very quickly also if you're unable to express yourself we're in a situation for example where again the example I always used with my students is let's say I came into class and I said and I took away your ability to talk and I said okay everybody in here gets enough there's no debates there's nothing about that everyone gets an F and I walk out of that class there are two things that students to do one they could come up and physically assault me in which case sort of the physical assaults going to take precedence and they're going to get arrested or second they could sit down after I leave when they sort of get their word back and they could think together and say okay this he can't just give us all ass let's go to the Dean let's go to the president let's write something out and they could grieve it in a way that they're going to win in one case they're there they're fighting me they're assaulting me with good reason I'm failing them but they're going to get arrested for that in the upper case they're sitting down there using sort of intelligence they're using their verbal abilities and they're crafting a response it's going to get them sort of in the in the winner's seat if you will and they're going to get the grades that they deserve and I'm going to get you know reprimanded or fired or whatever it might be right now the the finding that parenting styles or even to some degree parenting quality had little to do with IQ was shocking enough but of course it gets even worse because some of the side effects that you do find are in what could be colloquially called the exact wrong direction that maternal attachment negatively associated with IQ and children I wonder if you could break that down a little bit for people that when you intervene to improve oftentimes it seems to make things worse yeah I mean statistically speaking it's not uncommon to have these signs flip if it's not a real effect and so what I mean by that is is that if the true effect of say parenting on an outcome in this case intelligence is zero and because of chance fluctuations and data on what you will see sometimes is a significant effect in the opposite direction and so when reading across studies or even reading within a study and you see signs sort of flip around and go in the opposite direction of what was predicted it could mean that you know what we had thought would have a positive effect actually has a negative effect or vice-versa or it could simply be just a function of statistics and really is nothing more than a statistical or methodological artifact and so that's not caution against in terms of interpreting relatively small effects that are going in the opposite direction all right now there's something that I have found in doing research on criminality which is contrary to what you read in the media it seems to be on significant decline over the past ten to fifteen years and I have of course read a good deal to degree to which single motherhood a single parenthood is associated with negative outcomes for children but at a time when single parenthood is on the rise criminality appears to be declining significantly and again this is of all very loose correlations and it doesn't of course go lockstep with each other but I wonder if you could talk if you have any knowledge about that discrepancy between the rise of single mothers which is associated with some negative outcomes for children particularly young men and a decrease in the prevalence of violent criminality yeah you know again it's a really good issue to bring up and I haven't given a lot of thought in in respond or in a in respect to single motherhood and violence or single motherhood and criminal behavior there is no doubt this downward trend and we have crime rates at nearly an all-time low but nobody really knows why nobody knows why we've detected this significant downtrend there's different explanations that have been advanced you know the fact that we've locked up so many people or you know the legalization of abortion is now starting to have effects and that's why we're we see this down downward trend in in criminal behavior but not all of these sort of facts fit together and I think that you bring up one of many different sort of anomalies that are occurring where we see this criminal genic risk factor we found it then it's been detected it's been associated with crime and so we would expect it if that risk factor becomes more concentrated it becomes more prevalent the crime should become more prevalent as well but we actually see the exact opposite and the reasons for that or are probably quite complex but what I would what I would sort of just throw out there um is that you know many of these risk factors whether it's single motherhood single Parenthood whatever it is oftentimes are moderated or contingent on other factors as well and so it could be that that something else is in the environment are the in the individual that's moderating that particular effect there was a study that was done not forget how many years ago but they were looking at whether a sort of a broken home whether the absent father was was always bad and what they found was that in fact if the father is a criminal or if the father's antisocial in some capacity it's better that the father is not in the household rather than to keep the father in the household so you can claim that you're from a two-parent household and so I think it's those types of sort of complex associations that are oftentimes missed in studies or that oftentimes aren't fully modeled in a statistical design it really makes sense when you think about them and and it sort of gives us those those fine contours of