Steve Sailer, a blank slatist?

Three days ago, Steve Sailer wrote:

[Palin] has the time to put herself through a lengthy educational process similar to the one Mrs. Thatcher undertook. If she succeeds in it, then she's Presidential Timber.

People born with average-intelligence genes don't become magically smart through more education. Has Steve Sailer given up on the theory that intelligence is a genetically inherited trait?

It should be pointed out that Margaret Thatcher was a tax laywer, a high-intelligence occupation, before she became a politician. Palin, on the other hand, has never done anything that demonstrates high intelligence.

Comments

[ossicle]

Thatcher was also a chemist, of course.

[Brutus]

OK, Sigma, time to take me to the hoop. Let's stop pussyfooting around the IQ meme and discuss brilliance--OK? IMO, creativity is the essence of brilliance, not IQ.

Off the top of my head, 5 brilliant people:

1. Aristotle. Invented literary criticism and the scientific method. A creative genius.

2. Da Vinci. A creative polymath.

3. Newton. A creative mathematician and physicist.

4. Luther. A creative iconoclast.

5. Joyce. A creator of a new language.

The creators rule, not the no-talent-punk Mensa bitches.

[Ice]

Brutus, all the people you mentioned, died before Mensa was formed. I have little doubt, except for maybe Luther, that they were easily in the top 2% of the population. Creators are simply a subset of the set of intelligent men and women.

[Patrik]

[Palin, on the other hand, has never done anything that demonstrates high intelligence.]

Except become governor. Which, as I am sure you remember, I have argued is harder than becoming a senator or rep.

[PA]

Steve Sailer, a blank slatist? Not necessarily.

Palin has looks, personality, charisma, good judgment, and political skills. All of those are political assets.

[Thras]

Brutus is obviously correct. Aristotle, Da Vinci, and Luther all had low IQs. How does he know this? Because he just does. Hail the brilliance of Brutus! Hail Hail!

Now, can we get some sort of eugenics program started where Brutus and Palin breed to create a new super-race?

[Cody]

Or it could simply be that Sailer is far more wise on the topic of intelligence than you appear to be, Half Sigma. Sailer lives and breathes HBD, even giving up a decent career in the mainstream press in order to speak the truth on his blog and at the VDare Ghetto. If Sailer is acting like a blank slatist, then one must ask, "why now?"

[The Undiscovered Jew]

Charles Murray had an editorial at the NYTimes that argues for doing away with the B.A. or B.S. degrees as a certification for many (but obviously not all) jobs:

Should the Obama Generation Drop Out?

By CHARLES MURRAY
Published: December 27, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28murray.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print

[Joe Walker]

People like to vote for people like themselves. The fact that Palin's IQ is only a little above average may actually be an asset since more people will be able to identify with her.

[Anne Wright]

Off the Palin topic, even if I do find it fascinating.
I haven't seen anything on the IQ topics on this forum that mentions "The Smartest Man in the World" Christopher Langan.
There are three videos on Youtube; interviews with him.
This is the URL of the first video
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0
I would love to see what opinions people have here about him.
The first two videos talk about himself, his life experiences and his brain.
The third talks about what he would do if he was put in charge of the world.
He currently works as a bouncer in a nightclub.

[razib]

have little doubt, except for maybe Luther, that they were easily in the top 2% of the population.

Luther was smart. He might have dissed on philosophy & the new humanism, but he was a good scholar. He knew whereof he spoke.

[Halo's End]

Yes, Palin is an idiot. But you have to make a decision. If you insist on caring about politics and caring about which particular parasite holds office, then you should be in favor of whatever strategy has the best chance of getting someone from your team elected. Identity politics, socialism as an unstated and unargued axiom, charisma over substance, denial of principles (except perhaps adherence to crazy religious beliefs), etc - this is the trend and the future of politics in this country.
Ideally Palin will get a divorce and start a lesbian relationship with a NAM. Then she'll be ready for 2012.

[agnostic]

"Now, can we get some sort of eugenics program started where Brutus and Palin breed to create a new super-race?"

Let's just distill their essences into a tonic and call it Brutalin.

[whiskey]

Palin and Thatcher are perfectly acceptable as politicians.

What is a politician after all? A person who can win political office (run a competent campaign) and exercise political power by exercising and creating a patronage network.

Now, Ronald Reagan, or Howard Jarvis, or Rudy Giuliani, or Arnold Schwarzenneger would not impress anyone with "High IQ" credentials from the Ivy League (which is really more "Gentry" credentials ala Caroline Kennedy).

But as politicians they had reasonable effectiveness in getting power (getting elected) and exercising power. Palin is akin to a whole host of pols who came out of the West, learned power and what works and does not in the local level, and rose to higher positions. Palin is roughly equivalent to Reagan, who rose through the Screen Actors Guild presidency to making Speeches for GE to winning the Governorship of California to being President. Included in that was the failed 1976 campaign.

