Podcast appearances and mentions of Flynn effect

Do IQ tests measure your fixed intellect, or is there more to the equation? Despite their dark history, Michael Regilio bears good news on Skeptical Sunday!Welcome to Skeptical Sunday, a special edition of The Jordan Harbinger Show where Jordan and a guest break down a topic that you may have never thought about, open things up, and debunk common misconceptions. This time around, we're joined by skeptic, comedian, and podcaster Michael Regilio!Jordan's must reads (including books from this episode): AcceleratEdFull show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/1159On This Week's Skeptical Sunday:In 1927, the US Supreme Court supported forced sterilization of "feeble-minded" people based on IQ scores. Over 7,000 were sterilized in North Carolina alone. Nazi war criminals later cited American eugenics programs as inspiration.Early IQ tests asked about Edgar Allan Poe and bowling terminology. These measured cultural knowledge, not intelligence, disadvantaging anyone without specific educational or social backgrounds. This could mean the difference between becoming an officer or cannon fodder in WWI.Researcher James Robert Flynn determined that IQ scores have risen three points per decade throughout the 20th century. But contrary to claims made in the 1994 book The Bell Curve, this "Flynn effect" isn't due to evolution or genetics, but factors like better nutrition, cleaner water, smaller families, and more cognitively demanding environments.ChatGPT scores 99.9th percentile verbally but fails simple logic puzzles humans solve instantly. This demonstrates how intelligence isn't a single number — it's more like a jazz ensemble where mathematical reasoning, emotional intelligence, creativity, and street smarts all play different instruments. Trying to capture that symphony with one test is like describing a rainbow using only numbers.IQ tests aren't worthless — they're just misunderstood. Use them as diagnostic tools, not destiny predictors. Low pattern recognition score? Practice puzzles. Weak verbal reasoning? Read more complex texts. Identify specific cognitive areas to strengthen rather than accepting a single number as your limit. Your IQ isn't your written-in-stone fate — it's your starting coordinates on an infinitely expandable map of human potential.Connect with Jordan on Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. If you have something you'd like us to tackle here on Skeptical Sunday, drop Jordan a line at jordan@jordanharbinger.com and let him know!Connect with Michael Regilio at Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, and make sure to check out the Michael Regilio Plagues Well With Others podcast here or wherever you enjoy listening to fine podcasts!And if you're still game to support us, please leave a review here — even one sentence helps! Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course!Subscribe to our once-a-week Wee Bit Wiser newsletter today and start filling your Wednesdays with wisdom!Do you even Reddit, bro? Join us at r/JordanHarbinger!This Episode Is Brought To You By Our Fine Sponsors:FlyKitt: 15% off: flykitt.com, code JORDANCaldera Lab: 20% off: calderalab.com/jordan, code JORDANHiya: 50% off first order: hiyahealth.com/jordanSimpliSafe: 50% off + 1st month free: simplisafe.com/jordanProgressive: Free online quote: progressive.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

For more from Doug, subscribe to Canon+: https://canonplus.com/

Dr. Richard Haier is an emeritus professor of Pediatric Neurology at UC Irvine, who spent his career studying the neuroscience of intelligence. Over the course of his career, Haier has come to believe in the existence of a “g-factor,” a measurable quantity of broad spectrum intelligence that is universally predictive of success in all cultures. He also believes that intelligence is a fixed characteristic, and that it's possible to predict someone's intelligence by watching how their brain works when trying to solve a puzzle. We sit down with him to figure out how far one can take this theory of intelligence before running headlong into a heartless social darwinism, why intelligence research feels so creepy, if IQ tests are actually measuring what we think they're measuring, if intelligence is really the thing that we should be optimizing for, and if it's possible for technology to make us dumber. Don't miss the historic cosmology summit in Portugal this summer!!! DEMYSTICON 2025 ANNUAL MEETING June 12-16: https://demystifysci.com/demysticon-2025 PATREON: get episodes early + join our weekly Patron Chat https://bit.ly/3lcAasB MERCH: Rock some DemystifySci gear : https://demystifysci.myspreadshop.com/all AMAZON: Do your shopping through this link: https://amzn.to/3YyoT98 SUBSTACK: https://substack.com/@UCqV4_7i9h1_V7hY48eZZSLw@demystifysci 00:00 Go! 00:09:28 Flynn Effect and G Factor 00:15:40 Testing, Practice, and Intelligence 00:26:58 The Relationship Between Intelligence, Motivation, and Test Scores 00:31:09 Heritability and Societal Implications of Intelligence 00:35:51 The Social Value of Intelligence Versus Athletic Ability 00:41:54 IQ Levels and Educational Attainment 00:48:03 The Dilution of College Degrees 00:53:07 Educational System Critique 00:57:24 Intelligence and Occupational Success 01:01:40 Bureaucracy and Talent in Academia 01:06:13 Intelligence and Personal Success 01:19:20 Enhancing Intelligence through Drugs 01:25:28 Brain Efficiency and Intelligence 01:31:12 Tetris Study and Brain Efficiency 01:44:20 Predicting Intelligence through Brain Imaging 01:49:58 Brain Structure and Cognitive Prediction 01:52:00 Challenges in Enhancing Intelligence 02:04:22 Environmental and Genetic Interplay 02:14:02 Understanding Autism and Intelligence 02:19:56 Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Intelligence 02:28:21 Technology's Impact on Skill Development 02:32:55 Flynn Effect and Educational Implications 02:39:24 Technology and Its Impact on Children 02:45:08 Societal Roles and Intelligence Levels 02:48:09 Meaning and Societal Functionality #IQTests, #Neuroscience, #intelligence, #iqtest, #ArtificialIntelligence, #HumanIntelligence, #CognitiveScience, #BrainFunction, #iq , #Neuroimaging, #AIvsHumans, #TechImpact, #philosophypodcast, #sciencepodcast, #longformpodcast Check our short-films channel, @DemystifySci: https://www.youtube.com/c/DemystifyingScience AND our material science investigations of atomics, @MaterialAtomics https://www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomics Join our mailing list https://bit.ly/3v3kz2S PODCAST INFO: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities. - Blog: http://DemystifySci.com/blog - RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss - Donate: https://bit.ly/3wkPqaD - Swag: https://bit.ly/2PXdC2y SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySci MUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

IQ is, to say the least, a fraught concept. Psychologists have studied IQ—or g for “general cognitive ability”—maybe more than any other psychological construct. And they've learned some interesting things about it. That it's remarkably stable over the lifespan. That it really is general: people who ace one test of intellectual ability tend to ace others. And that IQs have risen markedly over the last century. At the same time, IQ seems to be met with increasing squeamishness, if not outright disdain, in many circles. It's often seen as crude, misguided, reductive—maybe a whole lot worse. There's no question, after all, that IQ has been misused—that it still gets misused—for all kinds of racist, classist, colonialist purposes. As if this wasn't all thorny enough, the study of IQ is also intimately bound up with the study of genetics. It's right there in the roiling center of debates about how genes and environment make us who we are. So, yeah, what to make of all this? How should we be thinking about IQ? My guest today is Dr. Eric Turkheimer. Eric is Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia. He has studied intelligence and many other complex human traits for decades, and he's a major figure in the field of “behavior genetics.” Eric also has a new book out this fall—which I highly recommend—titled Understanding the Nature-Nurture Debate. In a field that has sometimes been accused of rampant optimism, Eric is—as you'll hear—a bit more measured. In this conversation, Eric and I focus on intelligence and its putatively genetic basis. We talk about why Eric doubts that we are anywhere close to an account of the biology of IQ. We discuss what makes intelligence such a formidable construct in psychology and why essentialist understandings of it are so intuitive. We talk about Francis Galton and the long shadow he's cast on the study of human behavior. We discuss the classic era of Twin Studies—an era in which researchers started to derive quantitative estimates of the heritability of complex traits. We talk about how the main takeaway from that era was that genes are quite important indeed, and about how more genetic techniques suggest that takeaway may have been a bit simplistic. Along the way, Eric and I touch on spelling ability, child prodigies, the chemical composition of money, the shared quirks of twins reared apart, the Flynn Effect, the Reverse Flynn Effect, birth order, the genetics of height, the problem of missing heritability, whether we should still be using IQ scores, and the role of behavior genetics in the broader social sciences.  Alright folks, lots in here—let's just get to it. On to my conversation with Dr. Eric Turkheimer. Enjoy!   A transcript of this episode will be available soon.   Notes and links 3:30 – The 1994 book The Bell Curve, by Richard Herrnstein a Charles Murray, dealt largely with the putative social implications of IQ research. It was extremely controversial and widely discussed. For an overview of the book and controversy, see the Wikipedia article here. 6:00 – For discussion of the “all parents are environmentalists…” quip, see here. 12:00 – The notion of “multiple intelligences” was popularized by the psychologist Howard Gardner—see here for an overview. See here for an attempt to test the claims of the “multiple intelligences” framework using some of the methods of traditional IQ research. For work on EQ (or Emotional Intelligence) see here. 19:00 – Dr. Turkheimer has also laid out his spelling test analogy in a Substack post. 22:30 – Dr. Turkheimer's 1998 paper, “Heritability and Biological Explanation.” 24:30 – For an in-passing treatment of the processing efficiency idea, see p. 195 of Daniel Nettle's book Personality. See also Richard Haier's book, The Neuroscience of Intelligence. 26:00 – The original study on the relationship between pupil size and intelligence. A more recent study that fails to replicate those findings. 31:00 – For an argument that child prodigies constitute an argument for “nature,” see here. For a memorable narrative account of one child prodigy, see here. 32:00 – A meta-analysis of the Flynn effect. We have previously discussed the Flynn Effect in an episode with Michael Muthukrishna. 37:00 – James Flynn's book, What is Intelligence? On the reversal of the Flynn Effect, see here. 40:00 – The phrase “nature-nurture” originally comes from Shakespeare and was picked up by Francis Galton. In The Tempest, Prospero describes Caliban as “a born devil on whose nature/ Nurture can never stick.” 41:00 – For a biography of Galton, see here. For an article-length account of Galton's role in the birth of eugenics, see here. 50:00 – For an account of R.A. Fisher's 1918 paper and its continuing influence, see here. 55:00 – See Dr. Turkheimer's paper on the “nonshared environment”—E in the ACE model. 57:00 – A study coming out of the Minnesota Study of Twins reared apart. A New York Times article recounting some of the interesting anecdata in the Minnesota Study. 1:00:00 – See Dr. Turkheimer's 2000 paper on the “three laws of behavior genetics.” Note that this is not, in fact, Dr. Turkheimer's most cited paper (though it is very well cited). 1:03:00 – For another view of the state of behavior genetics in the postgenomic era, see here. 1:11:00 – For Dr. Turkheimer's work on poverty, heritability, and IQ, see here. 1:13:00 – A recent large-scale analysis of birth order effects on personality. 1:16:00 – For Dr. Turkheimer's take on the missing heritability problem, see here and here.    1:19:00 – A recent study on the missing heritability problem in the case of height. 1:30:00 – On the dark side of IQ, see Chapter 9 of Dr. Turkheimer's book. See also Radiolab's series on g. 1:31:00 – See Dr. Turkheimer's Substack, The Gloomy Prospect.   Recommendations The Genetic Lottery, Kathryn Paige Harden Intelligence, Stuart Ritchie Intelligence and How to Get It, Richard Nisbett ‘Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents'' (Ted talk), James Flynn   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, which is made possible by a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation to Indiana University. The show is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here! We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Twitter (@ManyMindsPod) or Bluesky (@manymindspod.bsky.social).

In this episode, Niall is asking: Are Children Getting Dumber? Recent research suggests a concerning trend: IQ scores are dropping among younger generations, reversing the previous pattern of rising intelligence known as the “Flynn Effect.” The study found that people born in 1991 scored about five points lower on IQ tests than those born in 1975, and those born in 1975 scored lower than those born in 1962. This decline is attributed to less traditional teaching methods and the overuse of technology, leading to academic laziness and reduced retention of information.Experts argue that the modern reliance on technology has made children academically lazy, as they no longer need to retain information when they can easily look it up online. Factors contributing to this trend include busy parents, ineffective teaching methods, overuse of technology, and large class sizes. Concerns are also rising about Generation Alpha, described as "feral, illiterate, screen-obsessed iPad kids," who are reportedly struggling with literacy and an excessive dependence on screens.Niall engages with callers to explore whether children today are truly becoming less intelligent.Some callers believe children are not getting dumber. They argue that the issue isn't intelligence but the outdated methods used to measure it. Traditional IQ tests fail to account for the new skills children are developing, particularly in technology and problem-solving. For instance, one caller mentions their child excels in school and is very adept with technology. The problem lies in how intelligence is assessed, not in the children's capabilities.Other callers feel children are getting dumber due to their reliance on technology. They argue that kids rely too much on their devices for answers and don't retain information as previous generations did. Parents and schools need to enforce more traditional learning methods to combat this trend. The drop in intelligence is evident, and the education system has become too lenient, leading to a lack of critical thinking skills in children.Niall wraps up the discussion by considering the various perspectives and the implications for the future of education and child development.

Presenter Marnie Chesterton and the team pit their wits against a multitude of mind-bending puzzles from an old TV gameshow - all in the name of answering a question from Antonia in Cyprus: how do we work out how clever someone is? Is IQ the best measure of cleverness? Why do we put such weight on academic performance? And where does emotional intelligence fit into it all? In the search for answers Marnie and the team are locked in rooms to battle mental, physical, mystery and skill-based challenges, all against the clock. Unpicking their efforts in the studio are a global team of cleverness researchers: Dr Stuart Ritchie from Kings College London, Prof Sophie von Stumm from York University and Dr Alex Burgoyne from Georgia Institute of Technology in the US. They are challenged to face the toughest questions in their field: Why do men and women tend to perform differently in these tests? Is our smartness in our genes? And what about the Flynn Effect – where IQs appear to have risen, decade after decade, around the world. Producer/presenter: Marnie Chesterton Editor: Richard Collings Production co-ordinator: Jonathan Harris (Photo Man doing puzzle. Credit: Getty Images)

On this week's episode, Nathan, Mike, and Mahler the Fake News Dog talk about orcas having a bit of fun, culling cocaine hippos, the hottest year, power outages, the Jurupa Oak, insect extinction, a good day for democracy, Meta's AI rules, the north hangar, robot homicide, Cruise's recall, non-hallucinogenic psychedelics, AI golf, grenades, frozen turkeys, and so on.

