Ignorant Educators Disparaging IQ Facts

No, I don't like that some people are innately more intelligent than others. It doesn't seem fair. If I were the creator of the universe, I would have given everyone the same tools for learning and achieving. That said, I often read and hear people disparage IQ as a measurement. Without any basis, they claim that it is a poor measure of intelligence when IQ is actually one of the most valid and reliable measurements in all of psychology. Next time I hear that it is a poor measure, I'll ask the person: "Assume that you are about to start a new for-profit company in a competitive industry. You need to hire 100 employees. You can either hire 100 people with IQs of 90 or 100 people with IQs of 130. Now choose."

BTW, I don't know my own IQ. Therefore, I'm not writing this article from any sort of perch. And I guarantee that whatever my IQ might be, there are many people out there with significantly higher IQs than me.

I don't know what drives this belief among teachers, but it does seem to be another instance of social contagion, much like "phonics is bad" and "gender affirming care for children is good and necessary." Just because it's taught in school by well-meaning teachers doesn't mean that it's true.  There is also a vast literature disparaging IQ as an illegitimate measure. My first encounter with a strong attack on IQ was Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. 

What's the truth about IQ? Steve Stewart-Williams Recently commented on Education's Elephant in the Room, by Russell T. Warne (at Quillette), offering these excerpts:

The differences among students’ educational achievement start early and increase as children grow. By 5th grade, the average American classroom has children whose achievement in mathematics and reading ranges from the 2nd grade level to the 8th grade level or higher. It is simply impossible for a single teacher to prepare lessons in every subject that allow every student to learn new information. Some sort of ability grouping, in which students at similar levels of achievement are taught together, is necessary...

What causes these individual differences in intelligence and achievement that educators are so determined to deny, downplay, or ignore? …

This is where educators get really nervous, because the major cause of individual differences in intelligence seems to be genetics. The heritability of IQ varies, but in wealthy, industrialised countries, it approaches .80 in adults, which indicates that eighty percent of individual differences in IQ are associated with individual genetic differences. In young children, heritability of IQ is lower, but it hits .50 at about age ten and continues to increase into adulthood before levelling off…

In a British survey, only 29 percent of teachers thought that genes were one of the top three factors affecting student achievement. In other words, the scientific research shows that genes are usually more important than every environmental cause combined, and yet most teachers don’t even believe that genes rank in the top three causes of educational achievement…

I subscribe to the website of Steve Stewart-Williams, The Nature-Nurture Nietzsche Newsletter. He offers lots of rigorous research along with citations and his own insightful commentary. I highly recommend his work, including his article, "12 Things Everyone Should Know About IQ: here's a lot of IQ misinformation out there." '' He comments:

But like many ideas in psychology, IQ is the subject of a lot of misunderstandings and misinformation. Some believe that IQ tests are basically meaningless - that they don’t measure intelligence in any real sense or tell us anything about IQ-test takers except how good they are at taking IQ tests. Others go further, arguing that IQ research is malign pseudoscience aimed only at justifying discrimination.

None of these claims is true! Psychologists studying IQ have learned a great deal about this form of intelligence over the last century, and have an excellent track record of replicating their results. They know how to measure IQ; they know how nature and nurture help shape IQ; and they know how IQ helps shape people’s lives.

In this post, I’ll outline twelve key findings from IQ research that everyone ought to know. Whether you’re a fan of IQ or a skeptic, I hope you’ll find something here to surprise and challenge you!

His first topic (of the 12) dovetails with Warne's article:

1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). IQ is nearly as heritable as physical traits like height. And the only other psychological traits with similar heritability levels are psychiatric conditions like autism and schizophrenia.

Below I am setting out the other eleven topics, but I recommend the article in its entirety:

2. The heritability of IQ increases from childhood to adulthood.

3. IQ scores have been increasing steadily for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect.

4. IQ predicts many important real-world outcomes

5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes

6. Higher IQ is associated with lower rates of most forms of mental illness.

7. More generally, IQ tests are among the most reliable, predictive measures in psychology – one of the field’s crowning achievements.

8. Despite its excellent psychometric properties, many people are allergic to the concept of IQ. Ironically, this includes many intellectuals.

9. Perhaps as a result of the academic allergy to IQ, there’s some evidence that researchers are less likely to publish studies showing a link between IQ and students’ grades: the reverse of the usual publication bias for positive findings.

10. The antipathy to IQ is unfortunate.

11. IQ tests have other potential benefits.

12. Last but not least, here’s a list of ten common myths about IQ, from Stuart Ritchie’s book Intelligence: All That Matters.

Continue ReadingIgnorant Educators Disparaging IQ Facts

Long Winded Conversations by the numbers

All of us have been in some intolerable conversations with long-winded people. Some people don't know how to give and take. In my mind, good conversation is like a game of catch. Lots of people don't know how to get to the point and then let others talk.

I asked Grok for the research on this. How long can a person talk in a small group before others feel left out and get frustrated?

