7
$\begingroup$

I am in the process of imagining a world in the late 2020s which is divided into two blocs:

  • an alliance A of countries in which the governments strongly assert the idea that "general intelligence" as measured in "IQ" is inherited (say as the mean of each person's parents' IQs); and

  • another alliance B in which the governments deny the existence of such a thing as "general intelligence" and therefore the meaningfulness of "IQ", and they abhor the idea that differences in intelligence of any kind are genetically determined.

The A culture tends to be determinist, racist, and while the acceptance of the existence of statistically "unusual" cases is officially recognised, mostly "education" is provided within a rigid neo-feudal caste system. In the B culture, meanwhile, a way is found so that no educational preference is given to anyone on account of who or how clever their parents are, not even as such considerations might be mediated through how rich they are.

Thus there is a "clash of civilisations".

But I am having difficulty thinking of some countries that might be in B. Which countries would people suggest? I am looking for both cultures to develop out of cultures that exist today. Which countries are most B-y?

Ideally I would like to put some English-speaking countries into B, or at least some countries where a lot of English is spoken either as a first or second language. This is because I want there to be a fork in the English language, as the two blocs develop different words, meanings for existing words, and even syntax. So which countries might I consider?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In before the lock $\endgroup$ – SurpriseDog Sep 24 at 1:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Renan - The ideologues of IQ don't only a) set the median to 100; they also b) set the standard deviation to 15 and c) set the distribution to normal. So if say the given demographic came out with 90% of results between 95 and 105 they'd say "There's something wrong with our test." They want 68% between 85 and 115 and if they don't get it they'll change the questions or the scoring. A cultural inferiority complex in bloc A will be one of the themes. "IQ" won't be measured in bloc B because it will be viewed there as bunkum. $\endgroup$ – ruffle Sep 24 at 16:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Almost anything is possible. With todays crazy politics and anti-rationalism black is argued to be white and white black. :o) The whole concept of IQ is just fake news anyway. $\endgroup$ – Slarty Sep 24 at 16:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Idk why the concept of IQ would be fake news. Some people are clearly smarter than others. But now I guess that puts us on opposite sides in the OP's universe XD $\endgroup$ – Dark Malthorp Sep 24 at 20:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DarkMalthorp The OP means "pro-IQ" and "IQ is fake news" in the sense of IQ as applied to eugenics. An example of what the OP is talking about would be Margaret Sanger (yes, that Margaret Sanger), who once suggested that there be "compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded." $\endgroup$ – The Daleks Sep 28 at 12:05
7
$\begingroup$

Your A group is basically "Success of children is based on genes" (IQ comes from parents - genes come from parents). Your B group is basically "People can be anything."

Your A's are going to be the most racist places, your B's are going to be the most welcoming places. Rascism I believe is your most important predicate of detecting A vs B behaviour, as the more racist you are, the more you believe someones genes determines positive or negative attributes about them.

This Washington post map describes those who answered "People from another race" when asked to pick who they would not want as their neighbours:
enter image description here

Blue countries will be B, Red countries will be A, purple countries will be in between.


The above technically answers your question, but giving recent events (BLM, etc) It doesnt feel right saying the USA would be a type B country entirely. Genetics giving people lower intelligence sounds like some arguments I've heard for justifying slavery, or why only white votes should count.

So as an aside I think the USA is worth subdividing. Here's the Washington Posts racism by state map: enter image description here

