The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Chanda Chisala Archive
My Last Word on the Scrabble and IQ Debate
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Africans have finally ended Russia’s historical state-sponsored dominance in the fastest form of international checkers: blitz draughts. Jean Marc Ndjofang of Cameroon (pictured above) is the 2017 blitz world champion.
Africans have finally ended Russia’s historical state-sponsored dominance in the fastest form of international checkers: blitz draughts. Jean Marc Ndjofang of Cameroon (pictured above) is the 2017 blitz world champion.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Arthur Jensen’s generation of race hereditarians (Eysenck, Rushton, Shockley and perhaps even Charles Murray et al) were quite different in posture from many of their current young followers. Jensen, like most of his friends, apparently wished to be proved wrong about his genetic hypothesis of racial differences in IQ because he genuinely hoped that what he was observing was not true so that something could be done about black underperformance in school. This made him take almost every single published argument against his theory very seriously, and he patiently addressed their points even when they came from writers with limited knowledge of the field. He would at times actually even help strengthen the argument of his opponents, but his integrity obligated him to show that it still fell short, given all the statistical evidence at the time.

By contrast, some “neo-Jensenites” seem more concerned about being proven right and are terrified of the possibility that their anti-establishment Galileo complex — they have suffered much unfair personal and professional ostracism for their “scientific racism” — was actually never based on any vindicating ultimate truth. As such, they behave the same way that most environmentalist critics of Jensen have always behaved, out of a grave fear of being proved wrong: they gratuitously insult their strongest critics; they erect massive strawman arguments; they misrepresent the results of their debates with critics; and sometimes they even censor (delete) arguments that dismantle their weak conjectures.

Fortunately, there are exceptions on the other side, like Dr. James Thompson (plus a few pseudonymous commenters in our threads – Chuck, Szopen, Res, et al), who are willing to at least engage the critics of their favored racial genetic hypothesis in a robust but civil debate.

In his last article in response to my corrections of his statistical methods on testing the biological veracity of the low Nigerian (and African) IQ, Dr. Thompson responds by correcting my corrections to his calculations. Now, that’s the spirit: He won’t go down without a fight!

But — he’ll still go down!

Let’s start with the easiest ones.

1. The Chess Debate

Firstly, Dr. Thompson “corrects” my factual claim that the only chess grandmaster in South Africa is a black man (Kenny Solomon), and chides me for “confusing” a local African unofficial “grandmaster” title for an official FIDE title:

“However, I do not agree with his dismissal of the chess results as being due to a lack of training in Africa, particularly when Chisala then goes on to make a point about Kenny Solomon of South Africa being a Chess Grand Master. FIDE does not say that, because he has not reached their threshold requirement of 2500 points. …It shows how important it is to set thresholds to begin with, or one mixes local rankings with the ones that matter most, the international open competitions.” (my emphasis).

Solomon’s grandmaster title is not a “local ranking”; it is an official FIDE title (yes, FIDE does say that). Thompson could have checked his own link to the FIDE web site that ranks South Africans, and he would have noticed that FIDE itself is the one that gave Kenny Solomon the grandmaster title. He was apparently misled by (his reading of) Wikipedia. Forgiven.

Thompson gave us that link to the rating list of South Africans at FIDE because it gives a white person (Daniel Cawdery) as the highest rated player in South Africa. However, since one can accrue ratings by playing in more tournaments (especially if one can travel abroad for tournaments), higher ratings do not always reflect superior strength, particularly when matched against higher FIDE-titled players.

For example, as recently as June 2017, there was an open chess tournament for Southern African players. Grandmaster Kenny Solomon, who has apparently not played much in recent years, took part this time, with some of his South African teammates, including their highest rated player (Cawdery). Contrary to the ratings ranking preferred by Thompson, the actual results at the end of the tournament seemed to align with the official Fide titles more than the ratings:

African Chess Federation Tournament final ranking of the top ten, 17th June 2017.
African Chess Federation Tournament final ranking of the top ten, 17th June 2017.

Some of the other HBD bloggers also think that chess ratings are perfectly representative of innate chess talent (since Africans have low ratings). One such blogger observed that the highest rated players of European descent are over 1 standard deviation higher than the highest rated black players, and of course this was to force the idea that chess confirms the (at least) 1 SD difference in IQ scores between blacks and whites.

However, anyone who follows chess would know that things are not quite that simple. One of the highest ever rated American chess players (second only to Magnus Carlsen at his peak rating in 2015), Hikaru Nakamura (of mixed Japanese and white American descent), does indeed appear to be around 1 SD above Zambia’s grandmaster Amon Simutowe in rating, and this would make someone think that the two players are in completely different universes of chess talent. But it’s not hard to see that this is only because Simutowe has played in very few international tournaments in his career (he was mostly self sponsored to these international tournaments, contrary to claims made by the same blogger). The most obvious proof that he is probably not 1 SD below Nakamura in innate chess ability is the little fact that in his more active days, Simutowe did play against Nakamura in two very strong tournaments. In both of those games (2001 and 2007), Nakamura was beaten by Simutowe, with the latter defeat at the prestigious US Open being particularly spectacular.

Unfortunately, Simutowe stopped playing active chess not long after he achieved his childhood goal of officially becoming a grandmaster and instead decided to pursue his studies at Oxford (where he played the top board for the varsity chess team), while Nakamura, who has been professionally coached since very early childhood, continued playing chess full time and accruing even more points until he reached top two in the world. Simutowe, like the other African chess players, has never had a single chess coach in his life.

Incidentally, this mistake of taking chess rating as unqualified representation of innate chess ability, without considering the different player contexts, is very similar to the commonest fallacy made by the race hereditarians on IQ itself. They take the scholastic test scores of people in very different countries, for example, as near accurate representation of their true cognitive abilities and see nothing wrong with that. I guess they think that since twin studies in developed countries have shown that genes are ultimately much more decisive than home (or school) environment in explaining test performance variance, then this can be extrapolated to comparison of people in very different societies, including countries in which the average pupil has never seen a mathematics textbook and is probably taught math by a teacher who actually failed her high school math (because anyone who did not do that badly in math would be very unlikely to choose the scandalously low teacher salaries of African public primary schools).

One of the reasons Thompson gives for thinking chess would be a better proxy for cognitive comparison is that it appears to be more complex than Scrabble, (for example, he writes, “One would have to make allowances for the fact that Scrabble is simpler than chess…”). However, it is Thompson himself who also reported for us a study in his field that found performance on some video games to have a high correlation with intelligence. The authors of that study noted that

remarkable relationships [with general intelligence] are only achieved when video games comprise moderate levels of complexity, display low consistency across practice sessions and have no possibility of obtaining benefit from previously acquired skills…

I proposed moderately complex games (Scrabble and checkers) with high cognitive demands (at least at the super-elite level) but scarce advantage from educationally acquired skills. Chess, like math, has thousands of books (of long opening lines of play analyzed by masters) and also benefits highly from exposure to well-trained teachers (although it is likely that general intelligence still makes a difference among highly trained players).

The reason I used Kenny Solomon’s grandmaster achievement in South Africa is not to show that blacks are genetically smarter than whites in South Africa, but to show that even chess might not be as friendly to the racial hypothesis as our racial hereditarian friends presume, once the chess training/educational environment begins to get a bit more equalized. South African whites may have a longer history of playing competitive chess and probably have more access to chess books, but the country as a whole is not that developed in the chess education culture (coaches, chess schools, etc), so the training regime gap between the different socioeconomic classes is significantly reduced. The results of this self-teaching environment begins to approach the “miraculous” results of Scrabble and checkers: the group that has the borderline mental retardation level IQ is the one that has produced the only chess grandmaster in the most multiracial society of Africa, just as it has also produced the top professional checkers grandmaster of the country (Kondlo) who rose as high as first in the world of American checkers.

Incidentally, I’m sure Thompson will be tempted to abandon his confidence in chess as the better reflection of the IQs of (most) nations when he analyzes the names of the people in the world top 100 or even the names in some of the Western national chess teams. Here are the names of the top players of the innocent nation of Canada, for example:

ScrabbleIQ-3

Yes, Canada can probably beat any African country in chess and our HBD friends will obviously conclude that this is because of Canada’s superior IQ of 99, but how much of Canada is Canadian? I may be going out on a limb here, but I’m going to guess that Evgeny Bereev and Anton Kovalyov are not descendants of the first French settlers of Nova Scotia!

It is clear that the state-sponsored chess culture of the former Soviet Union has distorted international chess rankings to this day, and the distortion goes way beyond their former communist allies (note that Russian Canadians are less than 2 percent of the Canadian population, but dominate their top player list). So yes, differential training cultures and resources is too large a confound for the role of national IQ in international chess rankings. (Incidentally, most of the top Scrabble players in any nation do not share this ancestry problem with chess.)

I also looked briefly at the Wikipedia profiles of the top 5 chess players in the US (all of whom are also on the top 100 of the world that, as Thompson reminds us, has no African). Although the top 5 US players are not necessarily all of Russian descent, there was not one whose father was born in the US. Among the top ten, there was only one who was possibly American-descended beyond one generation. This is further reason to reduce your confidence in a meaningful correlation between national chess strength and national IQ.

It’s also interesting that Dr. Thompson seems to regard membership to the top 100 list of chess players as a valid estimate of chess strength of different nationalities. When he noticed that the list of the top 100 players in Scrabble contain more Nigerian than American or British players, he decided (without explanation) that that’s not the best way of judging Scrabble strength: he proposed that we look instead at which nations have won most world championships (an obviously weak metric since many factors could affect why a country did not win in the past: for example, some African countries, including Nigeria itself, have actually missed some of the past world championship tournaments due to failure to obtain visas.)

Finally on this point, it is not necessary that a game be played by all nations or many nations for us to test if Africans should be able to compete at top levels. We only need to establish that the top levels of performance in any higher-IQ country require cognitive strengths that should realistically be inhibiting for Africans, given their average IQs (just as it is inhibiting for children). A gross defiance of such statistical expectations would only be possible if their nominal IQs are grossly determined by non-biological factors. Environment can be highly plastic, biology can not.

[Note: Some hereditarians, including Thompson, also keep reminding me that their models already consider environment as part of explanation of variance, but this is an irrelevant distinction since they (should) believe that the only environmental factors that could have a significant effect on IQ work through biological means: eg making the brain smaller through lower nutrition etc, as Lynn et al suggests. They normally reject the large significance of things like training/teaching resources, given twin studies in America. Since I am concentrating on samples that were born -- and mostly live -- in Africa, it matters not whether the variance is 100 percent genetic or 50 percent, since it is all still supposed to be mostly biological. A defiance of predicted performance refutes the significance of all biological limitations, whether the proposed source is environmental or genetic, and leaves only very artificial differences as significant sources of variance.]

2. Thompson challenges my Nigerian calculations.

“If Scrabble IQ 140 is required, then dividing by half three times brings the smart fraction down from 1336 Nigerians to 167. Chisala gets the number down to 33 so he must have used a higher discounting… He has discounted in a different way, and can explain the precise reductions in our later exchanges…”

This was about estimating how many Nigerians should be able to competently play international elite Scrabble if it requires high IQs (above 140) as it apparently does in the US.

No, I did not use any higher discounting to arrive at my numbers. Dr. Thompson’s calculation here assumes a Nigerian IQ of 75, and yet he begun the same article by informing us of new research that confirms that Nigerian IQ is just 70, which is almost exactly what Richard Lynn calculated many years prior. Dr. Thompson will arrive at my numbers if he uses that same “confirmed” IQ of 70 for Nigeria.

But even if we used his IQ of 75, Dr. Thompson should help us understand why Nigeria, which has a lower average IQ than a Western hospital of mental patients, is able to produce challengers to “normal” Putnam-Prize-level mathematicians from the West in Scrabble. Could you raise a team of world class Scrabble players from such mental hospitals if perhaps you gave them enough government sponsored training? Why not? Isn’t *the whole point* of IQ to tell us about real world potential performance? (Watch how the other race hereditarian bloggers transform themselves into a convoluted hybrid of hereditarian-environmentalists to try to answer such questions using endless self-contradicting conjectures and epicycles!)

Source: IQ and Mental Disorder in Young Men (2005). Mortensen, et al. British Journal of Psychiatry.

Source: IQ and Mental Disorder in Young Men (2005). Mortensen, et al. British Journal of Psychiatry.

3. Thompson rejects my correction of his calculation assumptions.

“Chisala suggests that my estimate of the number of bright Nigerians be reduced … I think these reductions are excessive, and in excluding women from the general calculation of the smart fraction (because they are not in the top ranks of Scrabble players) mistaken.”

Not mistaken at all. You do have to cut down your base population quite “excessively.” I will just point Dr. Thompson to the link he recommended himself in this same article in which he was calling my method “mistaken,” which is an article by a stats legend within the racial hereditarian community, the pseudonymous LaGriffe Du Lion:

“Raw population statistics are not best suited for the computation of the required population fractions. At this level of chess women are simply not competitive. Neither are children or elderly. Consequently, a base population for this calculation is better characterized by the total population minus women, children and geezers. A good approximation to this number is obtained by reducing a population to 25% of its original value.(My emphasis).

Du Lion’s “excessive” reductions even include the old people (“geezers”), which should probably be also applied to our base population of these Nigerian Scrabble players, thus making the total number of Nigerian men capable of playing elite international Scrabble even smaller than 30 people (in a country of 186 million!) — which means that even if all Nigerian men at that level of intelligence have chosen dedication to Scrabble as the best way to take advantage of their supposedly extremely rare intelligence in an extremely poor country, there would *still* not be enough of them to reach the number that they’ve actually reached on the elite Scrabble list. That’s a reductio ad absurdum, if there ever was one.

The only logical reason for this dramatic defiance of statistical predictions is that the IQ estimate of Nigeria was gathered from tests in which performance development resources play a much larger role than they do in Scrabble. For the exact same reason, Nigerians (and other Africans) will also perform way above expected in many other cognitive areas (including education) when they grow up in a country with such abundant resources, as has happened in the UK and the US in recent years.

Which takes us to Thompson’s next attempt at correcting my corrections.

4. African Self-Selection.

Thompson incidentally dismisses my usual argument that immigrant black Africans in the US should not be so dominant in academic achievements compared to native black Americans if the latter have a genetic cognitive advantage arising from their (25%) white admixture. He suggests that the black Africans are so conspicuously dominant simply because of extremely high immigrant selection from African countries (like Nigeria.)

This has been the most baffling rejoinder I have constantly faced from so many race hereditarian commenters from the time I started writing these articles. I really can’t understand what they fail to get here, since their fallacy is too obvious: high immigrant selection, *even if it was true*, should not affect relative performance *at the top*, especially given the size of the IQ gap between black Americans and continental Africans (15 points).

Yes, immigrant self selection can affect the average, but not the top performance. I’ve given these examples repeatedly: if all the fastest running Indians migrate to Jamaica, they will indeed run faster than the average black Jamaican by far. But that doesn’t mean *any* of these fast Indians will make it to the top Jamaican team. For a population from such a slow average group to overtake the average performance of a faster group, self selection level of the immigrants could indeed be a plausible explanation. But for extremely high elite performance (*at the top*), the average performance of their source population should continue to impose the limitation on the absolute numbers, particularly IF it has a biological cause. This statistical prediction can only be defied if very artificial environmental conditions of the two source populations were in fact the real cause of the difference in the original population averages.

Not only do my opponents give immigrant selection to explain why black Africans seem to outperform black Americans at the top, they incredibly even give that as the explanation for incidents when a black African student outperforms all white students in the UK. No, that gap (30 IQ points) is too large for any top honors to ever be affected by self selection: you need some new rationalization to explain such common “miracles.” Self-selection may affect average performance, but not top performance, especially not in the first two generations (in case someone thinks this has to do with immigrant Africans “breeding” a new cognitive race, as one of the more inane HBD responses once suggested!)

If 50 percent (or any portion) of the smartest people of Europe migrated to America, they could have a higher average IQ than even the Ashkenazi Jews in America. However, if you try to form some sort of Manhattan Project of the absolute smartest Americans to quickly build a new quantum bomb to vaporize all North Korean nuclear facilities remotely, the team will still probably be virtually all Ashkenazim, which would at least not contradict a possible biological/genetic cause of the superior Ashkenazi IQ. Every hereditarian can understand that.

Well, the reported IQ gap between the black Americans and continental Africans, as I’ve stressed ad infinitum, is even larger than the gap between the Ashkenazi Jews and Europeans, and the proportion of the American Ashkenazi Jews (6 million) to Europeans (743 million) is much smaller than the proportion of black Americans (46 million) to Sub-Saharan Africans (800 million). In short, this would be like increasing the Ashkenazi population 7 times while also increasing their IQ advantage by another 3 extra IQ points, and instead of resulting in an even higher dominance of Ashkenazi Jews at super-elite levels, we actually see a sharp decline!

The more selective the cognitive requirements of membership are to any elite class, the less immigrant blacks should be in proportion to black Americans. The trend, it seems, is the exact opposite. And it is not just these supposedly super-selected African migrants, but even their children (including those born before the migration) – the same children that should be *additionally* disadvantaged by a sharp regression toward that “retardation level” African IQ – who conspicuously dominate these high academic honors compared to native black American children!

Even as far back as 1999, when African immigration was much lower, the trend at elite American colleges was already against the prediction of the racial hypothesis. The Harvard Crimson reported:

Source: Harvard Crimson (2007): Many Blacks at Ivies are not from the US.

Source: Harvard Crimson (2007): Many Blacks at Ivies are not from the US.

The trend should be the other way around (as you go from “universities” to “Ivy League schools”), just as it is with Ashkenazi Jews’ increasing numerical dominance as cognitive selection rises.

The *only* way this statistical prediction can be defied is if the IQ advantage of black Americans over black Africans is only caused by environmental factors that are highly artificial and completely dependent on (the cognitive resources of) location. And if it is completely environmental, then the white genes in black Americans (their 20-25% admixture) give them no biological advantage, a conclusion that explicitly contradicts the key piece of “commonsense” evidence given for the global racial hypothesis by every leading racial hereditarian, including Lynn, Rushton, and even Cochran:

Source: Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability, (2005). J. Philippe Rushton. Psychology, Public Policy and Law.

Source: Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability, (2005). J. Philippe Rushton. Psychology, Public Policy and Law.

Source: Turok of the North (2017). Gregory Cochran. West Hunter Blog.

Source: Turok of the North (2017). Gregory Cochran. West Hunter Blog.

Cochran even understands why *top* elite performance should most conspicuously reflect such average differences, at least if they are real and not artificial:

Source: Outliers (2014). Gregory Cochran. West Hunter Blog.
Source: Outliers (2014). Gregory Cochran. West Hunter Blog.

Conclusion:

Through my writings here, I have highlighted several failed logical and statistical predictions of the racial genetic hypothesis, and I have seen no explanation from the other side that does not borrow elements contradicting their own theoretical framework. They can’t explain the black African vs white children cognitive performance anomaly; or the black African men versus white women cognitive games performance anomaly; or the black African versus black American academic performance anomaly; or even the black African versus white “mental patients” performance anomaly.

Source: Solving the African IQ Conundrum, (2004) Philippe J. Rushton. VDare.com
Source: Solving the African IQ Conundrum, (2004) Philippe J. Rushton. VDare.com

If you have reasons that can explain away any of these apparent anomalies for the racial hypothesis, remember that those reasons will automatically contradict the entire point of IQ scores: to predict performance in real world cognitive tasks. White mental patients and 12 year old white children should not only be able to win more world championships in Scrabble and checkers (given sufficient training) than the adult Africans, they should even produce more National Merit finalists (etc) if they attempted the selection tests! (Not even the most radical 10,000-hour-rule environmentalists would be that optimistic.)

In fact, this author, as a black African, should really be having these debates with some smart 11 year old white children, as the immense intellect of smart 13 year old whites should be rather overwhelming for his humble soul!

The reductio ends in comical absurdity.

For as long as you have not found any instantly confirmable explanations for real-world commonsense trends that explicitly contradict the logical expectations of your models, your hypothesis should stand as falsified by default, no matter how much supporting evidence you thought you had. Scientific propositions are not sustained by the fervency of hope and loyalty.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Africans, IQ, Race/IQ, Scrabble 
The Race/IQ Series
Hide 868 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Replying says:

    Funny thing is: Games are not Civilizations.
    Look at Civilizations – they were not built by Chess super geniuses, not in Europe, Africa, Asia or anywhere.

    “Oh! I Could make the same case for IQ!! It means nothing!!”
    But it correlates with Civilizational achievements, so, not Chess, not Scribble.

    Read More
    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The well known Dutch historian Huizinga wrote a book on the, according to him, important role of games in any civilisation.
    His arguments are impressive.
    The first explanation for me why people gather in their tens of thousands to see some match, and are emotionally very agitated about who wins.
    Johan Huizinga, 'Homo Ludens', Basel, 1938
    , @Santoculto
    But IQ is still a type of game. It's the best cognitive game but still a game, a relatively good accurate simulation but intelligence without creativity and rationality really is just cognition.

    Instead test intelligence why not analyze it?? Psychologists and other people on this area must apply a psychological approach to do a potentially complete analysis on individual levels (that is obviously expansible to collective/group levels).

    IQ is a simulation and supposedly via acultural ways but human intelligence is nothing without culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/my-last-word-on-the-scrabble-and-iq-debate-2/#comment-2004207
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Wally says:

    Fake news!

    The author’s laughable verbosity aside, there will always be a few high IQ people among groups who obviously have low IQs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Scrabble exercises the higher thought of language. Chess is the preserve of psychopaths.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. It of course is very racial to write that a few interviews on Dutch tv with black citizens of St Maarten make me comprehend why this country, yes, it is country, always was a mess politically, to which now is added the mess caused by the hurricane.
    They do not even understand that the Netherlands has very little to do with their country, we just defend them militarily and do their foreign policy.
    When things were good on the island country any Dutch interference was resisted, now that the country is unable to pick up the pieces the Dutch taxpayer is expected to pay.
    I for one do not expect that the debate on IQ will ever end.
    The crucial question is ‘are those with more brains, because of that more prosperous, morally obliged to help those with less brains ?’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @GourmetDan

    The crucial question is ‘are those with more brains, because of that more prosperous, morally obliged to help those with less brains ?’.
     
    Always fun to watch the 'less-capable' demand equivalence when it benefits them... then turn around and play the moral-guilt game when it benefits them.

    Politicians, of course, play both sides of this game without fear of having their hypocrisy exposed...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Replying
    Funny thing is: Games are not Civilizations.
    Look at Civilizations - they were not built by Chess super geniuses, not in Europe, Africa, Asia or anywhere.

    "Oh! I Could make the same case for IQ!! It means nothing!!"
    But it correlates with Civilizational achievements, so, not Chess, not Scribble.

    The well known Dutch historian Huizinga wrote a book on the, according to him, important role of games in any civilisation.
    His arguments are impressive.
    The first explanation for me why people gather in their tens of thousands to see some match, and are emotionally very agitated about who wins.
    Johan Huizinga, ‘Homo Ludens’, Basel, 1938

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. It’s always nice to read something written by someone waaayy out on the extreeemely thin right tail of his race’s curve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Who does scrabble appeal to? Well, one large group will be literary types, who love playing with words. People with such verbal aptitude will probably be better with numbers too.

    So that’s one group who it appeals to. But it’s not necessarily who wins. Scrabble is largely about remembering 2 and 3 letter words and knowing the common ways to prepend and append words. This itself is not a particularly intellectual endeavour – it’s just rote memorization.

    So you will have two classes of professional scrabble player – those who enjoy staying up all night reading Jane Austen and those who are memorising the two letter words. One of these groups may have higher IQ, but they may occupy the same ability level when playing scrabble.

    Therefore, Scrabble is not a reliable indicator of intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Triumph104
    That is incorrect. Scrabble winners tend to have a mathematical background. Chanda went into this in detail in his first Scrabble article. (LINK)

    I later found out that the only American to reach the finals of the Spanish World Scrabble Championship, Héctor Klíe, has a PhD from Rice University in computational science and engineering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. DFH says:

    As such, they behave the same way that most environmentalist critics of Jensen have always behaved, out of a grave fear of being proved wrong: they gratuitously insult their strongest critics; they erect massive strawman arguments; they misrepresent the results of their debates with critics; and sometimes they even censor (delete) arguments that dismantle their weak conjectures.

    This is very rich coming from an African who is arguing (against all other data) for his race’s intelligence on the basis of a small number of scrabble and chess players.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @Replying
    Funny thing is: Games are not Civilizations.
    Look at Civilizations - they were not built by Chess super geniuses, not in Europe, Africa, Asia or anywhere.

    "Oh! I Could make the same case for IQ!! It means nothing!!"
    But it correlates with Civilizational achievements, so, not Chess, not Scribble.

    But IQ is still a type of game. It’s the best cognitive game but still a game, a relatively good accurate simulation but intelligence without creativity and rationality really is just cognition.

    Instead test intelligence why not analyze it?? Psychologists and other people on this area must apply a psychological approach to do a potentially complete analysis on individual levels (that is obviously expansible to collective/group levels).

    IQ is a simulation and supposedly via acultural ways but human intelligence is nothing without culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Since science measures correspondence of variables, and not reality itself, there will always be gaps in our knowledge.

    The basic problem race deniers face is the theory of evolution, and why broad in-groups of people didn’t develop different biological features in reaction to differing environments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LauraMR
    The basic problem is that of racial purity.

    Any relevant discussion of the topic of race must provide a proper account of admixture.

    Since there is no such account, talk of race is essentially inane.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. The average IQ of 70 – and even more the lower IQs of Khoi San and Australian Aborigines – have always seemed to me to defy common sense and cast doubt on the work of my sometime amiable correspondent Phil Rushton. The fact that some g correlated tests had been conscientiously, if not very imaginatively or intelligently, conducted in Africa and come up with the 70 average invited a response which could be made polite perhaps by referring to apples and oranges. (Not that it makes sense to tecruit immigrants with measured IQs of <90.)

    However the African-American 1 sd deficit is much less easy to ridicule and, after 100 years without much change my presumptions turn to what one might expect of evolution. That is, in the one hand, that Ice Age Eurasia is likely to have selected for cognitive abilities more than the conditions of life in Africa, and, on the other hand, there is such huge genetic and environmental (including social) variety in Africa that it should surprise no one to discover that sub castes with millions of members produced g scores comparable to those of Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. There are already some comments above and there will be more below that keep repeating the usual silly straw man that I’m simply presenting the existence of a few high IQ black people as an argument against the racial hypothesis. (Or variations of same straw man). I trust the more serious readers will see that the argument is about statistical and logical contradictions and they’ll hopefully offer counter-arguments that are relevant to that discussion.

    I may check the thread later to see if there are any such serious responses. Thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Are there any serious studies showing a strong correlation between IQ and scrabble (or chess) ability?
    , @DFH
    Which is more likely, that games are worse indicators of intelligence (in other domains) than would expect or that all other tests of African intelligence ever conducted are wrong?
    , @Tiny Duck
    Don't bother.

    This place is for failed middle aged white men looking to blow off steam.

    I just come here to have fun at their expense. Always entertaining.
    , @Wally
    "... that I’m simply presenting the existence of a few high IQ black people as an argument against the racial hypothesis ..."

    But that's exactly what you are doing.

    Call it what you like.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Chanda,

    I have absolutely no clue whether you're right or wrong in this debate, but maybe you can help me understand some things. I'll agree that measuring IQ can be a tricky game and that to a degree, there are different types of intelligence. (Perhaps you don't agree with that statement. Who knows.)

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization? I realize that this sounds like an attack, but I ask it in sincerity. Relative to all other groups outside of Australian Aborigines, Sub-Saharan African engineering and scientific achievements are nearly non-existent.

    Even Nigerians accomplished very little before whites arrived and not much afterward.

    It's difficult not to notice the dysfunction of nearly (all?) countries that are run by and inhabited by Africans and their diaspora - at least relative to white and NE Asian countries. (Yes, there are very small pockets of marginal success, but there's also an Asian guy in the NBA.) South Africa is a marginal exception, but, obviously, whites continues to play a major role in that country.

    Now, there may very well be a good reason for this. However, Occam's Razor says that it's very likely lower average IQ and other behavioral traits that account for this lack of achievement. But, hey, something Occam is wrong.

    Maybe the idea of Africans having a 70 IQ is wrong, but it's difficult to deny the inability of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians - to maintain a modern economy and culture, much less create one.

    I'm honestly curious as to how you explain this. In particular, why have Nigerians not managed to create an enclave that functions as well as European or NE Asian societies?

    The accomplishments of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians in Nigeria - just don't fit what you're saying. What am I missing?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Hu Mi Yu says:

    I think there are a couple of scientific fallacies involved here.

    For one thing there is a confounding of evolution with Darwinism. It was the 19th century philosopher Herbert Spencer who invented the term “survival of the fittest” and put Darwin’s name on it. Darwin considered this in his “Origin of Species” and rejected it. He noted that all mammals must evolve not as individuals but as members of a population.

    A civilization is a population, and there is no reason to assume that the optimum distribution of IQs for such a population is technically statistically normal. Economics has dictated that a population of mostly grunts and a few high IQ types is the most productive, but in today’s more technical world this is changing.

    Yesterday I was reading a blog and comments on breeding a new race with super IQ. I think it was on unz.com, but I can’t find it now. It is not on the list here. Generally all of the commentators assumed that you could predict IQ by finding a set of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) that correlate with IQ and then using recombinant DNA to introduce them into fetuses. The problem here is that inhereted IQ is probably not a linear function of individual independent SNPs. If it were, then the central limit theorem
    would apply and a normal distribution would be guaranteed.

    What I would expect instead is that IQ is a strongly nonlinear function of SNPs. Polymorphism ABCDE may lead to high IQ, but ABCDe might have average or even lower than average IQ. In such a circumstace we would expect a large number of high-IQ outliers. Predictions using assumed normal distributions based on mean and standard deviation would routinely under predict the number of high-IQ individuals in a population with lower mean scores.

    I think this might explain your observations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Polymath says:

    The author is correct that the game results present a serious challenge to IQ theories, and most of the criticisms in this thread are off point. However, as a chess master and mathematician professionally familiar with the Elo rating system, I should correct some misconceptions he has. Elo rating is not a measure of talent or of diligence but of playing strength, which is a mixture of the two. Furthermore, it does not follow a simple Bell curve at all, because the numerical scale is based on actual game results: a 200 point gap corresponds to the stronger player winning 75% of the points in a match, and the distribution is much flatter than a bell curve. The Elo gap in chess between whites and Asians, one the one hand, and people of African descent on the other, is so vast, especially at the top levels, that chess provides much less support for the author’s view than Scrabble does.

    I agree with Wizard of Oz that the main conclusion that can be drawn from the author’s data is that the “low=IQ” populations of Africa have much larger “smart fractions” than would be expected from a normal distribution. But of course if you combine two normal distributions with different means, you get something very non-normal. Africa has some smart ethnic subgroups, as do non-African races on other continents. The same is true of India, but it doesn’t seem to bother anyone that India has both many very smart people and a very low average IQ.

    Genome studies will shed much more light on this in the next few years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for providing an informed point of view. As a chess master can you comment on the FIDE Grandmaster criteria and how they correspond to the Kenny Solomon points in my earlier comment?

    Can you comment further on this?

    Furthermore, it does not follow a simple Bell curve at all, because the numerical scale is based on actual game results: a 200 point gap corresponds to the stronger player winning 75% of the points in a match, and the distribution is much flatter than a bell curve.
     
    I am particularly curious as to how well the actual curve is explained by hypothesizing a truncated Bell curve. In other words, most of the chess Bell curve does not play chess, much less have an Elo rating. I consider this similar to what is seen with, for example, baseball WAR (Wins Above Replacement) ratings. This page has a WAR distribution curve for 2010 players: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/

    Do you have a link to the actual Elo rating curve? Some relevant discussion including a (Bell shaped) graph of a similar metric: https://lichess.org/qa/87/could-we-have-a-bell-graph-of-all-player-rating-

    P.S. I agree with you and Wizard of Oz that the main conclusion that can be drawn from the author’s data is that the “low=IQ” populations of Africa have much larger “smart fractions” than would be expected from a normal distribution. I would add "and the usually quoted country IQ means and standard deviations" to that statement for clarity though. My preferred explanation (I have expounded on this at length in earlier Scrabble threads) is multifactorial and includes smart subfractions and somewhat depressed phenotypic (relative to genetic) IQ in the bulk of the country populations.
    , @utu
    There is no empirical evidence that normal distribution is a good approximation of the actual distribution of IQ's even in countries where lots of testing has been done. The approximation gets worse further away form the mean. In most of African countries very little testing have been done and often of dubious quality. Lots of African IQ's were concocted by Richard Lynn and have no basis in empirical results.
    , @Chanda Chisala
    It seems you confused the position of my opponent(s) on chess with my position. I am actually arguing against chess as the best or better measure for cognitive comparison. My example of Solomon in South Africa was not to show that my hypothesis is supported by chess (it is not), but to show that the opposite hypothesis is NOT supported by chess either, especially as you begin to exclude some of the obvious environmental confounds.

    If they were right that chess supports them, it would be in less professionalized chess environments like South Africa where the black-white gap would be even bigger, as that should take it closer to a contest of raw natural intelligence. (See Spearman's Hypothesis.)

    We see quite the opposite.
    , @Chanda Chisala
    Good to know you're a chess master, by the way. My own chess intuition is not that bad either!

    This was my 1-minute bullet chess game today (I'm black -- no pun meant):

    https://www.chess.com/live/game/2313782564
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @jilles dykstra
    It of course is very racial to write that a few interviews on Dutch tv with black citizens of St Maarten make me comprehend why this country, yes, it is country, always was a mess politically, to which now is added the mess caused by the hurricane.
    They do not even understand that the Netherlands has very little to do with their country, we just defend them militarily and do their foreign policy.
    When things were good on the island country any Dutch interference was resisted, now that the country is unable to pick up the pieces the Dutch taxpayer is expected to pay.
    I for one do not expect that the debate on IQ will ever end.
    The crucial question is 'are those with more brains, because of that more prosperous, morally obliged to help those with less brains ?'.

    The crucial question is ‘are those with more brains, because of that more prosperous, morally obliged to help those with less brains ?’.

    Always fun to watch the ‘less-capable’ demand equivalence when it benefits them… then turn around and play the moral-guilt game when it benefits them.

    Politicians, of course, play both sides of this game without fear of having their hypocrisy exposed…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. BB753 says:
    @Chanda Chisala
    There are already some comments above and there will be more below that keep repeating the usual silly straw man that I'm simply presenting the existence of a few high IQ black people as an argument against the racial hypothesis. (Or variations of same straw man). I trust the more serious readers will see that the argument is about statistical and logical contradictions and they'll hopefully offer counter-arguments that are relevant to that discussion.

    I may check the thread later to see if there are any such serious responses. Thank you.

    Are there any serious studies showing a strong correlation between IQ and scrabble (or chess) ability?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    While white intellectual supremacists blather on about the stupidity of Africans, the Africans get on with the business of inheriting the Earth, multiplying with astonishing speed and flooding into the European homelands and former European colonies, to replace the moribund, European populations.

    On the assumption that human intelligence is an evolved characteristic that promotes reproductive success, it appears that IQ is a poor measure of the adaptive value of the human brain, just as it is evidently a poor measure of Scrabble playing potential.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Because higher IQ has been evolved in artificial environments and strongly correlated with "self" domestication and because (((thoose))), you know, use its coward astuteness to poison white tra$he's (of all social classes namely the "educated" ones). If so called higher IQ (using iqstic narrative) had evolved in natural environments (to natural challenges) this creepily human story had been different. Maybe Africans are preferable as the new global class of slaves, too weak to challenge those on the top at least in direct ways.

    You like to talk about genius and how creativity is the highest manifestation of intelligence. So how explain very lower fertility of the most "brightest" of the "men"?? Creativity versus reproductivity??
    , @MarkinLA
    On the assumption that human intelligence is an evolved characteristic that promotes reproductive success, it appears that IQ is a poor measure of the adaptive value of the human brain,

    IQ has nothing to do with it. When the white man came to the Americas and saw what he thought were savages who weren't making good use of the land he displaced them and multiplied. Once he was guilt tripped about how he mistreated the savages he started to allow other savages from around the world to come in. He could just as easily have depopulated the entire continent of Africa and the Americans and filled it with white people. Pretending the first brainwashing over the latter has anything to do with IQ is ridiculous.
    , @bomag

    ... flooding into the European homelands and former European colonies, to replace the moribund, European populations.
     
    Shhh. Don't be stating the obvious. You are supposed to say that they are adding diversity; or that they are coming to do jobs YT won't do. Another accepted line is to blather on about how they are kindly, earnest people who are being displaced by wars started and maintained by white people. Bluntly stating the obvious is gauche.

    white intellectual supremacists blather on about...
     
    I also find that irritating. I also find the supremacist blathering from black and asian (sic) supremacists irritating.

    On the assumption that human intelligence is an evolved characteristic that promotes reproductive success...
     
    Not a good assumption. The high abstract intelligence that fuels the modern machine society is almost negatively correlated with reproductive success. That we raised up the geniuses who brought forth complex analysis et al is an evolutionary accident.

    Nature selects for just enough intelligence to fill a niche; then it pretty much punishes any extra intelligence. Vermin and cockroaches may be evolutionary success stories, but they are limited as intelligence success stories.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. My Last Word on the Scrabble and IQ Debate

    Correction: My Last 4,100 Words on the Scrabble and IQ Debate

    I wish long submissions like this one came with abstracts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. DFH says:
    @Chanda Chisala
    There are already some comments above and there will be more below that keep repeating the usual silly straw man that I'm simply presenting the existence of a few high IQ black people as an argument against the racial hypothesis. (Or variations of same straw man). I trust the more serious readers will see that the argument is about statistical and logical contradictions and they'll hopefully offer counter-arguments that are relevant to that discussion.

    I may check the thread later to see if there are any such serious responses. Thank you.

    Which is more likely, that games are worse indicators of intelligence (in other domains) than would expect or that all other tests of African intelligence ever conducted are wrong?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Which is more likely, that games are worse indicators of intelligence (in other domains) than would expect or that all other tests of African intelligence ever conducted are wrong?
     
    It's much simpler than this. His entire premise is: "Look! Unicorn!"

    IOW, "see, Clarence Thomas is pretty smart by white standards" QED "Africans be smart." It makes as much sense as a white guy arguing, "Isaac Newton was genius" QED "all whites are smart." Western Civilization was not the product of Newton or Aristotle or Teller or Watson, but the product of a relatively high percentage of such men amid a relatively low population of imbeciles. Africa is the EXACT opposite. It has a minuscule number of geniuses amid a VAST ocean of retards. That's the reality. The rest is just self-aggrandizement.

    Note too that IQ alone isn't the whole story. Altruism? Esp outside one's own clan? Creativity (not just IQ but that spontaneous epiphany that changes everything)? Determination and doggedness? Time preference? Mating habits? Etc.

    Bottom line: Western Civ works just great minus Africans. Africa is savage cannibal carnage minus whites. We gain no benefit from Africa or her children. We should never have introduced ourselves or interfered. We should now work to return her stolen children and allow them to develop in their unique way on their own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. It’s probably hopeless, but are all the critics so SURE they know the exact cause of all complex human behavior? The tendency to reductionism is a bad habit. . .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Tyrion says:

    Chanda, you’re still failing to understand regression to the mean in the context of IQ and race.

    Race is a somewhat useful label with a range of moderately predictive powers. On closer inspection, the label actually smothers huge diversity beneath it going all the way down through ethnicities, tribal groups, castes, families and to the individual.

    If an outlier is going to regress to a mean, they are much more likely to regress to their family mean. Family is a well-defined biological fact.

    I get why you insist on consistently making the same mistaken argument. People on this site like pretending that there is a racial regression to the mean that stays relevant even when you know a great deal more information about someone, like who their parents are. They like pretending because it is the go-to HBD argument against race-mixing with high IQ individuals from races averaging lower in IQ. It is a clever bit of jujitsu therefore that you are using, but it is also obviously wrong.

    It is akin to predicting a player’s batting average on the mean for teams in their league rather than their own previous seasons. It is better than rolling a dice, but that is about it.

    The problem for your articles is that without that fatal (purposeful?) misunderstanding they don’t carry water.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Chanda, you’re still failing to understand regression to the mean in the context of IQ and race.
     
    Color me surprised. Of course there are African unicorns, only an idiot would claim otherwise. That's NOT the issue. The issue is that the "intelligent African" is still missing everything else that makes our civilization possible AND that he is so incredibly rare that if he had invented the wheel his neighbors would just have used it to roast him before eating him.

    Why does Ron publish this inanity? We KNOW Africans are 50,000-100,000 years behind in evolution. We know they share the lowest recorded average IQs on the planet with Papuans and such. We know they have statistical outliers like every other race. We know nothing, no intervention, changes any of this. Can we move on now?
    , @Jm8
    I think some of this was discussed earlier. The evidence indicates that the children of above average African Americans (above average African American families) score (seeming to "regress") toward a lower mean. But those of Africans do not.

    http://www.unz.com/article/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap-debate-part-3/

    "The mere possibility that the African immigrants in our experiment could be an elite, unrepresentative group does not matter in itself (I don’t know how many ways to emphasize this point, which is the subject of the most popular straw man among those who keep arguing that the immigrants are “not representative” of their source populations). It does not matter *because Jensen gave us a prediction specifically concerning a sample of exclusively elite, “unrepresentative” Blacks.*

    Reading from the same Jensen paper, we are told this about elite Black Americans:

    “Matching Black and White children for the geographical areas of their homes, the schools they attend, and other finer grade socioeconomic indicators again reduces the mean group IQ difference but does not eliminate it. Black children from the best areas and schools (those producing the highest average scores) still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 286–289; Jensen, 1998b, pp. 357–360). This is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean.”

    Well, the African immigrant children test scores now present an anomaly for the racial genetic theory precisely because of regression to the mean (even if we ignore the more self-damning claim that American Blacks should have even higher intelligence due to their higher white admixture).

    We know that children of native Black Americans earning $200,000 a year in family income score lower on SAT scores than children of Whites getting only $20,000 in family income ($10, 000 per parent!). We also know that the Nigerian income in the US is only $57,000, which is lower than the non-Hipspanic white income, and yet their children still score at least as high as children of Whites, which is the opposite of Jensen’s predicted result. "

    , @Chanda Chisala
    I've explained this many times before, but since you seem sincere in your confusion, I will explain it again.

    When I say "regression to the mean" I do not mean that the "regressed" IQ becomes equal to the mean of the race. Not only I, but many others who use that term in this debate, including Jensen, Rushton, et al. A more accurate term would be "regression TOWARD the mean," as Jensen sometimes clarified. So, the claim is not that children of elite Africans should have the average IQ of their "race" or source population, but that it should regress TO or TOWARDS that, on average. Which means that children of elite blacks should have lower IQ on average than children of equally elite (equal IQ) whites. Similarly, children of elite black Africans should have significantly lower IQ than children of similarly elite black Americans. No, none of them will actually "regress" to the point of their source population IQ, but it is like different centers of gravity pulling them downwards, statistically speaking.

    My argument is that there does not seem to be much indication that children of black African elites -- that is, even if we granted that these immigrants are really the elites of Africa -- are having a huge disadvantage over children of elite native black Americans. It seems like quite the opposite, which is in direct contradiction to the prediction of the racial hypothesis, if the black Americans have the advantage of white genes. Above that, they seem to have increased numerical advantage when you increase cognitive selection, which should not happen if that lower "center of gravity" from which they hail is biologically rooted, as my opponents believe.

    Now you can respond to THAT argument, instead of responding to your own simplified version of it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. res says:

    Your South African table doesn’t (AFAICT) directly show that Kenny Solomon is a GM (if you disagree please point me to the exact place you see that information at that link).

    However, his profile page does show that he earned the FIDE Grandmaster title in 2015 and is thus much better evidence for your point: https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=14300192

    The interesting question is how did he become a GM given that the threshold is usually 2500 and his current ranking is just under 2400 (per link above it is 2398)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_titles#Grandmaster_.28GM.29
    Much more on the Grandmaster title and its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmaster_(chess)

    If anyone has an FIDE account (I do not) they can check his progress with the rating chart to see if he ever exceeded 2500.
    His Wikipedia page gives his peak rating as 2461 in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Solomon
    Per that page he achieved his Grandmaster title by winning the African Chess Championship in December 2014. The odd thing is that this 2012 article mentions that both a 2500 rating and “three norms” are required (full article no longer available at the original site, emphasis mine): https://web.archive.org/web/20120925042110/http://allafrica.com/stories/201209170659.html

    Solomon is on the verge of attaining the highest possible ranking in the chess world, with the exception of “World Champion”. Chess SA President Emelia Ellappen explained to the Daily Maverick that in order to achieve Grandmaster status, one has to have a rating of 2,500, with three “Grandmaster norms”. You get your norms by performing well at chess tournaments at which other Grandmasters are competing. Solomon has the norms in the bag already. All he now needs is 50 more rating points, but the really difficult part is behind him: it is now assured that Solomon will become South Africa’s first-ever chess Grandmaster, a title he will hold for life. He joins more than 1,300 active Grandmasters worldwide.

    Strange. That article was also about three years premature AFAICT. BTW, it appears they misjudged which part (norms vs, rating) was most difficult.

    So Kenny Solomon is an FIDE Grandmaster per the FIDE. However, I think this makes rather than refutes Dr. Thompson’s point about the importance of impartial thresholds for analysis of quantitative traits (like IQ or FIDE rating).

    Regarding selective immigration, if I recall correctly the proportion of high performers in a given immigrant population (e.g. the UK) was an important component of your mean IQ estimates argument for the underlying country populations.

    The IAB brain-drain data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    provides detailed data for immigrants by both source and destination country divided into three skill levels. That data clearly shows how selective immigration is (e.g. from Nigeria to the UK). How about you pick a relevant pair of countries and we can have a further discussion about that? Alternatively you can just concede that there IS significant selective immigration and we can move on to the discussion you started above as to whether or not that matters (and revisit some of your earlier arguments and assertions concerning selective immigration).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    If anyone has an FIDE account (I do not) they can check his progress with the rating chart to see if he ever exceeded 2500.
     
    https://i.imgur.com/pNkuguX.jpg
    , @Chanda Chisala

    Your South African table doesn’t (AFAICT) directly show that Kenny Solomon is a GM (if you disagree please point me to the exact place you see that information at that link).
     
    Look for the small 'g' under the title column. That doesn't stand for "general intelligence"! :)


    The IAB brain-drain data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    provides detailed data for immigrants by both source and destination country divided into three skill levels. That data clearly shows how selective immigration is (e.g. from Nigeria to the UK)...
     
    Not so fast.

    The fact that Nigerian and other Africans have more educated people in their migrant groups compared to other immigrants has been a well-known fact.

    However: your "side" has told us what the average IQ is for educated Africans. It is 85. Which is about a standard deviation from the mean. This 85 was Rushton's report from "an elite university" in Africa.

    So, even if you have data showing that 100 percent of African immigrants have university degrees, that does not solve the condundrum I presented in the article you reference. How could these "elite" IQ 85 people produce children who were outperforming IQ 100 white children?

    This necessarily took the argument to another level. The claim from your side was now that the African immigrants are not just "selected", they had to be super-selected. They had to be not the 85 IQ of university degree level; they had to be a standard deviation above the university graduates (or even more, depending on how you account for regression to the mean if their children are at least 100 IQ).

    Your source does not in any way prove this ridiculous claim of super-selection -- the idea that the immigrants are at least 1 SD above a sample of 100 percent university graduates in IQ. But without that ridiculous claim, the hypothesis finds it hard to explain the presence of their high performing kids. So, most people on your side simply resign to the circular fallacy: they just had to be super-selected since that's the only way our hypothesis survives!
    , @jimmyriddle
    Once you achieve a GM norm and are awarded the title you have it for life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. The entire debate may be about crystallized versus fluid intelligence.

    Scrabble requires that one be intelligent enough to be able to “crystallize” the patterns for solving each situation, so that a person can do it without having to think about it the next time they run into the same situation, but no more intelligent than that.

    Winning games like chess and Scrabble requires some fluid intelligence (IQ), and massive amounts of crystallized intelligence (stored solutions), which is why they need so much training.

    If you are familiar with computing, it is easy to understand what this means. A lower-IQ person can simulate high IQ in a game like Scrabble using this function:
    function(game_context) {
    if(cached_answer_exists(game_context)) {
    return get_cached_answer(game_context); // extremely fast, even for a low IQ person
    }
    else {
    return compute_answer(game_context); // slow, even for a very high IQ person
    }
    }

    So a game like Scrabble has a very high “caching advantage”, a person who spends immense amounts of time with it will have thousands, maybe millions, of cached answers in their heads, that enable them to nearly instantaneously find the solution for a new game context, because there is no computation involved, the solution is cached in their brains.

    A lower-IQ Scrabble “genius”, however, will be incapable of mastering a topic of study they have never studied before (such as economics), so that they can quickly come up with original and interesting solutions and ideas within the field, because their genius is about being good at caching answers. Their genius has nothing to do with fluid intelligence, the type of intelligence needed to handle massive data, operate on it and synthesize new things from it. Your millions of cached Scrabble solutions are just that, millions of cached Scrabble solutions. A Scrabble genius is like a computer that has tons of Scrabble solutions and is very good at winning Scrabble games, but that cannot do much of anything else. The computer is not an AI genius, it simply has a hard drive that is filled with canned solutions.

    My hypothesis, therefore is this: A race or nationality’s ability to master Scrabble does not predict its intellectual, scientific or technological achievements, because Scrabble does not require very high IQ, while the rest of these things do.

    In fact, I would hazard a guess that very few really-high-IQ people (135+) bother to play games like Scrabble, because they would rather do something open-ended, rather than something entirely unproductive, with their time. Almost everyone I have met who was dedicated to chess and similar closed-ended games has not been an intellectual genius who could say something intelligent and interesting about geopolitics, for example.

    I do not enjoy watching sports, and no really-high-IQ person I know enjoys them either, because it is closed-ended. There is only so much that can happen. We soon get a feel for the game and get bored with it. We would rather play a complex computer simulation game where we can manage the affairs of an empire, even though this too ultimately gets boring so that we start to read hundreds of books on economics and history like maniacs.

    Another hypothesis is this: A Scrabble genius will be very bad at games with a low caching advantage. Thus a race or nationality that is good at Scrabble will perform worse at Go than a higher IQ nation, because Go has a lower caching advantage (it requires more fluid intelligence, i.e. IQ, since the situations that arise in the game are too diverse to cache, there will of course still be some caching advantage, therefore we must find a game that has a very low caching advantage, such as…Raven’s Progressive Matrices).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rdm
    Giving the benefit of the doubt, I would argue for Chanda here.

    I don't usually agree with Chanda for his nebulous, poster picture of Black students admitted into all Ivy leagues.

    But here in this post, he's not arguing for how far Africans have progressed in civilization. This post is only arguing against Dr. Thompson.

    The bottom line is, there are many variables and factors that influence one's innate intelligence. Genetics is a part of the whole game. However we all have agenda. Dr. Thompson has an agenda to downplay the entire African intelligence. Chanda has an agenda to promote the real racial gap. In all of those arguments back and forth, Dr. Thompson seems moving his goal posts every time Chanda brought up the counter-argument.

    Not that I agree with both of them. But Dr. Thompson here immensely failed to definitely argue why Blacks are xxx standard deviation below Whites regarding intelligence.

