Reddit mentions of Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Poll-Jews-highest-earning-religious-group-in-US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Chart_06.jpg

I'm sure left wingers will handwave away the economic-cognitive stratification by race, but its no coincidence. You should read 'Hive Mind' if you want more info

For instance, Per Capita GDP and IQ have a correlation of .73(!) which for the social sciences is huge

http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

Reducing benefits and/or taxing immigration is the textbook way to deal with the externalities you've loosely described. Economics largely focuses on the effect of institutions on people, not vise-versa, so I'm open to the possibility of economists under-estimating the costs of immigration from poorer countries (some have argued similar things). However this still implies a tax could be optimal, not a ban.

Its worth nothing these externalities are very local and perhaps better handled at more local levels. Welfare is often a national externality because welfare programs are often national. e.g., a Cuban migrating to Miami is not going to affect its culture.

> they will be leeching your precious energy with their 0.1x powers. 0.1x * 10x = 1x

You're joking but...

> The longer and more complicated the game, the more clearly a pattern emerged: having one high-IQ player was moderately good, but having all the players be high-IQ was amazing: they all caught on quickly, cooperated with one another, and built stable systems to enforce that cooperation. In a ten-round series run by Jones himself, games made entirely of high-IQ players had five times as much cooperation as average.

So according to Garett Jones and his book Hive Mind, your assessment is precisely correct.

Much truth is said in kek

>what education matters, math, reading skills, knowledge of Shakespeare?

I would argue all of it. Education is about learning one specific skill: critical thinking.

I am only aware of two ways we learn this now: life experience and education. Hive Mind is a good review of all the lit out there on it. If you know of a better way to make an 18 year old gain the life experience of an 85 year old that doesn't involve some sort of education, I am all ears.

> My focus in the podcast was on ethnic diversity. The ethnic diversity results within that meta-analysis

It seems reasonable to me that there might be differences of this sort around - am open to further input in that regard.

Did actually purchase your book a few months back, although I haven't gotten to reading it yet - its still in the to-read pile (also had the podcast downloaded but not yet listened to). Not quite sure how well you focused on the topic of this thread in your book.

> but the difference in health care costs between Japan and the US are not anywhere near so easily explained, I believe

They are statistically very well explained by AIC or disposable income and they are very credible as causal factors because economic theory, long term historical data (elasticity of HCE prior to evolution of modern health care system, 3rd party payers, etc), common sense, and more supports this too. It's also worth pointing out that this (AIC|disposable income) not only explains the moment-in-time levels between countries but the long term growth rate patterns within the US and other countries exceptionally well (CMS and other agencies routinely use disposable income as their main go-to exogenous variable for historical and projected growth) and quite a bit at a sub-national level too (although elasticities are usually slightly less than 1 overall this is to be expected due to transfers, in-kind subsidy, and spillover effects). One could further add other factors to this model like, say, % of population sick/injured (see: obesity & diabetes rates, historical smoking rates, car accident rates, etc), age structure, prevailing wage rates, etc, which I suspect would make the US health expenditures look even more reasonable on balance, but these are pretty marginal as determinants of the overall health expenditure levels.


> Also, there is the issue of comparing a population with massive income disparity with one with relatively little.

No, probably not because (1) the national elasticities are typically much larger than one whereas whereas individual income elasticities are typically pretty close to zero and (2) careful estimates by individual income within the US find very little difference in health expenditures associated with income -- in fact without controlling for health status lower income actually consume somewhat more care and with extensive controls for health status the higher income consume slightly more. Like lots of other things in economics, the mean level of disposable income in society ultimately determines expenditures far more than the individuals own. Third party payers pay the vast majority of most health expenditures in the US and other developed countries. Differences in coverage, reimbursement rates, etc by payor associated with income are quite modest in the scheme of things (especially if you control for mean disposable income in a given nation and/or subnational area).

The US actually has below average out-of-pocket expenditures as a share of health expenditures. If we did more of this we'd probably have lower total expenditures, but these aren't popular either.

I figured that was what you were thinking but didn't expect you to admit it openly.

> Spoiler: it's black people.
>
> I don't know if there's a single perfect book, because it's a difficult problem and nobody knows all the answers. Here's a decent book that tackles the politically correct part of the problem. For the politically incorrect part, you can read between the lines of books like this or you can delve into the horrible dark corners of the Internet like this. As to the validity of the politically correct and politically incorrect theories, who knows. Maybe it's a combination?

Spoiler: it's black people.

I don't know if there's a single perfect book, because it's a difficult problem and nobody knows all the answers. Here's a decent book that tackles the politically correct part of the problem. For the politically incorrect part, you can read between the lines of books like this or you can delve into the horrible dark corners of the Internet like this. As to the validity of the politically correct and politically incorrect theories, who knows. Maybe it's a combination?

Please read this book, it explains how very very important national IQ is:

https://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446638531&sr=8-1&keywords=hive+mind/marginalrevol-20

If you think group differences in IQ don't matter, you should check out the book Hivemind. GDP and average IQ correlates at something like .75.

Great book by Garett Jones disputing that

http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961

The belief is free trade results in net economic gains. Free movement, especially in a welfare state, is not widely accepted as a net benefit by economists.

If a nation's IQ decreases, then the suffering increases. Huge links between low IQ and: crime, corruption, poverty.

https://smile.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961?sa-no-redirect=1

Yes crime is obviously tied to poverty, as well as low IQ / high-impulsivity, as well as genetics. These statements all say the same thing.

Of course the countries who have the lowest average IQ will be more poverty stricken.

Further reading...