what's likely going on as opposed to these broad brushstrokes where we're looking the same well single mother who's bad or single parenthood is bad in all instances what in fact is it's it's likely a positive at least on childhood development in certain instances yeah and let's not even get started on the degree to which the prevalence of violent video game playing does not seem to be associated with the rise in crime exactly now you have forthcoming well this is 2014 I don't know if it if it came out or not yet demonstrating the validity of twin research in criminology net twin research of course is the holy grail of genetics versus environment not that it's perfect but it's the best as far as I understand it that people it's the best data that you can get to try and tease out the relationship between the two what does this paper or article attempt to establish so twin research is sort of the gold standard that's used to quantify genetic and environmental influences and it's been you it's been used for hundreds of years um and it's been used in thousands of studies to estimate the genetic and environmental influence on virtually anything you can think of anything that can be measured probably been studied with a behavioral genetic or twin based research design as a number of assumptions that have to be met in order for the results to be deemed reliable and valid and and and so one of them is is an equal environments assumption which essentially says that identical twins their environments can't be any more similar than fraternal twins or non-identical twins environments if if the environments are more similar for identical twins and those more similar environments are the result of things that are occurring external to the individual so parents treating children identical twins more similarly just because they're identical twins then that and doing that more similarly in comparison with fraternal twins that can actually produce eyes estimates most people are you upwardly biased estimates of the heritability or of the genetic influence and so a lot of sort of social critics and those who are against genetic research hang their hat on this equal environments assumption if they always it's ludicrous to believe that identical twins environments wouldn't be more similar than fraternal twins environments and there's actually a good deal of research that it's address this possibility that's looked at it quite closely and that if you can looked at it in a way so that well let me back up so they looked at it to see whether in fact the differences in environments between identical twins and fraternal twins one of those differences are due to things that are external to the individual or whether they're the result of genetic influences and so if it's two identical twins both Excel say at sports we're going to see the parents probably pour more resources into sports for these identical twins than they would for fraternal twins where one queen excels at sports and the other doesn't like them at all and so in that case people said we'll look equal environments assumption is violated right because they're treating their identical twins more similarly than their fraternal twins but since it's sort of emanates from the individual that's not a violation of the EEA so it's a little more complex than just looking and saying oh identical twins are treated more similarly but in short that's one of the key assumptions of twin based research there are other assumptions as well but those are typically not talked about because they would reduce heritability and so most of the people that have a problem with behavioral genetic research designs are sociologists or those individuals who are against a genetic influence so they're only going to focus on the assumptions where they can say well look all these heritability estimates are overly biased and so what happened was in our flagship Journal on the American Society of Criminology flagship journal was called criminology a paper was published it was an on quantitative paper there's really nothing more than an editorial it was written by a couple sociologists and they they took the tasks on basically all the work that's been done by biosocial criminologist including myself and said that all of it's wrong all of this research is wrong because the studies violate the equal environments assumption they had no data they've never published with twin data they brought up nothing new they actually cited one study or one individual I think it was 75 times and they basically just borrowed all of their work and decided that and and they concluded by saying that we should ban all genetic research from criminology they didn't say ban they said that we should put an end to all heritability studies that use twins on analysis said the same thing for adoptees and so on um so this was this was published last year it was published without being reviewed by any experts in behavioral genetics on the reviewers were not knowledgeable on in behavioral genetic designs and the editors of criminology did a relatively poor job of trying to in any way a vet it so that it was a study that they could be defensible um maybe because of our issues I mean any there's no such thing as a perfect research design but when we move so far as to say hey let's ban research let's put an end to research and then we publish that in a flagship Journal flagship journal criminology sends a message to the rest of the field that there's something wrong with this body of research um and so myself and about five of my former students and one of my colleagues rewrote a response and that's what you're picking up on demonstrating the