    1st Chess,
    then Scrabble,
    now Checkers?

    Maybe next time, Uno? or Monopoly?

    What I agree with your comment is, those Chess, Scrabble genius are only good at repetitive tasks with so many variables. But that doesn't say much about one's true intelligence.
    , @utu
    Interesting. Every game has caching advantage and more so when you move high in the ladder towards becoming a professional game player. The fact that you find games boring and not worth investing your time might be an indications that you prefer to shine among dilettantes where very little investment can produce interesting, on relative scale, results.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. res says:
    @Polymath
    The author is correct that the game results present a serious challenge to IQ theories, and most of the criticisms in this thread are off point. However, as a chess master and mathematician professionally familiar with the Elo rating system, I should correct some misconceptions he has. Elo rating is not a measure of talent or of diligence but of playing strength, which is a mixture of the two. Furthermore, it does not follow a simple Bell curve at all, because the numerical scale is based on actual game results: a 200 point gap corresponds to the stronger player winning 75% of the points in a match, and the distribution is much flatter than a bell curve. The Elo gap in chess between whites and Asians, one the one hand, and people of African descent on the other, is so vast, especially at the top levels, that chess provides much less support for the author's view than Scrabble does.

    I agree with Wizard of Oz that the main conclusion that can be drawn from the author's data is that the "low=IQ" populations of Africa have much larger "smart fractions" than would be expected from a normal distribution. But of course if you combine two normal distributions with different means, you get something very non-normal. Africa has some smart ethnic subgroups, as do non-African races on other continents. The same is true of India, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone that India has both many very smart people and a very low average IQ.

    Genome studies will shed much more light on this in the next few years.

    Thanks for providing an informed point of view. As a chess master can you comment on the FIDE Grandmaster criteria and how they correspond to the Kenny Solomon points in my earlier comment?

    Can you comment further on this?

    Furthermore, it does not follow a simple Bell curve at all, because the numerical scale is based on actual game results: a 200 point gap corresponds to the stronger player winning 75% of the points in a match, and the distribution is much flatter than a bell curve.

    I am particularly curious as to how well the actual curve is explained by hypothesizing a truncated Bell curve. In other words, most of the chess Bell curve does not play chess, much less have an Elo rating. I consider this similar to what is seen with, for example, baseball WAR (Wins Above Replacement) ratings. This page has a WAR distribution curve for 2010 players: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/

    Do you have a link to the actual Elo rating curve? Some relevant discussion including a (Bell shaped) graph of a similar metric: https://lichess.org/qa/87/could-we-have-a-bell-graph-of-all-player-rating-

    P.S. I agree with you and Wizard of Oz that the main conclusion that can be drawn from the author’s data is that the “low=IQ” populations of Africa have much larger “smart fractions” than would be expected from a normal distribution. I would add “and the usually quoted country IQ means and standard deviations” to that statement for clarity though. My preferred explanation (I have expounded on this at length in earlier Scrabble threads) is multifactorial and includes smart subfractions and somewhat depressed phenotypic (relative to genetic) IQ in the bulk of the country populations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. utu says:
    @Polymath
    The author is correct that the game results present a serious challenge to IQ theories, and most of the criticisms in this thread are off point. However, as a chess master and mathematician professionally familiar with the Elo rating system, I should correct some misconceptions he has. Elo rating is not a measure of talent or of diligence but of playing strength, which is a mixture of the two. Furthermore, it does not follow a simple Bell curve at all, because the numerical scale is based on actual game results: a 200 point gap corresponds to the stronger player winning 75% of the points in a match, and the distribution is much flatter than a bell curve. The Elo gap in chess between whites and Asians, one the one hand, and people of African descent on the other, is so vast, especially at the top levels, that chess provides much less support for the author's view than Scrabble does.

    I agree with Wizard of Oz that the main conclusion that can be drawn from the author's data is that the "low=IQ" populations of Africa have much larger "smart fractions" than would be expected from a normal distribution. But of course if you combine two normal distributions with different means, you get something very non-normal. Africa has some smart ethnic subgroups, as do non-African races on other continents. The same is true of India, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone that India has both many very smart people and a very low average IQ.

    Genome studies will shed much more light on this in the next few years.

    There is no empirical evidence that normal distribution is a good approximation of the actual distribution of IQ’s even in countries where lots of testing has been done. The approximation gets worse further away form the mean. In most of African countries very little testing have been done and often of dubious quality. Lots of African IQ’s were concocted by Richard Lynn and have no basis in empirical results.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    In most of African countries very little testing have been done and often of dubious quality. Lots of African IQ’s were concocted by Richard Lynn and have no basis in empirical results.
     
    Great idea: Why don't you go IQ test the Nigerian, Congolese, etc cannibals???
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Tiny Duck says:
    @Chanda Chisala
    There are already some comments above and there will be more below that keep repeating the usual silly straw man that I'm simply presenting the existence of a few high IQ black people as an argument against the racial hypothesis. (Or variations of same straw man). I trust the more serious readers will see that the argument is about statistical and logical contradictions and they'll hopefully offer counter-arguments that are relevant to that discussion.

    I may check the thread later to see if there are any such serious responses. Thank you.

    Don’t bother.

    This place is for failed middle aged white men looking to blow off steam.

    I just come here to have fun at their expense. Always entertaining.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    IOW, you voted for Hillary.
    So who is having the fun at whose expense? *

    If we have 'failed' then I'd like to see your definition of success.
    Personally, I'm prospering in all ways.

    * see Reactions to Trump Victory, hilarious !!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ-FUptkUNY
    and:
    https://youtu.be/BXpi3F0E5ro
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I keep forgetting that you're not a satirist. Can you blame me.

    Regardless, I need to get back to my wife, my reasonably normal kids (who asked to learn German for their foreign language because it's the language of "the people that we come from"), the business that I own, my nearly-paid off house in a nice area (which by everyone's definition means almost no blacks and Hispanics) and my surprisingly large portfolio (which I earned myself) because we're having friends over from dinner.

    But you're right, it's difficult for me to deal with my failure in life. Hard to look in the mirror sometimes. If I could only be more like the Tiny Mighty Duck! ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. TL:DR

    Can we take this jackass at his word? Ron? Can you enforce his promise that it’s his “last words” here? Please? Tiny Duck says the exact same thing but far more concisely.

    It is boring to exhaustion to see yet another “Africans be smart” screed when ANYONE with eyes, ears, and gray matter between them can glance at Africa and see the fruits of this “African intelligence” for themselves. The ONLY reason this clown can even communicate is that we were too dumb to treat Africa like the Andaman Islands. Otherwise he’d be happily munching on his neighbors and hoping (in vain) one of his cousins would invent the wheel or numbers or writing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stealth
    Speaking of Tiny Duck, even if the guy's material is just satire, I wish they would start filtering his comments. It gets old.
    , @Krastos the Gluemaker
    It's actually somewhat interesting to see what has been thousands of hours of effort by the originators of this debate, Thompson, and various commenters, and the evidence they produce.

    Damning for the social sciences and their methodology (lol self-voluteering selection and low sample sizes), and hilarious for the Scrabble community, given all that work produced not a shred of evidence of particularly high IQ in the Scrabble community, but interesting. To me it's been like something that was supposed to be a discussion about DNA where creationists showed up with a particular creationist meme (the laws of thermodynamics mean life couldn't be possible, entropy rah rah) and straight up ignore what DNA is in the first place. Lack of domain expertise and discussion of game theory is killer; it's definitely only been Karlin and other anon commenters who understood that in this whole saga.

    As an aside responding to Tiny Duck and some others, people really underestimate the diversity of viewpoints on this website; there are even plenty of leftists who comment on various authors' blogs. Maybe take up pure economic class Orthodox Marxism as your next angle.

    I did remember one thing I wanted to mention sometime, which is that the Putnam exam is the only real exam worth considering in a NA context, and one of few if any others in the world, for ROC on actual high performers. In other words, of people who score high on the Putnam exam, the median IQ/g is probably something like 145. Nothing at the high school level comes close, reflecting self-sorting, time and effort, rich parents or private school tutors or equivalent factors.

    Maybe something like 3% of high IQ (eg 150 or some threshold like that) people born in America attending US universities ever participated in the Putnam exam, or whatever the true value is it's an extremely high number in comparison. Other things have much much lower potential participation rates, well below 1%, partly because things like school acceleration directly interfere, or direct mutual exclusion between events and so on. Whenever a person with IQ 150 or whatever does participate in such things they might do well, but that's not the median participant.

    Of course gaming and other various pursuits have even lower participation rates than anything is school. There are still tons of false positives and false negatives on various criteria that are loosely correlated with IQ everywhere or at the tails.

    Everybody knows all these things, or at least informed commenters around here do, even about things like the infamous Terman study that excluded future Nobel Prize winners.

    As far as Chisala's main point, I actually personally agree more than most on a few things: estimates of average IQ of races could be highly distorted by bias and measurement problems and there are lesser differences than alt-rightists might think. However missing the concept of genotypic vs phenotypic IQ, not understanding selection biases, how immigration works, regression to the mean, all that is frustrating. Nothing contradicts the idea that some ethnicity of Africans has a genotypic IQ of say 85 (ie the genotypic IQ is not as low as the final reported measurements) or even that there are subgroups, upper class differences, etc. where a smaller population would be in the 90's, while the observed (phenotypic) results of African IQ of course include the effects of environmental degradation. (and higher classes/immigrants to the first world/any group that misses out on environmental disadvantages simply doesn't have those same effects)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Intelligence is a very tricky substance. And while statistically IQ-tests, chess, and some other intellectual games to some degree can be used to measure the cumulative “intellectual potential” of this or that group (provided these groups are statistically equal in ALL related senses), the decisions many people make by their hearts often top all those IQ-related choices. Who needs and creates “smart weapons” of mass destruction, deception and enslavement ? People with high IQ ? I don’t’ think so. They look more like primitive, greedy, suicidal idiots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. @Tyrion
    Chanda, you're still failing to understand regression to the mean in the context of IQ and race.

    Race is a somewhat useful label with a range of moderately predictive powers. On closer inspection, the label actually smothers huge diversity beneath it going all the way down through ethnicities, tribal groups, castes, families and to the individual.

    If an outlier is going to regress to a mean, they are much more likely to regress to their family mean. Family is a well-defined biological fact.

    I get why you insist on consistently making the same mistaken argument. People on this site like pretending that there is a racial regression to the mean that stays relevant even when you know a great deal more information about someone, like who their parents are. They like pretending because it is the go-to HBD argument against race-mixing with high IQ individuals from races averaging lower in IQ. It is a clever bit of jujitsu therefore that you are using, but it is also obviously wrong.

    It is akin to predicting a player's batting average on the mean for teams in their league rather than their own previous seasons. It is better than rolling a dice, but that is about it.

    The problem for your articles is that without that fatal (purposeful?) misunderstanding they don't carry water.

    Chanda, you’re still failing to understand regression to the mean in the context of IQ and race.

    Color me surprised. Of course there are African unicorns, only an idiot would claim otherwise. That’s NOT the issue. The issue is that the “intelligent African” is still missing everything else that makes our civilization possible AND that he is so incredibly rare that if he had invented the wheel his neighbors would just have used it to roast him before eating him.

    Why does Ron publish this inanity? We KNOW Africans are 50,000-100,000 years behind in evolution. We know they share the lowest recorded average IQs on the planet with Papuans and such. We know they have statistical outliers like every other race. We know nothing, no intervention, changes any of this. Can we move on now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "We KNOW Africans are 50,000-100,000 years behind in evolution."

    ..... This has to be the stupidest comment I've ever read at Unz Review.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @utu
    There is no empirical evidence that normal distribution is a good approximation of the actual distribution of IQ's even in countries where lots of testing has been done. The approximation gets worse further away form the mean. In most of African countries very little testing have been done and often of dubious quality. Lots of African IQ's were concocted by Richard Lynn and have no basis in empirical results.

    In most of African countries very little testing have been done and often of dubious quality. Lots of African IQ’s were concocted by Richard Lynn and have no basis in empirical results.

    Great idea: Why don’t you go IQ test the Nigerian, Congolese, etc cannibals???

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Rdm says:
    @Ikram Hawramani
    The entire debate may be about crystallized versus fluid intelligence.

    Scrabble requires that one be intelligent enough to be able to "crystallize" the patterns for solving each situation, so that a person can do it without having to think about it the next time they run into the same situation, but no more intelligent than that.

    Winning games like chess and Scrabble requires some fluid intelligence (IQ), and massive amounts of crystallized intelligence (stored solutions), which is why they need so much training.

    If you are familiar with computing, it is easy to understand what this means. A lower-IQ person can simulate high IQ in a game like Scrabble using this function:
    function(game_context) {
    if(cached_answer_exists(game_context)) {
    return get_cached_answer(game_context); // extremely fast, even for a low IQ person
    }
    else {
    return compute_answer(game_context); // slow, even for a very high IQ person
    }
    }

    So a game like Scrabble has a very high "caching advantage", a person who spends immense amounts of time with it will have thousands, maybe millions, of cached answers in their heads, that enable them to nearly instantaneously find the solution for a new game context, because there is no computation involved, the solution is cached in their brains.

    A lower-IQ Scrabble "genius", however, will be incapable of mastering a topic of study they have never studied before (such as economics), so that they can quickly come up with original and interesting solutions and ideas within the field, because their genius is about being good at caching answers. Their genius has nothing to do with fluid intelligence, the type of intelligence needed to handle massive data, operate on it and synthesize new things from it. Your millions of cached Scrabble solutions are just that, millions of cached Scrabble solutions. A Scrabble genius is like a computer that has tons of Scrabble solutions and is very good at winning Scrabble games, but that cannot do much of anything else. The computer is not an AI genius, it simply has a hard drive that is filled with canned solutions.

    My hypothesis, therefore is this: A race or nationality's ability to master Scrabble does not predict its intellectual, scientific or technological achievements, because Scrabble does not require very high IQ, while the rest of these things do.

    In fact, I would hazard a guess that very few really-high-IQ people (135+) bother to play games like Scrabble, because they would rather do something open-ended, rather than something entirely unproductive, with their time. Almost everyone I have met who was dedicated to chess and similar closed-ended games has not been an intellectual genius who could say something intelligent and interesting about geopolitics, for example.

    I do not enjoy watching sports, and no really-high-IQ person I know enjoys them either, because it is closed-ended. There is only so much that can happen. We soon get a feel for the game and get bored with it. We would rather play a complex computer simulation game where we can manage the affairs of an empire, even though this too ultimately gets boring so that we start to read hundreds of books on economics and history like maniacs.

    Another hypothesis is this: A Scrabble genius will be very bad at games with a low caching advantage. Thus a race or nationality that is good at Scrabble will perform worse at Go than a higher IQ nation, because Go has a lower caching advantage (it requires more fluid intelligence, i.e. IQ, since the situations that arise in the game are too diverse to cache, there will of course still be some caching advantage, therefore we must find a game that has a very low caching advantage, such as...Raven's Progressive Matrices).

    Giving the benefit of the doubt, I would argue for Chanda here.

    I don’t usually agree with Chanda for his nebulous, poster picture of Black students admitted into all Ivy leagues.

    But here in this post, he’s not arguing for how far Africans have progressed in civilization. This post is only arguing against Dr. Thompson.

    The bottom line is, there are many variables and factors that influence one’s innate intelligence. Genetics is a part of the whole game. However we all have agenda. Dr. Thompson has an agenda to downplay the entire African intelligence. Chanda has an agenda to promote the real racial gap. In all of those arguments back and forth, Dr. Thompson seems moving his goal posts every time Chanda brought up the counter-argument.

    Not that I agree with both of them. But Dr. Thompson here immensely failed to definitely argue why Blacks are xxx standard deviation below Whites regarding intelligence.

    1st Chess,
    then Scrabble,
    now Checkers?

    Maybe next time, Uno? or Monopoly?

    What I agree with your comment is, those Chess, Scrabble genius are only good at repetitive tasks with so many variables. But that doesn’t say much about one’s true intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    But that doesn’t say much about one’s true intelligence. The objection applies to IQ test scores. How do they correlate to true intelligence if we do not know what true intelligence is. Allegedly IQ scores correlate with various measures of success in modern society but close scrutiny of these results shows that the claims are inflated partly by using dubious methods of restricted range correction that always increase correlation and if you push them hard you can get correlation even higher than 1. This is one of the contributions to mathematics by Spearman and others of his ilk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. utu says:
    @Ikram Hawramani
    The entire debate may be about crystallized versus fluid intelligence.

    Scrabble requires that one be intelligent enough to be able to "crystallize" the patterns for solving each situation, so that a person can do it without having to think about it the next time they run into the same situation, but no more intelligent than that.

    Winning games like chess and Scrabble requires some fluid intelligence (IQ), and massive amounts of crystallized intelligence (stored solutions), which is why they need so much training.

    If you are familiar with computing, it is easy to understand what this means. A lower-IQ person can simulate high IQ in a game like Scrabble using this function:
    function(game_context) {
    if(cached_answer_exists(game_context)) {
    return get_cached_answer(game_context); // extremely fast, even for a low IQ person
    }
    else {
    return compute_answer(game_context); // slow, even for a very high IQ person
    }
    }

    So a game like Scrabble has a very high "caching advantage", a person who spends immense amounts of time with it will have thousands, maybe millions, of cached answers in their heads, that enable them to nearly instantaneously find the solution for a new game context, because there is no computation involved, the solution is cached in their brains.

    A lower-IQ Scrabble "genius", however, will be incapable of mastering a topic of study they have never studied before (such as economics), so that they can quickly come up with original and interesting solutions and ideas within the field, because their genius is about being good at caching answers. Their genius has nothing to do with fluid intelligence, the type of intelligence needed to handle massive data, operate on it and synthesize new things from it. Your millions of cached Scrabble solutions are just that, millions of cached Scrabble solutions. A Scrabble genius is like a computer that has tons of Scrabble solutions and is very good at winning Scrabble games, but that cannot do much of anything else. The computer is not an AI genius, it simply has a hard drive that is filled with canned solutions.

    My hypothesis, therefore is this: A race or nationality's ability to master Scrabble does not predict its intellectual, scientific or technological achievements, because Scrabble does not require very high IQ, while the rest of these things do.

    In fact, I would hazard a guess that very few really-high-IQ people (135+) bother to play games like Scrabble, because they would rather do something open-ended, rather than something entirely unproductive, with their time. Almost everyone I have met who was dedicated to chess and similar closed-ended games has not been an intellectual genius who could say something intelligent and interesting about geopolitics, for example.

    I do not enjoy watching sports, and no really-high-IQ person I know enjoys them either, because it is closed-ended. There is only so much that can happen. We soon get a feel for the game and get bored with it. We would rather play a complex computer simulation game where we can manage the affairs of an empire, even though this too ultimately gets boring so that we start to read hundreds of books on economics and history like maniacs.

    Another hypothesis is this: A Scrabble genius will be very bad at games with a low caching advantage. Thus a race or nationality that is good at Scrabble will perform worse at Go than a higher IQ nation, because Go has a lower caching advantage (it requires more fluid intelligence, i.e. IQ, since the situations that arise in the game are too diverse to cache, there will of course still be some caching advantage, therefore we must find a game that has a very low caching advantage, such as...Raven's Progressive Matrices).

    Interesting. Every game has caching advantage and more so when you move high in the ladder towards becoming a professional game player. The fact that you find games boring and not worth investing your time might be an indications that you prefer to shine among dilettantes where very little investment can produce interesting, on relative scale, results.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. utu says:
    @Rdm
    Giving the benefit of the doubt, I would argue for Chanda here.

    I don't usually agree with Chanda for his nebulous, poster picture of Black students admitted into all Ivy leagues.

    But here in this post, he's not arguing for how far Africans have progressed in civilization. This post is only arguing against Dr. Thompson.

    The bottom line is, there are many variables and factors that influence one's innate intelligence. Genetics is a part of the whole game. However we all have agenda. Dr. Thompson has an agenda to downplay the entire African intelligence. Chanda has an agenda to promote the real racial gap. In all of those arguments back and forth, Dr. Thompson seems moving his goal posts every time Chanda brought up the counter-argument.

    Not that I agree with both of them. But Dr. Thompson here immensely failed to definitely argue why Blacks are xxx standard deviation below Whites regarding intelligence.

    1st Chess,
    then Scrabble,
    now Checkers?

    Maybe next time, Uno? or Monopoly?

    What I agree with your comment is, those Chess, Scrabble genius are only good at repetitive tasks with so many variables. But that doesn't say much about one's true intelligence.

    But that doesn’t say much about one’s true intelligence. The objection applies to IQ test scores. How do they correlate to true intelligence if we do not know what true intelligence is. Allegedly IQ scores correlate with various measures of success in modern society but close scrutiny of these results shows that the claims are inflated partly by using dubious methods of restricted range correction that always increase correlation and if you push them hard you can get correlation even higher than 1. This is one of the contributions to mathematics by Spearman and others of his ilk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Allegedly IQ scores correlate with various measures of success in modern society
     
    But the only measure of success in society, modern or otherwise, that ultimately counts, or so any Darwinist would maintain, is representation in succeeding generations, and at that, Africans are beating the Hell out of both Whitey and Yellow.

    This offensive remark, like a turd placed on the dining table, will of course be scrupulously ignored by the IQists. But if anyone seriously believes that the human nervous system evolved to score highly on an IQ test, then I can tell you I don't have any respect for their intelligence.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. J1234 says:

    At first, this guy’s guy’s articles were thought provoking. Then annoying. Now they’re just funny. (To the extent that flogging a dead horse is funny, that is.)

    There are smart black people. There have always been smart black people. There will always be smart black people. The problem is, individuals aren’t populations, and populations aren’t individuals, much as the author wants it to be so. Turning the anecdotal into something that’s general never works in the long run.

    Example: Because of the energy industry, North Dakota may be a more “prosperous” state than South Dakota (or maybe not.) Nobody thinks that this would mean that everybody in North Dakota is more prosperous than everybody in South Dakota. In fact, it’s probably commonly accepted that the most prosperous people in (less prosperous) South Dakota are far more wealthy than the majority of North Dakotans.

    Does this negate or invalidate the notion that South Dakota is a less prosperous state than North Dakota, or vice-versa, what the case may be? Of course not. And so it goes with black people vs. white or Asian people and intelligence.

    It’s possible that the some of smartest black people in Africa are drawn to high prestige games like chess to prove wrong the inferior black intelligence thesis (likely the same reason that the author is drawn to this field of study.) Maybe scrabble, too. Whatever the case, the author only seems to make his (repeated) arguments in relative microcosms, instead of the macrocosm.

    This doesn’t mean the HBD crowd is without fault. They sometimes fall into their own logical traps. Technologically and politically advanced civilizations don’t always accompany generally high intelligence populations, as some regions in Asia seem to indicate. There seems to be something other than just intelligence at work in that regard. They also don’t seem willing to correct the generally erroneous notion among some race realists that “whites are smarter than blacks” means “I’m smarter than that random black guy walking down the street.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @DFH
    Which is more likely, that games are worse indicators of intelligence (in other domains) than would expect or that all other tests of African intelligence ever conducted are wrong?

    Which is more likely, that games are worse indicators of intelligence (in other domains) than would expect or that all other tests of African intelligence ever conducted are wrong?

    It’s much simpler than this. His entire premise is: “Look! Unicorn!”

    IOW, “see, Clarence Thomas is pretty smart by white standards” QED “Africans be smart.” It makes as much sense as a white guy arguing, “Isaac Newton was genius” QED “all whites are smart.” Western Civilization was not the product of Newton or Aristotle or Teller or Watson, but the product of a relatively high percentage of such men amid a relatively low population of imbeciles. Africa is the EXACT opposite. It has a minuscule number of geniuses amid a VAST ocean of retards. That’s the reality. The rest is just self-aggrandizement.

    Note too that IQ alone isn’t the whole story. Altruism? Esp outside one’s own clan? Creativity (not just IQ but that spontaneous epiphany that changes everything)? Determination and doggedness? Time preference? Mating habits? Etc.

    Bottom line: Western Civ works just great minus Africans. Africa is savage cannibal carnage minus whites. We gain no benefit from Africa or her children. We should never have introduced ourselves or interfered. We should now work to return her stolen children and allow them to develop in their unique way on their own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Beautifully put. No hatred, no "supremacism" in the sense of wanting to control or rule over other people, and hopefully no violence.

    Slavery was a moral and practical disaster both here in North America and in Africa. People can't be expected to function well in societies and systems that were developed by and for people who are very different from them in material ways (including but not limited to some measures of measurable intelligence).

    Best to dis-entangle peacefully with no ill will, and compensate the descendants of slaves if need be to induce them to leave and give up the right to return.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Yan Shen says:

    Honestly my layman’s hunch here is that sub-Saharan Africa is basically a lesser version of India, i.e. racially heterogeneous with various sub-groups differing in intelligence. Hence some groups like the Igbo seem to do particularly well as immigrants in the West. India’s overall stated IQ is lower than the 85 often attributed to African Americans right? So there you go.

    That being said, I do think that Chanda’s various data points such as Scrabble competitions or the performance of African immigrants in the West make a compelling argument that assuming all of sub-Saharan Africa to be normally distributed for IQ with mean 70 and SD 15, as is standard, is probably flawed and underestimates the number of tail end talent from that region.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. szopen says:

    Wicherts, Dolan, Maas, 2010, “A systematic literature review of average IQ of sub-saharan Africans”. When I read it few years ago I thought they were biased, but right now I think their reported values are more close to reality. They report studies giving Nigerian IQ from 77 to 98.6, with their estimation of Nigerian IQ to being 83.8 (95% confidence interval for it being inbetween 79.9 and 87.6).

    It’s also frustrating that so many people still don’t get the Chandy Chisala’s arguments and repeat the same tired cliches. It’s not about there being some top scrabble or chess players. Once again, it’s about – given the size of the population, postulated standard deviation and average IQ plus known characteristics of player’s base population, it’s impossible to be THAT many good players.

    In contrast, the Wicherts’ et al estimations (maybe even corrected up to 85) could explain the facts.
    They would not, however, explain RPA, since their estimation for RPA is 77; however, with IQ 85, the results are plausible.

    All in all, definetely Lynn’s values for subsaharan Africa are untenable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Ugh, Sorry Chanda for mangling your name again. There is one famous "Chandy" in my field of expertise and this is most probable reason for my continous mistakes. I apologise and I would want to say that this is not intentional.
    , @DFH

    It’s also frustrating that so many people still don’t get the Chandy Chisala’s arguments and repeat the same tired cliches. It’s not about there being some top scrabble or chess players. Once again, it’s about – given the size of the population, postulated standard deviation and average IQ plus known characteristics of player’s base population, it’s impossible to be THAT many good players.
     
    That one small data incongruity is not enough to throw out all previous IQ research. If one has to choose between IQ tests and games, then the reasonable adjustment to the hypothesis is that scrabble is a less reliable indicator (or maybe that there is something different about the African IQ distribution), rather than that all of the previous IQ research on Africa is wrong.
    , @CanSpeccy
    Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times wrote:

    The average American in the year 1900 had an I.Q. that by today’s standards would measure about 67. Since the traditional definition of mental retardation was an I.Q. of less than 70, that leads to the remarkable conclusion that a majority of Americans a century ago would count today as intellectually disabled.
     
    Since the average American 117 years ago was probably at least as well off and as well educated as today's average Nigerian, what's the fuss about?

    One has to assume that if Nigerians become rich and well educated their IQ's will come to match those of Americans today, and that in the meantime, the minority of Nigerians who receive a good education or who devote much time to acquiring intellectual skills such as those required in playing chess or Scrabble, will perform pretty much as the better educated Americans, as the evidence seems to show.

    , @Bill
    His arguments are wrong if the distribution isn't normal.

    It is unfortunate that so many psychometricians have bell curves on the brain. And their internet followers are even worse, on average.
    , @matt
    If Wicherts et al. are right that sub-Saharan IQ is ~80, then they're only .33 SD away from adult African Americans. Given the massive environmental deficit that has to exist between adult African Americans and SS Africa, it's unlikely that the ~20% Euro admixture in African Americans does them much good. If, as you yourself say might be the case, SSA IQ is as high as 85, then the hereditarian hypothesis is toast. A hypothesis of sub-Saharan African genetic superiority would be more tenable than one of European superiority.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @res
    Your South African table doesn't (AFAICT) directly show that Kenny Solomon is a GM (if you disagree please point me to the exact place you see that information at that link).

    However, his profile page does show that he earned the FIDE Grandmaster title in 2015 and is thus much better evidence for your point: https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=14300192

    The interesting question is how did he become a GM given that the threshold is usually 2500 and his current ranking is just under 2400 (per link above it is 2398)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_titles#Grandmaster_.28GM.29
    Much more on the Grandmaster title and its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmaster_(chess)

    If anyone has an FIDE account (I do not) they can check his progress with the rating chart to see if he ever exceeded 2500.
    His Wikipedia page gives his peak rating as 2461 in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Solomon
    Per that page he achieved his Grandmaster title by winning the African Chess Championship in December 2014. The odd thing is that this 2012 article mentions that both a 2500 rating and "three norms" are required (full article no longer available at the original site, emphasis mine): https://web.archive.org/web/20120925042110/http://allafrica.com/stories/201209170659.html


    Solomon is on the verge of attaining the highest possible ranking in the chess world, with the exception of "World Champion". Chess SA President Emelia Ellappen explained to the Daily Maverick that in order to achieve Grandmaster status, one has to have a rating of 2,500, with three "Grandmaster norms". You get your norms by performing well at chess tournaments at which other Grandmasters are competing. Solomon has the norms in the bag already. All he now needs is 50 more rating points, but the really difficult part is behind him: it is now assured that Solomon will become South Africa's first-ever chess Grandmaster, a title he will hold for life. He joins more than 1,300 active Grandmasters worldwide.
     
    Strange. That article was also about three years premature AFAICT. BTW, it appears they misjudged which part (norms vs, rating) was most difficult.

    So Kenny Solomon is an FIDE Grandmaster per the FIDE. However, I think this makes rather than refutes Dr. Thompson's point about the importance of impartial thresholds for analysis of quantitative traits (like IQ or FIDE rating).

    Regarding selective immigration, if I recall correctly the proportion of high performers in a given immigrant population (e.g. the UK) was an important component of your mean IQ estimates argument for the underlying country populations.

    The IAB brain-drain data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    provides detailed data for immigrants by both source and destination country divided into three skill levels. That data clearly shows how selective immigration is (e.g. from Nigeria to the UK). How about you pick a relevant pair of countries and we can have a further discussion about that? Alternatively you can just concede that there IS significant selective immigration and we can move on to the discussion you started above as to whether or not that matters (and revisit some of your earlier arguments and assertions concerning selective immigration).

    If anyone has an FIDE account (I do not) they can check his progress with the rating chart to see if he ever exceeded 2500.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks, Anatoly! Do you have any insights into the weirdness of Kenny Solomon becoming a FIDE Grandmaster without ever reaching the (supposedly required per the article I quoted) 2500 rating?

    P.S. For anyone attempting to interpret that chart be sure to notice how nonlinear the time axis is! The updates happened at vastly different intervals.
    , @Wally
    BTW:

    Anatoly Karlin censors on topic rebuttals to his posts at Unz.com that he does not agree with.

    Don't confuse him with different opinions.

    ex.:
    He really loses it when his beloved '6M Jews, 5M others & gas chambers', which he promotes in his work, is shown to be fraudulent.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. szopen says:
    @szopen
    Wicherts, Dolan, Maas, 2010, "A systematic literature review of average IQ of sub-saharan Africans". When I read it few years ago I thought they were biased, but right now I think their reported values are more close to reality. They report studies giving Nigerian IQ from 77 to 98.6, with their estimation of Nigerian IQ to being 83.8 (95% confidence interval for it being inbetween 79.9 and 87.6).

    It's also frustrating that so many people still don't get the Chandy Chisala's arguments and repeat the same tired cliches. It's not about there being some top scrabble or chess players. Once again, it's about - given the size of the population, postulated standard deviation and average IQ plus known characteristics of player's base population, it's impossible to be THAT many good players.

    In contrast, the Wicherts' et al estimations (maybe even corrected up to 85) could explain the facts.
    They would not, however, explain RPA, since their estimation for RPA is 77; however, with IQ 85, the results are plausible.

    All in all, definetely Lynn's values for subsaharan Africa are untenable.

    Ugh, Sorry Chanda for mangling your name again. There is one famous “Chandy” in my field of expertise and this is most probable reason for my continous mistakes. I apologise and I would want to say that this is not intentional.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @CanSpeccy
    While white intellectual supremacists blather on about the stupidity of Africans, the Africans get on with the business of inheriting the Earth, multiplying with astonishing speed and flooding into the European homelands and former European colonies, to replace the moribund, European populations.

    On the assumption that human intelligence is an evolved characteristic that promotes reproductive success, it appears that IQ is a poor measure of the adaptive value of the human brain, just as it is evidently a poor measure of Scrabble playing potential.

    Because higher IQ has been evolved in artificial environments and strongly correlated with “self” domestication and because (((thoose))), you know, use its coward astuteness to poison white tra$he’s (of all social classes namely the “educated” ones). If so called higher IQ (using iqstic narrative) had evolved in natural environments (to natural challenges) this creepily human story had been different. Maybe Africans are preferable as the new global class of slaves, too weak to challenge those on the top at least in direct ways.

    You like to talk about genius and how creativity is the highest manifestation of intelligence. So how explain very lower fertility of the most “brightest” of the “men”?? Creativity versus reproductivity??

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    People don't get that 'intelligence' evolved due to intelligent systems/physiology and the changeability of the environment. This is why the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis is wrong, re: differential fitness due to 'the survival of the fittest'. It's well known now but heritable morphologic change can occur in vertebrates without any/little genetic change.

    Once the Neo-Darwinists accept that then we can change/replace the modern synthesis. Genes are the slaves, not the masters, of development.

    Without a homeodynamic physiology along with changeable environment, 'intelligence' (however defined) would not have evolved.
    , @CanSpeccy

    So how explain very lower fertility of the most “brightest” of the “men”?? Creativity versus reproductivity??
     
    First, creativity is largely dependent on culture, and the English had, by a series of chance historical developments, the culture most conducive to creative thought. That is why, according to a Japanese study, most of the important features of the modern world are the result of British inventions.

    Second, being creative need be in no way associated with fertility. Indeed, it clearly is not, since the Brits, notwithstanding their creativity, are committing suicide through a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration.

    True some thoughtful if not creative individuals see this and oppose this tragic development. But thoughtful and creative individuals are often among the least capable in the political realm: think Darwin who was made physically sick by social interaction, or Henry Cavendish and Paul Dirac, two other highly uncommunicative English geniuses. Cavendish discovered the element hydrogen but neglected to tell anyone. And Dirac was so uncommunicative that friends at Cambridge named a unit of communication in his honor: one Dirac being equal to the utterance of one word per hour.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. What is the difference a pop with avg IQ 70 and other with Avg IQ 80??? We still will have many people with avg IQ in the 70′s, indeed “half” of them still have avg IQ in this range.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    But that doesn’t say much about one’s true intelligence. The objection applies to IQ test scores. How do they correlate to true intelligence if we do not know what true intelligence is. Allegedly IQ scores correlate with various measures of success in modern society but close scrutiny of these results shows that the claims are inflated partly by using dubious methods of restricted range correction that always increase correlation and if you push them hard you can get correlation even higher than 1. This is one of the contributions to mathematics by Spearman and others of his ilk.

    Allegedly IQ scores correlate with various measures of success in modern society

    But the only measure of success in society, modern or otherwise, that ultimately counts, or so any Darwinist would maintain, is representation in succeeding generations, and at that, Africans are beating the Hell out of both Whitey and Yellow.

    This offensive remark, like a turd placed on the dining table, will of course be scrupulously ignored by the IQists. But if anyone seriously believes that the human nervous system evolved to score highly on an IQ test, then I can tell you I don’t have any respect for their intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    But if anyone seriously believes that the human nervous system evolved to score highly on an IQ test, then I can tell you I don’t have any respect for their intelligence.

    Could you blame English culture for this? The same culture that according to Japanese study (fake news?) is responsible for ever 50% of most critical inventions? I am serious. Where do the creatures like Spearman, Lynn and Thompson come from? How do you spawn them in England? Is it something in the water? The way you take your tea?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. DFH says:
    @szopen
    Wicherts, Dolan, Maas, 2010, "A systematic literature review of average IQ of sub-saharan Africans". When I read it few years ago I thought they were biased, but right now I think their reported values are more close to reality. They report studies giving Nigerian IQ from 77 to 98.6, with their estimation of Nigerian IQ to being 83.8 (95% confidence interval for it being inbetween 79.9 and 87.6).

    It's also frustrating that so many people still don't get the Chandy Chisala's arguments and repeat the same tired cliches. It's not about there being some top scrabble or chess players. Once again, it's about - given the size of the population, postulated standard deviation and average IQ plus known characteristics of player's base population, it's impossible to be THAT many good players.

    In contrast, the Wicherts' et al estimations (maybe even corrected up to 85) could explain the facts.
    They would not, however, explain RPA, since their estimation for RPA is 77; however, with IQ 85, the results are plausible.

    All in all, definetely Lynn's values for subsaharan Africa are untenable.

    It’s also frustrating that so many people still don’t get the Chandy Chisala’s arguments and repeat the same tired cliches. It’s not about there being some top scrabble or chess players. Once again, it’s about – given the size of the population, postulated standard deviation and average IQ plus known characteristics of player’s base population, it’s impossible to be THAT many good players.

    That one small data incongruity is not enough to throw out all previous IQ research. If one has to choose between IQ tests and games, then the reasonable adjustment to the hypothesis is that scrabble is a less reliable indicator (or maybe that there is something different about the African IQ distribution), rather than that all of the previous IQ research on Africa is wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    All right, except that "all previous IQ research" seems to indicate that Nigerian IQ is higher that the one included in Lynn. Read the Wicherts et al piece I have linked.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Stan d Mute

    Chanda, you’re still failing to understand regression to the mean in the context of IQ and race.
     
    Color me surprised. Of course there are African unicorns, only an idiot would claim otherwise. That's NOT the issue. The issue is that the "intelligent African" is still missing everything else that makes our civilization possible AND that he is so incredibly rare that if he had invented the wheel his neighbors would just have used it to roast him before eating him.

    Why does Ron publish this inanity? We KNOW Africans are 50,000-100,000 years behind in evolution. We know they share the lowest recorded average IQs on the planet with Papuans and such. We know they have statistical outliers like every other race. We know nothing, no intervention, changes any of this. Can we move on now?

    “We KNOW Africans are 50,000-100,000 years behind in evolution.”

    ….. This has to be the stupidest comment I’ve ever read at Unz Review.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Why stupid rather than just arguably wrong if he means, as he probably does, that Africans are largely stuck with the alleles for cognitive ability (and maybe some unspecified qualities) that were present in similar proportions before the move of small numbers of homo sapiens out of Africa? His thesis is presumably that vital mutations for survival in Eurasia spread quickly in the small groups that survived before those populations grew large from narrow genetic bases as conditions improved whereas any such mutations had little chance of becoming common in African populations which were already large and in which no great selective advantage was provided in the absence of glaciers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Jm8 says:
    @Tyrion
    Chanda, you're still failing to understand regression to the mean in the context of IQ and race.

    Race is a somewhat useful label with a range of moderately predictive powers. On closer inspection, the label actually smothers huge diversity beneath it going all the way down through ethnicities, tribal groups, castes, families and to the individual.

    If an outlier is going to regress to a mean, they are much more likely to regress to their family mean. Family is a well-defined biological fact.

    I get why you insist on consistently making the same mistaken argument. People on this site like pretending that there is a racial regression to the mean that stays relevant even when you know a great deal more information about someone, like who their parents are. They like pretending because it is the go-to HBD argument against race-mixing with high IQ individuals from races averaging lower in IQ. It is a clever bit of jujitsu therefore that you are using, but it is also obviously wrong.

    It is akin to predicting a player's batting average on the mean for teams in their league rather than their own previous seasons. It is better than rolling a dice, but that is about it.

    The problem for your articles is that without that fatal (purposeful?) misunderstanding they don't carry water.

    I think some of this was discussed earlier. The evidence indicates that the children of above average African Americans (above average African American families) score (seeming to “regress”) toward a lower mean. But those of Africans do not.

    http://www.unz.com/article/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap-debate-part-3/

    “The mere possibility that the African immigrants in our experiment could be an elite, unrepresentative group does not matter in itself (I don’t know how many ways to emphasize this point, which is the subject of the most popular straw man among those who keep arguing that the immigrants are “not representative” of their source populations). It does not matter *because Jensen gave us a prediction specifically concerning a sample of exclusively elite, “unrepresentative” Blacks.*

    Reading from the same Jensen paper, we are told this about elite Black Americans:

    “Matching Black and White children for the geographical areas of their homes, the schools they attend, and other finer grade socioeconomic indicators again reduces the mean group IQ difference but does not eliminate it. Black children from the best areas and schools (those producing the highest average scores) still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 286–289; Jensen, 1998b, pp. 357–360). This is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean.”

    Well, the African immigrant children test scores now present an anomaly for the racial genetic theory precisely because of regression to the mean (even if we ignore the more self-damning claim that American Blacks should have even higher intelligence due to their higher white admixture).

    We know that children of native Black Americans earning $200,000 a year in family income score lower on SAT scores than children of Whites getting only $20,000 in family income ($10, 000 per parent!). We also know that the Nigerian income in the US is only $57,000, which is lower than the non-Hipspanic white income, and yet their children still score at least as high as children of Whites, which is the opposite of Jensen’s predicted result. “

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion

    I think some of this was discussed earlier. The evidence indicates that the children of above average African Americans (above average African American families) score (seeming to “regress”) toward a lower mean. But those of Africans do not.
     
    You are expecting that observation to do a lot of heavy lifting without much justification.

    Why should the group 'Recent Black African migrants to the US' follow the exact same statistical rules as the group 'Mostly Black descendants of African slaves in the US'?

    Furthermore, I don't believe that Black American (Mostly Black descendants of African slaves in the US) children do particularly regress towards some Black American mean. The whole concept is fuzzy. After all, group mean IQs do change. A group may have eugenic pressures exerted on it.

    Were one to kill the bottom half in intelligence of a group, would you still expect the surviving top half to regress towards the previous mean?

    Are you now going to hide in the word 'towards' by meaning merely 'in the direction of'? And therefore only offer featherlight explanatory power in the same way that by walking from London to Paris you also happen to be walking 'towards' Beijing?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Santoculto
    Because higher IQ has been evolved in artificial environments and strongly correlated with "self" domestication and because (((thoose))), you know, use its coward astuteness to poison white tra$he's (of all social classes namely the "educated" ones). If so called higher IQ (using iqstic narrative) had evolved in natural environments (to natural challenges) this creepily human story had been different. Maybe Africans are preferable as the new global class of slaves, too weak to challenge those on the top at least in direct ways.

    You like to talk about genius and how creativity is the highest manifestation of intelligence. So how explain very lower fertility of the most "brightest" of the "men"?? Creativity versus reproductivity??

    People don’t get that ‘intelligence’ evolved due to intelligent systems/physiology and the changeability of the environment. This is why the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis is wrong, re: differential fitness due to ‘the survival of the fittest’. It’s well known now but heritable morphologic change can occur in vertebrates without any/little genetic change.

    Once the Neo-Darwinists accept that then we can change/replace the modern synthesis. Genes are the slaves, not the masters, of development.

    Without a homeodynamic physiology along with changeable environment, ‘intelligence’ (however defined) would not have evolved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Hi RR, are you saying that acquired traits or abilities can be passed to offspring by some mechanism other than genes? That's contrary to my admittedly limited understanding.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto
    Because higher IQ has been evolved in artificial environments and strongly correlated with "self" domestication and because (((thoose))), you know, use its coward astuteness to poison white tra$he's (of all social classes namely the "educated" ones). If so called higher IQ (using iqstic narrative) had evolved in natural environments (to natural challenges) this creepily human story had been different. Maybe Africans are preferable as the new global class of slaves, too weak to challenge those on the top at least in direct ways.

    You like to talk about genius and how creativity is the highest manifestation of intelligence. So how explain very lower fertility of the most "brightest" of the "men"?? Creativity versus reproductivity??

    So how explain very lower fertility of the most “brightest” of the “men”?? Creativity versus reproductivity??

    First, creativity is largely dependent on culture, and the English had, by a series of chance historical developments, the culture most conducive to creative thought. That is why, according to a Japanese study, most of the important features of the modern world are the result of British inventions.

    Second, being creative need be in no way associated with fertility. Indeed, it clearly is not, since the Brits, notwithstanding their creativity, are committing suicide through a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration.

    True some thoughtful if not creative individuals see this and oppose this tragic development. But thoughtful and creative individuals are often among the least capable in the political realm: think Darwin who was made physically sick by social interaction, or Henry Cavendish and Paul Dirac, two other highly uncommunicative English geniuses. Cavendish discovered the element hydrogen but neglected to tell anyone. And Dirac was so uncommunicative that friends at Cambridge named a unit of communication in his honor: one Dirac being equal to the utterance of one word per hour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Remember that creativity and intelligence is basically the same thing.

    So "intelligence" is also totally dependent on culture that is a creative "redundant" invention.

    Creativity invent intelligence in the same way environment invent the type of intelligence to be prosperous there. Indeed human creativity replace with culture the direct role of environment to submit organisms to its demands, shaping them.
    , @MarkinLA
    First, creativity is largely dependent on culture, and the English had, by a series of chance historical developments, the culture most conducive to creative thought.

    There is no way to prove this. If intelligence can't be pinned down, creativity is even harder. Now you can assume the British were more creative because they started the industrial revolution and seemingly had more industrial inventions but that hardly encompasses everything, especially when looking at the number of great French and German mathematicians compared to the British.

    Without intelligence creativity doesn't get you much. All the crap "art" you see today comes from creative people who contribute exactly zilch to the advancement of society. In fact, many of them do more to screw society up (by being taken seriously) than they ever contribute. Nobody who can't understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. res says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    If anyone has an FIDE account (I do not) they can check his progress with the rating chart to see if he ever exceeded 2500.
     
    https://i.imgur.com/pNkuguX.jpg

    Thanks, Anatoly! Do you have any insights into the weirdness of Kenny Solomon becoming a FIDE Grandmaster without ever reaching the (supposedly required per the article I quoted) 2500 rating?

    P.S. For anyone attempting to interpret that chart be sure to notice how nonlinear the time axis is! The updates happened at vastly different intervals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Mystery solved. Here are the relevant details for Kenny Solomon's Grandmaster title: http://en.chessbase.com/post/south-africa-s-first-grandmaster

    But under the new FIDE rule that awards the GM title directly to the winners of the continental chess championships he suddenly had a realistic chance of joining the elite club of grandmasters in a single - despite a rating of 2399, which usually is not enough to get the title. He seized the opportunity and in one tournament became South Africa's first Grandmaster.
     
    Impressive (and convenient) that he managed to prevail over someone with an Elo rating 200 points higher. Ahmed Adly lost to someone with a rating more than 350 points lower than him. The odds of that being about 12% per http://www.bobnewell.net/nucleus/bnewell.php?itemid=279
    Solomon ended up winning the championship by the tie-break.

    Per this page the tie-break was head to head performance: https://africachess.net/kenny-solomon-wins-the-2014-african-individual-chess-championship/
    So Solomon defeated Adly who had an Elo rating 211 points higher (22% chance per the above site).

    But that wasn't the end of how close run a thing this was: http://chesskzn.blogspot.com/2014/12/grandmaster-at-last.html


    There was some initial confusion as to whether Kenny had qualified for the GM title, as it was announced at the opening ceremony that the event had to be won outright to qualify for the title. FIDE has now confirmed that Kenny won the GM title, given that he had the better tie-breaks.

     

    This site has the Solomon vs. Adly game for anyone interested: https://www.chess.com/blog/Francy1998/kenny-solomon-south-africas1st-gm
    Can someone please help me understand what happened there? Did that game really end in 7 moves or am I failing to understand the game browser?

    What a story. Sometimes things just go your way.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @szopen
    Wicherts, Dolan, Maas, 2010, "A systematic literature review of average IQ of sub-saharan Africans". When I read it few years ago I thought they were biased, but right now I think their reported values are more close to reality. They report studies giving Nigerian IQ from 77 to 98.6, with their estimation of Nigerian IQ to being 83.8 (95% confidence interval for it being inbetween 79.9 and 87.6).

    It's also frustrating that so many people still don't get the Chandy Chisala's arguments and repeat the same tired cliches. It's not about there being some top scrabble or chess players. Once again, it's about - given the size of the population, postulated standard deviation and average IQ plus known characteristics of player's base population, it's impossible to be THAT many good players.

    In contrast, the Wicherts' et al estimations (maybe even corrected up to 85) could explain the facts.
    They would not, however, explain RPA, since their estimation for RPA is 77; however, with IQ 85, the results are plausible.

    All in all, definetely Lynn's values for subsaharan Africa are untenable.

    Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times wrote:

    The average American in the year 1900 had an I.Q. that by today’s standards would measure about 67. Since the traditional definition of mental retardation was an I.Q. of less than 70, that leads to the remarkable conclusion that a majority of Americans a century ago would count today as intellectually disabled.

    Since the average American 117 years ago was probably at least as well off and as well educated as today’s average Nigerian, what’s the fuss about?

    One has to assume that if Nigerians become rich and well educated their IQ’s will come to match those of Americans today, and that in the meantime, the minority of Nigerians who receive a good education or who devote much time to acquiring intellectual skills such as those required in playing chess or Scrabble, will perform pretty much as the better educated Americans, as the evidence seems to show.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
    "The average American in the year 1900 had an I.Q. that by today’s standards would measure about 67."

    And what IQ test did they determine that with? None? I hate to point out the obvious, but projecting IQ back over 100 years could only be accepted as "evidence" if you could not differentiate between reality and fiction or were a liar with an agenda to promote. Of course, if Nicholas Kristof of the NYT wrote about it, it MUST be true! Dream on, those of you that want to find ANY exception to the rule and use it as "proof" of an entire population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Tyrion
    Chanda, you're still failing to understand regression to the mean in the context of IQ and race.

    Race is a somewhat useful label with a range of moderately predictive powers. On closer inspection, the label actually smothers huge diversity beneath it going all the way down through ethnicities, tribal groups, castes, families and to the individual.

    If an outlier is going to regress to a mean, they are much more likely to regress to their family mean. Family is a well-defined biological fact.

    I get why you insist on consistently making the same mistaken argument. People on this site like pretending that there is a racial regression to the mean that stays relevant even when you know a great deal more information about someone, like who their parents are. They like pretending because it is the go-to HBD argument against race-mixing with high IQ individuals from races averaging lower in IQ. It is a clever bit of jujitsu therefore that you are using, but it is also obviously wrong.

    It is akin to predicting a player's batting average on the mean for teams in their league rather than their own previous seasons. It is better than rolling a dice, but that is about it.

    The problem for your articles is that without that fatal (purposeful?) misunderstanding they don't carry water.

    I’ve explained this many times before, but since you seem sincere in your confusion, I will explain it again.