Don't forget Gender. Hotair has a column on how Women back Caroline Kennedy for Senate 57%, while Men do so only 47%. Women love the Gentry effect, the Princess type fantasy, and ticket punching, credentials, and so on. Single Women after all went for Obama 70-29.

However, men care more about raw patronage networks, the exercise of power that appeals to men is that of wallets or other things that amount to patronage (not all of it is pure jobs network). Reagan was a master of Patronage among men, and he would hardly be considered "smart" (in fact he was derided as stupid).

IQ does not really matter in politics and leadership. What matters is the skill in gaining power, and once there in creating and keeping and using "winning" patronage coalitions. "Smart" or really Gentry type people assume that the Gentry is enough to hold power, and often it is not, particularly in the National and State levels.

"Palin has looks, personality, charisma, good judgment, and political skills. All of those are political assets."

That the first thing you can think of is looks and that "good judgment" ranks so low (and that intelligence ranks nowhere) on your list speaks volumes. Talk about damning with faint praise.

[Duke]

Doesn't this quote imply that if Palin undertakes a Thatcher-like educational intensive and fails, then it'll prove once and for all that she's not "Presidential Timber"?

She'd need an IQ well above 105 to succeed in this effort.

[Brutus]

"Brutus is obviously correct. Aristotle, Da Vinci, and Luther all had low IQs. How does he know this? Because he just does. Hail the brilliance of Brutus! Hail Hail!"--Thras

Dat be a good won, Thras--except for the fact that you misconstrued my argument. While there is a relationship between high IQ and creativity, the nexus is vague at best. Let me ask you this:

Do IQ tests measure creativity?

As an employer at High-IQ Inc, what kind of an employee would you seek out--a creative person or someone in Mensa?

Think about it before you spill your load (I know how excited you get).

Steve made his reputation for unbiased analysis by criticizing liberal beliefs like innate genetic equality between the races. However, it's easier to be "unbiased" & "speak truth to power" when you're fighting for your side against your political opponents and being critical of people whose beliefs you do not respect.

This incident simply shows that like most people, he is unwilling to turn the cold light of his theories on his own side of the aisle, when it would appear to hurt people who share his political ideology.

This has been the most remarkable aspect of Palin's debut on the national stage - watching conservatives that previously emphasized things like the importance of IQ, married motherhood, stay-at-home motherhood when children are young, etc. often as a stick to beat liberals & feminists with completely did a 180 and turned themselves inside out to defend Palin and her life.

Since this would appear to show that conservatives have a hard time sticking to a basic philosophy and will throw it out the window to accommodate individual candidates, their best course of action is to stick to truly conservative candidates, as conservatives cannot be counted on to stick to their principles when it's not convenient.

[as]

"" said: "This incident simply shows that like most people, he [Steve Sailer] is unwilling to turn the cold light of his theories on his own side of the aisle, when it would appear to hurt people who share his political ideology."

I think there's more to it than that. Steve Sailer and quite a few conservatives (Lawrence Auster, ziel of Lying Eyes) dislike Bush and are able to criticize him very objectively.

Yet, I've noticed that many of these same people are unable to criticize Palin. This goes to show that men find it very difficult to criticize women they find attractive and appealing.

[as]

"": "Since this would appear to show that conservatives have a hard time sticking to a basic philosophy and will throw it out the window to accommodate individual candidates, their best course of action is to stick to truly conservative candidates, as conservatives cannot be counted on to stick to their principles when it's not convenient."

The right should pick candidates who are men or women who are in their fifties. Then, rightists will at least have a shot at analying them objectively.

[Joe College]

I don't know why "Whiskey" put Rudy Giuliani, a US attorney who won many cases with all those other people; also, Schwarzenegger made $1 million by age 30. Though Giuliani is very likely a prick.

[Another Dad]

What a joke. Steve Sailer lives and breathes HBD straight up.

If you note the quote, he says:

"If she succeeds in it,..."

Someone of sufficient IQ would note the "if". That means "may happen"\"may not" for a variety of reasons including Palin being too dumb. Steve -- and I -- do not know Palin's IQ. HS claims it's 103 based on ... well on ... well ... let's see ... uh ... nothing much.

We know is she's a college grad -- at a so-so state school -- which right away (even if average student) moves her above the white average and puts her IQ more like 110. We know she had the wherewithall to get elected gov. We know her kids seem to be mediocrities. So we ... just don't know.

We also don't know about Obama. We can only guess assuming Harvard Law's grades are really "blind" and that you don't get good ones from being able to parrot back PC CW with flair (probably self-identitfying in the process).

None of these folks provide us a useful measure like SAT scores. That's the sort of disclosure i'd like to see from all candidates.