validity of twin research we wrote a response we we use data we use simulated data we showed that the equal environments assumption violating the equal environments assumption at most probably inflates heritability by about 0.05 so if the heritability of something to 0.5 and we violate the EEA the heritability is probably really point four five but we also looked at some of the assumptions that would down sort of Dec deflate heritability and found evidence that those would in for deflate heritability by about 0.05 and so they tend to cancel each other out um and we're left with a heritability estimate it's quite accurate in the research okay okay now just one last question dr. beaver I mean obviously I hate to drag researchers into any kind of policy debate or question and I recognize the sensitivity of all of that and and my bias which I hope is not completely biased is I tend to come from a skepticism a great skepticism of social engineering projects to raise IQ across the board for you know poor people or various groups but what are your thoughts about the degree to which external social programs can change the kind of data that you're studying so the extent to which they can change IQ yeah the social programs designed to change yeah the headstart programs and that the programs that are designed to try and close gaps in an IQ to sort of squish down the bell curve yeah I mean I don't know of any reliable data or study that's been published you know and replicated showing that these kinds of social programs have any significant effect on achieving increases in IQ or reducing disparities I think it'd be a great thing to be able to change IQ only for the positive so to be able to elevate people like you and sort of make things more equal but I haven't seen any data published where that's the case and if it has been published it might be a single study I've never seen it replicated so I'm very skeptical of sinking billions of dollars into these programs if our intent is to raise IQ scores and to decrease or decrease the disparities that might exist these programs might be good for other reasons but when it comes to intelligence I don't see it as having much of an effect if any effect at all yeah and just because I'm sure I'll get deluged with studies that show this there have been studies to my knowledge that show a short-term increase in test scores but shortly after the children leave these programs like within a year or two the test scores tend to sink down to where they were before the program started so I think I'm fully aware and maybe you can back me up on this that there are studies that show short-term increases but they don't tend to be sustainable over the course of childhood right and you know much of that is likely the result of sort of teaching to the test or test right you know learning about that's not IQ per se it's getting at a sort of a testing ability if we could accurately measure G right and do it in a way or intelligence in a way that isn't sort of teaching to the test but really just measuring and quantifying raw intellectual power I've never seen a study that does that and that you as you mentioned has a long-term effect and that has even a meaningful substitute effect I mean we might see something where you know a study shows a two or three IQ point gain but is two or three IQ points even all that meaningful I don't know what I don't know if it we would even be able to detect it in everyday life of someone who has an IQ of 115 versus 113 I don't know that it's meaningful um but yeah there certainly can be short-term gains on certain types of tests but nothing long-term and nothing where we're radically changing individuals because the two or three IQ points isn't going to be all that meaningful but really I think what what these programs would want is to take someone who has an IQ of say 75 and get their IQ score up to 95 um and I've never seen anything like that yeah it's it's a it's a great shame and there is a kind of heartbreaking element to it because we do like the idea of the malleability of humanity – especially in a democracy where everyone gets a vote that we could try and get people not necessarily take down the high points of IQ but at least push up the lower points of IQ but it doesn't seem to be that's where the biology and the genetics point is so I just I mean we'll obviously link to the work in this show I just wanted to express my sincere appreciation for you dabbling in challenging data and challenging material there is as shalt mary's pointed out this is quite a deal of hostility flowing out towards people who are following the data towards the significant influence of genetics but you know I I'm very much an empiricist that you follow the data wherever the data leads and try and put aside as much as possible ideological preferences I think you've done a very admirable job just looking at it from the layperson outside and I just wanted to express my appreciation for you pursuing this line of inquiry despite the fact that it can ruffle some feathers well thanks and for what it's worth I think there are very few empiricists in university life arm in and particularly in the social I think much of it is just ideological and publishing towards certain outcomes and being less concerned about empirical data and more concerned about activism and what people might feel about you and your research and so I think it's a difficult time to sort of work in some of these areas but at the same time it's also a very rewarding time as well and so I appreciate you taking the time and bring me on your show and let me talk about this a little bit thank you very much take care all right