Guest Katie Grimes - Editor of California Globe Re: Senate Bill 94, if signed into law, could release death row inmates in California.  Report/Research:  "Reverse Flynn Effect" American IQ scores have fallen sharply.  2 Million Residents Have Left US Big Cities Between 2020-2022. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Moral Philosopher and Intelligence Researcher James Flynn wanted to debunk a racist article by UC Berkely professor Arthur Jensen (who was concluding that blacks scored lower on IQ tests because they were genetically inferior). He ended up discovering that far from scoring lower, they were actually doing steadily better, and to his amazement, so was the entire population, regardless of race or ethnicity. This was later called the Flynn Effect and numerous studies across the world, across populations and over time frames confirmed his conclusionsJoin your SImblified Hosts Naren and Tony as they try to explore the effect and what might the possible causes beA great piece on the phenomenon of intelligent people holding biased and stupid views, which we talk about in the episode ishttps://gurwinder.substack.com/p/why-smart-people-hold-stupid-beliefs  Add one part news, one part bad jokes, one part Wikipedia research, one part cult references from spending too much time on the internet, one part Wodehouse quotes, and one part quality puns, and you get Simblified.A weekly podcast to help you appear smarter, to an audience that knows no less! Your four hosts - Chuck, Naren, Srikeit, and Tony attempt to deconstruct topics with humor (conditions apply). Fans of the show have described it as "fun conversations with relatable folks", "irreverent humor", "the funniest thing to come out of Malad West" and "if I give you a good review will you please let me go".Started in 2016 as a creative outlet, Simblified now has over 200 episodes, including some live ones, and some with guests who are much smarter than the hosts. Welcome to the world of Simblified!You can contact the hosts on:Chuck: twitter.com/chuck_gopal / instagram.com/chuckofalltradesNaren: twitter.com/shenoyn / instagram.com/shenoynvTony: twitter.com/notytony / instagram.com/notytonySrikeit: twitter.com/srikeitSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Garett Jones is an economist at George Mason University and the author of The Cultural Transplant, Hive Mind, and 10% Less Democracy.This episode was fun and interesting throughout!He explains:* Why national IQ matters* How migrants bring their values to their new countries* Why we should have less democracy* How the Chinese are an unstoppable global force for free marketsWatch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Timestamps(00:00:00) - Intro(00:01:08) - Migrants Change Countries with Culture or Votes?(00:09:15) - Impact of Immigrants on Markets & Corruption(00:12:02) - 50% Open Borders?(00:16:54) - Chinese are Unstoppable Capitalists (00:21:39) - Innovation & Immigrants (00:24:53) - Open Borders for Migrants Equivalent to Americans?(00:28:54) - Let's Ignore Side Effects?(00:30:25) - Are Poor Countries Stuck?(00:32:26) - How Can Effective Altruists Increase National IQ(00:39:13) - Clone a million John von Neumann?(00:44:39) - Genetic Selection for IQ(00:47:02) - Democracy, Fed, FDA, & Presidential Power(00:49:42) - EU is a force for good?(00:55:12) - Why is America More Libertarian Than Median Voter?(00:56:19) - Is Ethnic Conflict a Short Run Problem?(00:59:38) - Bond Holder Democracy(01:04:57) - Mormonism(01:08:52) - Garett Jones's Immigration System(01:10:12) - Interviewing SBFTranscriptThis transcript was autogenerated and thus may contain errors.[00:00:41] Dwarkesh Patel: Okay. Today I have the pleasure of speaking with Garrett Jones, who is an economist at George Mason University. . He's most recently the author of the Cultural Trans. How migrants make the economies. They move to a lot like the ones they left, but he's also the author of 10% Less Democracy and Hive Mind. We'll get into all three of those books. Garrett, welcome to the podcast. [00:01:06] Garett Jones: Glad to be here.Thanks for having me.[00:01:08] Migrants Change Countries with Culture or Votes?[00:01:08] Garett Jones: Um, [00:01:09] Dwarkesh Patel: first question is, isn't the cultural transplant still a continuation of your argument against democracy? Because the isn't one of the reasons we care about the values of migrants, the fact that we eliminate democracy. So should review this book as part of your critique against democracy rather than against migration specifically.[00:01:27] Garett Jones: Um, well, I do think that, uh, governments and productivity are shaped by the citizens in a nation in, in almost any event. Um, I think that even as we've seen recently in China, even in a very strong authoritarian dictatorship, which some would call totalitarian, even there, the government has to listen to the masses.So the government can only get so far away from the masses on average, even in, uh, an autocracy. If you had [00:01:57] Dwarkesh Patel: to split apart the contribution though, um, the, the impact of migrants on, let's say the culture versus the impact that migrants have on a country by voting in their political system, um, uh, how, how would you split that apart?Is, is the, is mainly the impact we, the cultural impact we see for migration due to the ability of migrants to vote or because they're just influencing the culture just by being [00:02:19] Garett Jones: there? I'll cheat a little bit because we don't get to run experiments on this, so I just have to kind of guess, uh, make an informed guess.I, I'm gonna call it 50 50. Um, so the way people, uh, the way citizens influence a country through formal democracy is important. Uh, but citizens end up placing some kind of limits on the government anyway. And the people in the country are the, they're the folks who are gonna work in the firms and be able to either establish or not establish.Those complicated networks of exchange that are crucial to high productivity. . ,[00:02:52] Mean vs Elite IQ[00:02:52] Dwarkesh Patel: I wanna linger on hive mind a little bit before we talk about the cultural transplant. Um, if you had to guess, does, do the benefits of National IQ come from having a right tail of elites that is smarter or is it from not having that strong of a left tail of people who are, you know, lower productivity, more like markedly to commit crimes and things like that?In other words? Uh, yeah, go ahead. [00:03:14] Garett Jones: Yeah. Yeah. I, I think, uh, the upper tail is gonna matter more than the lower tail, um, in, in the normal range of variation. Uh, and I think part of that is because, uh, nations, at least moderately prosperous nations have found tools for basically reducing the influence of the least informed voters.And for. Uh, basically being able to keep productivity up even when there are folks who are sort of disrupting the whole process. Um, you know, the, the, the risks of crime from the lower end is basically like a probabilistic risk. It's not like it's, it's not like some, uh, zero to one switch or anything. So we're talking about something probabilistic.And I think that, uh, it's the, the median versus the elite is the, is the contrast that I find more interesting. Um, uh, median voter theorem, you know, normal, the way we often think about democracy says that the median should be matter more for determining productivity and for shaping institutions. Um, and I tend to think that that's more important in democracies for sure.So when we look at countries, if you just look at a scatter plot, just look at the raw data of a scatter plot. If you look at the few countries that are exceptions to the rule, where the mean is the mean, IQ is the best predictor of productivity compared to elite iq. Um, . The exceptions are non democracies and South Africa.So you see a few, uh, places in the Gulf where there are large migrant communities who are exceptionally well educated, exceptionally cognitively talented. Um, and that's associated with high productivity. Those are a couple of Gulf states. It's probably cutter, the UAE might be Bahrain in there, I'm not sure.Um, and then you've got South Africa. Those are the, those are the countries where the average test score, it doesn't have to be iq, it could be just Pisa, Tim's type stuff. Um, those are the exceptions to the rule that the average iq, the mean IQ is the best predictor of national productivity. [00:05:14] Dwarkesh Patel: Hmm. Uh, interesting.Um, does that imply the fact that the, um, at least in certain contexts, the elite IQ matters more than the left tail. Does that imply that we should want a greater deviation of IQ in a country? That you could just push a button and increase that deviation? Would that be good? [00:05:33] Garett Jones: No. No, I don't think so. Uh oh.If you could just increase the deviation, um, holding the mean constant. Yeah. Yeah. I think so. In the normal range of variation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, mm-hmm. , um, is it, and I think that it has more effects. It, no, it's people at the top who are, um, tend to be coming up with, uh, the big breakthroughs, the big scientific breakthroughs, the big intellectual breakthroughs that end up spilling over to the whole world.Basically the, the positive externalities of innovation. This is a very, almost Pollyanna-ish, uh, Paul Roamer new endogenous, new, uh, new growth theory thing, right? Which is the innovations of the elite, a swamp, uh, the negatives of the low skilled among. , [00:06:14] Dwarkesh Patel: can we just apply this line of reasoning to low skilled immigration as well?Then that maybe the average goes down, the average IQ of your country goes down if the, if you just let in, you know, millions of low skilled immigration immigrants, and maybe there's some cultural effects to that too. But, you know, you're also going to the, that the elite IQ will still be preserved and more elites will come in through the borders, along with the low scale migrants.So then, you know, since we're caring about the devi deviation anyways, uh, more immigration might increase the deviation. Uh, and then, you know, the, we just, uh, that's a good [00:06:46] Garett Jones: thing. So notice what you did there is you, you did something that didn't just, uh, increase the variance. You simultaneously increase the variance and lowered the mean Yeah.Yeah. And median, right? And so I think that, uh, hurting the mean and median is actually a big cost, especially in democracies. And so that is very likely to swamp, uh, the benefits of, um, the small, the small probability of getting. Hire elite folks in as part of a low-skilled immigration policy. Mm-hmm. , so pulling down the mean or the median is that that's a, that's that swamps that swamps the benefits of increasing variants there.Yeah. Yes. [00:07:26] Dwarkesh Patel: But if you get rid of their migrant's ability to vote, and I guess you can't do that, but let assume you could do that. Yeah. What exactly is, like, what is the exec mechanism by which the, the, the cultural values or the lower median is impacting the elite's ability to produce these valuable externalities?You know, like there's a standard compared to advantage story that, you know, they'll, they'll do the housework and the cooking for the elites and they can do the more productive [00:07:52] Garett Jones: Yeah. Taking all the institutions as given, which is what a lot of open borders optimists do. They take institutions as given they take cultural norms as given.Um, all that micro stuff works out just fine. I'm totally, I'm totally on board with all that sort of Adam Smith division of labor. Blah, blah, blah. Um, but, institutions are downstream of culture and, uh, cultural norms will be changing partly because of what I call spaghetti theory, right?We meet in the middle when new folks come to a country. There's some kind of convergence, some part where people meet in the middle, um, between the, the values, uh, that were previously existing and the values that have shown up, uh, that migrants have brought with them. So, you know, like I I call it spaghetti theory because, um, when Italians moved to America, that got Americans eating more spaghetti, right?And if you just did a simple assimilation analysis, you'd say, wow, everybody in America eats the same now, like the burgers and spaghetti. So look, the Italians assimilated, but migrants assimilate us. Um, uh, native Americans certainly changed in response to the movement of Europeans. Um, English Americans certainly changed in response to the migration of German and Irish Americans.So this meeting in the middle is something that happens all the time, and not just through Democratic channels, just through the sort of soft contact of cultural norms that sociologists and social psychologists would understand. [00:09:15] Impact of Immigrants on Markets & Corruption[00:09:15] Garett Jones: Um, no, I'm sure you saw the book that was released, I think in 2020 titled, uh, retro Refuse, uh, where they showed, uh, slight positive relationship between, uh, immigration and, you know, pro-market, uh, laws.[00:09:27] Dwarkesh Patel: And I guess the idea behind that is there's selection effects in terms of who would come to a country like America in [00:09:32] Garett Jones: the first place. Well, they never ran the statistical analysis that would be most useful. I think they said that. Uh, so this is Powell and Na Roth Day. Yeah. They ran a statistical analysis that said, and they said, in all of the statistical analysis we've ever run, we've never found negative relationship between low-skilled migration, any measure of it, and changes in economic freedom.And, um, I actually borrowed another one of Powell's data sets, and I thought, well, how would I check this theory out? The idea that changes in migration have an effect on economic freedom? And I just used the normal economist tool. I thought about how do economists check to see if changes in money, changes in the money supply, change the price level.That's what we call the quantity theory, right? Mm-hmm. , the way you do that is on the x-axis. You, you show the change in the money supply On the y axis, you show the change in prices, right? This Milton Friedman's idea. Money's always everywhere. Yeah. Inflation's always neverwhere Montessori phenomenon. So that's what I did.Uh, I did this with a, with a, um, a student. Uh, we co-authored a paper doing this. And the very first statistical analysis we ran, we looked at migrants who came from countries that were substantially more, uh, corrupt than the country's average. And we looked at the, the different, the relationship between cha, an increase in migrants from corrupt countries, and subsequent changes in economic freedom.Every single statistical analysis we found had a negative relationship. , we ran the simplest estimate you could run. Right? Change on change. Change in one thing, predicts change in another. They somehow never got around to running that very simple statistical analysis. CH one change predicts another change.Hmm. We found negative relationships every time. Sometimes statistically significant, sometimes not always negative. Somehow they never found that. I just don't know how . But [00:11:21] Dwarkesh Patel: what about the anecdotal evidence that in the US for example, the, in the periods of the greatest expansion of the welfare state or of governed power during the New Deal or great society, the levels of foreign-born people were at like historical lows.Uh, is that just a coincidence or what, what do you think of? I'm [00:11:38] Garett Jones: not really interested in, uh, migration per se. Right. My story is never that, like migration per se, does this bad thing. Migrants are bad. That's never my story, right? Mm-hmm. , as you know, right? Yeah. Yeah. So my story is that migrants bring, uh, cultural values from their old country to their new country.And sometimes those cultural norms are better than what you've got, and sometimes they're worse than what you've got. And sometimes it's just up for debate. [00:12:02] 50% Open Borders?[00:12:02] Dwarkesh Patel: So if you had to guess what percentage of the world has cultural values that are equivalent to or better than the average of Americas? [00:12:11] Garett Jones: Uh oh.Equivalent to or better then? Yeah. Uh, I mean, just off the top of my head, maybe 20%. I dunno, 30%. I'll just throw something out there like that. Yeah. So I mean, like for country averages, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, [00:12:25] Dwarkesh Patel: currently we probably don't have, uh, it would probably be hard for like 20% of the rest of the world to get into the us.Um, w w would you support some, uh, PO policy that would make it easy for people from those countries specifically to get to the us? Just, uh, have radical immigration liberalization from those places? [00:12:44] Garett Jones: Um, that's really not my comparative advantage to have opinions about that, but like, substantial increases of people who pass multiple tests, like, let's take the low hanging fruit and then move down from there.Right? So people from, uh, countries, uh, that ha um, on average have say higher savings rates, um, higher, uh, education levels. Higher s what I call s a t, deep root scores and, um, countries that are, say half a standard deviation above the US level on all three, [00:13:18] Dwarkesh Patel: right? Why do they have to be higher? Why not just equivalent, like, uh, you get all the gains from trade and plus it can't be, you know, equivalent.So it's, there's no [00:13:27] Garett Jones: trade. Part of the reason is because the entire world depends on US innovation. So we should make America as good as possible, not just slightly better than it is. So very few firms would find that their optimal hiring policy would be hire anyone who's better than your current stock of employees.Would you agree with that? [00:13:42] Dwarkesh Patel: Yeah. But you, uh, have to pay them a salary. If you're just, uh, if it's just somebody just comes to the us, you don't have to like pay them a salary, right? So if somebody is better, that, if somebody's producing more value for a firm than the salary would pay them, I think [00:13:52] Garett Jones: like is is a firm's job to maximize its profits or to just make a little bit more than it's making right?Maximize profits. But yeah, there you go. So you pack, you find the best people you can, you know, sports teams that are hiring don't just say, we wanna hire people who are better than what we got. They say, let's get the best people we can get. Why not get the best? That was Jim Jimmy Carter's, that was Jimmy Carter's, uh, biography.Why not the best. But you, [00:14:16] Dwarkesh Patel: you can do that along with getting people who are, you know, unexpected, uh, terms as good as the existing Americans. Why gives [00:14:24] Garett Jones: y'all like, I don't care what you, why you want this? This seems like crazy, right? What are you talking about? But [00:14:29] Dwarkesh Patel: I, I'm not sure why not the best what the trade out there, huh?No, I'm not saying you don't get the best, but I, I'm saying once you've gotten the best, what is the harm in getting the people who have equivalent s a t scores and, and the rest of the things you [00:14:41] Garett Jones: mentioned. I think part of the reason would be you'd wanna find out, I mean, if you really wanna do something super hardcore, you'd have to find out what's best for the planet as a whole.What's the trade off between, um, Having the very best, uh, most innovative, talented, frugal people in America doing innovating that has benefits for the whole world, versus having an America that's like 40% better, but we're the median's a little bit, the median of skills a little bit lower. Right. Uh, because the median's shaping the productivity of the whole team.Right? Yeah. This is what you, you know what it means when you believe in externalities, right? [00:15:14] Dwarkesh Patel: But if you have somebody who's equivalent by definition, they're not moving the median down. [00:15:19] Garett Jones: That's, you're, you're totally right about that. Yeah. But like, why wouldn't I want the best thing possible? Right. Okay.I'm still trying to figure out why you wouldn't want the best thing possible. You're trying to go, why? I don't want the best thing possible. I'm like, why not? [00:15:31] Dwarkesh Patel: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just, I'm a little bit confused about why that that precludes you from also getting the second best thing possible.At the same time you're, because you're not limited to just the best. [00:15:42] Garett Jones: Right. Well, uh, because the second best is going to have a negative externality on the first best. Everything's externalities. This is my worldview, right? Everything's externalities. You bring in the second best, you're like, you're not, that person's gonna make things on average a little worse for the first best person.[00:16:00] Dwarkesh Patel: But it seems like you were explaining earlier that the negative externalities are coming from people from countries with, uh, low s a t scores. And by the way, s a t you can explain what that means just for the audience who's not familiar with how you're using that term. [00:16:11] Garett Jones: Oh yeah. So, um, there, there are three prominent, uh, measures in what's known as the deep roots literature and, uh, that are widely used.Uh, two are s n a, that state history and agricultural history. That's how many thousands of years your ancestors have had experience living under organized states or living unsettled agriculture. And then the T-score is the tech history score. I used the measure from 1500. It's basically what fraction of the world's technology were your ancestors using in 1500 before, uh, Columbus and his expansive conquest ended up upending the entire world.Uh, the world map. So s a and T are all predictors of modern prosperity, but especially when you adjust for migration. [00:16:54] Chinese are Unstoppable Capitalists [00:16:54] Garett Jones: Gotcha. [00:16:55] Dwarkesh Patel: We can come back to this later, but one of the interesting things I think from the book was you have this chapter on China and the Chinese people as a sort of unstoppable force for free market capitalism.Mm-hmm. . Um, and it's interesting, as you mentioned in the book, that China is a poorest majority Chinese country. Um, what do you think explains why China is a poorest, uh, majority Chinese country? Maybe are there like non-linear dynamics here where, uh, if you go from 90 40 to 90% Chinese, there's positive effects, but if you go from 90 to 95% Chinese, there's too much?[00:17:26] Garett Jones: No, I think it's just, I think just communism is dumb and it has terrible, like sometimes decades long effects on institutional quality. I don't really quite understand. So I'd say North Korea, if we had good data on North Korea, North Korea would be even a bigger sort of deep roots outlier than China is.Right? It's like, don't, don't have a communist dictatorship in your country. Seems to be pretty, a robust lesson for a national prosperity. China's still stuck with a sort of crummy version of that mistakes still. North Korea, of course, is stuck with an even worse version. So I think that's, I, my hunch is that that's, you know, the overwhelming issue there.Um, it's, it's something that, it's, it's sort of a China's stuck in an ins. Currently China's stuck in an institutional cul-de-sac and they just don't quite know how to get out of it. And it's, uh, bad for a lot of, for the people who live there. On average, if the other side had won the Chinese Civil War, things would probably be a lot, lot better off in China today.Yeah. [00:18:22] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, but what, what is that suggestion about the deep roots literature? If the three biggest countries in the world, China, India, and America, Um, it, it, it under predicts their performance, or sorry, in the case of China and India, it, uh, it, it over predicts their performance. And in the case of America, it under predicts maybe the, how, how reliable is this if like the three biggest countries in the world are not, uh, adequately accounted for?[00:18:45] Garett Jones: Uh, well, you know, communism's a really big mistake. I, I think that's totally accounted for right there. Um, I think India's underperformance isn't that huge. Um, the US is a miracle along many ways. Um, it's, we should draw our lessons from the typical country, and I think, uh, population weighted estimates, I don't think that basically one third of the knowledge about the wealth of nations comes from the current GDP per capita of China, India, and the us, right?I think much less than one third of the story of the wealth of nations comes from those three. And, uh, again, in, in all three cases though, if you look at the economic trajectories of all three of those people, oh, all three of those countries, uh, they're all, uh, China and India growing faster than you'd expect.And also, I wanna point out. This is the most important point actually. Um, when we look at, uh, when Kaplan made this claim, right? Brian Kaplan has made this claim, right? Yeah. That the SATs, that the ancestry scores, the deep root scores don't predict, um, the prosperity of, uh, the, the low performance of Indian China.He only checked the S and the A and the s a T scores. Okay. Which letter did he not predict? Which letter did he never test out? He never tested the T. What do you think happens when he tests the T? Does it predict, uh, China [00:20:02] Dwarkesh Patel: and India and America, [00:20:03] Garett Jones: Hey, start, they t goes back to being statistically significant again, UhhuhSo with T, which we've always known is the best of the deep root scores, somehow Kaplan never managed to measure that one. Just as Powell Naste never managed to run the simplest test change in, uh, migrant corruption versus change in economic institutions somehow, like the simplest test just never get run.[00:20:26] Dwarkesh Patel: Okay. And then what is the impact if you include t. If you, [00:20:29] Garett Jones: if you, if you look at tea, then, um, then, uh, contrary to what Kaplan says, uh, the deep roots, that deep roots measure is sig statistically significant. [00:20:38] Dwarkesh Patel: Okay. Um, yeah, I, [00:20:40] Garett Jones: interesting. The puzzle goes away, [00:20:42] Dwarkesh Patel: interesting. [00:20:43] Garett Jones: Um, yeah. So somehow these guys just never seem to run like the simple things, the transparent things.I don't know [00:20:49] Dwarkesh Patel: why the, um, the weird, huh? The, the, the one you mentioned from, what was it Nassa, the name of the guy who wrote the Richard at re refuse [00:20:57] Garett Jones: the Yeah, yeah. Powell Naste. [00:20:59] Dwarkesh Patel: Yeah. Yeah. That you said you did the regression on institutional corruption, uh, and from the countries to come from. Is that, was that right?I, [00:21:06] Garett Jones: and so yeah. The, the measure they use, I just took, I took Powell's dataset from another study, and it was the percent. Of it was basically, um, the percentage of your nation's population, the percentage increase in your nation's population from relatively poor or corrupt countries. They had multiple measures, UhhuhSo, and what is on the y axis there? Y axis is change in economic freedom. That's my preferred one. Gotcha. There's also a change in corruption one, which is a noisier indicator. Um, you get much clearer results with change in economic freedom, so. Gotcha, [00:21:38] Dwarkesh Patel: gotcha. [00:21:39] Innovation & Immigrants [00:21:39] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, now does the ideas getting harder to find stuff and great stagnation, does that imply we should be less worried about impinging on the innovation engine in these, uh, countries that people might wanna migrate to?Because worse comes to worst. It's not like there are a whole bunch of great new theories that were gonna come out anyways. [00:21:58] Garett Jones: Uh, no. I think that, I think that it's always good to have great things, um, and new ideas. Yes, new ideas are getting harder to find, but, um, that, but that the awesome ideas that we're still getting are still worth so much.Right. If we're still increasing lifespan a month, a year, uh, for every year of research we're doing, like, that just seems great. Right? A decade that adds a year to life, so, mm-hmm. , just to use a rough, uh, ballpark measure there. But, so we [00:22:25] Dwarkesh Patel: have a lot of these countries where a lot of innovation is happening.So let's say we kept, uh, one or two of them as, you know, immigrate, uh, havens from any potential, uh, downsides, from radical changes. You know, we already had this in the case of Japan or South Korea, there's not that much of migration there. Mm-hmm. . What is, what is a harm in then using the other ones to decrease global poverty by immigration or something like [00:22:48] Garett Jones: that?Well, um, it's obviously better to create a couple of innovation powerhouses, um, rather than none. Right? So obviously that's, that's nice. But instead, I would prefer to have, um, open borders for Iceland if the Open borders advocates are right and open borders. , we'll have no noticeable effect on institutional quality, then it's great to move, , to have our open borders experiment run in a country that's lightly populated, has a lot of open land, and, um, has good institutional quality.And Iceland fits the bill perfectly for that. So we could preserve the institutional innovation skill, uh, the institutional quality of the, the what I call the I seven. Uh, that's, you know, China, Japan, South Korea, the us, Germany, uk, France, and choose any country out of the a hundred, out of the couple of dozen countries that have good institutional quality.Just pick one of the others that aren't one of those seven, pick one that's not an innovation powerhouse and turn that into your open borders, uh, country. Um, you could, uh, if you wanted to get basically Singapore levels of population density in Iceland, that'd be about 300 million people, I think. I think I, that's about what the numbers end up looking like.Something like that. But [00:24:00] Dwarkesh Patel: the, so you can put entire, but, but the value of open borders comes from the fact that you're coming to a country with high conglomerations of talent and capital and other things, which is, uh, not true of Iceland. Right. So isn't the entire [00:24:13] Garett Jones: No, no. I thought the whole point of open borders, that there's institutional quality and there's some exogenous institutions that make that place more productive than other places.Mm-hmm. . And so by move, I, I, that's my version of what I've been exposed to as open borders, the, is that institutions exogenously exist. There's some places have, uh, moderately laissez, fairer institutions in their country and moving a lot more people there will not reduce the productivity of the people who are currently there, and they'll become much more productive.And so, like the institu, you know, the institutional quality's crucial. So, I mean, if you're a real geography guy, you'd be excited about the fact that Iceland is so far, so close to the north. because latitude is a predictor of prosperity. [00:24:53] Open Borders for Migrants Equivalent to Americans?[00:24:53] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, I want to go back to the thing about, well, should we have open border for that 20% of the Popula global world's population that comes from Yeah.Um, equivalent, s a t and other sort of cultural traits as America. Mm-hmm. , because I feel like this is important enough to dwell on it. You know, it seems similar to saying that once picked up a hundred dollars bill on the floor, you wouldn't pick up a $20 bill on the floor cuz you only won the best bill.Uh, the $20 bills is right there. Why not pick it up? Um, [00:25:18] Garett Jones: so what if you have, yeah. What if the $20 bill makes your, turns, your, uh, a hundred dollars bill into like an $80 bill and turns all of your 80 a hundred dollars bills and $80 bills. [00:25:27] Dwarkesh Patel: But is it, aren't your controlling for that by saying that they have equivalent scores along all those cultural tests that you're.