[February 16, 2026] In 1994, when Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein published their book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, it immediately prompted widespread criticism. However, few disputed the idea that IQ would follow a bell-shaped distribution. Some who study intelligence now believe the IQ curve is more likely positively skewed.
By ‘positively skewed,’ it means that, while the average IQ may still be 100, more people overall are below the mean than above it. Consequently, these folks believe there are more people significantly above the mean than originally envisioned. This also suggests that there are more people in the high-IQ range (outliers) at the tail of the distribution.
What does this mean? Looking at the overall population, it shows that any given society will have more people at the high end of the intelligence scale, which is a greater social benefit. Advances in the hard sciences, which we can lump into the STEM fields, show that extremely high intelligence is more common than we might have thought.
However, it also means that more people would cluster below the mean IQ, which would require a serious discussion about how to ensure that any society can successfully move into the future. Most of the population, in raw numbers, are likely in the 75 to 90 IQ range, rather than in the 85 to 100 range. Once an equivalent IQ drops below 85, these people have greater difficulty adapting to a modern, fast-paced society.
What may have happened to suggest this new look at the IQ distribution, and that a positive skew may have merit? I’m told that the public’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic showed that far more people believed the propaganda efforts of the government and medical institutions than would have been predicted. Additionally, the concurrent spike in violent crimes alerted us that something was amiss.
What does this mean for America and other advanced nations? First, it means a relook at our education system. Teaching core subjects such as math, science, English, civics, history, and practical skills should be improved. And there should be less emphasis on teaching many new topics, such as “gender fluidity” and “equity.” As well, it means rejecting outright any program designed to discriminate based on race, gender, sex, religion, and ethnic background. Individual merit would be the guiding principle.
Second, if this new idea were true, we should allocate more resources to teaching a broader range of subjects, including the appreciation of the arts, foreign languages, music, physical fitness, welding, construction, and the softer sciences. This would come with the recognition that not all of us are math geniuses, and that some young people would be guided into less rigorous paths for future employment.
Third, we could also teach young folks how to better control their emotions, focus their minds, study, think critically, manage their time, and develop a better personal philosophy of life. This includes rejecting the victimhood mentality that is currently in vogue in our school systems. It also centers on developing mentors who will guide these students over the next few years after high school.
Any of these changes could be implemented today, even if the idea of a positive-skewed IQ distribution were not true.
The idea that IQ – a measure of intelligence – is not distributed on a bell curve is certainly controversial and will be met with additional skepticism, and rightly so. However, the West needs a relook at how lower-IQ persons can be helped, and sending them to college, usually unprepared, is the hallmark of continued failure and helps perpetuate the victimhood mentality.
————
Please read my books:
THis can be both good and bad news at the same time.
Folks just don’t get the fact that people are different, and just because their intelligence is distributed unevenly, they get all upset. Yeah, the world is unfair. 💯
Sir, this is indeed wildly outside the norm of our current ideas on IQ scores (the best way we know to measure analytical ability, a stand in for “intelligence”). I’d like to read more about what you’ve written, especially as it applies to the overall number of very intelligent people (above the expected number, but still less than those who are between 75 & 90 (not very intelligent but still called average). Let us know what your thoughts are.
Wow, cool. This is a crazy – maybe not so crazy – idea. If this is true, then it explains a whole lot of what’s happening as we see extremely stupid people, especially those who are tracking and attacking ICE agents.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, Bernie. What happens when we have to explain to politicians that they are going to have to be honest and tell the public.
Yikes, Gen. Satterfield is going to get into trouble by the Wokie crowd. Oh, never mind. I’m back from the work, doing those things needed doing in the government down by Washington DC. I’m tripping up the Woksters and having fun at it, but it does take a lot of my time and energy. I’m not getting any younger these days. But we are winning against the crazies, and there are two main reasons. First, they are doing alot of illegal stuff. Go figure. And Second, they are massive hypocrites. Point that out to them is easy and makes their heads explode. Wild fun. Try it sometime.
Gen. Satterfield, thank you for this new way of thinking about how IQ is distributed, and like we normally think of IQ being equally distributed across populations, but that is not so. IQ does seem to fall into a normal distribution, or at least that is what we have been taught. Now, you are proposing that the distribution is more flat and that is “good” for humanity since the smarter people can create more and help push us to be both richer and better peoples. 👍 That is a great goal, let us hope the smart ones can do more to help us less intelligence folks at the bottom, where there are also more of us there.
SCARY SH##
A controversial topic. For sure. 👍
The book, “The Bell Curve” was something that scientists knew would create controversy because it means that certain groups/categories of people have higher IQ or lower, and that could be used to discriminate. But it also means that IQ is largely hereditary, and not environmental (although there are some environmental reasons like good nutrition). For example, we would have to admit that blacks will never achieve the same academic standards as Asians or whites. The average IQ of an American black is 85. For whites it’s about 102, and for Asians about 105. So, IQ is indeed a measure of intelligence and the ability to think analytically which is required for higher academic performance. It doens’t mean we should treat people better or worse for it either.
I think part of the probllem, Albert, is that IQ is often associated with other characteristics like violence and lack of emotional control. We see blacks, for example, being arrested proportionally far greater than any other ethnic group. There is some link here, but I’m not smart enough to say what it is. However,, what i will say is that there are a bunch of folks who are going to say that this article is RACIST. That is a trigger reaction, and ignores reality. But hey, who says they are rational? No body with any sense.
Yep, your critics will be ignoring scientific evidence. They refuse to “follow the science” and who would be surprised. Using “science” only when it fits perfectly into your DEI ideology doesn’t look too good.
Interesting idea here. I think another way to explain this, is to show that the “curve” is flatter than the classic shape of a bell curve. This might also explain what you are saying here, Gen. Satterfield