Population Differences in IQ: Are They Relevant Today?

Well documented differences in mean IQ scores for different population clusters -- call them "races" for purposes of argument -- are very difficult to explain away. Taking four dominant clusters in the US -- "white" "black" "mongoloid" or East Asian, and "hispanic" or mestizo -- it is clear from the preponderance of data that the IQ means of the population clusters stratify with mongoloid mean > white mean > hispanic mean > black mean.

Taking a look at the graphic above, it is clear that in a very short time -- much faster than is indicated on the graph -- the combination of entitlements + interest on the exploding federal debt will crowd out all discretionary spending, including defense spending.

In a free society, where individuals are empowered to make their own way and provide for their own futures, why is it necessary for government to spend so much on entitlements that there is no room left for the few constitutionally delineated functions of government -- specifically protection of citizens from violence, fraud, and theft?

If the population itself grows more unfit for some reason -- less capable of seeing to its own needs apart from government subsidies -- entitlements are likely to grow. Also, if the population is somehow "dumbed down" so as to become less capable of solving its own problems, and less competent to meet normal everyday challenges of life, it is more likely to invite government into the role of perpetual parent, caretaker, and jailkeeper.

In North America, you can see a general decrease of population fitness for at least two reasons:
1. An immigration policy that does not improve educational levels and mental aptitudes for newcomers.
2. An educational system which stunts the ability of children to think for themselves, and funnels them en masse into a dysfunctional mass youth culture more fit for delinquents than for achievers.
Most readers of this blog can probably think of other ways in which North American society is structured to decrease overall societal competency, and to increase dependency upon government.

It is clear from the graph that such increase in dependency and incompetence -- with its comcomitant exploding growth of entitlement spending -- must come to a very bad end eventually. Politicians since the days of Reagan have given lip service to the need to control runaway federal spending, but when push comes to shove, politicians tend to compromise with each other in order to achieve the institutions of government programs which they feel to be expedient and vitally important for purposes of power, influence, and re-election.

The die has been cast since the days of Johnson, Nixon, and Carter. Various "patch" legislative maneuvers have put the day of reckoning off slightly, and a growth in government revenues between the mid 1980s and the late 1990s - early 2000s helped to cover up the exponential growth in entitlement spending. The Gingrich - Clinton welfare reform in the 90s even helped to slow down some focused entitlements slightly.

Under Bush, government revenues did not grow as they had under the previous 3 presidents, but government spending continued its exponential rise.

Then, under Obama - Pelosi, government spending has shot up like a rocket at the very same time that government revenues continue to sink. What had been a critical problem has now become a certain catastrophe.

North America could easily prosper, even with dysgenic immigration policies. But not with the social policies being put in place by Obama - Pelosi. Putting government in control of the biomedical industry, the auto industry, all energy industries, and virtually every area of commerce and education, is a sure prescription for disaster.

And we continue to see the disaster playing out, as in the US 27 states see rising unemployment, and the housing industry continues its years-long collapse.

The clown prince and his sagging congressional cohort claim to be putting the economy on the path to recovery. Any day now. And under ordinary circumstances -- without all the radical overhauls and corrupt shifting of resources away from the private sector and toward political insiders -- the US economy would already be on the way to "recovery".

"Recovery" must be put in quotes, because the graph above holds until significant and painful reductions in government programs are instituted. The only question remaining is: How soon will the US government have to be placed in receivership, to guarantee that it pays its bills? Or will the US default on its sovereign debt?

There is not a lot of room for maneuvering, and what little room there was when Obama was elected, has been used up, and more.

What does this have to do with population differences in IQ? Besides the question of the need for entitlements, it also has a lot to do with how the government interprets differences in achievement between different population groups -- and what government does about these differences, and forces the private sector to do about these differences. If government policies on issues of disparate achievement are dysfunctional -- catastrophically dysfunctional -- they can further handicap society economically. Dysfunctional policies can also divide the population along racial lines, setting the foundation for disastrous conflicts in the future.

Reality can be a bitch, but if you do not face reality it will stab you in the back. Over and over, until you somehow grow enough grit to turn and face it.

Such is the situation today with population differences in IQ (and EF (executive function) as well, but that is another story). As long as society ignores this important issue, society will continue to fall into inevitable disaster without any idea what is happening.