 All right, I want to move on to IQ, and they're related, of course. Because the issue of IQ is ultimately a technical one. What is IQ? Does it really represent intelligence? How much of what is considered intelligence is measured by IQ? Which part of intelligence is intelligence a factor in determining your future? And how much of a factor is it determining your future? There are some fascinating, interesting questions that social scientists debate right about and get interested in. But the fact is that nobody cares about those issues. It's not what motivates the discussion about IQ. If you put aside Charles Murray and the bell curve and all of that, then nobody out there, none of you, I suspect, would care that much about IQ. Now, some of you would be interested in social sciences, might be interested in psychology, might be interested in the ability to predict success in the future and whether IQ measures that or doesn't measure it, and the whole intellectual theoretical, no, but academic debate about intelligence and IQ, which is a robust debate that happens out there. The only reason IQ is at the forefront of the public debate is because it is used by racists to justify their racism. It is true. So once that is done, it becomes an interest for those of us who are not racists, who want to protect against it. Now, reading the literature of IQ is difficult because it deals with specific psychological methodology, how you construct tests and what those tests evaluate. So I'm going to, I'm trying to break this down for you now, right? What is the test, what does it actually measure and what does it actually predict? And then it deals with a whole world of statistics. It deals with how significant a correlation there is between performance in the test and future performance in activities in life, between taking the test once, taking it twice, taking it three times, and the deviation across tests. There are massive intricate issues regarding just the statistics and the statistic validity of any inferences that have been generated by IQ tests. Now, people here claim they know everything there is to know about IQ, but I bet you none of you other than listening to Charles Murray or a few other, or some others or certainly Marlon, you and some racists discuss this, know nothing about IQ. Know nothing about the debate around IQ. Know nothing about statistics. I know you know nothing about statistics because statistics is hard. I mean, almost nobody gets statistics on the coronavirus. Never mind statistics about IQ. You know nothing about actual analysis. You maybe have read our Wikipedia page on IQ and that's it. You think you're experts. And now you can say the different racists have different IQs and you know exactly what that means. You know nothing. So it is stunning to me how uncritical people are about what they know and what they don't know. What are they actually holding and what they don't hold? What is actually true and what's not true? I mean, I know something about statistics. I don't consider myself an expert in statistics, but I know more statistics than certainly the average person and almost anybody who's not a statistician, who's not studied intensely statistics. I did econometrics. I run regressions. I run sophisticated econometric models. I know how to do this stuff. Not an expert, but I know how to do this stuff. I know how to interpret it somewhat. I'm not an expert. That's a hard and yet all of you know with certainty that IQ represents what you think it represents. How do you know that? Just epistemologically. How do you know that? Because you read an article. What about the 20 articles that contradict that? So it's unbelievable to me. IQ tests were designed to test certain skills and they do a good job in testing the skills that the test was designed to test. And if you check to see, if you score high on an IQ test, if you execute on the skills that a test for, yeah, there's a good correlation there. But we've taken a test that resigned to test for certain skills. And by the way, skills that have nothing to do with thinking outside the box, with innovating, with being creative, with actually thinking. But more skills that have to do with a certain regimented way of looking at things and being a bureaucrat really. IQ tests the logic test that. And we've turned it into the test of intelligence. Most, I don't know about most, many people within the field are skeptical. Think there are other ways to measure intelligence or that IQ measures some aspect of intelligence, but not all of it. But then there's this other interesting factor. Generally, most of you and I are very skeptical of what comes out of the social sciences. Very skeptical of psychologists, very skeptical of some of these psychological experiments and the results that they generate. But for some reason, you guys believe completely everything they tell you about IQ. You don't agree with their politics. You don't agree with other psychological things that they advocate for. But IQ, you believe, why? Because it happens the way the bell curve is structured, the argument in the bell curve is structured, that it reinforces your priors. That it supports your racist views. It supports your racist views. That's why you believe it. Not because you know it. Not because you studied it. Not because you understand it, but because you support it. Now, I am not a master of statistics. But Nassim Taleb, who wrote The Black Swan, who I disagree with fundamentally on a lot of issues, and who generally is a jerk, it's just not a nice person, is a genius statistician. And he's got an essay out there criticizing IQ tests from every single dimension. It