◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Chanda Chisala’s article on black/white IQ differences has been making quite the stir in the HBDsphere. It is well worth reading in its entirety, as some of the points he makes – e.g., the evidence for high IQ amongst certain African ethnic groups such as the Igbo – are quite compelling and novel even to those well versed in this debate. But the central plank of his argument is ultimately a strike against the “hereditarian position” in IQ on the basis that the children of African immigrants are failing to regress to the mean.
The predictable response of the hereditarians is to adopt the environmentalist argument of super high immigrant selection to explain this unexpected trend: where some environmentalists propose that these immigrants are the most driven achievers in their countries, the hereditarians say they are the most intellectually elite, the ones from the topmost segment of the IQ bell curve in their countries; the outliers who got some lucky genes in an otherwise poor-gene environment. But like the hyper-driven-personality hypothesis, this argument cannot explain the equally, if not more impressive, achievements of their children: lottery winners never have children who also win the lottery. The stubborn refusal of their children to conspicuously regress to the much lower African genetic mean IQ (and not even to the African American mean IQ) predicted by hereditarians is simply inexplicable under their racial genetic hierarchy.
The problem is that African IQs from all social groups are highly repressed because of Third World factors like malnutrition and parasitic load. Very significantly so – around 15 points, or one standard deviation. When Third Worlders migrate to the First World, they experience a sort of “accelerated Flynn Effect” as their children with one plane ride get to enjoy advantages such as superior nutrition, medicine, etc. that had taken their host countries a century to build up. It’s not so much that regression to the mean isn’t happening but that it is being cancelled out by Flynn. This is a point that with apparently just one exception on the part of the IQ blogger Pumpkin Person has been overlooked in both Chisala’s article and the comments to it.
Let’s do a few back of the envelope calculations based on several plausible scenarios to demonstrate this.
The (commonly accepted) phenotypic IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans is typically estimated at 65-80, with 70 being a particularly common estimate. Their genotypic IQ is around 85 extrapolating from African Americans (there are issues such as ~20% Caucasian admixture, selection effects during slavery, diversity in Africa itself, etc. but let’s keep things simple). As is also well known, and cited by Chisala himself, African immigrants to both the UK and the US tend to be highly credentialed (more credentialed in fact than any other ethnic immigrant group). A reasonable estimate of their average phenotypic IQ would be 100, i.e. two S.D.’s above the Nigerian/Ghanaian/etc. average (three S.D.’s would be too implausible since there are so very few of them), and a genotypic IQ of 115.
Some at this point would object that the genotypic/phenotypic difference diminishes for higher IQ Africans since they’d be wealthier and more “elite” on average than the commoners, and hence have access to better food, medicine, etc. This is a good argument, but actual height data indicates that in the Third World entire populations are shifted down – both commoner and elites – relative to their counterparts in the First World. You can see the same phenomenon not only geographically but historically, e.g. average US Presidential heights, which increased by more than three inches between 1776 and today (and that is despite the US being very well fed by global standards even two centuries ago).
Assume the standard method of calculating offspring IQ: The average of the father’s and mother’s IQs, plus some degree of convergence to the mean of the parents’ racial genotypic IQs, i.e. what is otherwise known as regression to the mean, which is usually estimated at 40%.
Now let’s assume our African immigrant is an economic migrant, i.e. an educated and credentialed Nigerian, as opposed to a semi-literate refugee from wartorn Somalia or DRC. (Average IQ of Black African immigrant offspring in the UK is about 93 according to the CAT tests, as Chisala points out and as I mentioned three years back. Since this group will include a lot of these very low IQ Somali/Eritrean/etc. refugees, the average IQ of children of African economic migrants should logically be a lot higher, i.e. maybe around the White average. This hypothesis will be further supported below).
Let’s assume our African immigrant is male for simplicity’s sake – plus the fact there are somewhat more men than women amongst African immigrants anyway – and that he made some of the following marriage choices:
- Marries another cognitively elite Black immigrant woman just like himself, i.e. phenotypic IQ of 100, and genotypic IQ of 115, resulting in average offspring IQ of 107, i.e. standard “model minority”-level performance. It would not be particularly surprising or strange if Britain’s best performing secondary student in one particular year – Chidera Ota, prominently featured in Chisala’s article – was to come from the high end of this particular group’s bell curve.
- Marries a Black immigrant woman whom he married back at home, thus she did not undergo the selection for higher IQ that is the selection process for economic migrants, thus has a phenotypic IQ of 85 and a genotypic IQ of 100. Resultant average IQ of offspring: 101.
