Interessant3 #156 | IQ Worries, Geopolitical Power, Woke Economics
By Duarte Martins••541 words
1. Scott Alexander — Against Individual IQ Worries
In this article, stresses a paradox: IQ is a powerful research tool in aggregate, but weak and misleading as a guide to any one person’s future.
Measurement is shakier than official reliability stats suggest - fatigue, test context, or even caffeine intake can swing scores by 10–20 points.
He points out that correlation at the population level (IQ predicting job performance, income, education) doesn’t translate into determinism at the individual level.
Using analogies to family income, he reframes IQ as a structural influence - relevant to sociologists, but not a verdict on your life trajectory.
Anecdotes (Feynman’s modest score, Reddit threads full of misaligned SAT vs IQ results) show the “statistically solid, individually shaky” dynamic in action. !
This is not to say IQ tests aren’t valid. The real danger lies in misunderstanding correlation: either despairing in fatalism or denying all data outright. Alexander’s plea is for a mature statistical mindset.
S. C. M. Paine - By Land or by Sea: Continental Power, Maritime Power, and the Fight for a New World Order
Paine argues that global rivalry is best understood through geography: continental powers (Russia, China, Iran) prioritise land, borders, and conquest; maritime powers (US, UK, Japan) build wealth through trade and naval dominance.
Maritime states enjoy security from oceans, enabling them to focus on compounding prosperity and sustaining the rules-based order - whereas continental hegemons often destabilise neighbours, overextend, and collapse under their own weight.
Historical cycles reinforce the thesis: Britain thrived by funding allies and protecting trade during the Napoleonic Wars; Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union all weakened themselves by pursuing continental expansion.
Today’s contests mirror these patterns: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s Belt and Road resemble traditional continental overreach, while US wavering between maritime openness and “America First” isolation risks undermining its natural advantage.
Paine’s prescription is patience and economic strategy: sanctions as “economic chemotherapy,” alliances as additive strength, and prosperity as the weapon that outlasts authoritarian adventurism.
The danger lies not in enemy brilliance but in self-inflicted blunders, a United States drifting into continental habits could squander the maritime order it created.
Kristian Niemietz - High-Status Opinions vs Luxury Beliefs: The Economics of the Great Awokening
revisits his 2014 thesis that “woke” positions operate as positional goods, akin to Rolexes, but signalling moral or intellectual superiority rather than wealth.
Using linguistic data, he traces the surge of terms like white fragility and intersectionality since 2014, framing the “Great Awokening” as a competitive display of high-status opinions.
He contrasts this with ’s “luxury beliefs” theory - where elites hold socially costly beliefs insulated from consequences - arguing that survey evidence weakens the wealth-based framing.
Instead, Niemietz stresses plural status hierarchies: moral, intellectual, cultural. High-status opinions allow progressives to differentiate themselves not from conservatives, but from moderates on their own side.
The “package” effect matters: one high-status opinion reliably predicts many others. This clustering turns political identity into a form of conspicuous consumption: fashionable, shallow, and often hostile to dissent.