Yes, there are a few too many Lex Luthers in the IQ movement, and a large portion of society who intuitively know that IQ is an important cause of unequal outcomes between individuals and groups but they prefer to not talk about it and will even lie to maintain social approval.
Do you believe genes explain gaps between populations, and is race the best proxy we have for people who are part of the same genetic cluster? I'd say yes to the first part and no to the second.
I think genes are much better at explaining gaps within societies. I believe that gap between societies are largely explained by differences in the geography of genetic ancestors. Those geographical differences caused entire societies to evolve in very different directions.
Race is a high-level genetic cluster. I don’t know what “best proxy” means in this context.
I think to answer your question—is race the best popular proxy for genetic populations—we’d have to know 1) what do you mean by proxy for genetic populations? Like, what purpose is this proxy meant to serve? 2) What are some alternative popular proxies for genetic populations that are in competition with race to be the best proxy?
Race is a bad proxy, but everyone forgets that race is a more advanced version of tribalism. The tribal ancestors were bigoted against MORE people than the racist ancestors. Dunbar is a tricky one.
1) groups of people with some meaningful genetic relationship beyond being humans or relatives and 2) ethno-cultural groups and country of origin are the only two I can think of.
You seem to be searching for a way to invalidate race as an important or useful category. But as I understand it, the big racial/ancestry groups, properly understood, are like big extended families. (By “properly understood” I mean avoiding mistakes like grouping Australian aborigines in with sub-Saharan Africans because perhaps they have similar skin tones despite different ancestry.)
So you’re stuck with race as a useful term for a certain level of genetic and ancestral connection in between being human and being related.
Country of origin isn’t very useful in this context because in the modern world, many countries include people from a variety of ancestries. E.g. Afro-Caribbeans in the UK.
Ethnic-cultural is fine but it is a more fine-grained distinction than race. Sure we could talk about Scots versus English and Japanese versus Chinese, and that’s also useful in some contexts. It just depends on what you’re trying to do. But if you want to group humans into 5-7 big groups based on genetic ancestry, well, the word for that is “race” and those groups correspond pretty well to common understandings of the big racial groups.
I agree that IQ realists lean crazier than the mainstream because of the stigma, but this does not lead to your conclusion that IQ realists should be nicer. If stigma leads to crazier IQ realists being the vocal ones, the solution is to lift the stigma so nicer IQ realists become more common and more vocal. The effect isn't going to help undo the cause
The easiest way to deal with the negative externalities of low IQ people is to not allow them to immigrate to the first world. Then they won't have any negative externalities.
However, Bryan Caplan believes restricting immigration is one of the gravest moral sins on the planet. Barely any better then mass genocide as far as I can tell.
If one eliminates immigration restrictions as a way to prevent the first world from becoming the third world, and left mass genocide as the only way to prevent that outcome, then I would advocate mass genocide as the least worst option. But I would pin this outcome squarely on Bryan for having prevented the obvious and less bloody option for being utilized.
Are you suggesting excluding *groups* with low IQ averages, or individuals with low IQ? There's a vast difference.
And low IQ does not by itself generate externalized costs to others. It's only when we combine low IQ with social subsidy for those unable to earn a good living that externalities are produced (we could stop that). Low IQ people living honest, law-abiding, humble lifestyles does not produce externalities. Many social roles effectively require low IQ people (somebody has to sweep).
Get back to me when you violently overthrow the government and install a permanent dictorial apartheid state with a gigantic brown underclass with no political rights.. I'll evaluate if that was an improvement over western democracy without immigration when I see it.
"Many social roles effectively require low IQ people"
Dude we literally have robots and automation and dishwashing machines. Countries that don't have mass underclasses just have you order of a screen at a restaurant rather then a server. This isn't complicated.
You know who doesn't need health benefits, social security, free education, and votes for more of it for themselves? Robots.
Oh - *democracy*. I'd limit the franchise to (net) taxpayers. It used to be only property owners could vote, because *only property owners paid taxes*. If they're immigrants we don't have to let them vote - they aren't citizens.