    When I say “regression to the mean” I do not mean that the “regressed” IQ becomes equal to the mean of the race. Not only I, but many others who use that term in this debate, including Jensen, Rushton, et al. A more accurate term would be “regression TOWARD the mean,” as Jensen sometimes clarified. So, the claim is not that children of elite Africans should have the average IQ of their “race” or source population, but that it should regress TO or TOWARDS that, on average. Which means that children of elite blacks should have lower IQ on average than children of equally elite (equal IQ) whites. Similarly, children of elite black Africans should have significantly lower IQ than children of similarly elite black Americans. No, none of them will actually “regress” to the point of their source population IQ, but it is like different centers of gravity pulling them downwards, statistically speaking.

    My argument is that there does not seem to be much indication that children of black African elites — that is, even if we granted that these immigrants are really the elites of Africa — are having a huge disadvantage over children of elite native black Americans. It seems like quite the opposite, which is in direct contradiction to the prediction of the racial hypothesis, if the black Americans have the advantage of white genes. Above that, they seem to have increased numerical advantage when you increase cognitive selection, which should not happen if that lower “center of gravity” from which they hail is biologically rooted, as my opponents believe.

    Now you can respond to THAT argument, instead of responding to your own simplified version of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Your tone is needlessly unpleasant and demeaning. If you can deign to communicate civilly only with people who share your expertise and knowledge, you can do that elsewhere. Shades of Razib Khan....
    , @Bill
    Either you have failed utterly to understand Tyrion's point, or you are extraordinarily dishonest. Really poor performance.
    , @Tyrion
    Nothing in your post contradicts mine, except as to say that both Rushton and Jensen made a similar error to you, which my post was entirely open to the possibility of.

    Lumping all black Africans together as a population has some uses. But not really all that many. Expecting an Igbo child to regress towards the African mean makes as much sense as expecting an Ashkenazi child to regress towards the human mean. Or perhaps worse, expecting a member of Darwin's direct family to regress towards the human mean.

    Furthermore, comparing Black Americans as a group with Black Africans as a group you are not comparing like group with like. By lumping Black Africans together you are expecting group statistical effects for them which you have no basis for expecting.

    Now you can respond to THAT argument, instead of responding to your own simplified version of it.
     
    Pot meet kettle.
    , @utu
    You are making your point very well. Children of the elite will have lower IQ than their parents. This is all what you need in your argument. It follows from the breeder's equation but you do not have to mention the regression to the mean. But you have mentioned it and this attracted a character Tyrion who apparently gets triggered by the regression to the mean.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Polymath
    The author is correct that the game results present a serious challenge to IQ theories, and most of the criticisms in this thread are off point. However, as a chess master and mathematician professionally familiar with the Elo rating system, I should correct some misconceptions he has. Elo rating is not a measure of talent or of diligence but of playing strength, which is a mixture of the two. Furthermore, it does not follow a simple Bell curve at all, because the numerical scale is based on actual game results: a 200 point gap corresponds to the stronger player winning 75% of the points in a match, and the distribution is much flatter than a bell curve. The Elo gap in chess between whites and Asians, one the one hand, and people of African descent on the other, is so vast, especially at the top levels, that chess provides much less support for the author's view than Scrabble does.

    I agree with Wizard of Oz that the main conclusion that can be drawn from the author's data is that the "low=IQ" populations of Africa have much larger "smart fractions" than would be expected from a normal distribution. But of course if you combine two normal distributions with different means, you get something very non-normal. Africa has some smart ethnic subgroups, as do non-African races on other continents. The same is true of India, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone that India has both many very smart people and a very low average IQ.

    Genome studies will shed much more light on this in the next few years.

    It seems you confused the position of my opponent(s) on chess with my position. I am actually arguing against chess as the best or better measure for cognitive comparison. My example of Solomon in South Africa was not to show that my hypothesis is supported by chess (it is not), but to show that the opposite hypothesis is NOT supported by chess either, especially as you begin to exclude some of the obvious environmental confounds.

    If they were right that chess supports them, it would be in less professionalized chess environments like South Africa where the black-white gap would be even bigger, as that should take it closer to a contest of raw natural intelligence. (See Spearman’s Hypothesis.)

    We see quite the opposite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. res says:
    @res
    Thanks, Anatoly! Do you have any insights into the weirdness of Kenny Solomon becoming a FIDE Grandmaster without ever reaching the (supposedly required per the article I quoted) 2500 rating?

    P.S. For anyone attempting to interpret that chart be sure to notice how nonlinear the time axis is! The updates happened at vastly different intervals.

    Mystery solved. Here are the relevant details for Kenny Solomon’s Grandmaster title: http://en.chessbase.com/post/south-africa-s-first-grandmaster

    But under the new FIDE rule that awards the GM title directly to the winners of the continental chess championships he suddenly had a realistic chance of joining the elite club of grandmasters in a single – despite a rating of 2399, which usually is not enough to get the title. He seized the opportunity and in one tournament became South Africa’s first Grandmaster.

    Impressive (and convenient) that he managed to prevail over someone with an Elo rating 200 points higher. Ahmed Adly lost to someone with a rating more than 350 points lower than him. The odds of that being about 12% per http://www.bobnewell.net/nucleus/bnewell.php?itemid=279
    Solomon ended up winning the championship by the tie-break.

    Per this page the tie-break was head to head performance: https://africachess.net/kenny-solomon-wins-the-2014-african-individual-chess-championship/
    So Solomon defeated Adly who had an Elo rating 211 points higher (22% chance per the above site).

    But that wasn’t the end of how close run a thing this was: http://chesskzn.blogspot.com/2014/12/grandmaster-at-last.html

    There was some initial confusion as to whether Kenny had qualified for the GM title, as it was announced at the opening ceremony that the event had to be won outright to qualify for the title. FIDE has now confirmed that Kenny won the GM title, given that he had the better tie-breaks.

    This site has the Solomon vs. Adly game for anyone interested: https://www.chess.com/blog/Francy1998/kenny-solomon-south-africas1st-gm
    Can someone please help me understand what happened there? Did that game really end in 7 moves or am I failing to understand the game browser?

    What a story. Sometimes things just go your way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I wonder how Robert Gwaze feels about the timing of that rule change given that he won the African Championship in 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Chess_Championship
    and currently has a higher Elo rating than Kenny Solomon but is "only" an IM?
    https://chess-db.com/public/pinfo.jsp?id=11000228
    Gwaze also apparently won outright: http://chess-results.com/tnr7817.aspx?lan=1&art=1&wi=821

    Here is the Solomon vs. Adly game from 2014: http://www.chess-results.com/PartieSuche.aspx?lan=1&id=50023&tnr=154093&art=3
    They show the first 34 (not just 7) moves but then there is a "notation not clear" comment

    Much more detailed 2014 results: http://www.chess-results.com/tnr154093.aspx?lan=1&art=4&turdet=YES&flag=30&wi=984
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    Can someone please help me understand what happened there? Did that game really end in 7 moves or am I failing to understand the game browser?
     
    Just ran that game through Stockfish.

    The critical move was 5. ... Ne4, after which White's advantage went from zero to almost +4 (pawn equivalents). After White's bishop took the Knight, Black could have gone back to almost even (+0.6) by Nxc3, which would have messed up White's pawn structure, but he didn't; in turn, White could have consolidated his +4 lead by Nxe4 (as an amateur I can see White developing an advantage by having two main pieces developed versus none for Black, but that's where my very limited chess intuition ends). But here's the thing... he didn't, instead playing 7. Qb3, at which point White's advantage went back to precisely +0. No discernible reason for the resignation!

    Very strange, very weak play for players at such a supposedly high level (memorized optimal play during the first 10-15 moves of the openings is expected at this sort of level).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Wally says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Don't bother.

    This place is for failed middle aged white men looking to blow off steam.

    I just come here to have fun at their expense. Always entertaining.

    IOW, you voted for Hillary.
    So who is having the fun at whose expense? *

    If we have ‘failed’ then I’d like to see your definition of success.
    Personally, I’m prospering in all ways.

    [MORE]

    * see Reactions to Trump Victory, hilarious !!

    and:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Wally says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    If anyone has an FIDE account (I do not) they can check his progress with the rating chart to see if he ever exceeded 2500.
     
    https://i.imgur.com/pNkuguX.jpg

    BTW:

    Anatoly Karlin censors on topic rebuttals to his posts at Unz.com that he does not agree with.

    Don’t confuse him with different opinions.

    [MORE]

    ex.:
    He really loses it when his beloved ’6M Jews, 5M others & gas chambers’, which he promotes in his work, is shown to be fraudulent.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Allegedly IQ scores correlate with various measures of success in modern society
     
    But the only measure of success in society, modern or otherwise, that ultimately counts, or so any Darwinist would maintain, is representation in succeeding generations, and at that, Africans are beating the Hell out of both Whitey and Yellow.

    This offensive remark, like a turd placed on the dining table, will of course be scrupulously ignored by the IQists. But if anyone seriously believes that the human nervous system evolved to score highly on an IQ test, then I can tell you I don't have any respect for their intelligence.

    But if anyone seriously believes that the human nervous system evolved to score highly on an IQ test, then I can tell you I don’t have any respect for their intelligence.

    Could you blame English culture for this? The same culture that according to Japanese study (fake news?) is responsible for ever 50% of most critical inventions? I am serious. Where do the creatures like Spearman, Lynn and Thompson come from? How do you spawn them in England? Is it something in the water? The way you take your tea?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Where do the creatures like Spearman, Lynn and Thompson come from?
     
    LOL

    I'll leave the specific individuals out of it since I know essentially nothing about Spearman or Lynn, and James Thompson seems a decent enough guy.

    But the great days of English culture are long gone. I saw some of the last of it as an undergraduate in the early 60's: I learned intermediate metabolism from Hans Kornberg, the lead author of the paper that won Krebs the Nobel prize for the Krebs cycle. We didn't just do pathways and mechanisms, we learned how the scheme was discovered and then did a number of the critical experiments in the labs with Kornberg in attendance. At lunch times one could chop logic over a beer with the head of the Department of Philosophy. In my own department, every faculty member's door was open to undergraduates seeking an impromptu tutorial. Those were the days when C.S. Lewis at Oxford spent more than 20 hours a week tutoring students in Eng. Lit.

    Nowadays, youngster attending either Oxfraud or Scambridge have, so I understand from younger relatives, no contact with anyone of note. If you really want to know where English culture is today, read the Daily Mail!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Wally says:
    @Chanda Chisala
    There are already some comments above and there will be more below that keep repeating the usual silly straw man that I'm simply presenting the existence of a few high IQ black people as an argument against the racial hypothesis. (Or variations of same straw man). I trust the more serious readers will see that the argument is about statistical and logical contradictions and they'll hopefully offer counter-arguments that are relevant to that discussion.

    I may check the thread later to see if there are any such serious responses. Thank you.

    “… that I’m simply presenting the existence of a few high IQ black people as an argument against the racial hypothesis …”

    But that’s exactly what you are doing.

    Call it what you like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. res says:
    @res
    Mystery solved. Here are the relevant details for Kenny Solomon's Grandmaster title: http://en.chessbase.com/post/south-africa-s-first-grandmaster

    But under the new FIDE rule that awards the GM title directly to the winners of the continental chess championships he suddenly had a realistic chance of joining the elite club of grandmasters in a single - despite a rating of 2399, which usually is not enough to get the title. He seized the opportunity and in one tournament became South Africa's first Grandmaster.
     
    Impressive (and convenient) that he managed to prevail over someone with an Elo rating 200 points higher. Ahmed Adly lost to someone with a rating more than 350 points lower than him. The odds of that being about 12% per http://www.bobnewell.net/nucleus/bnewell.php?itemid=279
    Solomon ended up winning the championship by the tie-break.

    Per this page the tie-break was head to head performance: https://africachess.net/kenny-solomon-wins-the-2014-african-individual-chess-championship/
    So Solomon defeated Adly who had an Elo rating 211 points higher (22% chance per the above site).

    But that wasn't the end of how close run a thing this was: http://chesskzn.blogspot.com/2014/12/grandmaster-at-last.html


    There was some initial confusion as to whether Kenny had qualified for the GM title, as it was announced at the opening ceremony that the event had to be won outright to qualify for the title. FIDE has now confirmed that Kenny won the GM title, given that he had the better tie-breaks.

     

    This site has the Solomon vs. Adly game for anyone interested: https://www.chess.com/blog/Francy1998/kenny-solomon-south-africas1st-gm
    Can someone please help me understand what happened there? Did that game really end in 7 moves or am I failing to understand the game browser?

    What a story. Sometimes things just go your way.

    I wonder how Robert Gwaze feels about the timing of that rule change given that he won the African Championship in 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Chess_Championship
    and currently has a higher Elo rating than Kenny Solomon but is “only” an IM?

    https://chess-db.com/public/pinfo.jsp?id=11000228

    Gwaze also apparently won outright: http://chess-results.com/tnr7817.aspx?lan=1&art=1&wi=821

    Here is the Solomon vs. Adly game from 2014: http://www.chess-results.com/PartieSuche.aspx?lan=1&id=50023&tnr=154093&art=3
    They show the first 34 (not just 7) moves but then there is a “notation not clear” comment

    Much more detailed 2014 results: http://www.chess-results.com/tnr154093.aspx?lan=1&art=4&turdet=YES&flag=30&wi=984

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @CanSpeccy

    So how explain very lower fertility of the most “brightest” of the “men”?? Creativity versus reproductivity??
     
    First, creativity is largely dependent on culture, and the English had, by a series of chance historical developments, the culture most conducive to creative thought. That is why, according to a Japanese study, most of the important features of the modern world are the result of British inventions.

    Second, being creative need be in no way associated with fertility. Indeed, it clearly is not, since the Brits, notwithstanding their creativity, are committing suicide through a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration.

    True some thoughtful if not creative individuals see this and oppose this tragic development. But thoughtful and creative individuals are often among the least capable in the political realm: think Darwin who was made physically sick by social interaction, or Henry Cavendish and Paul Dirac, two other highly uncommunicative English geniuses. Cavendish discovered the element hydrogen but neglected to tell anyone. And Dirac was so uncommunicative that friends at Cambridge named a unit of communication in his honor: one Dirac being equal to the utterance of one word per hour.

    Remember that creativity and intelligence is basically the same thing.

    So “intelligence” is also totally dependent on culture that is a creative “redundant” invention.

    Creativity invent intelligence in the same way environment invent the type of intelligence to be prosperous there. Indeed human creativity replace with culture the direct role of environment to submit organisms to its demands, shaping them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You don't understand the article. I doubt you even read it. The point is that real world competitions are a better measure of intelligence than IQ tests and that, at the very least, the number of highly intelligent Africans on that basis is larger than what the statistically likely number would be if national IQ figures per Lynn were accurate. Thus, Lynn's estimates might not be very accurate after all. They certainly have no correlation with national economic success.

    What funny about you is the extent to which you will compromise your supposed principles to be "right" in your estimation. You hate black people so in their case you accept that the genetic hypothesis is flawless; but you also hate Jews, so that very genetic hypothesis that shows Jews are smarter must be bogus.

    Maybe it's the genetic hypothesis that's wrong?
    , @CanSpeccy

    So “intelligence” is also totally dependent on culture that is a creative “redundant” invention.
     
    I wouldn't say that. Some people are obviously more creative than others. But culture determines whether creativity will flourish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @res
    Your South African table doesn't (AFAICT) directly show that Kenny Solomon is a GM (if you disagree please point me to the exact place you see that information at that link).

    However, his profile page does show that he earned the FIDE Grandmaster title in 2015 and is thus much better evidence for your point: https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=14300192

    The interesting question is how did he become a GM given that the threshold is usually 2500 and his current ranking is just under 2400 (per link above it is 2398)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_titles#Grandmaster_.28GM.29
    Much more on the Grandmaster title and its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmaster_(chess)

    If anyone has an FIDE account (I do not) they can check his progress with the rating chart to see if he ever exceeded 2500.
    His Wikipedia page gives his peak rating as 2461 in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Solomon
    Per that page he achieved his Grandmaster title by winning the African Chess Championship in December 2014. The odd thing is that this 2012 article mentions that both a 2500 rating and "three norms" are required (full article no longer available at the original site, emphasis mine): https://web.archive.org/web/20120925042110/http://allafrica.com/stories/201209170659.html


    Solomon is on the verge of attaining the highest possible ranking in the chess world, with the exception of "World Champion". Chess SA President Emelia Ellappen explained to the Daily Maverick that in order to achieve Grandmaster status, one has to have a rating of 2,500, with three "Grandmaster norms". You get your norms by performing well at chess tournaments at which other Grandmasters are competing. Solomon has the norms in the bag already. All he now needs is 50 more rating points, but the really difficult part is behind him: it is now assured that Solomon will become South Africa's first-ever chess Grandmaster, a title he will hold for life. He joins more than 1,300 active Grandmasters worldwide.
     
    Strange. That article was also about three years premature AFAICT. BTW, it appears they misjudged which part (norms vs, rating) was most difficult.

    So Kenny Solomon is an FIDE Grandmaster per the FIDE. However, I think this makes rather than refutes Dr. Thompson's point about the importance of impartial thresholds for analysis of quantitative traits (like IQ or FIDE rating).

    Regarding selective immigration, if I recall correctly the proportion of high performers in a given immigrant population (e.g. the UK) was an important component of your mean IQ estimates argument for the underlying country populations.

    The IAB brain-drain data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    provides detailed data for immigrants by both source and destination country divided into three skill levels. That data clearly shows how selective immigration is (e.g. from Nigeria to the UK). How about you pick a relevant pair of countries and we can have a further discussion about that? Alternatively you can just concede that there IS significant selective immigration and we can move on to the discussion you started above as to whether or not that matters (and revisit some of your earlier arguments and assertions concerning selective immigration).

    Your South African table doesn’t (AFAICT) directly show that Kenny Solomon is a GM (if you disagree please point me to the exact place you see that information at that link).

    Look for the small ‘g’ under the title column. That doesn’t stand for “general intelligence”! :)

    The IAB brain-drain data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    provides detailed data for immigrants by both source and destination country divided into three skill levels. That data clearly shows how selective immigration is (e.g. from Nigeria to the UK)…

    Not so fast.

    The fact that Nigerian and other Africans have more educated people in their migrant groups compared to other immigrants has been a well-known fact.

    However: your “side” has told us what the average IQ is for educated Africans. It is 85. Which is about a standard deviation from the mean. This 85 was Rushton’s report from “an elite university” in Africa.

    So, even if you have data showing that 100 percent of African immigrants have university degrees, that does not solve the condundrum I presented in the article you reference. How could these “elite” IQ 85 people produce children who were outperforming IQ 100 white children?

    This necessarily took the argument to another level. The claim from your side was now that the African immigrants are not just “selected”, they had to be super-selected. They had to be not the 85 IQ of university degree level; they had to be a standard deviation above the university graduates (or even more, depending on how you account for regression to the mean if their children are at least 100 IQ).

    Your source does not in any way prove this ridiculous claim of super-selection — the idea that the immigrants are at least 1 SD above a sample of 100 percent university graduates in IQ. But without that ridiculous claim, the hypothesis finds it hard to explain the presence of their high performing kids. So, most people on your side simply resign to the circular fallacy: they just had to be super-selected since that’s the only way our hypothesis survives!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    On an other thread, our friend res was about to prove that all of Nigeria's IQ120+ population emigrated. Be careful, he has unbeatable and very logical arguments. LMAO.
    , @res

    Look for the small ‘g’ under the title column. That doesn’t stand for “general intelligence”! :)
     
    Thanks. That was too subtle for me given the lack of any explanatory text. I still think the profile page I linked makes a better reference to support your point.

    By the way, that was quite the story of how Kenny Solomon achieved his Grandmaster title. Don't you agree? We don't need any of those old standards (that 2500 Elo rating threshold is so 20th century) or rules announced before the tournament, do we?

    The fact that Nigerian and other Africans have more educated people in their migrant groups compared to other immigrants has been a well-known fact.
     
    Contrast that to: http://www.unz.com/article/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap-debate-part-2/#comment-1199865

    Whether there is high immigrant selection or not is an empirical quantitative question.
    ...
    Frost does not believe there is any high selection from Africa. Neither does Fuerst (from his research) or, apparently, Charles Murray (according to The Bell Curve), and others. Is it rational to be utterly disrespectful to an outsider for sharing that same opinion in his analysis?
     
    You seem to have changed your opinion on selective immigration a bit. It is good to have an open mind.

    However: your “side” has told us what the average IQ is for educated Africans.
     
    What is this your "side" business? Do NOT put words into my mouth.

    Your source does not in any way prove this ridiculous claim of super-selection — the idea that the immigrants are at least 1 SD above a sample of 100 percent university graduates in IQ.
     
    I repeat: Do NOT put words into my mouth. I said nothing about super-selection.

    That "ridiculous claim of super-selection" is a great strawman. Can you provide a reference to someone actually arguing that?

    If you actually want to engage with things I have said, feel free.

    To make this numerical (I don't find terms like "high" or "super" all that meaningful), the brain drain data states that in the 5 year period for 2010 12.04% of high skill (tertiary education) Nigerians emigrated compared to 0.56% of medium skill and 0.11% of low skill Nigerians. A factor of 100 difference between the low and high skill emigration rates seems rather selective to me.

    To look at the data in a different way, let's consider Nigerian men in the UK in 2010. We see 42106 high skill, 3406 medium skill, and 9326 low skill immigrants. So over 80% of Nigerian male immigrants in the UK in 2010 were high skill. Again, compared to Nigeria itself that shows significant selection.

    P.S. Please stop with the "your side" business. I have my own opinions. I am not the representative of a side.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Stan d Mute

    Which is more likely, that games are worse indicators of intelligence (in other domains) than would expect or that all other tests of African intelligence ever conducted are wrong?
     
    It's much simpler than this. His entire premise is: "Look! Unicorn!"

    IOW, "see, Clarence Thomas is pretty smart by white standards" QED "Africans be smart." It makes as much sense as a white guy arguing, "Isaac Newton was genius" QED "all whites are smart." Western Civilization was not the product of Newton or Aristotle or Teller or Watson, but the product of a relatively high percentage of such men amid a relatively low population of imbeciles. Africa is the EXACT opposite. It has a minuscule number of geniuses amid a VAST ocean of retards. That's the reality. The rest is just self-aggrandizement.

    Note too that IQ alone isn't the whole story. Altruism? Esp outside one's own clan? Creativity (not just IQ but that spontaneous epiphany that changes everything)? Determination and doggedness? Time preference? Mating habits? Etc.

    Bottom line: Western Civ works just great minus Africans. Africa is savage cannibal carnage minus whites. We gain no benefit from Africa or her children. We should never have introduced ourselves or interfered. We should now work to return her stolen children and allow them to develop in their unique way on their own.

    Beautifully put. No hatred, no “supremacism” in the sense of wanting to control or rule over other people, and hopefully no violence.

    Slavery was a moral and practical disaster both here in North America and in Africa. People can’t be expected to function well in societies and systems that were developed by and for people who are very different from them in material ways (including but not limited to some measures of measurable intelligence).

    Best to dis-entangle peacefully with no ill will, and compensate the descendants of slaves if need be to induce them to leave and give up the right to return.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Santoculto
    Remember that creativity and intelligence is basically the same thing.

    So "intelligence" is also totally dependent on culture that is a creative "redundant" invention.

    Creativity invent intelligence in the same way environment invent the type of intelligence to be prosperous there. Indeed human creativity replace with culture the direct role of environment to submit organisms to its demands, shaping them.

    You don’t understand the article. I doubt you even read it. The point is that real world competitions are a better measure of intelligence than IQ tests and that, at the very least, the number of highly intelligent Africans on that basis is larger than what the statistically likely number would be if national IQ figures per Lynn were accurate. Thus, Lynn’s estimates might not be very accurate after all. They certainly have no correlation with national economic success.

    What funny about you is the extent to which you will compromise your supposed principles to be “right” in your estimation. You hate black people so in their case you accept that the genetic hypothesis is flawless; but you also hate Jews, so that very genetic hypothesis that shows Jews are smarter must be bogus.

    Maybe it’s the genetic hypothesis that’s wrong?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The point is that real world competitions are a better measure of intelligence than IQ tests and that,

    They would be if they weren't limited to some game where as one poster pointed out canned solutions can be cashed in memory. The IQ tests one takes have lots of components. You read a paragraph and have to come to some collusions. You rotate something in space and have to pick the correct view after the combination of the rotations. You have visual and numeric sequences that you have to pick the next one. There is no game anywhere that comes close to incorporating all these components. At there some missed? Most likely, figure out what to add and get rich.

    A better test might be to hand somebody a military survival manual and a knife and see how long somebody could survive. However, you can't test millions of people that way.
    , @Wally
    Spoken like a redneck Zionist Jew who hates white gentiles, hence you promote the fake '6M Jews' nonsense.
    , @Phil
    How wrong can you be?

    See Jones, G., Schneider, W.J., 2006. Intelligence, human capital, and economic growth: a Bayesian averaging of classical estimates (BACE) approach. Journal of Economic Growth 11, 71–93.

    Jones, G. 2012. Cognitive Skill and Technology Diffusion: An Empirical Test. Economic Systems 36, 444-460.

    National IQ scores, including African scores compiled by Lynn, are the single most robust factor affecting national economic growth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @RaceRealist88
    People don't get that 'intelligence' evolved due to intelligent systems/physiology and the changeability of the environment. This is why the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis is wrong, re: differential fitness due to 'the survival of the fittest'. It's well known now but heritable morphologic change can occur in vertebrates without any/little genetic change.

    Once the Neo-Darwinists accept that then we can change/replace the modern synthesis. Genes are the slaves, not the masters, of development.

    Without a homeodynamic physiology along with changeable environment, 'intelligence' (however defined) would not have evolved.

    Hi RR, are you saying that acquired traits or abilities can be passed to offspring by some mechanism other than genes? That’s contrary to my admittedly limited understanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Thank you for that!!

    I also don't understand what he wrote.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Hi RR, are you saying that acquired traits or abilities can be passed to offspring by some mechanism other than genes?"

    Yes. Heritable morphology can be passed with little to no genetic change in some vertebrates.

    Moreover, heritable morphological changes were seen to be capable of occurring abruptly with little or no genetic change, with involvement of the external environment, and in preferred directions. This paper discusses three examples of morphological motifs of vertebrate bodies and organs, the somites, the skeletons of the paired limbs, and musculoskeletal novelties distinctive to birds, for which evolutionary origination and transformation can be understood on the basis of the physiological and biophysical determinants of their development.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262151448_Form_and_function_remixed_Developmental_physiology_in_the_evolution_of_vertebrate_body_plans

    And for the claims against the Modern Synthesis see:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048083/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTExMy9leHBwaHlzaW9sLjIwMTIuMDcxMTM0/10.1113%40expphysiol.2012.071134.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5284211

    I'll go in depth later when I have access to a computer. For the record, stating that Modern Synthesis needs revision/replacing does not mean that one is a Creationist.

    I used to be against the idea of epigenetics, but now I think there's something to it. I'm well aware of the critiques about it and I'll get to that on my blog eventually.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Chanda Chisala
    I've explained this many times before, but since you seem sincere in your confusion, I will explain it again.

    When I say "regression to the mean" I do not mean that the "regressed" IQ becomes equal to the mean of the race. Not only I, but many others who use that term in this debate, including Jensen, Rushton, et al. A more accurate term would be "regression TOWARD the mean," as Jensen sometimes clarified. So, the claim is not that children of elite Africans should have the average IQ of their "race" or source population, but that it should regress TO or TOWARDS that, on average. Which means that children of elite blacks should have lower IQ on average than children of equally elite (equal IQ) whites. Similarly, children of elite black Africans should have significantly lower IQ than children of similarly elite black Americans. No, none of them will actually "regress" to the point of their source population IQ, but it is like different centers of gravity pulling them downwards, statistically speaking.

    My argument is that there does not seem to be much indication that children of black African elites -- that is, even if we granted that these immigrants are really the elites of Africa -- are having a huge disadvantage over children of elite native black Americans. It seems like quite the opposite, which is in direct contradiction to the prediction of the racial hypothesis, if the black Americans have the advantage of white genes. Above that, they seem to have increased numerical advantage when you increase cognitive selection, which should not happen if that lower "center of gravity" from which they hail is biologically rooted, as my opponents believe.

    Now you can respond to THAT argument, instead of responding to your own simplified version of it.

    Your tone is needlessly unpleasant and demeaning. If you can deign to communicate civilly only with people who share your expertise and knowledge, you can do that elsewhere. Shades of Razib Khan….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. LauraMR says:
    @Lemurmaniac
    Since science measures correspondence of variables, and not reality itself, there will always be gaps in our knowledge.

    The basic problem race deniers face is the theory of evolution, and why broad in-groups of people didn't develop different biological features in reaction to differing environments.

    The basic problem is that of racial purity.

    Any relevant discussion of the topic of race must provide a proper account of admixture.

    Since there is no such account, talk of race is essentially inane.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Yeah, this has been way insane given that nobody, Thompson too, has even given any statements that remotely sound like they know what they are talking about. Comparing performance of AI to humans, understanding combinatoric game theory (non-deterministic and PI vs non-PI games are huge distinctions) and so on is where to start. Also having any clue about other comparable games, competitions, etc. would help because Scrabble is possibly not in the top 100 non-physical sport games or competitions worldwide. All this effort to try to produce inflated estimates about Scrabble players is hilarious as the net effect of all this work helps conclusively establish reasonable bounds (even self-selected, self-reported elite Scrabble players don’t outperform median US college students from certain peer reviewed studies, kek)

    Anyway I suppose I should lay out the following sometime, so might as well be now. These are all much better estimates than the nonsense usually found on the net.

    Median IQ of various groups: (means rarely differ and only for some of the very small sample size groups)

    SMPY~ 130
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 1950~ 135-140
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 2000~ 135-140 (probably just slightly lower than above, but less variance)
    Intel science fair finalists~130

    Elite Poker Players~ 110-120
    Elite Scrabble Players~115
    Elite “generic shooter/fighting” videogame players~110 (use 110-120 as a standin for other random videogames)
    Elite Rubik’s Cube solvers (“Cubers”)~120-130 (most difficult to gather evidence here imo)
    Elite Starcraft Players~130 (BW obvs)
    Elite Go Players~120-130
    Elite Chess Players~130-140 (a bit depends on definitions and historical periods included)

    Ivy League university bachelor’s graduates~120
    Billionaires~120

    “IQology” suffers from very poor statistical and logical understanding when it tries to examine things on tails, granted standard assumptions about percentiles and normal distributions and so forth for IQ as a metric. If you start claiming every champion poker player is 180 IQ or whatever, many billionaires are 180, etc. you would actually run out 180 IQ people very very fast. Instead all sorts of these things are loosely correlated and even more poorly correlated on the tails, maybe people at least understand that poker, for instance, is a heavily luck-based event (and computers way outperform humans under certain circumstances anyway much as they have for a long time in other games and events)

    I’m probably forgetting some category or another but I think I covered most of the usual canards. Of course groups like mensa have always failed to understand Poisson distributions and made unjustified claims that are still in the popular consciousness but this new sort of wrong understanding of games and other outcomes is actually one of the most outrageously wrong claims I’ve ever seen on the Unz Review. And look at some of the other stuff published as articles!

    Of course in summary Chisala’s arguments boil down to “there exist a black man with, say, 115 IQ” which of course means absolutely nothing and is pointless. Getting the rest of this former picture right is a more interesting topic though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    If you start claiming every champion poker player is 180 IQ or whatever, many billionaires are 180, etc. you would actually run out 180 IQ people very very fast.
     
    This is correct. The correlation between chess skill and IQ is a modest r=0.35, so even the best chess player can only be expected to have an IQ around the 130-140 range (as you point out).
    , @res

    SMPY~ 130
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 1950~ 135-140
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 2000~ 135-140 (probably just slightly lower than above, but less variance)
     
    Those numbers demonstrate significant ignorance. The SMPY had multiple cohorts ranging from top 1% (a bit over 130 IQ) to top 0.01% (more like 160 IQ). Here is one of the many SMPY papers: https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/02/Top1in100001.pdf

    The 1995 SAT recentering changed the ceiling about 100 points (roughly 10 IQ points). The pre-1995 SAT ceiling was around IQ 160.

    , @szopen
    No, Chanda's argument does not boil down to this. Ignore for a moment the data abotu female representation at the top (or lack of it), just assume females are not at the toip because they do not care enough to play it.

    Think about Gabon, which managed to put SEVEN players in top competition, where they competed with whites too.

    Lynn postulated Gabon has IQ of 64.
    It is also postulated that blacks have lower SD than whites.

    That would means that roughly 0.013% of Gabon's population is above IQ 115 for IQ 64 and SD even only so low as 14, and not 12 as postulated by some. With 12, it is 0,001%.

    Gabon is a small country, with a very young population. Meaning some half a million people eligible for the competition. That would mean that with normal distribution there would be FIVE people in Gabon with IQ above 115 with Lynn's data, 40 with IQ 70 and SD 12, and 670 with IQ 70 and SD 15. Having a pool of people above 115 with size of about one thousand (give or take) and postulate even one percent of them decide to pursue careers in scrabble is not very reasonable.

    That's why I wrote Lynn's number are untenable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @res
    Mystery solved. Here are the relevant details for Kenny Solomon's Grandmaster title: http://en.chessbase.com/post/south-africa-s-first-grandmaster

    But under the new FIDE rule that awards the GM title directly to the winners of the continental chess championships he suddenly had a realistic chance of joining the elite club of grandmasters in a single - despite a rating of 2399, which usually is not enough to get the title. He seized the opportunity and in one tournament became South Africa's first Grandmaster.
     
    Impressive (and convenient) that he managed to prevail over someone with an Elo rating 200 points higher. Ahmed Adly lost to someone with a rating more than 350 points lower than him. The odds of that being about 12% per http://www.bobnewell.net/nucleus/bnewell.php?itemid=279
    Solomon ended up winning the championship by the tie-break.

    Per this page the tie-break was head to head performance: https://africachess.net/kenny-solomon-wins-the-2014-african-individual-chess-championship/
    So Solomon defeated Adly who had an Elo rating 211 points higher (22% chance per the above site).

    But that wasn't the end of how close run a thing this was: http://chesskzn.blogspot.com/2014/12/grandmaster-at-last.html


    There was some initial confusion as to whether Kenny had qualified for the GM title, as it was announced at the opening ceremony that the event had to be won outright to qualify for the title. FIDE has now confirmed that Kenny won the GM title, given that he had the better tie-breaks.

     

    This site has the Solomon vs. Adly game for anyone interested: https://www.chess.com/blog/Francy1998/kenny-solomon-south-africas1st-gm
    Can someone please help me understand what happened there? Did that game really end in 7 moves or am I failing to understand the game browser?

    What a story. Sometimes things just go your way.

    Can someone please help me understand what happened there? Did that game really end in 7 moves or am I failing to understand the game browser?

    Just ran that game through Stockfish.

    The critical move was 5. … Ne4, after which White’s advantage went from zero to almost +4 (pawn equivalents). After White’s bishop took the Knight, Black could have gone back to almost even (+0.6) by Nxc3, which would have messed up White’s pawn structure, but he didn’t; in turn, White could have consolidated his +4 lead by Nxe4 (as an amateur I can see White developing an advantage by having two main pieces developed versus none for Black, but that’s where my very limited chess intuition ends). But here’s the thing… he didn’t, instead playing 7. Qb3, at which point White’s advantage went back to precisely +0. No discernible reason for the resignation!

    Very strange, very weak play for players at such a supposedly high level (memorized optimal play during the first 10-15 moves of the openings is expected at this sort of level).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks! That is very interesting. Did you see my other link with more of the game (through move 34)? I looked at some of the end game (maybe moves 27-34) positions and there was some crazy stuff going on that is beyond my chess pay grade. I'm interested in any further thoughts you or other serious (more so than me anyway) chess players have on that game.

    Regarding the memorized opening thought, do you think one of them (which?) intentionally went off the opening book to prevent that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Mr. XYZ says:

    Chanda, I have a question–how would you respond to Anatoly Karlin’s suggestion that the “lack of a regression to the mean” among African immigrants to the West is simply due to the result of this regression being cancelled out by the Flynn Effect?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. @Chanda Chisala

    Your South African table doesn’t (AFAICT) directly show that Kenny Solomon is a GM (if you disagree please point me to the exact place you see that information at that link).
     
    Look for the small 'g' under the title column. That doesn't stand for "general intelligence"! :)


    The IAB brain-drain data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    provides detailed data for immigrants by both source and destination country divided into three skill levels. That data clearly shows how selective immigration is (e.g. from Nigeria to the UK)...
     
    Not so fast.

    The fact that Nigerian and other Africans have more educated people in their migrant groups compared to other immigrants has been a well-known fact.

    However: your "side" has told us what the average IQ is for educated Africans. It is 85. Which is about a standard deviation from the mean. This 85 was Rushton's report from "an elite university" in Africa.

    So, even if you have data showing that 100 percent of African immigrants have university degrees, that does not solve the condundrum I presented in the article you reference. How could these "elite" IQ 85 people produce children who were outperforming IQ 100 white children?

    This necessarily took the argument to another level. The claim from your side was now that the African immigrants are not just "selected", they had to be super-selected. They had to be not the 85 IQ of university degree level; they had to be a standard deviation above the university graduates (or even more, depending on how you account for regression to the mean if their children are at least 100 IQ).

    Your source does not in any way prove this ridiculous claim of super-selection -- the idea that the immigrants are at least 1 SD above a sample of 100 percent university graduates in IQ. But without that ridiculous claim, the hypothesis finds it hard to explain the presence of their high performing kids. So, most people on your side simply resign to the circular fallacy: they just had to be super-selected since that's the only way our hypothesis survives!

    On an other thread, our friend res was about to prove that all of Nigeria’s IQ120+ population emigrated. Be careful, he has unbeatable and very logical arguments. LMAO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    If you were paying attention you might have noticed that Chanda had kinder words about my arguments than you do. And nowhere have I claimed all of the +120 IQ population emigrated. The claim at hand (as seen elsewhere in this thread and substantiated by the brain drain data) is that 12% of high skill Nigerians emigrated in the 5 year period for 2010.

    P.S. I understand you better now. You have refuted all of my arguments as restated by you. Rather different from refuting my actual arguments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @RadicalCenter
    Hi RR, are you saying that acquired traits or abilities can be passed to offspring by some mechanism other than genes? That's contrary to my admittedly limited understanding.

    Thank you for that!!

    I also don’t understand what he wrote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. res says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    Your South African table doesn’t (AFAICT) directly show that Kenny Solomon is a GM (if you disagree please point me to the exact place you see that information at that link).
     
    Look for the small 'g' under the title column. That doesn't stand for "general intelligence"! :)


    The IAB brain-drain data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    provides detailed data for immigrants by both source and destination country divided into three skill levels. That data clearly shows how selective immigration is (e.g. from Nigeria to the UK)...
     
    Not so fast.

    The fact that Nigerian and other Africans have more educated people in their migrant groups compared to other immigrants has been a well-known fact.

    However: your "side" has told us what the average IQ is for educated Africans. It is 85. Which is about a standard deviation from the mean. This 85 was Rushton's report from "an elite university" in Africa.

    So, even if you have data showing that 100 percent of African immigrants have university degrees, that does not solve the condundrum I presented in the article you reference. How could these "elite" IQ 85 people produce children who were outperforming IQ 100 white children?

    This necessarily took the argument to another level. The claim from your side was now that the African immigrants are not just "selected", they had to be super-selected. They had to be not the 85 IQ of university degree level; they had to be a standard deviation above the university graduates (or even more, depending on how you account for regression to the mean if their children are at least 100 IQ).

    Your source does not in any way prove this ridiculous claim of super-selection -- the idea that the immigrants are at least 1 SD above a sample of 100 percent university graduates in IQ. But without that ridiculous claim, the hypothesis finds it hard to explain the presence of their high performing kids. So, most people on your side simply resign to the circular fallacy: they just had to be super-selected since that's the only way our hypothesis survives!

    Look for the small ‘g’ under the title column. That doesn’t stand for “general intelligence”! :)

    Thanks. That was too subtle for me given the lack of any explanatory text. I still think the profile page I linked makes a better reference to support your point.

    By the way, that was quite the story of how Kenny Solomon achieved his Grandmaster title. Don’t you agree? We don’t need any of those old standards (that 2500 Elo rating threshold is so 20th century) or rules announced before the tournament, do we?

    The fact that Nigerian and other Africans have more educated people in their migrant groups compared to other immigrants has been a well-known fact.

    Contrast that to: http://www.unz.com/article/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap-debate-part-2/#comment-1199865

    Whether there is high immigrant selection or not is an empirical quantitative question.

    Frost does not believe there is any high selection from Africa. Neither does Fuerst (from his research) or, apparently, Charles Murray (according to The Bell Curve), and others. Is it rational to be utterly disrespectful to an outsider for sharing that same opinion in his analysis?

    You seem to have changed your opinion on selective immigration a bit. It is good to have an open mind.

    However: your “side” has told us what the average IQ is for educated Africans.

    What is this your “side” business? Do NOT put words into my mouth.

    Your source does not in any way prove this ridiculous claim of super-selection — the idea that the immigrants are at least 1 SD above a sample of 100 percent university graduates in IQ.

    I repeat: Do NOT put words into my mouth. I said nothing about super-selection.

    That “ridiculous claim of super-selection” is a great strawman. Can you provide a reference to someone actually arguing that?

    If you actually want to engage with things I have said, feel free.

    To make this numerical (I don’t find terms like “high” or “super” all that meaningful), the brain drain data states that in the 5 year period for 2010 12.04% of high skill (tertiary education) Nigerians emigrated compared to 0.56% of medium skill and 0.11% of low skill Nigerians. A factor of 100 difference between the low and high skill emigration rates seems rather selective to me.

    To look at the data in a different way, let’s consider Nigerian men in the UK in 2010. We see 42106 high skill, 3406 medium skill, and 9326 low skill immigrants. So over 80% of Nigerian male immigrants in the UK in 2010 were high skill. Again, compared to Nigeria itself that shows significant selection.

    P.S. Please stop with the “your side” business. I have my own opinions. I am not the representative of a side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chanda Chisala

    Contrast that to...
     
    I have not changed my mind at all. I do not believe there is *high* selection on INTELLIGENCE. From my very first article I already did mention that some African immigrant groups have more educated people compared to other immigrant groups. But that's not necessarily high selection on intelligence, especially for a continent with very few opportunities for education. Some people have had better opportunities simply because they were born in a place where some mineral was found, for example, and a foreign mining company decided to provide some education for its local workers children (that's basically this author's humble story!).


    I repeat: Do NOT put words into my mouth. I said nothing about super-selection.

    That “ridiculous claim of super-selection” is a great strawman. Can you provide a reference to someone actually arguing that?
     
    Look. Firstly, I have no time arguing against everyone, including people who do not actually hold the positions I am arguing against. If you do not believe that African IQ is 70 or thereabout, then I do not have any argument with you at this point. If you do not agree with the same body of literature and the research held by other racial hereditarians that came up with these numbers -- which *includes* their findings on university student IQ -- then my argument is not with you. (And I put "your" in scare quotes precisely because I obviously didn't mean it literally, which means I was not putting those words in your mouth.)

    Secondly, if you are not making the argument that the African immigrants had to have been "super-selected," (or *highly* selected) then my argument is not with you and I'm not going to start copy-pasting all the people who have claimed that African immigrant IQ had to have been +2SD selected or more, including some columnists writing in this very thread.

    In short, you have to logically make the argument that there was that super-selection to UK (or whatever superlative you want to use for such extremely high selection) if you also believe that average IQ of Africa is 70.

    If you now believe, like Szopen, that it's actually closer to 85 or 90, then that's a different discussion with its own problems that I'm not prepared to go deep into since you will have to reject a lot of other positions held by fellow racial hereditarians to say that (eg many such hereditarians, including Lynn, accept that as much as 10 to 15 IQ points depression in Africa is due to environmental causes; are you prepared to believe that this means that your 85 IQ for Africa needs to be corrected for 10-15 IQ points? You may say "no" because that puts it at white IQ levels, genotypically, which I suspect you're not willing to accept, so you'll reject the 10-15 IQ environmental factor. You would also have to reject the IQ advantage of black Americans due to their white admixture. Etc. See why it's hard for me to conduct too many arguments at the same time against people with their own individual versions of racial hereditarianism? One job at a time.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. MarkinLA says:
    @CanSpeccy
    While white intellectual supremacists blather on about the stupidity of Africans, the Africans get on with the business of inheriting the Earth, multiplying with astonishing speed and flooding into the European homelands and former European colonies, to replace the moribund, European populations.

    On the assumption that human intelligence is an evolved characteristic that promotes reproductive success, it appears that IQ is a poor measure of the adaptive value of the human brain, just as it is evidently a poor measure of Scrabble playing potential.

    On the assumption that human intelligence is an evolved characteristic that promotes reproductive success, it appears that IQ is a poor measure of the adaptive value of the human brain,

    IQ has nothing to do with it. When the white man came to the Americas and saw what he thought were savages who weren’t making good use of the land he displaced them and multiplied. Once he was guilt tripped about how he mistreated the savages he started to allow other savages from around the world to come in. He could just as easily have depopulated the entire continent of Africa and the Americans and filled it with white people. Pretending the first brainwashing over the latter has anything to do with IQ is ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Once he [the white man] was guilt tripped about how he mistreated the savages he started to allow other savages from around the world to come in. He could just as easily have depopulated the entire continent of Africa and the Americans and filled it with white people.
     
    "He could just as easily ..." But he didn't. Not very intelligent really. Consider the Brits in East Africa. They thought they could hold the place with a few gentlemen farmers who no doubt practised birth control in their very superior European way, while they introduced European agricultural techniques that vastly increased the carrying capacity of the land. Thus, as the white farmers were complacently sipping gin and tonic the natives were busy outbreeding them. The result, white African empire defunct.

    The Europeans repeated such stupidity over and over again, as they are doing now in their own homelands. If you think this has nothing to do with intelligence, what precisely do you think the adaptive function of a brain is?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Tiny Duck
    Don't bother.

    This place is for failed middle aged white men looking to blow off steam.

    I just come here to have fun at their expense. Always entertaining.

    I keep forgetting that you’re not a satirist. Can you blame me.

    Regardless, I need to get back to my wife, my reasonably normal kids (who asked to learn German for their foreign language because it’s the language of “the people that we come from”), the business that I own, my nearly-paid off house in a nice area (which by everyone’s definition means almost no blacks and Hispanics) and my surprisingly large portfolio (which I earned myself) because we’re having friends over from dinner.

    But you’re right, it’s difficult for me to deal with my failure in life. Hard to look in the mirror sometimes. If I could only be more like the Tiny Mighty Duck! ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Krastos the Gluemaker
    Yeah, this has been way insane given that nobody, Thompson too, has even given any statements that remotely sound like they know what they are talking about. Comparing performance of AI to humans, understanding combinatoric game theory (non-deterministic and PI vs non-PI games are huge distinctions) and so on is where to start. Also having any clue about other comparable games, competitions, etc. would help because Scrabble is possibly not in the top 100 non-physical sport games or competitions worldwide. All this effort to try to produce inflated estimates about Scrabble players is hilarious as the net effect of all this work helps conclusively establish reasonable bounds (even self-selected, self-reported elite Scrabble players don't outperform median US college students from certain peer reviewed studies, kek)

    Anyway I suppose I should lay out the following sometime, so might as well be now. These are all much better estimates than the nonsense usually found on the net.

    Median IQ of various groups: (means rarely differ and only for some of the very small sample size groups)

    SMPY~ 130
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 1950~ 135-140
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 2000~ 135-140 (probably just slightly lower than above, but less variance)
    Intel science fair finalists~130

    Elite Poker Players~ 110-120
    Elite Scrabble Players~115
    Elite "generic shooter/fighting" videogame players~110 (use 110-120 as a standin for other random videogames)
    Elite Rubik's Cube solvers ("Cubers")~120-130 (most difficult to gather evidence here imo)
    Elite Starcraft Players~130 (BW obvs)
    Elite Go Players~120-130
    Elite Chess Players~130-140 (a bit depends on definitions and historical periods included)

    Ivy League university bachelor's graduates~120
    Billionaires~120

    "IQology" suffers from very poor statistical and logical understanding when it tries to examine things on tails, granted standard assumptions about percentiles and normal distributions and so forth for IQ as a metric. If you start claiming every champion poker player is 180 IQ or whatever, many billionaires are 180, etc. you would actually run out 180 IQ people very very fast. Instead all sorts of these things are loosely correlated and even more poorly correlated on the tails, maybe people at least understand that poker, for instance, is a heavily luck-based event (and computers way outperform humans under certain circumstances anyway much as they have for a long time in other games and events)

    I'm probably forgetting some category or another but I think I covered most of the usual canards. Of course groups like mensa have always failed to understand Poisson distributions and made unjustified claims that are still in the popular consciousness but this new sort of wrong understanding of games and other outcomes is actually one of the most outrageously wrong claims I've ever seen on the Unz Review. And look at some of the other stuff published as articles!

    Of course in summary Chisala's arguments boil down to "there exist a black man with, say, 115 IQ" which of course means absolutely nothing and is pointless. Getting the rest of this former picture right is a more interesting topic though.

    If you start claiming every champion poker player is 180 IQ or whatever, many billionaires are 180, etc. you would actually run out 180 IQ people very very fast.

    This is correct. The correlation between chess skill and IQ is a modest r=0.35, so even the best chess player can only be expected to have an IQ around the 130-140 range (as you point out).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    In discussions like this it is important to remember how quickly the normal distribution falls off at the tails. If any skills other than IQ are important then the ~5x population advantage of +2 SD over +3 SD or ~200x (!) population advantage of +2 SD over +4 SD is likely to overwhelm the advantage conferred by the extra IQ.
    , @BB753
    What about scrabble or checkers? I suppose the correlation is even lower.
    (I asked Chandra Chisala about this but he hasn't replied yet).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Blacks are on avg much more verbally agile than whites and east Asians. If they increase their “intelligence”/cognition levels I bet that they will increase specially their verbal intelligence, just like a ashkenazim pattern because in terms of oral verbal agility and even certain verbal creative fluency they tend to outperform, just like a evolutionary products of intense social competition history namely among males. They are more mentalistic than mechanicistic while east Asians tend to have predominantly opposite profile.

    Maybe this African verbal advantage become strident among those with highest cognitive skills.

    Chanda may cannot talk about spatial/non-verbal skills among African blacks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Hip hop is another verbal agility that blacks tend to outperform other groups and express specific type of verbal agility of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. res says:
    @Krastos the Gluemaker
    Yeah, this has been way insane given that nobody, Thompson too, has even given any statements that remotely sound like they know what they are talking about. Comparing performance of AI to humans, understanding combinatoric game theory (non-deterministic and PI vs non-PI games are huge distinctions) and so on is where to start. Also having any clue about other comparable games, competitions, etc. would help because Scrabble is possibly not in the top 100 non-physical sport games or competitions worldwide. All this effort to try to produce inflated estimates about Scrabble players is hilarious as the net effect of all this work helps conclusively establish reasonable bounds (even self-selected, self-reported elite Scrabble players don't outperform median US college students from certain peer reviewed studies, kek)

    Anyway I suppose I should lay out the following sometime, so might as well be now. These are all much better estimates than the nonsense usually found on the net.