[00:25:34] Garett Jones: No, because, um, the median, so, so take the simple version of my story, which is the median of the population ends up shaping the productivity of everybody in the country. Right? Or the mean, right? The mean skill level ends up shaping the productivity of the entire population. Right? So that means we end up, I mean, I, I try not to math this up.I don't wanna math this up for the, you know, in a popular book, but it means we face a trade off between being small, a small country with super awesome, uh, positive externalities for all the workers by just selecting the best people. And every time we lower the average skill level in the country, we're lowering the average productivity of everyone else we're creating.We didn't, [00:26:11] Dwarkesh Patel: what? We didn't lower it. So you have to have skills that are lower compared to, than the median of a median American. You, [00:26:18] Garett Jones: so this is, this is a c Paraba story, right? Like if you could suppose the US is at 80 now on a zero to a hundred scale, right? Just, just saying it's 80. Yeah. Yeah. And you have a choice between being hundred and being 99.if you're at 99, the 99 is making, all compared to the world of average of a hundred, the world of an average 99 is making, reducing the productivity of all those hundreds. Okay. So if we chose 90, we're reducing the productivity of all those hundreds. [00:26:48] Dwarkesh Patel: Yes. Okay. So let's say we admit all the smartest people in the world, and that gets us from 80 to 85.That's a new, that's a new media in America. Yeah. At that point. And, but this is because we've admitted a whole bunch of like 90 nines that have just increased our average. Yeah, yeah. Um, at that point, open borders for everybody who's ever been 85, [00:27:08] Garett Jones: like I, this is, this is, ends up being a math problem. It's a little hard to solve on a podcast, right?Because it's the, it's the question of do I want a smaller country with super high average productivity? Or a bigger country with lower average productivity. And by average productivity, I don't just mean, uh, uh, a compositional effect. I mean negative external, I mean relatively fewer positive externalities.So I'll use the term relatively fewer positive externalities rather than negative externalities, right? So like, I don't exactly know where this is. Trade off's gonna pan out, but, um, there is a case for a sort of Manhattan when people talk about a Manhattan project, right? They're talking about putting all like a small number of the smartest people in a room.And part of the reason you don't want like the 20th, smartest person in the room. Cause, cuz that person's gonna ruin the ruin stuff for our, for the other smart people. I, it's amazing how your worldview changes when you see everybody as an external. I, [00:28:02] Dwarkesh Patel: I'm kind of confused about this because just having, at some point you're gonna run outta the smartest people, the remainder of the smartest people in the world.If you've admitted all the brilliant people. Yeah. And given how big the US population is to begin with, you're not gonna change the median that much by doing that. Right. So it's, it's almost a global end to just having more births from the average American. Like if, if the average American just had more kids, the population would still grow.Mm-hmm. and the relative effect of the brightest people might dilute a little bit. Um, but I I, [00:28:33] Garett Jones: and that maybe that's a huge tragedy. We don't know without a bunch of extra math and a bunch of weird assumptions. We don't know. So like I'm, there's a point at which I have to say like, I don't know. Right. Okay.Yeah. Uh, yeah. Is diluting the power of the smartest person in America, like keeping us from having wondrous miracles all around us all the time? I mean, probably not, but. I don't know, [00:28:53] Dwarkesh Patel: but, [00:28:54] Let's Ignore Side Effects?[00:28:54] Dwarkesh Patel: but I guess the sort of the meta question you can ask about this entire debate is, listen, there's so much literature here and it's hard to tell what exactly will happen.You know, it's possible that culture will become worse. It's possible, it'll become better. It's possible to stay the same, given the fact that there's this ambiguity. Why not just do the thing that on the first order of effect seems good? And, you know, just like moving somebody who's like in a poor country to a rich country, first order effect seems good.I don't know how the third and fourth order effect shapes out. Let's just, you know, let's just do the simple obvious thing. [00:29:22] Garett Jones: I, I thought that the, one of the great ideas of economics is that we have to worry about secondary and tertiary consequences. Right? [00:29:28] Dwarkesh Patel: But if, if we, if we can't even figure out what they are exactly, why not just do the thing that at the first order seems, uh, good.[00:29:35] Garett Jones: Um, because if you have a compelling reason to think that the, uh, direction of strength of the second and third and fourth order things are negative and the variances are really wide, then you're just adding a lot more uncertainty to your outcomes. So, And adding uncertainty or outcomes that has sizable negative tail, especially for the whole planet.Isn't that great? Go ahead and run your experiments in Iceland. Let's run that for 50 years and see what happens. It's weird how everybody's obsessed with it running the experiment in America, right? Why not running in Iceland first? Because America's [00:30:05] Dwarkesh Patel: got a great, a lot of great institutions right there.We can check and see what [00:30:08] Garett Jones: Iceland Iceland's a great place too. Um, and I use Iceland as a metaphor, right? Like it's, people are obsessed with running it in America. Like there's some kind of need. I don't know why. So let's try in France. Um, let's try, let's try Northern Ireland. , [00:30:24] Dwarkesh Patel: uh, are,[00:30:25] Are Poor Countries Stuck?[00:30:25] Dwarkesh Patel: are places with low s a t scores and again, s a t we're not talking about the, uh, in case you're skipping to the timestamp, we're not talking about the college test.Um, the deep roots. [00:30:35] Garett Jones: S a t Exactly. Uh, state history, agricultural history, tech history. [00:30:38] Dwarkesh Patel: Right. Exactly. Are, are those places with, uh, low scores on, um, on that test? Are they stuck there forever? Or, uh, is there something that can be done if you are a country that has had a short or not significant history of, um, technology or agriculture?[00:30:56] Garett Jones: Well, the, I start off the book with this, which I really think that, uh, one thing they could do is, uh, create a welcoming environment for large numbers of Chinese migrants to move there persistently. I don't think that's of course the only thing that could ever work, but I think it's something that's within the range of policy for at least some poor countries.I don't know which ones, but, uh, some poor countries could follow the. Approach that many countries in Southeast Asia followed, which has created an environment that's welcoming, welcoming enough to Chinese migrants. Um, it's the one country in the world with large numbers of high s a t score, uh, with alar, with a high s a T score culture, large population.It's enough of an economic failure, so for at least a little longer that, uh, folks can, might be able to be interested in moving to a poor country with lower s a t scores. In a better world, you can do this with North Korea too, but the population of North Korea isn't big enough to make a big dent in the world, right?Mm-hmm. , uh, China's population is big enough. Yeah. [00:31:54] Dwarkesh Patel: Another thing you're worried have to worry about in those cases though though, is the risk that if you do become successful in that country, there's just gonna be a huge backlash and your resources will. AppD, like what happened famously. [00:32:05] Garett Jones: So in, in Indonesia, right?Yeah. There have been many Oh, yeah, yeah. Times across Southeast Asia where anti-Chinese pogroms have been, um, uh, unfortunately a fact of life. So, yeah. Yeah. [00:32:15] Dwarkesh Patel: Or Indians in Uganda under, uh, IDI. I, I mean, yeah. Yep. Um, yeah. Yeah. Uh, okay. So actually I, I'm curious how you would think about this given the impact of National iq.[00:32:26] How Can Effective Altruists Increase National IQ[00:32:26] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, if you're an effective altruist, what, uh, are you just, uh, handing out iodine tablets, uh, across, across the world? What, what are you doing to increase national [00:32:34] Garett Jones: iq? Yeah. This is places, this is something that I, yes. Uh, finding ways I, this is what I call a, a Flynn cycle. Like I wish, I'm hoping for a world where there are enough public health interventions and probably K through six education interventions.to boost test scores in the world's poorest countries. And I think that ha ends up having, um, uh, a virtuous cycle to it, right? As people get more productive, then they can afford more public health, which makes them more productive, which means they can afford more public health. I think brain health is an important and neglected part of child development.Um, fortunately we've done a fair amount to reduce the amount of environmental lead, um, in a lot of poor countries. That's probably having a good effect right now as we speak in a lot of the world's poorest countries. You're right. Um, iodine, basic childhood nutrition, uh, reliable healthcare, uh, to, you know, prevent the worst kinds of just mild childhood infections that are probably, uh, creating what the, what they, what economists sometimes call health.Things that end up just hurting you in a way that causes, uh, an ill-defined long-term cost. A lot of that's gonna have to show up in the, in the brain. Um, I'm a big fan of the, of the view that part of the Flynn Effect is, uh, basically nutrition and health. Mm-hmm. , uh, Flynn wasn't a huge believer in that, but I think that's, um, certainly important in the poorest countries.Yeah. [00:33:57] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, I, I think Brian showed an open voters that if you look at , the, um, IQ of adoptees from poor countries, um, who go, uh, Sweden is the only country that collects data, but if you get adopted by a parent in, um, uh, Sweden, uh, the, the half the gap between the averages of two countries, half gap, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.Goes away. So, I mean, is one of the ways we can increase global IQ just by moving kids to, uh, countries with good health outcomes that, uh, will nourish their [00:34:27] Garett Jones: intelligence. Well, that's a classic short run versus long run effect, right? So, uh, libertarians and open borders advocates tend to be focused on the short run, static effects.So, um, and so you're right, moving kids from poor countries to richer countries is probably gonna raise their test scores quite a lot. And, uh, then the question is, in over the longer run, are those, uh, lower skilled folks, the folks with lower test scores, uh, going to degrade the institutional quality? of the places they move to, right?So if you close half the gap between the poor country and the rich country, half the gap is still there. Right? And if I'm right, , that IQ has big externalities then, , moving people from a, uh, lower scoring country to a richer scoring country and closing half the IQ gap still means on net you're creating a negative externality in the country the kids are moving to.[00:35:17] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, yeah, yeah. Uh, we can come back to that, but yeah. Yeah. So [00:35:23] Garett Jones: it, it's, it's basically, you just look at the question, is this lowering the mean test scores in your country? And if it's lowering the mean test scores in the long run, it's on average gonna lower institutional quality productivity savings rates, those.Um, it's hard to avoid that. It's hard to avoid that outcome. So, uh, I don't [00:35:38] Dwarkesh Patel: remember the exact figures, but didn't Brian address this in the book, um, in the Open Borders book as well, that you can, even if there's a, the, a national iq, uh, lowers on average, if you're just, uh, if you're still raising the global iq, that, that it's still nets out positive, or am I [00:35:54] Garett Jones: remembering that wrong?Well, that, notice what he's, he, what he does is he attributes, uh, he says there's some productivity that's just in the land, that's just geographic factors. Yeah. So basically being close for, and so that, so basically moving people away from the equator boost productivity substantially. And again, that's, uh, a static result.Um, the reason I, uh, I mentioned that ignores all the I seven stuff that I'm talking about where anything that lowers. Um, level of innovation in the world's most innovative countries has negative costs for the entire planet in the long run, but that's something you'd only see over the course of 20, 30, 50 years.And libertarians and open border advocates are very rarely interested in that kind of [00:36:33] Dwarkesh Patel: timeframe. Is there any evidence about, uh, the impact of migration on innovation specifically? So not on the average institutional quality or on, you know, uh, the, the corruption or whatever, but like, just directly the amount of innovation that happens or maybe the Noble Prizes won or things [00:36:48] Garett Jones: like that?Um, no. I mean, I would presume, I think a lot of us would presume that, uh, the European invasion of North America ended up having, uh, positive effects for global innovation. It's not an invasion that I'm in favor of, but if you wanna talk crudely about Yeah, yeah. Whether migrations had an effect on innovation, uh, you'd probably have to include that as any kind of analysis.[00:37:07] Dwarkesh Patel: Yep. Yep. , do you think that the people who are currently Americans, but , their ancestry, traces back to countries with low s a t scores? I i, is it possible that US GDP per capita would be higher, without that contribution?Or how do you think about that? [00:37:21] Garett Jones: I mean, that it follows from thinking through the fact that we are all externalities positive or negative, right? I don't know what in, in any particular, any one particular country could turn out to be some exciting exception to the rules, some interesting anomaly. Um, but on average, we should presume that the average skill level of voters, the average, uh, traits that we're bringing from, uh, the nations, that the nations of our, of our ancestors are as having an effect on our current productivity for gut ori.So just following through the reasoning, I'd have to say on average, that's most likely. Uh, but it, there could always be exceptions to the rule. [00:37:56] Dwarkesh Patel: I guess we see large disparities in income between different ethnic groups across the world, not just in the United States. Yeah. Doesn't that suggest that some of the gains can be privatized from whatever the cultural or other traits there are? Cuz if these, if over decades and centuries these sorts of, uh, these sorts of gaps continue, [00:38:18] Garett Jones: I don't see why that would follow.Right. Um, [00:38:21] Dwarkesh Patel: uh, if everything is being, if all the externalities are just being averaged out over time, what did you expect that these GA gaps would [00:38:29] Garett Jones: narrow? Well, I mean, I'm being a little rhetorical when I'm saying everything's literally an externality, right. I don't literally believe that's true. Um, for instance, people with higher education levels do actually earn more than people with lower education levels.So that's literally not an externality. Right. So some of these other cultural traits that people are bringing with them from their, um, ancestors, nations of origin, um, could be one or one likely one source of these income differences. I mean, if you think about differences in frugality, uh, differences in personal responsibility, which show up in the surveys, uh, that are persistent across generations, those are likely to have an effect on long run productivity for you, yourself and your family.So, mm-hmm. , let alone the hive mind stuff, where you find that there's a positive relationship between test scores and, and product. [00:39:13] Clone a million John von Neumann?[00:39:13] Garett Jones: There was a [00:39:14] Dwarkesh Patel: blogger who took a look at your 2004 paper about the, um, impact of National IQ on, um, on G uh, G D P. Um, and they calculated, so they were just speculating. Let's say you cloned a million John Mond Nomans, and as assume that John Mond Noman had an IQ of 180, then you could, uh, let me just pull up the exact numbers.You could, um, you could raise the average IQ of the United States by 0.21 points, um, and if it's true that one IQ point contributes 6% to, uh, G increasing G, then this proposal would increase U US GDP by, uh, 1.2, uh, six two 6%. Do you buy these kinds of extrapolations or 1.26%? Yeah. Yeah, because you're only cloning a million, [00:39:58] Garett Jones: Jon.Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. So this is about 1 million Jon. Yeah. Yeah, that sounds. I mean, that's the kind of thing where I wouldn't expect it to happen overnight. Right. I tend to think of that, uh, the IQ externalities as being two, three generations. I, I lump it in with what economists call organizational capital.That sounds about right. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I, I can't remember where I saw this. I think I, I stumbled across it myself at some point too, so. [00:40:19] Dwarkesh Patel: Yeah. Yeah. Uh, by the way, his name is Avaro Dam Bernard, if you wanna [00:40:22] Garett Jones: find it. Oh, okay. Yes, yes. Okay. Yeah, it's, I mean, in, in, it's in that ballpark, right? It's just this idea that, and, and more importantly, um, a million John Bon Nomans would be a gift to the entire planet, right?Yep. Yep, yep. So, yeah, if you had a, if you had a choice of which country to have the John Vno, the million John Von Nomans, uh, it's probably gonna be one of the I seven maybe there's, maybe there's a, maybe Switzerland would be a good alternative. [00:40:46] Dwarkesh Patel: What is the optimal allocation of intelligence across the country?Because one answer, and I guess this is the default answer in our society, is you just send them where they can get paid the most, because that's a good enough proxy for how much they're contributing. Yeah. And so you have these high glomeration of talent and intelligence in places like Silicon Valley or New York.Um, and, you know, because their contributions there can scale to the rest of the world. This is actually where they're producing the most value. Another is, you know, you actually, you should disperse them throughout the country so that they're helping out communities. They're, you know, teachers in their local community.Um, I think there was, uh, A result. There was an interesting anecdotal evidence that during the Great Depression, the crime in New York went down a ton, and that was because the cops in New York were able to hire the, you know, they had like a hundred applications for every cop they hired. And so they were able to hire the best and the brightest, and there were just a whole bunch of new police tactics and every that were pioneered at the time anyways.So, is the market allocation of intelligence correct? Or do you think there should be more distribution of intelligence across the country? How do you think about that? [00:41:50] Garett Jones: Yeah, I mean, the mar the, the market signals aren't terrible. Uh, but, uh, this is my, my Interpol Roamer kicks in and says, uh, innovation is all about externalities.And there's market failures everywhere when it comes to, in the fields of innovation. Mm-hmm. . And so, you know, I, I personally, I mean, I, I like the idea of finding ways to allocate them to, to stem style, stem style technical fields, and. , we do a fair amount of that, and maybe we do the, maybe the US does a pretty good job of that.I don't have any huge complaints at that, at the, at the crudes 50,000 foot level, um, for the, you know, the fact that people know that there's, uh, status games they can play within academia that are perhaps more satisfying or at least as satisfying as the sort of corporate hierarchy stuff. So, yeah. Yeah. I I You don't want 'em all just, I wouldn't encourage them to solely follow market signals.Right. I'd, I'd encourage them to be more HandsOn and, uh, play a variety of status games because the academic, um, and intellectual status game is worth a lot, both personally and than it leads to positive spillovers for. [00:42:58] Dwarkesh Patel: But how about the geographic distribution? Do you think that it's fine that there's people leave, uh, smart people leave Kentucky and go to San Francisco or, yeah, [00:43:08] Garett Jones: I'm a big glomeration guy.Yeah. I'm, I'm, yeah, I'm a big glomeration guy. Yeah. I mean, the internet makes it easier, but then like, still being close to people's, being in the room's important. Um, there, there's, there's something, uh, both HandsOn and Gerard in here about, like, we need to find role models to imitate, and that's probably important for productivity.[00:43:30] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, are there increasing or decreasing returns to National iq?No, [00:43:38] Garett Jones: I think, um, you know, my findings were that it was all basically log linear. And so log linear looks crudely, like increasing returns. . So yeah, it looks exponential, right? So yeah, there's increasing returns to National iq. Yeah. Are are you? But, but this is, this is a commonplace finding in a sense because so many, uh, like human, all the human capital relationships I'm familiar with end up having something like a log linear form, which is exponential.So why is that? Um, yeah, there's something multiplicative that that's how, what I have, that's all I have to say is like it's something. Somehow this all taps into Adam Smith's pin factory, and we have multiplicative not additive effects when we are increasing brain power.Um, I have, I suspect it does have something to do with, uh, a, a better organization of the division of labor between people, which ends up happening something close to e to, uh, exponential effects on productivity. [00:44:39] Genetic Selection for IQ[00:44:39] Garett Jones: A are, uh, are you a fan of genetic selection for intelligence, uh, as a means of increasing national iq or do you think that's too much playing at the margins if it's voluntary?I mean, people should be able to do what they want and, um, after a couple day decades of experimentation, I think people would end up finding a path to, uh, government subsidies or tax credits or something like that. I think people voluntarily deciding what kind of kids they want to have. is a, a, a good thing.And so by genetic selection, I assume you're meaning at the most elementary level people testing their embryos the way they do now, right? Yeah. So I mean, we, we already do a lot of genetic selection for intelligence. Um, anybody, you know, who's, uh, in their mid thirties or beyond who's had amniocentesis, they've been doing a form of genetic selection for intelligence.So it's a widespread practice already in our culture. Um, and, uh, welcoming that in a voluntary way is probably going to have good effects for our future. What [00:45:40] Dwarkesh Patel: do you make of the fact that G B T three, or I think it was Chad g p t, had, uh, measured IQ of 85? Yeah, [00:45:47] Garett Jones: I've seen a few different measures of this, right?You might have seen multiple measures. Um, yeah, I think it's, I think it's a sign that basically, and, and when you see people using non IQ tests to sort of assess the outputs of G P T on, um, long essays, it does does seem to fit into that sort of, not quite a hundred, but not, not off by a lot. Yeah. I mean, I think it's, I think it's a sign that a lot of, uh, uh, mundane, even fairly complex, moderately complex human interactions can be simulated by a large, uh, language learning model.Mm-hmm. . And I think that's, that's, uh, gonna be rough news for a lot of, uh, people whose life was in the realm of words and dispensing simple advice and solving simple problems. That's pretty bad news for their careers. I'm, I'm disappointed hearing that, so [00:46:36] Dwarkesh Patel: Yeah. Yeah. [00:46:37] Garett Jones: Um, at least for the transition. I dunno what the, I dunno what's gonna happen after the transition, but [00:46:41] Dwarkesh Patel: Yeah.I'm hoping that's not true of programmers or economists. I like you. I mean, [00:46:46] Garett Jones: it might be right. I mean, it's, if that's the way it is, I mean, I, the, I mean, the car put a lot of, uh, people who took care of horses right out of outta work too, so. [00:46:55] Dwarkesh Patel: Yep. Um, even, okay, so let's talk about democracy that I thought this was also one of your really interesting books.No, thanks. Yeah. [00:47:02] Democracy, Fed, FDA, & Presidential Power[00:47:02] Dwarkesh Patel: even controlling for how much democratic oversight there is of institutions in the government. There seems to be a wide discrepancy of how well they work. Like the Fed seems to work reasonably well. I, I, I don't know enough about macroeconomics to know how the object level decisions they make, but mm-hmm.you know, it seems to be a non-corrupt, like, uh, technocratic organization. Um, enough, but yeah. Yeah. Uh, if you look at something like the fda, it's also somewhat insulated from democratic processes. It seems to not work as well. Mm-hmm. , what determines controlling food democracy? What controls, what, what determines how well an institution in the government works?[00:47:38] Garett Jones: Well, I, I think, um, in the case, the Fed, it really does matter that they, uh, the people who run it have guaranteed long terms and they print their own money to spend mm-hmm. . So that means that they're basically, Congress has to really. Make an effort to change anything of the Fed. So they really have the kind of independence that matters.Right. You know, they have a room of their own. And, uh, the FDA has to come to Congress for money more or less every year. And the fda, uh, heads do not have any kind of security of appointment. Their appoint, they serve at the pleasure of the president. Mm-hmm. . So I do think that they don't have real independence.Uh, I do think that they're basically, um, they're living in this slack, this area of slack to use this sort of mcno gas PolySci jargon. They're living in this realm of slack between the fact that the president doesn't wanna me, uh, muddle with them, uh, metal with them, excuse me. And the fact that Congress doesn't really wanna medal with them.But on the other hand, , I really think that that the f d A and the C d C are doing what Congress more or less wanted them to do. They reflect, they reflect the muddled disarray that Congress was in over the period of say, COVID. Hmm. Uh, that I think that's a first order importance. I mean, I do think the fact, it's the fact that, uh, f d A and c d C don't ha, uh, seem to have that culture of, um, raw technocracy the way the Fed does that, I think that has to be important on its own.But I think behind that, some of that is just like F D A C D C creatures of Congress much more than the Fed is. Should the [00:49:17] Dwarkesh Patel: power of the president be increased? [00:49:20] Garett Jones: Uh, no. No. Like the power of independent committees should be increased. Like more Congress should be like the Fed. If, uh, my plan for a Fed re for an FDA or CDC reorganization would be.Making them more like the Fed, where they have appointed experts who have long terms and they have enough of a long term that they can basically feel like they can blow off Congress and build their own culture. [00:49:42] EU is a force for good?[00:49:42] Dwarkesh Patel: Mm-hmm. , , so the European Union is an interesting example here because they also have these appointed technocrats, but they seem more interested in creating anno annoying popups on your websites than with dealing with econo, the, you know, the end of economic growth on the continent.Is this a story where more democracy would've helped, or how do you think about the European Union in this context? [00:50:04] Garett Jones: No. And the eu, like, uh, the European, European voters just aren't that excited about democracy. I, excuse me, aren't that excited about markets overall. The EU is gonna reflect that, right? Um, what little evidence we have suggests that, uh, countries that are getting ready to join the eu, they improve their economic freedom scores, their sort of laissez fairness.Hmm. Uh, on the path to getting ready for. , uh, join an eu. So, and then they may increase it a little bit afterwards once they join. But basically it's like, it's like, uh, when you're deciding to join the eu, it's like you decided you have your rocky training montage and get more laissez-faire. And so EU on net is a mess at polls in the direction of markets compared to where, uh, Europe would be otherwise.I mean, just look at the nations that are in the EU now, right? A lot of them are, um, east of Germany, right? And so those are countries that don't have this great, you know, uh, history of being market friendly. And a lot of parties aren't that market friendly, and yet the EU sort of nags them into their version, like as much markets as they can handle.So [00:51:05] Dwarkesh Patel: what do you think explains the fact that the Europe, uh, Europe as a whole and the voters in there are less market friendly than Americans? I mean, if you look at the sort of deep roots analysis of Europe, you would think that they should be the most. Uh, most in favor of, I don't know if the deep roots, uh, actually maybe they apply that, but Yeah, [00:51:23] Garett Jones: compared to the planet as a whole, they're pretty good.Right? So, um, I, I'm, I never get that excited about like, the small little distinctions between the US and Europe, like these 30% GDP differences, which are very exciting to pundits and bloggers and whatever. I'm like 30% doesn't matter very much. That's not really my bailiwick. What I'm really interested in is the 3000% between the poorest countries and the richest countries.So, like I can speculate about Europe, I, I don't really have a great answer. I mean, I, I think there's something to the, the naive view that, um, the Europeans with the most, uh, what my dad would call gumption are those who left and came to America. Some openness, some adventurousness. Uh, and maybe that's part of what trans, uh, made we, so basically there's a lot of selection working, uh, on the migration side to, uh, make America more open to laissez fair than Europe would be.[00:52:14] Dwarkesh Patel: Does that overall make you more optimistic about migration to the US from anywhere? Like, you know, the same story [00:52:20] Garett Jones: of Yeah. Center is perab us like America, America gets people who are really great, right? I went with you there. Yeah. [00:52:26] Dwarkesh Patel: Does, um, elite technocratic control work best in only in high IQ countries?Because otherwise you don't have these high IQ elites who can make good policies for you, but you also don't get the democratic protections against famine and war and things like that. [00:52:43] Garett Jones: Oh, I mean, I don't know. I think, I think the case for, for, uh, handing things over to elites is pretty strong in anything that's moderately democratic, right?Um, I don't have to be. Anything that's substantially more democratic than the official measure of Singapore, for instance. I mean, that's why my book 10% Less Democracy, really is targeted at the rich, rich democracies. Once we get too far below, uh, the rich democracies, I figure once you put elites in charge, they really are just gonna be old-fashioned Gordon to rent seekers and steer everything Jordan themselves and not give a darn about the masses at all.So that's, you know, uh, elite control in a democracy, a a lot of elite control in any kind of democracy, I think is gonna have good effect. If it's re you're really looking at something that is, uh, that meets a Mar Sen's definition of a democracy competitive market. Competitive party's free press. [00:53:38] Dwarkesh Patel: Mm-hmm.does Singapore meet that criteria? [00:53:41] Garett Jones: No. Because their parties aren't really allowed to compete. I mean, that's pretty obvious. Yeah. The, the pa the People's Action Party really controls, uh, party competition there. [00:53:52] Dwarkesh Patel: So, but it, I guess Singapore is one of the great examples of technocratic, um, technocratic control, and [00:53:59] Garett Jones: they're just an exception of the rule.Most countries that try to pull off that lower level democracy wind up much [00:54:03] Dwarkesh Patel: worse. So what is your, uh, what is your opinion of Neoreactionaries? I guess they're not in favor of 10% less democracy. They're more in favor of a hundred percent less democracy. [00:54:12] Garett Jones: But yeah, I think they're like kind of too much LARPing, too much romanticizing about the roheim, I guess.I don't know. What is rheum? Yeah. The, these guys in the Lord of the Rings, you know? . , romanticizing Monarch is a mistake. Um, it's worth noting that, uh, as my colleague Gordon Tok pointed out, as along as many others, uh, in Equilibrium Kings are almost always king and council, right.and so it's worth thinking through why King and Council is the equilibrium. Something more like a corporate board and less like, um, either the libertarian ideal of the entrepreneur who, who owns the firm, or the monarch who has the long-term interest in being a stationary bandit in real life. There's this sort of muddled thing in between that works out as the equilibrium, even in the successful so-called monarchies.So it's worth thinking through why it is that the successful so-called monarchies aren't really monarchies, right? They're really oligarchies. [00:55:12] Dwarkesh Patel: Yep. Yep. Um, if you look at the median voter in terms of their preferences on academic policies, it seems like they're probably more, um, in favor of government involvement than the actual policies of the United States, for example.Yeah. What explains this? Shouldn't the media voter theorem that we should be much less libertarian as a country than? Yeah, that's a great [00:55:35] Garett Jones: point from, um, Brian Kaplan's excellent. Bill Smith of the rational voter. Right? Yeah. I think part of it, I mean, I think his stories are right, which is that, uh, politicians facing reelection have this tradeoff between giving voters what the voters say they want and giving the voters the economic growth that will help the politicians get reelected, right?Mm-hmm. Um, so it's, uh, it's a version of saying like, you know, I don't want you to p

