So, without IQ it would be impossible for social programs to give better educational opportunities to exist? And on that same note, and this a genuine question, how much evidence supports that better educational opportunities truly manifests into the outcomes we socially desire?

I'd be leery of anyone that claims that the only reason they were able to become a doctor, lawyer, etc. was because of being in a gifted program or something similar.

As far as I am concerned, I firmly believe the truly talented will create their own environment within reason. Take Von Neumann, for example. He was god-like in abilities. I am certain someone of his caliber did not need better educational opportunities in order to be exceptional. The man was, by all accounts, born exceptional.

Also, I am not certain that giving better educational opportunities to the bright is better than giving better educational opportunities to the disadvantaged, but I will admit I am likely too ignorant on this topic to have an informed opinion.

▲

msgodel 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Children from low income families tend to do poorly. Being able to measure their IQ helps demonstrate when it's more environment than genetics which strengthens the argument for improving their environment.

Without this educational opportunities would primarily be given to the obviously/observably bright and advantaged children since their parents can afford it.

▲

hirvi74 3 days ago | parent [-]

Wait, I thought IQ and income were highly correlated. I also thought IQ was highly heritable? In fact, I thought the heritability was sooooo high and environmental factor played a very minute role in the outcome of one's IQ?

(I am being sarcastic, of course.)

> Without this educational opportunities would primarily be given to the obviously/observably bright and advantaged children since their parents can afford it.

Hell, for any highly intelligent child, I say drop their asses off the public library. The truly smart ones will find their way, and the environmentally gifted will not. We do not need special programs for these kids. Special programs equate to more busy, bullshit work. A high IQ earns one more worksheets and homework. Education, at least in the USA, is rotten to the core. I am not convinced more of it is better. Do not mistake me though, I do not believe more knowledge and wisdom are worthless. I am just saying the education system rarely provides either.

I feel like people miss the echelons of IQ. IQ might have predictability, but the more narrow one focuses, the worse it gets. For example, let's taking programming. Something near and dear to my heart and to many others on this site. If one is capable of learning how to program, then their IQ is clearly sufficient enough to be a programmer. Past that point, I would not be willing to bet that a higher IQ would necessarily translate into a better programmer. It's like being in tall and playing basketball. Being 6'5 is better than being 5'5 in the NBA. However, being 6'7 vs. 6'5 much less advantageous.

If anything, I think we should start highly selecting for more altruistic and empathic children. Intelligence is not exactly uncommon. An IQ of 130 puts one in the 98th percentile. With a world population of 8.142 billion people, that means there are roughly 162.84 million people at or above the 98th percentile. I am not certain there are 162.84 million people out in the world making a big difference.

	▲	msgodel 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Variance in income is more highly correlated with IQ. But hey if you don't like it we could have it my way and bulldoze the public schools since personally I think they're a huge waste of money.

▲

alphazard 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> So, without IQ it would be impossible for social programs to give better educational opportunities to exist?

It wouldn't be impossible. The extra resources might not go as far, which makes the program more likely to look like a waste.

> how much evidence supports that better educational opportunities truly manifests into the outcomes we socially desire?

The rate of technological progress we can make as a species is largely dictated by the area under the +2 sigma -> infinity region of the IQ curve. Further adjusted by the amount of those people that we can find and motivate to participate in the economy. As for evidence, the US poaches high IQ people from around the world. You can chalk that up to coincidence if you want.

▲

hirvi74 3 days ago | parent [-]

> The rate of technological progress we can make as a species is largely dictated by the area under the +2 sigma -> infinity region of the IQ curve

That was precisely my point. If little Johnny or Sally need a special education program to properly challenge and educate them, then I hate to break the news to their families, but whatever "it" is, those children don't have "it."

I also find it interesting how "gifted" programs and the like are predominately a Western intervention. To my knowledge, countries like Japan and China do not have "gifted" programs. I am not saying there are not academic and social discrepancies between highly intelligent and the normies, but Western culture does tend to be less community driven than cultures of the two countries I previously mentioned.

> You can chalk that up to coincidence if you want.

I cannot comment about modern times, but I know a certain group of people that I am half descendant from were commonly denied entry into the US during the 1920s - 1950s. However, those same people allegedly had the highest IQ scores on average. At least, historically.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]