The socialist position is, "No one has a firm idea on what 'intelligence' is other than it's what IQ tests measure."

Does that mean IQ is a totally useless predictor of behavior? Consider the following:

"Travis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang . . . make a strong case for the argument that IQ is a better predictor of criminality than social class; e.g. there's at least an 8-point difference in IQ even when controlling for social factors.

"The generally accepted wisdom, according to a number of fairly well-done studies, is that the average (nonincarcerated) criminal IQ is 90 (92 or 93, depending upon who's study you use), but conventional wisdom holds that there is usually a ten point gap (90 v. 100) between criminals and the average for the rest of the population. The incarcerated criminals who have gotten caught tend to have much lower IQs, often around 85 or so, which triggers status as a mentally "disabled" inmate or one with a "learning disability." Some psychopaths and those with certain mental conditions (like paranoia) have high IQ, but these cases are rare. Be advised that even though a seven (7), eight (8), or ten (10) point difference in IQ may not look like much, and indeed, many researchers will dismiss such differences as being within the "normal" range of variation, more detailed research (Goodman 1995) will almost always find a few points matter, and even differences of six (6) points will be associated with more lying, cheating, stealing, and conduct disorders."

The implication: if everyone with an IQ of less than 100 suddenly disappeared, American prisons would be virtually empty, and the crimes of rape, robbery and stranger murder would probably be extremely rare.

The variability of IQ within a particular population is greater than that between populations so the emphasis on racial (a nebulous term) differences in IQ is misplaced. Nonetheless, it seems there is a biological basis for it. We had better figure out what it is and how to increase its prevalence in the general population if we ever want to progress from the violent, small-minded, superstitious savages we are now.

of the manner in which the meanings of statistics can be distorted.

The counter-argument to your assertion that IQ is correlated with criminality is the more plausible assertion that IQ is instead correlated with probability of getting caught. I imagine there's also a socioeconomic influence (though perhaps not that pronounced - it seems rich White men are about as prone to engage in criminal behavior as anyone else).

Looking back throughout history, can you really tell me that Caucasians are more likely to respect the rights of other people than those who have purportedly lower IQ's?

Oh, yes, everyday the newspapers are filled with articles about valedictorians raping, robbing and murdering people.

Occasionally, they do--there are some smart psychopaths like Leopold and Loeb--but not very often.

You interjected the issue of race. As I thought I made clear above, I think the issue of race and IQ is not relevant to much of anything. Nonetheless, I do believe that people with higher IQs are more likely to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law than those with lower IQs. Don't you?

No.

I agree that Race is fairly meaningless genetically speaking. Joseph L. Graves' book "The Race Myth" (2004) does a decent job of exposing that. Socially and politically, however, it still plays a role. People are shallow and judge each other on appearances, historical prejudices, and spite.

The majority of US criminals are on drug offenses. Rich people (of every hue) tend to use more drugs than poor people. Yet, they are less likely to be harassed, searched, arrested, or convicted. This says nothing about intelligence. What is says is that money can buy you more lenient treatment. There is more cocaine in Beverly Hills than in all of South Central, East LA, and Long Beach put together. It simply isn't in the interest of the powers that be to put all the big wigs (and their party animal kids) in the pokey.

As for IQ, we are just talking about a broad assortment of standardized tests. Tests can measure certain things, but Intelligence is not one of them. Any test (or poll) is based on the premises laid forth by those who make them. If a Kalahari Bushman invented an IQ test, I would think the geeks in pocket protectors would do rather miserably. The Bushman is smart enough to live and prosper in one of the World's most inhospitable landscapes. The average westerner would die in a matter of days... very intelligent. Same goes for Aboriginees, Amazonian Indians, and any other people who can live in places where you would be pushing daisies.

My priority for judging smarts is simple. Are you happy? A genius in my book is someone who has figured life out well enough to make themselves happy. The IQ tests given these days rate guys who can't even figure out how to get a date with the highest scores...

This is a semantics issue. Idiot savants have been known to do mathematics better than super geniuses. If you really want to get into this discussion, you have to come up with better terms than "race," "IQ," and "intelligence."

