Does Intelligence Research Undermine the Fight against Inequality?

Some worry that intelligence research threatens equality. With its focus on individual differences, g's economic importance, high heritability, and past controversies surrounding race differences in IQ scores, intelligence research appears problematic for those seeking an egalitarian society.

This chapter examines three forms of equality relevant to intelligence research: individual outcome equality, group outcome equality, and legal equality. Each has different implications for intelligence research, which need not worsen inequality and might actually help reduce it.

Many care about inequality in individual outcomes—whether in health, economics, or academic achievement. Research clearly shows IQ correlates with numerous life outcomes, with higher IQ individuals more likely to experience positive results and lower IQ individuals more likely to face negative experiences.

The evidence demonstrates that life outcome inequality connects to intelligence differences. Sometimes g causes these inequalities, meaning smart individuals achieve certain positive outcomes partly due to their intelligence. Genetic evidence suggests that life outcomes—including socioeconomic standing, health, and educational achievement—are also genetically inherited. This concerns some because it implies socioeconomic status and other advantages pass genetically across generations. Research confirms that some DNA segments linked to high IQ also associate with high socioeconomic status.

However, blaming intelligence research for these connections is misguided. Researchers don't create correlations between g and life outcomes, nor do they make intelligence heritable. These facts exist whether scientists discover them or not. Dismissing intelligence research won't alter reality.

Does this genetic information intensify inequalities? No, because of the disconnect between descriptive and prescriptive statements. The heritability of socioeconomic status and its genetic overlap with intelligence simply describes reality—it says nothing about what reality should be.

Interestingly, some scholars note that high heritability actually signals a more equitable society, since it indicates environments don't restrict most people's genetic potential development. The high heritability of intelligence in wealthy nations—often exceeding .50 for adults—is therefore an indicator of fairness, showing differences aren't primarily caused by society and external forces.

Additionally, IQ and genetic information could advocate for the disadvantaged. Genetic testing can identify children at risk for low IQ or learning disabilities, allowing resources to be allocated disproportionately to these students, with interventions potentially beginning in infancy.

Greater concern exists about inequality among groups, particularly when racial minorities, women, or the poor experience worse outcomes. Average IQ differences mean different percentages of each group will exceed any cutoff score, creating disparities in selection for jobs or educational programs.

Intelligence research supports three strategies for reconciling desires for equal outcomes with unequal g distribution across groups. First, use tests that measure g less precisely, as poorer g measures typically produce smaller group differences. Second, recruit more heavily from underrepresented groups and provide extra preparation before selection. Third, adjust cutoff scores for different groups, though this raises legal and political concerns.

Some fear intelligence research threatens legal equality. This assumes legal equality depends on scientific findings of equal group potential and performance. Actually, legal equality rests on constitutional law and statutes enacted without scientific validation of human equality.

Legal equality shouldn't have an empirical foundation. Basing it on beliefs that racial groups are equal in every way is risky because that's a testable hypothesis. Instead, legal equality should rest on moral and ethical principles that every person unconditionally deserves equal rights.

Furthermore, discrimination lacks scientific justification. Statistical analysis shows that judging individuals by IQ scores alone achieves 94.2% accuracy in identifying the more intelligent person, while adding race actually decreases accuracy to 94.0%. The lesson is straightforward: evaluate people as individuals without considering irrelevant factors like race.

Those pursuing egalitarian goals often view intelligence research as threatening equality. However, different equality types shouldn't be conflated. Individual outcome inequality is likely unavoidable, and group outcome inequality persists, though policies can reduce both. Legal equality, however, isn't science-based at all, and no scientific findings can or should eliminate legal equality founded on moral principles of equal rights.

Ignoring intelligence research won't address these equality concerns. Combating inequality requires understanding its causes—and some inequality originates partly in g differences. Engaging with intelligence research helps fair-minded advocates understand which policies will succeed and which will fail.




From Chapter 34 of "In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths About Human Intelligence" by Dr. Russell Warne (2020)