Vi mennesker bliver tilsyneladende mere og mere intelligente generation for generation. Hvordan kan det være, at vi ser dét billede, og vil det fortsætte? Vi taler i dag om hvorfor du sandsynligvis er mere begavet end dine forældre, og hvorfor dine børn bliver mere begavet end dig!

Selam Fularsızlar. Geldik bu serinin en başında "Aptallaşıyor muyuz" diye sormama sebep olan şeye. Son 100 yıldır IQ testi performansında sürekli bir artış var. Gerçekten de dedelerimizden ninelerimizden daha mı zekiyiz? Ve bu artışın son yıllarda durması, hatta gerilemesi (Anti-Flynn) ne anlama geliyor? İlginizi çekerse kaynaklar kısmındaki linklere bakmayı unutmayın.(Bunca bölümdür devam etmemi sağlayan tek şey, Patreon'dan irili ufaklı destek veren sizin gibi dinleyiciler. Bu destek doğrudan bana geliyor, normal reklam gelirleri ise yapımcımla paylaşılıyor. Yok kalsın diyorsanız, buyrun buradan yakın: Safsatalar Ansiklopedisi Kısaltılmış Edisyon).----------------------------------------------------Bu podcast, Hiwell hakkında reklam içerir.Hiwell hakkında daha detaylı bilgi almak ve fular100 kodu ile %20 indirimden faydalanmak için tıklayın.----------------------------------------------------.Bölümler:(00:05) Flynn Etkisi'ne giriş.(03:05) Robert Plomin'in "default" pozisyonu.(03:50) Singapurlular bu kadar zeki olmamalıydılar.(05:10) James Flynn.(06:30) Niye daha önce farkedilmedi?(07:35) İdamların bozulması.(08:20) Heterosis.(10:00) Beslenme ve Hollanda Kıtlığı.(12:15) Eğitim ve Türkiye'de okullaşma.(13:55) Soyut mantığın ve analojilerin gelişimi.(18:30) İşlerin soyutlaşması.(19:00) Eğlencenin soyutlaşması.(21:55) "Everything Bad is Good For You".(23:40) Endüstriyel Devrim'in yankıları.(25:00) Gelişme genel zekada mı?(29:15) Flynn Etkisinin tersine dönmesi.(32:00) Sonraki bölüm.(32:40) Patronlar, patronlarımız.(33:10) After Credits: Jensen vs Flynn.Kaynaklar:Zekanın Yükselişi ve Çöküşü: Flynn, Anti-Flynn ve Zekanın GeleceğiThe Flynn Effect: A Meta-analysisWhy our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents' | James FlynnDünyada ve Türkiye'de Yükseköğretim Okullaşma Oranları ve GelişmelerWhy has TV storytelling become so complex?Is the World's Memory Span Increasing or Decreasing?The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black–White IQ gapModernity Made Us SmarterNorwegian IQ scores are falling – but genes are not to blameDO NON-G GAINS FROM THE FLYNN EFFECT MATTER? YES AND NOArthur Jensen and John Stuart MillKitap: Are We Getting Smarter?Kitap: Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us SmarterJohnny Carson.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jordan Lasker is a PhD student at Texas Tech University and a bioinformatician. He joins the podcast to discuss his recent report for CSPI, “About Those Baby Brainwaves: Why ‘Policy Relevant' Social Science is Mostly a Fraud.” The report critically examined a recent study claiming small cash transfers to the parents of newborns improved their babies' brain activity. The study was lauded in the media and by D.C. policymakers, who argued its results supported redistributive policies, most notably the child tax credit. Jordan demonstrated that the study in question wildly overstated its claims, was methodologically suspect, and that its authors engaged in numerous bad research practices. Social science, he argues, is not a sound basis for policymaking given academia's warped incentives. He and Richard talk about why physiological measures like EEGs are taken much more seriously than psychometrics like IQ tests, whether “rich brains” and “poor brains” exist, if the Flynn effect means we're getting smarter, and the politicization of academia and science more generally. The two agree that the priors of the average researcher or policymaker are way off base: dozens of studies have found cash transfers and even adoption to high SES families have minimal effects on IQ or income. Given that, why would we expect $333/month to move the needle? They conclude by considering whether society is better off with leaders who “trust the science” or those who are openly anti-intellectual, given broken incentive structures and political bias within the policy relevant literature.  Jordan Lasker, “About Those Baby Brainwaves: Why ‘Policy Relevant' Social Science is Mostly a Fraud.”  Troller-Renfree et al. (Baby Brainwaves Study), “The Impact of a Poverty Reduction Intervention on Infant Brain Activity.”  Richard Feynman, “Cargo Cult Science.”  Kirkegaard et al., “Nerve Conduction Velocity and Cognitive Ability: A Large Sample Study.”  “Flynn Effect.”  Wongupparaj et al., “The Flynn Effect for Verbal and Visuospatial Short-Term and Working Memory: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis.”  Odenstad et al., “Does Age at Adoption and Geographic Origin Matter? A National Cohort Study of Cognitive Test Performance in Adult Inter-Country Adoptees.” Tobias Hübinette, “The Adopted Koreans of Sweden and the Korean Adoption Issue.” Sign up for CSPI's Substack newsletter: https://cspi.substack.com. Follow CSPI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CSPICenterOrg. Subscribe to our YouTube for video podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvs4ugq0xSvbvwArpFJG6gA. Learn more about CSPI: https://cspicenter.org.

