Suppose we lived in a society split between the following intellectual package deals:

Package #1: Water is wet, so we should drown redheads.

Package #2: Water isn’t wet, so we shouldn’t drown redheads.

What would happen if a lone voice of common sense emerged to say, “Water is wet, but we shouldn’t drown redheads”?  No doubt he’d be attacked from both sides.  Believers in Package #1 would shake their heads and say, “Once you admit that water is wet, you’d have to be a fool to oppose the drowning of redheads.”  Believers in Package #2 would say, “Once you admit we shouldn’t drown redheads, how can you continue to maintain that water is wet?”  Believers in Package #2 might even accuse you of being a troll: “You’re feigning sympathy for redheads in order to lure us into the absurd view that water is wet.”

This scenario captures the way I felt when Noah Smith tweeted:

When challenged to explain his suspicions, Noah added:

I see where Noah’s coming from.  Our society is split between the following intellectual package deals:

Package #1: IQ is real, so we should exclude immigrants with below-average IQ.

Package #2: IQ is fake, so we shouldn’t exclude immigrants with below-average IQ.

When I talk about (“harp on”) IQ research, then, my support for open borders is understandably hard for Package #2 folks to take at face value.  At the same time, my support for open borders makes it hard for Package #1 folks to believe that I genuinely grasp the realities of IQ.

As I’ve argued repeatedly, though, both popular packages are silly – scarcely better than the imaginary packages about the wetness of water and the drowning of redheads.  In particular:

1. You don’t need an above-average IQ to be a valuable member of society. See here, here, and here for starters.

2. Even if you aren’t a valuable member of society, Third World exile is not a morally permissible response.  See here, here, and here for starters.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.