From comments to Steve Sailer:
* Let’s accept that 80% of our current problems are caused by 20% of the population.
But getting rid of that 20% presupposes that our problems were so bad that same was merited, right?
Okay however, even though of course there’s always going to strong biases to say “yes of course” it pays enough to get rid of that mere 20% (after all, one bias inheres just in the fact that it is 80% judging only 20), you get over your qualms about those biases and get rid of that 20%.
* How about not letting people in to your country people who are likely to procreate people likely to wind up in bottom 20% of the bottom 20%?
* IQ is correlated with basically every other desirable human train, including morality.
* Arthur Jensen said musical rhythm is unusual in not being correlated with IQ, which is why drummer jokes are a thing and why obviously smart rock stars like Jagger, Bowie, and Townsend tell them.
* Well in the Netherlands – and actually in almost every single northern European nation ie nations which had mass immigration inflicted upon them by the political class there have been many, many careful, comprehensive fiscal impact studies done by unbiased, uninterested experts on the national profit/loss impact of third world immigration.
The entirety of these studies unequivocally show that mass third world immigration is an enormous fiscal loss to the receiving nations. There has not been one single exception. If there was, the left would crow about it incessantly.
A few years back, the left used to bark ‘but we need immigrants to fill job vacancies/do the dirty jobs/pay taxes/pay for ‘our’ pensions’ etc etc etc. Now in the Netherlands the ‘smart’ lefties now cry ‘but you can’t judge a human being by how much money he makes’.
A new day. A new excuse.
* So 20% is a pretty big hit to take but if your system is Pareto distributed then 64% of your problems are likely due to 4% of your population and 51.2% of problems are on .8% of the pop. At some point on this curve we are going to hit a level of per capita badness that justifies extraordinary measures, for example about one in a million US citizens are on death row. If these were the correctly identified worst of the worst and the Pareto assumption held they would be responsible for close to 15% of the social ills which looks like a pretty good cost/benefit to me.
Now prescreening isn’t likely to be that accurate and the actual big problems are more likely at the other end of the bell curve, Neville Chamberlain rather than Jack the Ripper, but to put it in Steve’s favored terms cutting off the distribution at -1.4 SD would cut out over half of your problems. This would stop around .8% of white Europeans and 34% of African-American similar populations if the test is IQ. However if the test is some kind of composite politesse quotient (PQ) based on these studies the inter-racial breakdown could be different. Obviously if you have developed such a test deciding how far to raise the standard for incoming persons is a perfectly reasonable debate even if some group should decide to raise it to insurmountable levels (see Sentinelese people ) likewise as Steve points out Citizenism precludes a lot of this sort action for current citizens.
Another interesting point is the diminishing returns on extra 20%s. So you are positing some kind of progressive doom as after the success of the first 20% we lop off a few more 20%s and then there isn’t anything left. However it is geometric not linear so two iterations 64% of the population with 4% of the problems and then 51.2% of the population with .8% of the problems. In contrast to being limited to 5 you could actually do 10 of these 20% culls and still have almost 10% of the population and at this point you would have 99.99999% of the trouble out of the system. If you could do this well that might almost be that answer to Steve’s observation of the 5 billion people that want to move here. Such a test applied to them would allow us to onboard 500,000,000 useful citizens at the cost of absorbing 500 deadheads. If PQ encompassed cultural compatibility, and at this extreme it would have to, then such a move would be a boon.
Happily social science will never be precise enough for us to have to worry about the more extreme ends of these implications. For my part losing half your problems with a -1.4 SD tripwire or even a quarter of them with a -2.5 SD gate strikes me as good sense rather than a slippery slope.