To be blunt, the newspapers are full of articles about valedictorians raping, robbing and murdering people, if you include things like ill-conceived wars in your analysis, and allow that rape and murder can be vicarious.

Also, I doubt very much that rape is committed any more often by people with low IQ than people of high IQ. I do grant differences in catching and prosecution, however, as a function of IQ.

Remember, what constitutes criminal behavior is determined in part by the people with high IQ's. If one were to broaden your definition to exploitive behavior, I think the people with low IQ's come out the decisive losers in that comparison.

But as far as more direct behavior is concerned, I will allow that people who have no money are somewhat more likely to steal than people who have ample money. As income is correlated with IQ, I see your point. I just think you've picked the wrong variable to assign a causal association.

So a valedictorian from a poor family is just as likely to rob someone or jack a car as a classmate with a low IQ with the same SES?

The studies don't bear this out. And it is counterintuitive.

The problem is not oppression by the ruling class and the bourgeoisie, Karl.

huhuh yeah . Those who commit murder, rape, assault and burglary (low IQ criminals ) are no different from those who commit accounting , insurance or enron type financial fraud . I'm sure most people agree with that , huh ? I'm sure most people are exactly equally afraid for their lives or their children's wellbeing whenever they encounter or hear about either type of criminal .

I mean, it's true that it doesn't matter if in a given neighborhood the level of assaults rises or the level of accounting fraud commited by residents rises. People are *just as likely* to start feeling insecure in that neighbourhood. becaus, we all know, it's ALL the same crime . There's just NO difference whatsoever between high IQ and low IQ crime. NONE whatsoever. So says generaldisarray .

You say that rape is commited at the same level by high iq and low iq people. Somehow that doesn't seem too plausible to me. You have numbers/stats ? I'd think that people with low self control would be much more likely to rape. Low self control is strongly associated with low IQ .

I wonder what you mean by broadening the definition of crime to "exploitative behaviour" . What's that ? Owning a restaurant ? Having employees ? Being a boss of any type ?

You are so desperate to toss high IQ people in the same bag as low class criminals that you're even willing to consider vicarious rape and murder ( just how the hell do you identify that ?) as a crime. That's incredibly lame.

You're willing to include war waging in the definition of criminality. Sorry that doesn't work. Criminality is an intra-group phenomenon much more than it is inter-group .

War is a different phenomenon. For example, Japan has been extremely fierce when at war , while on the domestic front it is an extremely low crime society. You probably "feel" that's not true but I'll take others words and writings on that over yours.

Your post was a total joke .

Yes, there are valedictorians creating ill-conceived wars. Thus, high IQ is not synonymous with wisdom. We need a way to measure people's capacity for compassion and empathy. Given the choice, I would rather live in a world with people who score highly for those qualities than in a world of mensa members.

You imply that poor people are more likely to rob and steal because of need, i.e. because they don't have enough to eat or clothes to wear. Is that why someone walks into a convenience store and murders the clerk for $50? Or jacks a fancy car?

jahsun says :

There is more cocaine in Beverly Hills than in all of South Central, East LA, and Long Beach put together. It simply isn't in the interest of the powers that be to put all the big wigs (and their party animal kids) in the pokey.

------

jahsun,

what is it about the drug trade that people like the least ? isn't it the shootings, the violence ? tell me who's doing that ? It's not the party animals in beverly hills. Thus, they're prety much a problem only to themselves and their families. Young men who shoot and get violent around each other and random people are a problem. for good reasons . You know it. Even the people in the hood know what's the worst problem .

------

jahsun says :

If a Kalahari Bushman invented an IQ test, I would think the geeks in pocket protectors would do rather miserably. The Bushman is smart enough to live and prosper in one of the World's most inhospitable landscapes. The average westerner would die in a matter of days... very intelligent. Same goes for Aboriginees, Amazonian Indians, and any other people who can live in places where you would be pushing daisies.

------

That's funny. There ARE white people in australia. There ARE white people in southern africa. there ARE white people in amazonia, brazil. A lone white westerner might die there but how about we transplant 500 westerners of various backgrounds and see how they fare in a hostile environment ? you're SURE they're just gonna die ? LOL .. yeah right . There are Mnennonite communities in the south american jungles who've done just that . they moved to the jungle and prospered and now they're doing way better than the natives .
Look at the desertic USA western states. westerners moved in and found ways to live there. Of course the modified the environment to suit themselves. That's pretty smart. Much smarter than just barely surviving in rough natural conditions.

