Jan 12, 2020, 3:47 PM

@charlesmurray

  1. Correct but the opposite, via-negativa: The neuroscience is trivial. The causes of defects in intelligence are almost limitless. It’s not so much that we need to understand intelligence (g), it’s that we need to understand why defects in intelligence are so common.
  2. AFAIK, (g) is the most accurate measure in psychology, and stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social sciences. The problem with testing is casting (g) separately from personality traits (which it is), and therefore not ALSO testing for trait-conscientiousness.

2 If we test intelligence, and the Big5 traits we see that success is determined MORE by trait conscientiousness than by intelligence, and that intelligence increases income only because it grants access to problems of greater complexity. Intelligence REDUCES ERROR in complexity.

  1. As such ADAPTABILITY (success) consists of applying trait conscientiousness and trait intelligence to exploit opportunities at one’s optimum of complexity. This means ‘the bell curve’ of overlapping bell curves from low IQ/conscientiousness to high IQ/conscientiousness.
  2. There are plenty of people who are high in both intelligence, high in conscientiousness, and high in agreeableness and therefore low in competitiveness. So once we stack the priority of these traits in the context of a given economy and rule of law, sortition is obvious.
  3. Furthermore, once we combine all 5/6 traits we see that personalities cluster around three archetypes: female mother(teach), ascendant male(experiment), and established or dominant male(defend).

The world is simple – if and only if you use enough dimensions of measurement.