33 Comments

  1. BrutalizeURf4ce said:

    May the full judgement of time smite your memory into dust. Those who lead the blind unto folly disavow the love of truth. Lord of a pit of hallucination. Renounce your trickery. Close your maw of cancerous lies. Remain in silence. I hope the day in which you see the sway of your wayward path of hate leaves you with time enough to repair, to destroy in part the crop you've sown.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  2. Rikard Schumacher said:

    Know thy IQ. Know Thyself.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  3. fred said:

    psychologists and sociologists measure intelligence differently. Sociologists would find Forest Gump as intelligent.
    1. make good choices according to what you know. 2. Finish whatever you start. 3. Be flexible to find alternative ways to complete the task.
    This is why you can find really dumb people in charge. The high IQ people can do really stupid things.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  4. si giggle said:

    The Flynn effect shows that environmental conditions have a massive effect on IQ, things like the type of work and education people are involved with etc.

    The fact that peoples grandparents and great parents would have had significantly different environments on average, and that those differences would surely still be having an effect on those peoples children, grandchildren, etc.

    I think this fact doesn't seem to be being factored into all this talk about race and IQ.

    I haven't seen any evidence that shows differences in IQ between races, where environmental differences (especially inherited factors) have been properly accounted for.
    For example, if racial group A has an average IQ of 90, group B has 100, and group C has 110, and they're all of the same socioeconomic standing, people seem to be looking at that as irrefutable proof of inherent differences between those racial groups.
    But what if group A had grandparents that were twice as likely to have been denied education and stimulating work opportunities, and group C were twice as likely to have a cultural inheritance that puts an emphasis on a high work ethic, etc.

    These differences don't seem to be being factored in.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  5. fruitpuncherrrrr said:

    Parenting has no affect on increasing IQ but can degrade it, doesn't impact even into teenage and adulthood
    IQ predicts health outcome, early life mortality, making money, contact with criminal justice system, other peers and more
    Intelligence is stable
    Social Economic Statues intertwines with IQ but IQ has more broader reach
    Criminologist reject IQ along with others for fear of new eugenics movement
    Higher IQ = Higher probability to adapt to new environments
    IQ vary on different skills
    Short Term Gains Unsustainable in Long run

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  6. Lee Noble said:

    High IQ doesn't mean good.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  7. MutantDustBunny said:

    You're barking up the wrong tree thinking about raising IQ. What must be done is to bring out talents through sports and art with a strong Christian ethic teaching do unto others as you would have done to yourself. These kids will never be high intellects but they're still valuable to our society.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  8. Dark Defender said:

    Thank you for your work!

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  9. Progressive Innovator said:

    Its very simple. Just good common sense. I have seen & been around smart & very intelligent people of all races & colors. Black people, White people, Asian people, Hispanic People, Philippino People, etc. But here is an example that most people don't think about. You can take any very intelligent person no matter what color or race they are, then drop them off into a culture that they are not familiar with, & you will see them stumbling over there feet trying to function & think like every one else in that culture. And the people who are familiar with that culture will just look at them like they are dumb, & not so smart. But there is high intelligence in every race of people. You can't generalize & say one race is more intelligent than the other. With the same type of exposure to a good education, you will see the creme (genetically smartest) of every ethnic group rise to the top. Now this can also happen to a new generation that doesn't have any negative baggage about where they come from & most will excel, no matter what social or economic status. But simply put, everybody is not meant to do certain things. Everybody has to find their strengths to excel in life. (When each person is in their gifted element – zone), they will come across sometimes like they are the smartest or the most talented person in the room. Every person God given gift will sometimes make them appear like they are super human. And this is the way God made each person to be. God meant for each one of us to appear super when we are in our God given element – zone. When you are in your God given zone, you take off like a rocket & usually amaze other people. Why? Because that person has found what they were really born to do on this God given earth. The key is to (find the super that God put inside) of you from birth.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  10. BlackAngloSaxon said:

    Stefan you often say that an indication of high IQ is the ability to have foresight and see the consequences of ones actions in the future taking appropriate countermeasures if a present course of action is deemed detrimental. How would you explain why high IQ Europeans didn’t see all the civil unrest due to immigration and slavery. Particularly the backlash against White South African farmers due to Apartheid in the early 90s?