In this episode of Total Rally Nation, we circle back to the concept of The Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect refers to an idea where there is an increase in overall population intelligence observed throughout time. Meaning, we are smarter than our ancestors and can expect our descendants to be the same. We get into how the Flynn Effect relates to our shift in thinking and how we can apply that to become a better version of ourselves.Timestamps:[00:10] Trip to Cancun [03:03] Physical transformation program [08:04] Not having all your eggs in one basket[11:44] Being consistent with a process[13:55] Appropriate levels of challenge for where you are at[17:33] Applying something consistently [25:51] The Flynn Effect [28:00] The shift in thinking 

An hour of sovereign power from the spiritual centre of the earth. Brought to you by Ben Hawkes and Kern Frost from the Co-Create a Better World Movement.Join the Movement on Clubhouse - https://www.clubhouse.com/club/co-create-a-better-worldJoin our Mailing List - cocreatemovement.co.ukTodays Episode:The dumbing down of the human race, the Flynn Effect, and the impact effect on customer service in the automotive industry.Are we in an era where the banality of evil is showing its face once again?Have we been beaten so far that we won't fight back?Where are you on your journey?Is the answer to go hyper-local?What solutions can we offer?

This week, Noah joins the show once again to fill in for Justin as he is off on a super secret mission. The dorks dive into the time loop trope that has become increasingly popular over the past few years. Noah talks about how this has led to some games like Deathloop, Majora's Mask, 12 Minutes and so many others. Doug talks about some of the movies that have utilized this mechanic as well as the Flynn Effect and how each generation's IQ increases over time. The nerds then try to fathom the effects of being trapped in an infinite time loop and what it would do to a person's mind. Noah provides some spirited thoughts on why people should stop complaining on game dev Twitter and why it should be okay to just enjoy a movie instead of either saying it's the best or worst thing ever. Things are wrapped up with a throw-down featuring Beetlejuice vs. The Mask. Tune in to find out who wins! Follow us on Twitch to hang out while we record our new episodes and stream video game sessions! We have MERCH now! Check out our YouTube channel for podcast episodes, video game live stream highlights, Doug Watches Awkward Videos, and Justin Plays Video games. Be sure to like and subscribe! Follow us on all of our social medias and other platforms!  https://streamerlinks.com/mindgappodcast

Welcome to the second interview with neuroscientist Dean Burnett. It is not absolutely imperative that you listen to our first discussion before moving onto this one, as this episode can stand on its own, but I would suggest listening to both. Once again, we focus predominantly on his first book, The Idiot Brain, although on occasion we drift beyond its confines. I began by asking Burnett to explain the so-called Five Factor Model of Personality, which led on to a discussion about the serious flaws of most personality tests, in particular the hugely popular Myers Briggs Type Indicator. I raised the issue of the inherent difficulty of conducting social psychology research and asked my guest about which major findings in the field still hold up. As in the first interview episode of Skeptically Curious with David Robert Grimes, I asked Dean Burnett why he did not devote an entire chapter of The Idiot Brain to religion. He did, however, mention apophenia and pareidolia in that book, which we briefly discuss. We spent quite a bit of time delving into various facets of intelligence research, including the widespread bias among many in the public against IQ tests, and indeed intelligence more broadly, the general factor, or g factor of intelligence, the difference between fluid and crystallised intelligence, and whether it is possible to increase one's fluid intelligence based on research cited in a book by Dan Hurley called ‘Smarter' I read earlier this year. I also asked Burnett about the Flynn Effect, Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, and EQ, or emotional intelligence. Dean argued that the supposed division between EQ and IQ largely rests on a false dichotomy of someone either possessing intellect or emotional awareness, which is not necessarily the case, a point I thought was really important to emphasise. The two of us then spoke about the stigma that still surrounds mental health, particularly depression, although as Burnett noted, this has improved over the years. He drew an intriguing parallel between the discomfort often engendered by people with high intellects and those with, for example, depression, or other mental health ailments, as there is still something unsettlingly inaccessible, or even mysterious, about the brain's complicated operations. I asked Burnett about the validity of the theory linking depression to inflammation and possible alternative treatments to the condition beyond anti-depressants. Lastly, I asked my guest to provide some insight into the ingredients for a happy brain, incidentally the title of his second book. Dean Burnett's personal website: https://www.deanburnett.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/garwboy The Idiot Brain (2016): https://www.deanburnett.com/book/the-idiot-brain/ The Happy Brain (2018): https://www.deanburnett.com/book/the-happy-brain/ Why Your Parents Are Driving You Up the Wall and What To Do About It (2019): https://www.deanburnett.com/book/why-your-parents-are-driving-you-up-the-wall-and-what-to-do-about-it/ Psycho-Logical (2021): https://www.deanburnett.com/book/psycho-logical-audiobook/ Dan Hurley's ‘Smarter' (2013): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18079605-smarter Stuart Ritchie's ‘Intelligence: All that Matters' (2015): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25356335-intelligence

Podcast: Many Minds (LS 37 · TOP 2.5% )Episode: Culture, innovation, and the collective brainRelease date: 2021-02-03Greetings friends and happy February! Today's episode is a conversation with Dr. Michael Muthukrishna, an Associate Professor of Economic Psychology at the London School of Economics. Michael's research takes on a suite of topics that all start from a single big question: Why are we so different from other animals? Part of the answer has to do with our neural hardware. There's no question we've got big brains—and Michael has some cool things to say about why they may have gotten so big. But Michael is just as focused on our cultural software—the tools and ideas we develop, tweak, share, and accumulate over time. You might say he's more impressed by our collective brains than by our individual brains. To study all this, Michael builds formal theories and computational models; he runs experiments; and he constructs and analyzes huge databases. We cover a lot of ground in this episode. We talk about the finding that the size and interconnectedness of a social group affects the cultural skills that group can develop and maintain. We consider what actually powers innovation (hint: it's not lone geniuses). We discuss how diversity is a bit double-edged and why psychology needs to become a historical science. And that, my friends, is hardly all—we also touch on cetaceans, religious history, and spinning plates. I've been hoping to have Michael on the show for months now. His work is deeply theoretical, advancing the basic science of what it means to be human. But it's also engaged with important practical issues—issues like corruption and cultural diversity. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Dr. Michael Muthukrishna. Enjoy! A transcript of this show is available here.   Notes and links 4:30 - An introduction to “dual inheritance theory.” 11:00 - A 2013 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues about the relationship between sociality and cultural complexity. 12:15 - A paper on the loss of cultural tools and traditions in the Tasmanian case. 21:20 – A 2016 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and Joseph Henrich on innovation and the collective brain. 28:30 - The original paper on the notion of cultural “tightness” and “looseness.” 30:20 - A recent short piece by Dr. Muthukrishna on the paradox of diversity. 34:50 - A 2019 popular piece of mine on the phenomenon of “global WEIRDing.” 40:27 - The so-called Flynn Effect refers to the puzzling rise of IQ scores over time. It is named after James Flynn, who died only weeks ago. 42:30 - A paper about the significance of Luria's work on abstract reasoning in Uzbekistan. 50:26 - A paper on the “cultural brain hypothesis,” the subject of Dr. Muthukrishna's dissertation. 51:00 - A paper on brains as fundamentally “expensive.” 58:00 - Boyd & Richardson, mentioned here, have authored a number of highly influential books. The first of these was Culture and the Evolutionary Process. 59:35 - A 2015 paper on head size and emergency birth interventions. 1:01:20 - The stylized model we mention here is discussed and illustrated in this lecture from the 2020 Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute. 1:03:15 – The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues on cetacean brains and culture. 1:11:38 - The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues on ‘Psychology as a Historical Science.' 1:14:00 - The 2020 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues introducing a tool for the measurement of cultural distance. 1:20:20 – Dr. Muthukrishna is part of the team behind the Database of Religious History. 1:24:25 - The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and Joe Henrich on ‘The Origins and Psychology of Human Cooperation.'   Dr. Muthukrishna's end-of-show reading recommendations: Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success & The WEIRDest People in the World Matt Ridley, How Innovation Works Matthew Syed, Rebel Ideas  You can keep up with Dr. Muthukrishna's work at his personal website and on Twitter (@mmuthukrishna).   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Podcast: Many Minds Episode: Culture, innovation, and the collective brainRelease date: 2021-02-03Greetings friends and happy February! Today's episode is a conversation with Dr. Michael Muthukrishna, an Associate Professor of Economic Psychology at the London School of Economics. Michael's research takes on a suite of topics that all start from a single big question: Why are we so different from other animals? Part of the answer has to do with our neural hardware. There's no question we've got big brains—and Michael has some cool things to say about why they may have gotten so big. But Michael is just as focused on our cultural software—the tools and ideas we develop, tweak, share, and accumulate over time. You might say he's more impressed by our collective brains than by our individual brains. To study all this, Michael builds formal theories and computational models; he runs experiments; and he constructs and analyzes huge databases. We cover a lot of ground in this episode. We talk about the finding that the size and interconnectedness of a social group affects the cultural skills that group can develop and maintain. We consider what actually powers innovation (hint: it's not lone geniuses). We discuss how diversity is a bit double-edged and why psychology needs to become a historical science. And that, my friends, is hardly all—we also touch on cetaceans, religious history, and spinning plates. I've been hoping to have Michael on the show for months now. His work is deeply theoretical, advancing the basic science of what it means to be human. But it's also engaged with important practical issues—issues like corruption and cultural diversity. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Dr. Michael Muthukrishna. Enjoy! A transcript of this show is available here.   Notes and links 4:30 - An introduction to “dual inheritance theory.” 11:00 - A 2013 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues about the relationship between sociality and cultural complexity. 12:15 - A paper on the loss of cultural tools and traditions in the Tasmanian case. 21:20 – A 2016 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and Joseph Henrich on innovation and the collective brain. 28:30 - The original paper on the notion of cultural “tightness” and “looseness.” 30:20 - A recent short piece by Dr. Muthukrishna on the paradox of diversity. 34:50 - A 2019 popular piece of mine on the phenomenon of “global WEIRDing.” 40:27 - The so-called Flynn Effect refers to the puzzling rise of IQ scores over time. It is named after James Flynn, who died only weeks ago. 42:30 - A paper about the significance of Luria's work on abstract reasoning in Uzbekistan. 50:26 - A paper on the “cultural brain hypothesis,” the subject of Dr. Muthukrishna's dissertation. 51:00 - A paper on brains as fundamentally “expensive.” 58:00 - Boyd & Richardson, mentioned here, have authored a number of highly influential books. The first of these was Culture and the Evolutionary Process. 59:35 - A 2015 paper on head size and emergency birth interventions. 1:01:20 - The stylized model we mention here is discussed and illustrated in this lecture from the 2020 Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute. 1:03:15 – The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues on cetacean brains and culture. 1:11:38 - The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues on ‘Psychology as a Historical Science.' 1:14:00 - The 2020 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues introducing a tool for the measurement of cultural distance. 1:20:20 – Dr. Muthukrishna is part of the team behind the Database of Religious History. 1:24:25 - The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and Joe Henrich on ‘The Origins and Psychology of Human Cooperation.'   Dr. Muthukrishna's end-of-show reading recommendations: Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success & The WEIRDest People in the World Matt Ridley, How Innovation Works Matthew Syed, Rebel Ideas  You can keep up with Dr. Muthukrishna's work at his personal website and on Twitter (@mmuthukrishna).   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/, which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/. You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Greetings friends and happy February! Today’s episode is a conversation with Dr. Michael Muthukrishna, an Associate Professor of Economic Psychology at the London School of Economics. Michael’s research takes on a suite of topics that all start from a single big question: Why are we so different from other animals? Part of the answer has to do with our neural hardware. There’s no question we’ve got big brains—and Michael has some cool things to say about why they may have gotten so big. But Michael is just as focused on our cultural software—the tools and ideas we develop, tweak, share, and accumulate over time. You might say he’s more impressed by our collective brains than by our individual brains. To study all this, Michael builds formal theories and computational models; he runs experiments; and he constructs and analyzes huge databases. We cover a lot of ground in this episode. We talk about the finding that the size and interconnectedness of a social group affects the cultural skills that group can develop and maintain. We consider what actually powers innovation (hint: it’s not lone geniuses). We discuss how diversity is a bit double-edged and why psychology needs to become a historical science. And that, my friends, is hardly all—we also touch on cetaceans, religious history, and spinning plates. I’ve been hoping to have Michael on the show for months now. His work is deeply theoretical, advancing the basic science of what it means to be human. But it’s also engaged with important practical issues—issues like corruption and cultural diversity. Without further ado, here’s my conversation with Dr. Michael Muthukrishna. Enjoy! A transcript of this show will be available soon.   Notes and links 4:30 - An introduction to “dual inheritance theory.” 11:00 - A 2013 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues about the relationship between sociality and cultural complexity. 12:15 - A paper on the loss of cultural tools and traditions in the Tasmanian case. 21:20 – A 2016 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and Joseph Henrich on innovation and the collective brain. 28:30 - The original paper on the notion of cultural “tightness” and “looseness.” 30:20 - A recent short piece by Dr. Muthukrishna on the paradox of diversity. 34:50 - A 2019 popular piece of mine on the phenomenon of “global WEIRDing.” 40:27 - The so-called Flynn Effect refers to the puzzling rise of IQ scores over time. It is named after James Flynn, who died only weeks ago. 42:30 - A paper about the significance of Luria’s work on abstract reasoning in Uzbekistan. 50:26 - A paper on the “cultural brain hypothesis,” the subject of Dr. Muthukrishna’s dissertation. 51:00 - A paper on brains as fundamentally “expensive.” 58:00 - Boyd & Richardson, mentioned here, have authored a number of highly influential books. The first of these was Culture and the Evolutionary Process. 59:35 - A 2015 paper on head size and emergency birth interventions. 1:01:20 - The stylized model we mention here is discussed and illustrated in this lecture from the 2020 Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute. 1:03:15 – The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues on cetacean brains and culture. 1:11:38 - The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues on ‘Psychology as a Historical Science.’ 1:14:00 - The 2020 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues introducing a tool for the measurement of cultural distance. 1:20:20 – Dr. Muthukrishna is part of the team behind the Database of Religious History. 1:24:25 - The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and Joe Henrich on ‘The Origins and Psychology of Human Cooperation.’   Dr. Muthukrishna’s end-of-show reading recommendations: Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success & The WEIRDest People in the World Matt Ridley, How Innovation Works Matthew Syed, Rebel Ideas  You can keep up with Dr. Muthukrishna’s work at his personal website and on Twitter (@mmuthukrishna).   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

In the 1980s, researchers began to examine the reasons behind the Flynn Effect. Astonishingly, average IQ has steadily been increasing for decades. Discussed in this episode: Possible causes of the Flynn effect (improvements in education, increase in GDP, increased exposure to technology, reduced blood lead levels, better nutrition, medical advances, reduction in exposure to pathogens, decreased life history speed, and decreasing family size), recent curtailing of the Flynn effect, and limitations and implications of Flynn effect research.   Related reading: Pietschnig, J., & Voracek, M. (2015). One Century of Global IQ Gains: A Formal Meta-Analysis of the Flynn Effect. Perspect Psychol Psy, 10(3), 282–306; Williams, R.L. (2013). Overview of the Flynn Effect. Intelligence, 41, 753 - 764.   https://www.insightfulthinkersmedia.com/

In conversation with Emeritus Professor James Flynn from the Joint Department of Politics at Otago University, New Zealand. We discuss his new book entitled A Book Too Risky To Publish: Free Speech and Universities. We discuss the history of right-wing control of universities during McCarthyism, and the totalitarian persecution that social democrat and liberal academics faced under the pretence of fighting Communism. We also discuss the Flynn Effect and his debates with intelligence researcher Charles Murray in relation to racial differences in IQ. Finally, we discuss his view that fields such as Women’s Studies and Black Studies are too ideologically driven, and why he believes neither the far left nor the far right truly believes in freedom of speech.

Dieter Kurtenbach and Jake Hutchinson go deep on 49ers-Eagles. Some might even say... too deep.