- Marries an African American woman with a phenotypic and genotypic IQ of 100 (i.e. associational mating). Expected offspring IQ: 101.
- Marries a Caucasian woman with a phenotypic and genotypic IQ of 100 (i.e. associational mating). Expected offspring IQ: 103.
Here’s a summary:
|Genotypic IQs||F (ego)||F (race)||M (ego)||M (race)||S & D|
|Black immigrant (elite) + Black immigrant (elite)||115||85||115||85||107|
|Black immigrant (elite) + Black immigrant (nonelite)||115||85||100||85||100.5|
|Black immigrant (elite) + US Black (assoc)||115||85||100||85||100.5|
|Black immigrant (elite) + US White (assoc)||115||85||100||100||102.5|
So you see the pattern? Cognitively, the children of African immigrants are basically Caucasians, i.e. a standard deviation above African Americans, but nowhere close to an elite cognitive group like Ashkenazi Jews or US Indians who are almost a full S.D. above Caucasians. They will come to form a population group with a fixed cognitive profile set around 100 or slightly higher (since regression to the mean stops after one generation), and as such they will do fairly well socially and economically. Most likely, better then Caucasians, since they will benefit from affirmative action policies in education and employment designed to benefit 1 S.D. duller African Americans while in fact being cognitively similar to Caucasians (think Ashkenazi Jews counting as Whites in university admissions). All of this, in fact, seems to be happening in real life.
Chisala might not have “disproven” the hereditarian or HBD position (at least its nuanced, non-White Nationalist part that pays due respect to auxology and Flynn dynamics). But he did demonstrate that African immigrants are doing fairly well for themselves. Indeed, as a cognitively elite Zambian immigrant, Chisala would presumably be quite the expert on it.
And don’t get me wrong, this is a genuinely attractive message, at least so long as you are an egalitarian blank slatist (US liberals), a cultural supremacist (US conservatives), or even a cognitive elitist who doesn’t attach any value to racial particularism. Liberals can point to them as living proof that Blacks are just as mentally gifted as Whites, and it is structural racism which is keeping African Americans down. As such, there needs to be more affirmative action, more racial quotas, more laws against hate speech, etc. to end it. Conservatives too would welcome it. They will praise the work ethic and family values of these African immigrants, citing the lack thereof amongst African Americans as the real cause of why they lag so much behind other ethnic groups in the US. That in turn will enable them to continue to wage their culture war against genuine African American culture. The economists and economic rationalists will be happy. Surely this is a good reason to expand immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa? More jobs, more skills, more entrepreneurialism. If anything, the only unhappy people would be the White Nationalists, and who cares about those primitive troglodytes anyway?
Even so, it should be pointed out that this argument can be critiqued even from morally universalistic, if still cognitively elitist, principles. An argument could be made that accepting African cognitive elites might improve the host societies, at least in the views of non-nativists: By increasing the size of the middle class, solving skills shortages, and providing fuel for the egalitarian narrative which – whatever its problems with logic, reason, and data – is nonetheless morally superior to “kneejerk” ideologies based on real racism and exclusion.
But proponents of these views should also seriously consider what effect their policies are going to have on the African societies that the high IQ immigrants are abandoning. It is becoming increasingly accepted in development economics that countries with high numbers of “smart fractions” – either via a high average IQ, like China, or at least a substantial “Brahmin” class, like India or South Africa – tend to do much better than low IQ and cognitively homogenous countries, like… most of Sub-Saharan Africa. The region has very few cognitive elites to start off with, and a large percentage of them are getting sucked up into Western societies that frankly have orders of magnitude less need of them than their own cognitively-strapped countries. These losses are not just financial, though those are no small matter even just by themselves: It takes a lot of money to train a doctor or an engineer, money which Sub-Saharan Africa generally doesn’t have. Even worse are the cognitive losses, as the stock of competent administrators and businessmen dwindles, reducing the size of Africa’s smart fractions even further and resulting in even more poverty and dysfunction.
It is adaptive to adopt the language of the Left on this issue. Enabling educated African immigration at a large scale is Western cognitive colonialism against the African continent, and is nothing more than a subtler version of the resource rapine that it subjected Africa to back in the days when imperialism was overt and didn’t bother concealing its iron fist beneath a velvet glove. Colonialism is bad and morally unjustifiable, and all foes of the global plutocratic elites must unite against it.