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  11. Kathy Heath said:

    I don't get what is supposed to be achieved by this, except to promote fixed mindset, which is shown to be detrimental to learning. It seems like a way to justify keeping cultures, class, race etc divided. If we really want people to have happy lives and be successful, we wouldn't be looking for ways to keep them in their place. I don't buy this. This guy makes way more sense to me – learning and success comes through the promotion of a growth mindset. Imagine how many lives Stefan Molyneux could change if he promoted this? https://youtu.be/pN34FNbOKXc

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  12. Brian Blades said:

    the false correlation of race and IQ is stemmed from the inability to see that the actual correlation is social/financial standing and IQ.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  13. J R said:

    How do you explain african students out performing white students in the US.If the whites have such great IQ why u have negative birth rates are you not smart enough to understand you are going extinct.lol

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  14. yvonneforsmanatyahoo said:

    I would think different types of crime require different IQ. If you are going to steal money from the monetary system (banks, companies/businesses) you need a high IQ and higher education to understand how those systems work in order to rob them. If you are going to pick-pocket ppl in crowds you don't need that kind of education. lol
    If you are going to focus on the crime of raping women then all you need is circumcision as a child b/c it is a traumatic experience and traumatic experiences cause brain damage (per brain research, if interested look into Dr D Amen Clinics) and it will make you obsessed with sex b/c you don't get as much out of it as non-circumcised men. It doesn't sound like circumcision and IQ could be related but if your parents were so stupid that they believed an all knowing and benevolent God would ask humans to cause brain damage to our own children then your parents were probably low IQ ppl and so are you, so yes, there is definitely a correlation.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  15. Ron Stone said:

    20:30 the classroom scenario. The weakness of the higher intelligence going for words as a resolution involves some assumptions. It assumes that the dean of the college is open to reason from students who have been forbidden to speak. And nothing has been given to understand if the students are still smart, even as they beat the professor to the point where he stops breathing and his heart stops beating. That has not proven that the students are stupid. Again, there is the assumption that the students will be arrested. And how does that get prosecuted? The action of the professor is not intelligent, makes no sense, so the whole scenario doesn't make sense.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  16. Ron Stone said:

    What has not been defined is the limits of criminal behavior. If we limit criminal behavior to just violent crimes and crimes of larceny, such as burglary, robbery, etcetera, then what? What I am getting at is if some of the crime is the sale of drugs, some of which are now at least partially legal, then is that a crime, aside from the not paying of income and sales tax on money made from drug sales? If pot is legal, then selling it and not paying taxes is a different "crime" than killing someone.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  17. rwg1949yt said:

    repeatedly, discussions on IQ and population differences always seem to include the caveat that you can tell nothing about an individual from a particular population until you measure that individual, but it does tell you your efficiency in selecting candidates for opportunities would be maximal if you selected individuals from a population with the highest mean in the trait you seek to employ. east asians are measured at about a standard deviation above the mean as are a sect of jews. you would save time and money if you only recruited from east asians and jews for opportunities requiring more elite measured IQs. if you don't care about efficiency but medical school admissions do, then your chances of filling vacancies is more efficient if you recruited from certain populations.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  18. MP said:

    its time to rope, its over.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  19. Mick Philpott said:

    there is no need to be upset

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  20. paulo c said:

    I think that when Nicolas Sarkozy spoke about the moral obligation of miscigenation he had this in mind. There will be no more different groups so there will be no more difference of IQ between races.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  21. Randell Porter said:

    Truth and supposition: IQ is a valid measurement of an individual's potential. but IQ is not the measurement of an individual's value.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  22. zanga zanga said:

    whites always say they have high IQ, but they are controlled by a few semites. In reality, your pathetic sheep are shame on you

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  23. Joe Rong said:

    Boys who communicate badly are treated like idiots, the way boys of equal or even lesser intelligence aren't. This creates inner mental frustration, and a sense of injustice that goes on to engender antagonism towards society in general. Teachers are mostly to blame for this – for a teacher – having been a school success ( otherwise they wouldn't be teachers ) are the last people to understand that kind of inarticulacy, that inarticulacy ( a kind of dyslexia or speech ) does not have a direct relation to intelligence – despite the correlation.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  24. denpratt said:

    Shared in comments section:
    http://qr.ae/TU1enk

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  25. Chris Devins Creative said:

    Controversial study of African IQ levels is 'deeply flawed'
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  26. S Lenn said:

    Not all siblings receive equal genes

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  27. NOLL72 said:

    "Doctor" Beaver,…The proper pronunciation of the word data is "dah-tah", not "day-tah".

