Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mixing up goodness as in deserving, vs goodness as in capacity to do good. Spandrell never said anything like smart people are more deserving. He says smart people have more capacity to accomplish things which most people consider good. E.g safety, comfort, health, stability, wealth - and not just for themselves but for others too. Hard to argue with as far as I can see.
'Capacity' to do 'good' (even per your definition) is so strongly reliant on the environment that one exists in, that I do not think you can defend your position in a rational manner. I also find it mildly offensive that your comment, and that of Spandrell, implies that smartness is measured only in IQ. High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities. What's more, people living in poor countries and outsid…
>Capacity' to do 'good' (even per your definition) is so strongly reliant on the environment that one exists in
Yes, an environment created by the people in your community. Or were you talking about the climate and mineral resources and stuff like that? Because considering the inverse relationship between natural resources and the outcomes of countries, that doesn't come close to holding up.
>I also find it mildly offensive that your comment, and that of Spandrell, implies that smartness is measured only in IQ.
My comment implied nothing at all like that. Also even if I said that, which I didn't, it would be nonsensical to find it "offensive" unless you're using offense as a goal or a tactic.
>High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities.
Absolutely not. It is the #1 most predictive psychometric measure ever devised for predicting important life outcomes. It predicts criminality, longevity, income, education, health, and a host of other critical factors better than any other psychometric test that exists.
>people living in poor countries and outside of cities aren't 'incapable' of doing good.
In the modern world, low IQ people lack the mental tools to have a big impact. They're not smart enough to effectively write books, invent technologies, create or run movements or companies or unions, make strong political arguments, etc. It's not their fault, it's just how they are. They can do good in small ways, and many do amazing things in that area. But the modern world revolves around concentrated power, and power concentrates in the hands of those with high IQ.
>They are often poorly educated, lack role models, lack good parenting, lack a good peer group, and fundamentally, lack opportunity and a financially stable childhood.
True. The question is why.
>Virtually all of it is structural injustices thrown their way through the roll of a dice.
If it these injustices were a "roll of the dice", they would be randomly distributed across the population. They're concentrated in low-IQ communities, indicating that they're not random; they're actually connected to the fact the community is low IQ. I argue that there is a causal relationship: low IQ people tend to make decisions that make their communities worse (crime, dropping out of school, drugs, irresponsible parenting, etc), which creates the injustices suffered by the members of that community.