An interesting article. I did some rough calculations yesterday that terrified me. Using the data we have on national IQ and figuring out the percentage of a population of 130+ IQ on a normal distribution, there was something that actually shook me to my core. Using this, I found out that, despite India having a population 4 times that of the USA, there are over 20 times as many Americans with a 130+ IQ than there are Indians. If you add in the populations of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, you only decrease the disparity to there being 12 times as many Americans of 130+ IQ compared to populations that comprise around 22% of humanity. Britain has 5 times as many 130+ IQ people as India and 3 times as many as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka combined. I am not joking that this is honestly frightening. What is even scarier is that if you drop the level to 115+ IQ, Britain still has over 2.7 million more people above that level than India in spite of India having a population over 20 times that of Britain. When this is combined with what the fantastic J'Accuse article about Indian immigration, it shows how facile the "DEI for white people" argument is. The pool of good quality programmers in India is going to be tiny. If the 'tech' Right wants real high IQ talent and not just cheap labour tied to their companies, either tap into natural American talent or try and seduce the Japanese where there are around 30 times as many 130+ IQ people than in India and 18 times as many as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka combined. The only way in which the 'tech' Right can even think that Indian immigration would be good or that there is a large source of high IQ human capital in India is if they cling to false, egalitarian beliefs regarding the distribution of intelligence amongst different human groups. Also, the various Indians and other subcontinentals in the 'tech' Right are likely also spinning a false narrative to advance their own ethnic interests.
I then used the percentages given to calculate the numbers. Now, this may not be the most accurate answer, and I will throw my hands up and admit that I am not a statistician or an expert in this field, so it may be best to take what I say with a grain of salt. I am just a man making rough calculations based upon available data, and I will be very glad to be proven wrong, since the numbers generated from my rough calculations made me feel as if I'd gazed upon some Lovecraftian horror, hence why I have made some very agitated comments about this. I would like to apologise if I came across too forcefully or as if I am some authority in this field.
The primary point made here is that even ideally "meritocratic" immigration does not necessarily serve American national interests where immigrants prioritise ethnic interests. This is true, but it just reduces the anti-H1B debate to a discussion over integration. If you believe, as many techbros do, that Indians can fully assimilate into the American nation, this argument is made redundant - and no effort is made to refute this premise in the article.
Also, Nietzsche does not value Homeric contest because of its utility in international competition, but because it facilitates the production of exceptional individuals - you are fundamentally misleading Nietzsche if you think his political philosophy is directed towards the preeminence of a particular polis or nation. The creation of a Napoleon, a Beethoven, a Frederick the Great - this is the telos of the state, all other considerations are instrumental.
Many people today are unaware that the term "Meritocracy" was originally pejorative, coined by British sociologist Michael Young ( father of journalist Hugo Young) in his dystopian essay "The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870-2023". Published in 1956, in which he describes the growing dominance of a technocratic elite.
Ignoring unpublished essays is so disingenuous and Left-wing. Logically, unpublished work may contain the most unusual and controversial ideas.
An interesting article. I did some rough calculations yesterday that terrified me. Using the data we have on national IQ and figuring out the percentage of a population of 130+ IQ on a normal distribution, there was something that actually shook me to my core. Using this, I found out that, despite India having a population 4 times that of the USA, there are over 20 times as many Americans with a 130+ IQ than there are Indians. If you add in the populations of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, you only decrease the disparity to there being 12 times as many Americans of 130+ IQ compared to populations that comprise around 22% of humanity. Britain has 5 times as many 130+ IQ people as India and 3 times as many as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka combined. I am not joking that this is honestly frightening. What is even scarier is that if you drop the level to 115+ IQ, Britain still has over 2.7 million more people above that level than India in spite of India having a population over 20 times that of Britain. When this is combined with what the fantastic J'Accuse article about Indian immigration, it shows how facile the "DEI for white people" argument is. The pool of good quality programmers in India is going to be tiny. If the 'tech' Right wants real high IQ talent and not just cheap labour tied to their companies, either tap into natural American talent or try and seduce the Japanese where there are around 30 times as many 130+ IQ people than in India and 18 times as many as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka combined. The only way in which the 'tech' Right can even think that Indian immigration would be good or that there is a large source of high IQ human capital in India is if they cling to false, egalitarian beliefs regarding the distribution of intelligence amongst different human groups. Also, the various Indians and other subcontinentals in the 'tech' Right are likely also spinning a false narrative to advance their own ethnic interests.
What assumptions are you making about the mean and variance of each of the populations you mentioned?
I was using the average IQs given in Lynn & Becker (2019). The mean IQs are as follows:
- India: 76.24.
- Pakistan: 80.00.
- Bangladesh: 74.24.
As for variance, I mainly just used the app on Emil Kirkegaard's website:
https://shiny.emilkirkegaard.dk/apps/tail_effects/
I then used the percentages given to calculate the numbers. Now, this may not be the most accurate answer, and I will throw my hands up and admit that I am not a statistician or an expert in this field, so it may be best to take what I say with a grain of salt. I am just a man making rough calculations based upon available data, and I will be very glad to be proven wrong, since the numbers generated from my rough calculations made me feel as if I'd gazed upon some Lovecraftian horror, hence why I have made some very agitated comments about this. I would like to apologise if I came across too forcefully or as if I am some authority in this field.
The primary point made here is that even ideally "meritocratic" immigration does not necessarily serve American national interests where immigrants prioritise ethnic interests. This is true, but it just reduces the anti-H1B debate to a discussion over integration. If you believe, as many techbros do, that Indians can fully assimilate into the American nation, this argument is made redundant - and no effort is made to refute this premise in the article.
Also, Nietzsche does not value Homeric contest because of its utility in international competition, but because it facilitates the production of exceptional individuals - you are fundamentally misleading Nietzsche if you think his political philosophy is directed towards the preeminence of a particular polis or nation. The creation of a Napoleon, a Beethoven, a Frederick the Great - this is the telos of the state, all other considerations are instrumental.
All good points (especially the second), that I will forward to the author.
Many people today are unaware that the term "Meritocracy" was originally pejorative, coined by British sociologist Michael Young ( father of journalist Hugo Young) in his dystopian essay "The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870-2023". Published in 1956, in which he describes the growing dominance of a technocratic elite.
Needless to say it all ends badly.