Stereotypes are Generally Accurate

We tell each other to avoid using stereotypes, but more than 50 studies have assessed the accuracy of demographic, national, political, and other stereotypes. Consider this article, for example: "Stereotype Accuracy is One of the Largest and Most Replicable Effects in All of Social Psychology.". Excerpts:

Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.

The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent. This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.”

Continue ReadingStereotypes are Generally Accurate

The citizens of large countries are rapidly disappearing.

Stunning numbers. The citizens of large countries are rapidly disappearing and it's not because of a war or a plague.. It is an unprecedented loss in population:

South Korea is quietly living through something no society has ever survived: a 96% population collapse in just four generations — with zero war, zero plague, zero famine. 100 people today → 25 children → 6 grandchildren → 4 great-grandchildren. That’s it. Game over for an entire nation by ~2125 if fertility stays where it is (0.68–0.72). . . . Japan, Taiwan, Italy, Spain, Singapore, Hong Kong, Poland, Greece — all following the same curve, just 10–20 years behind.

Continue ReadingThe citizens of large countries are rapidly disappearing.

What the Social Engineers Miss About Multiculturalism

Jowan Mahmod discusses the paradox of multi-culturalism in his article: "The Multiculturalism Paradox: How identity-affirming policies fuel the competitive group dynamics that weaken national cohesion."

[T]he core creed of multiculturalism: noble intentions and moral rhetoric paired with total disregard for real-world outcome . . . . Multiculturalism promotes the celebration of difference on the assumption that strengthening one’s group identity naturally produces greater openness toward, and acceptance of, others. Few ideas have been more widely embraced—and more poorly understood—than this. . . Ultimately, tolerance does not grow out of abstract ideals. It grows from loosening the grip of collective identity and seeing others not as representatives of a category but as individuals. Societies must ensure that people of all backgrounds can develop a strong sense of personal identity. This is not merely desirable but essential for any nation that hopes to remain both diverse and cohesive. Prejudice is rooted in group belonging and in the basic psychology of us-and-them. When institutions encourage people to define themselves primarily through group identity, they inevitably reinforce the very us-and-them thinking that fuels prejudice and division.

A functioning multicultural society is not one that obsessively manages groups and their identities, but one that enables individuals to move beyond them and form connections based on shared human and civic values. Only then can we approach the kind of multicultural society we claim to aspire to, and that can be achieved only by loosening, not tightening, the hold of group identity.

Mahmod's full article can be found here.

Continue ReadingWhat the Social Engineers Miss About Multiculturalism

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