Q&A with the Author
Q- You take fairly strong objection to many of
the most prominent writers in the nature-nurture field. What is you main
criticism?
A- The complaint I have with most of the experts
in the field is that they take only one
part of the equation and blow it up out of proportion. They argue over whether a new-born babe is a
blank slate or not, or whether human nature predetermines our every move. One of them even argues that parents have
little effect on kids because it is the peer group that shapes them! It is hard to find a balanced explanation covering
all the different influences that shape the growing child.
Q- But don’t
you think genes play a big part--that each of us is for the most part “pre-determined”
at birth?
A- We are to some extent formed at birth but we
have the power to modify and improve everything about that initial foundation.
Most writers stress how “personality” and IQ are inherited, which is only
partly true, but I demonstrate that those characteristics are not the most
important things about a human being and, in any case, they are both subject to
modification—both for the better and worse! The fantastic thing about children
is their extraordinary diversity, their huge potential for growth, and the
opportunity each one has to reach their highest potential.
Q-- The most
recent school reform bill is based on the need to improve schooling by
requiring testing for all students. And yet you seem to oppose tests?
A- I’m not
against all tests. They play a useful role in finding out which students are
learning the basics about reading, writing, and arithmetic. And, they are
essential to find out who needs special help to master those basic skills. The point is that they should be used more to
measure the teacher’s effectiveness than the student’s worth.
Q- But IQ and
A- Yes and that
has done great injustice to many deserving students who were not good at test
taking. The great majority of entrepreneurs, who create all the jobs in
Q- But there is
a direct correlation between IQ scores and success. Everywhere in the world the
upper economic classes have higher IQ’s than the lower classes.
A- Of course
they do! IQ scores measure a person’s accumulated skills and knowledge which
develop from birth through early adulthood. Because upper class families
provide a richer environment for their kids, they score higher than kids from
poor or broken homes. It’s a meaningless
correlation, a self-perpetuating fallacy, and an unfair discrimination.
Q- So a
person’s family background determines their success?
A- Nothing determines human destiny. We are much
too complex for any absolutes. But families do have a major influence.
Q- Ok. But you
are saying that family background is important?
A- Every new born babe is subject to a dual
birth lottery—where on earth he or she is born, and in what kind of family they
are born into. Just being born in a democratic free country is a big win
because the child gains so many opportunities. Any American who complains about
his condition should try going elsewhere. And, of course, the family matters.
Many American children in dysfunctional homes might have been better off if
born into a positive family environment anywhere else on earth! As JFK said,
“Life is not fair!”
Q- Why is the
family environment so important?
A- A developing child needs security, love, a
positive and stimulating environment, and the gradual assimilation and
acquisition of numerous good habits. It is a long hard road from infancy to
becoming a mature emotionally sound adult—and too many never get there.
Q- You criticize single parent homes. Is that
realistic in view of the huge changes we have seen in the country’s
demographics?
A- It is always reasonable to criticize harmful
change. Everyone talks about how to improve schools, but they ignore the bigger
fact that almost half of our kids, at least in the cities, drop out and never
finish high school. Most of those drop-outs are from single parent homes. They
are born out of wed-lock, see little of their biological fathers, become
involved in gangs, drugs, and street violence, and have bleak futures. They are
primarily illegitimate babies that grow up in dysfunctional households. They
are losers in the birth lottery, doomed by their zip codes, and have little
chance of acquiring the empowering traits explored in this book. They represent the real challenge for our
educational establishment which is too busy fine-tuning the multi-million dollar
suburban schools.
Q- Would you agree that your theories on
schooling support Affirmative Action programs?
A- In a way they do. We owe a lot to the Civil
Rights Movement because it highlighted the fact that kids from good family
environments get better scores on
Q- You mention
that there are minimum intelligence “thresholds” for some vocations. Isn’t that an admission that test scores do
matter?
A- Well, it is
true that to become a brain surgeon or rocket scientist you probably need a lot
of the IQ type of memory and algorithmic skills. Some experts suggest an IQ of
110 or better is necessary. But among all the students above that level,
success will be determined by the amount of their other competencies.
Q- What are
those other things that make a person more or less capable?
A- I outline
all those other competencies in the book. They have been ignored by academics
because they seem to be just personal habits and because they are difficult to
measure. Educators love tests because they are easy to prepare, easy to grade,
and give the illusion of scientific precision.
But the other forms of intelligence are in the aggregate more important
than “school book smarts.”
Q- Why do you
make so many references to sports teams, coaches, and athletic accomplishments
in a book mostly aimed at academic and parenting topics?
A- Because our
best coaches and the best teams rely on a few fundamental principles that
govern human behavior—principles that have been forgotten by many teachers and
parents. Winning coaches have a great insight into human motivation, individual
aspirations, team play, and the need for a profound respect for the dignity and
success of each person. They have a lot to tell us about how to bring up kids.
