Deflating IQ By Brian Simpson

     I continue my battle against what I call the IQ fetish, championed by Dissent Righters like American Renaissance, who hold as a fact, almost like gravitational attraction, that East Asians have higher mean IQs than say Nordic Whites, that Western civilisation is an accident, although what they usually say is “Asians are just so much smarter than us.” Presumably they are not restricting the scope of ‘us” to just themselves. Anyway, I came across this little item at Quora.com, which deflated IQ delightfully:
  https://www.quora.com/Was-Richard-Feynmans-IQ-really-125

“  Michael Aldrin
Answered Nov 18, 2018

“Very likely yes. I see where this question is going. Basically, many people are surprised at how this guy could accomplish so much with an IQ of “just 125”. I’m MENSA certified with an IQ of 140+ as per the psychologist who did the test on me. But yet I found the questions asked in the IQ test so useless and purposeless. You do not really feel that you can achieve anything great in life simply by excelling in these test. The time that I did felt great was when I got by final year university exams. That, I felt, could help me better my life. I have seen another guy who scored a mere 104 on an IQ test but who would came out first in every exams in high school. He eventually won a scholarship to study medicine in Edinburgh. He was so good that his teachers would use the essays that he wrote on various philosophy topics as model essays for others, but yet his IQ was just 104. He would also solve math problems in the most elegant ways. In my opinion, IQ scores suggest that you are good in IQ test only. It does not say much about how you do in life. And please do not quote me the IQ of Tesla/Einstein/ Washington/Napoleon and all these great people. These people never took any IQ test proper. They were retrospectively assigned an IQ score based on…you guessed right; their achievements in life!!! If we were to assign an IQ score to many of the High IQ society members in a way similar to the way it was done for Tesla/Einstein/Washington/Napoleon; i.e by retrospectively looking at their life achievements at the end of their lives or centuries after their death , their new IQ score would probably be different and probably lower. Why ? Because not everyone with an IQ of 180 from an IQ test, can become a great pioneer.”

     The short answer is that IQ is not a measure of anything, beyond doing IQ tests. That there is a positive correlation between IQ scores and school performance only shows that much school work is uncreative bog, like IQ. For support of this, the views of Professor Bruce Charlton, former editor of the journal Medical Hypotheses, is worth considering here. Charlton, author of Not Even Trying: The Corruption of Real Science (University of Buckingham Press, 2011), and Thought Prison: The Fundamental Nature of Political Correctness, (University of Buckingham, Press, 2011), argues that real science, concerned with a non-political pursuit of truth, has been fundamentally corrupted. Consequently “most publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored.” Thus, all science should be demolished, or allowed to collapse under the weight of its own corruption, and real science rebuilt from its ruins. The IQ fetish belongs in the corruption basket.
  https://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Trying-Corruption-Science/dp/1908684186
  http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2019/09/not-even-trying-not-even-wanting-to-do.html

     And, on the collapse of techno-industrial civilisation the good professor says:
  https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2020/01/what-will-be-political-system-of-future.html

“My current understanding is not welcome to me, but it is something I can't shake. The conclusion is that I can see no future; or, at least, none that is significantly better than what we have now. The present System is actively destroying itself, and is anyway unsustainable for multiple reasons. None of the past systems are viable from here forward; and anyway none will happen because they are not wanted/ opposed. And knowing what we now know, I think we can see that no conceivable political system is going to be better. But more than this, I don't see any kind of System at all surviving - at least nothing on the scale of any current nations. The ultimate reason behind this is the change in 'human consciousness'. This is not something that can be proved with evidence (indeed, nothing can ever be proved by evidence); but there is plenty of evidence compatible with my belief (coming via Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield, mostly) that human beings have changed through history; so that past possibilities are left behind. We can see this in so many ways. The death of real leaders, and the absence of real and good leaders. On the other side, the lack of desire among the masses for real or good leaders. The short-termism, the petty selfishness - making survival in the long term impossible. The (really astonishing) lack of courage means that no plans get followed-through; indeed so cowardly are people that they seldom even get as far as formulating an idea of resistance. And, most decisive of all, the lack of motivation - which underpins most of the above; and which stems from the denial of God, the denial that we live in a creation, the denial of ultimate meaning and purpose and relatedness in the world.

All of this might not be sufficient to destroy the hope of something better if it was not for the utter inability of people (both the leadership, but also en masse) to be able to acknowledge the real problems; the habitual and denied dishonesty, the inability to stick to a line of thinking for more than a single step, the absence of even the most basic discernment. All of these stem from the denial of God; yet the denial is itself denied; and the basic consequences of the denial of God are denied... so that this situation itself seems extremely unlikely to be remedied. But even if all-of-the-above was remedied; and we had brave and honest Christians looking ahead; I see no conceivable way in which any kind of politics, any social organisation, can be imagined that would allow the kind of Christian world that we know we ought to have.”

     It simply may not be possible to do more in this world than to show God that we are worthy of the next world, and accept the inevitable destruction of this one. That is what Christians used to believe before the rise of humanism and techno-science gave us a false sense of godhood and immortality, and immorality to boot.