Grok's response:

Research on conversation dynamics, particularly in small groups (typically 2-5 people), highlights the importance of equitable turn-taking for maintaining engagement and satisfaction. Studies in linguistics and psychology show that natural conversations rely on rapid exchanges, with average utterance lengths around 2-4 seconds per speaker in dyads (one-on-one) and slightly longer in triads (three people), at about 2.7 seconds and 3.7 seconds respectively.

These short turns, separated by minimal gaps of about 200 milliseconds, create a rhythmic flow that allows everyone to contribute without feeling sidelined. When one person extends their turn significantly—holding the "floor" for much longer—it disrupts this balance, leading to perceptions of dominance.Conversational dominance occurs when a single speaker monopolizes airtime, often through extended monologues or repeated interruptions, and research links it directly to frustration among listeners.

For instance, nonverbal cues like prolonged speaking time and higher vocal energy signal dominance, which group members perceive subconsciously; in meeting simulations, dominant speakers were accurately identified 85-91% of the time based on such cues alone. This imbalance can make quieter participants feel excluded, prompting them to withdraw entirely—creating tension where others remain silent to avoid conflict. In extreme cases, it drives group members away, turning potentially enjoyable interactions into ones people dread.

Psychological studies quantify the emotional toll: A survey by the American Psychological Association found that 60% of people feel anxious and overwhelmed during encounters with long-winded speakers, viewing it as a subtle form of social control that heightens stress. Similarly, research from the University of California, Berkeley, showed that one-sided conversations reduce relationship enjoyment by 50%, eroding trust and overall satisfaction.

Over-talkers often prioritize personal anecdotes over group themes, leading to redundancy and boredom, which further alienates listeners by breaking the expected "just enough information" rhythm. While no study pinpoints an exact universal threshold (as it varies by group familiarity, culture, and context), frustration typically emerges when a speaker's turn exceeds 10-20 seconds or when they claim more than 30-40% of total airtime in a discussion—far beyond the 2-3 second norm.

In small groups, this dominance is amplified because cognitive limits (e.g., mentalizing multiple perspectives) cap effective conversations at around 4 people; larger imbalances exacerbate feelings of being left out. Strategies from communication research, like gentle interruptions or thematic redirection, can mitigate this, but the core issue is restoring reciprocity to keep everyone engaged.

Continue ReadingLong Winded Conversations by the numbers

Remembering the Good Old Days When Evidence Mattered

"I have a mental illness that makes me think that people will change their minds if i present the correct arguments with the appropriate facts and data."

And to make things even worse, consider the Boomerang Effect. I turn to Grok:

The boomerang effect (also known as the backfire effect in some psychological literature). Is a persuasion paradox where presenting strong evidence or arguments to debunk a false belief doesn't sway people; instead, it often reinforces their original misconception, making them dig in even deeper. This happens because the challenge feels like a threat to their identity, worldview, or autonomy, triggering defensive reasoning—think of it as the brain "boomeranging" the message right back at you with amplified conviction.Classic examples include political debates (e.g., fact-checking a conspiracy theory that only rallies believers more) or health campaigns (e.g., anti-smoking ads that ironically boost smoking among defiant teens). Studies show it spikes when the persuasion feels too forceful, emotional, or condescending, as people resist perceived control. To counter it, softer approaches like asking open questions or building rapport work better than direct confrontation.It's a frustrating reminder that facts alone don't always win—emotions and ego often steal the show.

Continue ReadingRemembering the Good Old Days When Evidence Mattered

About the Dark Triad

Evolutionary biologist Geoffrey Miller explains the concept:

Remember, kids:

The 'Dark Triad' of personality traits (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism) is hugely over-represented among people who manage to make themselves famous.

And it explains why so many of them, sooner or later, adopt toxic, delusional beliefs that make them infamous.

Rob Henderson adds this:

Dark Triad personality traits correlate with victim-signaling (e.g., "Expressed how people like me are underrepresented in the media and leadership.").

Psychopathy (r = .58), Machiavellianism (r = .43) and narcissism (r = .30)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32614222/

Psychologist Jordan Peterson:

Jordan Peterson:

We're talking about this Machiavellian personality triad, the dark triad, ... Okay, so here's something really interesting. It's the bad boy paradox. They call it that. Young, naive women are attracted to those Machiavellian types, but when they get older and more experienced, they start to be able to see through that. The reason they're attracted to it, as far as I can tell, and I talked about this with bus to see if I was way off on the wrong track, is that those reckless, fearless people mimic real, fearless competence. And young women aren't good at distinguishing between the two, and so they get sucked in by the sort of psychopathic recklessness, because they think it's fearless competence. And of course, the guys who are doing that, they'll prey on that because they're trying to ape competence. But what the women are really after in their heart of hearts, they might be out for an adventure too, because there's that element of it. But they want that fearlessness that does go along with true generosity and competence and also the ability to keep, you know, real darkness away so well.

[Unknown speaker]

A lot of those people who display that kind of, what you call mimicking fearlessness macho, that's they're actually hiding the opposite. They're actually very, very riddled with insecurities. They're not, you know, and they're, they're, they kind of create this sort of bravado and this false front, and they go to an extreme to kind of project this machismo when, in fact, they're riddled with insecurities. And that's their way of dealing with it. With it.

Continue ReadingAbout the Dark Triad