Garett Jones is one of the smartest people I have ever talked to - and he is at his usual brilliant best in this conversation. We started by trying to see how his latest book fit into the context of less developed countries with weak rule of law. I have often remarked that Garett is underrated as a development economist. I still think so.You can listen or download to the podcast on any platform of your choice (some links here), and you can also rate us here.TranscriptTobi: WeIcome to Ideas Untrapped and today I am on with economist, Garett Jones. Garett Jones is a professor of economics at George Mason University and he has written two excellent books "Hive Mind" and "10% Less Democracy". Welcome, Garett.Garett: Thanks very much for having me, Tobi.Tobi: Thinking on the margin is something I admire so much which is what you did quite well in your latest book 10% Less Democracy. Are economists just better at this than everybody else, and if yes, why?Garett: You're right. I do try to do that a lot in the book. I agree with you, Economists, I think, are better at this than other social scientists because it's just so much a part of our training. It's so normal for us to think, do you want to buy two more peanut butter sandwiches or two fewer? Should this company hire three more workers or fire two workers? So that kind of marginalist thinking which is where... the Marginal Revolution of the 19th century embodies that. Yeah, that really helps us think about big social questions in a very productive way. When I applied this to democracy what I realised it was quickly, something that a lot of people know, which is that all of the things we call democracies are a blend of democracy with oligarchy of one form or another. So getting the balance right is more important than an all-or-nothing question. All or nothing is off the table, thank goodness, but getting the blend right between insiders and outsiders, between elite and the masses, that's something that can be evaluated and fortunately, my economist friends have evaluated it. For some people, they'll quite naturally assume that democracy means an independent judiciary, the rule of law, impartial, fairly uncorrupt government. And those things are not democracy. They are good things but they are not democracy. - GJTobi: So given all the trade-offs that are involved with social decisions and reforms, how can we be better at thinking on the margins? We live in an era of protest movement where people want sweeping changes and that's not really how society works, so how can people better train themselves to be marginalist thinkers?Garett: Yeah, you're right. There aren't that many questions where we have to go all or nothing. Most policy questions can be a question of incrementalism, so I think whenever possible we should just ask ourselves 'if I can dial this up a little bit or dial this down a little bit, which would be the better way to work? Which would be the better way to move?' Whether that's thinking about whether I want my judges to have a little bit longer terms, whether I want my voters to have a little bit more information before they walk into the voting booth, whether I want a healthcare program to be available for people who are 62 rather than 65? Just thinking about it in terms of small changes helps us better evaluate...it helps the mind better weigh the benefits versus the cost of the decision. Because when we talk about revolutionary change, there are often just too many things going on for our brains to even weigh them, to even weigh the benefits, and weigh the costs. So marginalism, I think, is better suited for human minds and fortunately most, but not all, political decisions are well suited to a little more vs a little less.Tobi: I read your book, great book by the way...Garett: Thank you very much.Tobi: The writing is fantastic, I'm a big fan. In the book, I know you are applied the 10% Less Democracy framework to rich countries...Garett: Yeah.Tobi: But I've been trying to extrapolate and apply it to developing countries, and one thing I noticed (you can shed more light on this) is, sometimes it feels like low-income and middle-income countries are torn in some kind of institutional paradox. You have multilateral institutions like [the] IMF who have these prescriptions that are bureaucratic but have long-term benefits - Central Bank independence, don't manipulate the exchange rate, keep inflation low, be responsible with your budget, and all that. And on the other side of that, you have think tanks, aid agencies and other foundations (who are also interested in development and give it advice) who seem to favour radical democratisation of everything, basically. So what do you think, as a policymaker, as a voter in a low and middle-income country, how best to approach this paradox on a mental level?Garett: I think a message that I bring up early on in the book is that most of the clear benefits of democracy come from a moderate level of democracy. As Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate who showed that if you want to avoid famines, what you need is democracy. In modern times there's never been a famine as he defines it in a functioning democracy. But his measure for functioning democracy is a pretty basic one. It's competitive elections and a free press. And that's not too hard a standard for a lot of countries to meet and more countries are meeting it now than they were meeting it, of course, three decades ago though, perhaps, less than a couple of years ago. So if you're pushing for democratisation, I think we should draw on the best evidence we have for what it is, what kind of democracy we need to get the benefits of democracy, and that seems to be a moderate level. Also, there is a lot of lazy talk about democracy where people stuff all of the good things they like into the word democracy. For some people, they'll quite naturally assume that democracy means an independent judiciary, the rule of law, impartial, fairly uncorrupt government. And those things are not democracy. They are good things but they are not democracy. So I think just clearly speaking about what it is that you want is valuable because we realised quickly that the things we like out of modern so-called democracies are a blend of the rule of the people and the rule of insiders, with a third thing that I don't talk much about in the book directly but the rule of law - the impartial rule of law, a bureaucracy that just operates on its own according to [the] rules that have been around for a long time. That is undemocratic and it seems to be very useful. So simply talking clearly about what it is we want in a reform and is this valuable reform truly about the voice of the people or is it more about something like an independent bureaucracy? That would help us get away from this lazy jargon of calling everything good democratic.Tobi: You also discussed the relationship between democracy and growth in your book and you conclude that the evidence is a bit of a muddle. What I was thinking when I was reading that part, I thought about Chile...Garett: Uh-huhTobi: And one of the famous examples when economists and some other thinkers discuss Chile is to look at GDP growth from the Pinochet years and the democratic years, and then they conclude that, oh, GDP growth is higher after Pinochet and hence democracy is better. But again, if you look at that history a bit, you'll see that there were some things, though they weren't palatable and I'm not saying I prefer autocracies here or anything...there were some hard reforms that Pinochet pushed through that clearly had benefits even during the Chilean democracy. One such rule was the inability of the parliament to hike the budget. You either cut it low or you pass it as it is which introduced a lot of fiscal responsibility in the budgeting process. So what do you think is responsible for this muddle in the evidence in the relationship between democracy and growth? Why can't we get a really clear picture?Garett: A big problem is the real-life fact which is just that a lot of autocrats do a terrible job. They come into power and they make the place worse off. So some autocrats come to power and appear to make the country better off, or at least, it predicts better performance and other autocrats come into power and things get worse. So when we stop looking at individual anecdotes and when we pull them together and do something rigorous and statistical, the evidence that autocrats are more likely to create great reforms looked pretty weak. There are plenty of anecdotes, right? We can call them case studies where autocrats are associated with and may have put into place things that look like good pro-growth reforms. Pinochet gets a lot of credit for this kind of stories but also Park Chung-hee of South Korea. The problem is that (a) we don't have a great counterfactual (b) maybe they just got lucky. And that's why using rigorous cross-country comparisons is more useful than individual case studies and when we do that, it's very hard to find evidence that either democracy causes growth or that an autocrat taking over causes growth. It's too much of a coin flip to recommend any particular policy if our goal in choosing a government is economic growth. So this is why we should stick to the things where we have better evidence and so these big changes - autocrat in charge versus free press multi-party democracy, there there's a muddle. That's the reason why the framing in my book 10% Less Democracy is about smaller changes where we have better identified better causal stories with better testings like independent central banks, independent judges. We have more evidence for the small things than we do for the big things.Thinking in marginalist terms is important but also good public education really can improve policy if we teach true important economic ideas to people - GJTobi: Looking at this really well, is it really about voter control? Because I imagine the issues are different, for example, I think voters care a lot about Central Bank independence than, say, a national minimum wage for example. So isn't the case that in some situations or on some issues, again, sticking with Central Bank independence, politicians adjust ill-informed or ignorant and they're not necessarily responding to voter preference?Garett: That's a great point. It's always a good idea to wonder whether the politicians themselves are poorly informed and they don't have an incentive to be very well-informed on most policy issues. A friend of mine had a conversation with the prominent United States politician who I won't name and this person said...the elected official said 'my job isn't to understand all the details of the policy, that's what my staff job is. My job is to keep track of all of the other members of Congress and find out how to cut deals with them.' So their real specialty is deal-making, deal cutting. They don't know that much about the detail of policy. So you are right that basically part of the problem is that the politicians themselves don't know that much, but they need to know enough to be able to pick someone who's good to run some of these things. So running [knowing] someone who is competent to run an independent central bank, it's kind of a hard job but you can outsource that to some staff; and if you're worried about things working pretty well for a long time, then you'll task your staff with picking somebody who seems like a pretty good candidate who won't cause much trouble and who will make the economy look pretty good before the electorate. So this idea that elected officials don't know that much themselves but they do have an incentive to get some things right when they know they're going to be held accountable by the voters.Tobi: But again, wouldn't less democracy, at least, in some cases lead to populist backlash? I mean, we're seeing that with Brexit...Garett: Oh, yes.Tobi: Some part of the American polity is also in that mode. The EU is a very good example where some British voters say 'oh, we are not going to be subjected to Brussels' rule'. There's a case of Africa, also, where people respond quite negatively to what they perceive as external technocratic interventions. So wouldn't less democracy run a risk of populism in the long-term?Garett: Actually, that's a great point and it's the one that I literally never discussed in the book - it's the idea of a populist backlash. Because it's one of these things that is important and too hard to quantify. The risk of a populist backlash to 10% Less Democracy is a little bit like the risk of a doctor being reluctant to give someone tough advice about diet and exercise because the person just might not come to the doctor anymore. So this is an important question - when should informed people, when should people who are relative experts just not push that hard for the best solution because they are afraid the patient won't take the medicine? In a way that's part of the reason I stick to 10% Less Democracy. I just want people to think about a little bit longer term, a little bit more independent Central Bank because I think these things are less likely to provoke that kind of backlash. But, you're right. But know this, to the extent you're right, this should tell us something about the cost of democracy - if one of the costs of democracy is that voters don't want things that are actually good for the voters, this should be part of our understanding [of] what democracy really is. If the problem is that the voters don't want to take advice that's just some person's opinion, 'ok, well, who cares?' Voters shouldn't have to listen to some person's random opinion. But if voters don't want to take [a] medicine that's actually good for the voters themselves, that should be part of our understanding of one of the weaknesses of democracy and something we should try to find a solution to. Maybe it's the solutions I present in my book, maybe it should be something else, but understanding the weaknesses of modern democracy is important to improving it.Tobi: A good illustration of that point is trade policy. I was just reading Matthew Klein and Michael Pettis's book where they basically say that trade wars are class wars.Garett: Uh-huh.Tobi: It's a reaction. And also it's a tactic for politicians to whip up voter sentiments and possibly win votes. How can people, again, I'm quite interested especially on the key issues that matters like central banking, like trade policy... things that affect the welfare and long-term prosperity, how can voters be a lot more informed to know that taking the choices out of my hands does not really mean I'm being oppressed?Garett: Yeah. This is really an important question. Part of it is that there is some evidence that just education in schools really changes people's minds. So when my colleague Bryan Caplan - he wrote a great book Myth of the Rational Voter, and he wrote a follow-up article where he looked at whether education or IQ scores were better predictors of pro-market attitudes. And he found that particularly on free trade, there was evidence that education itself, years of education was a better predictor of pro-trade attitudes than IQ. This is a signal and it's a reminder of something that made a lot of us believe which is that one of the things you learn in school is that people in other countries are good and, sometimes, they are great people and you should care about them. Also, you might learn some complicated ideas like the benefits of free trade. So education that is focused on teaching true and important facts about public policy, I think, can be a big part of this. But there is another element, another solution is just that we should think like a marginalist and go up the marginal cost curve. Push for a little less populism on topics where the voters aren't going to resist as much. Voters around the world have been pretty cool comparatively speaking with independent central banks - letting neutral banks lend out money and respond to financial crisis, (and) I think people can kind of understand why that's better than having one political party trying to lend to its buddies all the time. So, yeah, thinking in marginalist terms is important but also good public education really can improve policy if we teach true important economic ideas to people.Tobi: Let's let's go of the cuff a bit. Why did East Asia converge faster than the rest of the developing world?Garett: This is a great question. I mean part of it you could say that they actually had pretty high levels of productivity before say about 1800. This is part of what the deep roots literature shows, of Putterman and Weil and Bill Easterly at NYU - that, like, before 1500, before the great age of exploration, East Asia was pretty close to the technological frontier for the planet as a whole and so what's happened in the last 50 years in a way is a return to trend. That's not an answer. That's just more of a reminder that sometimes the more things change the more they stay the same. But when I look for the proximate cause, something more like a proximate cause, then I turned back to my first book, Hive Mind, which is that as far back as we have data on test scores, East Asia with particular countries we had good tests on in the ’60s and early 70s - Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and soon after that Singapore - these countries were doing pretty well on standardised tests no matter how we measure it. And I think that good cognitive skills are [a] really important ingredient of being able to jump to the technological frontier, and I think that good cognitive skills are an important part of running a good competent government. Those aren't the whole story, fortunately, China's decision to turn away from communism was one of the best decisions in all of human history; that mattered a lot for well over a billion people. But the fact that as far as we can tell, test scores, human capital as currently measured was pretty high in East Asia in the sixties and early seventies, that gave them a good solid launching pad for modern prosperity.Tobi: You've hinted I think on your Twitter feed, I'm not sure anymore, that economists know the causes of long-run prosperity. What's your explanation for that?Garett: We're really good at the proximate causes, the very nearest causes. These are simple things that come from the Solow growth model. Robert Solow, [the] Nobel Laureate, just helped us think about where do GDP come from and having a lot of machines per worker, having a way for people to use them productively is really crucial. Machines aren't your enemy, they are your friend. A lot of technology isn't your enemy, it's your friend. But when we try to look one step behind that, say, why do some nations wind up with a lot more productivity and lot more capital per worker than others, then there's more debate but a lot of people would jump just straight to something like institutions. Some places have great institutions, good competent governance, neutral rule of law, and that means the capital is willing to flow from around the world to good places. I would also add on human capital however measured - whether it's years of education or test scores are both very quite robust predictors. So economists know what works and the simplest version is one I said years ago which is, have pretty high test scores and don't be communist, and you're probably going to be rich. So if a country can find a way to raise its test scores through better run schools, through better public health, and it can avoid the massive mistake of totalitarian communism, then it's got a pretty good future ahead of it.Tobi: In your view why did you choose test scores, I mean, what's the best case for cognitive ability in human capital and long-run prosperity ahead of all these other proximate causes you mentioned like institutions or geography or industrial policy and all these other factors?Garett: The simplest version is just that it's what shows up in the data when I and others have run very serious horse races. So Eric Hanushek, professor at Stanford, leading education researcher, he's found that test scores whether you call them IQ or math and science scores are very astonishingly robust predictors of national prosperity and they really beat out years of education. There's a lot of emphasis on trying to raise measured use of education but the problem is that we know that there is schooling and then there's schooling. So if you just get a diploma but nobody ever taught you anything, the schooling didn't really make you more productive. Another reason though is because of the well-known finding from psychology research which is that skills predict kills. People who are above average in math tend to be above average in verbal stuff. People who are above average at vocabulary test tend to be better at solving three-dimensional puzzles, and so for reasons that are still poorly understood there is what I call a DaVinci effect and what others call a g-factor across mental skills. So running a modern economy at a high-level involves kind of a little bit of everything. It's a little bit of a smorgasbord, it's a little bit of a casserole. It's probably unlikely to be the case that there is going to be this one simple thing that solves all the problems. What you really want is something that is equivalent of a Swiss army knife, something that's a mediocre tool for everything rather than one tool for just one thing. And cognitive skills whether you called them IQ or g or whatever seem to be this version of sort of Swiss army knife where there's a little bit of everything. So people who do better on standardised tests tend to be a little bit more patient. Groups of folks who do better on standardised tests tend to be more cooperative, they're more likely to see the invincible hand and support market-friendly policies, they are more likely to be tolerant of others who are unlike them and these are all great things for a nation. So like I said, running a modern economy near the frontier of productivity involves a lot of little things - low corruption, competent governance, foresight, voters who understand the benefits of trade; the one thing that I can get us a lot of all those little things is higher cognitive skills.Tobi: You wrote a paper a few years ago which I like very much...Garett: Thank you.Tobi: O-ring sectors and Foolproof sectors. And if I understand your model correctly (and you're welcome to set me straight here)... so thinking about this paper and this model, if I am a high-skilled worker in Nigeria, for example, overall you're saying the returns to skill for my education and my skill level is marginal compared to a low-skilled worker. But if I move to the United States of America where obviously there are a lot more high-skilled workers than in Nigeria, the returns to my skill will still be marginal but then there's this huge gains at the national level between both countries that are pretty large, can you explain how that works?Garett: Yeah, so I'm building here on the work of Michael Kremer who just won the Nobel prize last year. He wrote a great paper about the O-ring theory of economic development. He said that a lot of economic tasks in modern economies, especially the richest economies, are kind of like building a space shuttle where if you make one mistake, even in a very complex process of launching a space shuttle, the space shuttle tend to blow up killing everyone on board. This is actually why the space shuttle challenger was destroyed because of the failure of an O-ring (basically a big piece of big rubber band) that was an important part of keeping the rocket safe. So one small failure can destroy the value of an entire product, of course, that's true with a lot of things that we value like smartphones, automobile transmissions, one broken link can destroy the whole thing. Thing is that economists without even realising it, we use another model, routinely, that's not O-ring often without thinking about it - we kind of assumed that workers of different skill levels can get to be mushed together and it's nice to have skilled workers, but maybe you can throw maybe two high-skilled workers and three low-skilled workers, maybe they are perfect substitutes for each other. You know, just throw more bodies at it and eventually the job will get done, there are certainly jobs like that. So part of what I did and really my contribution in this paper, the O-ring sector and the Foolproof sector, was to say 'what if some parts of the economy work like Michael Kremer's world where things like building a space shuttle or smartphone? Not if other things are like the way economists normally think about the world, the Foolproof sector - where if you throw enough people at it eventually the job will get done.' And I said 'what if workers have to decide which of these two sectors they are going to work in?' So let me think about you as an example... high-skilled worker, and you're trying to decide what sector you're going to work in. Well, one of the great ideas in economics is that you're going to go to where the pay is highest, ignoring all the other complications for your life, and so really the net message is that there's always going to be some combination of workers balancing between the two sectors. So if low-skilled workers are superabundant and high-skilled workers are scarce, just about all of us are going to be taking on these foolproof tasks where perfection, exact precision is not crucial. And if high-skilled workers are really abundant, most of us will be working on O-ring type tasks but there will always be some of us, sort of, in-between. This helps explain why the capital goods, hi-tech goods are made in just a few places in the world and in particular, they're usually made in places where the workers are really really expensive. You would think that firms will try to find the cheapest workers possible for any task but instead hi-tech manufacturing, especially cutting-edge hi-tech manufacturing, tends to happen in countries that are pretty high wage. The only thing that can explain this, if people are rational, is that it must be critical, it must be crucial to have high-skilled workers working on those tasks. So one of the lessons of this is that lower-skilled workers can find something really useful to do in a high wage country because if they come to a high wage country, they are competing against a lot of other high-skill workers, so all they have to do is be an okay substitute for that high-skilled worker in some tasks, maybe it's mowing lawns, maybe it's doing routine legal work and all of a sudden those workers can earn a lot more than they would in their home country. So the O-ring-Foolproof paper is in a way an important message for the value of low-skilled workers in high wage countries, but it also helps explain why cutting edge, frontier technology innovation only happens in the highest skilled countries where workers are super expensive.Tobi: The national returns to skill, how does it work with these two sectors?Garett: Well, there is an element of, sometimes, the real world is more complicated than the model, and that's, of course, true here. I have to say that I suspect there is a critical mass element to high-skilled workers. For instance, if I can bring a million of Japan's best engineers to a lower-skilled country, a million of them could run a lot of fantastic factories, be great workers and end up giving a lot of great employment opportunities to lower-skilled folks, so there is this element of...outside the model of... a critical mass element. But the O-ring-Foolproof story is a reminder that high-skilled workers who are in relatively low-skilled countries are often going to be, like, unable to make use of their full potential. Being able to have an O-ring sector of your own to go work in is really where the magic happens of economic prosperity. The greatest things that are happening and the way that economic frontiers are being built is in these O-ring sectors, and, to me, it's a reminder that this is a case for the brain drain. A case that the brain drain actually helps the world as a whole. Brain drain issues are complicated and there are lots of forces pushing both ways but I want to emphasise that there is this positive element to the brain drain which is getting high-skilled workers into countries that can make great use of high-skilled workers really helps the whole world. Has Michael Clemens has pointed out, one benefit of that is that migrants who go from low-skilled to high-skilled countries send back a lot of remittances and those remittances are super valuable. I'd like to emphasise another point, which is getting those high-skilled workers from low average-skilled countries to higher average-skilled countries means that they can contribute to the growth of ideas which makes the global pie bigger.Tobi: You sort of preempted where I was going with that. There was also this essay by Michael Clemens and I think Justin Sandefur about this brain drain issue where they sort of asserted that another element to the brain drain issue that the incentive to migrate and earn more in high wage countries leads to more production of high-skilled workers even in low-wage countries. So Nigeria exports a lot of doctors to the UK, it means a lot more students would want to be doctors so that they can migrate to the UK or wherever where they can earn a lot more than they would in their home countries. Now, here is my question: isn't there a sort of negative effect to this in that their home countries get stuck in the poverty trap... a lot of these high-growth sectors never gets built and some of these countries just depend on remittances which can be pretty tricky?Garett: Yeah. This is a hard problem. Another problem with the brain drain is that it means that the government which really needs a lot of high-skilled workers to basically run competent bureaucracies and manage difficult technical questions, a lot of those folks are gone. They've gone to move to other countries where they can earn a lot more. So I don't want to pretend that the brain drain issues are simple to resolve. But I think that the point you're making, I tend to think of it as less of a problem because people are very reluctant to move. There's a lot of evidence that people are reluctant to move from their home country and they need a really big wage premium. So if things were even sort of mediocre, if there were some moderately hi-tech positions in the home country, you would have very high rates of retention. I think that's pretty clear from the evidence from the fact that people are very reluctant to move. If they can find any excuse to stay, they stay. That's speaking a little informally but I think the data backs that up. Also though, there is this element of where the threat of exit does make home countries behave a little better. The fact that some people might leave does make a home country government say: well, we want to make ourselves more inviting. If we think about what's happened in China (to give an extreme example) over the last few decades, there's been a lot of brain drain from China as Chinese graduates, high-skilled workers often, have moved to many different countries across Asia and across Europe and North America, and one of the reasons that the Chinese government wants to be somewhat open, somewhat...wants to be unlike its totalitarian past and more like [its] authoritarian present is because they want to feel like they can come back. So the threat of exit does discipline national governments in an important way that we shouldn't forget. Brain drain means it's harder to build these hi-tech sectors that you're pointing out, but a brain drain also gives those home country governments a better incentive to behave well. I think of this as a sort of Tiebout voting with your feet story which economies should always be open to, that people voting with their feet sends a very powerful message to governments and informal and formal evidence, I think, backs up that. Tobi: Can national IQ be deliberately raised on a scale that matters? I know you talked about nutrition in hive mind. Also, I look at things like assortative mating and other things but can it really happen on a scale that moves the needle on national prosperity?Garett: This is a great question. I feel like one reason I wrote Hive Mind was to get more people thinking about the very question you asked. Like, my comparative advantage is what does IQ cause rather than what causes IQ? But I believe the Flynn Effect is real. I believe [it is], at least, substantially real. The Flynn Effect is as you know, but your listeners may not, is the longtime rise intelligence scores that's been documented around the world. Public health interventions, people getting healthier and living longer lives, I think that obviously is increasing people's cognitive skills (like, the public health element has just got to be real). I'm less confident but I'm still fairly confident that good education raises cognitive skills big enough to move the needle. And the third one is this broadly cultural story which is really Flynn, I want to attribute this to Flynn himself. My colleague Tyler Cowen and I talked about this in our podcast back in January when I was on Conversations with Tyler - IQs in East Germany rose at least five points, maybe much more, in the decade or so after the end of communism. I think there are these cultural influences on intelligence that are not just teaching to the tests, there is something about a modern open society that I think challenges the mind and makes it work better in a wide variety of settings. So I want to stick with those three right now that public health interventions are first order, good broad-based education is suggestively very important but I can't say conclusively, and then third; there is more evidence I have to say for this big cultural effect - that when your country becomes more like Popperian open society, more [a] mixture of capitalist and loosely democratic, people seem to use their brains in different ways on a regular basis that shows up on the IQ tests. Tobi: Why and I'm sure you must have experienced this maybe in discussing your work or maybe on social media and in other ways. Why is intelligence still a taboo subject so to speak? When I sit with my friends and we talk about development and I bring up Hive Mind...and people bellyache about 'oh, we can't do this or that' and you mildly suggest that 'hey guys, have you considered that our national IQ is pretty low and maybe, maybe that's why we can't get some of these things done.' There's a natural push back that you get. Why is intelligent still such a taboo subject?Garett: I think part of it is because people assume that when you're talking about intelligence you're talking about something that is supposedly a hundred percent or nearly a hundred percent genetic and something that is essential to a person in some very deep way. So I think it's very essentialist as an explanation. I think that's a mistake, I think the evidence does not support that position. And here's a test of it, because instead of using the word "intelligence", use the word "national test scores" and you talk about how education can raise test scores in an important way, then people get much less defensive about it. People are much more open to these very same ideas, the very same channels. So I think a big part of it is that intelligence sounds like something that is intrinsic to a person, unchangeable, nearly immutable and so any ascription of causation to that is personal. So I think discussing it in a Flynnian way, the way that James Flynn has, which is very evidence-based (and) where we think of intelligence as being something like an intermediate outcome... it's not the deep root cause of everything, it's an intermediate outcome that in turn is caused by other stuff. I think that opens people up to thinking about how people's minds create the economy we live in. I'd much rather talk about how our minds create the world around us than talk about what some deep, supposedly essential thing called an IQ score. Of course, the history of the misuse of IQ test is important. The mistakes and evils that have occurred in the name of intelligence research are important. But there are many other things that have been used in evil ways in the past and we cut them slack, and democracy will be, of course, one of those. But I think something about intelligence makes people think it's intrinsic, it's basically immutable and so you're telling people to despair. And if there's one thing to think about when thinking about human cognitive skills is we shouldn't think about despair, we should think about trying to find ways to improve all of the nations in the world not just the lucky few.Tobi: That's interesting. Tell us about what you're working on right now what's your next big project.Garett: I'm on sabbatical and finishing up right now and I'm writing my third book in what I call my Singapore trilogy. And that's going to be a book really about the deep roots literature which I'd mentioned earlier. I'm interested in why the past is prologue. Hive Mind is a book, in a way, about the short-run. About almost proximate causes. 10% Less Democracy is a book about the rich countries. My third book is going to be a book about the whole world and a book about persistence. A book about why the more things change, the more they stay the same. So, again, this is going to draw on the deep roots literature, it's going to draw on the late Alberto Alesina's work on cultural persistence - how migrants carry their attitudes from their home country to the country they move to to a large degree. It's been a lot of fun to write this book because it's so data-driven and it's based on a lot of research that is very influential within economics and not influential at all outside economics and my job is to change that.Tobi: You've been an advocate so speak of high-skilled migration.Garett: Uh-huh.Tobi: How does your argument square with people like Bryan Caplan and who call for open borders, I mean, just let them come?Garett: So Caplan's comic book where I make an appearance on open borders, that's a great fun read I think people should look at that and give his ideas careful attention. I like to remind people that institutions do not just create themselves ex nihilo. That they are actually created by people and I just really want people to think about that a lot. High-skilled immigration means bringing in more informed voters and low-skilled immigration means, 'well, we really need to put a lot of effort into educating those folks' and hope that they support great institutions that will keep the country rich for a very long time. Fortunately, there is a lot of evidence that even the most optimistic supporters of open borders tend to emphasise that high-skilled immigrants have a lot of positive externalities, it's easy to make that case, and less skilled immigrants have... they are more like a wash, there is probably a plus in the short to medium run but closer to a wash than with high-skilled immigration. So I want people to think hard about where good institutions come from and if people coming to your country are going to support better institutions, that should be great news. And if people [who] come to your country are likely to tear it down, you have a little bit more concern. Caplan addresses this in his book in a number of ways with his keyhole solutions. But I think the next 20 to 30 years of both academic research and historical experience will let us know which way low-skilled immigration is going to shape the government of rich countries. Tobi: Charter Cities. Are you optimistic, are you a fan? How best to think about it from a skill and immigration perspective?Garett: Yes, so, Charter Cities which is an idea that's often associated with the Nobel Laureate Paul Romer. The idea that countries should create small little areas within there that are governed by another country's rules. A country that's well-governed, frontier. So say a poor country could say 'hey, we're going to let Singapore run a small part of our country or let Singaporean legislation or Singaporean case law hold sway in this part of our country. I tend to think that the biggest barrier to charter cities as the revenge of democracy. It's very hard to avoid what voters want. I would like to believe that countries with great institutions could franchise their institutions to other poor countries, but the problem is that institutions are created by people and we need to figure out why the institutions are weak in the first country (the country that's starting the charter city). There's a pretty good chance you're going to get a revenge of democracy there and a reversion to the old ways. Some of my GMU colleagues and I have joked that Singapore should franchise it's government to a lot of countries the way McDonald's franchises it's operating model. It would be great if we could do this but it's hard to avoid the norms of democracy especially when, as I note in 10% Less Democracy, some degree of democracy is really important to have. So Charter Cities being in tension with democracy, that's the real problem we have in making Charter Cities durable. I think the solution is to have moderate Charter Cities. Countries where, say, Singaporean law or Japanese law or South Korean law is the default but the local voters can overrule it with a two-thirds vote. Something like that might be much more durable than a full charter city solution. Starting with the default of some rich country's rules but let the local voters overturn it piece by piece and build that change into the original set of rules so that people don't feel like this is out of their control. Tobi: I'm going to ask you a very specific question. So, say, I win the election in Nigeria and I ask you 'hey, Garett, my country is going to be 300 million people in 2050, what are the policies that we can embark upon right now that can get us to a middle-income country over that time period', what would be your advice?Garett: I think my biggest piece of advice would be: find a way to become a credible, attractive place for massive amounts of high-skill immigration. How do I get five million people from China, a million and [a] half people from South Korea, two million people from America to move to Nigeria? Some of those folks will, perhaps, be people of Nigerian descent, people whose ancestors are Nigerian and who want to come back. Some of those folks will be folks who just saw that there is going to be some great tax deals, some great tax incentives to move back. I think people are policy and becoming an attractive place for high-skilled immigration like Singapore is a great way to make your country richer.Tobi: Thank you very much. I've been speaking with Economist Garett Jones and it's wonderful to have you Garett.Garett: It's been great talking with you, Tobi. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