    Median IQ of various groups: (means rarely differ and only for some of the very small sample size groups)

    SMPY~ 130
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 1950~ 135-140
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 2000~ 135-140 (probably just slightly lower than above, but less variance)
    Intel science fair finalists~130

    Elite Poker Players~ 110-120
    Elite Scrabble Players~115
    Elite "generic shooter/fighting" videogame players~110 (use 110-120 as a standin for other random videogames)
    Elite Rubik's Cube solvers ("Cubers")~120-130 (most difficult to gather evidence here imo)
    Elite Starcraft Players~130 (BW obvs)
    Elite Go Players~120-130
    Elite Chess Players~130-140 (a bit depends on definitions and historical periods included)

    Ivy League university bachelor's graduates~120
    Billionaires~120

    "IQology" suffers from very poor statistical and logical understanding when it tries to examine things on tails, granted standard assumptions about percentiles and normal distributions and so forth for IQ as a metric. If you start claiming every champion poker player is 180 IQ or whatever, many billionaires are 180, etc. you would actually run out 180 IQ people very very fast. Instead all sorts of these things are loosely correlated and even more poorly correlated on the tails, maybe people at least understand that poker, for instance, is a heavily luck-based event (and computers way outperform humans under certain circumstances anyway much as they have for a long time in other games and events)

    I'm probably forgetting some category or another but I think I covered most of the usual canards. Of course groups like mensa have always failed to understand Poisson distributions and made unjustified claims that are still in the popular consciousness but this new sort of wrong understanding of games and other outcomes is actually one of the most outrageously wrong claims I've ever seen on the Unz Review. And look at some of the other stuff published as articles!

    Of course in summary Chisala's arguments boil down to "there exist a black man with, say, 115 IQ" which of course means absolutely nothing and is pointless. Getting the rest of this former picture right is a more interesting topic though.

    SMPY~ 130
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 1950~ 135-140
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 2000~ 135-140 (probably just slightly lower than above, but less variance)

    Those numbers demonstrate significant ignorance. The SMPY had multiple cohorts ranging from top 1% (a bit over 130 IQ) to top 0.01% (more like 160 IQ). Here is one of the many SMPY papers: https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/02/Top1in100001.pdf

    The 1995 SAT recentering changed the ceiling about 100 points (roughly 10 IQ points). The pre-1995 SAT ceiling was around IQ 160.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Krastos the Gluemaker
    Apologies site-side if this comment was somehow duplicated

    No, I'm right.

    I know you're a commenter worth responding to and this is a pernicious myth, so let's see if I can be clear enough and I'll edit this better than a usual drive by.

    Individual test sections of the SAT never had a ceiling above 130, could have been lower sometimes, and taking into account the Flynn effect and ses biases really old tests have other questionable issues too. Although there is some correlation with "grit" and IQ and ease of test-taking and so on such that total scores reflect a little higher; high scorers on all sections will be a little higher than a model of each section+pure random change.

    To think otherwise requires someone to literally not understand how multiple choice tests work, or more complicated concepts like Poisson distributions. Or most charitably, foreigners who don't understand and have no experience with the SAT (or corresponding tests) because claims otherwise are crazy uninformed, the SAT ceiling really has been around 130 since forever, and of course correlation with g (or an actual instantiation of an IQ test score) is not even close to perfect.

    The IRT data really, really reflect this (also funny things like large proportions of students scoring below guessing percentages, at least on certain questions, but to be fair they are kids)

    Suppose something like an athletic quotient existed (AQ) and you got 10 million test subjects and wanted them to shoot basketballs.

    So, you put everybody on the OPPOSITE side of the court and have them shoot a basketball, awarding perfect scores to those who make the shot. You could award partial but lower scores for hitting the backboard or something but that's not relevant to our hypothetical, just an analogy.

    Even in only 1 out of 7000 or something shooters do so, that does not mean that those who made the shot are the best basketball players in the sample or in the word, or that the AQ is correspondingly high. In percentile terms, they in that corresponding percentile of performance, but do not have an AQ of 150whatever. Rather, the people who made the shot would on the median be a group of someone like 130 AQ folks (healthy, relatively fit adult males) who just got lucky. Maybe zero 100 AQ people make the difficult basketball set shot, but that's not our concern. Likewise, an actual professional basketball player with a lot of experience and training might have a slightly higher chance of making the random, difficult shot than the median 130 AQ subject, but then such subjects would be vanishingly rare.

    Now basketball throwing would seem random in this context even though it's not "really truly random", but the SAT is literally a multiple choice test with a huge probability of students semi-randomly guessing at MC questions, besides other forms of random variance (relative to trying to equate the test to g or something). If Student A answers 48 MC questions and randomly guesses at 2 and Student B does the same they can get different scores, raw or scaled.

    Brief interlude, but one thing a ton of people don't understand is that changes in the SAT before the 1995 scoring changes also exist, and not just on the fake social justice issues like removing rare "classist" questions, but on actually changing the expected difficulty of the exam. Some of the only publicly available/peer-reviewed studies on the SAT in old timeframes like that discuss this. In other words, the most notable purposeful decline in "hard questions" occurred might have in the mid-1980s, at any rate there was such a change, while the nonlinear scoring change that happened later isn't really the same thing, even though it's what everybody cites.

    In our basketball analogy, this would be like giving also credit to shooters who also shot a ball that bounced out of the inside of the rim on a nonlinear scoring scale; but it changes very little about the "raw" data or the overall picture (It's not that everybody perfect shot is literally by a 160 AQ subject)

    Realistically, because of the variance of multiple choice tests, and massive influences of things like that internet, the largest effects on tail-end changes in SAT scores are due to changes in test-taking behavior, like leaving multiple choice questions blank. In other words, it's probable that many 1950s era (or whatever old timey period you choose) test takers did things like leave questions blank while post-Internet era moderners did not, and again, it's mostly or entirely (depending on iteration and section) a multiple choice test so brute force random guessing will go a long way. (there are not that many "hard" questions, and well, one should know the statistical concepts in the prior paragraphs anyway, law of large numbers and all. Also, if the reason for different score distributions in the past was that students got "easy" questions wrong or something then that raises entirely different questions a la the Flynn effect and savvy people like us would have to puzzle that out ignoring old social scientists or nutty groups like mensa)

    I do think there was a bit of a deliberate effort, even before the third section introduction or other such changes, to make girls score higher relative to boys, in a smoky room IRT test designer choice sense, and that has some effects on test prep effectiveness or suchlike, but the SAT never had that high of ceilings.

    FWIW, there are some very important hypotheses to consider about the consequences of such statistics, but no public data is available and politically correct social science types wouldn't want them to be. For instance, the small number of non-multiple choice math questions might present vastly different IRT results for smaller population subgroups (eg blacks) that are overlooked and themselves a potential concern for test unfairness (since students in bulk still randomly guess at MC questions, but the question would be what causes one black student to get a higher score than another on the margin, in a test fairness sense)

    Age related scaling of the SAT is even more unreliable and probably reflects things like family SES a lot. It's actually ridiculous (and pathetic) that of social scientists who have studied groups of young children, to produce their data points they sometimes erroneously use things like a "Cognitive Age/Real Age" sort of calculation which of course is discredited pseudoscience. That was never valid for actual IQ tests anyway, but ignorant social scientists who aren't even geneticists or involved in psychometrics still wind up with crazy old concepts in their published papers.

    I think in the end we're mostly missing a little bit of understanding of measurement variance as well as median.

    Again, anyone who recalls the myths about someone like Feynman with low test scores or lack of Nobel Prizes won by random perfect test scorers should be conceptually familiar with this. It's actually a real weak point of the general IQology internet field.

    Particularly elite groups (SMPY, science fairs) will contain some number, sometimes, of IQ 150, 160 types, but the median will often be right around the threshold/barely above it (or science fairs are even more randomly influenced by ses-like factors) and those who participated often get there with a good amount of help from random chance; there are plenty of 130 IQ people in the population who also missed cutoffs or thresholds on the "measurement."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. MarkinLA says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So how explain very lower fertility of the most “brightest” of the “men”?? Creativity versus reproductivity??
     
    First, creativity is largely dependent on culture, and the English had, by a series of chance historical developments, the culture most conducive to creative thought. That is why, according to a Japanese study, most of the important features of the modern world are the result of British inventions.

    Second, being creative need be in no way associated with fertility. Indeed, it clearly is not, since the Brits, notwithstanding their creativity, are committing suicide through a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration.

    True some thoughtful if not creative individuals see this and oppose this tragic development. But thoughtful and creative individuals are often among the least capable in the political realm: think Darwin who was made physically sick by social interaction, or Henry Cavendish and Paul Dirac, two other highly uncommunicative English geniuses. Cavendish discovered the element hydrogen but neglected to tell anyone. And Dirac was so uncommunicative that friends at Cambridge named a unit of communication in his honor: one Dirac being equal to the utterance of one word per hour.

    First, creativity is largely dependent on culture, and the English had, by a series of chance historical developments, the culture most conducive to creative thought.

    There is no way to prove this. If intelligence can’t be pinned down, creativity is even harder. Now you can assume the British were more creative because they started the industrial revolution and seemingly had more industrial inventions but that hardly encompasses everything, especially when looking at the number of great French and German mathematicians compared to the British.

    Without intelligence creativity doesn’t get you much. All the crap “art” you see today comes from creative people who contribute exactly zilch to the advancement of society. In fact, many of them do more to screw society up (by being taken seriously) than they ever contribute. Nobody who can’t understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I should have said:

    Somebody who can’t understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.

    Obviously, I wasn't an English major.

    , @Santoculto
    I agree that just originality it's not enough but just "intelligence" it's not enough. Think about every thing we have. Nothing of this things were invented without creativity included this words we are using. Without creativity intelligence or what we usually denominate as "intelligence" is nothing specially for human levels. Creativity is the force that made or invent humanity and civilization to their well being or not.
    , @CanSpeccy

    Nobody who can’t understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.
     
    All you're saying is that there is a threshold effect of intelligence for creativity in certain fields. But that in no way proves that intelligence determines creativity, it is merely that a certain amount of intelligence is a prerequisite for the display of certain kinds of creativity, although the threshold effect may not be measurable with an IQ test. For example, the musical or mathematical savant with an IQ below that of a gamma minus moron is nevertheless a genius in what they are gifted at doing.
    , @Bill
    Is Maya Lin really a creative person? I doubt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. res says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Can someone please help me understand what happened there? Did that game really end in 7 moves or am I failing to understand the game browser?
     
    Just ran that game through Stockfish.

    The critical move was 5. ... Ne4, after which White's advantage went from zero to almost +4 (pawn equivalents). After White's bishop took the Knight, Black could have gone back to almost even (+0.6) by Nxc3, which would have messed up White's pawn structure, but he didn't; in turn, White could have consolidated his +4 lead by Nxe4 (as an amateur I can see White developing an advantage by having two main pieces developed versus none for Black, but that's where my very limited chess intuition ends). But here's the thing... he didn't, instead playing 7. Qb3, at which point White's advantage went back to precisely +0. No discernible reason for the resignation!

    Very strange, very weak play for players at such a supposedly high level (memorized optimal play during the first 10-15 moves of the openings is expected at this sort of level).

    Thanks! That is very interesting. Did you see my other link with more of the game (through move 34)? I looked at some of the end game (maybe moves 27-34) positions and there was some crazy stuff going on that is beyond my chess pay grade. I’m interested in any further thoughts you or other serious (more so than me anyway) chess players have on that game.

    Regarding the memorized opening thought, do you think one of them (which?) intentionally went off the opening book to prevent that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Chanda Chisala
    There are already some comments above and there will be more below that keep repeating the usual silly straw man that I'm simply presenting the existence of a few high IQ black people as an argument against the racial hypothesis. (Or variations of same straw man). I trust the more serious readers will see that the argument is about statistical and logical contradictions and they'll hopefully offer counter-arguments that are relevant to that discussion.

    I may check the thread later to see if there are any such serious responses. Thank you.

    Chanda,

    I have absolutely no clue whether you’re right or wrong in this debate, but maybe you can help me understand some things. I’ll agree that measuring IQ can be a tricky game and that to a degree, there are different types of intelligence. (Perhaps you don’t agree with that statement. Who knows.)

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization? I realize that this sounds like an attack, but I ask it in sincerity. Relative to all other groups outside of Australian Aborigines, Sub-Saharan African engineering and scientific achievements are nearly non-existent.

    Even Nigerians accomplished very little before whites arrived and not much afterward.

    It’s difficult not to notice the dysfunction of nearly (all?) countries that are run by and inhabited by Africans and their diaspora – at least relative to white and NE Asian countries. (Yes, there are very small pockets of marginal success, but there’s also an Asian guy in the NBA.) South Africa is a marginal exception, but, obviously, whites continues to play a major role in that country.

    Now, there may very well be a good reason for this. However, Occam’s Razor says that it’s very likely lower average IQ and other behavioral traits that account for this lack of achievement. But, hey, something Occam is wrong.

    Maybe the idea of Africans having a 70 IQ is wrong, but it’s difficult to deny the inability of sub-Saharan Africans – even Nigerians – to maintain a modern economy and culture, much less create one.

    I’m honestly curious as to how you explain this. In particular, why have Nigerians not managed to create an enclave that functions as well as European or NE Asian societies?

    The accomplishments of sub-Saharan Africans – even Nigerians in Nigeria – just don’t fit what you’re saying. What am I missing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    The consensus on the history of "civilization" is that it's a function of population density. It might be tempting to see things in terms of quality, but it's actually all about quantity.

    Civilizations (mostly materialized by a rich material culture exemplified by monumental architecture and large urban centers) rely on various factors that favor high population densities. Low disease load, fertile soil, temperate climate, a terrain that limits population sprawl...

    Africa has the highest prevalence of endemic disease due to her climate(s), soils tend to be poor, climatic conditions are extreme, it's a large flat landmass where population can't congregate in narrow valleys or peninsulas. On top of that, more than 1000 years of slave trade have either depopulated or stunted demographic growth.

    Although I wouldn't say that there's nothing that comes close to the concept of civilization in the history of Africa, it's a big mistake to compare it to Europe when the only similar environments are pre-colonial Brazil and Australia. Out of the tropics, pre-colonial Canada, USA, Argentina and Siberia have similar geographic characteristics and much less historical development.

    As for the performance of black-run countries in contemporary times, I think most black countries in the Caribbean do better than world average. Whereas Sub-Saharan Africa, seeing how far it has come from is in a understandable situation and compares well with South and South-East Asia.

    , @utu
    I’ll agree that measuring IQ can be a tricky game

    This a perfect example of semantic confusion by which they get you. In general measuring something that does not exist because it was not defined is really very tricky. IQ does not exist. Only IQ test scores do. IQ test score measure themselves pretty well. Actually with 100% accuracy so it is not really tricky. Pointless perhaps.
    , @Jm8
    Some civilizational and proto-civilizational developments did occur in many parts of subsaharan Africa. Regarding some below (especially re: West Africa):

    City states, chiefdoms, and kingdoms were not uncommon and began to from from arround 1,000-1500 bc 2000 in some places—sometimes/othere later as well i.e. late antiquity-medieval— (the roots of them likely earlier in cultures such as the Nok culture (known for its—often—hollow terracottas of various sizes—the culture dated to 1500 bc at its eariest phase-ca. 200 ad at its latest) of Central Nigeria and Dhar Tichitt/Dhar Walata in the S.E Mauritania/Mali region,
    Some of these more advanced cultures often concentrating arround Ghana, Mali parts of Cameroon (esp. the grasslands area the kingdoms of the Bamileke, Bamoum, Bafut, and Bafut), and Nigeria—some of these regions benefitting from their closeness to the niger, a long navigable river, somewhat like the nile and some other rivers/waterways on earth near which more advanced cultures often—form (the Ashanti empire in in Ghana; the Nigerian Yoruba city states of Ijebu—the site of the early Yoruba fortification, Sungo’s Eredo—, Owo, and Ife; the kingdom of Benin of the Edo/Bini people; the Hausa and Kanuri states which have ancient roots in the Gajinanna/Zilum and Sao cultures of the lake Chad basin; the early polities of the S. E Nigerian Igbo (like Igbo Ukwu, but its decorative bronzes)—many of these cultures known for their high quality court arts and ancient earthen city walls and moats and beginning arround the early-mid Middle ages, but often with more ancent roots), the early polities of the Mali/Senegal region (pre Islam)—staring with the stone-walled chiefdoms of Dhar Tichitt S.E Mauritania/Mali from ca. 17,000 bc-500 bc (then inhabited by black Mande/Soninke speaking agropastoralists and prior to the migrations of Berbers centuries later), the city states of the niger river such as Jenne Jeno and Dia Shoma (known by archaeologists for their terracottas as well which would later form part of the foundation of the Empires of Ghana and Mali.
    A system of ideographic writing (similar in principle to Chinese) developed in the southeast corner of Nigeria, at least by 400 ad, but possibly earlier (There has tended to be less archaeological research in Africa than in many other regions—up till now) called Nsibidi. It may have started among the (ancestral) Ejagham or Efik, but spread to other groups in the region, including some nearby Igbo subgroups (and many other neighboring tribes there and immediate parts of Cameroon).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsibidi
    “Iconography and Continuity in West Africa: Calabar Terracottas and the Arts of the Cross River Region of Nigeria/Cameroon (PDF)”

    http://www.kingdomofbenin.com/the-benin-moat.html

    http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58840-diversity-early-african-architecture-ruins-thread-2.html

    http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/40992-African-art-amp-architecture-in-pre-colonial-times

    There is evidence of an independant invention of iron metallurgy (probably centrered arround Nigeria)
    Very recent research at Nsukka in Igboland finds very early dates or ca. 2000 BC.

    http://www.academia.edu/4103707/Iron_and_its_influence_on_the_prehistoric_site_of_Lejja

    The scholars studying the Nok culture of central Nigeria (most recently, in the last few years), Peter Breunig and his German research team, believe its iron metallurgy is part of an independant local tradition. Its oldest confirmed iron dates are about 500-700 bc. The culture itself goes back to about 1500-1200 bc and older iron dates (by several centuries in that specific region of Nigeria) )are suspected by Breunig based on indirect evidence but not yet confirmed.
    (some of the most reports/articles are a bit obscure— some information initially only in German— but much can be searchedonline)

    https://books.google.com/books?id=BBn1BQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Nok+culture+context&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEw
    jr84mK4vbNAhVFpB4KHe2qB1cQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Nok%20culture%20context&f=false

    Dates from some Central African sites begin by about 800 bc (the Gabon and the Uganda regions I think), but I think these may still be inconclusive/controversial.
    There were also smaller polities in parts of Central Africa (Kongo, Kuba). In East Central Africa specifically (Buganda, Rwanda, Buhaya), the metallurgy by the Urewe period of the Uganda region (the urewe are the early eastern Bantu, ancestral to many Bantu speaking cultures of South and East Africa, having derived from the proto-Bantu originating arround the Congo) was relatively advanced. Steel was created in Western Tanzania (near Uganda) arround 300-100 bc.
    (work of Peter R. Schmidt)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haya_people#Archeological_discoveries

    The South Eastern Bantu tribes of Southern Africa created small proto-feudal states (often with stone walls and fortifications for elites) like Mapungubwe, Bamandyanalo, Great Zimbabwe, Khami, and Thulamela.

    , @Jm8
    Apparently the "Historum" link I posted had some dead images (though with also a few good ones).
    (and the other "forumbiodiversity" link—whose images are all good/fine and visible—of my previous post, includes many both art and architecture images from various of the aforementioned African cultures; incl. Ife, Benin, Igbo Ukwu ,etc):


    Some of the same images, originally there, below (and others I should have included).

    http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/67141-african-architecture-ashanti-very-particular.html


    first below: some architecture of several of the Cameroonian kingdoms' (Bamileke, Bandjoun, Bamoum, Bafut, etc), below past the first few Nubian images at the top):

    http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58840-diversity-early-african-architecture-ruins-thread-16.html


    http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/40992-African-art-amp-architecture-in-pre-colonial-times

    https://www.amazon.com/Nok-Culture-Nigeria-2500-Years/dp/3791336460

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nok_culture#/media/File:Nok_sculpture_Louvre_70-1998-11-1.jpg

    http://www.beprimitive.com/stories-descriptions/nok-terra-cotta

    , @Chanda Chisala

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization?
     
    Every group that has been isolated from other people of the world for a long time has always lagged behind. All "civilizations" were built by borrowing quite heavily from others that they met as they traveled around, in trade or conflict. Africa was segregated from everyone else by a uniquely harsh geography (hence its "ancient" name - "the Dark Continent" -- that wasn't a reference to skin color!) plus many tropical diseases that kept others away. Above that, the difficult geography and environment even kept African tribes mostly secluded from each other (thus, Zambia alone has more than 70 languages that I can't understand at all, although it has less than 20 million people!). Relative to human history, the interaction that Africa has had with other people is still very recent, very brief, relatively superficial, and the vast majority still really haven't had even that little contact.

    I get all this from Thomas Sowell and I haven't seen any good argument against it. See his trilogy that includes "Conquests and Cultures" etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. MarkinLA says:
    @Anon
    You don't understand the article. I doubt you even read it. The point is that real world competitions are a better measure of intelligence than IQ tests and that, at the very least, the number of highly intelligent Africans on that basis is larger than what the statistically likely number would be if national IQ figures per Lynn were accurate. Thus, Lynn's estimates might not be very accurate after all. They certainly have no correlation with national economic success.

    What funny about you is the extent to which you will compromise your supposed principles to be "right" in your estimation. You hate black people so in their case you accept that the genetic hypothesis is flawless; but you also hate Jews, so that very genetic hypothesis that shows Jews are smarter must be bogus.

    Maybe it's the genetic hypothesis that's wrong?

    The point is that real world competitions are a better measure of intelligence than IQ tests and that,

    They would be if they weren’t limited to some game where as one poster pointed out canned solutions can be cashed in memory. The IQ tests one takes have lots of components. You read a paragraph and have to come to some collusions. You rotate something in space and have to pick the correct view after the combination of the rotations. You have visual and numeric sequences that you have to pick the next one. There is no game anywhere that comes close to incorporating all these components. At there some missed? Most likely, figure out what to add and get rich.

    A better test might be to hand somebody a military survival manual and a knife and see how long somebody could survive. However, you can’t test millions of people that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    A better test might be to hand somebody a military survival manual and a knife and see how long somebody could survive. However, you can’t test millions of people that way.
     
    Actually, that is exactly how our ancestors were tested. Not all of them, but some of them in every line of descent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. MarkinLA says:
    @MarkinLA
    First, creativity is largely dependent on culture, and the English had, by a series of chance historical developments, the culture most conducive to creative thought.

    There is no way to prove this. If intelligence can't be pinned down, creativity is even harder. Now you can assume the British were more creative because they started the industrial revolution and seemingly had more industrial inventions but that hardly encompasses everything, especially when looking at the number of great French and German mathematicians compared to the British.

    Without intelligence creativity doesn't get you much. All the crap "art" you see today comes from creative people who contribute exactly zilch to the advancement of society. In fact, many of them do more to screw society up (by being taken seriously) than they ever contribute. Nobody who can't understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.

    I should have said:

    Somebody who can’t understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.

    Obviously, I wasn’t an English major.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @RadicalCenter
    Hi RR, are you saying that acquired traits or abilities can be passed to offspring by some mechanism other than genes? That's contrary to my admittedly limited understanding.

    “Hi RR, are you saying that acquired traits or abilities can be passed to offspring by some mechanism other than genes?”

    Yes. Heritable morphology can be passed with little to no genetic change in some vertebrates.

    Moreover, heritable morphological changes were seen to be capable of occurring abruptly with little or no genetic change, with involvement of the external environment, and in preferred directions. This paper discusses three examples of morphological motifs of vertebrate bodies and organs, the somites, the skeletons of the paired limbs, and musculoskeletal novelties distinctive to birds, for which evolutionary origination and transformation can be understood on the basis of the physiological and biophysical determinants of their development.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262151448_Form_and_function_remixed_Developmental_physiology_in_the_evolution_of_vertebrate_body_plans

    And for the claims against the Modern Synthesis see:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048083/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTExMy9leHBwaHlzaW9sLjIwMTIuMDcxMTM0/10.1113%40expphysiol.2012.071134.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5284211

    I’ll go in depth later when I have access to a computer. For the record, stating that Modern Synthesis needs revision/replacing does not mean that one is a Creationist.

    I used to be against the idea of epigenetics, but now I think there’s something to it. I’m well aware of the critiques about it and I’ll get to that on my blog eventually.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Further, in the example I gave, it's not traits or acquired characters, it's the intelligent system responding to the changeability of the environment.

    Systems biology is the next big thing in my opinion.

    , @Santoculto
    I don't think this dismiss entirely "Darwinian gradualism" as if the only way that happen is via "non-genetic". This seems a exception or whatever, very common but not the only way or that gradualism is just wrong.

    This organisms must be analyzed at long term. Maybe this non genetic changes have unknown antecedents even because it's create the idea that abrupt phenotypical changes can happen without a previous logical explanation. And "all genes" were "compared"??? Or just the correlated ones?? (yes I don't know exactly what I'm talking but I'm like that, patience!!)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @MarkinLA
    First, creativity is largely dependent on culture, and the English had, by a series of chance historical developments, the culture most conducive to creative thought.

    There is no way to prove this. If intelligence can't be pinned down, creativity is even harder. Now you can assume the British were more creative because they started the industrial revolution and seemingly had more industrial inventions but that hardly encompasses everything, especially when looking at the number of great French and German mathematicians compared to the British.

    Without intelligence creativity doesn't get you much. All the crap "art" you see today comes from creative people who contribute exactly zilch to the advancement of society. In fact, many of them do more to screw society up (by being taken seriously) than they ever contribute. Nobody who can't understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.

    I agree that just originality it’s not enough but just “intelligence” it’s not enough. Think about every thing we have. Nothing of this things were invented without creativity included this words we are using. Without creativity intelligence or what we usually denominate as “intelligence” is nothing specially for human levels. Creativity is the force that made or invent humanity and civilization to their well being or not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @RaceRealist88
    "Hi RR, are you saying that acquired traits or abilities can be passed to offspring by some mechanism other than genes?"

    Yes. Heritable morphology can be passed with little to no genetic change in some vertebrates.

    Moreover, heritable morphological changes were seen to be capable of occurring abruptly with little or no genetic change, with involvement of the external environment, and in preferred directions. This paper discusses three examples of morphological motifs of vertebrate bodies and organs, the somites, the skeletons of the paired limbs, and musculoskeletal novelties distinctive to birds, for which evolutionary origination and transformation can be understood on the basis of the physiological and biophysical determinants of their development.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262151448_Form_and_function_remixed_Developmental_physiology_in_the_evolution_of_vertebrate_body_plans

    And for the claims against the Modern Synthesis see:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048083/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTExMy9leHBwaHlzaW9sLjIwMTIuMDcxMTM0/10.1113%40expphysiol.2012.071134.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5284211

    I'll go in depth later when I have access to a computer. For the record, stating that Modern Synthesis needs revision/replacing does not mean that one is a Creationist.

    I used to be against the idea of epigenetics, but now I think there's something to it. I'm well aware of the critiques about it and I'll get to that on my blog eventually.

    Further, in the example I gave, it’s not traits or acquired characters, it’s the intelligent system responding to the changeability of the environment.

    Systems biology is the next big thing in my opinion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. TWS says:

    Really and truly the last word? I can’t be the only one thinking this, “Thank God.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. res says:
    @Afrosapiens
    On an other thread, our friend res was about to prove that all of Nigeria's IQ120+ population emigrated. Be careful, he has unbeatable and very logical arguments. LMAO.

    If you were paying attention you might have noticed that Chanda had kinder words about my arguments than you do. And nowhere have I claimed all of the +120 IQ population emigrated. The claim at hand (as seen elsewhere in this thread and substantiated by the brain drain data) is that 12% of high skill Nigerians emigrated in the 5 year period for 2010.

    P.S. I understand you better now. You have refuted all of my arguments as restated by you. Rather different from refuting my actual arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Not understanding humor, res?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. res says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    If you start claiming every champion poker player is 180 IQ or whatever, many billionaires are 180, etc. you would actually run out 180 IQ people very very fast.
     
    This is correct. The correlation between chess skill and IQ is a modest r=0.35, so even the best chess player can only be expected to have an IQ around the 130-140 range (as you point out).

    In discussions like this it is important to remember how quickly the normal distribution falls off at the tails. If any skills other than IQ are important then the ~5x population advantage of +2 SD over +3 SD or ~200x (!) population advantage of +2 SD over +4 SD is likely to overwhelm the advantage conferred by the extra IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Stealth says:
    @Stan d Mute
    TL:DR

    Can we take this jackass at his word? Ron? Can you enforce his promise that it's his "last words" here? Please? Tiny Duck says the exact same thing but far more concisely.

    It is boring to exhaustion to see yet another "Africans be smart" screed when ANYONE with eyes, ears, and gray matter between them can glance at Africa and see the fruits of this "African intelligence" for themselves. The ONLY reason this clown can even communicate is that we were too dumb to treat Africa like the Andaman Islands. Otherwise he'd be happily munching on his neighbors and hoping (in vain) one of his cousins would invent the wheel or numbers or writing.

    Speaking of Tiny Duck, even if the guy’s material is just satire, I wish they would start filtering his comments. It gets old.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Chanda,

    I have absolutely no clue whether you're right or wrong in this debate, but maybe you can help me understand some things. I'll agree that measuring IQ can be a tricky game and that to a degree, there are different types of intelligence. (Perhaps you don't agree with that statement. Who knows.)

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization? I realize that this sounds like an attack, but I ask it in sincerity. Relative to all other groups outside of Australian Aborigines, Sub-Saharan African engineering and scientific achievements are nearly non-existent.

    Even Nigerians accomplished very little before whites arrived and not much afterward.

    It's difficult not to notice the dysfunction of nearly (all?) countries that are run by and inhabited by Africans and their diaspora - at least relative to white and NE Asian countries. (Yes, there are very small pockets of marginal success, but there's also an Asian guy in the NBA.) South Africa is a marginal exception, but, obviously, whites continues to play a major role in that country.

    Now, there may very well be a good reason for this. However, Occam's Razor says that it's very likely lower average IQ and other behavioral traits that account for this lack of achievement. But, hey, something Occam is wrong.

    Maybe the idea of Africans having a 70 IQ is wrong, but it's difficult to deny the inability of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians - to maintain a modern economy and culture, much less create one.

    I'm honestly curious as to how you explain this. In particular, why have Nigerians not managed to create an enclave that functions as well as European or NE Asian societies?

    The accomplishments of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians in Nigeria - just don't fit what you're saying. What am I missing?

    The consensus on the history of “civilization” is that it’s a function of population density. It might be tempting to see things in terms of quality, but it’s actually all about quantity.

    Civilizations (mostly materialized by a rich material culture exemplified by monumental architecture and large urban centers) rely on various factors that favor high population densities. Low disease load, fertile soil, temperate climate, a terrain that limits population sprawl…

    Africa has the highest prevalence of endemic disease due to her climate(s), soils tend to be poor, climatic conditions are extreme, it’s a large flat landmass where population can’t congregate in narrow valleys or peninsulas. On top of that, more than 1000 years of slave trade have either depopulated or stunted demographic growth.

    Although I wouldn’t say that there’s nothing that comes close to the concept of civilization in the history of Africa, it’s a big mistake to compare it to Europe when the only similar environments are pre-colonial Brazil and Australia. Out of the tropics, pre-colonial Canada, USA, Argentina and Siberia have similar geographic characteristics and much less historical development.

    As for the performance of black-run countries in contemporary times, I think most black countries in the Caribbean do better than world average. Whereas Sub-Saharan Africa, seeing how far it has come from is in a understandable situation and compares well with South and South-East Asia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @TelfoedJohn
    Who does scrabble appeal to? Well, one large group will be literary types, who love playing with words. People with such verbal aptitude will probably be better with numbers too.

    So that’s one group who it appeals to. But it’s not necessarily who wins. Scrabble is largely about remembering 2 and 3 letter words and knowing the common ways to prepend and append words. This itself is not a particularly intellectual endeavour – it’s just rote memorization.

    So you will have two classes of professional scrabble player – those who enjoy staying up all night reading Jane Austen and those who are memorising the two letter words. One of these groups may have higher IQ, but they may occupy the same ability level when playing scrabble.

    Therefore, Scrabble is not a reliable indicator of intelligence.

    That is incorrect. Scrabble winners tend to have a mathematical background. Chanda went into this in detail in his first Scrabble article. (LINK)

    I later found out that the only American to reach the finals of the Spanish World Scrabble Championship, Héctor Klíe, has a PhD from Rice University in computational science and engineering.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Stealth says:

    Scrabble? This is absurd. I can’t believe y’all are wasting your time writing long comments on this article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. @res
    If you were paying attention you might have noticed that Chanda had kinder words about my arguments than you do. And nowhere have I claimed all of the +120 IQ population emigrated. The claim at hand (as seen elsewhere in this thread and substantiated by the brain drain data) is that 12% of high skill Nigerians emigrated in the 5 year period for 2010.

    P.S. I understand you better now. You have refuted all of my arguments as restated by you. Rather different from refuting my actual arguments.

    Not understanding humor, res?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. BB753 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    If you start claiming every champion poker player is 180 IQ or whatever, many billionaires are 180, etc. you would actually run out 180 IQ people very very fast.
     
    This is correct. The correlation between chess skill and IQ is a modest r=0.35, so even the best chess player can only be expected to have an IQ around the 130-140 range (as you point out).

    What about scrabble or checkers? I suppose the correlation is even lower.
    (I asked Chandra Chisala about this but he hasn’t replied yet).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    But if anyone seriously believes that the human nervous system evolved to score highly on an IQ test, then I can tell you I don’t have any respect for their intelligence.

    Could you blame English culture for this? The same culture that according to Japanese study (fake news?) is responsible for ever 50% of most critical inventions? I am serious. Where do the creatures like Spearman, Lynn and Thompson come from? How do you spawn them in England? Is it something in the water? The way you take your tea?

    Where do the creatures like Spearman, Lynn and Thompson come from?

    LOL

    I’ll leave the specific individuals out of it since I know essentially nothing about Spearman or Lynn, and James Thompson seems a decent enough guy.

    But the great days of English culture are long gone. I saw some of the last of it as an undergraduate in the early 60′s: I learned intermediate metabolism from Hans Kornberg, the lead author of the paper that won Krebs the Nobel prize for the Krebs cycle. We didn’t just do pathways and mechanisms, we learned how the scheme was discovered and then did a number of the critical experiments in the labs with Kornberg in attendance. At lunch times one could chop logic over a beer with the head of the Department of Philosophy. In my own department, every faculty member’s door was open to undergraduates seeking an impromptu tutorial. Those were the days when C.S. Lewis at Oxford spent more than 20 hours a week tutoring students in Eng. Lit.

    Nowadays, youngster attending either Oxfraud or Scambridge have, so I understand from younger relatives, no contact with anyone of note. If you really want to know where English culture is today, read the Daily Mail!

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    If you really want to know where English culture is today, read the Daily Mail!

    I do read it. I know it is the tabloid rug but it is the best tabloid rug. Recently for 9/11 anniversary they had this amazing article:

    The conspiracies that won't go away: Brother of 9/11 victim claim the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html#ixzz4sc1pFzfx

    This made me revisit the issue of why the anthrax letter was sent to the National Enquirer in 2001. Perhaps tabloid rugs must be reminded of their duties to keep the narrative going. NYT and WaP0 did not need to be reminded of their duties by anthrax letters. Mohamed Atta allegedly trained at the airport in town where National Enquirer had its headquarter, so sure they had some juicy stories about Atta fit to print in the rug like National Enquirer but that could spoil the narrative.

    Don't you think that the IQ business is very English endeavor? That's why I asked about the water. Germans were nowhere near the level of Brits in this enterprises.

    , @CanSpeccy
    One reason, perhaps the most important, for the decline in Britain's culture of creativity was the emergence of a democratic communism under the amiable but misguided leadership if men like Atlee and Wilson. They believed that Britain had a vast resource of untapped talent among those classes of people that had, until that time, gone into the workforce directly from secondary school, often in their early teens. These were the people unkindly referred to by the novelist Kingsley Amis as the great tapped untalent.

    In fact, the problem was not primarily a lack of talent among those of the lower social classes who began to enter the university in large numbers, but a lack of qualified people to teach them. University expansion meant a huge expansion in graduate education, which attracted all sorts of academic charlatans and megalomaniacs willing to hire almost anyone with a pair of hands to fill the research labs that the government was then so ready to fund. I went through graduate school as part of the first wave of expansion of post-graduate education and saw the utter futility of most of it. The result was that many of the new crop of university professors were neither particularly bright, nor sincerely scholarly in mentality. Indeed many were completely useless, although that didn't stop some of them becoming full professors or even department heads by the age of 30.

    The consequence for the expanded intake of undergraduates was a severe dilution in the quality of education, the process of deterioration continuing to this day when it is beginning to dawn on most people that a university education ain't worth the paper that the certificate of graduation is written upon. That's not because Brits, or North Americans for that matter, are any dopier than before, but because they are not taught as their predecessors were taught. Hence the end of a great civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @res

    Look for the small ‘g’ under the title column. That doesn’t stand for “general intelligence”! :)
     
    Thanks. That was too subtle for me given the lack of any explanatory text. I still think the profile page I linked makes a better reference to support your point.

    By the way, that was quite the story of how Kenny Solomon achieved his Grandmaster title. Don't you agree? We don't need any of those old standards (that 2500 Elo rating threshold is so 20th century) or rules announced before the tournament, do we?

    The fact that Nigerian and other Africans have more educated people in their migrant groups compared to other immigrants has been a well-known fact.
     
    Contrast that to: http://www.unz.com/article/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap-debate-part-2/#comment-1199865

    Whether there is high immigrant selection or not is an empirical quantitative question.
    ...
    Frost does not believe there is any high selection from Africa. Neither does Fuerst (from his research) or, apparently, Charles Murray (according to The Bell Curve), and others. Is it rational to be utterly disrespectful to an outsider for sharing that same opinion in his analysis?
     
    You seem to have changed your opinion on selective immigration a bit. It is good to have an open mind.

    However: your “side” has told us what the average IQ is for educated Africans.
     
    What is this your "side" business? Do NOT put words into my mouth.

    Your source does not in any way prove this ridiculous claim of super-selection — the idea that the immigrants are at least 1 SD above a sample of 100 percent university graduates in IQ.
     
    I repeat: Do NOT put words into my mouth. I said nothing about super-selection.

    That "ridiculous claim of super-selection" is a great strawman. Can you provide a reference to someone actually arguing that?

    If you actually want to engage with things I have said, feel free.

    To make this numerical (I don't find terms like "high" or "super" all that meaningful), the brain drain data states that in the 5 year period for 2010 12.04% of high skill (tertiary education) Nigerians emigrated compared to 0.56% of medium skill and 0.11% of low skill Nigerians. A factor of 100 difference between the low and high skill emigration rates seems rather selective to me.

    To look at the data in a different way, let's consider Nigerian men in the UK in 2010. We see 42106 high skill, 3406 medium skill, and 9326 low skill immigrants. So over 80% of Nigerian male immigrants in the UK in 2010 were high skill. Again, compared to Nigeria itself that shows significant selection.

    P.S. Please stop with the "your side" business. I have my own opinions. I am not the representative of a side.

    Contrast that to…

    I have not changed my mind at all. I do not believe there is *high* selection on INTELLIGENCE. From my very first article I already did mention that some African immigrant groups have more educated people compared to other immigrant groups. But that’s not necessarily high selection on intelligence, especially for a continent with very few opportunities for education. Some people have had better opportunities simply because they were born in a place where some mineral was found, for example, and a foreign mining company decided to provide some education for its local workers children (that’s basically this author’s humble story!).

    I repeat: Do NOT put words into my mouth. I said nothing about super-selection.

    That “ridiculous claim of super-selection” is a great strawman. Can you provide a reference to someone actually arguing that?

    Look. Firstly, I have no time arguing against everyone, including people who do not actually hold the positions I am arguing against. If you do not believe that African IQ is 70 or thereabout, then I do not have any argument with you at this point. If you do not agree with the same body of literature and the research held by other racial hereditarians that came up with these numbers — which *includes* their findings on university student IQ — then my argument is not with you. (And I put “your” in scare quotes precisely because I obviously didn’t mean it literally, which means I was not putting those words in your mouth.)

    Secondly, if you are not making the argument that the African immigrants had to have been “super-selected,” (or *highly* selected) then my argument is not with you and I’m not going to start copy-pasting all the people who have claimed that African immigrant IQ had to have been +2SD selected or more, including some columnists writing in this very thread.

    In short, you have to logically make the argument that there was that super-selection to UK (or whatever superlative you want to use for such extremely high selection) if you also believe that average IQ of Africa is 70.

    If you now believe, like Szopen, that it’s actually closer to 85 or 90, then that’s a different discussion with its own problems that I’m not prepared to go deep into since you will have to reject a lot of other positions held by fellow racial hereditarians to say that (eg many such hereditarians, including Lynn, accept that as much as 10 to 15 IQ points depression in Africa is due to environmental causes; are you prepared to believe that this means that your 85 IQ for Africa needs to be corrected for 10-15 IQ points? You may say “no” because that puts it at white IQ levels, genotypically, which I suspect you’re not willing to accept, so you’ll reject the 10-15 IQ environmental factor. You would also have to reject the IQ advantage of black Americans due to their white admixture. Etc. See why it’s hard for me to conduct too many arguments at the same time against people with their own individual versions of racial hereditarianism? One job at a time.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    What do you think about that, Chanda? And what analogy would you make with IQ testing?

    The Untapped Math Skills of Working Children in India:
    Evidence, Possible Explanations, and Implications

    It has been widely documented that many children in India lack basic arithmetic skills, as measured by their capacity to solve subtraction and division problems. We surveyed children working in informal markets in Kolkata, West Bengal, and confirmed that most were unable to solve arithmetic problems as typically presented in school. However, we also found that they were able to perform similar operations when framed as market transactions. This discrepancy was not explained by children’s ability to memorize prices and quantities in market transactions, assistance from others at their shops, reliance on calculation aids, or reading and writing skills. In fact, many children could solve hypothetical transactions of goods that they did not sell. Our results suggest that these children have arithmetic skills that are untapped by the school system

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5990cfd52994ca797742fae9/t/59a896aee6f2e11b76983238/1504220847338/Banerjee+et+al.+2017+-+2017-08-17.pdf

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @RaceRealist88
    "Hi RR, are you saying that acquired traits or abilities can be passed to offspring by some mechanism other than genes?"

    Yes. Heritable morphology can be passed with little to no genetic change in some vertebrates.

    Moreover, heritable morphological changes were seen to be capable of occurring abruptly with little or no genetic change, with involvement of the external environment, and in preferred directions. This paper discusses three examples of morphological motifs of vertebrate bodies and organs, the somites, the skeletons of the paired limbs, and musculoskeletal novelties distinctive to birds, for which evolutionary origination and transformation can be understood on the basis of the physiological and biophysical determinants of their development.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262151448_Form_and_function_remixed_Developmental_physiology_in_the_evolution_of_vertebrate_body_plans

    And for the claims against the Modern Synthesis see:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048083/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTExMy9leHBwaHlzaW9sLjIwMTIuMDcxMTM0/10.1113%40expphysiol.2012.071134.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5284211

    I'll go in depth later when I have access to a computer. For the record, stating that Modern Synthesis needs revision/replacing does not mean that one is a Creationist.

    I used to be against the idea of epigenetics, but now I think there's something to it. I'm well aware of the critiques about it and I'll get to that on my blog eventually.

    I don’t think this dismiss entirely “Darwinian gradualism” as if the only way that happen is via “non-genetic”. This seems a exception or whatever, very common but not the only way or that gradualism is just wrong.

    This organisms must be analyzed at long term. Maybe this non genetic changes have unknown antecedents even because it’s create the idea that abrupt phenotypical changes can happen without a previous logical explanation. And “all genes” were “compared”??? Or just the correlated ones?? (yes I don’t know exactly what I’m talking but I’m like that, patience!!)

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    I don’t think this dismiss entirely “Darwinian gradualism” as if the only way that happen is via “non-genetic”. This seems a exception or whatever, very common but not the only way or that gradualism is just wrong.
     
    If there are other 'modes' of evolution and physiology (meaning the intelligent cell) can respond to changes in the environment, then there are other mechanisms of evolution.

    This organisms must be analyzed at long term. Maybe this non genetic changes have unknown antecedents even because it’s create the idea that abrupt phenotypical changes can happen without a previous logical explanation. And “all genes” were “compared”??? Or just the correlated ones?? (yes I don’t know exactly what I’m talking but I’m like that, patience!!)
     
    No it's pretty clear cut that there is little/no genetic change when some species morphology changes. That's a big clue that physiology/cells can respond to the cues from the environment.

    Think about the cell. Most people think it's not 'intelligent' and can't 'react to stimulus', and that it cannot change phenotypically and can only change genotypically because of its short lifespan. This is not true. Over the past few years, papers have come out talking about 'bacterial intelligence' and 'bacterial IQ' showing that bacteria/cells can respond to cues from its environment. So taking this to its logical conclusion, all living things are intelligent.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388793/

    Bacteria are far more intelligent than we can think of. They adopt different survival strategies to make their life comfortable. Researches on bacterial communication to date suggest that bacteria can communicate with each other using chemical signaling molecules as well as using ion channel mediated electrical signaling.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAwNy9zMTIwNzktMDE3LTAzOTQtNg==/10.1007%40s12079-017-0394-6.pdf

    Living things, then, need to be good at registering those statistical patterns across everyday experience and then use them to shape the best response, including (in the cell) what genes to recruit for desired products. This is what intelligence is, and it’s origins coincide with the origins of life itself, and life is intelligence. (Richardson, 2017: 115)

    We propose that, if we were to leave terms such as “human” and “brain” out of the defining features of “intelligence,” all forms of life – from microbes to humans – exhibit some or all characteristics consistent with “intelligence.”

    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00379/full

    bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic)

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3371/b2b3779f92f62832993007b2d0b775d8c0a5.pdf

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/13/microbial-intelligence-and-intelligent-physiology/

    Why should the terms 'human' and 'brain' signify 'intelligence'? That's a pretty anthropocentric view of evolution, so we shouldn't classify it like that.

    Now take this to its logical conclusion: all organisms are intelligent.

    So through these intelligent cells (which the larger physiological system is made up of), they notice changes in the environment and evolutionary change occurs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. One of the reasons Thompson gives for thinking chess would be a better proxy for cognitive comparison is that it appears to be more complex than Scrabble,

    None of the living American female chess grandmasters and international were born in the United States. They were all born in Eastern Europe. The cultural values of these American-Eastern Europeans is what sets them apart from American-born women, not their IQ. Americans, women especially, simply don’t value competing in high level chess. (Based on population, the country of Georgia appears to have the highest percentage of female chess grandmasters and international masters.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_chess_players

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Where do the creatures like Spearman, Lynn and Thompson come from?
     
    LOL

    I'll leave the specific individuals out of it since I know essentially nothing about Spearman or Lynn, and James Thompson seems a decent enough guy.

    But the great days of English culture are long gone. I saw some of the last of it as an undergraduate in the early 60's: I learned intermediate metabolism from Hans Kornberg, the lead author of the paper that won Krebs the Nobel prize for the Krebs cycle. We didn't just do pathways and mechanisms, we learned how the scheme was discovered and then did a number of the critical experiments in the labs with Kornberg in attendance. At lunch times one could chop logic over a beer with the head of the Department of Philosophy. In my own department, every faculty member's door was open to undergraduates seeking an impromptu tutorial. Those were the days when C.S. Lewis at Oxford spent more than 20 hours a week tutoring students in Eng. Lit.

    Nowadays, youngster attending either Oxfraud or Scambridge have, so I understand from younger relatives, no contact with anyone of note. If you really want to know where English culture is today, read the Daily Mail!

    If you really want to know where English culture is today, read the Daily Mail!

    I do read it. I know it is the tabloid rug but it is the best tabloid rug. Recently for 9/11 anniversary they had this amazing article:

    The conspiracies that won’t go away: Brother of 9/11 victim claim the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html#ixzz4sc1pFzfx

    This made me revisit the issue of why the anthrax letter was sent to the National Enquirer in 2001. Perhaps tabloid rugs must be reminded of their duties to keep the narrative going. NYT and WaP0 did not need to be reminded of their duties by anthrax letters. Mohamed Atta allegedly trained at the airport in town where National Enquirer had its headquarter, so sure they had some juicy stories about Atta fit to print in the rug like National Enquirer but that could spoil the narrative.

    Don’t you think that the IQ business is very English endeavor? That’s why I asked about the water. Germans were nowhere near the level of Brits in this enterprises.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Don’t you think that the IQ business is very English endeavor?
     
    Um, well mostly I comment here in the hope that through interaction with others I will gain some insight into what seems a very strange branch of science, so I'm not well qualified to judge the English role in the emergence of IQ research. But I can see that after Britain passed its apogee at about the time of Victoria's Jubilee, and entered a period of obviously reduced importance following WW1, there would have been a tendency for the Brits to seek reassurance as to their own importance and general superiority, something which a paper and pencil test of intelligence might just reveal.

    At the same time, the Brits were obsessed with the fact that while the flower of the nation's manpower had been destroyed by the criminal stupidity of WW1, the crocks, shirkers and mental incompetents were reproducing the race. This led to much agitation about the need for a eugenics programme, involving even, as the Anglo-Irish playwright Bernard Shaw urged, lethal gas chambers for the unproductive. In that context, a test to determine who was mentally fit to live must have seemed a good idea. Equally, it provided a means of screening the lower orders to see who was worthy of a place in a half-decent publicly funded grammar school, hence the 11-plus. So yes, I can see that the IQ business may have appealed quite strongly to some among the British elite.

    And yes, a plausible theory about the otherwise seemingly pointless anthrax letters.

    Thanks for the link to the DM article. Covers much of the ground and leaves little room to doubt that Dubya and co. should be tried for treason. But then one would have to say the same about most other national leaders including Justin Trudeau, who declared to the New York Times that Canada is not a nation, and Tony Blair, war criminal and, like so many other Western leaders, a stooge of the globalist elite.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Chanda Chisala

    Contrast that to...
     
    I have not changed my mind at all. I do not believe there is *high* selection on INTELLIGENCE. From my very first article I already did mention that some African immigrant groups have more educated people compared to other immigrant groups. But that's not necessarily high selection on intelligence, especially for a continent with very few opportunities for education. Some people have had better opportunities simply because they were born in a place where some mineral was found, for example, and a foreign mining company decided to provide some education for its local workers children (that's basically this author's humble story!).


    I repeat: Do NOT put words into my mouth. I said nothing about super-selection.

    That “ridiculous claim of super-selection” is a great strawman. Can you provide a reference to someone actually arguing that?
     
    Look. Firstly, I have no time arguing against everyone, including people who do not actually hold the positions I am arguing against. If you do not believe that African IQ is 70 or thereabout, then I do not have any argument with you at this point. If you do not agree with the same body of literature and the research held by other racial hereditarians that came up with these numbers -- which *includes* their findings on university student IQ -- then my argument is not with you. (And I put "your" in scare quotes precisely because I obviously didn't mean it literally, which means I was not putting those words in your mouth.)

    Secondly, if you are not making the argument that the African immigrants had to have been "super-selected," (or *highly* selected) then my argument is not with you and I'm not going to start copy-pasting all the people who have claimed that African immigrant IQ had to have been +2SD selected or more, including some columnists writing in this very thread.

    In short, you have to logically make the argument that there was that super-selection to UK (or whatever superlative you want to use for such extremely high selection) if you also believe that average IQ of Africa is 70.