And The Guardians:
enter image description here

Seems pretty likely The "Deep South" and "Mid-Atlantic" are likely going to be As, rest of USA is going to be Bs.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ The problem with the US chart is that it doesn't tell you what race the person making the search is, nor in what context the N-word is being searched for. I would bet money this map would closely match a map of favorite genres of music, with rap corresponding to the red areas. $\endgroup$ – Ryan_L Sep 24 at 1:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Ryan_L nor does it consider me googling offensive topics to answer questions in a forum, but it also doesnt consider other racial slang. Undoubtedly there would be a minor correlation with rap music like you suggest, but were this the major correlation shown then it's pretty significant that no one on the west coast listens to rap, and that no one in raps birthplace (nyc) listens to rap anymore. $\endgroup$ – Ash Sep 24 at 3:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for this concentrating on the racism angle which gives me some food for thought. I was surprised to see Britain in dark blue, given the current division in the school system between private (7%) and state (93%). And Singapore, hmm - it's a highly internationalised country but the official govt position is that there is a genetically determined intelligence difference between ethnic Chinese and Malays (source: Lee Kuan Yew's autobiog), so I had that country down as a leader in bloc A. From the info posted, it seems that within the US the most B-y high-population area is California. $\endgroup$ – ruffle Sep 24 at 9:05
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ USA as type B actually makes a lot of since when you look at the US school system. In the US, every child is legally required to attend school. Public schools are all co-ed and unsegregated, and magnet schools have gotten a lot of opposition for "disadvantaging" other schools over the past few decades. Also, BLM does not prove the US is less tolerant than other countries, it only proves that the US is intolerant of intolerance by enough to actively oppose it. $\endgroup$ – Nosajimiki Sep 24 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for this, @Nosajimiki. But just on one point: it is not true that in the US every child is legally required to attend school. $\endgroup$ – ruffle Sep 24 at 16:04
4
$\begingroup$

If you take history of eugenics (some extream brunches of wich were declaring exactly your system) you clearly see that most likely:

  • Group A - all "western" (protestant) countries with USA being a leader
  • Group B - all comunist and many post-communist, many islamic countries with most likely Russia bieng (an idiological) leader

Why?

USA and Europe had a very bad story with open rasism and discrimination. Both positive and reverse. They even had some story of actual "IQ discrimination". While in modern times there is a strong and active opposition to this ideas (and this is great) - this opposition may loose (I hope - not). And then situation described in quiestion may arise.

But if you take communist countries, Russia (both czar's and modern), most islamic countries and alike - you would see large problems with social and religiuos descrimination, but no pure open rasism. Man of every nationality or skin color can become a "master" or a "slave" (take, for example history of Pushkin's family). More over in this countries there is no idiological movements wich contain ideas close to protestant predestination (i.e. that you status is predefined long before your burth). And even more over - USSR and comunists prohibited and activle persecuted those who propagated ideas of eugenics and "general intelligence" or "social predisposition" inheretance (since it contradicted marksism). Some times even too activly (persecuting Mendel's genetic).

So all those contries has no both strong opposition to rasism and discrimination and strong rasist/dicriminating movements and ideologists (while every-day discrimination may be quite strong - like those of women in islamic countries). This question is just very low on the list of actual problems for them (with social or religious problems being on the top). This means that unlike in western countries there is no strong force in reality that can come to power and setup this "pro-IQ" (or any other rasist or descriminating) ideology as the main political agenda. But while many of this countries are in opposition to USA they would also oppose "USA&Co" to force any ideology. And thus would become "anti-IQ" if USA and those who it leads would become aggresivly "pro-IQ"

