I haven't read the book itself, but I took a brief look at Andrew Sullivan's review of The Cult of Smart, by Fredrik DeBoer (also touched on by Paige Harden in a recent podcast with Sam Harris, which I also need to catch up on.) A few thoughts offhand-

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-logic-of-bell-curve-leftism

DeBoer relates his experience trying to teach long division to some of the cognitively challenged children in his class, who were driven to point of weeping frustration by their inability to handle these kinds of abstract mental operations.

It was simply beyond their capacity. And- as DeBoer emphasises- there is voluminous evidence by now that human differences in cognitive ability are innate and are heavily influenced by genetic factors beyond any direct environmental correction.

He realised, in effect, that the educational system does not level the playing field, but actually magnifies the impact of pre-existing differences in individual cognitive potential. That promotion on the basis of merit is effectively rule by the winners of a genetic lottery.

He therefore rejects a meritocratic system as fundamentally unjust, predicated as it is on traits that the poor have little control over, rather than work ethic or character, and calls for a system that ensures equality of outcome regardless of genetic endowment.

In principle, I'm not unsympathetic to this sentiment. It's true that no-one is responsible for their own genetics, and having the political left desist from their war on reality in respect to the impact of biology on life outcomes would be an encouraging development.

I'm also not, in principle, opposed to some degree of wealth redistribution, up to and including the welfare state apparatus of France or the nordic countries. I don't know if jacking the high-income tax bracket to 70 or 80% would be feasible, but that's another question.

Unfortunately, DeBoer appears to be laying out the insane target of perfect equality of outcomes- identical after-tax income (equivalent to 100% redistribution), and no 'social or cultural rewards' for higher intelligence. It's hard to believe that he means what he's saying.

Perhaps I'm misreading, but it does not seem to occur to DeBoer that robbing the gifted of most of the fruits of their labour while others are not is essentially punishing the talented for their gifts- something they also had no control over. This would not be a minor injustice.

It would particularly not be a minor injustice if it caused the most talented members of society to flee for other states that appropriated less of their wealth, or to exert the bare minimum of effort in life, given that life outcomes would be forcibly disconnected from inputs.

More generally, differences in life outcome along measures such as marriage, drug use, exercise and the like can only be eradicated by the state exerting control over every significant decision in life, because smart people, on the average, tend to make better decisions.

I'm also curious as to how one maximises the *production* of wealth, even for redistribution, if not by allocating individuals with the greatest productivity to the positions of greatest responsibility- a system indistinguishable from the meritocracy DeBoer seeks to avoid.

At a glance, it also looks like DeBoer's preferred explanations for, e.g, racial IQ gaps are weak and specious- most of the effects cited (such as neighbourhood quality or lead exposure) are trivial at the high end of socioeconomic status where racial IQ gaps in children persist.

(It's also worth remembering that social marginalisation and historical oppression has had no apparent negative effect on the IQs of women, LGBT individuals, or the descendants of jewish or chinese immigrants.)

It's also curious that- so far as I can tell- there is no mention of modifying genetics itself as a potential method of closing ability gaps. Between the newer iterations of CRISPR, embryo selection, and the flood of data coming from GWAS research, it seems like a natural step.