I believe that their wisdom trumps all the educational theory courses offered
in our teachers’ colleges.
Q- Can you explain more about your belief that
A- Well, humans are quite different from animals
and plants. There is strong scientific evidence that human beings as we know
them appeared suddenly on earth somewhere between 60 and 100 thousand years ago
and have not changed appreciably since then. Those first humans had an almost
Divine Distinction that separated them from all other creatures—the ability to
adapt to changing circumstances, to reason logically, to band together and show
empathy and compassion for others,
exercise their individual free will, and to almost infinitely develop
their skills. The human brain is unique in that its myelin develops after birth
as needed to face any contingency.
Q- But what
about survival of the fittest?
A- Our ancestors had fire, clothing, and tools
which made them relatively immune to the laws of the jungle. Biological changes
for humans over the past few tens of thousands of years have been limited to
superficial characteristics like height, skin color, and medical immunities.
There may have been a slight selection for individuals with practical skills
because such people were able to raise more children than less capable
people. But, today, with extensive
social safety nets, even the least competent individuals can survive and
thrive.
Q- One of the more interesting observations I found in your book
was about monogamy, and the “honey-do factor.”
A- Yes, that came to me as a result of thinking about why and
how humans improved their lifestyle so significantly. W. Cleon Skousen writes
about the “5,000 Year Leap” which was based on developing some 28 principles
that underlay free societies. But, to me, it was monogamy and its impact on
both genetics and human behavior that allowed those principles to be developed,
and I explain how that venerable matrimonial institution helped advance mankind
so rapidly.
Q- You refer to Jared Diamond’s assertion that Yali, an
uneducated boy in
A- Not only that, but Yali is probably smarter than all the
members of our Federal Reserve System.
Professor Diamond in effect supports my point that our extended school
years and today’s comfy and artificial classroom environment actually hold our
kids back. The great scientific and engineering advances of the Industrial
Revolution were made by young people who had been apprenticed out at the age of
12-15 with limited schooling to learn a useful trade. But in today’s culture,
the honors go to the high IQ soft-science Ivy League graduates--they have
peopled the government, Wall Street, foundations, and think tanks, and given us
the huge mortgage financial crisis that destroyed the savings of millions of
thrifty Americans. Even Yali, with no
formal education, would know enough not to guarantee bad loans.
Q- In Wasted Genius
you suggest that there were certain characteristics of the early Americans that
may have made them more capable than others?
A- Yes, that is possible, and it reinforces my belief in the
importance of the non-IQ forms of competency. Those individuals who had the
gumption to pick up stakes and take their families across the
Q- How does that relate to today’s immigration debate, with
hordes of illegals coming into the country?
A- All migrants aspire to
a better life so God bless them! The problem is not with immigration, but with
our welfare system. If the immigrants had to rely on themselves, their
churches, and friends to support their families, as all our own
immigrant-ancestors did, they would be no burden to the country. Instead, they
would be a positive addition to our workforce. And if the enticement of liberal
free benefits was removed, future immigrants would be coming here for
opportunity, not handouts. We would screen out the opportunists and gain the
well-motivated.
Q_ There is a frightening section in your book about negative
evolution—that our population is getting less competent?
A- That has to do with
birth rates and family structure. Our
governing elites have taken those people in the country who have demonstrated
the least ability to support themselves and given them money in almost direct
proportion to how many children they have. Now, I believe that many members of
the lower economic class are there, not because of a lower IQ, but because they
have less of the other attributes of what I call total competency. And we are paying them to out-reproduce those
parts of the population that have the most of those essential capabilities.
When that distortion in birth rates is combined with a growing number of
illegitimate births, less parental oversight, and an increasingly gang and drug
related culture, we are creating more dysfunctional citizens—sort of a survival
of the unfittest.
Q- So you are pessimistic about our
future ?
A- It
is very hard to reverse the downward spiral once it has started. A failing of
democracies is that they are so tolerant and compassionate that their people
resist the tough choices--especially if most of them are affluent and
comfortable, and made to feel guilty about that. But, I’m an optimist by both
nature and training--the reason I write is to spell out what made
and
save our children and grand-children from the privations of a tired and bankrupt
nation.
Q- So what has been your reaction to President Obama’s message
of hope and change?
A- No practical mind ever relied on “hope.” It’s a catchy
abstraction that appeals to fuzzy minded people. And any “hope” that relies on
changing things so that the least successful amongst us have an absolute right
to live off the most successful is a recipe for disaster. There are lessons of
history that I enumerate in these books, they establish very clear economic
principles, and they are recognized as well in most child-rearing manuals—It is
a profound mistake for both families and nations to reward poor behavior while
punishing good behavior.