What I can't really say what side China, Japan and Far East countries in general would choose. Many of them depends on USA or Communism. But, say, for Japan nationalism is far more important than any IQ questions and this can not be realisticly changed. So I think that most of them would be neutral to IQ ideology, but would support their allies as allies.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Many thanks for this, including the ref to the Calvinist view of predestination. In many cultures it can be hard to separate racism and xenophobia. Agreed that the most powerful country where IQ has been an important ideology is the USA. In some places, such as the Arab countries, few have even heard of the idea that some babies are born genetically determined to be more intelligent than others. I was thinking possibly New Zealand might be quite B-y for an Anglophone country. $\endgroup$ – ruffle Sep 24 at 9:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Group A - all... (protestant) countries" I disagree. While the Eugenicists were rather fond of hijacking Christianity to spread their ideas, Protestant Christianity (especially in its present form) is highly against bigotry, especially the IQ and ethnicity based variants. $\endgroup$ – The Daleks Sep 24 at 15:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think countries with non-diverse genotypes are more prone to this, as differences are seen as weakness. While that was the case in some racially homogeneous areas in the west, most developed countries a good track record of erasing those as the population diversifies. Instead, I would look toward already functioning caste societies that use genetics as social markers, such as India and China. From my understanding, India is becoming more diverse (and less iq/genetic sensitive), while China is trying to enact racial purity policies and restricting minorities to second class status already. $\endgroup$ – Jackson Dunn Sep 24 at 15:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's easy to lose sight, given the modern obsession with race-as-skin-color, that most feudal countries distinguished the "race" of the nobles versus the peasant, even if we can now not distinguish between their descendants (and many countries, in both the west and in the east, had feudal periods). They weren't even entirely wrong to suggest that nobility were smarter and all-around better, since serfs often didn't get enough to eat at certain key developmental periods. (When food became more plentiful, the physical differences decreased or vanished.) $\endgroup$ – Jedediah Sep 24 at 17:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "...in modern times there is a strong and active opposition to this ideas..." I think this is the key distinction as to why this answer has it backwards. While the idea of eugenics may have originated in western countries it is far more harshly opposed now in the West than in other places for good reasons. The idea of Genetic superiority is basically the modern equivalent to the "Divine Right of Kings" so any government that can push this ideology can exercise more control over its people. This level of control is very attractive to Eastern leaders and less tolerated in the West. $\endgroup$ – Nosajimiki Sep 24 at 21:11
4
$\begingroup$

Average Level of Education and Wealth Ratio

Many factors contribute to a population's Average Level of Education: Is education compulsory? Is it compulsory for everyone? Does the society place a high value on staying in school? Does the society provide adequate tuition assistance for post-secondary educations for a large portion of the population to attend? Does the society exclude certain minorities from education? Etc.

I general, a type B culture will do what it can to educate everyone; so, even if the quality of education is lower, the average level of education will be much greater. In contrast, a type A culture will put all of its resources into educating the most capable students and exclude the rest; so, even if they have a few VERY educated people, the average education level will be lower.

That said, it is also fair to include in any consideration of this metric the wealth of a nation; so, any country with more wealth than education will likely be at the forefront of the Type A movement. And countries with more education than wealth like will probably be members of the type B movement. When wealth and education are relatively the same, I would assume that one should use average education as the tie breaker since a largely educated population often results in a higher average income anyway and a poorer nation may feel presured not to edjucate everyone because they simply can't afford to.

So, based on the Maps Below I would guess Type A would be most of Southern Asia, Central America, and Southern Europe. And Type B would be Northern Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, and Peru. The remaining countries are a bit harder to predict but I suspect diplomatic factors would come in where by most nations would side with their most important allies' stances.

enter image description here

enter image description here

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

But I am having difficulty thinking of some countries that might be in B. Which countries would people suggest? I am looking for both cultures to develop out of cultures that exist today. Which countries are most B-y?

Ideally I would like to put some English-speaking countries into B, or at least some countries where a lot of English is spoken either as a first or second language.

The interesting question is actually whether or not at least one English-speaking or even broadly Western country finds its way into A.

Blank slatist ideology, which denies group-level and often even individual-level differences in intelligence ("IQ is a social construct", etc.), is the dominant ideology of the West, and of the US in particular. This is ironic, given that the West never went Communist. But history works in funny ways. Cultural Marxists have de facto attained "cultural hegemony" even in the West, while "really existing Communism" conserved folkish understandings of race, ethnicity, and sex relations in Eastern Europe and China.

You have much less freedom to research these topics in Western universities than you would, say, in Russia or China. (It is not a good idea to do that in the same way, say, that one would be unwise to build a career on honestly researching the history of the Great Leap Forwards famine in China). Papers that come to the "wrong" conclusions on these topics are retroactively retracted. Intelligence researchers are subjected to waves of harassment by politicized mobs.

Actually, the very fact that the very first response to this question is "In before the lock" really says it all.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.