    If you now believe, like Szopen, that it's actually closer to 85 or 90, then that's a different discussion with its own problems that I'm not prepared to go deep into since you will have to reject a lot of other positions held by fellow racial hereditarians to say that (eg many such hereditarians, including Lynn, accept that as much as 10 to 15 IQ points depression in Africa is due to environmental causes; are you prepared to believe that this means that your 85 IQ for Africa needs to be corrected for 10-15 IQ points? You may say "no" because that puts it at white IQ levels, genotypically, which I suspect you're not willing to accept, so you'll reject the 10-15 IQ environmental factor. You would also have to reject the IQ advantage of black Americans due to their white admixture. Etc. See why it's hard for me to conduct too many arguments at the same time against people with their own individual versions of racial hereditarianism? One job at a time.)

    What do you think about that, Chanda? And what analogy would you make with IQ testing?

    The Untapped Math Skills of Working Children in India:
    Evidence, Possible Explanations, and Implications

    It has been widely documented that many children in India lack basic arithmetic skills, as measured by their capacity to solve subtraction and division problems. We surveyed children working in informal markets in Kolkata, West Bengal, and confirmed that most were unable to solve arithmetic problems as typically presented in school. However, we also found that they were able to perform similar operations when framed as market transactions. This discrepancy was not explained by children’s ability to memorize prices and quantities in market transactions, assistance from others at their shops, reliance on calculation aids, or reading and writing skills. In fact, many children could solve hypothetical transactions of goods that they did not sell. Our results suggest that these children have arithmetic skills that are untapped by the school system

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5990cfd52994ca797742fae9/t/59a896aee6f2e11b76983238/1504220847338/Banerjee+et+al.+2017+-+2017-08-17.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. utu says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Chanda,

    I have absolutely no clue whether you're right or wrong in this debate, but maybe you can help me understand some things. I'll agree that measuring IQ can be a tricky game and that to a degree, there are different types of intelligence. (Perhaps you don't agree with that statement. Who knows.)

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization? I realize that this sounds like an attack, but I ask it in sincerity. Relative to all other groups outside of Australian Aborigines, Sub-Saharan African engineering and scientific achievements are nearly non-existent.

    Even Nigerians accomplished very little before whites arrived and not much afterward.

    It's difficult not to notice the dysfunction of nearly (all?) countries that are run by and inhabited by Africans and their diaspora - at least relative to white and NE Asian countries. (Yes, there are very small pockets of marginal success, but there's also an Asian guy in the NBA.) South Africa is a marginal exception, but, obviously, whites continues to play a major role in that country.

    Now, there may very well be a good reason for this. However, Occam's Razor says that it's very likely lower average IQ and other behavioral traits that account for this lack of achievement. But, hey, something Occam is wrong.

    Maybe the idea of Africans having a 70 IQ is wrong, but it's difficult to deny the inability of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians - to maintain a modern economy and culture, much less create one.

    I'm honestly curious as to how you explain this. In particular, why have Nigerians not managed to create an enclave that functions as well as European or NE Asian societies?

    The accomplishments of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians in Nigeria - just don't fit what you're saying. What am I missing?

    I’ll agree that measuring IQ can be a tricky game

    This a perfect example of semantic confusion by which they get you. In general measuring something that does not exist because it was not defined is really very tricky. IQ does not exist. Only IQ test scores do. IQ test score measure themselves pretty well. Actually with 100% accuracy so it is not really tricky. Pointless perhaps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    Where do the creatures like Spearman, Lynn and Thompson come from?
     
    LOL

    I'll leave the specific individuals out of it since I know essentially nothing about Spearman or Lynn, and James Thompson seems a decent enough guy.

    But the great days of English culture are long gone. I saw some of the last of it as an undergraduate in the early 60's: I learned intermediate metabolism from Hans Kornberg, the lead author of the paper that won Krebs the Nobel prize for the Krebs cycle. We didn't just do pathways and mechanisms, we learned how the scheme was discovered and then did a number of the critical experiments in the labs with Kornberg in attendance. At lunch times one could chop logic over a beer with the head of the Department of Philosophy. In my own department, every faculty member's door was open to undergraduates seeking an impromptu tutorial. Those were the days when C.S. Lewis at Oxford spent more than 20 hours a week tutoring students in Eng. Lit.

    Nowadays, youngster attending either Oxfraud or Scambridge have, so I understand from younger relatives, no contact with anyone of note. If you really want to know where English culture is today, read the Daily Mail!

    One reason, perhaps the most important, for the decline in Britain’s culture of creativity was the emergence of a democratic communism under the amiable but misguided leadership if men like Atlee and Wilson. They believed that Britain had a vast resource of untapped talent among those classes of people that had, until that time, gone into the workforce directly from secondary school, often in their early teens. These were the people unkindly referred to by the novelist Kingsley Amis as the great tapped untalent.

    In fact, the problem was not primarily a lack of talent among those of the lower social classes who began to enter the university in large numbers, but a lack of qualified people to teach them. University expansion meant a huge expansion in graduate education, which attracted all sorts of academic charlatans and megalomaniacs willing to hire almost anyone with a pair of hands to fill the research labs that the government was then so ready to fund. I went through graduate school as part of the first wave of expansion of post-graduate education and saw the utter futility of most of it. The result was that many of the new crop of university professors were neither particularly bright, nor sincerely scholarly in mentality. Indeed many were completely useless, although that didn’t stop some of them becoming full professors or even department heads by the age of 30.

    The consequence for the expanded intake of undergraduates was a severe dilution in the quality of education, the process of deterioration continuing to this day when it is beginning to dawn on most people that a university education ain’t worth the paper that the certificate of graduation is written upon. That’s not because Brits, or North Americans for that matter, are any dopier than before, but because they are not taught as their predecessors were taught. Hence the end of a great civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    The result was that many of the new crop of university professors were neither particularly bright, nor sincerely scholarly in mentality.

    That’s not because Brits, or North Americans for that matter, are any dopier than before, but because they are not taught as their predecessors were taught.

    It all comes down to culture and the interaction on the quantity-quality divide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Jm8 says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Chanda,

    I have absolutely no clue whether you're right or wrong in this debate, but maybe you can help me understand some things. I'll agree that measuring IQ can be a tricky game and that to a degree, there are different types of intelligence. (Perhaps you don't agree with that statement. Who knows.)

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization? I realize that this sounds like an attack, but I ask it in sincerity. Relative to all other groups outside of Australian Aborigines, Sub-Saharan African engineering and scientific achievements are nearly non-existent.

    Even Nigerians accomplished very little before whites arrived and not much afterward.

    It's difficult not to notice the dysfunction of nearly (all?) countries that are run by and inhabited by Africans and their diaspora - at least relative to white and NE Asian countries. (Yes, there are very small pockets of marginal success, but there's also an Asian guy in the NBA.) South Africa is a marginal exception, but, obviously, whites continues to play a major role in that country.

    Now, there may very well be a good reason for this. However, Occam's Razor says that it's very likely lower average IQ and other behavioral traits that account for this lack of achievement. But, hey, something Occam is wrong.

    Maybe the idea of Africans having a 70 IQ is wrong, but it's difficult to deny the inability of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians - to maintain a modern economy and culture, much less create one.

    I'm honestly curious as to how you explain this. In particular, why have Nigerians not managed to create an enclave that functions as well as European or NE Asian societies?

    The accomplishments of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians in Nigeria - just don't fit what you're saying. What am I missing?

    Some civilizational and proto-civilizational developments did occur in many parts of subsaharan Africa. Regarding some below (especially re: West Africa):

    City states, chiefdoms, and kingdoms were not uncommon and began to from from arround 1,000-1500 bc 2000 in some places—sometimes/othere later as well i.e. late antiquity-medieval— (the roots of them likely earlier in cultures such as the Nok culture (known for its—often—hollow terracottas of various sizes—the culture dated to 1500 bc at its eariest phase-ca. 200 ad at its latest) of Central Nigeria and Dhar Tichitt/Dhar Walata in the S.E Mauritania/Mali region,
    Some of these more advanced cultures often concentrating arround Ghana, Mali parts of Cameroon (esp. the grasslands area the kingdoms of the Bamileke, Bamoum, Bafut, and Bafut), and Nigeria—some of these regions benefitting from their closeness to the niger, a long navigable river, somewhat like the nile and some other rivers/waterways on earth near which more advanced cultures often—form (the Ashanti empire in in Ghana; the Nigerian Yoruba city states of Ijebu—the site of the early Yoruba fortification, Sungo’s Eredo—, Owo, and Ife; the kingdom of Benin of the Edo/Bini people; the Hausa and Kanuri states which have ancient roots in the Gajinanna/Zilum and Sao cultures of the lake Chad basin; the early polities of the S. E Nigerian Igbo (like Igbo Ukwu, but its decorative bronzes)—many of these cultures known for their high quality court arts and ancient earthen city walls and moats and beginning arround the early-mid Middle ages, but often with more ancent roots), the early polities of the Mali/Senegal region (pre Islam)—staring with the stone-walled chiefdoms of Dhar Tichitt S.E Mauritania/Mali from ca. 17,000 bc-500 bc (then inhabited by black Mande/Soninke speaking agropastoralists and prior to the migrations of Berbers centuries later), the city states of the niger river such as Jenne Jeno and Dia Shoma (known by archaeologists for their terracottas as well which would later form part of the foundation of the Empires of Ghana and Mali.
    A system of ideographic writing (similar in principle to Chinese) developed in the southeast corner of Nigeria, at least by 400 ad, but possibly earlier (There has tended to be less archaeological research in Africa than in many other regions—up till now) called Nsibidi. It may have started among the (ancestral) Ejagham or Efik, but spread to other groups in the region, including some nearby Igbo subgroups (and many other neighboring tribes there and immediate parts of Cameroon).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsibidi

    “Iconography and Continuity in West Africa: Calabar Terracottas and the Arts of the Cross River Region of Nigeria/Cameroon (PDF)”

    http://www.kingdomofbenin.com/the-benin-moat.html

    http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58840-diversity-early-african-architecture-ruins-thread-2.html

    http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/40992-African-art-amp-architecture-in-pre-colonial-times

    There is evidence of an independant invention of iron metallurgy (probably centrered arround Nigeria)
    Very recent research at Nsukka in Igboland finds very early dates or ca. 2000 BC.

    http://www.academia.edu/4103707/Iron_and_its_influence_on_the_prehistoric_site_of_Lejja

    The scholars studying the Nok culture of central Nigeria (most recently, in the last few years), Peter Breunig and his German research team, believe its iron metallurgy is part of an independant local tradition. Its oldest confirmed iron dates are about 500-700 bc. The culture itself goes back to about 1500-1200 bc and older iron dates (by several centuries in that specific region of Nigeria) )are suspected by Breunig based on indirect evidence but not yet confirmed.
    (some of the most reports/articles are a bit obscure— some information initially only in German— but much can be searchedonline)

    https://books.google.com/books?id=BBn1BQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Nok+culture+context&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEw

    jr84mK4vbNAhVFpB4KHe2qB1cQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Nok%20culture%20context&f=false

    Dates from some Central African sites begin by about 800 bc (the Gabon and the Uganda regions I think), but I think these may still be inconclusive/controversial.
    There were also smaller polities in parts of Central Africa (Kongo, Kuba). In East Central Africa specifically (Buganda, Rwanda, Buhaya), the metallurgy by the Urewe period of the Uganda region (the urewe are the early eastern Bantu, ancestral to many Bantu speaking cultures of South and East Africa, having derived from the proto-Bantu originating arround the Congo) was relatively advanced. Steel was created in Western Tanzania (near Uganda) arround 300-100 bc.
    (work of Peter R. Schmidt)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haya_people#Archeological_discoveries

    The South Eastern Bantu tribes of Southern Africa created small proto-feudal states (often with stone walls and fortifications for elites) like Mapungubwe, Bamandyanalo, Great Zimbabwe, Khami, and Thulamela.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Okechukwu says:

    Chanda,

    You’re casting pearls at swine here. These people are hardcore dead-enders. Literally, many of them would rather jump from a tall building than concede that their pretensions to supremacy are based on pure rubbish.

    But your work has found its way to more rational, more thoughtful, more enlightened and (dare I say) more intelligent people. I often see your articles linked and referenced in atmospheres not filled with brainwashed cultists. Your work has been well-received and has gone a long way to knocking down the frail house of cards these people will tend to erect.

    Great work. It’s very much appreciated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Zombie mentally ill... Piriod. Only way seems killing them. Idiotic people is the most stubborn. They never learn.

    But with that nick name
    ..huummm

    Another CLEVER "igbo"???

    , @Stealth
    Your handle suggests that you probably have an emotional investment in thinking that Chisala is correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    If you really want to know where English culture is today, read the Daily Mail!

    I do read it. I know it is the tabloid rug but it is the best tabloid rug. Recently for 9/11 anniversary they had this amazing article:

    The conspiracies that won't go away: Brother of 9/11 victim claim the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html#ixzz4sc1pFzfx

    This made me revisit the issue of why the anthrax letter was sent to the National Enquirer in 2001. Perhaps tabloid rugs must be reminded of their duties to keep the narrative going. NYT and WaP0 did not need to be reminded of their duties by anthrax letters. Mohamed Atta allegedly trained at the airport in town where National Enquirer had its headquarter, so sure they had some juicy stories about Atta fit to print in the rug like National Enquirer but that could spoil the narrative.

    Don't you think that the IQ business is very English endeavor? That's why I asked about the water. Germans were nowhere near the level of Brits in this enterprises.

    Don’t you think that the IQ business is very English endeavor?

    Um, well mostly I comment here in the hope that through interaction with others I will gain some insight into what seems a very strange branch of science, so I’m not well qualified to judge the English role in the emergence of IQ research. But I can see that after Britain passed its apogee at about the time of Victoria’s Jubilee, and entered a period of obviously reduced importance following WW1, there would have been a tendency for the Brits to seek reassurance as to their own importance and general superiority, something which a paper and pencil test of intelligence might just reveal.

    At the same time, the Brits were obsessed with the fact that while the flower of the nation’s manpower had been destroyed by the criminal stupidity of WW1, the crocks, shirkers and mental incompetents were reproducing the race. This led to much agitation about the need for a eugenics programme, involving even, as the Anglo-Irish playwright Bernard Shaw urged, lethal gas chambers for the unproductive. In that context, a test to determine who was mentally fit to live must have seemed a good idea. Equally, it provided a means of screening the lower orders to see who was worthy of a place in a half-decent publicly funded grammar school, hence the 11-plus. So yes, I can see that the IQ business may have appealed quite strongly to some among the British elite.

    And yes, a plausible theory about the otherwise seemingly pointless anthrax letters.

    Thanks for the link to the DM article. Covers much of the ground and leaves little room to doubt that Dubya and co. should be tried for treason. But then one would have to say the same about most other national leaders including Justin Trudeau, who declared to the New York Times that Canada is not a nation, and Tony Blair, war criminal and, like so many other Western leaders, a stooge of the globalist elite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @MarkinLA
    On the assumption that human intelligence is an evolved characteristic that promotes reproductive success, it appears that IQ is a poor measure of the adaptive value of the human brain,

    IQ has nothing to do with it. When the white man came to the Americas and saw what he thought were savages who weren't making good use of the land he displaced them and multiplied. Once he was guilt tripped about how he mistreated the savages he started to allow other savages from around the world to come in. He could just as easily have depopulated the entire continent of Africa and the Americans and filled it with white people. Pretending the first brainwashing over the latter has anything to do with IQ is ridiculous.

    Once he [the white man] was guilt tripped about how he mistreated the savages he started to allow other savages from around the world to come in. He could just as easily have depopulated the entire continent of Africa and the Americans and filled it with white people.

    “He could just as easily …” But he didn’t. Not very intelligent really. Consider the Brits in East Africa. They thought they could hold the place with a few gentlemen farmers who no doubt practised birth control in their very superior European way, while they introduced European agricultural techniques that vastly increased the carrying capacity of the land. Thus, as the white farmers were complacently sipping gin and tonic the natives were busy outbreeding them. The result, white African empire defunct.

    The Europeans repeated such stupidity over and over again, as they are doing now in their own homelands. If you think this has nothing to do with intelligence, what precisely do you think the adaptive function of a brain is?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    There are a lot of silly ideas that smart people have or haven't you been paying attention to our universities lately. Are all those professors actually lacking intelligence? People can be brainwashed. Religion is one vehicle. If the Pope told the Spanish that Amerindians could never be part of the Holy Church and the best way to deal with them is to baptize them and kill them, the Spanish probably would have complied. Instead the Pope wanted their souls "saved".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto
    Remember that creativity and intelligence is basically the same thing.

    So "intelligence" is also totally dependent on culture that is a creative "redundant" invention.

    Creativity invent intelligence in the same way environment invent the type of intelligence to be prosperous there. Indeed human creativity replace with culture the direct role of environment to submit organisms to its demands, shaping them.

    So “intelligence” is also totally dependent on culture that is a creative “redundant” invention.

    I wouldn’t say that. Some people are obviously more creative than others. But culture determines whether creativity will flourish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @MarkinLA
    First, creativity is largely dependent on culture, and the English had, by a series of chance historical developments, the culture most conducive to creative thought.

    There is no way to prove this. If intelligence can't be pinned down, creativity is even harder. Now you can assume the British were more creative because they started the industrial revolution and seemingly had more industrial inventions but that hardly encompasses everything, especially when looking at the number of great French and German mathematicians compared to the British.

    Without intelligence creativity doesn't get you much. All the crap "art" you see today comes from creative people who contribute exactly zilch to the advancement of society. In fact, many of them do more to screw society up (by being taken seriously) than they ever contribute. Nobody who can't understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.

    Nobody who can’t understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.

    All you’re saying is that there is a threshold effect of intelligence for creativity in certain fields. But that in no way proves that intelligence determines creativity, it is merely that a certain amount of intelligence is a prerequisite for the display of certain kinds of creativity, although the threshold effect may not be measurable with an IQ test. For example, the musical or mathematical savant with an IQ below that of a gamma minus moron is nevertheless a genius in what they are gifted at doing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    But that in no way proves that intelligence determines creativity

    I never said that. I might have it wrong but between you and Santoculto there seemed to be some thinking that "creativity" whatever that is, is the most important trait. I am saying that there is worthless creativity and that which is of value trends to occur with people of high intelligence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @MarkinLA
    The point is that real world competitions are a better measure of intelligence than IQ tests and that,

    They would be if they weren't limited to some game where as one poster pointed out canned solutions can be cashed in memory. The IQ tests one takes have lots of components. You read a paragraph and have to come to some collusions. You rotate something in space and have to pick the correct view after the combination of the rotations. You have visual and numeric sequences that you have to pick the next one. There is no game anywhere that comes close to incorporating all these components. At there some missed? Most likely, figure out what to add and get rich.

    A better test might be to hand somebody a military survival manual and a knife and see how long somebody could survive. However, you can't test millions of people that way.

    A better test might be to hand somebody a military survival manual and a knife and see how long somebody could survive. However, you can’t test millions of people that way.

    Actually, that is exactly how our ancestors were tested. Not all of them, but some of them in every line of descent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Okechukwu says:

    The selection bias argument to explain the success of Africans in the US is another theory that can’t withstand even more scrutiny. There is a selection bias in immigration only insofar as it selects for people with sponsors in the United States. It doesn’t select for anything else, including intelligence or IQ or whatever. The United States doesn’t care if the prospective immigrant is a genius or an imbecile. If the imbecile is the one that has a sponsor that can help him and is able to provide some surety of financial support, he’s much more likely than the genius to be allowed to immigrate.

    To give you an example, my fiancée is a young, white German woman who is a PhD candidate in molecular biology with an emphasis on cancer research. She’s everything you would think immigration is looking for. But they don’t seem to want her. They interrogate her aggressively every time she comes here seemingly to dissuade her from ever showing up again. And to get her status changed to permanent resident has been an ongoing struggle of epic proportions. We’re using an immigration attorney, and it’s still a hellish experience.

    Most European scientists would like to live and work in the United States because this country is the epicenter of scientific research. Added to which, the English language is the language of scientific research. Just to give you an idea of how powerful English is in science, my fiancée is doing her doctoral thesis in English even though it’s going to be submitted to a German university. The point is, these brilliant scientists cannot immigrate to the United States. Deans of universities can write letters for them. Scientific research centers can vouch for them. They can even have a job waiting for them in important scientific fields. But none of it matters. They simply can’t immigrate here. They’re not wanted because they don’t have viable and credible sponsors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    The selection bias argument to explain the success of Africans in the US is another theory that can’t withstand even more scrutiny. There is a selection bias in immigration only insofar as it selects for people with sponsors in the United States. It doesn’t select for anything else, including intelligence or IQ or whatever.
     
    From the brain drain data linked above. In 2010 of the Nigerian men in the US we have 79943 in the high skill group (tertiary education), 9632 in the medium skill group, and 1786 in the low skill group.

    Looks selective to me. I think it is your argument which does not withstand actual data.
    , @Tyrion
    Cool story bruh. Was anybody supposed to learn anything from your anecdote except that you are exceptionally proud to be marrying a white person?

    And she's a really lucky girl to be marrying someone who primarily sees her that way...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Jm8 says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Chanda,

    I have absolutely no clue whether you're right or wrong in this debate, but maybe you can help me understand some things. I'll agree that measuring IQ can be a tricky game and that to a degree, there are different types of intelligence. (Perhaps you don't agree with that statement. Who knows.)

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization? I realize that this sounds like an attack, but I ask it in sincerity. Relative to all other groups outside of Australian Aborigines, Sub-Saharan African engineering and scientific achievements are nearly non-existent.

    Even Nigerians accomplished very little before whites arrived and not much afterward.

    It's difficult not to notice the dysfunction of nearly (all?) countries that are run by and inhabited by Africans and their diaspora - at least relative to white and NE Asian countries. (Yes, there are very small pockets of marginal success, but there's also an Asian guy in the NBA.) South Africa is a marginal exception, but, obviously, whites continues to play a major role in that country.

    Now, there may very well be a good reason for this. However, Occam's Razor says that it's very likely lower average IQ and other behavioral traits that account for this lack of achievement. But, hey, something Occam is wrong.

    Maybe the idea of Africans having a 70 IQ is wrong, but it's difficult to deny the inability of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians - to maintain a modern economy and culture, much less create one.

    I'm honestly curious as to how you explain this. In particular, why have Nigerians not managed to create an enclave that functions as well as European or NE Asian societies?

    The accomplishments of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians in Nigeria - just don't fit what you're saying. What am I missing?

    Apparently the “Historum” link I posted had some dead images (though with also a few good ones).
    (and the other “forumbiodiversity” link—whose images are all good/fine and visible—of my previous post, includes many both art and architecture images from various of the aforementioned African cultures; incl. Ife, Benin, Igbo Ukwu ,etc):

    Some of the same images, originally there, below (and others I should have included).

    http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/67141-african-architecture-ashanti-very-particular.html

    first below: some architecture of several of the Cameroonian kingdoms’ (Bamileke, Bandjoun, Bamoum, Bafut, etc), below past the first few Nubian images at the top):

    http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58840-diversity-early-african-architecture-ruins-thread-16.html

    http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/40992-African-art-amp-architecture-in-pre-colonial-times

    https://www.amazon.com/Nok-Culture-Nigeria-2500-Years/dp/3791336460

    http://www.beprimitive.com/stories-descriptions/nok-terra-cotta

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    Edit (to second post) : "Some of the same images, originally there, below (and others I should have included in by first somewhat long post to you, which is now further, several posts, above)"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8
    Apparently the "Historum" link I posted had some dead images (though with also a few good ones).
    (and the other "forumbiodiversity" link—whose images are all good/fine and visible—of my previous post, includes many both art and architecture images from various of the aforementioned African cultures; incl. Ife, Benin, Igbo Ukwu ,etc):


    Some of the same images, originally there, below (and others I should have included).

    http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/67141-african-architecture-ashanti-very-particular.html


    first below: some architecture of several of the Cameroonian kingdoms' (Bamileke, Bandjoun, Bamoum, Bafut, etc), below past the first few Nubian images at the top):

    http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58840-diversity-early-african-architecture-ruins-thread-16.html


    http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/40992-African-art-amp-architecture-in-pre-colonial-times

    https://www.amazon.com/Nok-Culture-Nigeria-2500-Years/dp/3791336460

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nok_culture#/media/File:Nok_sculpture_Louvre_70-1998-11-1.jpg

    http://www.beprimitive.com/stories-descriptions/nok-terra-cotta

    Edit (to second post) : “Some of the same images, originally there, below (and others I should have included in by first somewhat long post to you, which is now further, several posts, above)”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Wally says:
    @Anon
    You don't understand the article. I doubt you even read it. The point is that real world competitions are a better measure of intelligence than IQ tests and that, at the very least, the number of highly intelligent Africans on that basis is larger than what the statistically likely number would be if national IQ figures per Lynn were accurate. Thus, Lynn's estimates might not be very accurate after all. They certainly have no correlation with national economic success.

    What funny about you is the extent to which you will compromise your supposed principles to be "right" in your estimation. You hate black people so in their case you accept that the genetic hypothesis is flawless; but you also hate Jews, so that very genetic hypothesis that shows Jews are smarter must be bogus.

    Maybe it's the genetic hypothesis that's wrong?

    Spoken like a redneck Zionist Jew who hates white gentiles, hence you promote the fake ’6M Jews’ nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What the hell are you talking about?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. res says:
    @Okechukwu
    The selection bias argument to explain the success of Africans in the US is another theory that can’t withstand even more scrutiny. There is a selection bias in immigration only insofar as it selects for people with sponsors in the United States. It doesn’t select for anything else, including intelligence or IQ or whatever. The United States doesn’t care if the prospective immigrant is a genius or an imbecile. If the imbecile is the one that has a sponsor that can help him and is able to provide some surety of financial support, he's much more likely than the genius to be allowed to immigrate.

    To give you an example, my fiancée is a young, white German woman who is a PhD candidate in molecular biology with an emphasis on cancer research. She's everything you would think immigration is looking for. But they don't seem to want her. They interrogate her aggressively every time she comes here seemingly to dissuade her from ever showing up again. And to get her status changed to permanent resident has been an ongoing struggle of epic proportions. We're using an immigration attorney, and it's still a hellish experience.

    Most European scientists would like to live and work in the United States because this country is the epicenter of scientific research. Added to which, the English language is the language of scientific research. Just to give you an idea of how powerful English is in science, my fiancée is doing her doctoral thesis in English even though it's going to be submitted to a German university. The point is, these brilliant scientists cannot immigrate to the United States. Deans of universities can write letters for them. Scientific research centers can vouch for them. They can even have a job waiting for them in important scientific fields. But none of it matters. They simply can’t immigrate here. They’re not wanted because they don’t have viable and credible sponsors.

    The selection bias argument to explain the success of Africans in the US is another theory that can’t withstand even more scrutiny. There is a selection bias in immigration only insofar as it selects for people with sponsors in the United States. It doesn’t select for anything else, including intelligence or IQ or whatever.

    From the brain drain data linked above. In 2010 of the Nigerian men in the US we have 79943 in the high skill group (tertiary education), 9632 in the medium skill group, and 1786 in the low skill group.

    Looks selective to me. I think it is your argument which does not withstand actual data.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    From the brain drain data linked above. In 2010 of the Nigerian men in the US we have 79943 in the high skill group (tertiary education), 9632 in the medium skill group, and 1786 in the low skill group.

    Looks selective to me. I think it is your argument which does not withstand actual data.
     
    Do you even understand what a brain drain is? Nigerians who obtain their education and credentials in the US or UK do not constitute a brain drain. A brain drain is when those already educated and practicing a high-skill profession leave a country.

    I'm a Nigerian. I have dozens of relatives in the US and UK. Almost all the adults are well-educated professionals. ALL OF THEM obtained their degrees and professional credentials in the US and UK. For each one of them innumerable other Nigerians could've done the same thing, given the opportunity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Chanda,

    I have absolutely no clue whether you're right or wrong in this debate, but maybe you can help me understand some things. I'll agree that measuring IQ can be a tricky game and that to a degree, there are different types of intelligence. (Perhaps you don't agree with that statement. Who knows.)

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization? I realize that this sounds like an attack, but I ask it in sincerity. Relative to all other groups outside of Australian Aborigines, Sub-Saharan African engineering and scientific achievements are nearly non-existent.

    Even Nigerians accomplished very little before whites arrived and not much afterward.

    It's difficult not to notice the dysfunction of nearly (all?) countries that are run by and inhabited by Africans and their diaspora - at least relative to white and NE Asian countries. (Yes, there are very small pockets of marginal success, but there's also an Asian guy in the NBA.) South Africa is a marginal exception, but, obviously, whites continues to play a major role in that country.

    Now, there may very well be a good reason for this. However, Occam's Razor says that it's very likely lower average IQ and other behavioral traits that account for this lack of achievement. But, hey, something Occam is wrong.

    Maybe the idea of Africans having a 70 IQ is wrong, but it's difficult to deny the inability of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians - to maintain a modern economy and culture, much less create one.

    I'm honestly curious as to how you explain this. In particular, why have Nigerians not managed to create an enclave that functions as well as European or NE Asian societies?

    The accomplishments of sub-Saharan Africans - even Nigerians in Nigeria - just don't fit what you're saying. What am I missing?

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization?

    Every group that has been isolated from other people of the world for a long time has always lagged behind. All “civilizations” were built by borrowing quite heavily from others that they met as they traveled around, in trade or conflict. Africa was segregated from everyone else by a uniquely harsh geography (hence its “ancient” name – “the Dark Continent” — that wasn’t a reference to skin color!) plus many tropical diseases that kept others away. Above that, the difficult geography and environment even kept African tribes mostly secluded from each other (thus, Zambia alone has more than 70 languages that I can’t understand at all, although it has less than 20 million people!). Relative to human history, the interaction that Africa has had with other people is still very recent, very brief, relatively superficial, and the vast majority still really haven’t had even that little contact.

    I get all this from Thomas Sowell and I haven’t seen any good argument against it. See his trilogy that includes “Conquests and Cultures” etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion

    Africa was segregated from everyone else by a uniquely harsh geography
     
    If you want to find a non-genetic explanation for why circa 1600AD black Africans were considerably less sophisticated than the Egyptians under Chephren 4000 years previous, then I suggest you find something a bit stronger than being somewhat isolated by a desert.

    After all, there was rather a lot more contact between Nubia and Ancient Egypt than there was between Ancient Egypt and Japan.

    Not to say that the Sahara was unstifling but plenty of places were hard to get to, and judging by the transmission of Buddhism across the Himalayas to China, it does not need to be easy. There were true trans-Saharan Empires. The idea of a true trans-Himlayan Empire is absurd.

    You should look instead into the Bantu expansions and their relative newness as a set of peoples. After all, by 1600AD Bantu-derived peoples had only just finished expanding throughout Sub-Saharan Africa.

    If necessity is the mother of all invention, then your forebears weren't really pushed.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Relative to human history, the interaction that Africa has had with other people is still very recent, very brief, relatively superficial, and the vast majority still really haven’t had even that little contact.
     
    But couldn't this relative seclusion just as easily be an explanation of lower average IQ and different behavioral traits?

    No one is claiming that Europeans or NE Asians just magically increased their IQ overnight. Environmental and cultural pressures over tens of thousands of years caused it. Cold winters might require better building and planning skills (both related to IQ and other behavioral traits), increasing their attributes in a population.

    The creation of large scale agriculture and cities would also push for people with certain skills and behavioral traits most certainly related to IQ.

    If sub-Saharan African populations were never subjected to these forces, it wouldn't be surprising if their average IQ remained at lower levels. Indeed, it would be stunning if sub-Saharan Africans managed to evolve a similar IQ to Europeans and NE Asians without going through these processes. It would put the Theory of Evolution in serious doubt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Bill says:
    @Chanda Chisala
    I've explained this many times before, but since you seem sincere in your confusion, I will explain it again.

    When I say "regression to the mean" I do not mean that the "regressed" IQ becomes equal to the mean of the race. Not only I, but many others who use that term in this debate, including Jensen, Rushton, et al. A more accurate term would be "regression TOWARD the mean," as Jensen sometimes clarified. So, the claim is not that children of elite Africans should have the average IQ of their "race" or source population, but that it should regress TO or TOWARDS that, on average. Which means that children of elite blacks should have lower IQ on average than children of equally elite (equal IQ) whites. Similarly, children of elite black Africans should have significantly lower IQ than children of similarly elite black Americans. No, none of them will actually "regress" to the point of their source population IQ, but it is like different centers of gravity pulling them downwards, statistically speaking.

    My argument is that there does not seem to be much indication that children of black African elites -- that is, even if we granted that these immigrants are really the elites of Africa -- are having a huge disadvantage over children of elite native black Americans. It seems like quite the opposite, which is in direct contradiction to the prediction of the racial hypothesis, if the black Americans have the advantage of white genes. Above that, they seem to have increased numerical advantage when you increase cognitive selection, which should not happen if that lower "center of gravity" from which they hail is biologically rooted, as my opponents believe.

    Now you can respond to THAT argument, instead of responding to your own simplified version of it.

    Either you have failed utterly to understand Tyrion’s point, or you are extraordinarily dishonest. Really poor performance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Tyrion says:
    @Chanda Chisala
    I've explained this many times before, but since you seem sincere in your confusion, I will explain it again.

    When I say "regression to the mean" I do not mean that the "regressed" IQ becomes equal to the mean of the race. Not only I, but many others who use that term in this debate, including Jensen, Rushton, et al. A more accurate term would be "regression TOWARD the mean," as Jensen sometimes clarified. So, the claim is not that children of elite Africans should have the average IQ of their "race" or source population, but that it should regress TO or TOWARDS that, on average. Which means that children of elite blacks should have lower IQ on average than children of equally elite (equal IQ) whites. Similarly, children of elite black Africans should have significantly lower IQ than children of similarly elite black Americans. No, none of them will actually "regress" to the point of their source population IQ, but it is like different centers of gravity pulling them downwards, statistically speaking.

    My argument is that there does not seem to be much indication that children of black African elites -- that is, even if we granted that these immigrants are really the elites of Africa -- are having a huge disadvantage over children of elite native black Americans. It seems like quite the opposite, which is in direct contradiction to the prediction of the racial hypothesis, if the black Americans have the advantage of white genes. Above that, they seem to have increased numerical advantage when you increase cognitive selection, which should not happen if that lower "center of gravity" from which they hail is biologically rooted, as my opponents believe.

    Now you can respond to THAT argument, instead of responding to your own simplified version of it.

    Nothing in your post contradicts mine, except as to say that both Rushton and Jensen made a similar error to you, which my post was entirely open to the possibility of.

    Lumping all black Africans together as a population has some uses. But not really all that many. Expecting an Igbo child to regress towards the African mean makes as much sense as expecting an Ashkenazi child to regress towards the human mean. Or perhaps worse, expecting a member of Darwin’s direct family to regress towards the human mean.

    Furthermore, comparing Black Americans as a group with Black Africans as a group you are not comparing like group with like. By lumping Black Africans together you are expecting group statistical effects for them which you have no basis for expecting.

    Now you can respond to THAT argument, instead of responding to your own simplified version of it.

    Pot meet kettle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean. Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture.

    If Africans in the US are not part of African elites and their children outperform African American children then explaining this is even more difficult within the realm of Richard Lynn's creation.
    , @Chanda Chisala
    Oh I see. So you're actually correcting Professor Arthur Jensen's understanding of basic statistics. For a moment there I thought you were sincere.

    The concept you seem not to grasp is the idea of "averages." Yes, one group in the composite population may be higher than the average, but there are also other groups that, by definition, are lower than average. The regression to the mean, as I stated in my post to you, is ON AVERAGE.

    But I can now see that you're not sincere in your confusion; you're simply here to "correct" us. So, I resign.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Bill says:
    @szopen
    Wicherts, Dolan, Maas, 2010, "A systematic literature review of average IQ of sub-saharan Africans". When I read it few years ago I thought they were biased, but right now I think their reported values are more close to reality. They report studies giving Nigerian IQ from 77 to 98.6, with their estimation of Nigerian IQ to being 83.8 (95% confidence interval for it being inbetween 79.9 and 87.6).

    It's also frustrating that so many people still don't get the Chandy Chisala's arguments and repeat the same tired cliches. It's not about there being some top scrabble or chess players. Once again, it's about - given the size of the population, postulated standard deviation and average IQ plus known characteristics of player's base population, it's impossible to be THAT many good players.

    In contrast, the Wicherts' et al estimations (maybe even corrected up to 85) could explain the facts.
    They would not, however, explain RPA, since their estimation for RPA is 77; however, with IQ 85, the results are plausible.

    All in all, definetely Lynn's values for subsaharan Africa are untenable.

    His arguments are wrong if the distribution isn’t normal.

    It is unfortunate that so many psychometricians have bell curves on the brain. And their internet followers are even worse, on average.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Yes, if the IQ distribution has fat tail - but this would have to be very fat tail for Gabon.

    But gaussian distribution is very reasonable assumption. IQ is influenced by hundreds of factors, which can be treated as random variables. Now, tell me, what shape has a complex random variable built from hundreds of independent random variables?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy
    One reason, perhaps the most important, for the decline in Britain's culture of creativity was the emergence of a democratic communism under the amiable but misguided leadership if men like Atlee and Wilson. They believed that Britain had a vast resource of untapped talent among those classes of people that had, until that time, gone into the workforce directly from secondary school, often in their early teens. These were the people unkindly referred to by the novelist Kingsley Amis as the great tapped untalent.

    In fact, the problem was not primarily a lack of talent among those of the lower social classes who began to enter the university in large numbers, but a lack of qualified people to teach them. University expansion meant a huge expansion in graduate education, which attracted all sorts of academic charlatans and megalomaniacs willing to hire almost anyone with a pair of hands to fill the research labs that the government was then so ready to fund. I went through graduate school as part of the first wave of expansion of post-graduate education and saw the utter futility of most of it. The result was that many of the new crop of university professors were neither particularly bright, nor sincerely scholarly in mentality. Indeed many were completely useless, although that didn't stop some of them becoming full professors or even department heads by the age of 30.

    The consequence for the expanded intake of undergraduates was a severe dilution in the quality of education, the process of deterioration continuing to this day when it is beginning to dawn on most people that a university education ain't worth the paper that the certificate of graduation is written upon. That's not because Brits, or North Americans for that matter, are any dopier than before, but because they are not taught as their predecessors were taught. Hence the end of a great civilization.

    The result was that many of the new crop of university professors were neither particularly bright, nor sincerely scholarly in mentality.

    That’s not because Brits, or North Americans for that matter, are any dopier than before, but because they are not taught as their predecessors were taught.

    It all comes down to culture and the interaction on the quantity-quality divide.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Tyrion says:
    @Jm8
    I think some of this was discussed earlier. The evidence indicates that the children of above average African Americans (above average African American families) score (seeming to "regress") toward a lower mean. But those of Africans do not.

    http://www.unz.com/article/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap-debate-part-3/

    "The mere possibility that the African immigrants in our experiment could be an elite, unrepresentative group does not matter in itself (I don’t know how many ways to emphasize this point, which is the subject of the most popular straw man among those who keep arguing that the immigrants are “not representative” of their source populations). It does not matter *because Jensen gave us a prediction specifically concerning a sample of exclusively elite, “unrepresentative” Blacks.*

    Reading from the same Jensen paper, we are told this about elite Black Americans:

    “Matching Black and White children for the geographical areas of their homes, the schools they attend, and other finer grade socioeconomic indicators again reduces the mean group IQ difference but does not eliminate it. Black children from the best areas and schools (those producing the highest average scores) still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 286–289; Jensen, 1998b, pp. 357–360). This is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean.”

    Well, the African immigrant children test scores now present an anomaly for the racial genetic theory precisely because of regression to the mean (even if we ignore the more self-damning claim that American Blacks should have even higher intelligence due to their higher white admixture).

    We know that children of native Black Americans earning $200,000 a year in family income score lower on SAT scores than children of Whites getting only $20,000 in family income ($10, 000 per parent!). We also know that the Nigerian income in the US is only $57,000, which is lower than the non-Hipspanic white income, and yet their children still score at least as high as children of Whites, which is the opposite of Jensen’s predicted result. "

    I think some of this was discussed earlier. The evidence indicates that the children of above average African Americans (above average African American families) score (seeming to “regress”) toward a lower mean. But those of Africans do not.

    You are expecting that observation to do a lot of heavy lifting without much justification.

    Why should the group ‘Recent Black African migrants to the US’ follow the exact same statistical rules as the group ‘Mostly Black descendants of African slaves in the US’?

    Furthermore, I don’t believe that Black American (Mostly Black descendants of African slaves in the US) children do particularly regress towards some Black American mean. The whole concept is fuzzy. After all, group mean IQs do change. A group may have eugenic pressures exerted on it.

    Were one to kill the bottom half in intelligence of a group, would you still expect the surviving top half to regress towards the previous mean?

    Are you now going to hide in the word ‘towards’ by meaning merely ‘in the direction of’? And therefore only offer featherlight explanatory power in the same way that by walking from London to Paris you also happen to be walking ‘towards’ Beijing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Tyrion, you make many excellent points in this thread. I see you only started commenting at the Unz Review a week or two ago. Please stick around and keep commenting!

    But in this case:

    Were one to kill the bottom half in intelligence of a group, would you still expect the surviving top half to regress towards the previous mean?
     
    you are mistaken. If you look into the animal breeding literature you will see that is exactly what happens in breeding selection. And in this context the correct meaning of "towards" is indeed "in the direction of." By a quantitatively measurable amount.

    This page provides an introduction: http://animalscience2.ucdavis.edu/ggg201d/references/response_selection.html

    In particular pay attention to the breeder's equation: R = h^2*S
    More on that at https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

    To go further, population means can change, but if you look at multi-generational breeding experiments the old means seem to have more persistence than one might expect if selection stops. Not necessarily the case in real world examples where selection is occurring in response to consistent environmental changes though.

    I am looking forward to reading your comments following #119.

    P.S. I hope the people using a relative lack of regression towards the mean for IQ as an argument in this thread realize that is strong evidence for the high heritability of IQ (see h^2 in the breeder's equation above). I don't think they would want to accidentally argue in favor of something they don't believe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Bill says:
    @MarkinLA
    First, creativity is largely dependent on culture, and the English had, by a series of chance historical developments, the culture most conducive to creative thought.

    There is no way to prove this. If intelligence can't be pinned down, creativity is even harder. Now you can assume the British were more creative because they started the industrial revolution and seemingly had more industrial inventions but that hardly encompasses everything, especially when looking at the number of great French and German mathematicians compared to the British.

    Without intelligence creativity doesn't get you much. All the crap "art" you see today comes from creative people who contribute exactly zilch to the advancement of society. In fact, many of them do more to screw society up (by being taken seriously) than they ever contribute. Nobody who can't understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.

    Is Maya Lin really a creative person? I doubt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. utu says:
    @Tyrion
    Nothing in your post contradicts mine, except as to say that both Rushton and Jensen made a similar error to you, which my post was entirely open to the possibility of.

    Lumping all black Africans together as a population has some uses. But not really all that many. Expecting an Igbo child to regress towards the African mean makes as much sense as expecting an Ashkenazi child to regress towards the human mean. Or perhaps worse, expecting a member of Darwin's direct family to regress towards the human mean.

    Furthermore, comparing Black Americans as a group with Black Africans as a group you are not comparing like group with like. By lumping Black Africans together you are expecting group statistical effects for them which you have no basis for expecting.

    Now you can respond to THAT argument, instead of responding to your own simplified version of it.
     
    Pot meet kettle.

    His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean. Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture.

    If Africans in the US are not part of African elites and their children outperform African American children then explaining this is even more difficult within the realm of Richard Lynn’s creation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    "His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean. Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture."

    Also that they show signs of performing above the immigrant generation (and performing above the white mean, at least in the UK, and at least not below it in the US).

    "If Africans in the US are not part of African elites and their children outperform African American children then..."

    Including African American children who are of more elite parents (as explained in my quote from Chisala's earlier article).

    , @Tyrion
    I understand his point. It just contains a bunch of unfounded assertions. I am at a loss as to how to point this out in a more digestible manner. I will try for the fourth time. You can read any of my previous three efforts and they all mean the same thing, but expressed in different ways. They also all more than answer your post here.

    Let me try again:

    His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean.

    Or they regress towards the mean for African elites. Or they regress towards the human mean. Or they regress towards the mean for non-Chinese. Or they regress towards the Gentile mean. Or they regress towards for the mean for people who are darker than a mocha coffee. Or those with curly hair. Or those not born in Svalbard.

    Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture.
     
    And black Harvard grads have smarter children than Chinese peasants. So what?

    If Africans in the US are not part of African elites and their children outperform African American children then explaining this is even more difficult within the realm of Richard Lynn’s creation
     
    1. Africans in the U.S. clearly tend to come from the highest African achievers. Anyone familiar with them who denies this is plain lying. If Chanda asserts this then this conversation is over and I am blocking him. It would prove beyond all doubt that he is uninterested in dialectic. It would be akin to claiming that in-country income does not correlate to IQ.

    2. Only if we assume that the grouping 'black American descendants of slaves' is qualitatively the same as the grouping 'recent black African immigrants to the US'.

    I see no reason to believe this and none is offered.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Tyrion says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization?
     
    Every group that has been isolated from other people of the world for a long time has always lagged behind. All "civilizations" were built by borrowing quite heavily from others that they met as they traveled around, in trade or conflict. Africa was segregated from everyone else by a uniquely harsh geography (hence its "ancient" name - "the Dark Continent" -- that wasn't a reference to skin color!) plus many tropical diseases that kept others away. Above that, the difficult geography and environment even kept African tribes mostly secluded from each other (thus, Zambia alone has more than 70 languages that I can't understand at all, although it has less than 20 million people!). Relative to human history, the interaction that Africa has had with other people is still very recent, very brief, relatively superficial, and the vast majority still really haven't had even that little contact.

    I get all this from Thomas Sowell and I haven't seen any good argument against it. See his trilogy that includes "Conquests and Cultures" etc.

    Africa was segregated from everyone else by a uniquely harsh geography

    If you want to find a non-genetic explanation for why circa 1600AD black Africans were considerably less sophisticated than the Egyptians under Chephren 4000 years previous, then I suggest you find something a bit stronger than being somewhat isolated by a desert.

    After all, there was rather a lot more contact between Nubia and Ancient Egypt than there was between Ancient Egypt and Japan.

    Not to say that the Sahara was unstifling but plenty of places were hard to get to, and judging by the transmission of Buddhism across the Himalayas to China, it does not need to be easy. There were true trans-Saharan Empires. The idea of a true trans-Himlayan Empire is absurd.

    You should look instead into the Bantu expansions and their relative newness as a set of peoples. After all, by 1600AD Bantu-derived peoples had only just finished expanding throughout Sub-Saharan Africa.

    If necessity is the mother of all invention, then your forebears weren’t really pushed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Jm8 says:
    @utu
    His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean. Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture.

    If Africans in the US are not part of African elites and their children outperform African American children then explaining this is even more difficult within the realm of Richard Lynn's creation.

    “His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean. Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture.”

    Also that they show signs of performing above the immigrant generation (and performing above the white mean, at least in the UK, and at least not below it in the US).

    “If Africans in the US are not part of African elites and their children outperform African American children then…”

    Including African American children who are of more elite parents (as explained in my quote from Chisala’s earlier article).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    Edit: "Also that they show signs of performing above the immigrant generation (and performing above the white mean—certain ethnic/subgroups of them at least—, at least in the UK, and at least not below it in the US)."
    , @utu
    So you also understand. Thanks. I am not surprised that Chanda gets exasperated with the commentariat on this website. They are so ideologically driven that simple and sensible argument like this one he made can't penetrate their belief defense system.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8
    "His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean. Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture."

    Also that they show signs of performing above the immigrant generation (and performing above the white mean, at least in the UK, and at least not below it in the US).

    "If Africans in the US are not part of African elites and their children outperform African American children then..."

    Including African American children who are of more elite parents (as explained in my quote from Chisala's earlier article).

    Edit: “Also that they show signs of performing above the immigrant generation (and performing above the white mean—certain ethnic/subgroups of them at least—, at least in the UK, and at least not below it in the US).”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. szopen says:
    @Bill
    His arguments are wrong if the distribution isn't normal.

    It is unfortunate that so many psychometricians have bell curves on the brain. And their internet followers are even worse, on average.

    Yes, if the IQ distribution has fat tail – but this would have to be very fat tail for Gabon.

    But gaussian distribution is very reasonable assumption. IQ is influenced by hundreds of factors, which can be treated as random variables. Now, tell me, what shape has a complex random variable built from hundreds of independent random variables?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    It's not just tail fatness. A distribution you make, for example, by p-mixing other distributions doesn't just have fat tails, it has lots of differences with a symmetric, uni-modal distribution like the normal.

    There is no reason at all to think that the normal is a good approximation to the distribution of any interesting characteristic in any population big enough to have sub-populations in it.

    We may form our intuition by thinking about well-mixed populations, but mother nature has no obligation to form her intuition that way.
    , @Bill
    Oh, and by the way:

    Now, tell me, what shape has a complex random variable built from hundreds of independent random variables?
     
    1) Lots of shapes are possible, depending on how it is built. The CLT applies to averages of not-too-correlated and not-too-differently-distributed random variables. There are other things than averages.
    2) sneaking in the word "independent" is a bit of precious question-begging.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. szopen says:
    @DFH

    It’s also frustrating that so many people still don’t get the Chandy Chisala’s arguments and repeat the same tired cliches. It’s not about there being some top scrabble or chess players. Once again, it’s about – given the size of the population, postulated standard deviation and average IQ plus known characteristics of player’s base population, it’s impossible to be THAT many good players.
     
    That one small data incongruity is not enough to throw out all previous IQ research. If one has to choose between IQ tests and games, then the reasonable adjustment to the hypothesis is that scrabble is a less reliable indicator (or maybe that there is something different about the African IQ distribution), rather than that all of the previous IQ research on Africa is wrong.

    All right, except that “all previous IQ research” seems to indicate that Nigerian IQ is higher that the one included in Lynn. Read the Wicherts et al piece I have linked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    The selection bias argument to explain the success of Africans in the US is another theory that can’t withstand even more scrutiny. There is a selection bias in immigration only insofar as it selects for people with sponsors in the United States. It doesn’t select for anything else, including intelligence or IQ or whatever.
     
    From the brain drain data linked above. In 2010 of the Nigerian men in the US we have 79943 in the high skill group (tertiary education), 9632 in the medium skill group, and 1786 in the low skill group.

    Looks selective to me. I think it is your argument which does not withstand actual data.

    From the brain drain data linked above. In 2010 of the Nigerian men in the US we have 79943 in the high skill group (tertiary education), 9632 in the medium skill group, and 1786 in the low skill group.

    Looks selective to me. I think it is your argument which does not withstand actual data.

    Do you even understand what a brain drain is? Nigerians who obtain their education and credentials in the US or UK do not constitute a brain drain. A brain drain is when those already educated and practicing a high-skill profession leave a country.

