I don’t ever want to say, “I don’t like where this is going so we shouldn’t study it”, but at the same time studying something and using the wrong terms of measurement just gives us false data. And as we’ve seen time and time again, data (even accurate data) can be used against (groups of) people.

So to say, “well we can’t really accurately measure x, but this measurement y is good enough” doesn’t really cut it for me. It has the very real potential to do more harm than good.

But where does that leave us? X still needs to be studied.

Then I realized… the authors are comparing countries’ mean IQs to their mean life expectancies. Yes, I study individual variation, so I may be biased, but I’m pretty sure that doing the stats on the means doesn’t make any sense in this case. Within a country the people with high IQs could be dying early, and the people with lower IQs could be living longer. The people with mid-level IQs are probably the ones that are responsible for setting that country’s mean life expectancy.

I think the uncomfortable topics should be studied – just on the individual level – which would probably make them way more uncomfortable.

Okay, individual variation rant over now.

Just because the truth may be uncomfortable does not make it wrong. My two cents….

Oh, if you’re looking for another example of this, check out Freakonomics and the chapter on the relationship between legal abortion and the crime rate. Boy did that one cause some outrage!

Paul