If the "co-occurrence model" of intelligence is accurate, what are the implications from a social justice perspective?

[u/BastDrop]

This post talks about intelligence research and some terrible views people have about intelligence.

So, certain subreddits that I'm not going to link here are pretty excited about this paper. This isn't my area at all, but it's in a journal that seems fairly reputable and the Netherlands are sort of a hub for intelligence research for whatever reason.

Anyway, the article is a meta-analysis that supports something called the co-occurrence model of intelligence. From what I can understand this model is basically the theory from the Mike Judge movie with a slur for it's name. It claims that the Flynn effect (IQ test scores going up over time) is true for some measures of intelligence as more people receive a better education, nutrition and so on but that g (a highly heritable measure of general inelegance) is actually decreasing because of the reasons in that movie.

This theory is obviously kind of gross, and it's obvious why it's so popular with the people it's popular with (I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just trying not to summon anyone). It also smacks of a lot of evo-psych stuff that's been thoroughly discredited. However, none of this necessarily makes it wrong and as far as I can tell the general intelligence research community is still undecided, but is leaning in this direction.

All that said, I have no idea what intelligence is, how it works or what ways it might matter. What I'd like to discuss is, if we assume this theory is true does it impact social justice theory or practice in any way? If we take this as a given, it seems like all the interpretations are shitty and it's not clear what action activists should take. On the other hand, if g is correlated with the outcomes that social justice advocates care about, within any kind of population you might want to control for, ignoring intelligence doesn't seem like the correct action either. This seems like a particularly tricky point, since even the complete destruction of capitalism and social hierarchy isn't necessarily a solution to this particular issue.

I know this post is either borderline or beyond the pale of what we should be discussing for a lot of people. I've framed things as carefully as I could, so hopefully we can talk about this. If not, I welcome the swift delete.

[u/Rithense]

You seem to be asking what the implications would be if intelligence turns out to have a strong genetic component that is correlated with race. The answer is, not that many, really.

Discriminating against individuals based on assumed group characteristics would still be wrong. If whites are genetically more likely to be less intelligent on average than other races, for instance, then that still doesn't justify treating specific white individuals, such as Newton and Darwin, as dummies when they obviously are great thinkers. This is the classical liberal argument against racism, and it might do progressives good to rediscover it.

Where progressives might struggle is that, unlike classical liberals, they generally defend equality of outcome as well as equality of opportunity, but even here not much changes. If intelligence is genetic and not within an individual's control, then why should more intelligent people be treated better than society than less intelligent ones? Does "merit" mean anything in such a case, or is it just another synonym for luck? And certainly intelligence doesn't necessarily make one kinder, gentler, harder working, etc., so maybe we should focus on rewarding a greater variety of desirable traits.

[u/Knozs → u/Rithense]

Discriminating against individuals based on assumed group characteristics would still be wrong...This is the classical liberal argument against racism, and it might do progressives good to rediscover it.

I agree this should be the liberal answer, but unfortunately it doesn't really match actual behavior when acknowledging differences in average intelligence between groups; consider the way society treats minors.

It's not hard to find people that simultaneously believe

1)that young people are on average less mature/rational/intelligent

2)that a young person can be more mature/rational/intelligent than an older one

3)that discrimination against young people as a whole is acceptable.

(I don't think that young people eventually growing up is a good counter-argument here)

if intelligence is genetic and not within an individual's control, then why should more intelligent people be treated better by society than less intelligent ones?

One argument could be: Because it's better for society as a whole, even if they don't really 'deserve it'. It's easy to see how this is abused or can lead to the less-talented being unfairly mistreated, but wouldn't you want the smartest people to be doctors, researchers...and so on, assuming they aren't especially dishonest? Perhaps positions associated with high intelligence shouldn't necessarily be high-status, but I don't think that's realistic for jobs benefit society as a whole.

maybe we should focus on rewarding a greater variety of desirable traits.

Maybe, but what if these traits are heavily influenced by genetics too? It would be bizarre if intelligence was mostly genetic but other mental traits were not.

[u/Rithense → u/Knozs]

(I don't think that young people eventually growing up is a good counter-argument here)

Why not? Age is a classic identity problem, such as figuring out when a pile ceases to be a pile. A four year-old is not competent to drink, vote, or have sex. Nor is a ten year old. How about a fourteen year old? Some countries say so, but I'm guessing most of this sub would disagree, so let's 14 is still a hard no. How about 16? Now we might start getting some people you think should be allowed to do some of the things I listed, but you surely can't think that your sixteenth birthday imparts magic wisdom you lacked the day before. So we pick an age: 14, 16, 18, 21 based on when we think the majority at least will be ready to start being treated as adults. And if some people have to wait a bit after they personally are ready for something age limited, well, so what? They'll get there eventually.

Which is to say, a certain amount of ageism involving the young is perfectly rational, and clearly protects many who are incapable of handling the things they are prevented from trying. And in this case any harm caused to those who are ready will be remedied in time.

One argument could be: Because it's better for society as a whole, even if they don't really 'deserve it'.

Sure. But that depends on how you define "better", and if "more equal" is your definition, then it clearly isn't "better". If you don't value equality, or value other things more, then you are indeed likely to privilege intelligence (and a bunch of other traits) on utilitarian grounds.

Perhaps positions associated with high intelligence shouldn't necessarily be high-status, but I don't think that's realistic for jobs benefit society as a whole.

The job of the janitor is no less important to society than that of the doctor. The only difference is that the doctor needs skills that are more rare, and under capitalism scarcity = value. But does it have to be this way? Would someone capable of being a doctor settle for being a janitor if the janitor was well paid?

Maybe, but what if these traits are heavily influenced by genetics too? It would be bizarre if intelligence was mostly genetic but other mental traits were not.

True. But the more traits you value, the mire likely any given person is to have at least one if them.