by assemblyman | 2025-10-23 19:15:05+00:00
There are quite a few flaws with this way of thinking:

1. Flaws with actually measuring IQs in a population: While nutrition and education affect IQ distributions, there's also a question of language. Are there IQ tests in Kannada (since the author seems to make a point to contrast with India)? In Bengali? Is the sampled distributions biased in any way?

2. Even if IQs are measured correctly, as others pointed out, are high IQ people actually more intelligent? More creative? Do Mensa members win Nobel prizes and produce great breakthroughs? I never heard physicists and mathematicians discuss IQs when they discussed brilliant people. It was not even a factor and was considered cringe-worthy.

3. An addendum to my previous point, and a point the author mentions in passing, environment plays a big role in nurturing a creative mind. The great thing about America (and the West) is that young people actually do want to pursue something they like. This is often ridiculed in America but, as an Asian myself, it creates a far richer society than one obsessed with money, status, and a few professions e.g. law, medicine, engineering.

4. Industry has a unique way of killing "genius". Academia has traditional been the place where genius is nurtured or at least, left alone. Even the overhead of writing grants doesn't make it as painful as quarterly goals and achievements. If by "genius", one means high-earning individuals, that's not a genius in my book. Genius is something more - they might be high earning but they create breakthroughs that would not happen or take much longer if they weren't to do it. Einstein and Grothendieck come to mind.

5. I don't know the author but these types of articles reek of racial and ethnic superiority. This is a notion that has been debunked by both science and by the trash can of civilizations. These arguments seem to want to make the case that one group is destined to win/rule/succeed because of who they are.

6. My previous point leads to an interesting curiosity about many people. They take great pride in their group. This could be racial, ethnic, regional, national membership or even being a human being. After all, "look at what Einstein did and he was a person just like me." Eventually, your character and your actions matter. Greatness (or any other attribute except for physical ones) don't transmit by group membership.

7. There are some things different groups are good at. For example, someone noted that 20% of the Nobel prize winners are Jewish. Russians were (maybe still are) great at gymnastics and ballet. Romanians are great at math olympiads. Indians are great at chess and many Indian mathematicians seem to graviate towards number theory. The seed for these achievements is sometimes cultural and sometimes, a shared purpose arises out of the success of one member of the group at the activity. These are not signs of in-born genius for the activity.

I should have done a better job of making my case but discussions about IQ and race/ethnicity/gender/pickyourchoice just generates very weird (and not factual) conversations.

Lastly, while it would be great to get all the geniuses to America, the country will be fine either way.