Again, how are you going to get there? It would take a violent military coup.
Let's say we restricted the vote to net taxpayers. Would they be in a rush to import and rule over a hostile slave caste, when they could just use robots? Most net taxpayers these days are skeptical of apartheid states full of hostile foreigners
I think that economic growth comes from societies full of eugenically sound people participating in market economies. It's better for political power to be mostly broad rather then narrow, even if you don't support universal suffrage.
And it can probably handle a limited social insurance state (which mostly re-allocates capital by life stage rather than between classes and provides social insurance). Smart productive people prefer this system and it basically works, it's just a mistake to share it with the poors.
"If they're immigrants we don't have to let them vote - they aren't citizens."
Bro we literally can't even cancel birthright citizenship. And even non-citizens are used to allocate house seats.
Neither of us are in a position to make policy or change the law. I was expressing a preference; I don't pretend it's politically viable. For the record, I strongly oppose a "slave caste" of any kind (hostile or otherwise); I support free labor.
I think non-politically viable preferences are useless intellectual masturbation. Bryan routinely calls people that don’t endorse his wild ideas as monsters, which seems wrongheaded if his reasons for doing so are absurd.
I believe that having a society in which a majority of people have to live as politically rightless and highly controlled second class citizens is bad. We literally went through this experiment for the last few centuries and it’s enshrined in every single advanced countries constitution.
There’s a lot of nuts out there but I’ve never heard anyone advocate publicly for mass murder of the low IQ. They do call for mandatory remigration, which I suppose could imply murder for those who resisted. Is this what you are referring to?
That's...insane. I also think IQ is mostly a real thing and that group averages differ.
So what? Even if it's all genetic (unlikely), lots of other genetic characteristics are equally important - honesty, cooperativeness, creativity, etc.
And averages are just averages - every group has its share of geniuses and idiots. The distributions overlap. So some groups will have more or fewer John von Neummans than others. All JVNs are *JVN*, just as smart as any other JVN. The fact that there's fewer of them doesn't change that.
If individuals are convicted of crimes, by all means punish them. Don't generalize to innocents who haven't done anything wrong.
High IQ does not mean having wisdom which i will suggest to be more meaningful than a very high IQ ex performing some higher level tasks; and many with very high IQ's can be as inflexible as those with low IQ's.
"If someone says, “I’m more intelligent than other people, so it’s acceptable for me to murder them,” the sensible response isn’t, “Intelligence is a myth.” The sensible response is, “Are you mad? That doesn’t justify murder.”" Quite right, of course. My first thought was to Alfred Hitchcock's experimental film "Rope," which is framed entirely around this exact concept. Well worth watching for those who haven't yet.
Advocating the extermination of low-IQ people should make no more sense than advocating the extermination of low-IQ animals (lower animals, that is). No one criticizes a horse-breeder on account of horses’ relatively low intelligence.
But there is this difference: only people have socio-political influence and power. More intelligent people tend to contribute more to society, by their productivity, their example, and their influence on public policy. One would prefer to be surrounded by more intelligent people.
True, this effect is rather weak—weak enough to give some color to Buckley’s quip about the first 1,000 names in the Boston telephone directory,
I agree that "IQ tests aren’t perfect, but they’re an excellent proxy for what ordinary language calls “intelligence, and that IQ predicts not just educational success, but career success."
BUT ...
IQ predicts not just educational success, but career success because in education and careers we precisely value those skills that we test for with IQ tests. So, this doesn't mean that IQ tests are good proxy for "real intelligence" they are good proxy for education and careers success
But that doesn't mean IQ tests are good proxy for “real intelligence”. I'll give you one example: People good with maths typically score well on IQ tests and they also more often succeed in educational and career setups. Despite that large % of them (if not majority) would have harder time to survive and thrive not just alone in nature but even is societies that are not as developed (technologically advanced and interdependent) relative to some people who do less well in IQ tests and have similar physical abilities
This ability to adapt to social and environmental surroundings while trying to survive/thrive is often used as a better definition of "real human intelligence" then the one that makes us succeed in educational and career environments.
IQ is real. Most IQ realists are not Nazis. Bryan Caplan wants people to denigrate IQ while pretending he thinks it’s a fine measure. He wants everyone to commit to blank slatism; it’s much easier for his books to sell and his projects to get funding if everyone commits to ignoring reality.
This is completely pointless because you pretended to be retarded when you first commented. Ultimately, you would prefer to sabotage the discourse rather than make progress. Great. Fuck you
So how does Steve Sailer, for example, measure up against your "IQ with Conscience" criteria? As far as I'm aware, Mr. Sailer has never, ever, even once recommended the "outré" positions you ascribe to vast multitudes of, alas, nameless heathen monsters sporting "IQ is ALL" tattoos.
Of course, if you had an inclination to be serious about this subject, you might consider going through the SPLC's infamous gallery of IQ-obsessed rogues such as Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, and other names you would know well if not (and NEVER!) personally. Perhaps your students and readers might benefit from your detailed comparison of the SPLC's vitriolic slander of these many "fine people" with their academic contributions to the same body of knowledge you profess to respect and admire.
That's a bald-faced lie, pure and simple. Provide evidence, not slander or innuendo, to back up your assertion, or shut the fuck up and crawl back under your rock.
I think Steve's piece neither says nor means what you think it says and means. You seen Paris recently...?
Also, rather than the steady supply of self-serving b.s. coming from NGOs and international charities, amplified by their native African "clients," you may find it useful to give some, uh, other voices a hearing. Try YouTube's Franck Zanu (Zanu Project Rethink), BantuCityDiaries, Mody Speaks, and Simon Whistler's Places channels for starters. Stick with it; you'll figure things out. Steve did.
> If Africans aren’t allowed to get away with that, however, they might actually deal with their own fertility excesses, just as almost everybody else outside Africa has more or less done.
In other words "We Eurasians screwed up our culture so we can't reproduce ourselves, so if you Africans could screw up your culture as well that would be great."
This is fair, and honestly the first time I've had this brought to my attention. And you are right--my smartest friends, throughout life (the "gifted and talented") are all what you could call intelligence or IQ realist, and they all (to a man, since men are much more likely to cluster as high IQ), were misanthropes. As was I, for a time, and something I have to actively fight.
But I part with you in thinking that these two things, while they clearly correlate, do not necessarily have to go together. In fact, they do, and always will.
Much like eugenics and Social Darwinism are natural outgrowths of evolution/Darwinism. It is now politically incorrect to say so, but Darwinism necessarily implies Social Darwinsim; only the details are left to haggle over. It simply follows from the premises!
So too, here. Leaving aside the strawman of wanting to murder stupid people, I can see the logical path from IQ Realist to things like sterilization, or simply dehumanizing the stupid.
I think the reason is that IQ Realism "punctures the veil" of certain pretty lies that undergird society ("all men are created equal/we are all of equal worth/races are all the same/you can be whatever you want to be so long as you work hard/etc")
Once you realize that a "person" is, at bottom, their mind; that those minds differ wildly and measurably; that some are worth much, much more than others in their contributions; certain conclusions come naturally.
Not murder...but maybe hoping for fewer stupid babies born to stupid people; or lamenting the low birth rates of the highly educated; or, being aware, at bottom, that some lives matter more than others.
We feel more strongly when 10 Europeans die than hundreds of Arabs. We care more deeply about the murdered white college girl than the black unemployed mother in public housing. This is the same kind of outworking--we may feel ashamed when we notice this about ourselves, but I think at bottom it is the same instinct. You can't un-know what you know.
I do think that IQ Realists can learn to let go of CARING so much about stupid people, and their flaws, and what they do with their lives or what they cost--it is wasted and frankly repugnant use of mental energy.
But the underlying awareness, of differing human worths, cannot be forgotten.
It's a field that invented a whole new type of statistics and then misinterpreted the results in order to reduce intelligence to a single number they could use to rank people from superior to inferior. Maybe it's not so surprising that it's adherents lean a little fascist?
Crazy IQ realists are immune to stigma by your own reckoning, so the only way forward is for non-crazy IQ realists to drive the crazy ones out of shared spaces by sticking their heads above the ramparts.
But the problem is that the blank slate is so thoroughly inculcated into opponents of IQ (especially the media) that their incentives are to highlight the craziest members of their opposition and ignore their own insanity on blank slatism.
Yes, there are a few too many Lex Luthers in the IQ movement, and a large portion of society who intuitively know that IQ is an important cause of unequal outcomes between individuals and groups but they prefer to not talk about it and will even lie to maintain social approval.
The combination is very unhealthy for society.
Sorry my comment was meant for Mont Pelerin Review
Do you believe genes explain gaps between populations, and is race the best proxy we have for people who are part of the same genetic cluster? I'd say yes to the first part and no to the second.
I think genes are much better at explaining gaps within societies. I believe that gap between societies are largely explained by differences in the geography of genetic ancestors. Those geographical differences caused entire societies to evolve in very different directions.
Race is a high-level genetic cluster. I don’t know what “best proxy” means in this context.
Good answer. I meant: are modern American racial categories (white, black, Asian, Hispanic) the best popular proxy for genetic populations?
The answer is yes, race refers to ancestry and those broad categories still apply, validated by genetic testing
What do you mean by "best"? They're a useful proxy in that they're easy to observe.
The answer is yes, race refers to ancestry and those broad categories still apply, validated by genetic testing
I think to answer your question—is race the best popular proxy for genetic populations—we’d have to know 1) what do you mean by proxy for genetic populations? Like, what purpose is this proxy meant to serve? 2) What are some alternative popular proxies for genetic populations that are in competition with race to be the best proxy?
Race is a bad proxy, but everyone forgets that race is a more advanced version of tribalism. The tribal ancestors were bigoted against MORE people than the racist ancestors. Dunbar is a tricky one.
1) groups of people with some meaningful genetic relationship beyond being humans or relatives and 2) ethno-cultural groups and country of origin are the only two I can think of.
You seem to be searching for a way to invalidate race as an important or useful category. But as I understand it, the big racial/ancestry groups, properly understood, are like big extended families. (By “properly understood” I mean avoiding mistakes like grouping Australian aborigines in with sub-Saharan Africans because perhaps they have similar skin tones despite different ancestry.)
So you’re stuck with race as a useful term for a certain level of genetic and ancestral connection in between being human and being related.
Country of origin isn’t very useful in this context because in the modern world, many countries include people from a variety of ancestries. E.g. Afro-Caribbeans in the UK.
Ethnic-cultural is fine but it is a more fine-grained distinction than race. Sure we could talk about Scots versus English and Japanese versus Chinese, and that’s also useful in some contexts. It just depends on what you’re trying to do. But if you want to group humans into 5-7 big groups based on genetic ancestry, well, the word for that is “race” and those groups correspond pretty well to common understandings of the big racial groups.
I agree that IQ realists lean crazier than the mainstream because of the stigma, but this does not lead to your conclusion that IQ realists should be nicer. If stigma leads to crazier IQ realists being the vocal ones, the solution is to lift the stigma so nicer IQ realists become more common and more vocal. The effect isn't going to help undo the cause
IQ realists can choose to become nicer.
They can not lift the society wide stigma.
You can only do things you actually can do.
Um, consider how IQ realists acted before the stigma was in place.
No the stigma isn't the problem.
The easiest way to deal with the negative externalities of low IQ people is to not allow them to immigrate to the first world. Then they won't have any negative externalities.
However, Bryan Caplan believes restricting immigration is one of the gravest moral sins on the planet. Barely any better then mass genocide as far as I can tell.
If one eliminates immigration restrictions as a way to prevent the first world from becoming the third world, and left mass genocide as the only way to prevent that outcome, then I would advocate mass genocide as the least worst option. But I would pin this outcome squarely on Bryan for having prevented the obvious and less bloody option for being utilized.
Are you suggesting excluding *groups* with low IQ averages, or individuals with low IQ? There's a vast difference.
And low IQ does not by itself generate externalized costs to others. It's only when we combine low IQ with social subsidy for those unable to earn a good living that externalities are produced (we could stop that). Low IQ people living honest, law-abiding, humble lifestyles does not produce externalities. Many social roles effectively require low IQ people (somebody has to sweep).
"Groups or individuals"
A little of both, context dependent.
"It's only when"
Get back to me when you violently overthrow the government and install a permanent dictorial apartheid state with a gigantic brown underclass with no political rights.. I'll evaluate if that was an improvement over western democracy without immigration when I see it.
"Many social roles effectively require low IQ people"
Dude we literally have robots and automation and dishwashing machines. Countries that don't have mass underclasses just have you order of a screen at a restaurant rather then a server. This isn't complicated.
You know who doesn't need health benefits, social security, free education, and votes for more of it for themselves? Robots.
Oh - *democracy*. I'd limit the franchise to (net) taxpayers. It used to be only property owners could vote, because *only property owners paid taxes*. If they're immigrants we don't have to let them vote - they aren't citizens.
Again, how are you going to get there? It would take a violent military coup.
Let's say we restricted the vote to net taxpayers. Would they be in a rush to import and rule over a hostile slave caste, when they could just use robots? Most net taxpayers these days are skeptical of apartheid states full of hostile foreigners
I think that economic growth comes from societies full of eugenically sound people participating in market economies. It's better for political power to be mostly broad rather then narrow, even if you don't support universal suffrage.
And it can probably handle a limited social insurance state (which mostly re-allocates capital by life stage rather than between classes and provides social insurance). Smart productive people prefer this system and it basically works, it's just a mistake to share it with the poors.
"If they're immigrants we don't have to let them vote - they aren't citizens."
Bro we literally can't even cancel birthright citizenship. And even non-citizens are used to allocate house seats.
Neither of us are in a position to make policy or change the law. I was expressing a preference; I don't pretend it's politically viable. For the record, I strongly oppose a "slave caste" of any kind (hostile or otherwise); I support free labor.
I think non-politically viable preferences are useless intellectual masturbation. Bryan routinely calls people that don’t endorse his wild ideas as monsters, which seems wrongheaded if his reasons for doing so are absurd.
I believe that having a society in which a majority of people have to live as politically rightless and highly controlled second class citizens is bad. We literally went through this experiment for the last few centuries and it’s enshrined in every single advanced countries constitution.
There’s a lot of nuts out there but I’ve never heard anyone advocate publicly for mass murder of the low IQ. They do call for mandatory remigration, which I suppose could imply murder for those who resisted. Is this what you are referring to?
That's...insane. I also think IQ is mostly a real thing and that group averages differ.
So what? Even if it's all genetic (unlikely), lots of other genetic characteristics are equally important - honesty, cooperativeness, creativity, etc.
And averages are just averages - every group has its share of geniuses and idiots. The distributions overlap. So some groups will have more or fewer John von Neummans than others. All JVNs are *JVN*, just as smart as any other JVN. The fact that there's fewer of them doesn't change that.
If individuals are convicted of crimes, by all means punish them. Don't generalize to innocents who haven't done anything wrong.
High IQ does not mean having wisdom which i will suggest to be more meaningful than a very high IQ ex performing some higher level tasks; and many with very high IQ's can be as inflexible as those with low IQ's.
"If someone says, “I’m more intelligent than other people, so it’s acceptable for me to murder them,” the sensible response isn’t, “Intelligence is a myth.” The sensible response is, “Are you mad? That doesn’t justify murder.”" Quite right, of course. My first thought was to Alfred Hitchcock's experimental film "Rope," which is framed entirely around this exact concept. Well worth watching for those who haven't yet.
Advocating the extermination of low-IQ people should make no more sense than advocating the extermination of low-IQ animals (lower animals, that is). No one criticizes a horse-breeder on account of horses’ relatively low intelligence.
But there is this difference: only people have socio-political influence and power. More intelligent people tend to contribute more to society, by their productivity, their example, and their influence on public policy. One would prefer to be surrounded by more intelligent people.
True, this effect is rather weak—weak enough to give some color to Buckley’s quip about the first 1,000 names in the Boston telephone directory,
On the other hand, horse-breeders don't let horses with undesirable traits breed.
Intelligence seems not to be considered desirable (in horses).
(More often reported as *two* thousand.)
I agree that "IQ tests aren’t perfect, but they’re an excellent proxy for what ordinary language calls “intelligence, and that IQ predicts not just educational success, but career success."
BUT ...
IQ predicts not just educational success, but career success because in education and careers we precisely value those skills that we test for with IQ tests. So, this doesn't mean that IQ tests are good proxy for "real intelligence" they are good proxy for education and careers success
But that doesn't mean IQ tests are good proxy for “real intelligence”. I'll give you one example: People good with maths typically score well on IQ tests and they also more often succeed in educational and career setups. Despite that large % of them (if not majority) would have harder time to survive and thrive not just alone in nature but even is societies that are not as developed (technologically advanced and interdependent) relative to some people who do less well in IQ tests and have similar physical abilities
This ability to adapt to social and environmental surroundings while trying to survive/thrive is often used as a better definition of "real human intelligence" then the one that makes us succeed in educational and career environments.
C.S. Lewis had something to say on this topic
The challenge is how to create a society that is IQ realistic while preserving the dignity of all human beings.
Also, high IQ people should be a bit more humble and realize that a person can have many admirable qualities beyond IQ.
Well put, as always.
It really a pity that IQ realists tend to be so toxic.
This is completely unhinged lmao
IQ is real. Most IQ realists are not Nazis. Bryan Caplan wants people to denigrate IQ while pretending he thinks it’s a fine measure. He wants everyone to commit to blank slatism; it’s much easier for his books to sell and his projects to get funding if everyone commits to ignoring reality.
> Most IQ realists are not Nazis.
You're the only one who brought up the word "Nazi". What that word means these days is rather vague. Now care to address the specific points?
Frankly there are three types of people who talk about (race and) IQ:
1) People on the left side of their race's bell curve who'd rather be judged on their racial average than on their individual merits.
2) High IQ self-proclaimed "elite human capital" types who think their IQ means they should be the upper caste of a technocratic governate.
3) People legitimately interested in the truth or at least in addressing the problems downstream of black-slate ideology.
Unfortunately type (3) appears to be the smallest category.
This is completely pointless because you pretended to be retarded when you first commented. Ultimately, you would prefer to sabotage the discourse rather than make progress. Great. Fuck you
Frankly, you've yet to make a single contribution to the discourse despite my repeated attempts to elicit one from you.
I think I am by this point justified in strongly suspecting that you belong to category (1) from my above comment.
No, I’m tired of retards pretending they can’t read
Funny how you still won't answer my questions.
How so?
Literally the entire thing.
That he’s an IQ believer but NOT an IQ realist. That actual IQ realists are basically Nazis and we should all be afraid of them.
He’s either hallucinating, or the AI who wrote his essay is hallucinating.
Which specific claim do you disagree with?
That IQ is real? Or that most IQ realists are in favor of doing abusing things to the low IQ?
Take a guess
I'm guessing you're too embarrassed by your answer to honestly give it.
So how does Steve Sailer, for example, measure up against your "IQ with Conscience" criteria? As far as I'm aware, Mr. Sailer has never, ever, even once recommended the "outré" positions you ascribe to vast multitudes of, alas, nameless heathen monsters sporting "IQ is ALL" tattoos.
Of course, if you had an inclination to be serious about this subject, you might consider going through the SPLC's infamous gallery of IQ-obsessed rogues such as Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, and other names you would know well if not (and NEVER!) personally. Perhaps your students and readers might benefit from your detailed comparison of the SPLC's vitriolic slander of these many "fine people" with their academic contributions to the same body of knowledge you profess to respect and admire.
You're a slug, Caplan.
Steve has certainly hinted or all but endorsed at least sterilizing low IQ populations.
That's a bald-faced lie, pure and simple. Provide evidence, not slander or innuendo, to back up your assertion, or shut the fuck up and crawl back under your rock.
Here's one examle:
https://www.takimag.com/article/africa_on_the_brink_steve_sailer/
I think Steve's piece neither says nor means what you think it says and means. You seen Paris recently...?
Also, rather than the steady supply of self-serving b.s. coming from NGOs and international charities, amplified by their native African "clients," you may find it useful to give some, uh, other voices a hearing. Try YouTube's Franck Zanu (Zanu Project Rethink), BantuCityDiaries, Mody Speaks, and Simon Whistler's Places channels for starters. Stick with it; you'll figure things out. Steve did.
From that article:
> If Africans aren’t allowed to get away with that, however, they might actually deal with their own fertility excesses, just as almost everybody else outside Africa has more or less done.
In other words "We Eurasians screwed up our culture so we can't reproduce ourselves, so if you Africans could screw up your culture as well that would be great."
This is fair, and honestly the first time I've had this brought to my attention. And you are right--my smartest friends, throughout life (the "gifted and talented") are all what you could call intelligence or IQ realist, and they all (to a man, since men are much more likely to cluster as high IQ), were misanthropes. As was I, for a time, and something I have to actively fight.
But I part with you in thinking that these two things, while they clearly correlate, do not necessarily have to go together. In fact, they do, and always will.
Much like eugenics and Social Darwinism are natural outgrowths of evolution/Darwinism. It is now politically incorrect to say so, but Darwinism necessarily implies Social Darwinsim; only the details are left to haggle over. It simply follows from the premises!
So too, here. Leaving aside the strawman of wanting to murder stupid people, I can see the logical path from IQ Realist to things like sterilization, or simply dehumanizing the stupid.
I think the reason is that IQ Realism "punctures the veil" of certain pretty lies that undergird society ("all men are created equal/we are all of equal worth/races are all the same/you can be whatever you want to be so long as you work hard/etc")
Once you realize that a "person" is, at bottom, their mind; that those minds differ wildly and measurably; that some are worth much, much more than others in their contributions; certain conclusions come naturally.
Not murder...but maybe hoping for fewer stupid babies born to stupid people; or lamenting the low birth rates of the highly educated; or, being aware, at bottom, that some lives matter more than others.
We feel more strongly when 10 Europeans die than hundreds of Arabs. We care more deeply about the murdered white college girl than the black unemployed mother in public housing. This is the same kind of outworking--we may feel ashamed when we notice this about ourselves, but I think at bottom it is the same instinct. You can't un-know what you know.
I do think that IQ Realists can learn to let go of CARING so much about stupid people, and their flaws, and what they do with their lives or what they cost--it is wasted and frankly repugnant use of mental energy.
But the underlying awareness, of differing human worths, cannot be forgotten.
It's a field that invented a whole new type of statistics and then misinterpreted the results in order to reduce intelligence to a single number they could use to rank people from superior to inferior. Maybe it's not so surprising that it's adherents lean a little fascist?
Crazy IQ realists are immune to stigma by your own reckoning, so the only way forward is for non-crazy IQ realists to drive the crazy ones out of shared spaces by sticking their heads above the ramparts.
But the problem is that the blank slate is so thoroughly inculcated into opponents of IQ (especially the media) that their incentives are to highlight the craziest members of their opposition and ignore their own insanity on blank slatism.