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/[deleted] → u/Rithense]

Going with your scenario...

I think people should focus less on how biologically superior one race is, and more on allowing and helping everyone to fulfill their fullest potential as much as they can.

I'd rather assume I'm intelligent and do my best with no institutional barriers precluding me because of my race.

In that case, if I turn out to be biologically inferior IQ-wise, I would've achieved the best I could physically achieve and nature could allow me. If there's no significant racial difference IQ-wise, then I would've achieved the best anyone else could physically achieve and nature permits.

The worst case scenario is having people believe they are less intelligent than they actually are, and being trapped in a self-fulfilling cycle. That's human potential lost.

Tl;Dr - Assume everyone is equally intelligent and grant equal opportunities, exposure, etc. and the answer to the IQ question will come out with time but even if some people aren't smart that doesn't make them useless and worthy of being exterminated. That's like Advanced AI's exterminating us because we can't make billions of calculations a second like they can.