doesn't, IQ tests, he shows statistically only a good at measuring who has very low intelligence. But once you get over like 90, they lose all significance. The difference between 90 and 100 and 100 and 120 have a meaningless statistically. The one thing that IQ results seem not to be able to predict. So there's a lot of literature about IQ tests, and Jordan Peterson quotes this. IQ tests predict success in life. Well, one measure of success in life IQ can't predict, which is interesting. Of all the things in success in life that IQ supposedly predict, the one that they can't is the one we can actually measure. Wealth. When you actually run a regression of wealth versus IQ, there's no correlation. There's no correlation. So I'm dubious about IQ. I always have been. I'm not dubious about intelligence. I'm not dubious about the fact that some of us are more intelligent than others. I'm not even dubious about the fact that we're born with different levels of intelligence. Let me just say one thing about the bell cup. The bell cup takes racial groups. I don't know what that even means because I don't believe there is such thing as race. And then it calculates an IQ, an average IQ for each one of the races. It shows, for example, Ashkenazi Jews, my people are the smartest. So you should just listen to me because I represent the smartest people on planet Earth, so you should just accept everything that I tell you. I don't know, East Asians are next. Whites are next. Hispanics and blacks have the lowest IQ. But even in the bell curve, that's just averages. And there are many reasons why that study is unbelievably flawed. Unbelievably flawed. The differences between individuals within the group are dramatically larger than the differences between the averages. So it makes no difference in evaluating specific people. Yeah, the insults are already coming. It makes no difference for anything in life. What your group's IQ is. The only thing that matters is what your IQ is. It doesn't matter for anything in life. In assessing an individual's intelligence, what his group's IQ is, if your IQ is important. It only matters what that individual's IQ is. And that's not even important because IQ does not represent, people say, straw man, you're on. Every time I say something, you disagree. Straw man, you're on. What is a straw man? Explain. Ask a super check question. Explain. Challenge me. But you can't. Or you can shout, straw man, straw man. Where's the straw man? And the fact is that I know, and I've said this many times, know many people who are born with very high intelligence, who are idiots, and people who are born with very low intelligence, who are incredibly successful and brilliant. I know people with high IQ, probably dumb when it comes to a lot of things. Low IQ, who are really smart when it comes to other things. Yeah, I know. He's accusing me of a fallacy, but which one? IQ correlates heavily with strong success factors. Only success factors that are not measurable. I mean, as the seem to live documents in his essay, and you should go read it, the one thing that's measurable is wealth, and it doesn't correlate with wealth. And even when it correlates with other important successes, because I've seen Jordan Peterson, even when it correlates with other important successes, it correlates weekly. It doesn't explain a lot. Maybe it explains 20%. OK, 20% is a lot. But what about the other 80%? Why isn't that important? Oops, what did I do? You only focused on the 20%, because again, Ed Locke has a concept of working intelligence. The whole idea of boiling intelligence down to one number is bullshit. It's unscientific. It's completely not a nonsense. And you guys should stop doing it. If you want to be a racist, be a racist. Don't pretend to be a scientific one, because the science is not there. As Michael writes, as an employer, I couldn't care less about IQ. When hiring, I use my best objective analysis to choose people who will produce. I don't even care about education, because my best salespeople never went to university. Absolutely. And I think today, the truth is, same is true of programmers. Charles Murray has never said, you can judge an individual based on a group. I never said Charles Murray said it. I said, you guys say it. Charles Murray is too good of a thinker to say that. But Charles Murray makes many errors. And it's interesting, because I think Charles Murray makes many errors in many of his books, not just in that book. I disagree with Charles Murray. He had a lot of things. And this is one of the things I disagree with him on even doing what he did with the Belcove. I never accused Charles Murray of saying that. You go back and listen to what I said. I said, people use the Belcove to do that. All right. So the whole IQ debate is an excuse, an excuse to be a racist. Some of my audience, not all of my audience, I know when I say you, I'm not talking. The people who know, the people who are not racist or not IQ betas know that I'm not talking about them, I think. They've listened to me enough. All right. By the way, I've run empirics. I've run statistics. I've run regressions. You can do a lot to manipulate data if you want to get good results. To do good econometrics is hard. And I have a strong suspicion that people in the social sciences don't do good econometrics. That's part of what Nassim Taleb is saying. Econometrics is a tough field. And I'm dubious about the ability of a lot of social scientists to do it. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist brought. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support, or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not showing the next.