I just can't believe people always trout out those lame rebuttals. Don't you people think things through ?

last thing : idiot savants might be better calculators than most mathematicians but they're not better thinkers at all. God , why can't you just read a freaking book or something ? Your post was a complete joke .

-----

It's funny how all those posters vehemently trying to validate their desire to feel superior are all so cocky and rude to other people.

I will simply add this one point, knowing that you have no real interest in discussing this issue but rather just want to hear yourself talk and put people down. You state that lower IQ people are more likely to commit crime. Try out these statistics from the US government about rape in higher education:

"A survey from the United States Bureau of Justice reported that in three-quarters of all rapes and sexual assaults against women, the perpetrator is know to the victim (U.S.O.O.J., 1995). A college survey conducted by the National Victim Center reported that one in four college women have been raped or suffered attempted rape (Bureau of Justice, 1992). In another college survey, half of the college men reported that they engaged in some form of sexual aggression on a date (Bureau of Justice, 1995). These reports indicate that young women are at considerable risk of becoming a victim of an acquaintance rapist."

In case you didn't realize, the majority of rapes in this country are not from "street thugs" on a coke binge. Rather, it is from rich college kids with the same lack of compassion and kindness that you demonstrate with each successive post.

As for IQ, we are just talking about a broad assortment of standardized tests. Tests can measure certain things, but Intelligence is not one of them.

An absolutely amazingly ignorant comment. IQ tests would not be used at all and IQ scores would be of no concern to parents, if they did not measure intelligence and do so with predictive validity. The external validity of IQ tests is well documented.

If a Kalahari Bushman invented an IQ test, I would think the geeks in pocket protectors would do rather miserably.

Your argument is specious. Have you ever seriously studied the major textbooks on intelligence or read a hundred or so papers by the most respected experts in the field of intelligence research? How many peer reviewed papers have you read about psychometric science? You have the self-delusion that you can imagine things and they are true.

My priority for judging smarts is simple. Are you happy?
That is about the level of sophistication I would expect from your vast knowledge base.

well, not everyone in college has a high IQ :) so who'd doing the raping , you think ? The mensa members ? The college bowl geeks ? the star trek club members ? the math club members ? the putnam math team members ? The 4.0 GPA people ? the chinese graduate students association members ? yeah right ...

Moise...

About 60% of federal prisoners are drug offenders.

Just 3% are violent offenders. Whereas purely violent offenders serve an average of 54% of their prison term,
drug offenders are legally required to serve at least 85% of their prison term.

Source: US Justice Department Bureau of Prison Statistics

2/3rds of all violent crime are committed under the influence of alcohol....

So, a non-violent drug felony is the same in the ghetto as it is in BH. Only the rich people have piles of it, and the poor kid who actually does time has a 5$ rock.

Your attitude about gun toting people is inflammatory, and frankly unsubstantiated. Violent crime in general is down over 50% since 1990 and has been going down steadily since the 70's. And yet, people act as if we are going through a major violent crime wave. It simply isn't true. What has increased is the fear-mongering.

In 2000 the US incarcerated 2 million inmates for the first time. That is more than all other countries... something like 25% of the world's prison population. The vast majority of these people are non-violent drug offenders.

As for white Africans or Mennonites in the Jungle, that says nothing about the average score that Western people would receive on an intelligence test designed by Bushmen. Some survivalist types would do well. Just like some intellectual tribesmen receive Phds. However, the bulk of our society (black, white, yellow, brown or green) would score rather low. Questions like how not to dehydrate would be weighted heavily, and you simply would not know the answers. Asking a Bushman about the stock market or abstract math is not a valid judgment of his intelligence....

You should refrain from calling names. Even when we disagree, we should be civil... especially when we disagree.

The obvious point overlooked by this poster is that studies of "the criminal IQ" only test THOSE WHO WERE CAUGHT. Would you expect them to be more or less intelligent than the other criminals who continue to move unscathed through the world?