    I’m a Nigerian. I have dozens of relatives in the US and UK. Almost all the adults are well-educated professionals. ALL OF THEM obtained their degrees and professional credentials in the US and UK. For each one of them innumerable other Nigerians could’ve done the same thing, given the opportunity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion

    I’m a Nigerian. I have dozens of relatives in the US and UK. Almost all the adults are well-educated professionals. ALL OF THEM obtained their degrees and professional credentials in the US and UK. For each one of them innumerable other Nigerians could’ve done the same thing, given the opportunity.
     
    Who do you think you are persuading?

    Most Nigerians don't have flushing toilets at home. They are incapable of procuring them; so stop pretending that somehow most are capable of procuring transport to America and an American tertiary education.

    What is this influx of bold-faced lying Africans? All of your prose is fine so you're clearly all intelligent and well-educated, so why the lying? Surely you must be smart enough to know that only an idiot would fall for the claim that African immigrants to America are cognitively average for Africa.

    , @res

    Do you even understand what a brain drain is? Nigerians who obtain their education and credentials in the US or UK do not constitute a brain drain. A brain drain is when those already educated and practicing a high-skill profession leave a country.
     
    I do. A brain drain is when especially intelligent people (educated or not at that moment) in a given country emigrate. What you describe is an especially damaging subset of that.

    I’m a Nigerian. I have dozens of relatives in the US and UK. Almost all the adults are well-educated professionals. ALL OF THEM obtained their degrees and professional credentials in the US and UK.
     
    And why did you and those others leave to get your degrees in the US or UK? Perhaps because Nigeria could not supply the kinds of educational opportunities beneficial to someone with your intellect? Or were you somehow randomly selected from the entire population of Nigeria? Back in Nigeria were your parents part of the elite or peasants in the countryside? Or perhaps discriminated against Igbos?

    For each one of them innumerable other Nigerians could’ve done the same thing, given the opportunity.

     

    Proof? Not holding my breath waiting...

    I am really coming to enjoy the "can" and "could" constructions in arguments like this. They provide a great tell for unjustified assumptions.

    P.S. As Tyrion asks: Who do you think you are persuading?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Tyrion says:
    @utu
    His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean. Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture.

    If Africans in the US are not part of African elites and their children outperform African American children then explaining this is even more difficult within the realm of Richard Lynn's creation.

    I understand his point. It just contains a bunch of unfounded assertions. I am at a loss as to how to point this out in a more digestible manner. I will try for the fourth time. You can read any of my previous three efforts and they all mean the same thing, but expressed in different ways. They also all more than answer your post here.

    Let me try again:

    His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean.

    Or they regress towards the mean for African elites. Or they regress towards the human mean. Or they regress towards the mean for non-Chinese. Or they regress towards the Gentile mean. Or they regress towards for the mean for people who are darker than a mocha coffee. Or those with curly hair. Or those not born in Svalbard.

    Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture.

    And black Harvard grads have smarter children than Chinese peasants. So what?

    If Africans in the US are not part of African elites and their children outperform African American children then explaining this is even more difficult within the realm of Richard Lynn’s creation

    1. Africans in the U.S. clearly tend to come from the highest African achievers. Anyone familiar with them who denies this is plain lying. If Chanda asserts this then this conversation is over and I am blocking him. It would prove beyond all doubt that he is uninterested in dialectic. It would be akin to claiming that in-country income does not correlate to IQ.

    2. Only if we assume that the grouping ‘black American descendants of slaves’ is qualitatively the same as the grouping ‘recent black African immigrants to the US’.

    I see no reason to believe this and none is offered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Or they regress towards the mean for African elites. Or they regress towards the human mean. Or they regress towards the mean for non-Chinese. Or they regress towards the Gentile mean. Or they regress towards for the mean for people who are darker than a mocha coffee. Or those with curly hair. Or those not born in Svalbard.

    I am afraid you lost control of yourself. Think more. Talk less. And do not fall in love with your arguments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. matt says:
    @szopen
    Wicherts, Dolan, Maas, 2010, "A systematic literature review of average IQ of sub-saharan Africans". When I read it few years ago I thought they were biased, but right now I think their reported values are more close to reality. They report studies giving Nigerian IQ from 77 to 98.6, with their estimation of Nigerian IQ to being 83.8 (95% confidence interval for it being inbetween 79.9 and 87.6).

    It's also frustrating that so many people still don't get the Chandy Chisala's arguments and repeat the same tired cliches. It's not about there being some top scrabble or chess players. Once again, it's about - given the size of the population, postulated standard deviation and average IQ plus known characteristics of player's base population, it's impossible to be THAT many good players.

    In contrast, the Wicherts' et al estimations (maybe even corrected up to 85) could explain the facts.
    They would not, however, explain RPA, since their estimation for RPA is 77; however, with IQ 85, the results are plausible.

    All in all, definetely Lynn's values for subsaharan Africa are untenable.

    If Wicherts et al. are right that sub-Saharan IQ is ~80, then they’re only .33 SD away from adult African Americans. Given the massive environmental deficit that has to exist between adult African Americans and SS Africa, it’s unlikely that the ~20% Euro admixture in African Americans does them much good. If, as you yourself say might be the case, SSA IQ is as high as 85, then the hereditarian hypothesis is toast. A hypothesis of sub-Saharan African genetic superiority would be more tenable than one of European superiority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Not really. The difference between Wicherts and Lynn is that Wicherts is arguing one should not take into the account tests of uneducated malnourished kids with malaria, because they are not representative, while Lynn is saying one should, because most of Africans are malnourished, plagued with malaria and uneducated. The problem with Lynn argument is that Africa nowadays has better healthcare, less malnourished and better educated than 50 years ago.

    Moreover, from all the other evidence it looks like shared environment is pretty much non-influential on people except for the most extreme environments in a modern society. Once you provide basics, kids are just fine. Seems that kids in Africa are being provided with basics already.

    As for 20% admixture of European genes, it's not like all Europeans are equal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. szopen says:
    @Krastos the Gluemaker
    Yeah, this has been way insane given that nobody, Thompson too, has even given any statements that remotely sound like they know what they are talking about. Comparing performance of AI to humans, understanding combinatoric game theory (non-deterministic and PI vs non-PI games are huge distinctions) and so on is where to start. Also having any clue about other comparable games, competitions, etc. would help because Scrabble is possibly not in the top 100 non-physical sport games or competitions worldwide. All this effort to try to produce inflated estimates about Scrabble players is hilarious as the net effect of all this work helps conclusively establish reasonable bounds (even self-selected, self-reported elite Scrabble players don't outperform median US college students from certain peer reviewed studies, kek)

    Anyway I suppose I should lay out the following sometime, so might as well be now. These are all much better estimates than the nonsense usually found on the net.

    Median IQ of various groups: (means rarely differ and only for some of the very small sample size groups)

    SMPY~ 130
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 1950~ 135-140
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 2000~ 135-140 (probably just slightly lower than above, but less variance)
    Intel science fair finalists~130

    Elite Poker Players~ 110-120
    Elite Scrabble Players~115
    Elite "generic shooter/fighting" videogame players~110 (use 110-120 as a standin for other random videogames)
    Elite Rubik's Cube solvers ("Cubers")~120-130 (most difficult to gather evidence here imo)
    Elite Starcraft Players~130 (BW obvs)
    Elite Go Players~120-130
    Elite Chess Players~130-140 (a bit depends on definitions and historical periods included)

    Ivy League university bachelor's graduates~120
    Billionaires~120

    "IQology" suffers from very poor statistical and logical understanding when it tries to examine things on tails, granted standard assumptions about percentiles and normal distributions and so forth for IQ as a metric. If you start claiming every champion poker player is 180 IQ or whatever, many billionaires are 180, etc. you would actually run out 180 IQ people very very fast. Instead all sorts of these things are loosely correlated and even more poorly correlated on the tails, maybe people at least understand that poker, for instance, is a heavily luck-based event (and computers way outperform humans under certain circumstances anyway much as they have for a long time in other games and events)

    I'm probably forgetting some category or another but I think I covered most of the usual canards. Of course groups like mensa have always failed to understand Poisson distributions and made unjustified claims that are still in the popular consciousness but this new sort of wrong understanding of games and other outcomes is actually one of the most outrageously wrong claims I've ever seen on the Unz Review. And look at some of the other stuff published as articles!

    Of course in summary Chisala's arguments boil down to "there exist a black man with, say, 115 IQ" which of course means absolutely nothing and is pointless. Getting the rest of this former picture right is a more interesting topic though.

    No, Chanda’s argument does not boil down to this. Ignore for a moment the data abotu female representation at the top (or lack of it), just assume females are not at the toip because they do not care enough to play it.

    Think about Gabon, which managed to put SEVEN players in top competition, where they competed with whites too.

    Lynn postulated Gabon has IQ of 64.
    It is also postulated that blacks have lower SD than whites.

    That would means that roughly 0.013% of Gabon’s population is above IQ 115 for IQ 64 and SD even only so low as 14, and not 12 as postulated by some. With 12, it is 0,001%.

    Gabon is a small country, with a very young population. Meaning some half a million people eligible for the competition. That would mean that with normal distribution there would be FIVE people in Gabon with IQ above 115 with Lynn’s data, 40 with IQ 70 and SD 12, and 670 with IQ 70 and SD 15. Having a pool of people above 115 with size of about one thousand (give or take) and postulate even one percent of them decide to pursue careers in scrabble is not very reasonable.

    That’s why I wrote Lynn’s number are untenable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion

    Think about Gabon, which managed to put SEVEN players in top competition, where they competed with whites too.
     
    Definition of 'trying to dig yourself out of a hole'

    =

    Trying to refute a mountain of evidence using the performance of seven Gabonese at a game where the key 'top competition' skill is rote learning...
    , @Krastos the Gluemaker
    Yeah, this is in line with something I said before and I see this point, though few are making it well or addressing this. I'll be responding to some other comments later but this is quick.

    I don't care about any of Lynn's specific numbers like that; my purpose here is supporting the claims I made.

    My default assumption (not saying this is necessarily true, and obviously given populations like Bushmen it's insane to expect every ethnic subgroup in all of Africa to the same) for the sake of argument here is that black Africans might have a genotypic IQ of 85.

    Nothing Chanda Chisala has ever posted contradicts the above, both arguing about selective immigration to the US, and this Scrabble nonsense (where the egregious estimate of Scrabble player eliteness was still far more galling). I don't think "the only point" is accurate because it's almost just a strawman for a much broader argument; one can see the author was cherrypicking stories about immigration after some arbitrary larger attack on "hereditarianism" well before this Scrabble debacle even started.

    Anything from endogamous subgroups in a country's population with a slightly different distribution to an upper class that avoids environmental disadvantages could create more of a range and variance than the assumption you mention of the entire country's population having a specific mean and sd. (I don't believe anyway that g is normally distributed so perfectly, especially at the tails, even between men and women there might be bimodal distributions in a given population...)

    So granted my default position (for the argument I don't really care about here either) might be somehow more generous than people (if they exist) who are trying to defend Lynn as religious apologists would. Though the observed population means reflecting the influence environment (and the measurement process and measurement bias) doesn't guarantee there is even a contradiction.

    Also I think the current living population of black Americans has much less than 20-25% white admixture, wherever that myth comes from, but I have other points to get to later and would rather cut down on responses to my comments I'd have to respond to later, so please anyone who was mentioning this, any more better, solid sources? Thanks in advance for the courtesy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Tyrion says:
    @Okechukwu
    The selection bias argument to explain the success of Africans in the US is another theory that can’t withstand even more scrutiny. There is a selection bias in immigration only insofar as it selects for people with sponsors in the United States. It doesn’t select for anything else, including intelligence or IQ or whatever. The United States doesn’t care if the prospective immigrant is a genius or an imbecile. If the imbecile is the one that has a sponsor that can help him and is able to provide some surety of financial support, he's much more likely than the genius to be allowed to immigrate.

    To give you an example, my fiancée is a young, white German woman who is a PhD candidate in molecular biology with an emphasis on cancer research. She's everything you would think immigration is looking for. But they don't seem to want her. They interrogate her aggressively every time she comes here seemingly to dissuade her from ever showing up again. And to get her status changed to permanent resident has been an ongoing struggle of epic proportions. We're using an immigration attorney, and it's still a hellish experience.

    Most European scientists would like to live and work in the United States because this country is the epicenter of scientific research. Added to which, the English language is the language of scientific research. Just to give you an idea of how powerful English is in science, my fiancée is doing her doctoral thesis in English even though it's going to be submitted to a German university. The point is, these brilliant scientists cannot immigrate to the United States. Deans of universities can write letters for them. Scientific research centers can vouch for them. They can even have a job waiting for them in important scientific fields. But none of it matters. They simply can’t immigrate here. They’re not wanted because they don’t have viable and credible sponsors.

    Cool story bruh. Was anybody supposed to learn anything from your anecdote except that you are exceptionally proud to be marrying a white person?

    And she’s a really lucky girl to be marrying someone who primarily sees her that way…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    Cool story bruh. Was anybody supposed to learn anything from your anecdote except that you are exceptionally proud to be marrying a white person?

    And she’s a really lucky girl to be marrying someone who primarily sees her that way…
     

    Gee, it slipped my mind that your ridiculous ideology holds that white women are these heavenly, ethereal, perfect creatures. Apparently most of you guys have never been with one.

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there's no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn't).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Stan d Mute
    TL:DR

    Can we take this jackass at his word? Ron? Can you enforce his promise that it's his "last words" here? Please? Tiny Duck says the exact same thing but far more concisely.

    It is boring to exhaustion to see yet another "Africans be smart" screed when ANYONE with eyes, ears, and gray matter between them can glance at Africa and see the fruits of this "African intelligence" for themselves. The ONLY reason this clown can even communicate is that we were too dumb to treat Africa like the Andaman Islands. Otherwise he'd be happily munching on his neighbors and hoping (in vain) one of his cousins would invent the wheel or numbers or writing.

    It’s actually somewhat interesting to see what has been thousands of hours of effort by the originators of this debate, Thompson, and various commenters, and the evidence they produce.

    Damning for the social sciences and their methodology (lol self-voluteering selection and low sample sizes), and hilarious for the Scrabble community, given all that work produced not a shred of evidence of particularly high IQ in the Scrabble community, but interesting. To me it’s been like something that was supposed to be a discussion about DNA where creationists showed up with a particular creationist meme (the laws of thermodynamics mean life couldn’t be possible, entropy rah rah) and straight up ignore what DNA is in the first place. Lack of domain expertise and discussion of game theory is killer; it’s definitely only been Karlin and other anon commenters who understood that in this whole saga.

    As an aside responding to Tiny Duck and some others, people really underestimate the diversity of viewpoints on this website; there are even plenty of leftists who comment on various authors’ blogs. Maybe take up pure economic class Orthodox Marxism as your next angle.

    I did remember one thing I wanted to mention sometime, which is that the Putnam exam is the only real exam worth considering in a NA context, and one of few if any others in the world, for ROC on actual high performers. In other words, of people who score high on the Putnam exam, the median IQ/g is probably something like 145. Nothing at the high school level comes close, reflecting self-sorting, time and effort, rich parents or private school tutors or equivalent factors.

    Maybe something like 3% of high IQ (eg 150 or some threshold like that) people born in America attending US universities ever participated in the Putnam exam, or whatever the true value is it’s an extremely high number in comparison. Other things have much much lower potential participation rates, well below 1%, partly because things like school acceleration directly interfere, or direct mutual exclusion between events and so on. Whenever a person with IQ 150 or whatever does participate in such things they might do well, but that’s not the median participant.

    Of course gaming and other various pursuits have even lower participation rates than anything is school. There are still tons of false positives and false negatives on various criteria that are loosely correlated with IQ everywhere or at the tails.

    Everybody knows all these things, or at least informed commenters around here do, even about things like the infamous Terman study that excluded future Nobel Prize winners.

    As far as Chisala’s main point, I actually personally agree more than most on a few things: estimates of average IQ of races could be highly distorted by bias and measurement problems and there are lesser differences than alt-rightists might think. However missing the concept of genotypic vs phenotypic IQ, not understanding selection biases, how immigration works, regression to the mean, all that is frustrating. Nothing contradicts the idea that some ethnicity of Africans has a genotypic IQ of say 85 (ie the genotypic IQ is not as low as the final reported measurements) or even that there are subgroups, upper class differences, etc. where a smaller population would be in the 90′s, while the observed (phenotypic) results of African IQ of course include the effects of environmental degradation. (and higher classes/immigrants to the first world/any group that misses out on environmental disadvantages simply doesn’t have those same effects)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @RaceRealist88
    "We KNOW Africans are 50,000-100,000 years behind in evolution."

    ..... This has to be the stupidest comment I've ever read at Unz Review.

    Why stupid rather than just arguably wrong if he means, as he probably does, that Africans are largely stuck with the alleles for cognitive ability (and maybe some unspecified qualities) that were present in similar proportions before the move of small numbers of homo sapiens out of Africa? His thesis is presumably that vital mutations for survival in Eurasia spread quickly in the small groups that survived before those populations grew large from narrow genetic bases as conditions improved whereas any such mutations had little chance of becoming common in African populations which were already large and in which no great selective advantage was provided in the absence of glaciers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    Why stupid rather than just arguably wrong if he means, as he probably does, that Africans are largely stuck with the alleles for cognitive ability (and maybe some unspecified qualities) that were present in similar proportions before the move of small numbers of homo sapiens out of Africa? His thesis is presumably that vital mutations for survival in Eurasia spread quickly in the small groups that survived before those populations grew large from narrow genetic bases as conditions improved whereas any such mutations had little chance of becoming common in African populations which were already large and in which no great selective advantage was provided in the absence of glaciers.
     
    It's stupid and wrong. Evolution doesn't stop. I've seen numerous people over the year claim that Africans 'didn't evolve' after the migration OoA and so are 'behind in evolution' (whatever that means). And cold winter theory doesn't make sense.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/cold-winters-and-the-evolution-intelligence

    Even then, there is evidence that evolution occurs 'faster' in warmer climes.

    https://www.livescience.com/715-evolution-occurs-faster-equator.html

    And "Tropical environments provide more evolutionary challenges than do the environments of temperate and cold lands."

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMwNy8yNzgyNjMwNg==/10.2307%4027826306.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @res

    SMPY~ 130
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 1950~ 135-140
    Perfect scorers on SAT, 2000~ 135-140 (probably just slightly lower than above, but less variance)
     
    Those numbers demonstrate significant ignorance. The SMPY had multiple cohorts ranging from top 1% (a bit over 130 IQ) to top 0.01% (more like 160 IQ). Here is one of the many SMPY papers: https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/02/Top1in100001.pdf

    The 1995 SAT recentering changed the ceiling about 100 points (roughly 10 IQ points). The pre-1995 SAT ceiling was around IQ 160.

    Apologies site-side if this comment was somehow duplicated

    No, I’m right.

    I know you’re a commenter worth responding to and this is a pernicious myth, so let’s see if I can be clear enough and I’ll edit this better than a usual drive by.

    Individual test sections of the SAT never had a ceiling above 130, could have been lower sometimes, and taking into account the Flynn effect and ses biases really old tests have other questionable issues too. Although there is some correlation with “grit” and IQ and ease of test-taking and so on such that total scores reflect a little higher; high scorers on all sections will be a little higher than a model of each section+pure random change.

    To think otherwise requires someone to literally not understand how multiple choice tests work, or more complicated concepts like Poisson distributions. Or most charitably, foreigners who don’t understand and have no experience with the SAT (or corresponding tests) because claims otherwise are crazy uninformed, the SAT ceiling really has been around 130 since forever, and of course correlation with g (or an actual instantiation of an IQ test score) is not even close to perfect.

    The IRT data really, really reflect this (also funny things like large proportions of students scoring below guessing percentages, at least on certain questions, but to be fair they are kids)

    Suppose something like an athletic quotient existed (AQ) and you got 10 million test subjects and wanted them to shoot basketballs.

    So, you put everybody on the OPPOSITE side of the court and have them shoot a basketball, awarding perfect scores to those who make the shot. You could award partial but lower scores for hitting the backboard or something but that’s not relevant to our hypothetical, just an analogy.

    Even in only 1 out of 7000 or something shooters do so, that does not mean that those who made the shot are the best basketball players in the sample or in the word, or that the AQ is correspondingly high. In percentile terms, they in that corresponding percentile of performance, but do not have an AQ of 150whatever. Rather, the people who made the shot would on the median be a group of someone like 130 AQ folks (healthy, relatively fit adult males) who just got lucky. Maybe zero 100 AQ people make the difficult basketball set shot, but that’s not our concern. Likewise, an actual professional basketball player with a lot of experience and training might have a slightly higher chance of making the random, difficult shot than the median 130 AQ subject, but then such subjects would be vanishingly rare.

    Now basketball throwing would seem random in this context even though it’s not “really truly random”, but the SAT is literally a multiple choice test with a huge probability of students semi-randomly guessing at MC questions, besides other forms of random variance (relative to trying to equate the test to g or something). If Student A answers 48 MC questions and randomly guesses at 2 and Student B does the same they can get different scores, raw or scaled.

    Brief interlude, but one thing a ton of people don’t understand is that changes in the SAT before the 1995 scoring changes also exist, and not just on the fake social justice issues like removing rare “classist” questions, but on actually changing the expected difficulty of the exam. Some of the only publicly available/peer-reviewed studies on the SAT in old timeframes like that discuss this. In other words, the most notable purposeful decline in “hard questions” occurred might have in the mid-1980s, at any rate there was such a change, while the nonlinear scoring change that happened later isn’t really the same thing, even though it’s what everybody cites.

    In our basketball analogy, this would be like giving also credit to shooters who also shot a ball that bounced out of the inside of the rim on a nonlinear scoring scale; but it changes very little about the “raw” data or the overall picture (It’s not that everybody perfect shot is literally by a 160 AQ subject)

    Realistically, because of the variance of multiple choice tests, and massive influences of things like that internet, the largest effects on tail-end changes in SAT scores are due to changes in test-taking behavior, like leaving multiple choice questions blank. In other words, it’s probable that many 1950s era (or whatever old timey period you choose) test takers did things like leave questions blank while post-Internet era moderners did not, and again, it’s mostly or entirely (depending on iteration and section) a multiple choice test so brute force random guessing will go a long way. (there are not that many “hard” questions, and well, one should know the statistical concepts in the prior paragraphs anyway, law of large numbers and all. Also, if the reason for different score distributions in the past was that students got “easy” questions wrong or something then that raises entirely different questions a la the Flynn effect and savvy people like us would have to puzzle that out ignoring old social scientists or nutty groups like mensa)

    I do think there was a bit of a deliberate effort, even before the third section introduction or other such changes, to make girls score higher relative to boys, in a smoky room IRT test designer choice sense, and that has some effects on test prep effectiveness or suchlike, but the SAT never had that high of ceilings.

    FWIW, there are some very important hypotheses to consider about the consequences of such statistics, but no public data is available and politically correct social science types wouldn’t want them to be. For instance, the small number of non-multiple choice math questions might present vastly different IRT results for smaller population subgroups (eg blacks) that are overlooked and themselves a potential concern for test unfairness (since students in bulk still randomly guess at MC questions, but the question would be what causes one black student to get a higher score than another on the margin, in a test fairness sense)

    Age related scaling of the SAT is even more unreliable and probably reflects things like family SES a lot. It’s actually ridiculous (and pathetic) that of social scientists who have studied groups of young children, to produce their data points they sometimes erroneously use things like a “Cognitive Age/Real Age” sort of calculation which of course is discredited pseudoscience. That was never valid for actual IQ tests anyway, but ignorant social scientists who aren’t even geneticists or involved in psychometrics still wind up with crazy old concepts in their published papers.

    I think in the end we’re mostly missing a little bit of understanding of measurement variance as well as median.

    Again, anyone who recalls the myths about someone like Feynman with low test scores or lack of Nobel Prizes won by random perfect test scorers should be conceptually familiar with this. It’s actually a real weak point of the general IQology internet field.

    Particularly elite groups (SMPY, science fairs) will contain some number, sometimes, of IQ 150, 160 types, but the median will often be right around the threshold/barely above it (or science fairs are even more randomly influenced by ses-like factors) and those who participated often get there with a good amount of help from random chance; there are plenty of 130 IQ people in the population who also missed cutoffs or thresholds on the “measurement.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    also funny things like large proportions of students scoring below guessing percentages, at least on certain questions, but to be fair they are kids

    This statement does not make much sense. Are you saying that adults when they know they do not know the answer they deploy personal portable random number generator in order to maximize the outcome as group? Besides often they do not know they do not know.
    , @res
    Interesting comment.

    Your basic idea and the point of your extended analogy is that the SAT is an imperfect proxy for IQ, right?

    I agree with that as I stated it, but I think we disagree rather strongly about how large that imperfection is. The correlation is high and my personal experience has been that near ceiling scores on the pre-1995 SAT are highly suggestive of IQ significantly above 130.

    Brief interlude, but one thing a ton of people don’t understand is that changes in the SAT before the 1995 scoring changes also exist, and not just on the fake social justice issues like removing rare “classist” questions, but on actually changing the expected difficulty of the exam. Some of the only publicly available/peer-reviewed studies on the SAT in old timeframes like that discuss this. In other words, the most notable purposeful decline in “hard questions” occurred might have in the mid-1980s, at any rate there was such a change, while the nonlinear scoring change that happened later isn’t really the same thing, even though it’s what everybody cites.
     
    There were changes both before and after 1995. I looked into this a fair bit a while ago. Here is a comment with much of what I found. In particular see the final link for information on the older SATs: https://www.unz.com/isteve/david-colemans-travails-revamping-the-sat/#comment-1816562
    There were significant changes in 1974 in particular.

    I don't see evidence for major changes in the mid-1980s but I am open to additional evidence.

    but the median will often be right around the threshold/barely above it
     
    If you look at the numbers it makes perfect sense. At the tails the normal distribution declines steeply. If you look at truncated distributions above 2-3SD you will find that the expected mean and median are close to the threshold. Seeing anything else is evidence that something else is going on (e.g. the real threshold is higher than expected, fat tails or other non-normality, etc.).

    and those who participated often get there with a good amount of help from random chance; there are plenty of 130 IQ people in the population who also missed cutoffs or thresholds on the “measurement.”
     
    An excellent point. If there is much noise the much greater population at e.g. 130 IQ will cause exactly that effect. A good reason not to trust any single piece of evidence and instead look for a body of confirming evidence. The question is how much noise to estimate for different pieces of evidence? And if there are any special circumstances-like the top quoted SAT score for someone who took the test many times and taught (not attended) test prep classes before that.

    Thinking about this is helped greatly by remembering the following. More at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule
    I think the time interpretation of frequency given there is helpful for intuition.

    Population frequencies at different thresholds on the normal curve:
    mean - 1 in 2
    +1 SD - 1 in 6
    +2 SD - 1 in 44 (I often round to 1 in 50 or 2%, this is 130 IQ, aka Mensa threshold)
    +3 SD - 1 in 740
    (last two rounded)
    +4 SD - 1 in 30,000
    +5 SD - 1 in 3.5 million
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Okechukwu
    Chanda,

    You're casting pearls at swine here. These people are hardcore dead-enders. Literally, many of them would rather jump from a tall building than concede that their pretensions to supremacy are based on pure rubbish.

    But your work has found its way to more rational, more thoughtful, more enlightened and (dare I say) more intelligent people. I often see your articles linked and referenced in atmospheres not filled with brainwashed cultists. Your work has been well-received and has gone a long way to knocking down the frail house of cards these people will tend to erect.


    Great work. It's very much appreciated.

    Zombie mentally ill… Piriod. Only way seems killing them. Idiotic people is the most stubborn. They never learn.

    But with that nick name
    ..huummm

    Another CLEVER “igbo”???

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Spoken like a redneck Zionist Jew who hates white gentiles, hence you promote the fake '6M Jews' nonsense.

    What the hell are you talking about?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Tyrion says:
    @Okechukwu

    From the brain drain data linked above. In 2010 of the Nigerian men in the US we have 79943 in the high skill group (tertiary education), 9632 in the medium skill group, and 1786 in the low skill group.

    Looks selective to me. I think it is your argument which does not withstand actual data.
     
    Do you even understand what a brain drain is? Nigerians who obtain their education and credentials in the US or UK do not constitute a brain drain. A brain drain is when those already educated and practicing a high-skill profession leave a country.

    I'm a Nigerian. I have dozens of relatives in the US and UK. Almost all the adults are well-educated professionals. ALL OF THEM obtained their degrees and professional credentials in the US and UK. For each one of them innumerable other Nigerians could've done the same thing, given the opportunity.

    I’m a Nigerian. I have dozens of relatives in the US and UK. Almost all the adults are well-educated professionals. ALL OF THEM obtained their degrees and professional credentials in the US and UK. For each one of them innumerable other Nigerians could’ve done the same thing, given the opportunity.

    Who do you think you are persuading?

    Most Nigerians don’t have flushing toilets at home. They are incapable of procuring them; so stop pretending that somehow most are capable of procuring transport to America and an American tertiary education.

    What is this influx of bold-faced lying Africans? All of your prose is fine so you’re clearly all intelligent and well-educated, so why the lying? Surely you must be smart enough to know that only an idiot would fall for the claim that African immigrants to America are cognitively average for Africa.

    Read More
    • Agree: res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Tyrion says:

    Chanda,

    I was close to neutral on this point. Having now thought about it, at length, and considered your article, I have now swung quite strongly away from your position.

    This is because:

    1. You and your supporters insist on pretending that African migrants to developed countries are representative of Africa as a whole. I say ‘pretending’ because every single fact points to the opposite. I cannot believe that any of you believe this.

    2. You rely on a false interpretation of regression to the mean and repeatedly ignore explanations of why it is a fantasy. In light of point 1, I have come to the conclusion that this too is purposeful.

    3. Your argument relies on silly games like Scrabble and Draughts. These are not much more cognitively demanding than dominoes. Some clown won the French world championship but couldn’t even speak French, which is impressive but also shows how undifferentiated the winners must be.

    Were you to pick Chess, Go, Nobel prizes, great inventions, civilizational achievments or, even better, actual IQ tests to prove your point then I would be very receptive. I know a lot of people from Africa. I like them very much. On the other hand, I recognise that all are most definitely in the top 1% in pretty much every socio-economic and cognitive measure in the countries they come from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Please don't let poor arguments and purposeful attempts to mislead by some of the proponents persuade you there is nothing to the idea.

    In my opinion the issue is more with overreach in the arguments. I agree with szopen that significant success in Scrabble is evidence against an estimated IQ of 64 in Gabon (though we may disagree on details). Take a look at my normal curve frequency numbers just above.

    My explanation is some combination of the following (exact proportions unknown and IMHO currently unknowable due to lack of data):

    - Environmental depression of IQ in much of the African population. In other words, genetic IQ potential is greater than apparent from phenotypic IQ (but closer to 10 IQ points than 30 IMO).
    - High likelihood of a correlation of environment with IQ. High IQ parents are more likely to provide good environments for their children. Thus the elites are closer to their genetic IQ potential. This fattens the IQ tail IMO.
    - Subpopulations with higher IQs. For example the Igbo. This makes the IQ curve non-normal. I sometimes colloquially refer to this as fat-tailed, but this is a specific form of fat tail.
    - Verbal affinity and ability are typically greater for Africans at a given IQ than for other populations. This directs high ability individuals towards Scrabble rather than games like Chess or Go.
    - A special effort (e.g. coaches) by Africans to succeed at Scrabble followed by a positive feedback loop based on initial success.

    The extent of environmental IQ depression in Africa is important for making assessments of the potential for African development. I wish there was more data and less rhetoric surrounding this. A good start would be for African countries to collect better intelligence and education (both input like #years and results like test scores) data.

    Some people appear to be trying to use the Scrabble data to argue that in equivalent environments African average IQs will rise to match the US or UK white mean of 100 (or is that the still higher East Asian and Jewish means?). Good luck with that.

    P.S. The selective immigration argument does not really apply to Scrabble performance in Africans in their native countries. It is much more relevant to Chanda's arguments based on the high performance of Africans in the UK. The denials of it are ridiculous and annoying (especially given the data I presented!), but don't really affect the overall argument here.

    P.P.S. Do you disagree with my regression towards the mean statements in comment 156?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Bill says:
    @szopen
    Yes, if the IQ distribution has fat tail - but this would have to be very fat tail for Gabon.

    But gaussian distribution is very reasonable assumption. IQ is influenced by hundreds of factors, which can be treated as random variables. Now, tell me, what shape has a complex random variable built from hundreds of independent random variables?

    It’s not just tail fatness. A distribution you make, for example, by p-mixing other distributions doesn’t just have fat tails, it has lots of differences with a symmetric, uni-modal distribution like the normal.

    There is no reason at all to think that the normal is a good approximation to the distribution of any interesting characteristic in any population big enough to have sub-populations in it.

    We may form our intuition by thinking about well-mixed populations, but mother nature has no obligation to form her intuition that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Bill, what do you think of my multifactorial argument just above this?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Tyrion says:
    @szopen
    No, Chanda's argument does not boil down to this. Ignore for a moment the data abotu female representation at the top (or lack of it), just assume females are not at the toip because they do not care enough to play it.

    Think about Gabon, which managed to put SEVEN players in top competition, where they competed with whites too.

    Lynn postulated Gabon has IQ of 64.
    It is also postulated that blacks have lower SD than whites.

    That would means that roughly 0.013% of Gabon's population is above IQ 115 for IQ 64 and SD even only so low as 14, and not 12 as postulated by some. With 12, it is 0,001%.

    Gabon is a small country, with a very young population. Meaning some half a million people eligible for the competition. That would mean that with normal distribution there would be FIVE people in Gabon with IQ above 115 with Lynn's data, 40 with IQ 70 and SD 12, and 670 with IQ 70 and SD 15. Having a pool of people above 115 with size of about one thousand (give or take) and postulate even one percent of them decide to pursue careers in scrabble is not very reasonable.

    That's why I wrote Lynn's number are untenable.

    Think about Gabon, which managed to put SEVEN players in top competition, where they competed with whites too.

    Definition of ‘trying to dig yourself out of a hole’

    =

    Trying to refute a mountain of evidence using the performance of seven Gabonese at a game where the key ‘top competition’ skill is rote learning…

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Listen, it's not "refuting evidence". The results of IQ tests are as they are. They were certainly cheery picked by both Wicherts and Lynn. For example, for Nigeria you have bunch of papers testing Nigerians which gave the IQ estimation ranging from 70 to 98.6IQ. I used to believe more in Lynn (where he ignored higher IQ tests results, arguing they come from elite samples) than in Wicherts (who did the opposite, arguing lower results come from malnourished, uneducated samples). But it's not like saying "Lynn is wrong with his derived IQ of 64 for Gabonese" is the same as "every single IQ researcher who did tests in Gabon is wrong".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. utu says:
    @Krastos the Gluemaker
    Apologies site-side if this comment was somehow duplicated

    No, I'm right.

    I know you're a commenter worth responding to and this is a pernicious myth, so let's see if I can be clear enough and I'll edit this better than a usual drive by.

    Individual test sections of the SAT never had a ceiling above 130, could have been lower sometimes, and taking into account the Flynn effect and ses biases really old tests have other questionable issues too. Although there is some correlation with "grit" and IQ and ease of test-taking and so on such that total scores reflect a little higher; high scorers on all sections will be a little higher than a model of each section+pure random change.

    To think otherwise requires someone to literally not understand how multiple choice tests work, or more complicated concepts like Poisson distributions. Or most charitably, foreigners who don't understand and have no experience with the SAT (or corresponding tests) because claims otherwise are crazy uninformed, the SAT ceiling really has been around 130 since forever, and of course correlation with g (or an actual instantiation of an IQ test score) is not even close to perfect.

    The IRT data really, really reflect this (also funny things like large proportions of students scoring below guessing percentages, at least on certain questions, but to be fair they are kids)

    Suppose something like an athletic quotient existed (AQ) and you got 10 million test subjects and wanted them to shoot basketballs.

    So, you put everybody on the OPPOSITE side of the court and have them shoot a basketball, awarding perfect scores to those who make the shot. You could award partial but lower scores for hitting the backboard or something but that's not relevant to our hypothetical, just an analogy.

    Even in only 1 out of 7000 or something shooters do so, that does not mean that those who made the shot are the best basketball players in the sample or in the word, or that the AQ is correspondingly high. In percentile terms, they in that corresponding percentile of performance, but do not have an AQ of 150whatever. Rather, the people who made the shot would on the median be a group of someone like 130 AQ folks (healthy, relatively fit adult males) who just got lucky. Maybe zero 100 AQ people make the difficult basketball set shot, but that's not our concern. Likewise, an actual professional basketball player with a lot of experience and training might have a slightly higher chance of making the random, difficult shot than the median 130 AQ subject, but then such subjects would be vanishingly rare.

    Now basketball throwing would seem random in this context even though it's not "really truly random", but the SAT is literally a multiple choice test with a huge probability of students semi-randomly guessing at MC questions, besides other forms of random variance (relative to trying to equate the test to g or something). If Student A answers 48 MC questions and randomly guesses at 2 and Student B does the same they can get different scores, raw or scaled.

    Brief interlude, but one thing a ton of people don't understand is that changes in the SAT before the 1995 scoring changes also exist, and not just on the fake social justice issues like removing rare "classist" questions, but on actually changing the expected difficulty of the exam. Some of the only publicly available/peer-reviewed studies on the SAT in old timeframes like that discuss this. In other words, the most notable purposeful decline in "hard questions" occurred might have in the mid-1980s, at any rate there was such a change, while the nonlinear scoring change that happened later isn't really the same thing, even though it's what everybody cites.

    In our basketball analogy, this would be like giving also credit to shooters who also shot a ball that bounced out of the inside of the rim on a nonlinear scoring scale; but it changes very little about the "raw" data or the overall picture (It's not that everybody perfect shot is literally by a 160 AQ subject)

    Realistically, because of the variance of multiple choice tests, and massive influences of things like that internet, the largest effects on tail-end changes in SAT scores are due to changes in test-taking behavior, like leaving multiple choice questions blank. In other words, it's probable that many 1950s era (or whatever old timey period you choose) test takers did things like leave questions blank while post-Internet era moderners did not, and again, it's mostly or entirely (depending on iteration and section) a multiple choice test so brute force random guessing will go a long way. (there are not that many "hard" questions, and well, one should know the statistical concepts in the prior paragraphs anyway, law of large numbers and all. Also, if the reason for different score distributions in the past was that students got "easy" questions wrong or something then that raises entirely different questions a la the Flynn effect and savvy people like us would have to puzzle that out ignoring old social scientists or nutty groups like mensa)

    I do think there was a bit of a deliberate effort, even before the third section introduction or other such changes, to make girls score higher relative to boys, in a smoky room IRT test designer choice sense, and that has some effects on test prep effectiveness or suchlike, but the SAT never had that high of ceilings.

    FWIW, there are some very important hypotheses to consider about the consequences of such statistics, but no public data is available and politically correct social science types wouldn't want them to be. For instance, the small number of non-multiple choice math questions might present vastly different IRT results for smaller population subgroups (eg blacks) that are overlooked and themselves a potential concern for test unfairness (since students in bulk still randomly guess at MC questions, but the question would be what causes one black student to get a higher score than another on the margin, in a test fairness sense)

    Age related scaling of the SAT is even more unreliable and probably reflects things like family SES a lot. It's actually ridiculous (and pathetic) that of social scientists who have studied groups of young children, to produce their data points they sometimes erroneously use things like a "Cognitive Age/Real Age" sort of calculation which of course is discredited pseudoscience. That was never valid for actual IQ tests anyway, but ignorant social scientists who aren't even geneticists or involved in psychometrics still wind up with crazy old concepts in their published papers.

    I think in the end we're mostly missing a little bit of understanding of measurement variance as well as median.

    Again, anyone who recalls the myths about someone like Feynman with low test scores or lack of Nobel Prizes won by random perfect test scorers should be conceptually familiar with this. It's actually a real weak point of the general IQology internet field.

    Particularly elite groups (SMPY, science fairs) will contain some number, sometimes, of IQ 150, 160 types, but the median will often be right around the threshold/barely above it (or science fairs are even more randomly influenced by ses-like factors) and those who participated often get there with a good amount of help from random chance; there are plenty of 130 IQ people in the population who also missed cutoffs or thresholds on the "measurement."

    also funny things like large proportions of students scoring below guessing percentages, at least on certain questions, but to be fair they are kids

    This statement does not make much sense. Are you saying that adults when they know they do not know the answer they deploy personal portable random number generator in order to maximize the outcome as group? Besides often they do not know they do not know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Tutu is a RACIST/HYPER-tribalist AND a SELFISH-OPPORTUNISTIC,

    EVERY black deficience he will defend believing that he will protect or help ''your own'' people. He's denying for your own people the right to have access to their collective self-knowledge. Indeed, rich, well-behaved and/or cognitively smart blacks TEND to lean on the left but by individual reasons, they don't want be victim of ''racism' BECAUSE they tend to deal with non-black people/out of black communities much more time than most black people usually do.
    , @Krastos the Gluemaker
    Right I was just noticing that the results produced can be odd or counterintuitive to those with less experience with the situation, and merely being a test-taker oneself doesn't mean knowing better or really considering and observing how students behave. Some complicated strategy that doesn't benefit individual students isn't necessary, rather there have always been sufficient really simple strategies that some students apply and others don't. (I'm also just saying I wouldn't blame students for not doing so, and much like with sports or anything else adults have more discipline, more chance of being exposed to doing things the right way if involved in an activity, or less excuse for ignoring or disobeying authority and recommendations on such).

    If you necessary, see whatever is my next comment too for some related ideas, will probably have to argue about patently obvious things like the SAT Math ceiling, but on this and related subject:

    Merely eliminating clearly wrong/impossible answers, even on questions a student has to otherwise guess at (say due to time) has always applied to all the standardized tests along the lines of the SAT. Whether it's math, verbal sections, this same strategy produces net expected value even if not of the same magnitude for each section or type of question. A triangle with impossible sides is the wrong answer regardless of the context of the question, simply determining if the correct answer is a verb or a noun when there are a couple choices for each, all that quickly eliminating wrong answers improves chances.

    I agree the SAT (and related groups) purposefully don't design tests to maximize split of MC answers across the distribution of all students, often including trap wrong answers or whatever, that is true from experience and common sense, but it doesn't preclude the crazy stuff actual students will do. Teenagers in the past might have had even less prior experience with standardized or even sufficiently long MC tests that in the present test-heavy era students younger than HS usually would.

    Of course the “correct” way to take a test, ie for a student with 150 IQ, is something like:
    1a) Answer all the questions
    1b) Answer all the questions correctly

    Students nevertheless do insane things on their own which anyone with experience knows could be routinely improved. Not that the ability to enact test-taking strategy wouldn't be somewhat correlated with g, or that we are concerned with average students from the root topic of discussion, but much can affect the tails too. Even changes in whether there is a penalty for wrong vs blank answers, and choice of leaving answers blank, could have had effects over time.

    So my point there was that it's clearly quite likely vast changes in test taking preparation or strategy could have happened over time, especially given the secular effects of Internet-age access. I think it's possible that test structure bias in these senses, and sociocultural advantages creating bias were both somewhat meaningful and greater in the distant past (contrary to constant whinging by hippie types who hate standardized tests there would be massive declines towards the present day on this specific factor thanks to the Internet leveling playing fields and such.) So any populations further in the past, or comprising younger, non-native speakers, or otherwise unusual individuals contrasted to the intended US HS student test takers, could have differences in test taking preparation or strategy skewing assumptions about results. That's on top of non-g traits like “stamina;” there are plenty of hypotheses like young girls might proportionally have higher stamina than boys at certain ages or something accounting for discrepancies between youth performance and most typical high IQ adult distributions.

    Throwing this onto this comment, but one more factor that distorts distributions of scores at tails or at any rate can reflect vast differences and changes over time in test strategy etc. is students effectively only taking one section of the test. This doesn't mean cheating or breaking any rules or procedures of the test, just that all the time and effort can basically be put into one section, often the math questions as with thousands of present day non-citizen foreign students applying to US colleges. Huge groups of foreign students literally don't care about SAT Verbal/Reading/Writing because they have to take a separate TOEFL that universities look at, regardless of scoring 400/450/500 or whatever on the aforementioned.

    Though this could broadly differ between time periods or affect any non-standard test population (say younger students). However, the ability to focus on only one part of the test can create distortion and is not a natural or intended situation; few legitimate US test takers sit it this way. Incidentally anyone is welcome to take up this recommendation for any projects/charities like improving minority (black/Latinx) test scores, it could likely work well enough to push, say some members of a group chosen for originally scoring around 600 to 700 (a rare score for these demos) or something like that. (Focus only on the math questions on one sitting of the test and just do the rest later) Whether society/the media would be ultimately critical or favorable of gaming the test versus getting these actual results is unknown.

    imho, actual tutoring on SAT-like standardized tests probably produces lower benefits than it potentially could because tutors themselves don't know what they are doing in this sense. Tutors might try to teach crystallized knowledge in limited amounts of time, simply teach vague platitudes and inefficient strategies, or try to force students into a one-size-fits-all system, when what an individual student might need most to improve can be vastly different. This accounts for discrepancies in studies on the effects of tutoring and test prep (plus really poor adjustments for tons of things like exogenous changes over time that students experience regardless of tutoring, eg growth/maturity/improvements in stamina or crystallized knowledge from school classes.) Some of the broken clocks right twice a day around the IQology-sphere are correct in thinking the SAT is more tutorable than popular myths have it. (This again might have been even more true in the past, for the rounded off 1950 to 2000 comparison, but we lack the raw data to know exactly)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. utu says:
    @Tyrion
    I understand his point. It just contains a bunch of unfounded assertions. I am at a loss as to how to point this out in a more digestible manner. I will try for the fourth time. You can read any of my previous three efforts and they all mean the same thing, but expressed in different ways. They also all more than answer your post here.

    Let me try again:

    His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean.

    Or they regress towards the mean for African elites. Or they regress towards the human mean. Or they regress towards the mean for non-Chinese. Or they regress towards the Gentile mean. Or they regress towards for the mean for people who are darker than a mocha coffee. Or those with curly hair. Or those not born in Svalbard.

    Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture.
     
    And black Harvard grads have smarter children than Chinese peasants. So what?

    If Africans in the US are not part of African elites and their children outperform African American children then explaining this is even more difficult within the realm of Richard Lynn’s creation
     
    1. Africans in the U.S. clearly tend to come from the highest African achievers. Anyone familiar with them who denies this is plain lying. If Chanda asserts this then this conversation is over and I am blocking him. It would prove beyond all doubt that he is uninterested in dialectic. It would be akin to claiming that in-country income does not correlate to IQ.

    2. Only if we assume that the grouping 'black American descendants of slaves' is qualitatively the same as the grouping 'recent black African immigrants to the US'.

    I see no reason to believe this and none is offered.

    Or they regress towards the mean for African elites. Or they regress towards the human mean. Or they regress towards the mean for non-Chinese. Or they regress towards the Gentile mean. Or they regress towards for the mean for people who are darker than a mocha coffee. Or those with curly hair. Or those not born in Svalbard.

    I am afraid you lost control of yourself. Think more. Talk less. And do not fall in love with your arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion
    To paraphrase that Evergreen professor. You're doing debate not dialectic.

    I doubt you believe in the arguments you are proposing.
    , @Bill

    Think more. Talk less.
     
    Physician, heal thyself.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I don't want to repeat parts of his argument I agree with, including where I think he agrees with me that we have very little reliable information from Lynn, Rushton or anyone else about the great variety of àlleles in Africa and their expression in g measuring tests. But I wish to add the observation that þhe regression towards the mean mightn't be as potent as the discussion seems to propose. Suppose you have a group of elite families that have average IQs of 115, sd say 10, and it is from them that just about all with IQs over 115 go to British or American Universities. They intermarry and produce children who go to good British or American schools. What sort of effect do you expect from regression to the mean?

    Incidentally Steve Ssiler has said somewhere that the white ancestry of African-Americans is only about 16 per cent. And one has to ask "what sort of whites?". Mostly not Jeffersons I guess.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Tyrion
    Nothing in your post contradicts mine, except as to say that both Rushton and Jensen made a similar error to you, which my post was entirely open to the possibility of.

    Lumping all black Africans together as a population has some uses. But not really all that many. Expecting an Igbo child to regress towards the African mean makes as much sense as expecting an Ashkenazi child to regress towards the human mean. Or perhaps worse, expecting a member of Darwin's direct family to regress towards the human mean.

    Furthermore, comparing Black Americans as a group with Black Africans as a group you are not comparing like group with like. By lumping Black Africans together you are expecting group statistical effects for them which you have no basis for expecting.

    Now you can respond to THAT argument, instead of responding to your own simplified version of it.
     
    Pot meet kettle.

    Oh I see. So you’re actually correcting Professor Arthur Jensen’s understanding of basic statistics. For a moment there I thought you were sincere.

    The concept you seem not to grasp is the idea of “averages.” Yes, one group in the composite population may be higher than the average, but there are also other groups that, by definition, are lower than average. The regression to the mean, as I stated in my post to you, is ON AVERAGE.

    But I can now see that you’re not sincere in your confusion; you’re simply here to “correct” us. So, I resign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion

    Oh I see. So you’re actually correcting Professor Arthur Jensen’s understanding of basic statistics. For a moment there I thought you were sincere
     
    No, I was correcting what you said was Jensen's understanding of basic statistics.

    I feel compelled to make that clear.

    Otherwise, I accept your resignation and conclude that we never really disagreed.

    You were merely affecting belief in the argument you proposed in order to hopefully push it onto others.

    Since what you've written has been thoroughly refuted in this thread, it all seems a bit of a waste of time. Perhaps in the future you might try something more useful.

    I can think of a number of policies which would greatly improve the future lives of Africans if only they were widely adopted. You could suggest ways to have them adopted or propose your own? You surely understand much better what should be done than me.

    1. Re-drawing of large African states into more tribally or ethnically homogenous polities. Nigeria would be an interesting example.

    2. The self-enforcement of a one child policy in Africa. Allowing maximum investment in offspring and the conservation of Africa's very favourable natural resource to population ratio.

    3. The guiding of an African statelet along the path of Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai before it. Low taxes, stable government and an initial injection of foreign expertise could provide a shining and inspirational example to the rest of the continent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Tyrion says:
    @utu
    Or they regress towards the mean for African elites. Or they regress towards the human mean. Or they regress towards the mean for non-Chinese. Or they regress towards the Gentile mean. Or they regress towards for the mean for people who are darker than a mocha coffee. Or those with curly hair. Or those not born in Svalbard.

    I am afraid you lost control of yourself. Think more. Talk less. And do not fall in love with your arguments.

    To paraphrase that Evergreen professor. You’re doing debate not dialectic.

    I doubt you believe in the arguments you are proposing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. loyalty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. szopen says:
    @Tyrion

    Think about Gabon, which managed to put SEVEN players in top competition, where they competed with whites too.
     
    Definition of 'trying to dig yourself out of a hole'

    =

    Trying to refute a mountain of evidence using the performance of seven Gabonese at a game where the key 'top competition' skill is rote learning...

    Listen, it’s not “refuting evidence”. The results of IQ tests are as they are. They were certainly cheery picked by both Wicherts and Lynn. For example, for Nigeria you have bunch of papers testing Nigerians which gave the IQ estimation ranging from 70 to 98.6IQ. I used to believe more in Lynn (where he ignored higher IQ tests results, arguing they come from elite samples) than in Wicherts (who did the opposite, arguing lower results come from malnourished, uneducated samples). But it’s not like saying “Lynn is wrong with his derived IQ of 64 for Gabonese” is the same as “every single IQ researcher who did tests in Gabon is wrong”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Bill says:
    @utu
    Or they regress towards the mean for African elites. Or they regress towards the human mean. Or they regress towards the mean for non-Chinese. Or they regress towards the Gentile mean. Or they regress towards for the mean for people who are darker than a mocha coffee. Or those with curly hair. Or those not born in Svalbard.

