I think IQ not mattering is becoming a live issue. The votes of people with IQ below 100 carry as much weight as those of people with IQ above 100. If the <100IQ cohort voted as a bloc for the kind of society they prefer, a lower IQ could make for a more satisfying life. The world seems to be dividing itself along pre- and post-enlightenment lines, eg pro-Trump and anti-Trump, and IQ seems to be valued less in the former. Rejection of enlightenment values, of individuality and intelligence, may become discounted so heavily in the future that they become toxic. Productivity and innovation might then be criticized for making it hard for a son to encounter the kinds of challenges his father faced, and reap the same rewards. In a pre-enlightenment society, change may be seen as unwelcome, and any drawbacks because of it matter less than a sense of continuity and community.

I'm decidedly post-enlightenment, but I am beginning to wonder if the free rein of high IQ has created a better lifestyle than something more communitarian could have. I am pleased to see a trend towards co-housing emerging to replace the chilling lifestyle of isolation on one-acre plots where I live. I've heard people say, in defense of modern science, "Would you prefer to be alive now, with modern medicine, or in Shakespeare's time"? with the inference that life in Shakespeare's day was less worth living. Surely life in any age is worth living. Isn't the same true for IQ, provided society doesn't discriminate in favor of higher IQ, as tomorrow's pre-enlightenment societies may not? Making IQ not matter may be a more humanitarian policy than defending those with low-IQ scores from low self-esteem.