This week's expert knows all about intelligence.  Professor James Flynn is an internationally recognised expert on intelligence he's also  an emeritus professor at Otago University.

In the Information Age, information has become a commodity that is quickly and widely disseminated and is easily accessible, especially through digital mediums. How did we get here and what does it mean for us? Discussed in this episode: The origin of speech determined by genetic, anatomical, and anthropological studies, cave paintings in the Paleolithic periods, the origin of writing, talking drums, the telegraph, the telephone, the Flynn Effect, research by Hubel and Wiesel on the visual cortex, the brain's dependence on the environment in development, and the positive and negative implications of the Information Age.   https://www.insightfulthinkersmedia.com/

I'm always looking for interesting books that I think parents will find thought-provoking. In today's pedcast, I am going to introduce you to a book that will do just that. So kick back and enjoy our take on The Carpenter and The Gardener, by Allison Gopnik Purchase, The Gardener and the Carpenter with the link below and you will not only get Amazon's best price but you will help this blog/podcast. Gardener and the Carpenter Musical Intro Overview of Gardener/Carpenter It’s not every day that you find a developmental psychologist and a philosopher with a strong interest in evolution, writing a parenting book giving advice to today's parents. I must say that her unique background and scientific perspective makes this a very interesting read and probably explains why she has gleaned so much attention from the media.  As her title reveals, Dr. Gopnik divides the craft of raising children into two broad categories - the precise and measured process a carpenter uses to build something of wood versus the skill of growing a garden, with all the environmental variables and obstacles one encounters there. Professor Gopnik sees the techniques used by a carpenter as inflexible and prescribed whereas the gardener being the opposite - flexible and changeable. Dr. Gopnik sees modern parenting (and education for that matter) as following the carpenter model rather than the gardener approach, even though she contends that there is a wealth of scientific evidence that the adults a family ultimately produce, has little to do with the carpenter decisions that today's parents think are essential to effective child-rearing. Interesting things I Learned from Dr. Gopnik If you choose to read The Gardener and the Carpenter, expect to encounter many new concepts, many of which are rooted in experimental biology. For instance, Dr. Gopnik thinks that much of the uniqueness of humans stems from our long childhoods.  All the time human children spend under the protection of elders allows them to learn a lot, develop large brains compared to other species, and gives their parents a longer time to teach and invest in their children. Add to this the fact that humans have traditionally shared child rearing duties and have a tendency toward "Pair bonding" with tribal living arrangements. All of this Dr. Gopnik argues has given human children evolutionary advantage with respect to brain development. In fact, she points out that long childhoods explain the known fact that human children are experiencing what is known as the Flynn Effect ( an inter-generational increase in I.Q. over time). Yes, evidence is strong that, on average, children have a higher IQ than their parents! Our Opinion About the Essence of Gardener/Carpenter Dr. Gopnik's book provoked a strong reaction in us likely due to the fact that I am one of those people who have written two of the thousands of parent advice books of which she disparagingly speaks and  I am both a woodworker and gardener in my spare time.  First, our thoughts with regards to the advice books.  Writers of parenting books all have their own perspectives on the subject of raising healthy children. To lump them all into the same category and trivialize their value is convenient but simple minded. As part of my blog, I have read and reviewed many parenting books and I find value in each that I have encountered - each bringing fresh insights from the authors unique experiences. Now, for the carpenter versus gardener analogy.  I think the differences between the two activities are a useful way of thinking about the role of a parent. The resume building carpenter parent is often disappointed with their results and the gardener parent is often surprised to discover passions and talents in their children that the carpenter parent might overlook or not discover. However, I feel that Dr. Gopnik missed the most important aspect of raising happy children, that being a strong trusting,

Jim Flynn (the Flynn Effect) and Asger Folmann discuss subculture and its link to intelligence, reversal of the Flynn Effect, scientific censorship, intelligence selection pressure, and more. Flynn also explains the trends that lead to his most recent book: A Book Too Risky to Publish, which was, ironically, abandoned by the (first) publisher. Charles Murray, Arthur Jensen, Thomas Sowell, and others, are mentioned. *** Flynn’s new book: A Book Too Risky To Publish: Free Speech and Universities https://www.bookdepository.com/Book-Too-Risky-Publish-James-R-Flynn/9781680532197 Flynn’s book on Free Will: Fate & Philosophy: A Journey Through Life's Great Questions: https://amzn.to/2XX9t0C *** Crypto & fiat VISA metal card, free $50 and 2% CASHBACK on all purchases here: https://platinum.crypto.com/r/asger Ref code: asger NOTE: You must stake 50 MCO (easily done in the app) to get the free $50 and 2% cashback. *** Asger Folmann on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Asger_Folmann *** Guest requests, topics you want me to explore, and general discussion: JOIN Meta Quest group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2587879611435927/ *** Get in touch here: metaquestcontact@gmail.com *** #JamesFlynn #theFlynnEffect #Intelligence

In this Flashcast, Murray and Tamika explore the Flynn effect, which suggests that IQ test scores increased around the world during the 20th century. (One study found that, between 1942 and 2008, British children's average IQ scores rose by 14 points.) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this Flashcast, Murray and Tamika explore the Flynn effect, which suggests that IQ test scores increased around the world during the 20th century. (One study found that, between 1942 and 2008, British children's average IQ scores rose by 14 points.) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Author David Epstein joins Trey Elling to share details from his book, RANGE: WHY GENERALISTS TRIUMPH IN A SPECIALIZED WORLD. The conversation includes why parents should avoid forcing specialized skills upon their kids at a young age, the importance of the Flynn Effect, why failure is an important part of development, and more.