    I am afraid you lost control of yourself. Think more. Talk less. And do not fall in love with your arguments.

    Think more. Talk less.

    Physician, heal thyself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @utu
    Or they regress towards the mean for African elites. Or they regress towards the human mean. Or they regress towards the mean for non-Chinese. Or they regress towards the Gentile mean. Or they regress towards for the mean for people who are darker than a mocha coffee. Or those with curly hair. Or those not born in Svalbard.

    I am afraid you lost control of yourself. Think more. Talk less. And do not fall in love with your arguments.

    I don’t want to repeat parts of his argument I agree with, including where I think he agrees with me that we have very little reliable information from Lynn, Rushton or anyone else about the great variety of àlleles in Africa and their expression in g measuring tests. But I wish to add the observation that þhe regression towards the mean mightn’t be as potent as the discussion seems to propose. Suppose you have a group of elite families that have average IQs of 115, sd say 10, and it is from them that just about all with IQs over 115 go to British or American Universities. They intermarry and produce children who go to good British or American schools. What sort of effect do you expect from regression to the mean?

    Incidentally Steve Ssiler has said somewhere that the white ancestry of African-Americans is only about 16 per cent. And one has to ask “what sort of whites?”. Mostly not Jeffersons I guess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Yes, this is Tyrion's argument which the author is pretending not to understand. Or maybe doesn't understand. Who can tell?
    , @utu
    Tyron is confused who will persist in his error because he easily falls in love with his own arguments. It is a form of intellectual Onanism or having a drink with the image in the mirror.

    For his argument Chanda wanted to lower IQ of African immigrants. Which he accomplished by invoking the regression to the mean that would apply if the immigrants were from the elite, i.e., from the above of the mean. Then the fact that these children outperform (elite) African Americans was more striking.

    If African immigrants were not from the elite then Chanda did not need to lower the IQ of their children for his argument because not being form elite their IQ would be low by American standard yet the children outperform (elite) African Americans.
    , @utu
    Suppose you have a group of elite families

    We had a discussion on breeder's eq. before I think. First of all breeder's eq. is concerned with the expected values, i.e., if parents are smarter than the population mean then their children are more likely to be less smart than parents. However smarter children than their parents also will be born but less of them. This is however OK because the Gaussian curve above parents IQ has lower values than below their IQ so to replace parents population above parent's IQ you need less children than below parent's IQ. Mathematically the 2nd generation is arrived as moving window convolution of the 1st generation Gaussian curve. The width of the smoothing window varies.

    What happens in the 3rd generations? Does the same breeder's eq. apply? I think it does. But it does not mean that "the group of elite families" will all regress to the mean because all the time also smarter children than their parents are born. This is necessitated by the fact that in the stable population of which "the group of elite families" is a part of variance does not change. It goes back to the convolution argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. szopen says:
    @matt
    If Wicherts et al. are right that sub-Saharan IQ is ~80, then they're only .33 SD away from adult African Americans. Given the massive environmental deficit that has to exist between adult African Americans and SS Africa, it's unlikely that the ~20% Euro admixture in African Americans does them much good. If, as you yourself say might be the case, SSA IQ is as high as 85, then the hereditarian hypothesis is toast. A hypothesis of sub-Saharan African genetic superiority would be more tenable than one of European superiority.

    Not really. The difference between Wicherts and Lynn is that Wicherts is arguing one should not take into the account tests of uneducated malnourished kids with malaria, because they are not representative, while Lynn is saying one should, because most of Africans are malnourished, plagued with malaria and uneducated. The problem with Lynn argument is that Africa nowadays has better healthcare, less malnourished and better educated than 50 years ago.

    Moreover, from all the other evidence it looks like shared environment is pretty much non-influential on people except for the most extreme environments in a modern society. Once you provide basics, kids are just fine. Seems that kids in Africa are being provided with basics already.

    As for 20% admixture of European genes, it’s not like all Europeans are equal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    As for 20% admixture of European genes, it’s not like all Europeans are equal.
     
    Nor all Africans. Does anyone here think slavery selected for high intelligence? I think it is fair to assume both the becoming enslaved and the living under slavery parts selected against IQ.
    , @matt
    There's no doubt that SS Africa is better off environmentally than it was 50 years ago. The question is: Is it better off today than, say, Atlanta, GA? The answer, if you're not insane, is no, not even close.

    You raise a better point about the possibility that whites who mated with blacks in the past were negatively selected. Flynn (1980: 81-83) discusses this.

    He says that since people don't normally give their sexual partners IQ tests (and they hadn't been invented during most of the relevant period anyway), the selection mechanism would have had to have been through something like social class or occupation. Even if we assume that most whites who have mated with blacks have always, throughout American history, been from the working class, working class whites just aren't that far from the white average. Flynn cites a study that put their average IQ, in 1930, at at least 95, or a phenotypic gap of at most 5 points. The genotypic gap would have to be smaller, though: if we assume a narrow-sense heritability of somewhere around what it is today, at .5, the genotypic gap between working-class and average whites would be somewhere between 2-3 points. And this is assuming that narrow-sense heritability was roughly the same as it is today, when there is no reason to rule out, and more than a few reasons to believe, that it was smaller in past centuries. Moreover, the correlation between IQ and occupational status and class must have been much weaker in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, so there's no reason to believe that even the phenotypic gap was as large as 5 points during most of the relevant period.

    Finally, there's no reason to think that it was mainly working class whites who mated with blacks during the entirety of the relevant period. During slavery, one might assume that many or most whites who mated with blacks were slave owners, who would have been at least slightly positively selected for IQ genes. Today, its difficult to say which direction the selection effect goes, but there are certainly many more educated and professional whites with black spouses and significant others than there were in the past.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Tyrion says:
    @Chanda Chisala
    Oh I see. So you're actually correcting Professor Arthur Jensen's understanding of basic statistics. For a moment there I thought you were sincere.

    The concept you seem not to grasp is the idea of "averages." Yes, one group in the composite population may be higher than the average, but there are also other groups that, by definition, are lower than average. The regression to the mean, as I stated in my post to you, is ON AVERAGE.

    But I can now see that you're not sincere in your confusion; you're simply here to "correct" us. So, I resign.

    Oh I see. So you’re actually correcting Professor Arthur Jensen’s understanding of basic statistics. For a moment there I thought you were sincere

    No, I was correcting what you said was Jensen’s understanding of basic statistics.

    I feel compelled to make that clear.

    Otherwise, I accept your resignation and conclude that we never really disagreed.

    You were merely affecting belief in the argument you proposed in order to hopefully push it onto others.

    Since what you’ve written has been thoroughly refuted in this thread, it all seems a bit of a waste of time. Perhaps in the future you might try something more useful.

    I can think of a number of policies which would greatly improve the future lives of Africans if only they were widely adopted. You could suggest ways to have them adopted or propose your own? You surely understand much better what should be done than me.

    1. Re-drawing of large African states into more tribally or ethnically homogenous polities. Nigeria would be an interesting example.

    2. The self-enforcement of a one child policy in Africa. Allowing maximum investment in offspring and the conservation of Africa’s very favourable natural resource to population ratio.

    3. The guiding of an African statelet along the path of Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai before it. Low taxes, stable government and an initial injection of foreign expertise could provide a shining and inspirational example to the rest of the continent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I would be very interested in hearing thoughtful responses to your policy proposals from the Africans commenting here.

    I have a forlorn hope that a Biafra full of Igbo would combine your 1 and 3.

    From a practical point of view I think South Korea makes a better model for your 3. (the others are rather special cases IMHO). But that analogy seems to be out of favor right now: http://www.afrol.com/articles/22953
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @utu
    also funny things like large proportions of students scoring below guessing percentages, at least on certain questions, but to be fair they are kids

    This statement does not make much sense. Are you saying that adults when they know they do not know the answer they deploy personal portable random number generator in order to maximize the outcome as group? Besides often they do not know they do not know.

    Tutu is a RACIST/HYPER-tribalist AND a SELFISH-OPPORTUNISTIC,

    EVERY black deficience he will defend believing that he will protect or help ”your own” people. He’s denying for your own people the right to have access to their collective self-knowledge. Indeed, rich, well-behaved and/or cognitively smart blacks TEND to lean on the left but by individual reasons, they don’t want be victim of ”racism’ BECAUSE they tend to deal with non-black people/out of black communities much more time than most black people usually do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. One problem that the author faces in making his arguments is that he assumes that his audience would be familiar with order statistics. As order statistics for Gaussian distributions leads to integrals that are not obviously relateable to even garden variety special functions, and as a healthy proportion of the audience would be unable to define integrals, let alone define cumulative distribution functions in terms of integration, it seems a lost cause.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. Bill says:
    @szopen
    Yes, if the IQ distribution has fat tail - but this would have to be very fat tail for Gabon.

    But gaussian distribution is very reasonable assumption. IQ is influenced by hundreds of factors, which can be treated as random variables. Now, tell me, what shape has a complex random variable built from hundreds of independent random variables?

    Oh, and by the way:

    Now, tell me, what shape has a complex random variable built from hundreds of independent random variables?

    1) Lots of shapes are possible, depending on how it is built. The CLT applies to averages of not-too-correlated and not-too-differently-distributed random variables. There are other things than averages.
    2) sneaking in the word “independent” is a bit of precious question-begging.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Bill says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I don't want to repeat parts of his argument I agree with, including where I think he agrees with me that we have very little reliable information from Lynn, Rushton or anyone else about the great variety of àlleles in Africa and their expression in g measuring tests. But I wish to add the observation that þhe regression towards the mean mightn't be as potent as the discussion seems to propose. Suppose you have a group of elite families that have average IQs of 115, sd say 10, and it is from them that just about all with IQs over 115 go to British or American Universities. They intermarry and produce children who go to good British or American schools. What sort of effect do you expect from regression to the mean?

    Incidentally Steve Ssiler has said somewhere that the white ancestry of African-Americans is only about 16 per cent. And one has to ask "what sort of whites?". Mostly not Jeffersons I guess.

    Yes, this is Tyrion’s argument which the author is pretending not to understand. Or maybe doesn’t understand. Who can tell?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. When people talk about regression towards or to the mean, whatever, they are, conscious or not, saying: ”higher cognitive skills/IQ is … genetically recessive” and that it’s more recessive for populations where the distance between the mean and ceiling is bigger AND where no have social stratification/selective segregation. So regression towards mean, in literal sense most people seems tend to believe, it’s more common for highly socially [intra]-mobility-groups than among highly socially stratified groups, with lower levels of inter-social/caste genetic mixing [instead it's also dependent of other factors for example the size of population].

    It’s also mean a long history of a well-stablished niche of socially stratified highly ”intelligent” people, often the elites, something that afro-americans no have and that many population on black Africa it’s expected to have, but less those who has been selected to operate in ”modern” societies.

    So, it’s expected that to high-social class africans, specially those with cognitive skills at civilization-levels, the regression towards the macro-racial-mean will be less intense [or that, higher cognitive skills are less recessive for them] than for afro-americans, for example, where, seems, no have a long history of social stratification, differential selection [pressure to the high intelligence] and its expected selective results.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  156. res says:
    @Tyrion

    I think some of this was discussed earlier. The evidence indicates that the children of above average African Americans (above average African American families) score (seeming to “regress”) toward a lower mean. But those of Africans do not.
     
    You are expecting that observation to do a lot of heavy lifting without much justification.

    Why should the group 'Recent Black African migrants to the US' follow the exact same statistical rules as the group 'Mostly Black descendants of African slaves in the US'?

    Furthermore, I don't believe that Black American (Mostly Black descendants of African slaves in the US) children do particularly regress towards some Black American mean. The whole concept is fuzzy. After all, group mean IQs do change. A group may have eugenic pressures exerted on it.

    Were one to kill the bottom half in intelligence of a group, would you still expect the surviving top half to regress towards the previous mean?

    Are you now going to hide in the word 'towards' by meaning merely 'in the direction of'? And therefore only offer featherlight explanatory power in the same way that by walking from London to Paris you also happen to be walking 'towards' Beijing?

    Tyrion, you make many excellent points in this thread. I see you only started commenting at the Unz Review a week or two ago. Please stick around and keep commenting!

    But in this case:

    Were one to kill the bottom half in intelligence of a group, would you still expect the surviving top half to regress towards the previous mean?

    you are mistaken. If you look into the animal breeding literature you will see that is exactly what happens in breeding selection. And in this context the correct meaning of “towards” is indeed “in the direction of.” By a quantitatively measurable amount.

    This page provides an introduction: http://animalscience2.ucdavis.edu/ggg201d/references/response_selection.html

    In particular pay attention to the breeder’s equation: R = h^2*S
    More on that at https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

    To go further, population means can change, but if you look at multi-generational breeding experiments the old means seem to have more persistence than one might expect if selection stops. Not necessarily the case in real world examples where selection is occurring in response to consistent environmental changes though.

    I am looking forward to reading your comments following #119.

    P.S. I hope the people using a relative lack of regression towards the mean for IQ as an argument in this thread realize that is strong evidence for the high heritability of IQ (see h^2 in the breeder’s equation above). I don’t think they would want to accidentally argue in favor of something they don’t believe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Regression toward the mean or the lack thereof doesn't support a genetic hypothesis.

    As the GWAS literature suggests, the genetic variance in IQ is additive and does not follow a Mendelian mode of inheritance in which recessive alleles are silenced in an individual. An individual's gene expression is the average of the effect size of the alleles he carries and an offspring's gene expression is the average of the effect size of the alleles he receives from his parents. For regression toward a genetic mean to happen, parents must be less likely to transmit their higher IQ alleles than those that are closer to their population's average, and this hypothesis is unwarranted.

    Regression to the mean can be explained by environment however as offsprings, for whatever reason, might not receive the same amount of environmental inputs that made their parents successful. Lack of regression towards the mean might on the contrary imply that the kids received similar environmental inputs as their parents.
    , @Tyrion

    you are mistaken. If you look into the animal breeding literature you will see that is exactly what happens in breeding selection. And in this context the correct meaning of “towards” is indeed “in the direction of.” By a quantitatively measurable amount.
     
    Thank you for your very gracious tone! It is a pleasure to read.

    My objection though is that members of the newly formed population will not regress towards the previous whole population's mean but instead to an as yet undiscovered mean for the newly formed population.

    Your link makes the same point but more elegantly:

    With tougher selection, say by kidnapping a year’s worth of National Merit Finalists, you could create a new ethny with far higher average intelligence than any existing. Eugenics is not only possible, it’s trivial.

    Or to put it into the context of this discussion, due to the very heavy selective pressures on recent black African migrants to America they form a new and higher IQ ethny.

    The traveller may be moving from London in the direction of Paris and Beijing, but if they're only going to Paris it doesn't seem very useful to highlight that they also happen to be going towards Beijing.

    I imagine you are very well aware of this though

    as you provided the link so I shall endeavour to be clearer in the future!

    P.S. I hope the people using a relative lack of regression towards the mean for IQ as an argument in this thread realize that is strong evidence for the high heritability of IQ (see h^2 in the breeder’s equation above). I don’t think they would want to accidentally argue in favor of something they don’t believe.
     
    It seems that the more equal environment for children in modern societies will likely have gone someway to reducing the explanatory power of environment in IQ variation.

    Related, I read something about nobles being much taller than peasants were in the past but I have absolutely no recollection of where nor can I find a reference to it so it was probably in a novel.
    , @utu


    Were one to kill the bottom half in intelligence of a group, would you still expect the surviving top half to regress towards the previous mean?
     
    you are mistaken. If you look into the animal breeding literature you will see that is exactly what happens in breeding selection.
     
    I think you are right. The regressing to the mean does not imply that this mean is the same as the mean (average) of the subpopulation. The subpopulation average will remain above the original mean and because of the regression to the mean the average will be moving towards the original mean but slowly. The truncated 1/2 Gaussian distribution will be smoothed out by repeated convolutions for each new generation but it will not become a Gaussian distribution and its average will remain above the original mean. Still there will be a memory of the original mean.

    In breeding selection it is never a one step process. Each generation is trimmed so that forces the average to stabilize.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    From the brain drain data linked above. In 2010 of the Nigerian men in the US we have 79943 in the high skill group (tertiary education), 9632 in the medium skill group, and 1786 in the low skill group.

    Looks selective to me. I think it is your argument which does not withstand actual data.
     
    Do you even understand what a brain drain is? Nigerians who obtain their education and credentials in the US or UK do not constitute a brain drain. A brain drain is when those already educated and practicing a high-skill profession leave a country.

    I'm a Nigerian. I have dozens of relatives in the US and UK. Almost all the adults are well-educated professionals. ALL OF THEM obtained their degrees and professional credentials in the US and UK. For each one of them innumerable other Nigerians could've done the same thing, given the opportunity.

    Do you even understand what a brain drain is? Nigerians who obtain their education and credentials in the US or UK do not constitute a brain drain. A brain drain is when those already educated and practicing a high-skill profession leave a country.

    I do. A brain drain is when especially intelligent people (educated or not at that moment) in a given country emigrate. What you describe is an especially damaging subset of that.

    I’m a Nigerian. I have dozens of relatives in the US and UK. Almost all the adults are well-educated professionals. ALL OF THEM obtained their degrees and professional credentials in the US and UK.

    And why did you and those others leave to get your degrees in the US or UK? Perhaps because Nigeria could not supply the kinds of educational opportunities beneficial to someone with your intellect? Or were you somehow randomly selected from the entire population of Nigeria? Back in Nigeria were your parents part of the elite or peasants in the countryside? Or perhaps discriminated against Igbos?

    For each one of them innumerable other Nigerians could’ve done the same thing, given the opportunity.

    Proof? Not holding my breath waiting…

    I am really coming to enjoy the “can” and “could” constructions in arguments like this. They provide a great tell for unjustified assumptions.

    P.S. As Tyrion asks: Who do you think you are persuading?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Proof? Not holding my breath waiting…

    I am really coming to enjoy the “can” and “could” constructions in arguments like this. They provide a great tell for unjustified assumptions.

    P.S. As Tyrion asks: Who do you think you are persuading?
     
    You're still not understanding that intrinsic ability is not the single factor at play in any outcome.

    I agree with Okechukwu, I was born in Haiti, adopted by upper class French parents with my sisters. Graduated from an elite school, I have a good job. Plenty of Haitians or middle class native French could have succeeded like me or better due to their "genetic potential". But somehow, they had a different life.

    Now we know how res will create the next Forbes 500 company. He will simply hire some bright STEM guys who can do something. And of course, the investment money will fall from the sky and the market will be receptive just because his guys can do it. That's how res will become the next Bill Gates.
    , @Afrosapiens

    Back in Nigeria were your parents part of the elite or peasants in the countryside? Or perhaps discriminated against Igbos?
     
    "Discriminated Igbos?" What, isn't discrimination just an imaginary excuse?
    , @Okechukwu

    And why did you and those others leave to get your degrees in the US or UK?
     
    I was born in America. Many of us are first, second and even third generation now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. res says:
    @szopen
    Not really. The difference between Wicherts and Lynn is that Wicherts is arguing one should not take into the account tests of uneducated malnourished kids with malaria, because they are not representative, while Lynn is saying one should, because most of Africans are malnourished, plagued with malaria and uneducated. The problem with Lynn argument is that Africa nowadays has better healthcare, less malnourished and better educated than 50 years ago.

    Moreover, from all the other evidence it looks like shared environment is pretty much non-influential on people except for the most extreme environments in a modern society. Once you provide basics, kids are just fine. Seems that kids in Africa are being provided with basics already.

    As for 20% admixture of European genes, it's not like all Europeans are equal.

    As for 20% admixture of European genes, it’s not like all Europeans are equal.

    Nor all Africans. Does anyone here think slavery selected for high intelligence? I think it is fair to assume both the becoming enslaved and the living under slavery parts selected against IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    "I think it is fair to assume both the becoming enslaved and the living under slavery parts selected against IQ."

    Yes that could be the case.
    Those sold as slaves likely tended overall to come more from the less advanced tribes that were more easily overpowered/conquered by stronger ones, and also to come disproportionately from those of lower status (since criminals, debtors, slaves, indentured servants/pawns, lower caste people in places where caste existed, and the poor were more likely to be sold)
    Once they were in the Americas, the plantation system, one suspects, would not exactly select for high intelligence, if anything the reverse (especially in a place like the United states where slave breeding was most practiced—though that tended to be somewhat less of a factor in the Caribbean, where it was generally practiced less and new slaves were often, at least in many periods, more likely to be brought from Africa to replace dead ones, compared to the US where importation was banned relatively early and the desire was to produce as many chattel laborers as possible.

    , @matt
    I wouldn't bet that slavery positively selected for intelligence, but many of the points I made to szopen about the population of whites who have mated with blacks also apply to the population of Africans who were enslaved. Slaves, as Jm8 says, seem to have mainly come from the ranks of defeated enemies and lower-class people within the society. As I pointed out to szopen, occupation and class were probably only weakly correlated in 17th-19th century North America. I would imagine they were even more weakly correlated in 17th-19th century West Africa. A similar point could be made about the selective strength of 17th-19th century West African warfare.
    , @matt

    and the living under slavery parts selected against IQ.
     
    I didn't notice this part of your comment. If what you mean is that masters practiced selective breeding of slaves, then that doesn't seem to be the case, for the most part.
    , @matt
    Also see this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Jm8 says:
    @res

    As for 20% admixture of European genes, it’s not like all Europeans are equal.
     
    Nor all Africans. Does anyone here think slavery selected for high intelligence? I think it is fair to assume both the becoming enslaved and the living under slavery parts selected against IQ.

    “I think it is fair to assume both the becoming enslaved and the living under slavery parts selected against IQ.”

    Yes that could be the case.
    Those sold as slaves likely tended overall to come more from the less advanced tribes that were more easily overpowered/conquered by stronger ones, and also to come disproportionately from those of lower status (since criminals, debtors, slaves, indentured servants/pawns, lower caste people in places where caste existed, and the poor were more likely to be sold)
    Once they were in the Americas, the plantation system, one suspects, would not exactly select for high intelligence, if anything the reverse (especially in a place like the United states where slave breeding was most practiced—though that tended to be somewhat less of a factor in the Caribbean, where it was generally practiced less and new slaves were often, at least in many periods, more likely to be brought from Africa to replace dead ones, compared to the US where importation was banned relatively early and the desire was to produce as many chattel laborers as possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    Edit:
    "Yes that could be the case.
    Those sold as slaves likely tended overall to come more from the less advanced tribes (and sub-tribes) that were more easily overpowered/conquered..."
    , @matt
    As I said here, I doubt that low status or warfare was highly selective against IQ in West Africa during the 1619-1807 period. As for selective breeding of slaves, this source says the use of "studs" for breeding was rare, and that slaves were actually given a surprising degree of freedom in their choice of sexual partners.
    , @matt
    There's also this, from Fogel and Engerman's Time on the Cross.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. res says:
    @Krastos the Gluemaker
    Apologies site-side if this comment was somehow duplicated

    No, I'm right.

    I know you're a commenter worth responding to and this is a pernicious myth, so let's see if I can be clear enough and I'll edit this better than a usual drive by.

    Individual test sections of the SAT never had a ceiling above 130, could have been lower sometimes, and taking into account the Flynn effect and ses biases really old tests have other questionable issues too. Although there is some correlation with "grit" and IQ and ease of test-taking and so on such that total scores reflect a little higher; high scorers on all sections will be a little higher than a model of each section+pure random change.

    To think otherwise requires someone to literally not understand how multiple choice tests work, or more complicated concepts like Poisson distributions. Or most charitably, foreigners who don't understand and have no experience with the SAT (or corresponding tests) because claims otherwise are crazy uninformed, the SAT ceiling really has been around 130 since forever, and of course correlation with g (or an actual instantiation of an IQ test score) is not even close to perfect.

    The IRT data really, really reflect this (also funny things like large proportions of students scoring below guessing percentages, at least on certain questions, but to be fair they are kids)

    Suppose something like an athletic quotient existed (AQ) and you got 10 million test subjects and wanted them to shoot basketballs.

    So, you put everybody on the OPPOSITE side of the court and have them shoot a basketball, awarding perfect scores to those who make the shot. You could award partial but lower scores for hitting the backboard or something but that's not relevant to our hypothetical, just an analogy.

    Even in only 1 out of 7000 or something shooters do so, that does not mean that those who made the shot are the best basketball players in the sample or in the word, or that the AQ is correspondingly high. In percentile terms, they in that corresponding percentile of performance, but do not have an AQ of 150whatever. Rather, the people who made the shot would on the median be a group of someone like 130 AQ folks (healthy, relatively fit adult males) who just got lucky. Maybe zero 100 AQ people make the difficult basketball set shot, but that's not our concern. Likewise, an actual professional basketball player with a lot of experience and training might have a slightly higher chance of making the random, difficult shot than the median 130 AQ subject, but then such subjects would be vanishingly rare.

    Now basketball throwing would seem random in this context even though it's not "really truly random", but the SAT is literally a multiple choice test with a huge probability of students semi-randomly guessing at MC questions, besides other forms of random variance (relative to trying to equate the test to g or something). If Student A answers 48 MC questions and randomly guesses at 2 and Student B does the same they can get different scores, raw or scaled.

    Brief interlude, but one thing a ton of people don't understand is that changes in the SAT before the 1995 scoring changes also exist, and not just on the fake social justice issues like removing rare "classist" questions, but on actually changing the expected difficulty of the exam. Some of the only publicly available/peer-reviewed studies on the SAT in old timeframes like that discuss this. In other words, the most notable purposeful decline in "hard questions" occurred might have in the mid-1980s, at any rate there was such a change, while the nonlinear scoring change that happened later isn't really the same thing, even though it's what everybody cites.

    In our basketball analogy, this would be like giving also credit to shooters who also shot a ball that bounced out of the inside of the rim on a nonlinear scoring scale; but it changes very little about the "raw" data or the overall picture (It's not that everybody perfect shot is literally by a 160 AQ subject)

    Realistically, because of the variance of multiple choice tests, and massive influences of things like that internet, the largest effects on tail-end changes in SAT scores are due to changes in test-taking behavior, like leaving multiple choice questions blank. In other words, it's probable that many 1950s era (or whatever old timey period you choose) test takers did things like leave questions blank while post-Internet era moderners did not, and again, it's mostly or entirely (depending on iteration and section) a multiple choice test so brute force random guessing will go a long way. (there are not that many "hard" questions, and well, one should know the statistical concepts in the prior paragraphs anyway, law of large numbers and all. Also, if the reason for different score distributions in the past was that students got "easy" questions wrong or something then that raises entirely different questions a la the Flynn effect and savvy people like us would have to puzzle that out ignoring old social scientists or nutty groups like mensa)

    I do think there was a bit of a deliberate effort, even before the third section introduction or other such changes, to make girls score higher relative to boys, in a smoky room IRT test designer choice sense, and that has some effects on test prep effectiveness or suchlike, but the SAT never had that high of ceilings.

    FWIW, there are some very important hypotheses to consider about the consequences of such statistics, but no public data is available and politically correct social science types wouldn't want them to be. For instance, the small number of non-multiple choice math questions might present vastly different IRT results for smaller population subgroups (eg blacks) that are overlooked and themselves a potential concern for test unfairness (since students in bulk still randomly guess at MC questions, but the question would be what causes one black student to get a higher score than another on the margin, in a test fairness sense)

    Age related scaling of the SAT is even more unreliable and probably reflects things like family SES a lot. It's actually ridiculous (and pathetic) that of social scientists who have studied groups of young children, to produce their data points they sometimes erroneously use things like a "Cognitive Age/Real Age" sort of calculation which of course is discredited pseudoscience. That was never valid for actual IQ tests anyway, but ignorant social scientists who aren't even geneticists or involved in psychometrics still wind up with crazy old concepts in their published papers.

    I think in the end we're mostly missing a little bit of understanding of measurement variance as well as median.

    Again, anyone who recalls the myths about someone like Feynman with low test scores or lack of Nobel Prizes won by random perfect test scorers should be conceptually familiar with this. It's actually a real weak point of the general IQology internet field.

    Particularly elite groups (SMPY, science fairs) will contain some number, sometimes, of IQ 150, 160 types, but the median will often be right around the threshold/barely above it (or science fairs are even more randomly influenced by ses-like factors) and those who participated often get there with a good amount of help from random chance; there are plenty of 130 IQ people in the population who also missed cutoffs or thresholds on the "measurement."

    Interesting comment.

    Your basic idea and the point of your extended analogy is that the SAT is an imperfect proxy for IQ, right?

    I agree with that as I stated it, but I think we disagree rather strongly about how large that imperfection is. The correlation is high and my personal experience has been that near ceiling scores on the pre-1995 SAT are highly suggestive of IQ significantly above 130.

    Brief interlude, but one thing a ton of people don’t understand is that changes in the SAT before the 1995 scoring changes also exist, and not just on the fake social justice issues like removing rare “classist” questions, but on actually changing the expected difficulty of the exam. Some of the only publicly available/peer-reviewed studies on the SAT in old timeframes like that discuss this. In other words, the most notable purposeful decline in “hard questions” occurred might have in the mid-1980s, at any rate there was such a change, while the nonlinear scoring change that happened later isn’t really the same thing, even though it’s what everybody cites.

    There were changes both before and after 1995. I looked into this a fair bit a while ago. Here is a comment with much of what I found. In particular see the final link for information on the older SATs: https://www.unz.com/isteve/david-colemans-travails-revamping-the-sat/#comment-1816562
    There were significant changes in 1974 in particular.

    I don’t see evidence for major changes in the mid-1980s but I am open to additional evidence.

    but the median will often be right around the threshold/barely above it

    If you look at the numbers it makes perfect sense. At the tails the normal distribution declines steeply. If you look at truncated distributions above 2-3SD you will find that the expected mean and median are close to the threshold. Seeing anything else is evidence that something else is going on (e.g. the real threshold is higher than expected, fat tails or other non-normality, etc.).

    and those who participated often get there with a good amount of help from random chance; there are plenty of 130 IQ people in the population who also missed cutoffs or thresholds on the “measurement.”

    An excellent point. If there is much noise the much greater population at e.g. 130 IQ will cause exactly that effect. A good reason not to trust any single piece of evidence and instead look for a body of confirming evidence. The question is how much noise to estimate for different pieces of evidence? And if there are any special circumstances-like the top quoted SAT score for someone who took the test many times and taught (not attended) test prep classes before that.

    Thinking about this is helped greatly by remembering the following. More at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule
    I think the time interpretation of frequency given there is helpful for intuition.

    Population frequencies at different thresholds on the normal curve:
    mean – 1 in 2
    +1 SD – 1 in 6
    +2 SD – 1 in 44 (I often round to 1 in 50 or 2%, this is 130 IQ, aka Mensa threshold)
    +3 SD – 1 in 740
    (last two rounded)
    +4 SD – 1 in 30,000
    +5 SD – 1 in 3.5 million

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Chanda Chisala

    The simple question that any person would ask when considering the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (with the understanding that there are many different ethnic groups involved) is why have they achieved so little that relates to civilization?
     
    Every group that has been isolated from other people of the world for a long time has always lagged behind. All "civilizations" were built by borrowing quite heavily from others that they met as they traveled around, in trade or conflict. Africa was segregated from everyone else by a uniquely harsh geography (hence its "ancient" name - "the Dark Continent" -- that wasn't a reference to skin color!) plus many tropical diseases that kept others away. Above that, the difficult geography and environment even kept African tribes mostly secluded from each other (thus, Zambia alone has more than 70 languages that I can't understand at all, although it has less than 20 million people!). Relative to human history, the interaction that Africa has had with other people is still very recent, very brief, relatively superficial, and the vast majority still really haven't had even that little contact.

    I get all this from Thomas Sowell and I haven't seen any good argument against it. See his trilogy that includes "Conquests and Cultures" etc.

    Relative to human history, the interaction that Africa has had with other people is still very recent, very brief, relatively superficial, and the vast majority still really haven’t had even that little contact.

    But couldn’t this relative seclusion just as easily be an explanation of lower average IQ and different behavioral traits?

    No one is claiming that Europeans or NE Asians just magically increased their IQ overnight. Environmental and cultural pressures over tens of thousands of years caused it. Cold winters might require better building and planning skills (both related to IQ and other behavioral traits), increasing their attributes in a population.

    The creation of large scale agriculture and cities would also push for people with certain skills and behavioral traits most certainly related to IQ.

    If sub-Saharan African populations were never subjected to these forces, it wouldn’t be surprising if their average IQ remained at lower levels. Indeed, it would be stunning if sub-Saharan Africans managed to evolve a similar IQ to Europeans and NE Asians without going through these processes. It would put the Theory of Evolution in serious doubt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Cold winter"

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/cold-winters-and-the-evolution-intelligence
    , @Okechukwu

    No one is claiming that Europeans or NE Asians just magically increased their IQ overnight.
     
    They did if you consider that European and American IQ's around the turn of 20th century were in the 60's and 70's.

    Environmental and cultural pressures over tens of thousands of years caused it. Cold winters might require better building and planning skills (both related to IQ and other behavioral traits), increasing their attributes in a population
     
    The evidence says otherwise. Eurasia lies in the temperate zone. That was far more hospitable and survivable than tropical Africa. In fact humans were fully-formed, intellectually and otherwise, in the hot jungles and arid savannas of Africa, which were and remain forbidding. Whites couldn't even go into the African interior without modern medications. If they did they'd die. Humans have not gotten smarter since dispersing in and out of Africa. We've just gotten more experienced and more knowledgeable.

    Moreover, civilization radiated from the warmer south to the colder north. There's a reason there are hardly any sophisticated ancient structures or manuscripts in Northwestern Europe.


    The creation of large scale agriculture and cities would also push for people with certain skills and behavioral traits most certainly related to IQ.
     
    Africa had large-scale agriculture and cities. In fact African slaves from agricultural regions were prized for their know-how and expertise. For example, African slaves from rice growing regions are credited by some historians with creating the rice cultivation industry in the United States.

    If sub-Saharan African populations were never subjected to these forces, it wouldn’t be surprising if their average IQ remained at lower levels. Indeed, it would be stunning if sub-Saharan Africans managed to evolve a similar IQ to Europeans and NE Asians without going through these processes. It would put the Theory of Evolution in serious doubt.
     
    It doesn't work that way. Notwithstanding the fact that Africans are actually the ones that emerged from a much more challenging and intellectually stimulating environment relative to Europeans and NE Asians, every human environment makes adaptive demands on intelligence. The only traits that are variable are the superficial phenotypes that offer a unique survival advantage in a given environment. Skin color, for example. The core, complex traits that have an equal survival value in any environment are not deferentially distributed between various populations of humans. This is why all human groupings have intelligence, language and abstraction. But they do not all have light or dark skin. The same applies to complex organs. They too have an equal survival value in any environment. No human group or "race" has better hearts or livers. Therefore it's impossible that any human group is going to have better brains, which is just another complex organ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8
    "I think it is fair to assume both the becoming enslaved and the living under slavery parts selected against IQ."

    Yes that could be the case.
    Those sold as slaves likely tended overall to come more from the less advanced tribes that were more easily overpowered/conquered by stronger ones, and also to come disproportionately from those of lower status (since criminals, debtors, slaves, indentured servants/pawns, lower caste people in places where caste existed, and the poor were more likely to be sold)
    Once they were in the Americas, the plantation system, one suspects, would not exactly select for high intelligence, if anything the reverse (especially in a place like the United states where slave breeding was most practiced—though that tended to be somewhat less of a factor in the Caribbean, where it was generally practiced less and new slaves were often, at least in many periods, more likely to be brought from Africa to replace dead ones, compared to the US where importation was banned relatively early and the desire was to produce as many chattel laborers as possible.

    Edit:
    “Yes that could be the case.
    Those sold as slaves likely tended overall to come more from the less advanced tribes (and sub-tribes) that were more easily overpowered/conquered…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    Edit:

    "“I think it is fair to assume both the becoming enslaved......""

    “Yes I suspect that is the case.
    Those sold as slaves likely tended overall to come more from the less advanced tribes (and sub-tribes) that were more easily overpowered/conquered…”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8
    Edit:
    "Yes that could be the case.
    Those sold as slaves likely tended overall to come more from the less advanced tribes (and sub-tribes) that were more easily overpowered/conquered..."

    Edit:

    ““I think it is fair to assume both the becoming enslaved……””

    “Yes I suspect that is the case.
    Those sold as slaves likely tended overall to come more from the less advanced tribes (and sub-tribes) that were more easily overpowered/conquered…”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. res says:
    @Tyrion
    Chanda,

    I was close to neutral on this point. Having now thought about it, at length, and considered your article, I have now swung quite strongly away from your position.

    This is because:

    1. You and your supporters insist on pretending that African migrants to developed countries are representative of Africa as a whole. I say 'pretending' because every single fact points to the opposite. I cannot believe that any of you believe this.

    2. You rely on a false interpretation of regression to the mean and repeatedly ignore explanations of why it is a fantasy. In light of point 1, I have come to the conclusion that this too is purposeful.

    3. Your argument relies on silly games like Scrabble and Draughts. These are not much more cognitively demanding than dominoes. Some clown won the French world championship but couldn't even speak French, which is impressive but also shows how undifferentiated the winners must be.

    Were you to pick Chess, Go, Nobel prizes, great inventions, civilizational achievments or, even better, actual IQ tests to prove your point then I would be very receptive. I know a lot of people from Africa. I like them very much. On the other hand, I recognise that all are most definitely in the top 1% in pretty much every socio-economic and cognitive measure in the countries they come from.

    Please don’t let poor arguments and purposeful attempts to mislead by some of the proponents persuade you there is nothing to the idea.

    In my opinion the issue is more with overreach in the arguments. I agree with szopen that significant success in Scrabble is evidence against an estimated IQ of 64 in Gabon (though we may disagree on details). Take a look at my normal curve frequency numbers just above.

    My explanation is some combination of the following (exact proportions unknown and IMHO currently unknowable due to lack of data):

    - Environmental depression of IQ in much of the African population. In other words, genetic IQ potential is greater than apparent from phenotypic IQ (but closer to 10 IQ points than 30 IMO).
    - High likelihood of a correlation of environment with IQ. High IQ parents are more likely to provide good environments for their children. Thus the elites are closer to their genetic IQ potential. This fattens the IQ tail IMO.
    - Subpopulations with higher IQs. For example the Igbo. This makes the IQ curve non-normal. I sometimes colloquially refer to this as fat-tailed, but this is a specific form of fat tail.
    - Verbal affinity and ability are typically greater for Africans at a given IQ than for other populations. This directs high ability individuals towards Scrabble rather than games like Chess or Go.
    - A special effort (e.g. coaches) by Africans to succeed at Scrabble followed by a positive feedback loop based on initial success.

    The extent of environmental IQ depression in Africa is important for making assessments of the potential for African development. I wish there was more data and less rhetoric surrounding this. A good start would be for African countries to collect better intelligence and education (both input like #years and results like test scores) data.

    Some people appear to be trying to use the Scrabble data to argue that in equivalent environments African average IQs will rise to match the US or UK white mean of 100 (or is that the still higher East Asian and Jewish means?). Good luck with that.

    P.S. The selective immigration argument does not really apply to Scrabble performance in Africans in their native countries. It is much more relevant to Chanda’s arguments based on the high performance of Africans in the UK. The denials of it are ridiculous and annoying (especially given the data I presented!), but don’t really affect the overall argument here.

    P.P.S. Do you disagree with my regression towards the mean statements in comment 156?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion

    I agree with szopen that significant success in Scrabble is evidence against an estimated IQ of 64 in Gabon
     
    Agreed, and despite having never gone to Gabon I have travelled throughout the continent and spoken with a range of individuals across socio-economic classes so no research paper could convince me that the average IQ is as low as 64.

    It is almost as silly a thought as that African migrants to America are a representative sample of Africans more generally...

    Other than the anecdote above, I have nothing more to add. It all makes perfect sense.
    , @Chanda Chisala

    P.S. The selective immigration argument does not really apply to Scrabble performance in Africans in their native countries. It is much more relevant to Chanda’s arguments based on the high performance of Africans in the UK. The denials of it are ridiculous and annoying (especially given the data I presented!)....

     

    OK, I guess you did not get my reasons for rejecting your simplistic application of that data. I thought you would at least think about it on your own and see where the error in your premises lie, since you do tend to take these sorts of things seriously.

    As you think about it this time, consider this: the biggest mistake you are making, mathematically, is not very different from the mistake Dr. Thompson was making in his calculations. You are assuming a much larger base population from which to estimate the level of cognitive selection of these "educated" immigrants than is realistically warranted.

    Let me give you one small example. Or two. (I already gave you one real one in my last post, which I expected to spark something).

    I wrote in a previous article about how Nigerians in the north rejected Western education because it was introduced by Christian missionaries. The north is Islamic. This made them remain behind the south in education by a distant margin, and these differences are seen to this day (the government still tries to help them educationally through aggressive affirmative action policies}. At some point they had only one university graduate in the north, and he just happened to be a covert to Christianity.

    So, consider that one factor alone which involves a majority of the Nigerian population. Can you see that this makes you commit an error in your calculation of how selected IN INTELLIGENCE a Nigerian "tertiary" graduate is if you simply consider him out of the total number of people in his country who are not educated?

    Before I say anything else, let me see if you understand this first or if you still find it "annoying."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. res says:
    @Bill
    It's not just tail fatness. A distribution you make, for example, by p-mixing other distributions doesn't just have fat tails, it has lots of differences with a symmetric, uni-modal distribution like the normal.

    There is no reason at all to think that the normal is a good approximation to the distribution of any interesting characteristic in any population big enough to have sub-populations in it.

    We may form our intuition by thinking about well-mixed populations, but mother nature has no obligation to form her intuition that way.

    Bill, what do you think of my multifactorial argument just above this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    I think it is very reasonable, and you could add unrepresentative samples to the list if you want. I don't have a strong opinion about whether Gabon's mean IQ is 64, 74, or 80. On the other hand, you don't need a very big subpopulation with near-triple-digit IQs to get a few good scrabble players. The Igbo example is nice because widely known, but I don't see why the sub-populations have to be so big or to have names. Marrying into a good family is something the children of good families are encouraged to do---even in degenerate America this is true. That dynamic by itself has to make little high-IQ (and conscientiousness, and etc) sub-populations.

    The idea that you can go from "there are some black African guys who play scrabble well" or "black Nigerians who hold non-education PhDs from American universities are pretty smart, and so are their children" to some sweeping conclusion that we don't have good reasons to believe blacks have low IQs for genetic reasons is bizarre, however.

    Also, good job on digging up the fact that Kenny Solomon is an affirmative action grandmaster. That is some funny stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Relative to human history, the interaction that Africa has had with other people is still very recent, very brief, relatively superficial, and the vast majority still really haven’t had even that little contact.
     
    But couldn't this relative seclusion just as easily be an explanation of lower average IQ and different behavioral traits?

    No one is claiming that Europeans or NE Asians just magically increased their IQ overnight. Environmental and cultural pressures over tens of thousands of years caused it. Cold winters might require better building and planning skills (both related to IQ and other behavioral traits), increasing their attributes in a population.

    The creation of large scale agriculture and cities would also push for people with certain skills and behavioral traits most certainly related to IQ.

    If sub-Saharan African populations were never subjected to these forces, it wouldn't be surprising if their average IQ remained at lower levels. Indeed, it would be stunning if sub-Saharan Africans managed to evolve a similar IQ to Europeans and NE Asians without going through these processes. It would put the Theory of Evolution in serious doubt.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @res
    Tyrion, you make many excellent points in this thread. I see you only started commenting at the Unz Review a week or two ago. Please stick around and keep commenting!

    But in this case:

    Were one to kill the bottom half in intelligence of a group, would you still expect the surviving top half to regress towards the previous mean?
     
    you are mistaken. If you look into the animal breeding literature you will see that is exactly what happens in breeding selection. And in this context the correct meaning of "towards" is indeed "in the direction of." By a quantitatively measurable amount.

    This page provides an introduction: http://animalscience2.ucdavis.edu/ggg201d/references/response_selection.html

    In particular pay attention to the breeder's equation: R = h^2*S
    More on that at https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

    To go further, population means can change, but if you look at multi-generational breeding experiments the old means seem to have more persistence than one might expect if selection stops. Not necessarily the case in real world examples where selection is occurring in response to consistent environmental changes though.

    I am looking forward to reading your comments following #119.

    P.S. I hope the people using a relative lack of regression towards the mean for IQ as an argument in this thread realize that is strong evidence for the high heritability of IQ (see h^2 in the breeder's equation above). I don't think they would want to accidentally argue in favor of something they don't believe.

    Regression toward the mean or the lack thereof doesn’t support a genetic hypothesis.

    As the GWAS literature suggests, the genetic variance in IQ is additive and does not follow a Mendelian mode of inheritance in which recessive alleles are silenced in an individual. An individual’s gene expression is the average of the effect size of the alleles he carries and an offspring’s gene expression is the average of the effect size of the alleles he receives from his parents. For regression toward a genetic mean to happen, parents must be less likely to transmit their higher IQ alleles than those that are closer to their population’s average, and this hypothesis is unwarranted.

    Regression to the mean can be explained by environment however as offsprings, for whatever reason, might not receive the same amount of environmental inputs that made their parents successful. Lack of regression towards the mean might on the contrary imply that the kids received similar environmental inputs as their parents.

    Read More
    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    • LOL: res
     
    Is it another of your compelling arguments that I just misinterpret?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @res

    Do you even understand what a brain drain is? Nigerians who obtain their education and credentials in the US or UK do not constitute a brain drain. A brain drain is when those already educated and practicing a high-skill profession leave a country.
     
    I do. A brain drain is when especially intelligent people (educated or not at that moment) in a given country emigrate. What you describe is an especially damaging subset of that.

    I’m a Nigerian. I have dozens of relatives in the US and UK. Almost all the adults are well-educated professionals. ALL OF THEM obtained their degrees and professional credentials in the US and UK.
     
    And why did you and those others leave to get your degrees in the US or UK? Perhaps because Nigeria could not supply the kinds of educational opportunities beneficial to someone with your intellect? Or were you somehow randomly selected from the entire population of Nigeria? Back in Nigeria were your parents part of the elite or peasants in the countryside? Or perhaps discriminated against Igbos?

    For each one of them innumerable other Nigerians could’ve done the same thing, given the opportunity.

     

    Proof? Not holding my breath waiting...

    I am really coming to enjoy the "can" and "could" constructions in arguments like this. They provide a great tell for unjustified assumptions.

    P.S. As Tyrion asks: Who do you think you are persuading?

    Proof? Not holding my breath waiting…

    I am really coming to enjoy the “can” and “could” constructions in arguments like this. They provide a great tell for unjustified assumptions.

    P.S. As Tyrion asks: Who do you think you are persuading?

    You’re still not understanding that intrinsic ability is not the single factor at play in any outcome.

    I agree with Okechukwu, I was born in Haiti, adopted by upper class French parents with my sisters. Graduated from an elite school, I have a good job. Plenty of Haitians or middle class native French could have succeeded like me or better due to their “genetic potential”. But somehow, they had a different life.

    Now we know how res will create the next Forbes 500 company. He will simply hire some bright STEM guys who can do something. And of course, the investment money will fall from the sky and the market will be receptive just because his guys can do it. That’s how res will become the next Bill Gates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    You’re still not understanding that intrinsic ability is not the single factor at play in any outcome.
     
    I don't think intrinsic ability is a single factor behind outcomes. Please stop misrepresenting my beliefs and arguments. It is an important factor though!

    I agree with Okechukwu, I was born in Haiti, adopted by upper class French parents with my sisters. Graduated from an elite school, I have a good job. Plenty of Haitians or middle class native French could have succeeded like me or better due to their “genetic potential”. But somehow, they had a different life.
     
    Thanks for the additional background. That does make you an especially instructive example. Do you know the background of your birth parents? Are you an Igbo?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. res says:
    @Tyrion

    Oh I see. So you’re actually correcting Professor Arthur Jensen’s understanding of basic statistics. For a moment there I thought you were sincere
     
    No, I was correcting what you said was Jensen's understanding of basic statistics.

    I feel compelled to make that clear.

    Otherwise, I accept your resignation and conclude that we never really disagreed.

    You were merely affecting belief in the argument you proposed in order to hopefully push it onto others.

    Since what you've written has been thoroughly refuted in this thread, it all seems a bit of a waste of time. Perhaps in the future you might try something more useful.

    I can think of a number of policies which would greatly improve the future lives of Africans if only they were widely adopted. You could suggest ways to have them adopted or propose your own? You surely understand much better what should be done than me.

    1. Re-drawing of large African states into more tribally or ethnically homogenous polities. Nigeria would be an interesting example.

    2. The self-enforcement of a one child policy in Africa. Allowing maximum investment in offspring and the conservation of Africa's very favourable natural resource to population ratio.

    3. The guiding of an African statelet along the path of Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai before it. Low taxes, stable government and an initial injection of foreign expertise could provide a shining and inspirational example to the rest of the continent.

    I would be very interested in hearing thoughtful responses to your policy proposals from the Africans commenting here.

    I have a forlorn hope that a Biafra full of Igbo would combine your 1 and 3.

    From a practical point of view I think South Korea makes a better model for your 3. (the others are rather special cases IMHO). But that analogy seems to be out of favor right now: http://www.afrol.com/articles/22953

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. utu says:
    @Chanda Chisala
    I've explained this many times before, but since you seem sincere in your confusion, I will explain it again.

    When I say "regression to the mean" I do not mean that the "regressed" IQ becomes equal to the mean of the race. Not only I, but many others who use that term in this debate, including Jensen, Rushton, et al. A more accurate term would be "regression TOWARD the mean," as Jensen sometimes clarified. So, the claim is not that children of elite Africans should have the average IQ of their "race" or source population, but that it should regress TO or TOWARDS that, on average. Which means that children of elite blacks should have lower IQ on average than children of equally elite (equal IQ) whites. Similarly, children of elite black Africans should have significantly lower IQ than children of similarly elite black Americans. No, none of them will actually "regress" to the point of their source population IQ, but it is like different centers of gravity pulling them downwards, statistically speaking.

    My argument is that there does not seem to be much indication that children of black African elites -- that is, even if we granted that these immigrants are really the elites of Africa -- are having a huge disadvantage over children of elite native black Americans. It seems like quite the opposite, which is in direct contradiction to the prediction of the racial hypothesis, if the black Americans have the advantage of white genes. Above that, they seem to have increased numerical advantage when you increase cognitive selection, which should not happen if that lower "center of gravity" from which they hail is biologically rooted, as my opponents believe.

    Now you can respond to THAT argument, instead of responding to your own simplified version of it.

    You are making your point very well. Children of the elite will have lower IQ than their parents. This is all what you need in your argument. It follows from the breeder’s equation but you do not have to mention the regression to the mean. But you have mentioned it and this attracted a character Tyrion who apparently gets triggered by the regression to the mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Tyrion says:
    @res
    Tyrion, you make many excellent points in this thread. I see you only started commenting at the Unz Review a week or two ago. Please stick around and keep commenting!

