Individual Intelligence Differences Are Boring
False Assumption: Differences in intelligence between human individuals are uninteresting to study and lack consistent genetic relationships to outcomes like educational attainment.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
Alison Gopnik, a UC Berkeley developmental psychologist, took hold of this view in a December 2025 conversation with Tyler Cowen. She argued that traits like educational attainment show no consistent genetic links due to complicated developmental processes. She dismissed questions about one child being smarter than another as boring compared to common childhood capacities.
Gopnik explained that IQ tests exist in their own universe but hold no place in developmental psychology classes for principled reasons. She questioned definitions of 'smarter' and 'genetics' when pressed on parental IQ transmission. This stance reflects a broader elite tendency to prioritize shared traits over variations.
Behavioral genetics has long documented IQ heritability above 0.5, with individual differences replicating reliably. Critics like Steve Sailer highlight this as a key question, contrasting Gopnik's disinterest with extensive research on why some humans outperform others at the same age.
People Involved
- In the halls of UC Berkeley, Alison Gopnik built her career as a developmental psychologist by dismissing individual differences in intelligence. She called them uninteresting, far less compelling than the traits all children share. [1] Gopnik went further, arguing that genetics played no consistent role in outcomes like educational attainment; she blamed complex developmental processes instead. [1]
- During a podcast, economist Tyler Cowen challenged her on common beliefs, like how smarter parents often have smarter kids through IQ inheritance. Gopnik deflected the point. [1]
- Meanwhile, commentator Steve Sailer played the role of a lone voice, warning that her stance rejected the most reliable findings in psychology. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (4)
“Thinking about, is this child smarter than the other one, given how unbelievably smart all of them are to begin with, I just think it’s not an interesting question.”— Gopnik: What's More Boring Than Human Differences?
“To a striking degree, the traits that people have looked at, like educational attainment, for example — we haven’t found consistent relationships to genetics. I think the reason for that is exactly because there’s this very complicated developmental process that goes from the genetics to the outcome.”— Gopnik: What's More Boring Than Human Differences?
“COWEN: But say, what you would call the lay belief that smarter parents give birth to smarter children, at least above subsistence — surely you would accept that, right? GOPNIK: Again, what does smarter mean?”— Gopnik: What's More Boring Than Human Differences?
“the venerable Professor Gopnik rejects on principle learning about the best-replicating subfield in psychology.”— Gopnik: What's More Boring Than Human Differences?
Organizations Involved
At UC Berkeley, the field of developmental psychology took a firm stand against studying IQ. Professors there excluded IQ tests from their teaching, citing principled reasons. [1] This approach shaped the department's curriculum and reinforced a broader disinterest in individual intelligence variations. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“IQ tests, for example — they have their own scholarly and scientific universe, but they’re not something that we would teach about or think about in a developmental psychology class, and there’s a good principled reason for that.”— Gopnik: What's More Boring Than Human Differences?
The Foundation
The assumption rested on the idea that common childhood features deserved more attention than individual intelligence differences. This view bred a sub-belief that IQ comparisons held no real value. [1] It also leaned on the notion that no reliable genetic links tied to traits like educational attainment, thanks to tangled developmental paths. Twin studies and genome-wide association studies, which showed clear heritability, went ignored. [1] What seemed like solid reasoning propped up a dismissal that proved deeply flawed.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“we haven’t found consistent relationships to genetics. I think the reason for that is exactly because there’s this very complicated developmental process that goes from the genetics to the outcome.”— Gopnik: What's More Boring Than Human Differences?
“from my perspective, the common features of, say, what kids are doing are much more interesting than the variations. What I really want to know is how is it that anyone could have a brain that enables them to accomplish these amazing capacities?”— Gopnik: What's More Boring Than Human Differences?
How It Spread
In elite academic circles, conversations echoed this disinterest in intelligence differences. Developmental psychology classes at places like UC Berkeley skipped over IQ entirely. [1] Curricula reinforced the idea, training new generations to overlook the topic. [1] Funding and social pressures kept the assumption alive, as dissenters faced quiet exclusion.
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“they’re not something that we would teach about or think about in a developmental psychology class, and there’s a good principled reason for that.”— Gopnik: What's More Boring Than Human Differences?
Downfall
The assumption crumbled under the weight of behavioral genetics research, which replicated reliably time and again. Steve Sailer pointed out that this subfield stood as psychology's most dependable area. [1] Evidence from twin studies and genetic analyses exposed the error, showing strong heritability for intelligence and related outcomes. What experts had called boring turned out to be central, and their dismissal was plainly wrong.
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“rejects on principle learning about the best-replicating subfield in psychology.”— Gopnik: What's More Boring Than Human Differences?
Sources
- [1]