By Nneka Okumazie
The debate over IQ differences and genetics can be interpreted as not seeking who is smart or not, but asking what have they done for themselves?
In answering, it should be remembered that smart or not, outcomes are often predicated on the action.
In general, most of what it takes to live and get by does not require knowing much or standing out.
There are procedures to follow – for common results.
It is true that factors outside one’s control determine much, but there’re also determinants with individual or group action.
IQ difference, among ethnicities, in any country varies.
This variation may mean more or less to their placement in sectors of society – socially, economically, industrially, in the academe, etc.
Though the emphasis on IQ is outsized in many arguments, it is not implausible for many educated people to prepare adequately for many exams and not ace them.
There are all kinds of people doing well in all kinds of classes, in many locations around the world.
Yes, there may be groups scoring lower and struggling, but what sticks about them with low performance is not just their score, but that as a group, they haven’t done much.
So, why not ask the direct question – what has X group done for themselves or what has Y group done for themselves?
To answer, first is to look at how people look at great intellects. It is sometimes assumed the smartest groups have the most geniuses, but NO, geniuses are arbitrary.
Most of the geniuses of the 20th century did not go on to have a lineage of geniuses, the rostrum moved elsewhere.
The brilliant outputs in different fields through the last century can be said to be done by fiercely smart people, or mostly near-geniuses, but not necessarily being geniuses.
There are also those who naturally or somehow, became shaped to be incredibly great at curiosity, observation, analysis, understanding, memory, creativity, insight and introspection that use those to achieve what others could not.
This is also a factor of courage, perseverance, abstemiousness and optimism.
One or more of these, of many others, can also be strong within some or inputted, that with average smartness but strength in those, become powerful in how they go on to make a difference in the world.
So, IQ, an easy billboard of rating smarts excludes factors that alone can also make the difference.
Many have a problem with IQ dismissiveness, just as some dismiss talent.
There have been debates on talents, on how it is overrated, or how talent does not matter if other factors are absent.
True maybe, but if talent is present and other factors present, it is like refined extraction.
IQ and talent have similarities but are also different.
How talent can work is far more diverse than how IQ works.
IQ pervades everything, yes, but may need to be refined specially, then how talent can be nurtured more roughly – and show some results long before measured refinement.
IQ matters for many advanced endeavours and complex finds, but other factors can substitute for IQ in ways others may not for talent.
Spending years to get a result may or may not be fast-tracked by high IQ, but may ask passion, patience, bravery and hope.
It is possible to have other factors in an area but return averagely – if there’s not talent.
The question of why is X ethnicity anywhere in the world problematic, or Y race not just having it, may not be for low IQ, but maybe a result of low courage, low endurance, low selflessness, low integrity, or low collective hope – for their development.
Death, for example, is feared by most, but some are ready to die to advance destruction, while some are unwilling to die to advance development.
Death though an extreme example – is similar to other important factors of priority, for group progress.
IQ is conspicuous but not the problem. Some result of low courage may be called low smarts.
Some locations had civilizations centuries ago but present-day people in those places can hardly move knowledge forward.
This may not be the result of low IQ, but of subpar passion and apathy for collective progress.
People often say they want to leave a country or a place, true, some places hold little hope for change, but the problem is more about the people than the place.
Though going is good, but embodying excellence at any location – to the best of ability – is better.
It is easy to spot excellence for most people but hard to replicate it – because there are easier stops along the way that gives common result.
There are negative factors that keep people down, like hate, conquest, etc. But some nations in the world without anything much have been able to achieve one or a few major stuff albeit failed in other areas.
In most places, they have an army and the army [or result of] is at least stronger than civilians.
[Joshua 11:4, And they went out, they and all their hosts with them, much people, even as the sand that is upon the seashore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many.]