Their progression over the years has been mesmerising to witness and now Motionless In White return with their most diverse offering yet, Disguise, which could quite possibly, be one of the best, dark horse releases of the year and this week frontman Chris Motionless joins the podcast to chat all about it. Not only does he delve into the band's progression from the early goth rock era to their now, genre-crossing blend of industrial metal and metalcore but he also shares his thoughts anti-religious opinions which resulted in the band's new track 'Thoughts and Prayers' which is guaranteed to raise a few eyebrows and get people talking/agreeing upon release.  Podcast host Browny also talks about Northlane's new song 'Talking Heads' which has infamously become a fan favourite at their most recent live shows, which they now have a studio quality release for everyone to froth over, ahead of the release of their new album Alien. There's also plenty of throwbacks from Marilyn Manson, Atreyu, Flynn Effect, HIM, Rob Zombie, Orgy, Murderdolls and KoRn, Poppy's new song which features Fever 333 makes an appearance too + heaps more! #WoSUATW #ChrisMotionless #MotionlessInWhite #MIW #Disguise #Metal #IndustrialMetal #GothRock #Atreyu #Poppy #Fever333 #MarilynManson #Orgy #Murderdolls #HIM #RobZombie #IceNineKills #Northlane #FlynnEffect #KoRn #Podcast #MusicPodcast #WallOfSoundAU

My guest this week is David Epstein. David is a writer and researcher extraordinaire and the author of two great books. His second, Range, is out today and I highly recommend it. We discuss the pros and cons of both the generalist and specialist mindsets in detail and go down many interesting trails along the way. Please enjoy our conversation. For more episodes go to InvestorFieldGuide.com/podcast. Sign up for the book club, where you’ll get a full investor curriculum and then 3-4 suggestions every month at InvestorFieldGuide.com/bookclub. Follow Patrick on Twitter at @patrick_oshag   Show Notes 1:12 - (First Question) – What he uncovered in “The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance” that led him to his latest book             2:38 – Debate with Malcolm Gladwell (YouTube) 4:12 – What did the public pay most attention to and what did they gloss over 7:56 – How his views on nature vs nurture shifted during the process of writing The Sports Gene 10:05 – Blending practice with your nature 13:04 – His process of reading 10 journal articles a day as part of his research 19:06 – Exploring his new book “Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World”, and his idea of Martian tennis 23:03 – Idea of the cult of the head start and how we set up our own feedback loops 28:58 – What does his research say about the nations education system 30:42 – The Flynn Effect chapter 33:54 – Hacks for learning 37:52 – The concept of struggle and harnessing the power of it 46:31 – Personality changes and how to drive those changes in a positive way 52:00 – Using the outside perspective in businesses for more productive outcomes and how it applied to Nintendo             52:59 – Josh Wolfe Podcast Episode 1:04:45 – Other examples of using withered technologies, 3M 1:09:00 – The arc of his work and how it has evolved 1:13:54 – Taking a different view on problems             1:17:52 – Ending Medical Reversal: Improving Outcomes, Saving Lives 1:18:04– Anyway to change these bad trends with new strategies   Learn More For more episodes go to InvestorFieldGuide.com/podcast.  Sign up for the book club, where you’ll get a full investor curriculum and then 3-4 suggestions every month at InvestorFieldGuide.com/bookclub Follow Patrick on twitter at @patrick_oshag

Journalist and author David Epstein talks about his book Range with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Epstein explores the costs of specialization and the value of breadth in helping to create mastery in our careers and in life. What are the best backgrounds for solving problems? Can mastery be achieved without specialization at a young age? What experiences and knowledge best prepare people to cope with unexpected situations? This is a wide-ranging conversation that includes discussion of chess, the Challenger tragedy, sports, farming in obscure Soviet provinces after the revolution, the Flynn effect and why firefighters sometimes fail to outrun forest fires.

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT Dr. James Flynn is a world-renowned intelligence researcher, an Emeritus Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. He's the author of several books, including What Is Intelligence: Beyond the Flynn Effect, Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century, and Intelligence and Human Progress: The Story of What was Hidden in our Genes. In this episode, we talk about the scientific definitions of intelligence and IQ; IQ tests and their limitations; the Wechsler tests, and their subtests; fluid and crystallized intelligence; the limitations and prediction power of IQ tests; types of intelligence; the Flynn effect; comparing IQ of different social groups; and the relationship between science and religion and IQ. -- O Dr. James Flynn é um investigador da inteligência mundialmente reconhecido, um Professor Emérito de Estudos Políticos da Universidade de Otago, em Dunedin, Nova Zelândia. É também o autor de diversos livros, incluindo O que é a inteligência? Além do efeito Flynn, Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century, e Intelligence and Human Progress: The Story of What was Hidden in our Genes. Neste episódio, falamos sobre as definições científicas de inteligência e QI; testes de QI e as suas limitações; os testes Wechsler, e os seus sub-testes; inteligência fluida e cristalizada; as limitações e o poder de predição dos testes de QI; tipos de inteligência; o efeito Flynn; comparações do QI entre diferentes grupos sociais; e a relação entre ciência e religião e o QI. -- Follow Dr. Flynn's work: Faculty page: https://www.otago.ac.nz/psychology/staff/jamesflynn.html His books: https://www.amazon.com/Books-James-R-Flynn/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJames%20R.%20Flynn -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, JUNOS, SCIMED, PER HELGE HAAKSTD LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, RUI BELEZA, MIGUEL ESTRADA, ANTÓNIO CUNHA, CHANTEL GELINAS, JIM FRANK, JERRY MULLER, FRANCIS FORD, AND HANS FREDRIK SUNDE! I also leave you with the link to a recent montage video I did with the interviews I have released until the end of June 2018: https://youtu.be/efdb18WdZUo And check out my playlists on: PSYCHOLOGY: https://tinyurl.com/ybalf8km PHILOSOPHY: https://tinyurl.com/yb6a7d3p ANTHROPOLOGY: https://tinyurl.com/y8b42r7g

Andrew and Julian discuss the history of IQ and the Flynn Effect. Are we getting smarter or dumber with time? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

10 (5!) minute long breakdown of the week’s events in markets and the economy. Markets up again. No economic news. IQs stagnating? Links:Timothy Taylor comments on the Flynn Effect: http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-flynn-effect-rising-iq-scores-over.html... Read more »

 "When you turn your back on reality you lose the ability to manipulate reality. One would think that is self-evident. I didn't go into this to not try to find the truth." -- James Flynn* Today it is an honor to have Dr. James Flynn on the podcast. Dr. Flynn is Professor Emeritus at the University of Otago and recipient of the University’s Gold Medal for Distinguished Career Research. In 2007, the International Society for Intelligence Research named him its Distinguished Contributor. His TED talk on cognitive and moral progress has received over 3.5 million visits. His long list of books include Are We Getting Smarter?, What is Intelligence?, Where Have All the Liberals Gone?, Fate and Philosophy, How to Improve Your Mind, and most recently, Does Your Family Make You Smarter?: Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy. In this episode we cover a wide range of topics relating to intelligence and its determinants, including: Flynn’s attempts to clarify intelligence and its causes The g factor, and what gives rise to it The validity of multiple intelligences theory Intergenerational trends (the “Flynn effect”) vs. Within-generation trends The “social multiplier” model of intergenerational trends in intelligence Individual multipliers vs. social multipliers The multiple causes of black-white differences in IQ Charley Murray and the meritocracy thesis Transcending the politics of intelligence research The dangers of suppressing ideas and research The 20% wiggle room of autonomy on IQ tests The difference between internal and external environment The impact of having a “family handicap” on SAT scores What we can learn from astronomy about human intelligence Toward a meta-theory of intelligence Toward a more humane society Links Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents [TED Talk] Reflection about intelligence over 40 years Heritability Estimates Versus Large Environmental Effects”: The IQ Paradox Resolved The g beyond Spearman’s g: Flynn’s paradoxes resolved using four exploratory meta-analyses  IQ Bashing, Breadkdancing, the Flynn Effect, and Genes Men, Women, and IQ: Setting the Record Straight  The Flynn Effect and IQ Disparities Among Races, Ethnicities, and Nations: Are There Common Links? The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized  Twitter Q & A with James Flynn 1. “Would a 100 IQ person today be a genius if transported to the year 1918? If not, why not.” https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1027707019317403650 Flynn: No,  they would just be better adapted in their ability to meet educational demands. 2. “Are you concerned with the growing misuse of genetic causal fallacies in heritability research, and what can be done to make sure that researchers do not assert implications that are not supported by the data? Is this a question of education?” https://twitter.com/NathanH90714587/status/1027690457504002048 Flynn: Whenever I catch them I am disturbed by both bad genetic hypotheses and bad environmental ones. 3. “What has caused the Flynn reversal in Nordic and some other rich countries? Markus Jokela suggested it could be health related.” https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1027685177231695872 Flynn: See this article in Intelligence by myself and Shayer on IQ decline. 4. “Prof. Flynn has written about the increase in non-verbal reasoning on IQ tests that is attributed to the exposure to analytical/sequential/logical reasoning through technology. What should we do, then, to increase the verbal side of our reasoning, or have we reached the peak?” https://twitter.com/jakub_ferenc/status/1027682377169076224 Flynn: Read good literature and stand out against the trend to read less and less (see Flynn, The Torchlight List  and The New Torchlight List.  5. “Could the Flynn effect be based at least partially on a trade off, meaning that with change in culture promoting development of skills associated with higher IQ scores, this rise is at a cost of eg working memory?” https://twitter.com/Kapusta2365/status/1027689783219380225 Flynn: I don’t think there is a downward trend in working memory – see Does Your Family Make You Smarter? 6. “Do the intelligence gains the Flynn effect reveals show an in increase in the g factor?” https://twitter.com/DabneyPierce/status/1027684042022432768 Flynn: No – see “Reflection about intelligence over 40 years” just posted on the net. 7. “What do you make of American SAT/ACT trends, that is the Asian scores increases and the Native-American scores declines?” https://twitter.com/UnsilencedSci/status/1027682180737130497 Flynn: Sorry I have only looked at black and white. 8. “Does you ever think there will come a time when rational, non-bigoted people can publicly discuss race and gender topics relating to his research?” https://twitter.com/AFIChai/status/1027732647349547009 Flynn: Well I hope so – but there is no trend in that direction. -- * Quote taken from a lecture Flynn gave at the University of Cambridge on July 20, 2012.

Are more people subscribing to the idea that the Earth is flat? How does flat Earth relate to other conspiracies: 9/11Lizardoid aliens controlling the earthMandela Effect Have these all been enabled by the Web? Are they spread by people trying to refute them? More and More Americans are Starting to Believe Earth is Flat In America interest in the flat-Earth movement appears to be growing. In September Bobby Ray Simmons Jr., a rapper also known as B.o.B, launched a crowd-funding campaign to send satellites into orbit to determine the Earth’s shape. On November 9th, 500 “flat-Earthers” assembled in North Carolina for the first annual Flat Earth International Conference. Data from Google Trends show that in the past two years, searches for “flat earth” have more than tripled. The Flynn Effect is the observation that IQ scores have been going up. Unfortunately there may be evidence that that trend is not as reliable as it used to be.  So is it wrong to do a show on this subject? Are we just encouraging people to believe stupid things and become dumber?  WT 457-774 Eternity Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) | Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 Videos and Images from Pixabay.com and other sources.

Australian musicians are a whole lot different compared to international acts, when they sing/write about certain subjects and topics, especially hard-hitting political issues, there's a sense of passion unlike anyone else doing the same thing and every now and then bands come and go, sometimes for short periods of time, however they leave a mark on the music industry which lasts for years to come, thats exactly what happened with Mammal when they burst onto the Australia heavy music scene a decade ago.  They were much loved and appreciated, then they called it quits. However, like all good things, new life has been given to the band and they're back bigger and better than ever and this week charismatic frontman Ezekiel Ox is our guest co-host and he's not holding back when it comes to discussing the issues most important to him. A well known and respected political activist and talented musician whose credits include fronting other acts such as Superheist, Full Scale, Over-Reactor and his solo work, the man has built up a legacy of fighting for what's right in the world and fighting to fix the world his son will grow up in, in years to come. Mammal are about to kick off a three-month long tour of Australia which has already proven to be one of the most sought-after gigs of the year with shows selling out all over the joint. Podcast host Browny also pays tribute to the late Vinnie Paul Abbott of Pantera and HellYeah fame who lost his life over the weekend after suffering a major heart attack at age 54. There's also a plethora of old-school Australian bands on the playlist this week including the newly reformed Magic Dirt who have announced some exclusive shows at the end of the year and into 2019, Karnivool, The Butterfly Effect, Superheist and Pagan as well as New Music for Circles, Flynn Effect, The Fever 333 and Falling In Reverse. #WoSUATW #Mammal #EzekielOx #AustralianBands #Superheist #FullScale #Karnivool #Circles #MagicDirt #TheButterflyEffect #TBE #Saliva #NuMetal #Pantera #VinniePaul #VinniePaulAbbott #RIPVinniePaul #DimebagDarrell #HellYeah #TheFever333 #BareBones #FallingInReverse #RonnieRadke #FlynnEffect #Pagan #DevilDriver #WallOfSoundAU #Podcast #MusicPodcast #iTunesPodcast #SpotifyPodcast #GooglePodcasts #HeavyMetal #HardRock

Tomina Vincent from Brisbane alt rock act Flynn Effect spoke to SYN Media's Stefan about the band's upcoming EP Monument, out July 6. Other topics include moving to Melbourne, playing in Melbourne, the music scene in her home country of Bulgaria, music piracy and upcoming tour dates. Check out the band's new single, "Believer", on YouTube. Recorded 2nd June 2018.Surfacing as a live band in 2014, Flynn Effect have established themselves within their scene as a force to be reckoned with – delivering alternative rock with a theatrical flair. Flynn Effect's famously ambitious live show has seen the band perform alongside local heavyweights Orpheus Omega,Osaka Punch and Darkcell, as well as share the stage with Lacuna Coil, Wednesday 13, Davey Suicide and Seether.  The band's second album Obsidian (2017) comes equipped with super-sized hooks and musical nuance alike, switching from one end of the rock spectrum to the other in a heartbeat. Obsidian received rave reviews and took the band around the country for the first time. In 2018, Flynn Effect are embarking on a new journey and promise a very special release in July. -- Tune in to SYN's Punk and Metal Night, Moshpit, on 8pm-11pm Thursdays, on SYN 90.7 FM & Digital, and online at www.syn.org.au. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Moshpitonsyn/ Follow us on Twitter and Instagram: @MoshpitSYN Hashtag: #MoshpitonSYN Subscribe to YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/moshpitonsyn?sub_confirmation=1 Omny Podcast: http://omnyapp.com/shows/moshpit Subscribe on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/moshpit-backstage-podcast/id1103834864?ls=1

Featuring special guest host The Fiend, talking about the Hellfire club of Queensland, his journey from enthusiastic club bottom to Master in charge, his delicious selection of implements and life before fetlife.You can find @the_fiend on Fetlife, and if you’re in the area please check out The Hellfire club of Queensland to see him in action!www.hellfireclub.com.auTo support the show please head to www.patreon.com/kinkclinic and give us money in exchange for badass bonuses.Theme music is ‘All for Love’ by Flynn Effect from their latest album ‘Obsidian.’

Just a quickie before work?Lady Severine reviews the Xenodong by www.geekysextoys.com Use kink10 at the www.geekysextoys.com checkout for a Kink Clinic listener discount!To support the show please head to www.patreon.com/kinkclinic and give us money in exchange for badass bonuses.Theme music is ‘All for Love’ by Flynn Effect from their latest album ‘Obsidian.’

What even is SSC and RACK? What happens at a kink club? Is there a compatible kinkster out there for you?To support the show please head to www.patreon.com/kinkclinic and give us money in exchange for badass bonuses.Theme music is ‘All for Love’ by Flynn Effect from their latest album ‘Obsidian.’

Featuring special guest host Mastress Caer.To support the show please head to www.patreon.com/kinkclinic and give us money in exchange for badass bonuses.Theme music is ‘All for Love’ by Flynn Effect from their latest album ‘Obsidian.’

Time for a quickie? Mina Hyena talks about the film ‘Secretary,’ and its influence on them as an accessible mainstream portrayal of kink relationships.To support the show please head to www.patreon.com/kinkclinic and give us money in exchange for badass bonuses.Theme music is ‘All for Love’ by Flynn Effect from their latest album ‘Obsidian.’

Lady Severine presents an explicit and concise review of the Mia Maxx.Check out the toy here: https://miamaxx.com.auTo support the show please head to www.patreon.com/kinkclinic and give us money in exchange for badass bonuses.Theme music is ‘All for Love’ by Flynn Effect from their latest album ‘Obsidian.’

ASK US ANYTHING! To support the show please head to www.patreon.com/kinkclinic and give us money in exchange for badass bonuses.Theme music is ‘All for Love’ by Flynn Effect from their latest album ‘Obsidian.’

For many decades now we've been getting smarter. All across the planet average IQ results have been rising… by about 3 points every ten years. It's called the Flynn Effect and it's changing our societies. So what is it? What causes it? And what could be the consequences if — as seems possible — it goes into reverse. (Image : Woman and man standing back to back with think bubbles. Copyright - Racorn/Shutterstock)

The Flynn Effect shows that our collective IQ is increasing with each generation. (Send feeback to erik@mathmutation.com)

Justin and Jason discuss how much time they spend on the podcast, Justin's thoughts on becoming a multi-product entrepreneur, Seth Godin's book - The Dip, how much time should be devoted to consulting vs. working on a side business, potential email strategies for recruiting experts, building an email reminder system for AnyFu, problems with the donation model, the Node.js profiler that Jason and Guyon built for Uber, the misleading CNN article about why we need a longer school year and the other side of the story, Justin's idea for creating an ego depletion meter, the challenges of scheduling the first Catalyst Academy session, the Mathigon mathematics education project, how Oracle is moving MySQL towards the closed-source model, why Reddit only has two MySQL Tables - Thing and Data, Jason's idea for doing lazy schema migrations, why Uber is moving from MySQL to ProstgreSQL (PostGIS), how self-driving cars were just approved by the California legislature and the rise of drones, the free diving world records, why there is no American Ninja Warrior, why Darpa thinks the future of computing is analog, HP and Hynix's one-year delay on memristors, how the Flynn Effect isn't about people getting smarter, how the New York Times has been colluding with the CIA to boost Obama's reelection chances, how the spyware known as FinFisher can take over your mobile device, the Pirate Bay founder who was arrested in Cambodia, how the U.S. is probably using Sweden to get at Julian Assange, and finally how Obama's justice department has granted final immunity to Bush's CIA torturers.

James Flynn studies intelligence at the University of Otago in New Zealand. And he features prominently in an article called “Can We Keep Getting Smarter?” in the September issue of Scientific American magazine. Back on July 10, Flynn visited the SA offices, where he chatted with a group of editors

James Flynn, who noticed that IQ scores have risen by three points every decade (a trend called the Flynn Effect), makes a case for why any racial differences in IQ are not immutable and caused by genetics. For more see his latest book, "What is Intelligence? Beyond the Flynn Effect."