    But in this case:

    Were one to kill the bottom half in intelligence of a group, would you still expect the surviving top half to regress towards the previous mean?
     
    you are mistaken. If you look into the animal breeding literature you will see that is exactly what happens in breeding selection. And in this context the correct meaning of "towards" is indeed "in the direction of." By a quantitatively measurable amount.

    This page provides an introduction: http://animalscience2.ucdavis.edu/ggg201d/references/response_selection.html

    In particular pay attention to the breeder's equation: R = h^2*S
    More on that at https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

    To go further, population means can change, but if you look at multi-generational breeding experiments the old means seem to have more persistence than one might expect if selection stops. Not necessarily the case in real world examples where selection is occurring in response to consistent environmental changes though.

    I am looking forward to reading your comments following #119.

    P.S. I hope the people using a relative lack of regression towards the mean for IQ as an argument in this thread realize that is strong evidence for the high heritability of IQ (see h^2 in the breeder's equation above). I don't think they would want to accidentally argue in favor of something they don't believe.

    you are mistaken. If you look into the animal breeding literature you will see that is exactly what happens in breeding selection. And in this context the correct meaning of “towards” is indeed “in the direction of.” By a quantitatively measurable amount.

    Thank you for your very gracious tone! It is a pleasure to read.

    My objection though is that members of the newly formed population will not regress towards the previous whole population’s mean but instead to an as yet undiscovered mean for the newly formed population.

    Your link makes the same point but more elegantly:

    With tougher selection, say by kidnapping a year’s worth of National Merit Finalists, you could create a new ethny with far higher average intelligence than any existing. Eugenics is not only possible, it’s trivial.

    Or to put it into the context of this discussion, due to the very heavy selective pressures on recent black African migrants to America they form a new and higher IQ ethny.

    The traveller may be moving from London in the direction of Paris and Beijing, but if they’re only going to Paris it doesn’t seem very useful to highlight that they also happen to be going towards Beijing.

    I imagine you are very well aware of this though

    as you provided the link so I shall endeavour to be clearer in the future!

    P.S. I hope the people using a relative lack of regression towards the mean for IQ as an argument in this thread realize that is strong evidence for the high heritability of IQ (see h^2 in the breeder’s equation above). I don’t think they would want to accidentally argue in favor of something they don’t believe.

    It seems that the more equal environment for children in modern societies will likely have gone someway to reducing the explanatory power of environment in IQ variation.

    Related, I read something about nobles being much taller than peasants were in the past but I have absolutely no recollection of where nor can I find a reference to it so it was probably in a novel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    My objection though is that members of the newly formed population will not regress towards the previous whole population’s mean but instead to an as yet undiscovered mean for the newly formed population.
     
    This is an important point, but it is hard to quantify. For that reason I tend it ignore it unless discussing a well known subpopulation with good data available (e.g. Jews in America, or the Igbo in Nigeria if only there was better data). But I certainly agree that Charles Darwin's family was regressing towards a higher mean than England as a whole. A good estimate for that mean on the other hand...I don't know.

    Or to put it into the context of this discussion, due to the very heavy selective pressures on recent black African migrants to America they form a new and higher IQ ethny.
     
    I think this is in the process of happening but we don't have enough of the next generation having matured to really conclude much specific. At the moment I think there is still an important component of African tribe subpopulation higher IQ ethny(ies?). In other words, it is probably safer to use the home population tribal mean IQs (if they were available) rather than trying to guesstimate some new African immigrants in America ethny. Stated another way, I suspect the second generation to regress towards a somewhat selected version (see the breeder's equation) of the tribal means with later generations regressing to that new American subgroup mean.

    It seems that the more equal environment for children in modern societies will likely have gone someway to reducing the explanatory power of environment in IQ variation.
     
    This is an excellent point which I love to hammer on because I think it gets too little attention. The more egalitarians succeed in equalizing environments the more important the underlying genetics become in explaining the remaining differences (though those differences probably shrink due to broken feedback loops).

    It actually provides a good reason to posit a larger environmental component to IQ in Africa than in the more developed world.

    Related, I read something about nobles being much taller than peasants were in the past but I have absolutely no recollection of where nor can I find a reference to it so it was probably in a novel.
     
    ; ) The thing about that is I think it had both genetic and environmental components, but have never seen an attempt to analyze the relative contribution in historical times. An interesting question.

    P.S. You are living up to your namesake (assuming your username is a GoT reference) in terms of insight and humor. And that is a high ; ) bar indeed. Thanks for the stimulating conversation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @res

    Do you even understand what a brain drain is? Nigerians who obtain their education and credentials in the US or UK do not constitute a brain drain. A brain drain is when those already educated and practicing a high-skill profession leave a country.
     
    I do. A brain drain is when especially intelligent people (educated or not at that moment) in a given country emigrate. What you describe is an especially damaging subset of that.

    I’m a Nigerian. I have dozens of relatives in the US and UK. Almost all the adults are well-educated professionals. ALL OF THEM obtained their degrees and professional credentials in the US and UK.
     
    And why did you and those others leave to get your degrees in the US or UK? Perhaps because Nigeria could not supply the kinds of educational opportunities beneficial to someone with your intellect? Or were you somehow randomly selected from the entire population of Nigeria? Back in Nigeria were your parents part of the elite or peasants in the countryside? Or perhaps discriminated against Igbos?

    For each one of them innumerable other Nigerians could’ve done the same thing, given the opportunity.

     

    Proof? Not holding my breath waiting...

    I am really coming to enjoy the "can" and "could" constructions in arguments like this. They provide a great tell for unjustified assumptions.

    P.S. As Tyrion asks: Who do you think you are persuading?

    Back in Nigeria were your parents part of the elite or peasants in the countryside? Or perhaps discriminated against Igbos?

    “Discriminated Igbos?” What, isn’t discrimination just an imaginary excuse?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I don't want to repeat parts of his argument I agree with, including where I think he agrees with me that we have very little reliable information from Lynn, Rushton or anyone else about the great variety of àlleles in Africa and their expression in g measuring tests. But I wish to add the observation that þhe regression towards the mean mightn't be as potent as the discussion seems to propose. Suppose you have a group of elite families that have average IQs of 115, sd say 10, and it is from them that just about all with IQs over 115 go to British or American Universities. They intermarry and produce children who go to good British or American schools. What sort of effect do you expect from regression to the mean?

    Incidentally Steve Ssiler has said somewhere that the white ancestry of African-Americans is only about 16 per cent. And one has to ask "what sort of whites?". Mostly not Jeffersons I guess.

    Tyron is confused who will persist in his error because he easily falls in love with his own arguments. It is a form of intellectual Onanism or having a drink with the image in the mirror.

    For his argument Chanda wanted to lower IQ of African immigrants. Which he accomplished by invoking the regression to the mean that would apply if the immigrants were from the elite, i.e., from the above of the mean. Then the fact that these children outperform (elite) African Americans was more striking.

    If African immigrants were not from the elite then Chanda did not need to lower the IQ of their children for his argument because not being form elite their IQ would be low by American standard yet the children outperform (elite) African Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Tyron is confused who will persist in his error because he easily falls in love with his own arguments.
     
    Projection is a terrible thing. Tyrion's response (comment 171) to my criticism of his regression towards the mean comment makes clear how wrong you are. My statement "you are mistaken" was very blunt language yet he was willing and able to consider the evidence I presented and actually quoted that part in his response. If only more people here showed that much of an open mind.

    Where did the word "elite" come from in the following sentence?

    Then the fact that these children outperform (elite) African Americans was more striking.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. MarkinLA says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Nobody who can’t understand the outer edges of mathematics or physics is unlikely to advance those fields in a meaningful way.
     
    All you're saying is that there is a threshold effect of intelligence for creativity in certain fields. But that in no way proves that intelligence determines creativity, it is merely that a certain amount of intelligence is a prerequisite for the display of certain kinds of creativity, although the threshold effect may not be measurable with an IQ test. For example, the musical or mathematical savant with an IQ below that of a gamma minus moron is nevertheless a genius in what they are gifted at doing.

    But that in no way proves that intelligence determines creativity

    I never said that. I might have it wrong but between you and Santoculto there seemed to be some thinking that “creativity” whatever that is, is the most important trait. I am saying that there is worthless creativity and that which is of value trends to occur with people of high intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Tyrion says:
    @res
    Please don't let poor arguments and purposeful attempts to mislead by some of the proponents persuade you there is nothing to the idea.

    In my opinion the issue is more with overreach in the arguments. I agree with szopen that significant success in Scrabble is evidence against an estimated IQ of 64 in Gabon (though we may disagree on details). Take a look at my normal curve frequency numbers just above.

    My explanation is some combination of the following (exact proportions unknown and IMHO currently unknowable due to lack of data):

    - Environmental depression of IQ in much of the African population. In other words, genetic IQ potential is greater than apparent from phenotypic IQ (but closer to 10 IQ points than 30 IMO).
    - High likelihood of a correlation of environment with IQ. High IQ parents are more likely to provide good environments for their children. Thus the elites are closer to their genetic IQ potential. This fattens the IQ tail IMO.
    - Subpopulations with higher IQs. For example the Igbo. This makes the IQ curve non-normal. I sometimes colloquially refer to this as fat-tailed, but this is a specific form of fat tail.
    - Verbal affinity and ability are typically greater for Africans at a given IQ than for other populations. This directs high ability individuals towards Scrabble rather than games like Chess or Go.
    - A special effort (e.g. coaches) by Africans to succeed at Scrabble followed by a positive feedback loop based on initial success.

    The extent of environmental IQ depression in Africa is important for making assessments of the potential for African development. I wish there was more data and less rhetoric surrounding this. A good start would be for African countries to collect better intelligence and education (both input like #years and results like test scores) data.

    Some people appear to be trying to use the Scrabble data to argue that in equivalent environments African average IQs will rise to match the US or UK white mean of 100 (or is that the still higher East Asian and Jewish means?). Good luck with that.

    P.S. The selective immigration argument does not really apply to Scrabble performance in Africans in their native countries. It is much more relevant to Chanda's arguments based on the high performance of Africans in the UK. The denials of it are ridiculous and annoying (especially given the data I presented!), but don't really affect the overall argument here.

    P.P.S. Do you disagree with my regression towards the mean statements in comment 156?

    I agree with szopen that significant success in Scrabble is evidence against an estimated IQ of 64 in Gabon

    Agreed, and despite having never gone to Gabon I have travelled throughout the continent and spoken with a range of individuals across socio-economic classes so no research paper could convince me that the average IQ is as low as 64.

    It is almost as silly a thought as that African migrants to America are a representative sample of Africans more generally…

    Other than the anecdote above, I have nothing more to add. It all makes perfect sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. MarkinLA says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Once he [the white man] was guilt tripped about how he mistreated the savages he started to allow other savages from around the world to come in. He could just as easily have depopulated the entire continent of Africa and the Americans and filled it with white people.
     
    "He could just as easily ..." But he didn't. Not very intelligent really. Consider the Brits in East Africa. They thought they could hold the place with a few gentlemen farmers who no doubt practised birth control in their very superior European way, while they introduced European agricultural techniques that vastly increased the carrying capacity of the land. Thus, as the white farmers were complacently sipping gin and tonic the natives were busy outbreeding them. The result, white African empire defunct.

    The Europeans repeated such stupidity over and over again, as they are doing now in their own homelands. If you think this has nothing to do with intelligence, what precisely do you think the adaptive function of a brain is?

    There are a lot of silly ideas that smart people have or haven’t you been paying attention to our universities lately. Are all those professors actually lacking intelligence? People can be brainwashed. Religion is one vehicle. If the Pope told the Spanish that Amerindians could never be part of the Holy Church and the best way to deal with them is to baptize them and kill them, the Spanish probably would have complied. Instead the Pope wanted their souls “saved”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Intelligence is not just

    Potential

    Nor

    Cognitive


    So yes, this people may have potential but experience has proved that they lack personal smart achievements, one of them is: don't be fooled by their own feelings. Intelligence based on IQ is just like a innately reached achievement but not, intelligence is a challenge for all life and they have proved if not for themselves at least for subjective outsiders that they are fraudulent intellectuals. IQ seems just like height and basketball. To be exceptional in basketball you must need to be taller, it's a pre condition, but this doesn't mean that you will be a exceptional player even if you practice it at professional levels.

    IQ create this fixed pseudo achievement while in the true intelligence is all the time and it's basically correct pattern recognition + factual understanding at priori. The potential at least cognitively convergent is there but the achievements or lack of will prove how really smart people can be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I don't want to repeat parts of his argument I agree with, including where I think he agrees with me that we have very little reliable information from Lynn, Rushton or anyone else about the great variety of àlleles in Africa and their expression in g measuring tests. But I wish to add the observation that þhe regression towards the mean mightn't be as potent as the discussion seems to propose. Suppose you have a group of elite families that have average IQs of 115, sd say 10, and it is from them that just about all with IQs over 115 go to British or American Universities. They intermarry and produce children who go to good British or American schools. What sort of effect do you expect from regression to the mean?

    Incidentally Steve Ssiler has said somewhere that the white ancestry of African-Americans is only about 16 per cent. And one has to ask "what sort of whites?". Mostly not Jeffersons I guess.

    Suppose you have a group of elite families

    We had a discussion on breeder’s eq. before I think. First of all breeder’s eq. is concerned with the expected values, i.e., if parents are smarter than the population mean then their children are more likely to be less smart than parents. However smarter children than their parents also will be born but less of them. This is however OK because the Gaussian curve above parents IQ has lower values than below their IQ so to replace parents population above parent’s IQ you need less children than below parent’s IQ. Mathematically the 2nd generation is arrived as moving window convolution of the 1st generation Gaussian curve. The width of the smoothing window varies.

    What happens in the 3rd generations? Does the same breeder’s eq. apply? I think it does. But it does not mean that “the group of elite families” will all regress to the mean because all the time also smarter children than their parents are born. This is necessitated by the fact that in the stable population of which “the group of elite families” is a part of variance does not change. It goes back to the convolution argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    What happens in the 3rd generations? Does the same breeder’s eq. apply? I think it does.
     
    No. The West Hunter link I gave earlier discusses this: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

    The next point is that the luck only goes away once. If you took those kids from the first group, with average IQs of 110, and dropped them on an uninhabited but friendly island, they would presumably get around to mating eventually – and the next generation would also have an IQ of 110.
     
    If you select again then the breeder's equation again applies but based on the new higher mean.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. I'm afraid that i just tossed into a conversation I had only glanced at a thought which crossed my mind which was consistent with my view that we know very little from which conclusions about genetic inheritance can be inferred about African IQs. The Flynn Effect presumably - actually obviously - has a long way to go!
    To repeat myself, we know that Africa didn't have small founder populations which had adapted to living in the Eurasian Ice Age and we also know that African DNA has enormous variety with consequences still largely unexplored. I would happily place a very large bet that we will know by 2030 that the *average* sub Saharan genotype assessed as a set of genes for cognitive ability in the sense of g reflects most of today's one sd difference beetween pre-dysgenic-breeding white Americans and African-Americans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Afrosapiens
    Regression toward the mean or the lack thereof doesn't support a genetic hypothesis.

    As the GWAS literature suggests, the genetic variance in IQ is additive and does not follow a Mendelian mode of inheritance in which recessive alleles are silenced in an individual. An individual's gene expression is the average of the effect size of the alleles he carries and an offspring's gene expression is the average of the effect size of the alleles he receives from his parents. For regression toward a genetic mean to happen, parents must be less likely to transmit their higher IQ alleles than those that are closer to their population's average, and this hypothesis is unwarranted.

    Regression to the mean can be explained by environment however as offsprings, for whatever reason, might not receive the same amount of environmental inputs that made their parents successful. Lack of regression towards the mean might on the contrary imply that the kids received similar environmental inputs as their parents.

    • LOL: res

    Is it another of your compelling arguments that I just misinterpret?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    No. That is how I respond when you reply to a compelling argument with handwaving.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Okechukwu says:
    @Tyrion
    Cool story bruh. Was anybody supposed to learn anything from your anecdote except that you are exceptionally proud to be marrying a white person?

    And she's a really lucky girl to be marrying someone who primarily sees her that way...

    Cool story bruh. Was anybody supposed to learn anything from your anecdote except that you are exceptionally proud to be marrying a white person?

    And she’s a really lucky girl to be marrying someone who primarily sees her that way…

    Gee, it slipped my mind that your ridiculous ideology holds that white women are these heavenly, ethereal, perfect creatures. Apparently most of you guys have never been with one.

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there’s no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn’t).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Masters of CLEVERNESS... and not necessarily INTELLIGENCE....
    , @Afrosapiens

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there’s no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn’t).
     
    Not exactly.

    Firstly, it is obvious that developing world emigrants are rarely illiterate peasants. They could not deal with the administrative process and financial requirements. Legal emigrants will tend to be more educated than average, but illegal emigrants not so much and this will significantly lower the selection effect.

    Secondly, immigration is sponsored by relatives, and these relatives have often sent remittances that contributed to increasing well being and educational opportunities for those potential future emigrants in the home country. It means that the higher socio-economic status of the emigrant population is more likely to have an environmental cause than a genetic one.
    , @Tyrion

    Gee, it slipped my mind that your ridiculous ideology holds that white women are these heavenly, ethereal, perfect creatures.
     
    You are right sort of. That is a primarily Western delusion. Though I as an individual primarily identify feminity with nature and the earthly, which is the opposite of what you allege.

    My point does stand too. She is a lucky lucky lady if her future husband's favourite thing about her is her skin colour.

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there’s no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn’t).
     
    Are you still trying to claim that moving to America is in the reach of the average African? This is so boring. Can we talk about African v Western conceptions of feminity, possible paths to development for Africa or something interesting.

    Perhaps you have an opinion on African countries adopting the one child policy? I think it'd be great, but then maybe my reasoning is motivated by the fact that I do not want Britain (the country that kindly took my ancestors in) being turned into New Africa or indeed New Anything Else.

    Perhaps you even agree that Western Europeans have gone mad by opening their borders and that a nation is a precious thing to have?

    Who knows, because you're still trying to pretend it is the average among those who averagely earn a Dollar a day that make it to America and secure for their children something thay Russians and Chinese have reportedly been spending tens or even hundreds of thousands of Dollars for. Please stop it is so stupid.
    , @res

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there’s no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn’t).
     
    No one is claiming the selection is intentional (e.g. a "regime"). Simply that it exists. As proved by the brain drain data.

    Please grace us with some of your "easily corroborated factual evidence."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. utu says:
    @res
    Tyrion, you make many excellent points in this thread. I see you only started commenting at the Unz Review a week or two ago. Please stick around and keep commenting!

    But in this case:

    Were one to kill the bottom half in intelligence of a group, would you still expect the surviving top half to regress towards the previous mean?
     
    you are mistaken. If you look into the animal breeding literature you will see that is exactly what happens in breeding selection. And in this context the correct meaning of "towards" is indeed "in the direction of." By a quantitatively measurable amount.

    This page provides an introduction: http://animalscience2.ucdavis.edu/ggg201d/references/response_selection.html

    In particular pay attention to the breeder's equation: R = h^2*S
    More on that at https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

    To go further, population means can change, but if you look at multi-generational breeding experiments the old means seem to have more persistence than one might expect if selection stops. Not necessarily the case in real world examples where selection is occurring in response to consistent environmental changes though.

    I am looking forward to reading your comments following #119.

    P.S. I hope the people using a relative lack of regression towards the mean for IQ as an argument in this thread realize that is strong evidence for the high heritability of IQ (see h^2 in the breeder's equation above). I don't think they would want to accidentally argue in favor of something they don't believe.

    Were one to kill the bottom half in intelligence of a group, would you still expect the surviving top half to regress towards the previous mean?

    you are mistaken. If you look into the animal breeding literature you will see that is exactly what happens in breeding selection.

    I think you are right. The regressing to the mean does not imply that this mean is the same as the mean (average) of the subpopulation. The subpopulation average will remain above the original mean and because of the regression to the mean the average will be moving towards the original mean but slowly. The truncated 1/2 Gaussian distribution will be smoothed out by repeated convolutions for each new generation but it will not become a Gaussian distribution and its average will remain above the original mean. Still there will be a memory of the original mean.

    In breeding selection it is never a one step process. Each generation is trimmed so that forces the average to stabilize.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Okechukwu

    Cool story bruh. Was anybody supposed to learn anything from your anecdote except that you are exceptionally proud to be marrying a white person?

    And she’s a really lucky girl to be marrying someone who primarily sees her that way…
     

    Gee, it slipped my mind that your ridiculous ideology holds that white women are these heavenly, ethereal, perfect creatures. Apparently most of you guys have never been with one.

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there's no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn't).

    Masters of CLEVERNESS… and not necessarily INTELLIGENCE….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Okechukwu

    Cool story bruh. Was anybody supposed to learn anything from your anecdote except that you are exceptionally proud to be marrying a white person?

    And she’s a really lucky girl to be marrying someone who primarily sees her that way…
     

    Gee, it slipped my mind that your ridiculous ideology holds that white women are these heavenly, ethereal, perfect creatures. Apparently most of you guys have never been with one.

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there's no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn't).

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there’s no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn’t).

    Not exactly.

    Firstly, it is obvious that developing world emigrants are rarely illiterate peasants. They could not deal with the administrative process and financial requirements. Legal emigrants will tend to be more educated than average, but illegal emigrants not so much and this will significantly lower the selection effect.

    Secondly, immigration is sponsored by relatives, and these relatives have often sent remittances that contributed to increasing well being and educational opportunities for those potential future emigrants in the home country. It means that the higher socio-economic status of the emigrant population is more likely to have an environmental cause than a genetic one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    Firstly, it is obvious that developing world emigrants are rarely illiterate peasants.
     
    But this assumes that illiterate peasants are innately less intelligent than literate urbanites, which is false. Literacy does not equal intelligence. Highly literate slave masters weren't always the smartest people on a plantation. Often if was the slaves, who couldn't even read or write. To paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, Einsteinian-level geniuses have lived and died in cotton fields and sweat shops. European history is instructive in this regard. Many of the people running the world today are descendants of illiterate serfs, indentured servants and peasant farmers.

    Secondly, immigration is sponsored by relatives
     
    Precisely. And those relatives don't care how smart or dumb the sponsored party is. I know from personal experience that it definitely isn't always the best and brightest Nigerians that are coming to America. Many of the best and brightest have no chance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Tyrion says:
    @Okechukwu

    Cool story bruh. Was anybody supposed to learn anything from your anecdote except that you are exceptionally proud to be marrying a white person?

    And she’s a really lucky girl to be marrying someone who primarily sees her that way…
     

    Gee, it slipped my mind that your ridiculous ideology holds that white women are these heavenly, ethereal, perfect creatures. Apparently most of you guys have never been with one.

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there's no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn't).

    Gee, it slipped my mind that your ridiculous ideology holds that white women are these heavenly, ethereal, perfect creatures.

    You are right sort of. That is a primarily Western delusion. Though I as an individual primarily identify feminity with nature and the earthly, which is the opposite of what you allege.

    My point does stand too. She is a lucky lucky lady if her future husband’s favourite thing about her is her skin colour.

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there’s no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn’t).

    Are you still trying to claim that moving to America is in the reach of the average African? This is so boring. Can we talk about African v Western conceptions of feminity, possible paths to development for Africa or something interesting.

    Perhaps you have an opinion on African countries adopting the one child policy? I think it’d be great, but then maybe my reasoning is motivated by the fact that I do not want Britain (the country that kindly took my ancestors in) being turned into New Africa or indeed New Anything Else.

    Perhaps you even agree that Western Europeans have gone mad by opening their borders and that a nation is a precious thing to have?

    Who knows, because you’re still trying to pretend it is the average among those who averagely earn a Dollar a day that make it to America and secure for their children something thay Russians and Chinese have reportedly been spending tens or even hundreds of thousands of Dollars for. Please stop it is so stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    My point does stand too. She is a lucky lucky lady if her future husband’s favourite thing about her is her skin colour.
     
    I think Okechukwu only mentioned his fiancée's skin color just to highlight how unwelcoming America was for highly educated candidates even if they are white and German. If you don't understand this, it's reasonable to suspect that you're not comfortable with interracial marriage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    Proof? Not holding my breath waiting…

    I am really coming to enjoy the “can” and “could” constructions in arguments like this. They provide a great tell for unjustified assumptions.

    P.S. As Tyrion asks: Who do you think you are persuading?
     
    You're still not understanding that intrinsic ability is not the single factor at play in any outcome.

    I agree with Okechukwu, I was born in Haiti, adopted by upper class French parents with my sisters. Graduated from an elite school, I have a good job. Plenty of Haitians or middle class native French could have succeeded like me or better due to their "genetic potential". But somehow, they had a different life.

    Now we know how res will create the next Forbes 500 company. He will simply hire some bright STEM guys who can do something. And of course, the investment money will fall from the sky and the market will be receptive just because his guys can do it. That's how res will become the next Bill Gates.

    You’re still not understanding that intrinsic ability is not the single factor at play in any outcome.

    I don’t think intrinsic ability is a single factor behind outcomes. Please stop misrepresenting my beliefs and arguments. It is an important factor though!

    I agree with Okechukwu, I was born in Haiti, adopted by upper class French parents with my sisters. Graduated from an elite school, I have a good job. Plenty of Haitians or middle class native French could have succeeded like me or better due to their “genetic potential”. But somehow, they had a different life.

    Thanks for the additional background. That does make you an especially instructive example. Do you know the background of your birth parents? Are you an Igbo?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    The largest single ethnic elements in the ancestry of Haitians tend to by 1. various tribes from West Central Africa i.e. the Western Congo and northern Angola (a significant element in virtually all New world Afro descendant groups in both North and South America and the Caribbean), and 2. People of the Fon (and other similar Gbe-speaking groups) from around the kingdom of Dahomey in the modern Republic of Benin (not to be confused with the Kingdom of Benin in Nigeria, which is composed of a different ethnic group, the Bini/Edo people, who didi not participate much in the slave trade), and 3. the rest other smaller amounts of various other West African ethnic groups (Igbos are not a significant element in Haiti)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    • LOL: res
     
    Is it another of your compelling arguments that I just misinterpret?

    No. That is how I respond when you reply to a compelling argument with handwaving.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Nope, again, you're misinterpreting things.

    In artificial selection, the reason why descendants regress toward a mean is not because they regress toward a genetic population mean, it's the opposite. Since genes explain only a fraction of the phenotypic variance, matching for phenotype will result in imperfect response to selection because the non-genetic component of the variance will bring the offspring closer to the population mean.

    Additive variance has no such thing as non-expressed recessive alleles so a heritability of 1 will never result in regression towards a population mean. The child's phenotype will just be the average of his parent's.

    Then you said absence of regression to the mean proved high heritability of IQ. Not necessarily, it just mean this subset of the African population closely matched for environmental factors which persist generation after generation, thus no regression toward the mean has to be expected. But it tells nothing about the heritability of IQ in the general African population which likely expresses more environmental variation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Cool story bruh. Was anybody supposed to learn anything from your anecdote except that you are exceptionally proud to be marrying a white person?

    And she’s a really lucky girl to be marrying someone who primarily sees her that way…
     

    Gee, it slipped my mind that your ridiculous ideology holds that white women are these heavenly, ethereal, perfect creatures. Apparently most of you guys have never been with one.

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there's no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn't).

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there’s no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn’t).

    No one is claiming the selection is intentional (e.g. a “regime”). Simply that it exists. As proved by the brain drain data.

    Please grace us with some of your “easily corroborated factual evidence.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Okechukwu says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Relative to human history, the interaction that Africa has had with other people is still very recent, very brief, relatively superficial, and the vast majority still really haven’t had even that little contact.
     
    But couldn't this relative seclusion just as easily be an explanation of lower average IQ and different behavioral traits?

    No one is claiming that Europeans or NE Asians just magically increased their IQ overnight. Environmental and cultural pressures over tens of thousands of years caused it. Cold winters might require better building and planning skills (both related to IQ and other behavioral traits), increasing their attributes in a population.

    The creation of large scale agriculture and cities would also push for people with certain skills and behavioral traits most certainly related to IQ.

    If sub-Saharan African populations were never subjected to these forces, it wouldn't be surprising if their average IQ remained at lower levels. Indeed, it would be stunning if sub-Saharan Africans managed to evolve a similar IQ to Europeans and NE Asians without going through these processes. It would put the Theory of Evolution in serious doubt.

    No one is claiming that Europeans or NE Asians just magically increased their IQ overnight.

    They did if you consider that European and American IQ’s around the turn of 20th century were in the 60′s and 70′s.

    Environmental and cultural pressures over tens of thousands of years caused it. Cold winters might require better building and planning skills (both related to IQ and other behavioral traits), increasing their attributes in a population

    The evidence says otherwise. Eurasia lies in the temperate zone. That was far more hospitable and survivable than tropical Africa. In fact humans were fully-formed, intellectually and otherwise, in the hot jungles and arid savannas of Africa, which were and remain forbidding. Whites couldn’t even go into the African interior without modern medications. If they did they’d die. Humans have not gotten smarter since dispersing in and out of Africa. We’ve just gotten more experienced and more knowledgeable.

    Moreover, civilization radiated from the warmer south to the colder north. There’s a reason there are hardly any sophisticated ancient structures or manuscripts in Northwestern Europe.

    The creation of large scale agriculture and cities would also push for people with certain skills and behavioral traits most certainly related to IQ.

    Africa had large-scale agriculture and cities. In fact African slaves from agricultural regions were prized for their know-how and expertise. For example, African slaves from rice growing regions are credited by some historians with creating the rice cultivation industry in the United States.

    If sub-Saharan African populations were never subjected to these forces, it wouldn’t be surprising if their average IQ remained at lower levels. Indeed, it would be stunning if sub-Saharan Africans managed to evolve a similar IQ to Europeans and NE Asians without going through these processes. It would put the Theory of Evolution in serious doubt.

    It doesn’t work that way. Notwithstanding the fact that Africans are actually the ones that emerged from a much more challenging and intellectually stimulating environment relative to Europeans and NE Asians, every human environment makes adaptive demands on intelligence. The only traits that are variable are the superficial phenotypes that offer a unique survival advantage in a given environment. Skin color, for example. The core, complex traits that have an equal survival value in any environment are not deferentially distributed between various populations of humans. This is why all human groupings have intelligence, language and abstraction. But they do not all have light or dark skin. The same applies to complex organs. They too have an equal survival value in any environment. No human group or “race” has better hearts or livers. Therefore it’s impossible that any human group is going to have better brains, which is just another complex organ.

    Read More
    • Agree: Afrosapiens
    • Replies: @Jm8
    In addition to that, there are significant seasons in much of Subsaharan Africa; primarily the substantial dry and (comparatively)wet/rainy seasons, the former requiring planning/preparation and storage. Much of sub-saharan West Africa (and somewhat extending across to the east, and again in parts of the south of the continent), both the Sahel and savannah regions (and the range of zones labeled in the climate map below as: “semi-desert”, “steppe”, as well as “savanna grassland”,and dry season forest or as termed in the link “woodland savanna”) has significant dry seasons lasting roughly half the year when little food can be grown/little edible grows and hunting generally traditionally increased (as also often happened as well during cold seasons in temperate zones) and in preparation for which grain/food typically had to be stored, in traditional granaries, among the various local tribes—such being a standard and necessary part of traditional farming in those regions. The savannah, sahel and woodland savannah form a vary large belt/area and include for instance: Mali, Senegal, Burkina faso, the Northern and central parts of Ghana and Nigeria (and some of the southern parts) , and Niger at its Western end. ” They make up a large area of the continent (the savannah and Sahel regions of West—and some parts of East and Southern Africa).
    Some of the same likely applies to much of South Asia/the Indian Subcontinent and the Middle East.

    Most—though not all—rainforests/wetter forrest regions are concentrated around the center of the continent (the "greater Congo" region), and make up a relatively small part of the continent. Some dry seasons may exist in much of this area but are mostly shorter and/or less intense.

    Link to African climate maps seems not to to be causing this post to not show, so I have ommited it.
    , @szopen
    I would really like to know what is your definition of "sophisticated ancient structures". There are a lot of ancient stone buildings and structures in EUrope more than thousand years BC, IIRC predating earliest African similar structures by few centuries at least.

    Second point it's far from certain than modern human appeared first in SSA. Most of the modern human remains were found in Middle East and North Africa. It could be that modern homo sapiens (as contrasted with old hominids) actually appeared north of Sahara.

    Third point is that Europeans couldn't go into tropical Africa not because of any intellectual problems, but because of deadly diseases. It's hardly relevant for discussion about intellectual prowess whether one population is more or less resistant to a disease.

    Fourth point is that repeating "Europeans were in 60s or 70s" does not make it true. When corrected for FLynn effect, it seems so; but there is ongoing discussion whether FLynn effect actually measures real rise in "g".

    Fifth is that more difficult to live environment does not mean it is more challenging to an intelligence. In an environment in which parasites, insects and bugs are aplenty, intelligence is less needed than a strong immune system - such an environment might be less hospitable to humans, more difficult to live in, but it emphatically NOT select for higher intelligence. It might be true (i am not saying it is true, merely that it might be true) that in every environment there are challenges which could be addressed by higher intelligence, however evolution is a multigoal optimization process, and higher intelligence is not costless .

    Sixth is that we actually DO know that for some genes either correlating with intelligence or with brain development their frequency is different in different population, and in fact consistent with known average national IQs (or, to be more precise, was not found to be inconsistent). This does not constitute, obviously, a proof for a biological basis for measured intelligence differences, but it does point that it's not only skin color which was selected.

    Seventh, it is your claim "humans were fully formed intellectually", i.e. something you have to prove, and you cannot use it as an argument to disprove any hypothesis.

    Finally, it is not true that Eurasia was more hospitable than Africa. Cold zones provide less food and have cold season where in past it was almost impossible to survive without hunting and fishing and more sophisticated toolset for making houses and clothes.
    , @szopen
    One more thing: you DO know that Europeans and northern Asians, on average, have larger brains than Sub-Saharan Africans? Obviously, this does not mean the innate intelligence is higher (it was postulated that, IIRC and don't kill me if I remember it wrong larger brains evolved because of there being less light in the north, so the demand on visual system was larger) but there are measurable differences in brain.

    Those are not quantitative difference, but it does not mean they do not exist. Every humans needs to breathe, and breathing involves complex systems and organs which are useful in every environment, yet there are genetic differences between Andean Indians or Tibetans and other populations, causing Tibetans to be more adapted to live in higher altitudes.

    In short, if there is a variation WITHIN the population, then it is possible for evolving differences BETWEEN the populations, because environments differ, so they will differ in their selection pressures.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country

    In fact humans were fully-formed, intellectually and otherwise, in the hot jungles and arid savannas of Africa, which were and remain forbidding. Whites couldn’t even go into the African interior without modern medications.
     
    Those two sentences contradict each other.

    Humans have not gotten smarter since dispersing in and out of Africa. We’ve just gotten more experienced and more knowledgeable.

     

    So the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection stopped applying to humans - or, at least, to our brains? We know that plants and animals can evolve in the span of several hundred years, much less tens of thousands, but you're claiming that human IQ has remained perfectly stable despite tens of thousands of years of dramatically different environments and cultures.

    That would truly be miraculous in a very religious sense and would turn modern science on its head. (It'd also make my rethink being agnostic.)

    It also makes me wonder why those Mastiffs are hiding their smarts while the Border Collies feel more comfortable showing off their brains. I mean, they must have the same intelligence, right?


    every human environment makes adaptive demands on intelligence.

     

    Identical demands? You're saying that the demands on intelligence to live Europe during the Ice Ages were identical the demands of living in the African Savanna. Or are you saying that our IQ simply cannot be changed?

    The only traits that are variable are the superficial phenotypes that offer a unique survival advantage in a given environment. Skin color, for example. No human group or “race” has better hearts or livers. Therefore it’s impossible that any human group is going to have better brains, which is just another complex organ.
     
    You realize the skin is the largest human organ, right?

    So, you are arguing that average IQ for human groups, "races," is immutable. Well, if that's the case, please provide links to research because you're arguing that human IQ is not susceptible to natural selection, and I've never seen anyone argue that.

    I mean, hey, if you're right, I'm fine with it. But I've never seen anything like what you're arguing. Even researchers who are very wary of saying that different races - oops, sorry, population groups - have different average IQs don't argue that IQ can't change due to natural selection.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Bill says:
    @res
    Bill, what do you think of my multifactorial argument just above this?

    I think it is very reasonable, and you could add unrepresentative samples to the list if you want. I don’t have a strong opinion about whether Gabon’s mean IQ is 64, 74, or 80. On the other hand, you don’t need a very big subpopulation with near-triple-digit IQs to get a few good scrabble players. The Igbo example is nice because widely known, but I don’t see why the sub-populations have to be so big or to have names. Marrying into a good family is something the children of good families are encouraged to do—even in degenerate America this is true. That dynamic by itself has to make little high-IQ (and conscientiousness, and etc) sub-populations.

    The idea that you can go from “there are some black African guys who play scrabble well” or “black Nigerians who hold non-education PhDs from American universities are pretty smart, and so are their children” to some sweeping conclusion that we don’t have good reasons to believe blacks have low IQs for genetic reasons is bizarre, however.

    Also, good job on digging up the fact that Kenny Solomon is an affirmative action grandmaster. That is some funny stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    and you could add unrepresentative samples to the list if you want.
     
    Good point. I had not thought of that (thanks!), but on reflection I think that would tend to bias the measured IQ numbers higher (rather than the low numbers given by Lynn) so I think I will leave it off going forward given the potential to muddy the waters. Although I suppose someone attempting to correct for an unrepresentative sample and overdoing it is a possibility.

    On the other hand, you don’t need a very big subpopulation with near-triple-digit IQs to get a few good scrabble players. The Igbo example is nice because widely known, but I don’t see why the sub-populations have to be so big or to have names.
     
    This is an important point, but it is hard to quantify and depends greatly on what the Scrabble IQ threshold actually is. IQs of 115, 130, and 145 are very different in terms of how big a group is necessary for a 100 mean subpopulation to produce reasonable numbers at those levels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. I don’t think intrinsic ability is a single factor behind outcomes. Please stop misrepresenting my beliefs and arguments. It is an important factor though!

    I’m not misinterpreting anything, you repeatedly dismissed as an excuse any argument that said many things not related to intellect and education held back progress in Africa, making fun at “we could but we don’t” types of arguments.

    Thanks for the additional background. That does make you an especially instructive example. Do you know the background of your birth parents? Are you an Igbo?

    LMAO! I’m Haitian, which is a mix of various West African ethnicities. There aren’t specific ethnic groups that have remained endogamous.

    And I don’t really get this obsession with Igbos. All African countries have ethnicities that tend to be better off than their country’s average, mostly due to political favoritism either during the colonial or after years of dictatorial rule.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    PS: No, my case isn't instructive at all. At least, not as far as common sense is concerned. There is nothing more common than kids of rich educated parents graduating from good schools and getting good jobs. It's the norm. Even if those kids aren't genetically related to their parents.
    , @Tyrion

    LMAO! I’m Haitian, which is a mix of various West African ethnicities. There aren’t specific ethnic groups that have remained endogamous.
     
    If you had to give a paragraph brief on why Haiti is the least successful society in the Western hemisphere what would you produce?

    I am genuinely interested in your opinion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. res says:
    @Tyrion

    you are mistaken. If you look into the animal breeding literature you will see that is exactly what happens in breeding selection. And in this context the correct meaning of “towards” is indeed “in the direction of.” By a quantitatively measurable amount.
     
    Thank you for your very gracious tone! It is a pleasure to read.

    My objection though is that members of the newly formed population will not regress towards the previous whole population's mean but instead to an as yet undiscovered mean for the newly formed population.

    Your link makes the same point but more elegantly:

    With tougher selection, say by kidnapping a year’s worth of National Merit Finalists, you could create a new ethny with far higher average intelligence than any existing. Eugenics is not only possible, it’s trivial.

    Or to put it into the context of this discussion, due to the very heavy selective pressures on recent black African migrants to America they form a new and higher IQ ethny.

    The traveller may be moving from London in the direction of Paris and Beijing, but if they're only going to Paris it doesn't seem very useful to highlight that they also happen to be going towards Beijing.

    I imagine you are very well aware of this though

    as you provided the link so I shall endeavour to be clearer in the future!

    P.S. I hope the people using a relative lack of regression towards the mean for IQ as an argument in this thread realize that is strong evidence for the high heritability of IQ (see h^2 in the breeder’s equation above). I don’t think they would want to accidentally argue in favor of something they don’t believe.
     
    It seems that the more equal environment for children in modern societies will likely have gone someway to reducing the explanatory power of environment in IQ variation.

    Related, I read something about nobles being much taller than peasants were in the past but I have absolutely no recollection of where nor can I find a reference to it so it was probably in a novel.

    My objection though is that members of the newly formed population will not regress towards the previous whole population’s mean but instead to an as yet undiscovered mean for the newly formed population.

    This is an important point, but it is hard to quantify. For that reason I tend it ignore it unless discussing a well known subpopulation with good data available (e.g. Jews in America, or the Igbo in Nigeria if only there was better data). But I certainly agree that Charles Darwin’s family was regressing towards a higher mean than England as a whole. A good estimate for that mean on the other hand…I don’t know.

    Or to put it into the context of this discussion, due to the very heavy selective pressures on recent black African migrants to America they form a new and higher IQ ethny.

    I think this is in the process of happening but we don’t have enough of the next generation having matured to really conclude much specific. At the moment I think there is still an important component of African tribe subpopulation higher IQ ethny(ies?). In other words, it is probably safer to use the home population tribal mean IQs (if they were available) rather than trying to guesstimate some new African immigrants in America ethny. Stated another way, I suspect the second generation to regress towards a somewhat selected version (see the breeder’s equation) of the tribal means with later generations regressing to that new American subgroup mean.

    It seems that the more equal environment for children in modern societies will likely have gone someway to reducing the explanatory power of environment in IQ variation.

    This is an excellent point which I love to hammer on because I think it gets too little attention. The more egalitarians succeed in equalizing environments the more important the underlying genetics become in explaining the remaining differences (though those differences probably shrink due to broken feedback loops).

    It actually provides a good reason to posit a larger environmental component to IQ in Africa than in the more developed world.

    Related, I read something about nobles being much taller than peasants were in the past but I have absolutely no recollection of where nor can I find a reference to it so it was probably in a novel.

    ; ) The thing about that is I think it had both genetic and environmental components, but have never seen an attempt to analyze the relative contribution in historical times. An interesting question.

    P.S. You are living up to your namesake (assuming your username is a GoT reference) in terms of insight and humor. And that is a high ; ) bar indeed. Thanks for the stimulating conversation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @res
    No. That is how I respond when you reply to a compelling argument with handwaving.

    Nope, again, you’re misinterpreting things.

    In artificial selection, the reason why descendants regress toward a mean is not because they regress toward a genetic population mean, it’s the opposite. Since genes explain only a fraction of the phenotypic variance, matching for phenotype will result in imperfect response to selection because the non-genetic component of the variance will bring the offspring closer to the population mean.

    Additive variance has no such thing as non-expressed recessive alleles so a heritability of 1 will never result in regression towards a population mean. The child’s phenotype will just be the average of his parent’s.

    Then you said absence of regression to the mean proved high heritability of IQ. Not necessarily, it just mean this subset of the African population closely matched for environmental factors which persist generation after generation, thus no regression toward the mean has to be expected. But it tells nothing about the heritability of IQ in the general African population which likely expresses more environmental variation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. res says:
    @utu
    Tyron is confused who will persist in his error because he easily falls in love with his own arguments. It is a form of intellectual Onanism or having a drink with the image in the mirror.

    For his argument Chanda wanted to lower IQ of African immigrants. Which he accomplished by invoking the regression to the mean that would apply if the immigrants were from the elite, i.e., from the above of the mean. Then the fact that these children outperform (elite) African Americans was more striking.

    If African immigrants were not from the elite then Chanda did not need to lower the IQ of their children for his argument because not being form elite their IQ would be low by American standard yet the children outperform (elite) African Americans.

    Tyron is confused who will persist in his error because he easily falls in love with his own arguments.

    Projection is a terrible thing. Tyrion’s response (comment 171) to my criticism of his regression towards the mean comment makes clear how wrong you are. My statement “you are mistaken” was very blunt language yet he was willing and able to consider the evidence I presented and actually quoted that part in his response. If only more people here showed that much of an open mind.

    Where did the word “elite” come from in the following sentence?

    Then the fact that these children outperform (elite) African Americans was more striking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Where did the word “elite” come from in the following sentence?

    From Chanda's argument. The data were for college kids.
    , @Jm8
    "Where did the word “elite” come from in the following sentence?

    "Then the fact that these children outperform (elite) African Americans was more striking.""

    I brought it up earlier, and it has been mentioned in Chisala's previous article(s) It seems to have been unnoticed by most. The offspring of elite African Americans do still show indications of regressing to a lower mean than the previous generation and the white average (this is fairly well established I believe in both SAT scores, education, IQ etc.), whereas same is not seen in the second generation of African immigrant groups.

    http://www.unz.com/article/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap-debate-part-3/

    “The mere possibility that the African immigrants in our experiment could be an elite, unrepresentative group does not matter in itself (I don’t know how many ways to emphasize this point, which is the subject of the most popular straw man among those who keep arguing that the immigrants are “not representative” of their source populations). It does not matter *because Jensen gave us a prediction specifically concerning a sample of exclusively elite, “unrepresentative” Blacks.*

    Reading from the same Jensen paper, we are told this about elite Black Americans:

    “Matching Black and White children for the geographical areas of their homes, the schools they attend, and other finer grade socioeconomic indicators again reduces the mean group IQ difference but does not eliminate it. Black children from the best areas and schools (those producing the highest average scores) still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 286–289; Jensen, 1998b, pp. 357–360). This is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean.”

    "....
    We know that children of native Black Americans earning $200,000 a year in family income score lower on SAT scores than children of Whites getting only $20,000 in family income ($10, 000 per parent!). We also know that the Nigerian income in the US is only $57,000, which is lower than the non-Hipspanic white income, and yet their children still score at least as high as children of Whites, which is the opposite of Jensen’s predicted result. “


    And I replied to Utu:
    ""“His point is that if Africans in the US are part of African elites their children according to the regression to the mean (who care which mean) will have lower IQ than their parents because their parents as members of elites were above the mean. Yet these children outperform African American children who have 20-25% white admixture.”"

    Also that they show signs of performing above the immigrant generation (and performing above the white mean—some ethnic/subgroups of them that is—, at least in the UK, and at least not below it in the US).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Okechukwu says:
    @Afrosapiens

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there’s no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw intelligence, it doesn’t).
     
    Not exactly.

    Firstly, it is obvious that developing world emigrants are rarely illiterate peasants. They could not deal with the administrative process and financial requirements. Legal emigrants will tend to be more educated than average, but illegal emigrants not so much and this will significantly lower the selection effect.

    Secondly, immigration is sponsored by relatives, and these relatives have often sent remittances that contributed to increasing well being and educational opportunities for those potential future emigrants in the home country. It means that the higher socio-economic status of the emigrant population is more likely to have an environmental cause than a genetic one.

    Firstly, it is obvious that developing world emigrants are rarely illiterate peasants.

    But this assumes that illiterate peasants are innately less intelligent than literate urbanites, which is false. Literacy does not equal intelligence. Highly literate slave masters weren’t always the smartest people on a plantation. Often if was the slaves, who couldn’t even read or write. To paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, Einsteinian-level geniuses have lived and died in cotton fields and sweat shops. European history is instructive in this regard. Many of the people running the world today are descendants of illiterate serfs, indentured servants and peasant farmers.

    Secondly, immigration is sponsored by relatives

    Precisely. And those relatives don’t care how smart or dumb the sponsored party is. I know from personal experience that it definitely isn’t always the best and brightest Nigerians that are coming to America. Many of the best and brightest have no chance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    But this assumes that illiterate peasants are innately less intelligent than literate urbanites, which is false.
     
    I agree, and I would even add that the "average African" is not really an illiterate peasant anymore in 2017. It's an error to use socio-economic measures and pretend they reflect genetic potential. Especially in Africa where meritocracy is a very foreign concept.

    Precisely. And those relatives don’t care how smart or dumb the sponsored party is. I know from personal experience that it definitely isn’t always the best and brightest Nigerians that are coming to America. Many of the best and brightest have no chance.

     

    True, but smart or dumb, these relatives will tend to have higher than average SES, and hereditarians will equate that to better genetics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. res says:
    @utu
    Suppose you have a group of elite families

    We had a discussion on breeder's eq. before I think. First of all breeder's eq. is concerned with the expected values, i.e., if parents are smarter than the population mean then their children are more likely to be less smart than parents. However smarter children than their parents also will be born but less of them. This is however OK because the Gaussian curve above parents IQ has lower values than below their IQ so to replace parents population above parent's IQ you need less children than below parent's IQ. Mathematically the 2nd generation is arrived as moving window convolution of the 1st generation Gaussian curve. The width of the smoothing window varies.

    What happens in the 3rd generations? Does the same breeder's eq. apply? I think it does. But it does not mean that "the group of elite families" will all regress to the mean because all the time also smarter children than their parents are born. This is necessitated by the fact that in the stable population of which "the group of elite families" is a part of variance does not change. It goes back to the convolution argument.

    What happens in the 3rd generations? Does the same breeder’s eq. apply? I think it does.

    No. The West Hunter link I gave earlier discusses this: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

    The next point is that the luck only goes away once. If you took those kids from the first group, with average IQs of 110, and dropped them on an uninhabited but friendly island, they would presumably get around to mating eventually – and the next generation would also have an IQ of 110.

    If you select again then the breeder’s equation again applies but based on the new higher mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Have you considers that The West Hunter does not know what he is talking about? For this what West Hunter describes to occur the kids taken to his friendly island must constitute normal (symmetric) distribution. This is the necessary condition but probably not the sufficient one. Taking the upper 1/2 of Gaussian (wasn't that the starting point of the discussion) does not meet this condition.
    , @utu
    I get the impression that some people (you? West Hunter?) when they talk about the regression to the mean and the breeder's equation from which it is implied think in deterministic terms that the above the average parents will produce only children that are less smart than themselves. This is not so. If it was so the population would be unstable and had shrinking variance. The breeder's equation is true only in terms of expected values. So the smarter kids are also born because the population (its Gaussian distribution) must remain stable. The sufficient number of smarter kids are born to fill up the dent left by parents in the Gaussian. This dent is filled up by kids of even smarter parents who regressed and kids of less smart parents who anti-regressed and all of this is happening in the narrow neighborhood of parents IQ. There is more less smart parents than smarter parents. And since the Gaussian on the RHS of its mean is monotonically decreasing the number of anti-regressed kids is smaller than the number of regressed kids but it alls adds up so the distribution remains invariant.

    Last time we had a discussion about it I got the impression that West Hunter who blessed us with his presence was not getting it, or simply his monosyllabic utterances were not eloquent enough to reveal the vast depths of his knowledge.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Tyrion

    Gee, it slipped my mind that your ridiculous ideology holds that white women are these heavenly, ethereal, perfect creatures.
     
    You are right sort of. That is a primarily Western delusion. Though I as an individual primarily identify feminity with nature and the earthly, which is the opposite of what you allege.

    My point does stand too. She is a lucky lucky lady if her future husband's favourite thing about her is her skin colour.

    My anecdote, which is supported by easily corroborated factual evidence, goes to demonstrate that there’s no particular selection regime in immigration that prioritizes intelligence or IQ (not that IQ even measures raw inte