
Two “consensus” definitions of intelligence:
"Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do."
Gottfredson (1997)
"Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: A given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of “intelligence” are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena."
Neisser, et al. (1996)
IQ is not simply a measure of intelligence, it is the most accurate (i.e. reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments at predicting the performance of simple tasks, academic success, job performance, health, longevity, functional literacy, socioeconomic advancement, “social pathologies” and brain size.
The differences are partly genetic and partly environmental. The evidence suggests that 50%-80% of the group differences in average IQ is genetic. The heritability of IQ changes with age: in childhood it is about 0.45; by late adolescence it is around 0.75. The rest is due to the environment.
IQ was normalized to obtain a mean scores of 100 using UK data, but varies globally; the average human IQ is presently 88.8.
Africa (excluding Northern Africa): 68.6
Eastern Asia (excluding China): 105.2
Southern Asia: 81.0
Europe: 98.6
The understanding and acceptance of the fact that intelligence is largely genetic has social and policy implications. Most importantly, significant differences in the intelligence of different individuals brought up in a similar environment are natural and to be expected. Therefore, accusations of laziness on the part of an individual, blame on the part of the parents or moral culpability on the part of the state are all unwarranted.
Why are there two sexes?
Imagine a population of hermaphrodites. Some will be genetically biased towards putting more time and effort into mating, their genes will thrive as they inseminate many others. Others will be biased towards expending energy by producing eggs and bearing babies, they will also be genetically successful as can do their best to ensure their children survive. Those individuals who lie in the middle, and specialise in neither activity, will die out. The first type leads to a small active gamete, the second a larger, static gamete. The union of two unequal gametes in reproduction is known as anisogamy. Inter-sex competition ensures that this dichotomy persists. Thus was born man and woman.
Why are we (especially men) overconfident?
Due to conflicts between predator and prey, group living and the competition for reproduction, deception has evolved under natural selection, and as a consequence, so has the capacity to detect deceit. The easiest way of avoiding detection is to effectively lie to ourselves. This is known as self-deception. So, not only do we wish to appear (genetically) fitter than others (this has obvious advantages when it comes to sexual selection), but we actually believe that we are. Self-deception leads to overconfidence.
Ladies First
The fundamental difference between the sexes is that the female will always be the limiting sex in reproduction. This places women in a privileged position. Women wish to attract high status men (plus reliability for long-term partners) and to achieve this they simply need to appear youthful, look attractive and behave selfishly. Women are more than twice as likely as men to initiate domestic violence and more than twice as likely to use weapons in domestic violence.
Disadvantaged Men
Men are forever motivated to compete with other men in order to attain mate value. They will seek to improve their apparent status and are best equipped to do this via self-deception and subsequent overconfidence. Men expose themselves to all types of risks in competition with other men and are far more likely than women to die prematurely. They also have to incur the costs of providing resources. Women and high status men ensure that all societies are set up with a primary goal of preventing the majority of males from expressing their sexuality in anything but a minimal way. The upshot of this is that the most disadvantaged in society are low status men (and even high-status men are forced to compete and take risks to attain that status). They are granted no privileges, are invisible to the rest of society, take demeaning jobs, go to war, etc. Is it any wonder that men are sixteen times more likely than women to go to prison? To make matters worse, the current political climate heaps more privilege upon the already privileged.
Do you believe in freedom? Do you believe in equality? Yes and yes? How could any intelligent, educated and compassionate person say no? How could any student say no? All good students simultaneously embrace socialism (promoting equality) and liberalism (promoting liberty). That way we have both fair processes and fair outcomes. We have both equal rights and equal outcomes.
There is only one snag: the above only works in one special case: when everyone is equal.
In 1956 the US psychologist Leon Festinger introduced a new concept in social psychology: the theory of cognitive dissonance. When two simultaneously held cognitions are inconsistent, this will produce a state of cognitive dissonance. Because the experience of dissonance is unpleasant, the person will strive to reduce it by changing their beliefs.
Any suggestion that people are not equal creates cognitive dissonance, ergo we apply self-deception and fool ourselves into believing that everyone is equal. The problem is that evolution doesn't do equality. As Richard Dawkins observed, "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."


