>>12360577Considering this thread is geared towards politics, I'll approach it from the perspective of politics.
I'll come out and say I haven't read it.
I'm sure its a book that needs to be considered, however the implications of it (from what I've heard about the book) is mostly inconsequential.
It used to be a large topic in the 60's and 70's - nature vs. nurture. It was, at least, a central topic with regards to the legitimacy of John Rawlsian concepts of political philosophy. If a person was born a certain way, does that give the state license to manipulate people's lives? In any case, the debate eventually was "put on the shelf".
There ARE people, currently, who are looking into IQ to discuss topics surrounding the social sciences, but that discussion is on the frontier of thought.
In any case, even if there was a class of people who were less intelligent, comparative advantage still exists. Moreover, the topic of nature vs nurture to me seems so nonsensical, in general, as a discussion. The state shouldn't be trying to socially engineer people's lives, and what choice at all did a person have if they were born a certain way? How does that give license from the state to mess with them? So I don't see why this discussion would be useful.