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  28. NOLL72 said:

    IMO, the "criminologists" who have done these studies aren't too far on the right side of the IQ 'bell curve' themselves, so that would tend to skew the results of the study. They would tend to not rank those people smarter than they are very high.
    My being over the 99.2 percentile, I tend to notice things like that. People with lower IQ's have a problem understanding people like me.
    The nearly above average people, and others, assume that those at the genius level and above are supposed to be scientists & "nerds". They are so wrong.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  29. zeppelin1qaz said:

    What's Molyneux's IQ, he wasn't good enough to get into an elite University.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  30. Sarah Hess said:

    Education is often not much difference then sports. The more you practice the better you become at it and this does not mean you will ever be good enough to be a star player and having a better upbringing will help. A kid could be a genius and still do poor in school because of bad parenting or has not developed any interest or a obsession in being educated or is being punished for not failing .Obsession will result in a good boost in performance even if being of rather low intelligence, image the amount of thought and time a obsessed person will put into something and you will begin to understand and such obsessive disorder can result in death. People need food,water and rest and the lack of these thing because of a obsession has caused even children to fall over dead and would even make a person who would normally be considered lower IQ test higher. People with lower levels of hormones seem to develop more obsessive disorders. Japan has a decent amount of children dying at computers because of computer related obsessions and some peoples obsessive disorders do not develop until puberty or after and who know to what extent upbringing,conditioning,personalties and culture play a role in the development of such disorders but then Asians seem to produce less geniuses and could be related to the lower hormone levels or other types of genes or both. Higher levels can also make people more competitive and aggressive and some foot coaches also understand this.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  31. Matt Brown said:

    IQ is malleable and can be changed

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  32. M. C said:

    Disclaimer i watched a video with you in it but someone reposted it. You were discussing why low iq people are so confident and went off on a tangent talking about Latin America

    You know stepan, I listen to a lot of your shows and find much of it useful and well put together. Always seems detailed and informative and. You seem knowledgeable about the topics you discuss. Here's the thing, your wrong about the welfare, immigrants can't get welfare. An "undocumented immigrant" especially one who is looking to be here long term 1- doesn't get welfare because they want to stay under the radar and 2 can't get welfare. Many still can't get basic thing like bank accounts etc depending on where your located.

    Another issue is that you begin to talk about low iq and how its a factor in regards to the economic stability of a people. Funny thing is the average Mexican scores better on geography science language and history. The education system is more rigorous in general and the people that live in cities have generally good dispersion upon a bell curve of moderate to high iq individuals.
    You do admit that countries like the US meddle in other countries affair but then go on to hourly talk about remittances.. Failed to mention that the oil tycoons are raping our oil reserves, we are the second richest country in oil and yet why don't we profit from it? Maybe because last time a non puppet president by the name of lazaro Cardenas attempted to resist the US and the oil barons there were constant assassination attempts. How about our precious stones and minerals? How about the fact that its historically accurate and documented that Cortez found a civilization swimming in gold and other valuables. Wether you look at current recent or past history every step of the way in about every single affair the us has acted to the detriment of the Mexican people. From the betrayal in Texas that led to the war to the raping of our resources and corporate assailmenrs on our economy there are no positives. Then your disgusting people travel to our country where they rape women support the drug industry and child sex slavery and disrespect our culture and our people. How about you become more informed. This casts serious doubt on your straight forward knowledge based agenda and ability to delve intellectually into topics others might not find easy to do.

    June 26, 2019
    Reply
  33. Ascended Breath said:

    Another list of highly innovative black technologists…

    Dude, Stefan, where are you getting your data bro???

    https://mashable.com/2013/02/03/black-innovators/#emP6IqXRkPqH

    June 26, 2019
    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *