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

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In my last article, “Scrabble Spells Doom for the Racial Hypothesis of Intelligence,” I argued that Africans should not be able to come anywhere near dominating the games of Scrabble (both English and French) or professional checkers, as they apparently do, if their real biological intelligence was anywhere near as low as their nominal IQ scores might indicate. Although these board games evidently require very high intelligence at the top competitive world championship level (not necessarily at the home level with your dad), and attract extremely nerdy math types, they have the specific advantage of not being too affected by the well-known learning/training resource gaps that exist between rich and poor populations.

My argument is therefore not against the low IQ score estimates for African nations (by Richard Lynn, et al), but whether this reflects some restrictive racially linked genetic cause. If it is indeed basically genetic, it should practically be impossible to find any area of relative cognitive performance of Africans that is inconsistent with this large IQ deficit with whites and other groups.

If, on the other hand, the cause is basically environmental (specifically, learning resource deficiencies), then some exceptions are bound to exist and these will predictably only be found in areas in which the cognitive challenges are high but the learning resource requirements (books, well-trained teachers etc) are extremely minimal. Performance on such cognitively demanding but bookless contests will far exceed even academic areas that are light on cognitive demands but heavy on book learning (eg soft subjects like sociology etc, where you still find no Africans at the top). The genetic Racial Hypothesis predicts that the gap should be even bigger in favor of whites as you go to the more naturally complex contests like Scrabble (see Spearman’s Hypothesis.) In short, if there was to be any exception to inferior African intellectual performance, it should have been in the softer fields where there are less of the gifted math types to contend with.

The Chess Question

Modern chess, like modern mathematics, does not have this book-free quality, which is why the differences in chess performance even among nations with similar nominal IQs are so large. Countries like the former Soviet Union invested heavily in the academization of chess, such that even great players like the American Bobby Fischer had to learn Russian just to keep up with their ever-expanding libraries of books. (The recent advancement in computer chess programs should make the future of chess quite different, especially as computing devices also become cheaper.)

However, as I noted in the Scrabble article, this is not merely an excuse for African chess performance (even putatively high IQ countries like Japan and Korea that have less exposure to the academic culture of chess, are not so great at the game and have no grandmasters). The easiest proof that Africans are also not biologically disadvantaged at chess is that in multiracial South Africa, there is only one chess grandmaster and he just happens to be black. Kenny Solomon only learned to play chess at the age of 13 and was exposed to only one chess book (just like the Zambian grandmaster, Amon Simutowe), a disadvantage that was faced by virtually no other grandmaster in any other part of the world.

South Africa's first chess grandmaster, Kenny Solomon.

South Africa’s first chess grandmaster, Kenny Solomon.

The quantitative argument here is that if there is a large average cognitive gap in potential chess ability between blacks and whites, this gap will be most conspicuous at the highest levels of performance. You have the opposite result in South African chess, contrary to what prominent racial hypothesizers like Gregory Cochran expect.

Blogging about a highly distinguished South African physicist of Jewish descent, Neil Turok, who believes that black Africans could academically perform as well as once-poor Ashkenazi Jews historically did when they became exposed to high quality education, Cochran calls him smart but “crazy.” Cochran then appeals to Turok’s common sense by asking him to look at his own personal experience with black South Africans on different brainy contests:

And he has no excuse …He grew up in South Africa: there are plenty of things he would have seen if this picture of the world were true, and he’s never seen any of them. Did black kids out-argue him, beat him at chess, …?

As Thomas Sowell has noted, it is always fascinating to see how confidently intellectuals speak about the direct experiences of other people that they don’t have themselves (like journalists telling “crazy” cops that they should have just easily shot the armed mad man in the leg instead of the head!)

If the first and only chess grandmaster in South Africa is a black man from a poor community (in a country that has had some pretty strong Jewish chess players), as is the only South African to reach super-grandmaster ranking in professional Anglo American checkers (Lubabalo Kondlo), then perhaps Turok’s personal experience as a kid playing chess and checkers with black South African kids may not be as obvious as Cochran boldly presumes. After all, Cochran himself believes that if there is a large ability gap between two groups, this difference will be most conspicuous at the highest levels of ability (like reaching grandmaster level?)

At this point, I am willing to wager that it is not Neil Turok who is “smart but crazy.”

The Scrabble for Africa?

Professor James Thompson, a British psychologist from University College London who has kindly critiqued a number of my IQ articles, responded to my Scrabble article with his own craftily titled “The Scrabble for Africa.” African interest in board games was indeed quite influenced by the European colonial period that followed the famous “scramble for Africa.” France was at the time a dominant force in the game of checkers and the countries in Africa today that have given the toughest challenge to the historical state-sponsored Russian dominance of the game are all former French colonies. Scrabble is a more recent game.

In The Scrabble for Africa, Dr. Thompson acknowledges that this line of research could plausibly pose a problem for the racial genetic hypothesis, although he proposes a statistical test to save it from immediate falsification:

I will take Nigerian IQ70 as the estimate to be disproved, and the Rindermann estimate of African intelligence of IQ75 (which makes allowances for sample deficiencies) as the best estimate for Africa as a whole.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741

If Nigerian IQ is 70 there will be 5,764 Nigerians with an IQ of 130 and above. Some of them will play Scrabble. If really good Scrabble playing requires an IQ of 140, then there will be 278 Nigerians able to excel at this game.

If Nigerian IQ is in fact at the Rindermann estimate for Africa of 75, then there will be 22,362 Nigerians with an IQ of 130 and above, and 1,336 Nigerians with an IQ of 140.

It is always good when someone puts up a statistical model that could potentially refute their own hypothesis if their calculations or assumptions are wrong; it makes everyone’s job easier. In the past when I have corrected the assumptions in the statistical calculations of HBD enthusiasts, they have not contested my corrections, and yet they have still soldiered on with their unwavering faith!

So, all I have to do (again) is see if the math does indeed work to defend Thompson’s favored genetic hypothesis.

Omitted Conditions

Before we even look at the omissions in Thompson’s calculations, it is surprising that he does not see that these small numbers of high IQ people in the Nigerian population (particularly if top level Scrabble requires IQ 140) makes it highly unlikely that such a large fraction of them would commit themselves to playing Scrabble, as the best means of taking advantage of their supposedly rare intellects in a very poor country.

And yet even these small numbers of high IQ potential Scrabble champions are still gross over-estimates when we factor in the omissions in Thompson’s calculations:

1. AGE FACTOR

Dr. Thompson forgot that his final estimates include Nigerians with that IQ at all ages. Thus, even a 2 year old with an IQ of at least 140 is included in his estimate of how many Nigerians can play “really good” Scrabble (remember that your IQ score is only measured against your peers in age or close age range). The only people whose IQ is applicable for these calculations are the adult Nigerians (all of these world class players are safely above age 20-25).

One therefore has to factor that in by looking at the demographics of Nigeria and excluding at least all the toddlers. Dr. Thompson’s final estimate will have to be cut down by more than half!

But the missing cuts don’t end there.

2. GENDER FACTOR

The second factor he does not consider is that all of these top Scrabble players are men. His final estimate includes both males and females who would be above that IQ. The number would have to be cut down further (and there are fewer males than females in Nigeria, like most countries, so it has to be cut by more than half here again).

3. BRAIN DRAIN

Dr. Thompson himself also tells us that half of these top elites have left Nigeria for greener pastures in the West, according to a report he found in the Economist, but for some reason he does not include such a large factor into his calculations. What should make this factor even more significant is that most of those Nigerian emigrants have historically been male, which reduces even further the men available in Nigeria to play Scrabble at that IQ.

The female share of US immigrants from selected countries of birth, 1980-2013. Source: Migrationpolicy.org

The female share of US immigrants from selected countries of birth, 1980-2013. Source: Migrationpolicy.org

So, we have approximately 30 men or less in Nigeria who are supposedly the African equivalent of Manhattan Project scientists, and just about all of them – there were approximately 30 Nigerians on the world top 100 list in 2015 – have decided to dedicate themselves to Scrabble? Life can’t be that depressing even in Nigeria!

Randomly assuming that Nigeria may have IQ 75 instead of 70 still doesn’t fix this reductio ad absurdum.

And it gets much worse when you take this analysis to the other African countries with much smaller populations. I don’t know why Dr. Thompson neglected to show us how his calculations would work on Gabon (the country that was most prominent in my own rough statistical argument), which has less than 2 million people and an IQ of 64 but regularly produces top world championship Scrabble players. As a defender of your hypothesis, you should normally tackle the hardest cases to show how they happily survive the biggest hits from the opposition. The math fails miserably for Gabon, even without a single correction to his assumptions.

The Biggest Mistake?

If there is any chance of saving Thompson’s calculations, it becomes obliterated when you discover (through reverse engineering his concealed steps) the Standard Deviation he employed in his calculations: he apparently used a wrong SD for the distribution of black IQ (wrong, at least according to hereditarian IQ literature itself, assuming blacks in Africa are like blacks in America.)

Under the “correct” black SD, there should actually be no Nigerians who exist at the 140 IQ level. This is not just a problem for Scrabble, it also implies that there should be no Nigerians at any level of intellectual achievement that requires IQ 140. It means no single Nigerian can ever win the National Merit scholarship, for example, as it requires just about that level of IQ. The fact that there have been such Nigerians, like National Merit winner, Justin Otor (Igbo), who also attended one of the most selective gifted schools in America, or Saheela Ibrahim (Yoruba), whose equivalent SAT scores would put her well above the National Merit threshold despite writing the SAT when she was only 14 or 15, is of course a statistical anomaly for the racial hypothesis. And all those Nigerian students in the UK who achieve the highest GCSE score in the whole country and proceed to Cambridge Med School, like Chidera Ota and her sister, would have had to achieve that by some other mysterious means, not high intelligence. (African witchcraft, perhaps?)

Dr. Thompson has in the past criticized my endless use of such concrete examples of high achieving black Africans because he assumed I was making the common street fallacy of offering tail-end performers as sufficient evidence against the racial hypothesis (“here’s one black guy who is smart, so you’re wrong that blacks have lower average IQ”). In fact, my endless examples have two purposes: firstly, these stories seem to be much more common among Africans than native black Americans, which should not happen if the IQ gap between black Africans and black Americans is 15 and biological (hereditarians believe the partial white genes in black Americans gives them a lot of that cognitive advantage).

Wouldn’t it be strange if Ashkenazi Jews had much fewer real-world academic achievements despite having a 12 point IQ advantage? So, why isn’t it strange that every year when Harvard and all the other Ivy League Colleges strangely admit the same lucky black kid, it is almost always an “African” kid (eg 2016 and 2017)? Why was the first black Harvard Law Review president a child of an African, as well as the first female black president of the same prestigious journal (2017)? Suddenly racial hereditarians will blame something other than “genes” since those are pointing in the wrong direction for them!

The second reason we use these concrete examples of achivers is that they also perform at a level where they simply should not exist in the real world, statistically speaking, given their population IQ, standard deviation, etc.

The right standard deviation for the distribution of black IQ, according to hereditarian literature, is 12, not 15 as Thompson’s calculations assume. Racial hypothesist Gregory Cochran pointed this out to his loyal fans at his popular blog, and some of these followers have since attempted to dutifully correct Thompson’s habitual use of 15 instead of 12 for blacks. The original source for SD 12 is the exhaustive hereditarian Bible itself: “The g Factor” by Arthur Jensen. It’s what is experimentally found for black Americans on different tests.

If Thompson is consciously electing to assume that continental African SD is more like that of white Americans (15) than black Americans (12), then that counter-intuitive choice would pose even bigger problems for the racial hypothesis since it theoretically treats American blacks as cognitively representative of blacks everywhere, except with the advantage of partial whiteness (which should in fact raise the SD). Cochran himself has frequently argued that the failure of black Americans to make significant intellectual achievements in a developed country (where they have lived for hundreds of years) is proof of the black race’s lower genetic intelligence. This argument would be automatically falsified if the SD of black Americans was that much lower than black Africans. After all, the smaller gender SD gap is also proposed as a likely explanation for the conspicuously lower female intellectual achievements.

Fat Tail?

Fat chance.

Under the racial hypothesis, you cannot explain the presence of Africans at such high levels of cognitive performance even if you assume a “fat tail” – the idea that there are more people at the highest ends than a strict Gaussian distribution would allow. If a statistical fat tail can help Gabon to reach such high levels of performance, why doesn’t the fat tail of white women players (of any cognitive game) also come to their rescue since they are supposed to have even more of them at that level of cognitive ability than any African country? Or more directly, why doesn’t the fat tail help the white (male) children who are supposed to be the IQ equivalent of African adult brains and who, according to some hereditarian bloggers, are supposedly more passionate with the same board games than adults?

Finally, if the fat tail is helping Africans here, then logically, it should also help them achieve at the top of other (academic) areas, where such an IQ would be useful. If you claim that it only works with cognitive games and not academic fields, then that’s a concession that learning resource deficits are the only explanation for lower African IQ or scholastic test scores, which means you can’t also use intellectual achievement comparisons as your evidence for cognitive differences. The same argument goes for why proposing an outlier subpopulation can’t work. You have to decide whether you want to have your cake or eat it.

IQ 115 for Scrabble Champs?

Thompson and others may now just insist that “really good” world championship level Scrabble has to take only around 115 IQ or less since at IQ 140 or even 130, the math doesn’t look good for them; the show has to continue!

And then of course I will be obliged to reply by pointing out once again that you can’t just ignore all the empirical evidence that makes such a “low” real IQ implausible for the top Scrabble champions:

  1. The “really good” top of the Scrabble world has a gender gap that is similar to the gender gap in top level physics, mathematics, economics, or even musical composition etc: as you go very high in all such cognitive performance, the gender gap grows sharply. That gender separation does not happen at any activity requiring IQs as low as 115, which in fact sometimes favor women (eg college graduation rates?).And no, the gender disparity at higher levels is not because women are less competitive. Girls in high school are just as competitive as boys when it comes to other challenging cognitive contests like the Spelling Bee, even slightly outperforming the boys. But when they try to bring that same energy to Scrabble, they fail to understand why they can’t “outspell” the boys any more, despite their higher interest in this word game. No one understood this until it was realized that competitive Scrabble is in fact much more like a math test than a spelling bee contest, and math has never been the greater strength of the fairer gender, especially at the most selective levels. Thus, the best ever American kid in Scrabble (Mack Meller) also just happens to be the best kid in KenKen, the Japanese math game with no words (I think he might also be Jewish).
  2. The extreme over-representation of Ashkenazi Jews at the top of Scrabble achievement also follows the same pattern as in physics, mathematics, etc. The New York Times has reported that most of the American Scrabble champions have been of Jewish descent. I also investigated this question further and, using one or two of Ron Unz’s selected Jewish names in an article he wrote about stealth ethnic bias in elite college admissions, I found a large over-representation of Jewish names among the Scrabble club players of North America.This large list has over 14,000 players (almost ten times the number in Nigeria, according to an email I received from the Nigerian Scrabble Federation, which should dispel the silly suggestion by some HBD bloggers that Africans just have higher participation on this American word game, despite their alarmingly low literacy rates; France apparently also has more players – 16,000 – than all African Francophone countries combined, as the official International French Scrabble website indicates; Senegal, historically the most active African country in French Scrabble, only has 750 club players, which makes the statistical calculations even more impossible for the racial hypothesis).On the American list, the name Cohen/Cohn/Cohan appears 38 times; names with “Gold-” appear 70 times while (probably mostly Jewish) names ending in “-stein” appear 110 times. By contrast, the most common surname in America, ‘Smith,’ appears only 104 times. (Note: I’m still patiently waiting for someone to explain to me how a 3 IQ point gender gap prevents Jewish white women from reaching Jewish white male performance on any cognitive contest, but a 45 IQ point gap does not stop African men to challenge same Jewish men!)
  3. The over-representation of math majors on top level Scrabble. Since the population of mathematicians or math majors in the world is extremely small, due to the simple fact that math is not simple, what is the probability that they could be over-represented at the top of any other field that does not require similarly high selective levels of (mathematical) intelligence? It’s mathematically impossible.
  4. Following from the logic of 3, the very fact that you have a world champion (among a handful of world champions) who was a twice Putnam Prize winner should close the case, statistically speaking. The number of Putnam Fellows is tiny even among the tiny group of math majors, which means that you logically shouldn’t have any of them winning any other popular “prize” that does not result from exactly the same unique mental advantage required to win the Putnam. In short, a Putnam Fellow statistically has zero chance of distinguishing himself on any popular contest in which an IQ of 130 (or even 140, really) would be sufficient for distinction. This is more evidence that our 140 IQ may itself be a conservative estimate for world championship level of play.
  5. Finally, some cognitive psychologists (who did not have our arguments above) have actually tested some top Scrabble players of the US and found them to score extremely highly on different professionally conducted cognitive tests – scoring significantly above students of an elite college. In fact, as one commenter in our last article keenly observed, the authors of that paper apparently used wrong SAT scores for their control group of students, by forgetting that SAT correlation with IQ has changed over time. This means that the (older) Scrabble players in their sample had significantly higher IQs than was assumed from their older SAT scores, which makes their superior cognitive scores actually unsurprising.

ScrabbleQuote

The researchers were surprised that the Scrabble experts scored a standard deviation on cognitive scores above the students with similar SAT scores, and yet their recentered SAT scores would suggest that this is exactly how they should perform on the cognitive tests (they thus inadvertently proved that SAT scores are quite highly correlated with real cognitive ability). The actual average IQ score of these elite Scrabble players, derived directly from their SAT scores, would be approximately 145. An anonymous commenter in 2015 independently calculated that the elite American Scrabble players have average IQ of 143!

It should also be noted that these high IQ Scrabble players in the sample only represented the top 2 percent in selection, which is lower than the top world championship group that the top Africans face. Thus, the sample had 23% women. Since Scrabble is a math game, as we’ve noted, it is interesting that the gender ratio in this selective Scrabble sample was quite exactly the gender ratio for the famously selective “Study for Mathematically Precocious Youth” (see Thompson, 2016)? Just another coincidence?

The Mind Sports Academy, the organizers of world championships in several cognitive games (including Scrabble, chess, Go, etc) have decided to build a more robust rating system that compares player strengths within one cognitive game and across to the other “mind sports.” Their current top ten Scrabble ratings for Team USA apparently has quite a few Ashkenazi Jewish “suspects,” but no women:

A little side note: the highest ranked name in this top ten list by Mind Sports Academy is actually a Nigerian immigrant; and he happens to be the only American who makes it to the top ten list of the world (but that's totally besides the point!).

A little side note: the highest ranked name in this top ten list by Mind Sports Academy is actually a Nigerian immigrant; and he happens to be the only American who makes it to the top ten list of the world (but that’s totally besides the point!).

CONCLUSION

We can ignore all the statistical arguments and actual testing evidence indicating that the world champion level players would exceed IQ 140 or perhaps even IQ 150 (since Putnam Fellows have won, but no women have won), and conservatively assume that only IQ 130 is needed for such extreme distinction. There should still (statistically) be no single person from African countries like Gabon. And yet they exist, constantly outperforming math professors and computer scientists from the developed world. That’s a statistical problem for the racial hypothesis but it is not a problem at all for the alternative hypothesis: the African nominal national IQs are artificially depressed by more than 30 IQ points due to an extremely deficient cognitive environment. To defiantly ignore the strong significance of these obvious resource gaps, you probably have to be very smart. And crazy.

 
The Race/IQ Series
Hide 405 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. cupric says:

    1) Do we have firm evidence about the genetic makeup of these players from Gabon et al?

    2) Even at 70 mean and 12sd, a 130 IQ is only 5 standard deviations away, which means the top 0.006% will have a 130 IQ and above, even without taking into account fat tails. That’s more than 100 people in Gabon alone.

    3) The author assumes that “of course all the smart people wouldn’t just play board games” … the research on IQ gaps suggests the opposite. People at the extreme edges of IQ are usually socially isolated and incomprehensible to their peers. I imagine this is only exacerbated in Africa where intelligence isn’t prized like it is in the west. I would expect even more severe nerd in-grouping among intelligent Africans.

  2. Obama at Harvard Law was an affirmative action hire. He never even wrote anything. Bad example. He’s maybe 115 IQ, from all I’ve seen of him/his writing.

  3. Daniel H says:

    >> Even at 70 mean and 12sd, a 130 IQ is only 5 standard deviations away,

    ONLY 5 standard deviation away. Sheesh.

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @cupric

    Is there even such a thing as an “African nerd”?
    There clearly are African-American nerds (and i have known a few, but only a few). And they are pretty much nerds in the same way as white American nerds.
    Whether there are Asian-American nerds is a more complex question. Obviously the answer is yes in many ways. Real nerds do not really care about racial differences on a personal level, and anyone familiar with nerds knows that Asians and whites and others intermix. But the difference between Asian-American “nerds” and other Asian-Americans is in many ways less extreme than with other races, so far as I grasp it.
    Maybe what I’m getting at is this: maybe being a “nerd” is more or less a white thing, and African-American nerds take on the role since that is more or less what is available. (Assuming they don’t want to be an overtly “Africanist” figure like Cornel West.)
    But in Africa, apart from pieces of South Africa, there are no white nerds. (Whites in other parts of Africa just are not going to be nerds.) The role is not available for the taking. Perhaps an African at the very high end of the IQ scale is going to construe his position as nothing other than an entry point into global, world culture, and will have no qualms about entering.

    • Replies: @neutral
    , @Santoculto
  5. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Nice arguments.

    Note that “pause” should be “pose” (two instances).

    But is the African environment cognitively “deficient” or cognitively “different”? Might not a test of cognitive capacity devised to assess performance that is adaptive in a typical African social and physical milieu reveal cognitive “deficiency” of the Western environment?

    • Replies: @Chanda Chisala
  6. And Russians excel at chess and produce a disproportionate number of grandmasters simply because they practice chess more, given its ubiquitousness in their culture.

    This article is we wuz kangz-tier nonsense.

    • Replies: @Daniel Bruno
    , @jimmyriddle
  7. szopen says:

    I would say the lowest IQ estimation for SSA are untenable. However, Wicherts et al once estimated African IQ to be much higher, in range of American Blacks (lower 80s). Taking that into account, and allowing for SD higher than 12 would allow theoretically for Gabon players (if scrabble would be national sport played pretty much by everyone, from the kids on the streets to the elders on their deathbeds).

    However, the fact that average top scrabble players in Europe or America may have IQ of 140 does not mean one need IQ of 140 to be a top player; in chess, IIRC, correlation between IQ and chess ability goes down with top players. In one study (quoted by Grabner et al) expert chess players (ELO up to 2400, ie Kenny Solomon is within that range) had average 115 in IQ subscales, while mere 106 in overal general intelligence. Grabner found that the highest intelligence of top chess player was 144 and, in contrast, he found significant correlation, with “g” explaining something like one third of the variance in ELO rating. That means that not every GM chess player has to have 140 IQ. In other study however, Bilalic McLeod 2010, the correlation between IQ and skill disappeared amongst the top players (with average IQ in range of 130s) – though the size of the sample was very small.

    “When an elite subsample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill.”

    As scrabble requires intelligence, but also a lot of memorizing, it means it may tap more on some sub-scale of general intelligence AND that’s why I think the assumption that top players HAVE to be 140 is unguaranteed (in general). After all, it were the American players which were tested, not the African ones.

    With threshold 130, and Wicherts higher IQ estimation, you can get 1 in ten thousand top players even with SD 12.

    One have to wonder, however: what if there are african subpopulations with IQ significantly higher than neighbouring population, similarly to Jewish Ashkenazis? That still would mean the lowest estimations of IQ in places like Gabon are way too low, but if there would be say a small population like 10% of Gabon’s population, it would effectively almost double the number of potential players.

    I will repeat myself, however: with plenty of evidence pointing in one direction, and one or two (though very good) pieces of evidence pointing into the other direction, you have to be forgiving that people are not immedietely convinced.

    • Replies: @RW
    , @Chanda Chisala
    , @Bliss
  8. szopen says:

    Here’s my elaboration of the As scrabble requires intelligence, but also a lot of memorizing, it means it may tap more on some sub-scale of general intelligence

    First, the white-black gap are different on different subtests:

    http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/21/blacks-and-whites-with-the-same-iq-still-differ-a-lot/

    Second, scrabble seems to be tapping specifically on visuospatial reasoning and working memory:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/winning-scrabble-and-the-nature-of-expertise/

    So,
    IF scrabble taps on some specific abilities A, B, C…
    AND the gaps in those specific abilities A,B,C are lower between whites-blacks than in general “g”
    AND if those A,B,C correlate with “g”, but differently in whites-blacks
    THEN better performance in scrabble for blacks may be explainable without doubting the gaps in general “g”.

    The problem with this reasoning is that visual-spatial reasoning is usually well correlated with “g” in whites, but it’s a starting point for people smarter than me, I guess, to solve this puzzle.

  9. Thompson’s article was embarrassing.

    The taboo on IQ studies means that the few academics who are willing engage with the subject are often not the smartest of cookies.

    Anyhow, this must be the 3rd or 4th such article on Unz.com and nobody, above or below the line, has come up with a plausible explanation.

    Karlin will make his point about Japanese and Chinese playing Go rather than chess.

    But, as for explaining how a population of 2 million with a mean IQ of 64 produces world class scrabble players – zilch.

    • Replies: @Jay Ritchie
  10. Maybe your thesis could be tested with another game that is not helped by book learning, such as
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancala . Are there world competitions in this game? Do Africans have an advantage?

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  11. @cupric

    Half of the 100 would be kids, given Gabon’s demographics.

    In the UK there are millions of recreational players, a few thousand serious tournament players and a handful of world class players.

    But in Gabon, for some reason, every single person of sufficient IQ dedicates themselves to this game.

    Hmm. I can only suggest that you familiarize yourself with the concept of Occam’s Razor.

  12. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The fact that you use “being good at Scrabble” (or even chess) as a proxy for high IQ tells me all I need to know about your analytic ability.

    If a Gabonese Scrabble champion outperforms a math professor, the problem is with the assumption that Scrabble is highly g-loaded.

    • Replies: @szopen
  13. Realist says:

    Just another dumb ass attempt to nullify the fact that blacks, on average, perform much worse than whites, on IQ tests.
    At least this article only has 4,100 words Vs the last at 6,400.

  14. szopen says:
    @Anon

    Every mental activity is a proxy for IQ, in a sense that excelling at every mental activity requires some cognitive abilities. Of course, some mental activities are better proxies than others. However, it is unlikely that excelling at a game requiring memorizing tens of thousands of words, imagining possible strategies for the opponent and quickly finding needed words, calculating their values and mentally rotating them would not require at least minimal level of average IQ.
    Even with IQ threshold 100, then if Gabon would have IQ 70 and SD 12, then there would be 9.000 eligible players in Gabon. This is however unlikely that minimal IQ would be mere 100. With IQ 115, there would be 129 players eligible in Gabon (again, assuming SD 12 and IQ 70), or less than 2000 with SD=15. It is extremely unlikely that large proportion of them would go play Scrabble and it is especially unlikely that they would be defeating white players – even if there would be only 10.000 white players in whole France, then 1.500 of them would be above the required threshold.

    That means that this is a legitimate argument and if you don’t get it, then you should not even participate in a discussion.

    Therefore, IQ=70 is IMO absolutely impossible for Gabon.

    However, if we would assume IQ=85 and SD=15, then for threshold IQ=115 there would be almost 33000 potential players; correcting for age and gender, still enough players to explain why there were some able to become top players.

    Chisala argument is that for white players:
    (1) at IQ 115 there would not be gender imbalance (that is false; it would be enough to get 4 points difference in F/M means and 3 points difference in SD to get 2/3 of players being male)

    (2) there would be no dominance of Jewish players: the arguments goes, that if being good in Scrabble does not correlate with IQ above some threshold, there would be no additional gains for being high IQ, hence there should not be overrepresentation for Jews. That is false, because with say 115 IQ for Ashkenazi Jews, half of them would have minimal IQ, while only some 16% of whites, meaning 3/4 of top players would be expected to be Jewish with same ppulation size, while with 6 million Jews and 185 non-Jewish whites, some 10% of top players should be Jewish (if my math is correct).

    (3) White players are found to be high on IQ, good for math etc. However the studies I read seem to indicate the players are significantly higher on specific subtests. Moreover, there are not direct IQ tests, it seems to me, and especially, no tests for African Scrabble players.

    Hence, I propose that the puzzle is solved by:
    (1) Assuming mean IQ of at least 80 for SSA
    (2) Assuming that some specific abilities are good for scrabble
    (3) Those abilities do correlate with IQ for both whites and blacks
    (4) The gaps on those specific abilities is greatly diminished between blacks and whites.

    I think (1)-(3) are not controversial. As for (4), there are many studies showing that indeed, the gap in “g” does not mean it is the same on every IQ subtests. This is true both for white-black gap, but also for white-east asian gap. Hence, I argue the (4) is valid hypothesis.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @jimmyriddle
  15. szopen says:
    @szopen

    Forgot about one Chisala’s argument: why there are not a lot of Jewish women in top players. Indeed, we would expect there to be a lot of Jewish women and I have no explanation for this one.

    However I note that acc to the studies on scrabble I read, one have to spent a LOT of time on a single activity (4-5 hours per day, one study claimed). That level of fixation is rather not expected from women.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @JoAnn
    , @res
    , @CanSpeccy
  16. neutral says:
    @Anonymous

    There are around 4 million whites and around 40 million blacks in South Africa, but I can tell you from personal experience that finding a black nerd is exceedingly rare. There are things like cosplay competitions events that are of a much MUCH smaller scale than in the USA, these gatherings tend to also include other things like board gamers, D&D and video gamer nerds. Looking around, the only blacks you will see will be the security guards and the catering staff, one can literally count the number of black nerds in these events with two or three fingers. I asked a black colleague with a reasonably high intelligence about this, he said that in black communities nerd behaviour is seen as weak and effeminate its almost akin to being homosexual, being a nerd is a just not something that would please the community.

    But in Africa, apart from pieces of South Africa, there are no white nerds.

    That probably has to do with the fact that the rest of Africa one can count all the whites in the few thousands.

  17. Blacks are smart?
    So the population thing is OK,right?

  18. lavoisier says: • Website

    I think there are several lines of argument presented in this article that are worth thinking about in greater detail. I agree with Chanda Chisala that the very low mean IQ estimate for many countries in Africa would not permit so many people with outsized intellectual abilities. I also agree that environmental conditions, training, hard work, and opportunity can improve the cognitive performance of anyone who is dedicated to trying to improve. The improvement, however, is likely limited by the individual’s underlying innate ability to take advantage of the opportunity.

    But even if African individuals can perform at the highest levels in cognitively demanding subjects, something that I believe is true, it does not mean that the biological races are equal in their intellectual abilities on an average basis. There seems to be overwhelming scientific evidence for those differences, and I think it is dishonest to pretend that such differences are only explained by cultural forces.

    The way out of this mess. Treat individuals as individuals. If you are smart enough to be a world scrabble champion more power to you, regardless of your race. But cut out affirmative action of any kind. It insults black people of genuine learning and accomplishment whose achievements will always be called into question under a system of preferential hiring and admissions.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  19. @Anonymous

    Nerds is the east asian stereotype as well thug-life is the black stereotype.

    I don’t know what is the % of blacks who are ”thuggish” nor east asians who are ”nerdisch”, but for both appears to be respectively high if compared with whites.

    There are more white thug-life than east asian thug-life and there are more nerd east asian than white east asian. Maybe when we have a combination of both, very interesting individuals can be found.

    What is the minimum avg IQ to be a nerd*

  20. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Maybe your thesis could be tested with another game that is not helped by book learning, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancala .

    Mancala is a perfect information, zero-sum combinatorial two player game just like Chess and Go. It’s just as much a ‘book learning’ game as chess. There’s nothing specifically African to it.

  21. Logan says:

    Author makes a statistical argument from a single example in South Africa. I’m no statistician, but I don’t think you can do that.

  22. Logan says:

    IQ measures, supposedly, “general intelligence.”

    Might excellence at Scrabble be more reflective of a particular aspect of intelligence not necessarily directly correlated with IQ? Similar perhaps to “musical talent?”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  23. Everyone can write a beautiful poetry* Or just a tiny traction of the population who have: intrinsic motivation enough to engage in, personality traits that increase it and cognitive style [very good on metaphorical thinking*] to produce it*

    The same for chess and scrabble games*

    The top 1% of chess and scrabble gamers are demographically bigger or the otherwise*

  24. If I understand the author correctly, he’s equating the rather narrow ability of creating words out of random letters with the talent/intellectual wherewithal to build a high culture???

    This differs but little from another Black ability which is Rap; the ability to take random syllables and string them together in rhyme.

    I don’t mean to be cruel, but to conflate scrabble with genuinely creative intelligence is to reveal the author’s low expectations of and perhaps unfamiliarity with the real deal.

  25. RW says:
    @szopen

    Sorry but no. Bobby Fischer had an IQ measured at 180 and 185. The recent Norwegian world champion well above 160. These are normal ranges for IQ chess international grandmasters. There is no way someone with an IQ of 115 could be competitive at this level in chess.

    • Replies: @szopen
  26. not necessarily at the home level with your dad

  27. I argued that Africans should not be able to come anywhere near dominating the games of Scrabble (both English and French) or professional checkers, as they apparently do, if their real biological intelligence was anywhere near as low as their nominal IQ scores might indicate.

    So we have to read your

    little

    posts to you summarize straightly your delirium in this few words, thank you sir!1

    their real biological intelligence was anywhere near as low as their nominal IQ scores

    Some estimative* 90* 100*

  28. Although these board games evidently require very high intelligence at the top competitive world championship level (not necessarily at the home level with your dad), and attract extremely nerdy math types, they have the specific advantage of not being too affected by the well-known learning/training resource gaps that exist between rich and poor populations.

    Intelligence, define it better. And in the end, sociological conjectures.

  29. The quantitative argument here is that if there is a large average cognitive gap in potential chess ability between blacks and whites, this gap will be most conspicuous at the highest levels of performance. You have the opposite result in South African chess, contrary to what prominent racial hypothesizers like Gregory Cochran expect.

    Or that chess/scrabble ability is less generalizable for people who have higher cognitive potential and more specific for those who have: strong intrinsic motivation, higher cognitive skills, partial self-knowledge, at least, to learn with their own mistakes specifically related with this game/aka talent AND possibly, specific cognitive style that make it easier to be played.

    You need, higher potential, motivation to work hard and constantly, at least partial cognitive self-knowledge to improve your game strategies and possibly a specific cognitive style, that make it easier for you to play.

    It’s just like soccer players. We have the goalkeeper, the defender, the soccer forward, etc…

    We have the strategy skills, chess game is just like the ”IQ” for this specific ability, of course, no real-world context, just a estimative. Specific ability [chess] of more broad[able] ability [strategy skills]. (in the real world, any succesful strategy need some very important general knowledge/aka, context].

    You have exceptions and you think it represent the rule.

    Even i believe that because ”blacks” [specially some groups] tend to be more adhd-like, just like Simone Biles, so some them may have ”hyper-focus” potential.

    Of course, because exceptions tend to be more colorful than the rule, we tend to over-estimate them specially when the group is ”yours’.

  30. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @szopen

    I get the argument. It’s a dumb argument. For many reasons, not the least of which is that its premise–viz., that performance at Scrabble is a more reliable indicator of the mean IQ of a population, than tests which directly measure IQ in members of that population–is so obviously and heinously flawed as to hardly need any external refutation.

    Beyond that, Scrabble is a dumb game mostly enjoyed by midwits who like to fancy themselves much smarter than they actually are. The notion that performance at Scrabble should scale linearly with IQ is preposterous, and needs to be demonstrated. Chisala simply assumes facts not in evidence, wildly extrapolating from garbage social “science” papers (Toma et al. 2014, the one she referenced about the IQ of “elite” Scrabble players, used a grand total of n = 26 Scrabble players). This amounts to assuming her conclusion.

    That national rates of Scrabble-champion production is being promoted as reliable evidence of national mean IQ, by the same people who decry standard g-loaded IQ tests as “culturally biased,” practically beggars belief. Or rather it would, if the limits of these people’s analytical ability had not already been so thoroughly exposed.

  31. Blogging about a highly distinguished South African physicist of Jewish descent, Neil Turok, who believes that black Africans could academically perform as well as once-poor Ashkenazi Jews historically did when they became exposed to high quality education, Cochran calls him smart but “crazy.” Cochran then appeals to Turok’s common sense by asking him to look at his own personal experience with black South Africans on different brainy contests:

    The compadre talk of two liars…

  32. @Morris Bernstein

    Indeed, Mr. Chisala and some of his supporters in the comments section at UNZ simply dont understand IQ and ironically, dont understand statistics 101 and are remiss at even a 9th grade level of mathematical averages and means.

    The IQ of a country is the average score obtained *within that nation* on a written test of puzzles and mind teasers achieved by *selected test takers*. An IQ of 100 in the US and an IQ of 100 in another country can not be cross referenced because the samples are different.

    This is not the place for me to write an article so let me try to disabuse the many whites who just cant let go of the notion that Africans are inherently dumber, by making a very simple observation that should be easier for you to understand.

    60 Years ago the NBA was all white. There wasnt a Negro to be found shooting hoops. Today the NBA is nearly all black. Surely you are intelligent enough to see that race, genes and hereditary traits didnt change in 60 years time.

    Russians do well at chess because it matters to them. American Jews do well on IQ tests because they try hard and judge themselves by it. Whites in America under-perform north east Asians on IQ tests because north east Asian kids spend more free time prepping. Both whites and Asians outspend blacks and hispanics 10 to 1 on test preparation, private tutoring, mock tests, summer camp, etc. If whites and Asians were intellectually superior to African Americans, they would not need to pop illicit brain pills before taking the SATs. Cheating also takes place on these tests. If people here want me to follow up with real articles, let me know. This topic is a blight on UNZ that just wont go away.

  33. @Morris Bernstein

    “This article is we wuz kangz-tier nonsense.”

    You simply haven’t understood the question Chisala is posing.

    It’s a simple matter of probability. If the IQ distribution for Gabon, posited by the likes of Lynn, is correct, the probability that it would throw up large numbers of world class scrabble players is, essentially, zero.

  34. @szopen

    “Assuming mean IQ of at least 80″

    That would be pretty controversial here.

    If the mean IQ is 80, than the underlying “genetic” potential IQ (with better nutrition, reduced disease load) might easily be in the mid ’90s – ie South Italian levels.

    • Replies: @res
    , @RaceRealist88
  35. JoAnn says:

    Chandra here is carving himself a political niche in the pseudo-scientific intelligence debate. Possible future research will be well-funded.

  36. JoAnn says:
    @szopen

    It is to expected from people with a lot of redundant time wasted on “silly” games

  37. BenKenobi says:

    Looks like Ron would like to generate another 600 comments.

    To answer the question posed in the title of this article:

    No.

  38. Kyle a says:

    That’s an awful light skinned brother for being a full African. Someone was hiding behind the wood shed.

  39. szopen says:
    @RW

    The fact that some grandmasters may have high IQ does not mean all have. In fact, you can easily google the papers which tried to measure the IQs of the grandmasters and the consensus seems to be that while average grandmaster’s IQ is higher than the average, it’s not that high overall.

    • Replies: @Yan Shen
  40. szopen says:
    @Anon

    The notion that performance at Scrabble should scale linearly with IQ is preposterous

    Agreed, but it does not have to scale linearly. In fact I bet the relation is not linear, but rather polynomial – i.e. that IQ may matter a lot initially, but in higher numbers it might matter a lot less. All what is needed that there is some relation, and I am sure there must be some relation – because my firm belief is that all mental activities are correlated, however weakly, with IQ. I do not agree that top masters have IQ 140, as should be clear from my earlier comments. However, I do think there should be some minimal IQ required to become a scrabble top master, and even if that minimal IQ would be as low as 100, there still would be only few people in Gabon able to qualify – the number of people (correcting for age and gender) eligible in Gabon would be comparable to number of registered French players!

    Therefore, I argue NOT that Gabon average IQ is the same as European. But I think that Chisala’s puzzle MUST mean Gabon’s IQ can not be 70 or 64.

  41. szopen says:
    @Daniel Bruno

    Russians do well at chess because it matters to them. American Jews do well on IQ tests because they try hard and judge themselves by it.

    It gets better. Reaction Times are correlated with “G”. It is divided into two parts: one, real reaction time, correlated with “g” (from noticing signal to release button) and muscular time, not correlated with “g” (from releasing one button to push another button). So, in the same task, black do well on purely physical measure, not correlated with “g”, while poorly on the part of the task correlated with “g”. Amazing, innit? Surely it is because in the same task, blacks do well on physical part because it matters to them, while not on psychological task because it does not matter to them. Wow!

    • Replies: @res
  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I feel that blacks domination in scrabble is overstated. E.g., there is one black among thirty listed as Top 2 in the world championship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scrabble_Championship

    • Replies: @res
  43. @lavoisier

    I agree with Chanda Chisala that the very low mean IQ estimate for many countries in Africa would not permit so many people with outsized intellectual abilities.

    ”We” are talking about general avgs of populations versus exceptions, even in countries with higher IQ chess master players, even regular chess players are a minority.

  44. Yan Shen says:
    @szopen

    Supposedly Kasparov’s IQ was measured at around 135, which is decent, but hardly genius level. In fact, Fischer disparaged Kasparov once by referring to him as an idiot savant, while claiming that he himself was a universal genius. :)

    https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/hypothesis-iq-and-chess

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  45. IQ tests are doubtlessly important in numerous fields, but IQ fundamentalists are simply- boring. For instance, one thing IQ-obsessives generally do not consider is historicity, which cannot be measured. Take any field of human intellectual achievement, there are asymmetries than cannot be explained: why an incomparable explosion of abstract thinking in German-speaking lands from, say, 1770-1830 (Hamann, Herder, Euler, Kant, Baader, Schelling, Hegel, …); why are mathematicians from France & German-speaking lands so superior to those of England, Italy or any other country in the world, in this period (Laplace, Lagrange (from Italy), Poisson, Fourier, Cauchy, Euler, Gauss, Bernoullis, ..); why did Industrial revolution, first phase, happen in England & Scotland, and why has evolutionary biology produced so many great scientists in England, and so few in France and Germany; why are Jews so overrepresented in mathematics & physics in past 100 years, while their contribution from 1850. to 1900. had not been spectacular at all, with only a few names I can think of (Jacobi, Sylvester, Herz) ?

    Human creativity is not reducible to IQ & it has too many variables we don’t know about. Chess, scrabble … nice, but I don’t see it matters in life.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Harold
  46. I think commenter Fanhar on the previous thread has already said all there is left to say on this topic.

    Modern chess, like modern mathematics, does not have this book-free quality, which is why the differences in chess performance even among nations with similar nominal IQs are so large.

    Here is my comment/discussion on James Thompson’s article:

    Anyhow, while these might have once been factors, they have ceased to be of any import. There are huge openings databases on sites like Chess Tempo. The information content there is probably an order of magnitude larger than in the entirety of the Soviet chess literature. You can play online, or download a free chess engine like Stockfish that is about 2 S.D. better than the top grandmaster. Virtually all of the classic literature on chess is floating around in PDF format. Lots of the software is free, and much of what isn’t, can be pirated (which of course can be done completely without risk in Africa).

    And before you make the obvious rejoinder, the Africans do now have Internet access – Nigeria, S. Africa, and Kenya are at 50%, even Ethiopia is at above 10%.

    At least Chanda seems to have stopped using “the difficulty of making homemade chess pieces” to explain African underperformance. That is progress.

    • Agree: syonredux
  47. the problem today is that extremely important decisions depend on the question whether racial IQ differences might exist or not. The common understanding is that they do not exist, thus the only reason for the fact that life in Ghana is worse than in Chile is that the world is somehow unfair / racist / postcolonial / etc to Subsaharan Africa. So to undo this injustice every Subsaharan African has the right to migrate to Korea / France / USA or wherever he wants. So the real question is: is the case for no racial IQ differences strong enough to allow more Afro Chinese than Han Chinese in China and more Afro Indians than Hindu Indians in India by 2100?

  48. I found a smart black guy, therefore all black guys must be smart.

    The master of anecdotal evidence is at it again…

    • Replies: @szopen
  49. Agent76 says:

    Mensa was founded in England in 1946 by Roland Berrill, a barrister, and Dr. Lance Ware, a scientist and lawyer. They had the idea of forming a society for bright people, the only qualification for membership of which was a high IQ. The original aims were, as they are today, to create a society that is non-political and free from all racial or religious distinctions. The society welcomes people from every walk of life whose IQ is in the top 2% of the population, with the objective of enjoying each other’s company and participating in a wide range of social and cultural activities.

    Mensa Workout

    You have half an hour to answer 30 questions. Answers to the questions and discussion of the answers are provided at the time you submit your answers. While there is a 30-minute time limit to take the test, the amount of time you actually take in no way affects your final score. This is due to the differences in transmission times on the internet, and server loads.

    https://www.mensa.org/workout

  50. szopen says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Anatoly, but does that mean you believe Gabon’s average IQ to be below 70?

    I’d say that no matter how many tournaments are there, Gabon has too small a population to produce enough people who could become top players with IQ below 70 and SD12, given that to become a top player some minimal IQ would be required.

    In Classique, Nigel Richards surely is very intelligent guy, winning english scrabble and once French scrabble. Yet in 2016 he was 4th, one Gabonian and two guys from Cote d’Ivoire above him.
    You can see that there are SOME French players in Classique tournaments.

    So if Gabon would have IQ64 nd SD12, then even with minimal IQ threshold of 100 there would be 2000 people eligible for even playing. I guess no matter how unpopular classique scrabble is in France, there should be at least 2000 players in this nation? For IQ70 and SD15, and minimal IQ 100 there would be 32000 people in Gabon eligible; but do anyoe expects that everyone in Gabon who is intelligent enough, is playing Scrabble? I mean, how popular scrabble can be, do you think that attracting say 5% of eligible people to play professionally (which require training hours every day) is realistic?

    In short, I think the scrabble puzzle pretty much cannot be solved without assuming average IQ for Gabon as significantly higher than

  51. res says:
    @szopen

    However I note that acc to the studies on scrabble I read, one have to spent a LOT of time on a single activity (4-5 hours per day, one study claimed). That level of fixation is rather not expected from women.

    I think szopen’s statement is an excellent point and goes a long way to explaining the sex differences at high levels. Especially given that in my experience women are if anything overrepresented in casual Scrabble play (especially if you compare to something like chess!) and are quite competitive at that level (which I tend to attribute to verbal facility). One question that goes along with that observation is how different is casual from competitive Scrabble? I think a fair bit (e.g. extensive focused memorization of key word lists, possibly verbal vs. spatial importance?), and if the differences favor males in competitive Scrabble that would be another partial explanation.

    This need for practice ties in with one of Chanda’s points:

    There should still (statistically) be no single person from African countries like Gabon. And yet they exist, constantly outperforming math professors and computer scientists from the developed world.

    Competing at the top levels in Scrabble (I believe) requires extensive practice time over years. There is a comparative advantage argument here that people who have better things to do with their time (or stated more charitably, time consuming primary/other activities) are less likely to excel at Scrabble even given comparable potential.

    The obvious follow on question is: can we support this hypothesis? I don’t think we have data to do so, but let me sketch some thoughts.

    1. Tendency of potential elite Scrabble players to have other things to do professionally.
    2. Tendency of potential elite Scrabble players to choose Scrabble as their preferred recreation.

    Question 1. could be answered empirically somewhat. How do the professional backgrounds and practice regimens of elite non/African Scrabble players compare?

    Question 2. can also be answered empirically. How do the Scrabble/chess/etc. pipelines compare in the different countries?

    Back to comparative advantage, I think it would help to look at the reasons people choose to play elite Scrabble vs. other activities. One last partial explanation would be if the stereotypical extemporaneous verbal facility of blacks translates to Scrabble providing both increased ability and incentive to choose this activity.

    Overall I like thinking about this problem as a series of filters acting on the Scrabble ability (with IQ only being a partial proxy, this becomes important if the other ability probability distributions are less tilted against, or even favor, Africans) probability distribution. Here’s a proposal for a Scrabble player profile with filters (of course the “thresholds” are soft).

    typically 120-130 IQ minimum, probably +2 SD or better on unspecified “non-g Scrabble specific intellectual skills”, no time consuming professional activities (or sufficient ability to reduce practice requirements), chooses to play Scrabble as primary recreational activity

    Any thoughts on the validity/utility of this train of thought? How about the impact of the other requirements on the representation of African players at the elite levels of Scrabble?

    This comment does not have much rigor or any data, but hopefully it offers some food for thought. I think there are testable hypotheses embedded here (e.g. population distributions in Scrabble “pipeline”, different game prevalence in different cultures) if we only had data.

    • Replies: @Chanda Chisala
  52. szopen says:
    @Ozymandias

    No, this is not this kind of argument. Rather, if specific postulated mean and SD for some trait postulates there should not be a single person above some value of the trait, and yet you found ten such people, that means that your postulated mean and SD is suspicious.

    • Replies: @Bill
  53. Alden says:

    These scrabble articles remind me of a chapter in Alice in Wonderland.

    53 years ago I knew an African student who was in Stanford’s aeronautical engineering program. Therefore all Africans are capable of being Stanford
    AEs. What everyone else in the program wondered what he would do when he got home. There were no aircraft factories in I think it was Nigeria. Better if Africans learned to be pilots and mechanics.

    Little did we naive baby boomers know that TPTB intended to replace us and our children with HI B visa holders.

    But that one guy is positive proof that all Africans have high enough IQs to be Stanford engineers

  54. utu says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    fundamentalists are simply- boring

    That’s the case with all fundamentalists. Fundamentalism reveals psychological needs of its adherents. It is like honey for bees or extremist for flies.

    These are good points about what you call asymmetry. One may wonder why and with what consequences British philosophers are “empiricists”, German are “idealists” and French “rationalists”?

    Prior to emancipation of Jews during Napoleonic times, Jews practically had zero contribution to what we understand as Western civilization: no Jewish science, mathematics, art, architecture, literature.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  55. @Alden

    that´s not the point, it´s not about “all Africans”. Most Europeans as well as most Africans are not able to become Stanford AEs. The question is how the distributions look like, and under the hypothesis that SSA have an IQ distribution with an average of 75 and an SD of 15 the good results in Scrabble are extremely unlikely, in a way that the hypothesis actually can´t be true.

  56. maybe it is just because I have read not enough but it strikes that after all those years of reading about HBD etc. the arguments of Chisala are the first good counter arguments against HBD which I have ever read. The reason for that is I think that Chisala actually takes the HBD position seriously and tries to disprove it, while most mainstream researchers think HBD is ridiculous or evil anyway, so no one needs to look at the data in a serious way.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  57. To the ”intelectual deprivation” hypothesis what would be the avg IQ of isolated native american tribes**

  58. res says:
    @Daniel Bruno

    The IQ of a country is the average score obtained *within that nation* on a written test of puzzles and mind teasers achieved by *selected test takers*. An IQ of 100 in the US and an IQ of 100 in another country can not be cross referenced because the samples are different.

    An IQ test can be normed to any population. I believe an effort is made to be consistent with the norms used when making between country comparisons. There are issues with test language, but those don’t apply for non-verbal tests (e.g. Raven’s [Advanced] Progressive Matrices).

    There is potentially an issue of different relative abilities (e.g. verbal, math, spatial) changing the calculated composition of “g” (hence IQ scoring), but I haven’t seen that explored in a research paper.

    This is not the place for me to write an article so let me try to disabuse the many whites who just cant let go of the notion that Africans are inherently dumber, by making a very simple observation that should be easier for you to understand.

    60 Years ago the NBA was all white. There wasnt a Negro to be found shooting hoops. Today the NBA is nearly all black. Surely you are intelligent enough to see that race, genes and hereditary traits didnt change in 60 years time.

    I assume you are familiar with the phrase “False Equivalence”?

    The NBA is a good example because it integrated relatively early: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA
    Your statement is literally wrong (first black in the NBA in 1950), but that does not invalidate your overall point here. I do think you can make a strong argument that cultural and other environmental changes are responsible for the change in proportion of blacks in the NBA from 1950-2017. That link has a nice plot of racial composition of the NBA from 1990-2013. We can see that the B/W composition has not changed much over that time. What we see is black representation changing earlier as the environmental and cultural negatives were eliminated allowing apparent natural superiority (e.g. wingspan, athletic explosiveness, improvisational skill ?) to show as overrepresentation. This transition was largely complete by 1990 which is also what we see with the test score gap.

    The key point against your position is that despite open (preferred in admissions now even) access to education in the US the ability gap has not closed completely and the narrowing has now plateaued. I think the argument that the gap for blacks in the US now is largely representative of underlying ability is difficult to refute. There is likely room to reduce the African gap by environmental changes, but it is unclear what proportion of the difference would change.

    WHY HAS BLACK-WHITE SKILL CONVERGENCE STOPPED? public.econ.duke.edu/~hf14/teaching/povertydisc/readings/neal2006.pdf
    I thought Table 1 showing the educational gap over the last century was especially interesting.

    For those interested in historical data for the B/W test score gap this has a comprehensive bibliography: http://humanvarieties.org/2013/01/15/100-years-of-testing-negro-intelligence/

    And as for your “whites” comment, it’s worth considering what someone makes of the relative Asian and Jewish IQ scores before drawing conclusions.

    If people here want me to follow up with real articles, let me know.

    Please do so.

    Regarding your final paragraph. Achievement is a result of ability accompanied by effort (plus some luck ; ). Both matter. Attempting to attribute all success to effort is as mistaken as the reverse (well, perhaps more mistaken given the measured heritability of IQ, it’s not just about prepping).

  59. res says:
    @jimmyriddle

    If the mean IQ is 80, than the underlying “genetic” potential IQ (with better nutrition, reduced disease load) might easily be in the mid ’90s – ie South Italian levels.

    This is the interesting (and important) question. I think it’s difficult to justify a mid-90s figure. The US black results provide a credible estimate of the max IMHO. However, I do believe that African elite intellects were underrepresented in slaves who survived. In combination with an elite subpopulation argument (e.g. Igbos) it is possible the African genetic mean is higher than seen in US blacks. I don’t have a sense of the relative sizes of possible elite black subpopulations in the US and Africa.

    The reason I think much of the explanation lies in elite subpopulations is how important different means become in the proportion represented in the far right tail levels. Does anyone have IQ data for individual African tribes?

  60. African nominal national IQs are artificially depressed by more than 30 IQ points due to an extremely deficient cognitive environment.

    As somebody once said, “Man is his own environment.’ Blacks are less intelligent because they’re generally surrounded by other blacks. The problem, of course, isn’t blackness, as such, but what blackness is a proxy for. Chisala, you ain’t convincing anybody.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  61. res says:
    @szopen

    Do you know of any data looking at both IQ and reaction time across races? I think we could learn much about the genetic structure of g if blacks have lower average g but similar average reaction time. Correlating that with racial frequency differences/similarities in IQ related SNPs would give some insight into non/reaction time related genetic aspects of g.

    • Replies: @szopen
  62. maybe it is just because I have read not enough but it strikes that after all those years of reading about HBD etc. the arguments of Chisala are the first good counter arguments against HBD which I have ever read. The reason for that is I think that Chisala actually takes the HBD position seriously and tries to disprove it, while most mainstream researchers think HBD is ridiculous or evil anyway, so no one needs to look at the data in a serious way.

    I agree. I do wish his pieces were shorter (as I do with respect to most contributors here). Of course, his headlines are designed more to grab attention than to state a deliberate conclusion.

  63. szopen says:
    @res

    https://www.sbp-journal.com/index.php/sbp/article/view/625

    350 black South African 9 year old children were compared with 239 white British children on the Standard Progressive Matrices and 12 reaction time tests giving measures of decision times, movement times and variabilities in tasks of varying complexity. The black children obtained a mean IQ of approximately 65. They also had slower decision times and greater variabilities than the white children, but they had faster movement times. The magnitude of the white advantage on decision times was 0.68 of a standard deviation, about one third of the white advantage on the Progressive Matrices. The result suggests that around one third of the white advantage on intelligence tests may lie in faster information processing capacity.

    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    , @res
  64. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Take a look at the table just below that. The results are consistent with a gap, but smaller than 100 compared to 70-80. I don’t think Chanda is postulating dominance–rather a smaller (nonexistent?) IQ gap than commonly quoted for African countries.

    Even with a relatively small gap I would not expect representation at the very top. Even seeing one champion is a strong argument IMHO.

    What I find most surprising is how many New Zealanders, Canadians, and Thais there are in the top two given their relatively low overall totals.

    It would be interesting to take that table of national representation, add IQ means and SDs, add populations, add primary languages (e.g. see underrepresentation of France), and then do some numerical analysis to see how that compares to the relatively informal (non-quantitative in detail) arguments Chanda presents.

  65. @utu

    Jews seem to adapt to the standards of the adopted country, Among composers, in German-Austrian lands you got Mendelssohn, Mahler, Schoenberg … in the US- Gershwin and Copeland, who are not quite the summit of anything. Similar with Kafka, Hoffmannstahl, Karl Kraus, Joseph Roth, Hermann Broch, Doeblin, Paul Celan, ..vs Saul Bellow, Mailer, Heller, Ginsburg and Philip Roth.
    Also, creativity certainly waxes & wanes: German dominance in mathematics from, say, 1770. to 1940. ended with WW II. No world -important German mathematician in past 50 years.

    Anyway, I don’t see African or African-American significant mathematicians, physicists, biologists, writers, thinkers, artists, … in past 100 years or so. Of course, if you count hip-hop as art, I’m wrong ….

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @utu
  66. Polymath says:

    Two points:

    You can define a factor “chess IQ” which is independent of g. A rough way to norm it would be to say that every 10 points of either “chess IQ” or standard IQ is worth 100 Elo rating points, with a base of Elo 1600 for chess IQ = standard IQ = 100, assuming the player made a good effort to reach his potential as a chessplayer. You can be an expert and a dummy, but practically all masters are at least average in standard intelligence, and you don’t get to be a GM without being cleverer than the average person. All world champions are high in both chess IQ and standard IQ, with Steinitz, Lasker, Euwe, and Botvinnik having a greater contribution from standard IQ, while most others had a greater contribution from chess IQ. Fischer was indeed very smart although his education was poor; Kasparov is no dummy either but I’d put his chess IQ at 180 and you can do the math. (I personally have no special chess talent but reached master based on general intelligence; because chess IQ is more correlated with performance at faster time limits, I suck at blitz chess but was a senior master in correspondence play, qualifying for the U.S. championship final 7 or 8 times though I usually finished in the bottom half and never contended for the title).

    The main statistical point Chisala overlooks is that when you mix populations with different means, the resulting population will not follow a normal distribution; if you renorm the test so that scores in the combined population follow percentiles appropriately, then the original subpopulations won’t come out normally distributed, and if the subpopulations don’t mix much, then this phenomenon will persist through the generations. Africa is more diverse genetically than the rest of the world, and there are some tribes that are really quite smart, such as the Igbo. If those tribes had a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, it would explain the Scrabble “anomaly” without hypothesizing an environmental effect large enough to depress IQ by an SD.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Chanda Chisala
  67. @Henry's Cat

    Chisala, you ain’t convincing anybody.

    Just the delayed leftints

  68. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @szopen

    However I note that acc to the studies on scrabble I read, one have to spent a LOT of time on a single activity (4-5 hours per day, one study claimed). That level of fixation is rather not expected from women.

    Are skill at punctuation and grammar good proxies for IQ?

    • Replies: @szopen
  69. @Bardon Kaldian

    Among artists we already have some big ones but i always think composers, in the case of music, matter more than the singers, so i don’t know what is the % of great black/afro american singers who are/were great composers too.

  70. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Logan

    Might excellence at Scrabble be more reflective of a particular aspect of intelligence not necessarily directly correlated with IQ? Similar perhaps to “musical talent?”

    Here we go, the IQists last resort in the face of overwhelming refutation of their beloved theory. Any talent that does not correlate with IQ can’t be a manifestation of intelligence: it’s gotta be a savant ability, or something a bit weird like Mozart’s musical gift, or Richard Feynman’s (IQ 124) Nobel Prize winning work in quantum electrodynamics, or these darned Africans whipping every American’s arse, black or white, at Scrabble.

    But you’d think, wouldn’t you, that however culturally weird these Africans are, there’d be a few of those much more intelligent Americans who’d have the same fixation for Scrabble playing as the Africans and would show the Africans whose boss.

  71. IQ tests is just like if you compare a wolf and a dog in their capacities to learn a set of rules via human owners.

    For us to solve a problem we need first have well internalized this ”set of rules”, aka, technics, to apply them into the problems, trying solve it.

    A dog WHO have less automatic [already born knowing] but more pro-social instincts than the wolf will be naturally more motivated to learn ”new” things, in other frank words, to be trained.

    We can define what IQ measure also as ”comparative evaluation of civilizational training”.

    Because blacks has been less shaped by civilization machine they no have aquired, intergenerationally speaking, in the same levels, this intrinsic potentialities than whites and specially than east asians, that have been in more stable societies for long time than whites, seems.

    More instinctive species are more practical than abstract and IQ is everything about use or apply learned and/or acquired abstractions [vocabulary, maths, other derivative knowledges]. Instead you solve problem via practical, try and error on live, you use internalized knowledge to solve it, more clever, less mortality rates.

    Blacks develop faster since early age than whites and east asians, on avg, what racialist literature has reported. I believe more instinctive people also in white and east asian populations will be more prone to develop faster and to score lower in IQ tests. This explain ”entire’ behavioral precocity among blacks and other similar populations and also reflects how time the brain need to fully develop. When brain fully develop, logically speaking, it’s expected that entire organism also have developed.

    Maybe, ”blacks”, on avg, be little more equally good to solve problem via more practical language than abstract.

    • Replies: @utu
  72. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Polymath

    Africa is more diverse genetically than the rest of the world, and there are some tribes that are really quite smart, such as the Igbo. If those tribes had a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, it would explain the Scrabble “anomaly” without hypothesizing an environmental effect large enough to depress IQ by an SD.

    But you already argued that chess ability and IQ are not the same thing, confirming that there is more to intelligence than IQ. So why assume that Africans must have a high IQ to be top scrabble players? They may just have a high Scrabble Aptitude.

    This, of course, is unacceptable to an IQ-ist since it means that they are not necessarily smarter in some, and perhaps most, domains of cognitive activity than someone with a lower IQ than their own. This totally destroys the Fascistic idea of ranking all humanity with an IQ label, and granting them status accordingly.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Polymath
    , @szopen
    , @Michaeloh
  73. @Anatoly Karlin

    At least Chanda seems to have stopped using “the difficulty of making homemade chess pieces” to explain African performance. That is progress.

    This is just silly and dishonest. You keep omitting the word just before that sentence:”… IGNORING the difficulty…” . The point that I said can be “ignored” is the one you keep presenting as “Chanda’s theory” for explaining African chess performance. It seems you are launching your Mother of All Bombs on an easy straw man because you have failed to answer the harder questions. including the specific questions that I posed to you, based on your claim that Scrabble is a children’s game in America, etc.

    I said the point can be “ignored” precisely because it is based only on my own experience, which would make it a weak argument if I actually presented it as “my theory.” I actually know that many children in at least the parts of Africa I’ve been exposed to, loved the game of chess when they learnt it, but they would wait in a line of twenty kids or so just to play with the one chess set that was typically available among such a group in their community. While waiting their turn to play on the one chess set, they would play checkers using bottle tops – with one side turned upside down. Now, you can of course have a different, more sophisticated genetic explanation for why more chess sets were not available among such kids. It intuitively seemed to me that the difficulty of crafting the chess pieces, compared to turning bottle tops upside down, was not a terribly implausible guess.

    As for your claim that Fanhar gave the best rebuttal on this subject, I don’t even know what to say to that.

    Fanhar gave points that were simply mistaken.

    1. He claimed that I gave wrong numbers of players from Nigeria, etc (because I want to win the argument by just lying!). It turns out he did not pay attention to the fact — stated explicitly in my article — that these numbers frequently change, just like any rating system of any game. One thing that could easily alter the numbers significantly is if your country’s players fail to attend some major international tournaments. Etc. I therefore corrected the link to the archived ratings from when I was writing the article, which shows the precise numbers of Nigerians etc that I gave in my article. Which means the problem of explaining those numbers *at any point in history* still remains.

    2. He suggested that Africans could not do well in the “Elite” section of French World championships (or something like that), which he supposed was cognitively harder, which is why they had never reached the finals. This is because he misunderstood what the Elite section is about. Africans were not performing as well in the Elite section only because they had not been exposed to that particular old format. But even his point is moot because, as I pointed out in that thread, an African country DID (recently) start playing the Elite format and in 2016 DID produce a finalist, who displaced the great Nigel Richards (to number 3). Wikipedia was still behind.

    If you really did follow this discussion and still came to the conclusion that Fanhar had the best rebuttal to my argument, then … [I withhold the rest of my comment, for the sake of keeping the tone of this thread civil].

  74. res says:

    My preferred explanations for Chanda’s observation are (in no particular order, likely operating in combination).

    1. The genetic mean is somewhat higher than the observed mean. I would guess 80-85.
    2. Some African populations preferentially focus on Scrabble relatively more than people in other cultures.
    3. African greater parity or superiority at non-IQ intellectual aspects of Scrabble (e.g. verbal fluency?). To be clear here, I mean the uncorrelated with g portion. I believe there are racial differences in the balance of components making up g which makes it possible for this to matter more in specific activities (e.g. Scrabble vs. chess).
    4. Fat tails/subpopulations.

    I have discussed 1-3 in other comments so here I will focus on 4. To his credit, Chanda addresses this head on. I’ll respond to the relevant parts of his original post (let me know if I missed some of the relevant arguments).

    Fat Tail?

    Fat chance.

    Under the racial hypothesis, you cannot explain the presence of Africans at such high levels of cognitive performance even if you assume a “fat tail” – the idea that there are more people at the highest ends than a strict Gaussian distribution would allow. If a statistical fat tail can help Gabon to reach such high levels of performance, why doesn’t the fat tail of white women players (of any cognitive game) also come to their rescue since they are supposed to have even more of them at that level of cognitive ability than any African country? Or more directly, why doesn’t the fat tail help the white (male) children who are supposed to be the IQ equivalent of African adult brains and who, according to some hereditarian bloggers, are supposedly more passionate with the same board games than adults?

    I think IQ distributions in general have fat tails based on experimental data. The question at hand is why would this be more true for Africans than other groups. I believe subpopulations are the answer (an open question in my mind is how much of observed IQ fat tails in general is accounted for in this fashion, e.g. Jews in the US). I also addressed the comment about women in an earlier comment.

    Regarding the child argument, elite performance at Scrabble requires both absolute IQ (i.e. not age adjusted) and years of dedicated practice. I think that argument is lacking relative to some of the others presented and only weakens your case.

    Racial admixture is one possible explanation for fat tails, but probably more relevant to US blacks than Africans

    (as an aside, comments like “Fat chance” are IMHO unhelpful in promoting civility in respondents, though rhetorically fun in a blog post, it’s your choice as to which you value more, I’d probably go with fun myself)

    Finally, if the fat tail is helping Africans here, then logically, it should also help them achieve at the top of other (academic) areas, where such an IQ would be useful. If you claim that it only works with cognitive games and not academic fields, then that’s a concession that learning resource deficits are the only explanation for lower African IQ or scholastic test scores, which means you can’t also use intellectual achievement comparisons as your evidence for cognitive differences. The same argument goes for why proposing an outlier subpopulation can’t work. You have to decide whether you want to have your cake or eat it.

    I consider this the meat of the argument against fat tails (and it is strong IMHO). My response takes two forms.

    First, see 1-3 above (though 1 is also arguably covered by this argument, increasing the means decreases the effect size needed from 2 and 3, on reflection this is probably important, if it doesn’t make sense I need to elaborate this aspect of my argument).

    Second, I think we do see signs of a black fat tail in other areas (and remember, your argument is not for nonexistence of a black fat tail, it is that there is not one relative to that for other races). I have argued for this in James Thompson’s blog, but am currently uncertain about effect size (there I am actually arguing for a fatter tail than whites). As I noted in the last paragraph, increasing the right tail (either by increased mean or a fat tail) makes a large difference because the normal distribution falls off so steeply in the tails.

    My arguments here are colored by having spent a fair amount of time with someone of African descent (immigrant and probably 100%) who has an engineering PhD from an elite institution and was working for a company and in an area that highly valued intelligence AFAICT. Even though he might not be at the very top of his profession, I would expect people like him (or Scrabble champions) to be vanishingly rare if we could take the African IQ mean/SD numbers and normal distribution assumption at face value.

    IMO Chanda has a point even if I think he both overstates it a bit and ignores some of the possible explanatory factors.

    To conclude, I’d just like to note that fat tails and tribal differences are empirical questions. To really answer those questions we just need to gather the data. Too bad that is so unlikely to ever happen…

  75. szopen says:
    @CanSpeccy

    No, they are not.

    Any mental activity should be SOMEHOW correlated with IQ, but the correlation might be very weak and might not be detectable at higher levels. THose activities with low correlation or which stop to correlate after reaching some level are not good proxies of IQ (of “g”, to be more correct; but I hope we all understand here that when saying “iq” we are really thinking about “g”).

    It’s no revelation that there are many talents and “g” does not explain everything. Hence the hierarchical, most popular model for intelligence accepted by, in my impression, most people knowable in the domain I read. That is, while there might be correlation even between “g” and ability to play Tetris, at the same time there is some particular set of specific abilities which are more related to mental rotation of the objects than to some others.

    This is not a mental gymnastics or dancing around the facts, but rather the description of most basic findings of psychometrics.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Santoculto
  76. utu says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    “African-American significant ….writers” – You could find some good A-A writers but most of them are concerned with Black experience. Jewish writers like Broch, J. Roth, Kafta and even Doeblin did not concerned themselves with Jewish experience. Many readers were not aware that the writers were Jewish. It was only later when Jewish social position was secured that writers like P. Roth and Bellow overtly dealt with the Jewish experience at expense of universalism. This is an issue of assimilation and mimicry that is different for Jews and Blacks. Blacks cannot practice mimicry so they are thrown into limiting and toxic environment of racial identity politics from the day one while Jews could avoid it by practicing mimicry.

    Still it took over 100 years after emancipation of Jews for Jews to produce mainstream writers in Germany and Europe in general. The same goes for composers with an exception of Mendelssohn who was an exception (Pushkin was 1/8 African). But there were plenty of Jewish virtuoso musicians who were treated like some sport celebrities now, i.e., admired but not really respected or considered equal (Isaac Babel has a good story about Wunderkind virtuosos in Odessa and their families scheming to capitalize on it.)

    The question is what was holding Jews back for over 100 years? It wasn’t g or IQ according to HBD crowd, right? So what was it? As you have said the fundamentalist are boring, i.e., unimaginative. The same crowd is not willing to give a similar grace period to Blacks. They will concentrate on A-A criminality forgetting that in late 19 and early 20 century central Europe and Russia Jews were heavily involved in crime activities of all sorts. Till now the criminal slangs in Russia and Poland are dominated by Yiddish expressions and words.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Boudica-Judaica
  77. szopen says:
    @CanSpeccy

    There is no “last resort’” defence. The psychometry is accurate when describing the populations, the larger, the better. Hence, in large group of people, comparing people with IQ 123 and IQ150, you will expect far more accomplished scientists in the group of IQ150. The exceptions however exists. Moreover, while “g” describes the correlation between different mental abilities, it does not explain all variance in all abilities; that is, to each ability there is something “special” which is not explained by “g” alone. This hierarchical model of intelligence is quote old and well known. “G” describes general intelligence; kind of the cognitive ability/quality which might be applied in all mental abilities, though in some more helpful than in others. There might be however dozens of more specific skills and abilities. Surely ability to play Tetris, as I play above, is a result of training, some sopecific abilities related to mental rotation of objects, but also will reflect some general quality of the nervous system.

  78. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    From your comment 68: “Are skill at punctuation and grammar good proxies for IQ?”

    If you are going to make comments like that you should probably make more of an effort to avoid statements like: “would show the Africans whose boss.”

    And to add something substantive (unlike in your comment 68), nobody is asserting “darned Africans whipping every American’s arse, black or white, at Scrabble.” A quick look at the Scrabble championship results will make clear that is not the case.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  79. Polymath says:
    @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy, your reading comprehension is poor. The point is, to reach the top in either chess or scrabble, you need BOTH general and specific aptitudes. You can get good with only one of them, but to be world-class you need both.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  80. szopen says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You are building a strawman. Do you realise that?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @res
  81. @szopen

    Lead poisoning may account for that, as it may interfere with myelination, which in turn affects reaction times; the study you cite was published in 1990. A relevant follow-up study would try to replicate that result, e.g. in USA or RSA (with blacks; coloureds are still disproportionately affected), now.

  82. utu says:
    @Santoculto

    I liked your illustration with wolf-dog analogy but I doubt that Blacks would like it. Anyway, a dog doesn’t have any extra special genes that wolf would not have. But it is lacking genes (responsible for independence and aggressiveness) that prevent wolf from behaving and learning like a dog. Still a wolf can solve some problems independently that a dog cannot. When confronted with a difficult problem a dog seek a human for a help. Dog is more social. Civilization, culture are social. And intelligence are part of it. It can’t exist apart for culture.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  83. Bill says:
    @Anon

    Beyond that, Scrabble is a dumb game mostly enjoyed by midwits who like to fancy themselves much smarter than they actually are.

    Yeah, exactly. Scrabble is like crossword puzzles.

  84. Polymath says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I knew Feynman. That “124″ figure is obviously just a defective measurement, as can easily happen with children. He was very smart in the IQ-test sense as well as in a lot of other ways.

    By the way, in order to avoid a charge of vacuousness (“your ‘chess IQ’ is simply a stand-in for everything that standard IQ doesn’t measure”), I can give some empirical tests: given two chessplayers of similar Elo strength, the one with the higher standard IQ will be worse at blitz chess, better at correspondence chess, will have first reached each rating level at later ages, and will do worse at first and better over time in head-to-head games.

    The most extreme examples I can think of are Reshevsky and Lasker. Fischer was an unusual case, he was thought to have the most extreme “chess talent” because he had GM-level results at age 14, but he was both very intelligent and extraordinarily hard-working, studious, and focused, compared to other children of comparable “natural talent”, and this hard work paid off better at ages 10-14 than it would have if it had been done at ages 14-18, as is more typical.

    • Replies: @res
    , @CanSpeccy
  85. Do you have an explanation, Chanda, as to where twin studies err?

    • Replies: @Chanda Chisala
  86. Bill says:
    @szopen

    Or the assumption of normality.

    • Agree: res
  87. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Polymath

    CanSpeccy, your reading comprehension is poor.

    LOL A refined version of the usual IQ-ist put down of anyone who challenges their understanding of intelligence: “you must have a low IQ.” And presumably, that’s true, because here’s what I cannot quite grasp:

    g, apparently, is the real McCoy, which IQ correlates with only partially. So if you are exceptionally good at Tetris or Scrabble you must have a high g, even though your IQ may be, frankly, embarrassingly low, like an African’s, in fact.

    So what the Hell use is it, again, to measure IQ?

    • Replies: @szopen
  88. res says:
    @szopen

    Thanks! Did you look at the full text? It looked to me like there was an error in the first row of Table 1 (the SD difference does not match the data AFAICT). Overall I had trouble pulling conclusions from the text even though the abstract is clear.

    • Replies: @szopen
  89. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @szopen

    You are building a strawman. Do you realise that?

    Looks like you are building the case that I have a low IQ. Do you realise that?

  90. This article lacks editing. Brevity, while difficult, is a wonderful thing.

    I do not know and can not begin to imagine what IQ is necessary to play Scrabble competitively. But an IQ study of chess grand masters found that the sweet spot was, surprise, 135. No doubt that would apply to checkers, but the range may extend lower as well. Chess and all like games are not all math, geometry, and memory.

    • Replies: @res
  91. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    And to add something substantive (unlike in your comment 68), nobody is asserting “darned Africans whipping every American’s arse, black or white, at Scrabble.”

    Is that not precisely what the Mind Sports Academy, the organizers of world championships in several cognitive games (including Scrabble, chess, Go, etc), who Chisala cites, have asserted? OK, not exactly. What they have asserted is that one African is currently at least slightly better than the nine best Americans. Sorry that I hyped their claim.

  92. MarkinLA says:
    @utu

    The same crowd is not willing to give a similar grace period to Blacks. They will concentrate on A-A criminality forgetting that in late 19 and early 20 century central Europe and Russia Jews were heavily involved in crime activities of all sorts.

    Except blacks seem to be going backwards since the 50s.

    • Replies: @utu
  93. res says:
    @szopen

    You are building a strawman. Do you realise that?

    For CanSpeccy and utu the IQ discussion is all about strawmen. See James Thompson’s blog if you don’t believe me. I have called them out for it enough that it’s hard to credit “not realizing it” as an excuse.

  94. res says:
    @Polymath

    By the way, in order to avoid a charge of vacuousness (“your ‘chess IQ’ is simply a stand-in for everything that standard IQ doesn’t measure”), I can give some empirical tests: given two chessplayers of similar Elo strength, the one with the higher standard IQ will be worse at blitz chess, better at correspondence chess, will have first reached each rating level at later ages, and will do worse at first and better over time in head-to-head games.

    Thanks for formulating this explicitly. This makes sense to me. Do you know if anyone has ever tried to demonstrate this with data? Or done an extended anecdotal comparison with historical chess figures?

  95. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @szopen

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply, from which I draw the following conclusion. There is much to intelligence beside either g or IQ, the latter not being synonymous with the former. If that’s correct, I’m happy with it, although I still don’t understand the point of g or IQ, except to convince a lot of people that if they have an IQ of x they must be more intelligent that someone with an IQ of < x, which, in the case of any particular cognitive capacity, may be very far from the truth.

    • Replies: @szopen
  96. MarkinLA says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I imagine the most important feature of a Scrabble player is somebody with a good memory and vocabulary. Not much more is needed. There is no real strategy since you don’t know what letters the other player has or his allowable moves to develop blocking strategies like in chess.

    Memory is just one component of IQ. Memory helps in some areas of testing but means nothing in spatial reasoning.

  97. res says:
    @james wilson

    I think it’s important to mention that the “sweet spot” is probably more an artifact of the interaction of the probability distribution and the fact that skills other than IQ are important.

    Per http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx there are ~80x as many people with IQ 135 as there are with IQ 155. 80 chances at a superior set of other skills is probably worth 20 IQ points for chess.

  98. szopen says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So if you are exceptionally good at Tetris or Scrabble you must have a high g, even though your IQ may be, frankly, embarrassingly low, like an African’s, in fact.

    NO.

    It’s like if there was “F” for fitness general factor. OK, the analogy is stupid, but maybe it will help you understand.

    So for every physical activity there would be correlation. People with higher “F” would be better at sports overall.

    However, there would be also subscores “R” for running and “U” for upper body strength. Of course,
    people high of “F” would be, on average, having also high “R” and “U” scores.

    Then you would have specific abilities “S” for soccer “T” for tennis and so on.

    Now, for any population varying on some ability, say “soccer”, part of the variance would be explained by “F”. Then part of the remainder by “R”, and the remainder by specific “S”.

    Here, imagine this Tetris thing. Now, people with better quality nervous system would have faster reaction times and so on. So “g” would explain part of the variance. Then you would have some more specific abilities, like “mental rotation”, and finally, some specific abilities related to Tetris + expertise.

    Now, having high scores in Tetris would not mean high “g” scores. However, you would find some weak correlation between “g” and Tetris scores. I presume very weak. Hence, you could have high “Tetris” score despite having quite average “g” and therefore, also “IQ”.

    Here, I (and independently others too) postulate that the scrabble puzzle is solved by:
    (1) Average IQ much higher than 64 + maybe different SD, and less normal distribution (more fat tail per res and Bill)
    (2) weak correlation between “g” and scrabble
    (3) existence of specific mental abilities, on which the gap between whites-blacks may be lower than on some others (I’ve linked a page showing that the gaps are in fact lower on some specific mental abilities, so why not here too?)
    (4) higher role of expertise (i.e. how much do you train)

    Now I will be just speculating, generating the ideas.

    That would mean that, for example, on average people with IQ 115 would have higher chances to be top players than people with IQ of 70, but there would not be discernible difference between 115 and 120. Or maybe some minimal IQ is required, after each there are diminishing returns for having more points: i.e. for compensate for difference between 75 and 115 no amount of training could be possible, for compensate between 100 and 115 5 hours more training would be required, for compensate for a difference between 115 and 130 1 hour more training would be required…

    Or maybe you need some specific ability, on which there is no difference between whites-blacks – again, some minimal IQ would be needed, but over that, the differences in that specific ability would matter more (i.e. while you have minimum IQ of say 100, differences in specific ability matters more).

    Now, note that all I wrote is perfectly compatible with standard hierarchical model of intelligence (with its standard divisions into Gf and Gc, visuospatial abilities vs verbal etc). Hence saying that you are building strawman by saying that somehow “IQ cultist” think “g” can explain everything.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  99. szopen says:
    @res

    No, I have seen skimmed over the text and read only similar abstracts of other studies plus I read, of course, their description in the Jensen’s fundamental “g factor” book. I am no psychometrician, after all, just an amateur who likes to understand and to know some basic concepts.

  100. szopen says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Because “g” is a rough but useful first prediction how well you will learn new things, the more complicated and general thing, the better. I would say that it is better when generalising the large populations than about single people, though. I’ve already linked (or was it res?) the results of the study of group of high-IQ children. Their high-IQ was highly predictive of the success, at very diverse field of things. I.e. given populations A and B and knowing only the “g” difference between them, you could expect quite a lot about the differences in the average outcomes of those populations. You would expect that population with lower average “g” would have lower life expectance, more criminality, less success in very diverse fields and so on.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  101. szopen says:
    @MarkinLA

    I wish people would read comments I have posted.

    You are only artially right. The studies I quoted shown that “visual reasoning” whatever it is, is also important in addition to good memory. Also, they indicate that some strategic thinking is involved too, as well as fast calculation.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @MarkinLA
  102. @utu

    “Still it took over 100 years after emancipation of Jews for Jews to produce mainstream writers in Germany and Europe in general.”

    That is a painfully ignorant statement.

    Moses Mendelssohn was born in 1729, before any serious moves at Emancipation. I think he had to sneak into Berlin under false pretenses in order to study (being Jewish). Heinrich Heine was born in 1797, right as Emancipation was getting under way. Marx was born only twenty years later. All three are self-evident in their “mainstream” importance to philosophy, literature, and economics respectively.

    Nor were they alone. A deeper survey shows German Jews produced several important writers in 19th century Germany, despite being 1% of the populace:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_literature#German_Jewish_literature

    In general, Jews started contributing to German and European high culture almost immediately after emancipation, whether legal strictures or the self-imposed limitations of religious orthodoxy.

    Perhaps rather than name-calling (“fundamentalists” “boring” “unimaginative”) in the future, you could critique your own claims with readily-available evidence?

  103. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Polymath

    That “124″ figure is obviously just a defective measurement

    Obviously! Otherwise, the IQ-ist theory is refuted. An admirable demonstration, may I say, of how to derive a premise from a desired conclusion.

    He was very smart in the IQ-test sense

    Verbally? Is that why most of his books were ghosted and why The meaning of It All, which was apparently in his own write, seems very much the work of someone with, well, an IQ of, say, 124.

    “your ‘chess IQ’

    It’s not my “‘chess IQ’”. It was your term.

  104. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Do you have an explanation, Chanda, as to where twin studies err?

    I’m not sure I understand your question. I don’t believe they err anywhere. The error lies in the extrapolations that are not suggested by the experiments themselves. Environmentalists are wrong to deny the strong significance of genes (particularly in explaining IQ variance within the same country), and hereditarians are wrong to underestimate environmental contribution to IQ differences between different countries that basically live in different centuries.

    So, I will have a complete change of mind about all this if there is an “experiment” of sets of twins separated at birth or early childhood, with one set brought up in an average European environment and another set brought up in average African environment, if such twins will not score at least 2 SDs apart on scholastic or IQ tests of any kind.

  105. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @szopen

    I’ve already linked (or was it res?) the results of the study of group of high-IQ children. Their high-IQ was highly predictive of the success, at very diverse field of things.

    The Terman study, you mean, in which the youngsters who were screened out for having an IQ below the threshold of 150, included the only two Nobel Prize winners: William Shockley, for the invention of the transistor, and Luis Alvarez, for the liquid hydrogen bubble chamber.

    Seems rather that the evidence refutes your argument.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  106. utu says:
    @MarkinLA

    blacks seem to be going backwards since the 50s

    Not only Blacks. Looks at incarceration rates:

    http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf

    Increase by factor of 7 from from 1970 to 2006.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  107. MarkinLA says:
    @szopen

    I read after your comment but I don’t agree.

    What is the strategy precisely since you are limited to the letters you have and you do not know what the letters the other players have. Sure you might be able to block somebody from putting down some high valued word but you don’t even know if he is capable of spelling it or if the spread of the letters is going to go off in another direction.

    On the chessboard you can project the opponents allowable moves and counter-moves many steps ahead. You just don’t know which one he will take or his overall strategy. As for visual reasoning, again because you are limited to a random set of letters you are more likely at the whim of chance and your superior vocabulary than any grand strategy.

    IMHO these studies are like a lot of studies from social science – a lot of unprovable claims using bogus statistics.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  108. @Boudica-Judaica

    And now Jews are killing the host
    well well well

    • Replies: @Boudica-Judaica
  109. MarkinLA says:
    @szopen

    I also think this fast calculation thingy is another misidentification of what is just plain old repetition of playing the game. Look at a game like craps. I don’t play it because craps is too fast for drunks. Now when I go to Vegas I see plenty of people who probably couldn’t calculate a high school algebra test answer if given all day know exactly what is going on at that table – even if they are drunk.

    Now is their seemingly superior fast calculation on the craps table the result of their superior intellect or just the fact that they play craps every chance they get?

  110. MarkinLA says:
    @utu

    But blacks more so.

    You can make fun all you want of rural red neck whites (and their black neighbors) but these people are generally at least productive enough to support themselves. The urban black underclass is nowhere near that competent.

  111. @MarkinLA

    How more difficult is chess game to scrabble??

    Chess game is to strategic (video) game and scrabble is to specific?

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  112. @jimmyriddle

    Very true – I’d add, having spend some time in Sub Saharan Africa that a substantially greater proportion of the population lack decent AC and time for pass-times such as scrabble. Also there is no real money or status attached to success. Also, given that they would compete in either English or French much of the population would lack the vocabulary in their second language.

    I’ve known too many bright, highly academic West African families – across 3 generations so not the statistical outlier – to believe the simplistic SS African IQ score. I’d love to read some research about Igbos who seem over-represented in any mathematical type job they can aim for.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  113. @Boudica-Judaica

    This is a bit more complicated – most German “Jews” who achieved high prominence had been Christian converts (or descendants of converts). What is puzzling here is not debate on IQ- it’s murky, how can one assess intelligence of Hegel or Fichte, since these activities are muddled per definitionem ?-, but the fact that emancipated German Jews so quickly embraced high German/European culture, having actually booted their own ethno-religious culture they’d so tenaciously clung for centuries.

    True, there were significant German Jewish writers in the first half of the 19th C (Heine, Boerne,..), but they somehow waned in the 2nd half & emerged in the first half of the 20th C. Perhaps more interesting are exact sciences: as far as I recall, only Carl Jacobi achieved prominence & Eisenstein’s premature death left his status as a mathematician opened.

    But it is possible that talents follow Čiževskij-Ertel hypothesis on inter-relation of Sun activity & genius; also, this hypothesis, elaborated in Eysenck’s book: “Genius”, poses that gifted individuals will follow this order- first poetry, then visual arts, then literature, and finally philosophy & sciences.

    But this is an aside. “g” in IQ measurement definitely works for numerous areas; just, I am not convinced it covers creativity as well (I mean high creativity); evidently, high IQ does not have anything to do with highest levels of creativity in many fields (Beethoven couldn’t learn how to multiply; I also doubt that Michelangelo, or Plato, for that matter, would be proud members of Mensa); also, its ahistoricity cannot explain blossoming of highest levels of achievement in a short span of time in small cities (Galileo, Michelangelo, Brunelleschi, Leonardo, Machiavelli … Florentine contemporaries or near-contemporaries)

  114. @utu

    I don’t think every dog when challenged by problem will find a human to help it. We have a lot of dogs who try to solve problems by themselves. My analogy is for “capacity to learn new things and follow rules of authorities”. Blacks are on avg less prone for both. We are really talking about domestication levels when we compare human races. And IQ tests seems part of this human training to adapt and to cooperate in big societies even because they has been selected to learn better and faster this skills and to obey the authorities. And domestication have increased human capacity to learn new things and to be more pro social. I’m not saying blacks ARE like wolf than dog because all human populations are more or less “self” domesticated but that blacks are less domesticated than east Asians and whites, little more wolf ( the same for Jews). And I believe the trends to precocious maturation in behavior and body/organism among blacks is a good possible evidence for that because in nature living beings who develop faster or predominantly during its gestation tend to be more instinctive than those who born less “developed”. This hiatus between birth and final biological maturation not just increase human plasticity to learn new things but also reflects how longer is the time to the brain fully develop.

    I also use this analogy to show that IQ tests for more instinctive and “less” instinctive human beings is like we have a set of commands to the dog being applied for wolves. Seems obvious that they will be worse than the dog.

    Instinctives are more practical’s and less abstract in their evolutionary strategies.

  115. @CanSpeccy

    Nice arguments.

    Note that “pause” should be “pose”

    Thanks. Fixed.

  116. IQ is basically the application of internalized/memorized abstract knowledges to solve problems or answer questions instead the virgin or pure analysis, you need access your crystallized knowledge to solve them or to answer questions.

    Other feature of instinct is the lack of interest in non-objective/evolutionary stuff (usually can be useful but in indirect ways). Wolves just can survive. This why many people say blacks are on avg more street-smart than other groups.

  117. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @szopen

    It’s like if there was “F” for fitness general factor. OK, the analogy is stupid, but maybe it will help you understand.

    There you go again. The IQ-ist put-down, you have a comprehension deficit!

    But as a physiologist, I don’t find the fitness analogy stupid at all. Indeed, I have even suggested several physiological causes of variation in g. See my g is for glutamate, for example. Or a defect or low gain in the GABA-ergic transduction pathway, that seems to play a role in autism, could be another of many factors affecting mental performance.

    Further, I don’t disagree with much of what you say. But when you say:

    That would mean that, for example, on average people with IQ 115 would have higher chances to be top players than people with IQ of 70, but there would not be discernible difference between 115 and 120.

    you are talking in vague generalizations only. In specific cases you are spectacularly wrong, e.g., the cases of the three winner of the Nobel Prize in physics that I have already mentioned, and the people who win commercially profitable patents, earn a PhD at 22, hold academic appointments, run successful companies, without necessarily having an exceptional IQ.

    Moreover it seems you fail to realize how radically your generalization is refuted in some cases, e.g., the musical genius of Derek Paravicini (IQ less than 35), or the compulsive obsessive genius of not only Feynman, but of Einstein, who spend much time imagining what it would be like to travel with a ray of light, or Jacques Monod, who thought deeply about the conformational transformation of proteins acting as enzyme catalysts.

    In general, it seems to me that the obsession with IQ as a determining factor in individual and national success is just about as unsound as Nazi ideology about the superiority of the Nordic type. IQ is a highly culture-loaded measure, and the assumption that you can compare these kids, with these kids by means of an IQ test seems to me totally daft.

    Now if you had some physiological measures, that differentiated among racial groups, I’d be more interested.

    In the meantime, those stupid Africans are multiplying like crazy, going from 0.9 billion in 2010 to 2.0 billion in 2o50, while those brilliant Americans, Europeans, Askenazi Jews, etc. fail to achieve even a replacement fertility. Whoever may be the dopes here, it is obvious who has the superior Darwinian fitness.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
    , @szopen
  118. @Anatoly Karlin

    Once again, you have failed to address the real issue.

    We have a random variable whose probability function is supposedly a gaussian of mean 64 and sd 12. We would not expect large numbers of +130 or +145 instances from 2 million samples.

    So *something* is wrong.

    Either:

    1/ world class scrabble is not very g loaded.
    – Colour me sceptical. These guys need to learn a large dictionary, spot matches from the dictionary, calculate probabalities so that they can decide when to dump tiles and when and where to place them on the board. The better the calculation the better the performance. High g would seem to be a distinct advantage.

    2/ The probability function of our random variable is not a gaussian of mean 64 and sd 12. Either it isn’t a mono-modal gaussian, the mean isn’t 64, the sd isn’t 12 and some or all of these must be *very substantially* wrong.

  119. Ryan says:

    Chisala’s penchant for using anything but IQ test scores as measure of IQ is a consistent as it is unscientific.

  120. Is it possible there is some middle ground here? Intelligence may be equal once we control for environmental factors, but still differentiated (i.e., geared toward different tasks, values, and mental operations). Think of it as the biological substrate of Spengler’s ‘soul’. Another consideration is that mental intelligence cannot be separated from our corporeal existence, as a number of philosophers have demonstrated. This may explain why African mating patterns endure in American blacks. The integrity of the black family has declined since the civil rights movement and the sexual revolution; whites no longer enforces their standards of monogamy. Why do we see this regression to the mean? Are we supposed to believe that because Tyrone has been born into a less advantaged situation, that means he has no agency to avoid having 5 kids with 5 different hoes? Even leftists allow the situation for blacks have improved since the Civil Rights protests. If so, why haven’t blacks seen a corresponding increase in their social and familial integrity, which has actually got worse than in the days of ‘oppression’? Because pair bonding is a mating strategy that never worked in the African environment, and as such never resulted in a selection of an impulse toward monogamy. HBD spergs then try to argue this is a result of low IQ. However, sex is an arational activity. Whites, like others, have sex because it feels good, not because they thought about it long and hard and concluded it was ‘the right thing to do’. However, in whites there is a tendency to enjoy sex more when coupled with an emotional component – pair bonding. Tyone enjoys sex more when he tapping a series of asses – he likes to keep things fresh and exciting. We can hardly blame Tyrone for following his impulses when we do exactly the same. Really, blacks need to evolve polyamorous institutions and social conventions backed up by the state which compliment their natural inclinations, just as our mechanisms did before the sexual revolution.

    Under this hypothesis, different groups living in the same space will always antagonize one another. In Putnam’s research, we find this included different groups of whites. (The process is exacerbated by the fact culture is transmitted according to biological bonds.) Jews are a good example. For whatever reasons (cultural priority, cognitive friendly environment, genes, Jews who have got smart using nepotistic networks to induct average Jew into the cognitive elite), Jews aren’t dumb. But when politically correct mores are stripped away, they are often reviled. As Evola said, Europeans found something about the Jewish culture and behavoural habits deeply revolting. And judging by ongoing Jewish attempts to deconstruct traditional European culture, they feel the same way about us.

    Whatever the outcome of the HBD ‘debate’, the liberal vision of an individuated humanity leveled before the alters of tolerance and equality, has always been a ludicrous proposition. People want to form and belong to distinct, coherent groups that depend upon particularity and discrimination in order to generate hierarchies of meaning necessary for a qualitative existence. ‘Tolerance’ is a codeword for the reduction of everybody to mechanistic, fungible units.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  121. MarkinLA says:
    @Santoculto

    There is NO randomness to chess unlike scrabble. You know every possible move your opponent can make. It is all about your ability to think strategically when you get to the higher levels. That was always the flaws in the computer games until they started programming them beyond basic tactical moves. The computers could calculate more moves ahead than almost any human could and the insertion of famous openings allowed the computer to see what strategy the human might be playing and counter it.

    There was that famous instance where a computer in one of those tests moved a piece to a space and then on the next move put it back where it was originally. This was because the algorithm was mainly tactical – it calculated the best move from it’s search tree but it had no overall strategy on how it was going to play the game before it started.

    The problem with inducing randomness to a game is that it can fool people into thinking something is happening that really isn’t. You see this all the time in those poker tournaments. Yes, the professionals seem to win more often than not, but you can’t really say why someone won. Was he better at money management, was he a better bluffer, did he read tells better, Did he understand the probabilities of making a hand better than others, or did he just get the right cards at the right time?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  122. @Santoculto

    And now Jews are killing the host
    well well well

    Oh, lovely. A ‘Jews as parasites’ metaphor in response to my simply noting the contributions of Jews to the arts and sciences in the West from our Emancipation forward.

    …and someone was complaining above about this wholly legitimate and unresolved issue of possible genetic bases in group intelligence differences between historical human populations as the greatest “blight” on UNZ.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  123. @Lemurmaniac

    For whatever reasons (cultural priority, cognitive friendly environment, genes, Jews who have got smart using nepotistic networks to induct average Jew into the cognitive elite), Jews aren’t dumb. But when politically correct mores are stripped away, they are often reviled. As Evola said, Europeans found something about the Jewish culture and behavoural habits deeply revolting. And judging by ongoing Jewish attempts to deconstruct traditional European culture, they feel the same way about us.

    It’s not that simple. “Jews” from your example are Middle-Eastern aliens- this was European perception of them, shared by assimilated German-American Jews who commented on mass Jewish immigration at the turn of the century: “Jews are an Asiatic horde”.-while assimilated Jews are, socio-culturally, not too different from your Joe Six-pack. What fuels antisemitism is behavior of some percentage of Jews who try to subvert dominant cultural norms & act as inimical aliens. But- they’re in the minority, I’d say 10-15% of them. And then all Jews pay the price for transgressions & mischievous behavior of their (former) co-religionists.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Lemurmaniac
  124. @szopen

    I’ll take a closer look at your other points and posts later, but for now you’ll have to explain for me your logic in this statement, which you apparently need to be true:

    However, the fact that average top scrabble players in Europe or America may have IQ of 140 does not mean one need IQ of 140 to be a top player

    This is only true if there is no connection between their being “top Scrabble players” and having that IQ of 140.

    If within Europe or America, a lower IQ person has a disadvantage against the 140 IQ players, can you explain to me exactly how he would not have that same disadvantage just because he happens to have migrated from Africa? (That’s exactly what you’re saying.) And whatever answer you give (I can’t begin to imagine what that is), can you also explain why this strange African exceptionality does not seem to apply to native black Americans?

    You’re on the verge of suggesting that Africans need something other than intelligence to achieve what requires intelligence among other groups. I’m sure you can see the contradictions inherent in that suggestion.

    • Replies: @szopen
  125. @res

    Szopen: However I note that acc to the studies on scrabble I read, one have to spent a LOT of time on a single activity (4-5 hours per day, one study claimed). That level of fixation is rather not expected from women.

    I think szopen’s statement is an excellent point and goes a long way to explaining the sex differences at high levels.

    No.

    Szopen forgets a point I keep repeating: the gender disparity in Scrabble championship begins *before* that professional adult level (where many hours are spent per day): it is there quite early in high school. The top Scrabble finalists are almost always boys, even with high female participation.

    • Replies: @res
  126. @Alden

    But that one guy is positive proof that all Africans have high enough IQs to be Stanford engineers

    Except that nobody was making this argument. It’s just a dishonest straw man.

  127. @Boudica-Judaica

    Parasites are masters on the liar game ^_~

    You are anjools on earth, thank you god!!

    Always unfairly persecuted!! Why??

    Such ignorant unpleasant”goy”!$!

    The light of enlightenment, the partisans of the kindness!! The knights of social justice!!!

    Why the persecutions??

    Anti Semitics are true fascists!!! Incapable to be grateful for what amazing contributions enlightly anjools already did.

    Embarrassing!!1

  128. As Evola said, Europeans found something about the Jewish culture and behavoural habits deeply revolting. And judging by ongoing Jewish attempts to deconstruct traditional European culture, they feel the same way about us.

    Judaism was so “revolting” that Europeans abandoned their indigenous beliefs to embrace a Jewish prophet, whose story rests on Jewish religious works. The only really revolting aspect of Judaism that differs markedly from Christian practice markedly is circumcision, an act of barbarism that my fellow Jews should have left in the cultural gutter during the Helenistic era.

    Jews just served an out-group vilification that was one of convenient proximity, not our intrinsic ‘evil’ as a people.

    Contrary to your lurid claim, the civilizational suicide machine in France, Sweden, Britain, Germany, and so forth are not Jewish-led or Jewish-dominated. The United States is the only nation in the West where a good faith critique of Jewish influence can be made.

    If anything Jews are some of wariest Europeans when it comes to being “enriched” by the overpopulation spilling out of the Muslim world.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  129. lew says: • Website

    The idea that there can be a definition of IQ that crosses cultural boundaries is obviously untrue, because we don’t have one that allows us to compare ourselves with our grandparents.

    If we take our grandparent’s IQ tests, our average intelligence people are 2 sds above them, 130 near genius. If they took ours, they would be on the edge of severely retarded, IQ 70.

    Flynn the Flynn Effect :

    Your IQ is very strongly influenced by the amount and abstraction levels of the flows of information in your culture. That may or may not be related to how well you play chess and live life, but it surely controls what kinds of problems you do easily on an IQ test.

    This whole discussion is based on the idea that there is a meaningful comparison of IQs across cultures and ethnic groups. BS, we can’t do it even with our parents and grandparents.

    When we have a physiological measure of the excellence of a brain’s performance, we may be able to compare races, but actual performance at any task will continue to be influenced by many other factors in addition to the physiology, itself influenced by the genetics but not wholly determined by it.

    This is a dumb thing to be focused on, a meaningless question based on dumb assumptions that can’t be solved with any possible evidence.

    Instead, we need to grasp what every race contributes uniquely to the total human genome, what special properties of mind and body they produce, e.g. the Australian aborigines perfect sense of place and direction, and do the breeding experiments to produce better hybrids. For example, spatial reasoning is a strong component of IQ and of mathematical ability. If I were breeding for mathematical ability, I would surely try some Abo genes in the mix.

    That is the way to improve our race, not trying to be pure anything. Pure strains of plants and animals are monocultures, highly productive when the conditions are perfect, but high risk for pandemics and needing a lot of inputs to keep them healthy. And the way you get better species and strains is cross-breeding and selecting, exactly as people have been doing since we were a species, from the DNA evidence from old bones.

    Humans are a very inbred species by the standards of any close relative of ape or crops, or farm animals, … In all of those domestic cases, breeders search for more wild strains to add new disease resistances and other attributes to their stocks. Ruling out entire sections of humanity based on bogus arguments is idiocy.

  130. phil says:
    @Daniel Bruno

    With regard to reaction times, Jensen found that, when the task was completely unrelated to g, black and white times converged, but as the g-loading of the task was increased, the black-white difference became more and more pronounced.

    Note also a backwards digits test: when asked to recite a series of digits in reverse order, blacks cannot recite as long a series as whites (or East Asians), on average.

  131. @Bardon Kaldian

    80% of vociferous liberal “or’ democrats Jews tell us that this subverts don’t seems a tiny minority. Seems there are some things Jews only talk with themselves and never with the goy.

  132. phil says:

    The average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa was estimated to be 75 by Rindermann–a higher estimate than Richard Lynn’s, but a lower estimate than that of Wicherts et. al.

    Igbos may well have a different average. The easiest, most reliable way to assess this is with IQ tests, not games of Scrabble.

  133. @Chanda Chisala

    Obviously! Otherwise, the IQ-ist theory is refuted. An admirable demonstration, may I say, of how to derive a premise from a desired conclusion.

    Let me ask you a question. If an adult IQ test result (such as a WAIS test) were discovered, would you expect that it would substantiate the 124 IQ or be much higher? Or would you truly have no expectation?

    Consider the kinds of abilities tested on the WAIS: verbal comprehension, spatio-visual ability, and concentration. Is there any question that Feynman was very well-endowed with all? His books are cogently written, his theories require spatial visualization, etc. Are you truly agnostic about whether Feynman has these abilities, that he can’t define easy words, see similarities, and solve visual puzzles?

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    , @res
  134. JamesinNM says:

    Cultures are different, and those difference impact their behaviour. After the Civil War, Lincoln said he believed the slaves’ culture was so different from Americans’ culture that the slaves would never adequately assimilate in America, and he intended to deport all of them. James Monroe also set out to deport the slaves.

    I met a farmer from South Africa who was Dutch and whose forefathers had farmed in South Africa for many years. The South African government took a portion of his farm and livestock and gave it to native people there. Those native people slaughtered all the livestock for the immediate income and left the land fallow, refusing to farm it.

    There are cultural difference that should be recognized, differences that prohibit assimilation and harm a culture/society when those different outside cultures are forced onto that culture/society.

    This forced integration, not assimilation, is intentional, aimed at destroying sovereign nations and high performing sovereign people.

  135. RJJCDA says:

    Perhaps these Scrabble Grand Masters are using mostly tactical intelligence, but not capable of strategic “abstract” mentation.

  136. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Misattribution error: I’m replying to CanSpacy.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  137. @Anon

    Scrabble is a dumb game

    Antidisestablishmentarianism = 38 points
    ZIT on the red triple word score = 36 points

    BOGGLE would make a much better test of vocabulary.
    Peggy Hill the Boggle Champ

  138. lavoisier says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    An enhanced Darwinian fitness only made possible by the intellectual contributions of science and technology (medicine, food, fossil fuels) given to them by the unfit whites.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  139. I’ve read a few of these Chisala articles and I’m always lost as to what the actual argument is. Can anyone summarise the argument?

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  140. @MarkinLA

    What is the strategy precisely since you are limited to the letters you have and you do not know what the letters the other players have.

    You have some knowledge of what the other player has – you know that he doesn’t have what’s already been played.

  141. @szopen

    You’re saying psychometric G isn’t* Because real or complete G is underlying in every mental task.

  142. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Boudica-Judaica

    Plenty of blame to go around for sure. It is obviously ridiculous to blame the Jews for the suicidal tendencies of far too many white people. All one has to do is talk with a brain dead white liberal to know you are dealing with a form of madness.

    But Jewish control of the media throughout the West has certainly played an outsized role in leading the goyim to pursue civilizational suicide. The goyim have to develop an immunity to the siren song of cultural destruction coming from the Jewish pied pipers, before the suicide march is halted.

  143. @Polymath

    The main statistical point Chisala overlooks is that when you mix populations with different means, the resulting population will not follow a normal distribution

    Without even questioning your abstraction here, I should state that you are overlooking an even vigger point. These achievements are not just true about “Africa” as a unit, they are true about individual African nations (Gabon etc), including ones with too few different tribes in their populations to make your point even slightly meaningful.

    Africa is more diverse genetically than the rest of the world, and there are some tribes that are really quite smart, such as the Igbo. If those tribes had a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, it would explain the Scrabble “anomaly” without hypothesizing an environmental effect large enough to depress IQ by an SD.

    Firstly, as I state above, this is not just true when your unit is the combined population of “Africa”.

    Secondly, if this outlier sub-population argument that keeps being made was true, then, as I — and even Cochran on the other side — have already argued, you would have seen achievements among those tribes that are similar to the intellectual achievements of at least similarly populated (small) European populations with that IQ and SD (the Igbo alone are almost 20 million in population and they don’t just aspire to be Scrabble champions!).

    If you say this high IQ is only manifested in games for some strange reason, then you can’t also keep using intellectual achievement gaps between populations/races as evidence of IQ gaps (since it would mean those weird outlier African tribes have clearly strange choices for the use of their European-level IQ!). Which, in turn, would undermine your own case since that’s how you arrived here, and since it is what your hypothesis was set up to explain in the first place. Do you understand now?

    • Replies: @Polymath
  144. @lavoisier

    Could you explain this idea of Jewish control of the media throughout the West? I’m not sure it holds true in the UK (despite what Muslim websites may say) and certainly struggle to imagine that the German media has any notable number of Jewish leaders encouraging the madness of Merkel.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  145. @MarkinLA

    Wrong. The most important feature of a Scrabble player is high level mathematical ability. The only US citizen to reach the finals of the Spanish World Scrabble Championship is Hector Klie. Klie has a PhD from Rice University in computational engineering.

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/hector-klie-1618667

    Chanda discussed the math ability of Scrabble players extensively in his previous column, but his columns are too long and few people are reading them. I suggest doing a Ctrl-F for “math” in his previous column.

    http://www.unz.com/article/scrabble-spells-doom-for-the-racial-hypothesis-of-intelligence/

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Yan Shen
  146. @lavoisier

    The role of oops PARASITIC Jews is not secondary as you are saying/thinking…

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  147. @Daniel Bruno

    “60 Years ago the NBA was all white. There wasnt a Negro to be found shooting hoops. Today the NBA is nearly all black. Surely you are intelligent enough to see that race, genes and hereditary traits didnt change in 60 years time.”

    Is this the best you can do? Is it just a coincidence that blacks, on average, have the morphology and muscle fiber typing that, at the elite level, would have them excel at the game?

    Today the NBA is 80 percent black. Today the NFL is 60 percent black. Today the MLB is 8 percent black and with ‘Hispanic’ blacks (islanders), they make up about 34 percent of the MLB and dominate there too. So look at what happens when there is an ‘even’ playing field in terms of nutrition and opportunities to excel in these sports.

    That’s why blacks dominate these sports.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/25/racial-differences-in-somatype/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/18/expounding-on-my-theory-for-racial-differences-in-sports/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/17/racial-differences-in-muscle-fiber-typing-cause-differences-in-elite-sporting-competition/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/25/possibly-retracting-my-article-on-hbd-and-sports/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/19/blacks-are-not-stronger-than-whites/

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  148. @MarkinLA

    Improvisation skills seems a “black skills”??
    Jazz, dance, rap…scrabble?

  149. @Jay Ritchie

    USA media dominate other medias…

    Domino effect

    And German media still have a lot of Jews, half, cripto and shabbo Goys there…

    Awful and old fashioned arguments

    Jews just reprogrammed the cultural system, creating a new reward system. The rest is to the gullible goy as you, if you are…

  150. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @lavoisier

    An enhanced Darwinian fitness only made possible by the intellectual contributions of science and technology (medicine, food, fossil fuels) given to them by the unfit whites.

    Indicating an inability of Europeans to think things through, with the result that they now face a genocidal tide of Muslim settlers intent on conquest by the womb not the sword, plus a mass of highly philoprogenitive African fleeing Muslim persecution.

    • Replies: @Michaeloh
  151. MarkinLA says:
    @Triumph104

    This is an anecdote of little value. High level mathematical ability has nothing to do with memorizing simple rules about the value of numbers and being able to add them up.

    There are plenty of card counters in black jack who don’t have PhDs in math. That whole 21 movie nonsense makes it seem they are doing something truly amazing but they are not. I read Ken Huston’s book. He led plenty of card counting teams and none of them were from MIT or had anything of special note.

    Chanda discussed the math ability of Scrabble players extensively in his previous column,

    And I can make any claim I want to and throw as much pixie dust as I want to in the air with irrelevant anecdotes. This is what social “science” does regularly. The problem with this assertion is that you only need one example of an excellent Scrabble player without a serious mathematics pedigree to show it isn’t true. Now do you really think everybody playing Scrabble at a high level is capable of getting a PhD in math?

  152. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @TelfoedJohn

    I’ve read a few of these Chisala articles and I’m always lost as to what the actual argument is.

    Do you suffer from low g, perhaps?

    • Replies: @res
    , @Santoculto
    , @TelfoedJohn
  153. MarkinLA says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Actually blacks are giving up on baseball and their numbers keep dropping as Latinos move in. Maybe it has a lot to do with basketball and football being instant pro or out sports and baseball is a grind through the minors unless you have the talent to be a star.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  154. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88

    “Richard Lynn’s Italian IQ data is garbage. “

    Thanks for the links. I always believed that Lynn was a hack.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @Santoculto
  155. Scrabble is a bit like poker, there are different levels of skills, but in the end a bit of luck is required at crucial points of a game between rivals of similar ability.

    To play Scrabble, you need a bit of mental dexterity to see what can be make out of your seven letters and how to get high scoring letters on the right squares, then to play at an advanced level you need to memorize all the obscure words that are only ever used in Scrabble in your language, especially those two letter words using high value letters, then you need to add on strategic skills like knowing what letters have not yet been used, what your opponent might have, what the possible dangers are, and so on.

    Experience is probably more important that pure IQ.

  156. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Consider the kinds of abilities tested on the WAIS: verbal comprehension, spatio-visual ability, and concentration. Is there any question that Feynman was very well-endowed with all? His books are cogently written, his theories require spatial visualization, etc. Are you truly agnostic about whether Feynman has these abilities, that he can’t define easy words, see similarities, and solve visual puzzles?

    You don’t seem very well informed about Richard Feynman. Most of his books were ghost-written including the celebrated Lectures on Physics. This is consistent with his poor grades on everything but math and physics at the time he entered graduate school at Princeton.

    There is no reason to doubt that Feynman was brilliant mathematically, that he had extraordinary insight as a physicist, and that he could solve incredible difficult problems in other areas. Moreover, he was certainly both articulate and charismatic when speaking of things that interested him. Here for example, explaining what keeps a train on the track.

    But all that that shows is that a person can be terrifically intelligent, as normal people understand the word “intelligent” without having a terrifically high IQ. After all, the concept of g is based on correlation among cognitive aptitudes, but the average correlation is low, with a coefficient of determination of 0.5 or less. So why should Feynman not have been brilliant in some, in fact in many, respects while yet having an IQ score no higher than 124. He was simply not an all-rounder. Musically, the best he could do was play the bongo drums; on general topics, his writing without the aid of a co-author was neither polished nor profound; and and his art work was mediocre.

  157. res says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    Can you point me to the data supporting that again, please? Is that true in all countries?

  158. res says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Let me ask you a question. If an adult IQ test result (such as a WAIS test) were discovered, would you expect that it would substantiate the 124 IQ or be much higher? Or would you truly have no expectation?

    In a similar vein, for the case of Luis Alvarez there actually is an adult IQ test in archives (not publicly available though, but requestable). See http://www.amphilsoc.org/collections/view?docId=ead/Mss.B.R621-ead.xml
    Anne Roe’s book The Making of a Scientist looks at the IQs of top rank scientists.

  159. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Do you suffer from low g, perhaps?

    Interesting coming from someone who has complained about similar insults. Perhaps you could summarize Chanda’s argument in a sentence or paragraph?

    P.S. To be clear, I don’t think you have low g. Rather the opposite in fact AFAICT. Which is what makes me so curious about your motivation for denigrating IQ at every opportunity.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  160. @cupric

    2) Even at 70 mean and 12sd, a 130 IQ is only 5 standard deviations away, which means the top 0.006% will have a 130 IQ and above, even without taking into account fat tails. That’s more than 100 people in Gabon alone.

    No, your math is completely wrong. There should not be “more than 100 people” in Gabon at that IQ and SD. There should be ZERO — or *less* than 1 person (even without correcting your elevated IQ 70 for Gabon).

  161. Yan Shen says:
    @Triumph104

    Do we have any knowledge regarding the educational attainment or occupations of elite African scrabble players?

  162. @lavoisier

    But Jewish control of the media throughout the West has certainly played an outsized role in leading the goyim to pursue civilizational suicide. The goyim have to develop an immunity to the siren song of cultural destruction coming from the Jewish pied pipers, before the suicide march is halted.

    Now as a heretical Jew, I agree that the subset of Jews to whom you refer have a powerful forum for their toxic worldview. Diversity is certainly the greatest strength of plutocrats. But where is the moral agency of non-Jewish Westerners (regardless of race) in this slow suicide?

    As a whole Americans had decades upon decades after the 1965 immigration bill to resist the population boom in the Global South. The 1986 amnesty for illegals should have been a wake up call. And Christians who superstitiously oppose family planning hampered NGO efforts when it was still politically feasible to aggressively demand its implementation as a condition of visas, foreign aid, etc.

    Instead at every turn Americans as a whole have opted for mindless acquiescence to economic internationalist agenda, choosing the non-confrontational, materially-comfortable path over the virtuous one. That in turn opens the door for the West-hating radicals to gain influence and power.

    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Santoculto
  163. The author makes a judo-like use of his opponents’ arguments. That can go both ways. Allow [at least for argument's sake] that the difference between African mean IQ and e.g. European is not due to genetic causation.

    African elites are often at least as foolish as European and North American elites, and often worse, but lack the material power to do as much damage to the world. Idiocies such as messing with iodisation programs, allowing lead paint, poisoning entire regions and stripping entire ethnic groups of their land tenure in their ancestral lands, playing economic games, by which countries gain foreign exchange for exporting their animal protein instead of consuming it locally, failure to ban mercury-based skin bleaches, to name a few.

    On what basis does the author deny that the actual mean IQ is roughly as advertised? As was pointed out in comment 66, quoted by the author in 147, mixed populations with individual Gaussian distributions but with separate means, will not have a Gaussian distribution overall. That applies both to (biological) environmental causation and to genetic causation. Allow, for example, an elite subpopulation, perhaps 10 percent with east Asian mean IQ and 15 points SD. That would allow more than just scrabble. They merely need to constitute a small portion of the population, and an overall 65 mean 12 point SD distribution (albeit not Gaussian) is still very much possible; if they have the typical arrogant attitudes that typically come with being elites, the overall IQ distribution may be underestimated slightly, as the elites don’t condescend to participate in such studies.

    The author’s notion that mere education would be the missing ingredient, is a farce. The author is from Zambia. Botswana started with arrangements under trees; today they send their better students abroad for undergraduate study. Perhaps the problem is that African elites are not too considerate of their fellow citizens. Gated communities are as much a reality in Africa as outside, if not more. The elites send their children abroad, by and large. The author is anti-socialist, yet the west is internally much more socialist than is generally acknowledged—and I say this as praise, despite the west’s external conduct, although that socialism is now collapsing. The likely distribution of IQ for most African countries is rather poor, and addressing that would likely require addressing protein consumption, food production, environmental poisons, slums and shantytowns, and so forth.

    As such, I pose a challenge to the author—find out the degree of iodine deficiency in his country, or for that matter lead paint (using a legitimate proxy—bone lead measured with K-edge fluorescence, rather than the ab initio fraud of blood lead—a competent medical physicist can rig up a setup for under 10K$ US given a functioning hospital, running an x-ray tube at say 120kV, with thin heavy metal filters from protactinium closest to the tube down element by element to bismuth, each separated by leather, and a final filter of say tungsten—then calibrate the detectors using a solution of lead salt). Or cheaper yet—using freely available teaching materials, teach age-appropriate math to slum or even median income family children—it is a crying shame that most African countries avoid participating in international math olympiads—estimate their intelligence given the knowledge.

    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
  164. “African nominal national IQs are artificially depressed by more than 30 IQ points”

    There’s nothing “artificially depressed” about the situation. Modernity is the anomaly of the human condition.

    It would be one thing if you presented this issue in more of an isn’t this an interesting phenomenon to consider manner rather than with this “case closed” posturing, which fitting ends with meaningless name-calling (“crazy”).

    This issue will be resolved by widespread IQ testing and robust, corresponding genetic analysis, especially of mixed-race siblings. This argument is an interesting aside, but it takes blinding arrogance to imagine it is some sort of substantive refutation of a hypothesis rooted in decades of associated data and research.

  165. @Johan Meyer

    A quick correction in my example—the population standard deviation would be 18 minimum points, but 90 percent of the population, who are likely to be measured during typical national IQ measurements, may have a 12 point SD.

  166. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    I thought Telfoed John’s question was intended to deride Chisala’s significant thesis. I was responding in the same spirit. However, if TJ was expressing genuine mystification, I owe him an apology.

    As for the concept of g, I truly believe it to be virtually meaningless. But I am inputting this with one finger on a device I am unused to, so I cannot give an explanation now!

    • Replies: @res
    , @Wizard of Oz
  167. szopen says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Once again, what do you not understand about “there are exceptions” and “g is nto everything”?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  168. Gleimhart says:
    @Daniel Bruno

    Africans are inherently dumber……by a mile.

  169. @Bardon Kaldian

    We all know about the Jews ‘ordeal of civilization’, in which they adopted the outer forms of the culture where they lived while retaining deep inside a discreet Jewish identity.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/11/spicers-right-german-jews-werent-german/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

    Since society today has moved closer to modern Jewish norms, the gap between Jews and some Europeans has narrowed. Yet your claim its just 10-15% of troublemakers is still absurd. Most Jews vote with the coalition of the fringe (against Anglo-Protestant America) that is the Democratic Party. The ones who don’t are hardcore Zionists. I would say the 10-15% figure represents the proportion of Jews with access to real cultural power. Every Jew who becomes elite supports the liberal global agenda. Most Jews are thus responsible because they form the ground of enculturation for their elites.

    The very fact they still identity as ‘Jews’ speaks to their distinct identity. They hide under the WWII propaganda of ‘Judaeo-Christian’ values as if they are the same. Take that away and they’re no different to Muslims, only sharper, more resentful, and more practiced at subversion.

  170. szopen says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    No – my point was not that Scrabble requires intelligence in whites, but something else in Africans.

    First of all, it does not seem like all top Scrabble players have IQ of 140, only that some have.

    My hypothesis was much less controversial and it consists of three points

    (1) Hypothetical differences in gaps

    We know that the gaps on different cognitive abilities differ not just between whites and blacks, but also whites and east asians.

    Hence, I speculated that maybe there is a set of abilities helpful with playing scrabble, let’s call them “Sc”, for example large working memory (and we know that when matched for IQ, american blacks have better working memory), quick numerical addition, some visual reasoning and so on. The “Sc” may be highly correlated with some math abilities – but “correlation” would not mean that there will be no people high on hypothetical “Sc”, yet lacking other math skills.

    “Sc” will be obviously “g” loaded. The question is then, will the g-loading be the same in whites and blacks?

    What if to get the same score on hypothetical “Sc” one would have to get 115 in whites, but only 100 in blacks?

    (2) Higher IQ scores
    Gabon can not have IQ score of 64 or even of 70. I speculate it must have higher score, in lower 80s. Obviously, Gabon would have to have higher IQ even with a model I proposed in previous installments of “scrabble oddyssey”, where there would be a subpopulation with substantially higher average IQ than the general population. In fact, if the scrabble would indeed require IQ of 140, the size and/or average IQ of the postulated subpopulation would have to be big enough to raise average IQ of Gabon substantially, which is why previously I was against this hypothesis (Johan Meyer tries to save this hypothesis by saying “elites do not participate in the studies of IQ” which i find unlikely – note that at 140IQ threshold in his hypothesis there would be something like 3000 people potentially eligible to be top players without correcting for age).

    (3) Expertise role
    Imagine that you can defeat some intelligence differences by experience and diminishing returns from higher intelligence (non-linear relation between IQ and ability to play scrabble).

    That is, say that (pure speculation, of course) there is no way, realistically, one can defeat a difference between 70IQ and 140IQ. However, let’s say that to defeat 115IQ, a person with 100IQ would have to train 5 hours per day more; while to defeat 130IQ, a person with 115IQ would have to train only 2 hours per day more and so on.

    Yes, Europeans also could have train more, but the question is: what if Scrabble is more important to African players and Europeans, who have propensity to train the same number of hours, decide to invest their times in different games? What if at some level of play, once you pass minimal IQ threshold (or minimal “Sc” threshold), all that counts is the number of hours you train?

    That is: say european with IQ140 finds out he can beat local scrabble competition with little training; so initially, at no-professional level, only IQ counts. Then he finds out that at some level IQ alone is not enough, starts training when starting facing really tough competition, at the professional level – where only level of hours count.

    That would explain neatly even the scenario when Europeans players would have IQ high, while African not so; and that explanation would not even requires postulating that Africans are using different set of skills to achieve exactly the same what is achieved by European players by intelligence.

    Per gender gap: there are differences in brain structure between females/males, and – as you surely know – there are differences on different subtests of cognitive abilities between males and females. Hence, if Scrabble calls for some specific subset of coginitive abilities, it may call on abilities where gender gap is larger than on “g”. Even postulating “100″ score for girls with smaller variation, and “105″ for boys on that specific subset of hypothetical abilities, and a very modest “105″ score for “being top player”, you can calculate that there will be 5 boys for 3.6 girls. Since I don’t know what “domination” of boys means, I cannot comment further.

    To summarise: I agree you posted a valid problem which has to be explained. But I am not fully convinced the problem means we should ditch all the other evidence. I am also aware that I am speculating, but then – I do not feel ONE or two pieces of evidence pointing in one direction should be more important than a lot of evidence pointing in another direction.

  171. This does not seem correct. If IQ is mostly genetic, then you really have to know the exact genetic makeup of an individual to determine if they are representative of their putative race, don’t you?
    And even all things being equal, we know that IQ lies on a (dare I say it?) bell curve, where you expect to have high and low out-liers.

    My non-academic view is mostly practical. Look at average outcomes. What most people think of as “intelligence” is really a combination of IQ and common sense (including future orientation, etc.). Either one without the other will not produce as good of an outcome.

  172. @CanSpeccy

    Maybe not.

    He is purposely vague and indirect to start from your theory. We usually have a “abstract” first, a introduction explaining what the person will talk or develop.

    He’s arguing that Africans, black Africans, are far smarter than Lynn et al works have found ( i don’t see any estimative from Chisala). He argue that because African blacks seems are overrepresented in scrabble international championships so it mean they, black Africans, namely those on western Africa coast, may impossible to have such lower average IQ-intelligence, aka ~ 70. He also showed some “evidences” that the avg black Africans are at least on the same level than white Europeans trying to deconstruct the selective immigration “hypothesis” to explain why the higher avg IQ-intelligence of ((some group of)) African immigrants. The sky is not the limit. In my understanding if black africans are far smarter than 70-75 IQ-intelligence, maybe we need upgrade the avg IQ of all other human groups for example Indians.

    There is a good, logic but possibly infactual argument in favor to this theory. “We” tend to have (usually correct) prejudice against extroverts. It’s commonly associate “stupidity” with lower intelligence and blacks are characteristically more extroverted than most other human groups. Avg Italian IQ has been reported to be higher ~ 102 and Italians tend to be very extroverted. Of course we don’t know if this higher estimative is because northern Italy or if this studies have little samples…

    But he’s not honest enough to talk in objective and crescent way, ordered way. He say there are alternative biological and environmental explanations for “lower IQ” of African blacks, it’s not a “fixed” trait just like light eyes has been for northern Europeans. He already argue that afro Americans are less intelligent than black Africans because the first have redneck lower IQ”genes” via paternal lineages that reduce “genotypical IQ”.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @RaceRealist88
  173. @CanSpeccy

    Well I got into Mensa with 132, but still can’t figure out what Chisala’s argument is. His articles seem a bit scattershot. If anyone could summarise the argument, I would be grateful.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  174. @szopen

    Girls also tend not to be good in strategic video games, even in simple video games “boys” tend to be better. Intrinsic motivation correlates with talent but…. Maybe we can have talent or potential without motivation. So only way to know if girls are worse than boys in, my example, video games, would be inviting ~ 95% of girls to be compared with boys and to know if this lack of motivation to play games also reflects a lack of natural talent to do it among most girls or if we have dissociation scenario between intrinsic motivation and natural potential.

    I bet that girls dislike to play video games because they lacks natural talent to do it. I believe this psychological obsessiveness/cognitive feature of autism is larger common among men than among women.

  175. @CanSpeccy

    And Feynman was a Ashkenazi Jew, a people with very asymmetric cognitive profile. And we seems don’t know your scores in all subtests.

  176. @Santoculto

    Stupidity with lower intelligence…

    Yes, but the correct is

    Stupidity with extroversion…

  177. @Boudica-Judaica

    When the farmer blame cattle to be cattle.

  178. TheJester says:
    @Daniel Bruno

    Agree. Thank you for freeing me from spending hours formulating the same general arguments … and doing a better job at it.

    I’m surprised that Chanda Chisala does not follow up his Scrabble conclusions with the claims that the core of Western knowledge was appropriated from Black Africa in the time of the Pharaohs … or, that Western Civilization reached its technical and organizational successes on the backs of Black slaves.

    Chanda appears to have a conclusion in search of a justification … and he is definitely having trouble finding one.

  179. @szopen

    Thank you for expressing much of what I haven’t geared myself up to write ny way of comment. As I have always been sceptical about the ridiculously low figures faithfully peddled by Philippe Rushton as well as Richsrd Lynn I was pleased to see you point out tbat a more realistic average IQ in the 80s for sub Saharan Africans would disrupt much of CC’s argument based on the straw man (as I see it) of aversge IQ 70 Africans. I also speculate asyou do that there vould well be castes and aubpopulations which have much higher average IQs.

    Perhapa what ia needed is for some billionaire on liberal anti-racist pretext to finance the gathering of good cognitive testing data from large samples of each of the many different peoples plof black Africa after considerable training for the tests. Zp0

  180. @MarkinLA

    I know that. The divide is noticed between white “Hispanics” and black “Hispanics” as well. Refer to my article on the Excerpt from Taboo. Blacks dominate baseball, especially at things that take speed (doubles, triples, base stealing).

  181. @utu

    No problem. I always find it hilarious whenever people cite is Italian “IQ data”. Because Lynn is so dishonest with that.

    If you’re looking for something, you’re going to find it. (Mr. Chanda Chisala should take this phrase and think about it for a second in regards to his articles here… Though I do believe he’s proven that the, IQ for Gabon isn’t that low).

    Lynn is, largely, a dishonest researcher. People like pumpkinperson may say that Lynn is “getting old” and that’s why he’s not thorough. Haha. Sure thing.

  182. @utu

    Because personal reasons for sure

    When the psychological is not ok cognitive is affected = cognitive bias.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  183. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @szopen

    When you say

    Once again, what do you not understand about “there are exceptions” and “g is nto everything”?

    a reasonable person would assume you had said it at least “once” already.

    Which you haven’t.

    But I will be patient.

    By “there are exceptions” you would probably say (if you were sufficiently courteous as to explain) that you mean that there are exceptions to the rule that the mythical g, which cannot be directly measured and which has no known material basis, whether physiological, anatomical, or experiential, dictates that individuals will show uniform brightness or dimness in all cognitive domains.

    So, yes, I do understand what you are struggling to articulate, but I reject what you suggest I fail to understand because it is based on a misconception.

    And if g is a misconception, then there is nothing to understand in the contention that it “is nto (sic) everything.”

    • Replies: @szopen
  184. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Rereading his comment I agree it is not clear which is so. My sense was a bit of both. IMO Chanda has some good arguments, but there tends to be some fluidity in which are advanced at any given time (this can trend towards motte and bailey if not careful). From the introduction above I see a few different arguments being advanced.

    I argued that Africans should not be able to come anywhere near dominating the games of Scrabble (both English and French) or professional checkers, as they apparently do, if their real biological intelligence was anywhere near as low as their nominal IQ scores might indicate. Although these board games evidently require very high intelligence at the top competitive world championship level (not necessarily at the home level with your dad), and attract extremely nerdy math types, they have the specific advantage of not being too affected by the well-known learning/training resource gaps that exist between rich and poor populations.

    As I see it, this is the primary argument. I find it compelling except for the extremely vague “come anywhere near dominating.” That phrase renders it as implying anything from “Gabon cannot have a true genetic IQ with mean 70 and SD 12″ to “there must not be any underlying differences in true genetic IQ because there has been an African Scrabble champion.” The former is an excellent motte argument which has been conceded by almost all commenters here AFAICT. The latter is a bailey which I don’t think anyone is asserting in the strong form, but I think there have been comments trending that way without adequate support.

    My argument is therefore not against the low IQ score estimates for African nations (by Richard Lynn, et al), but whether this reflects some restrictive racially linked genetic cause. If it is indeed basically genetic, it should practically be impossible to find any area of relative cognitive performance of Africans that is inconsistent with this large IQ deficit with whites and other groups.

    I see this as a restatement of what I called the motte. The problem I have here is the vagueness of “basically genetic”. That can mean anything from non-zero to almost completely. I think the genetic contribution to the IQ differences is clearly neither zero nor total (Charles Murray was pilloried for saying something similar regarding American blacks. The Bell Curve has much more detailed support for an assertion like this.) I have proposed (by 80-85 genetic estimate contrasted to 70 observed) that environment accounts for a half to a third of the observed IQ difference. I don’t see anyone else really engaging with that argument.

    I also think this restatement inadequately allows for subpopulation differences in either or both of genetics or environment. At one time Gabon had a French educated elite which I suspect would qualify on both counts. However, I don’t have enough knowledge of Africa in general and Gabon in particular to take a good look at this. What frustrates me is I believe Chanda has the expertise to check this hypothesis, but I have yet to see him do so in enough detail for me to dismiss it.

    If, on the other hand, the cause is basically environmental (specifically, learning resource deficiencies), then some exceptions are bound to exist and these will predictably only be found in areas in which the cognitive challenges are high but the learning resource requirements (books, well-trained teachers etc) are extremely minimal. Performance on such cognitively demanding but bookless contests will far exceed even academic areas that are light on cognitive demands but heavy on book learning (eg soft subjects like sociology etc, where you still find no Africans at the top). The genetic Racial Hypothesis predicts that the gap should be even bigger in favor of whites as you go to the more naturally complex contests like Scrabble (see Spearman’s Hypothesis.) In short, if there was to be any exception to inferior African intellectual performance, it should have been in the softer fields where there are less of the gifted math types to contend with.

    And here is where I really start having problems. First, more vagueness, starting with “basically environmental”. Second, “basically genetic/environmental” is a false dichotomy. A mix is clearly possible as well as the possibility of there being multiple causes as both szopen and I have proposed. Third, limiting environmental effects to “specifically, learning resource deficiencies”. I believe both culture and nutrition are significant environmental effects in Africa. This false dichotomy also ignores non-IQ genetic effects (e.g. specific other intellectual skills, or other traits like persistence).

    “Performance on such cognitively demanding but bookless contests will far exceed even academic areas that are light on cognitive demands but heavy on book learning (eg soft subjects like sociology etc, where you still find no Africans at the top).” is supportable, and provides a guide to where to look. But, I think there needs to be more effort to look at both confirming and disconfirming (e.g. chess?) examples.

    I basically agree with “The genetic Racial Hypothesis predicts that the gap should be even bigger in favor of whites as you go to the more naturally complex contests like Scrabble (see Spearman’s Hypothesis.)” but think this also needs to consider specific skills. For an analogy, consider American black dominance in “athletics.” This seems to be driven by specific skills (e.g. sprinting in West Africans) rather than some kind of overall “athletic g.” If you look closely sports vary in racial ability differences and I think this is attributable to differences in both genetic specific skill profiles and preferences (IMO the same is true of Scrabble).

    “In short, if there was to be any exception to inferior African intellectual performance, it should have been in the softer fields where there are less of the gifted math types to contend with.” Rather than being a summary, this actually brings in another aspect to the issue. Earlier he talked about resource availability, here he is talking about the presence of competition. I discuss this above as “comparative advantage” and “other interests” and think it is an important point. The question is, how does elite Scrabble actually stack up here? Both in terms of ability profile and in terms of desirability for people with those abilities. As an analogy, I think it likely that the NBA draws most of the top basketball talent available in the US (and increasingly the world). It is much less likely speed skating draws most of the people best able to succeed in that sport. Which does Scrabble more resemble? What kind of other activities might someone who has top tier Scrabble potential engage in (in both Africa and the rest of the world)? For comparison we might consider chess. My experience has been that the nerdy math types tend to go for chess rather than Scrabble AND in more developed countries tend to use their math skills professionally which is time consuming.

    I think an interesting question to explore would be what kinds of work activities are these Scrabble champions, and their families (to look at relevant specific genetic traits), engaged in and what kind of success are they achieving?

    If it’s possible, I think a one paragraph summary of Chanda’s primary argument including testable assertions would be very helpful to this discussion.

    • Agree: szopen
  185. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @szopen

    No – my point was not that Scrabble requires intelligence in whites, but something else in Africans.

    You just said “g is nto everything,” but now you’re denying it!

    • Replies: @res
  186. res says:
    @Daniel Bruno

    If people here want me to follow up with real articles, let me know.

    Please do so.

    Still waiting…

  187. szopen says:
    @CanSpeccy

    there are exceptions to the rule that the mythical g, which cannot be directly measured and which has no known material basis, whether physiological, anatomical, or experiential, dictates that individuals will show uniform brightness or dimness in all cognitive domains.

    No.
    The individuals with higher “g” will TEND to show more brightness in all cognitive domains.

    TEND TO.

    And there are other factors too, obviously.

    • Replies: @utu
  188. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You just said “g is nto everything,” but now you’re denying it!

    Are you being disingenuous here? I think it’s clear the “nto” was meant to be “not”, but you seem to be interpreting it as “into”.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @CanSpeccy
  189. @szopen

    Your speculative theory is statistically contradicted by the simple fact that the math majors are vastly over-represented among the extremely good players/champions. It should not be too difficult to completely exterminate such a tiny group from the top if what you say is true.

    • Replies: @szopen
  190. szopen says:
    @res

    Aaaah, now I understand. I was scratching my head what inconsistency was found by CanSpeccy, and now I get it :D :D

    “g” is NOT everything, obviously.

    Or more clearly:
    ALL mental activities have to be correlated with “g”, but this correlation will be weak in some cases and possibly only detected with wide range and very large number of people.

    However success in any domain is NOT dependent on “g” alone.

  191. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @TelfoedJohn

    I don’t have time now to summarize Chisala’s article for you, and anyhow, with an IQ of 132 you must be able to figure it out for yourself if you put your mind to it.

    What I can tell are the conclusions I draw from the article and the discussion to which it has given rise:

    Among those writing here, are some who maintain that Africans have a deficiency in something called g or general intelligence as evidenced by the generally low African IQ-test scores, commonly said to average between 65 and 75 versus around 100 for white Americans.

    What this means is that there are some here who believe most Africans to be gamma-minus morons scarcely able to function at all, and certainly incapable of any form of real intellectual achievement. From this, it follows that if Africans excel at the game of Scrabble it can only be because Scrabble is a dumb game fit only for dumb people to play.

    This view seems, however, to be incorrect, since among non-Africans, including Americans, who play Scrabble those who play best are generally high IQ people strong in mathematical ability, i.e., people believed to have plenty of g. So how is this seeming contradiction between the low IQ of African populations and the success of Africans at the — for non-Africans — high IQ game of Scrabble to be explained?

    One possible answer is that IQ tests do not provide a cross-culturally, or cross-racially, valid measure of g. Thus African IQ test results are not comparable with non-African IQ test results. Another possibility is that Africans have a different mental aptitude profile to non-Africans, such that they have an exceptionally high Scrabble aptitude while being almost mentally deficient in most if not all other domains of intelligence.

    The second alternative has at least some plausibility since we know that the within populations, the correlation coefficients among relative mental aptitude test scores are usually less than 0.7, meaning that population variation in aptitude of one kind typically explains less than 50% of the population variation in aptitude of another kind. Therefore, if Africans have a specially large Scrabble bump, they might indeed beat the world at Scrabble while performing in a relatively abysmal way on other kinds of mental challenge.

    If it were in fact the case that Africans have a different ability profile to non-Africans, then what could account for this difference? There appear to be three categories of explanation: environmental, anatomical, or physiological.

    Environment, for example, might be important if Africans, while having little in the way of schooling necessary to perform well at most verbal and mathematical aptitude tests, nevertheless gain abundant experience of Scrabble, by virtue of the fact that Scrabble is a wildly popular game among Africans.

    An anatomical explanation, reflecting the modularity of the brain, would postulate that the mental bumps or modules of the African brain differ in their relative proportions to those of non-Africans. There is, however, no reputable anatomical evidence to support such a theory. However, one might postulate that a cultural factor, namely the popularity of Scrabble among Africans gives rise to reassignment of neural resources in the way that the prolonged wearing of a blindfold leads to the reassignment of the visual cortex to processing of non-visual information.

    A physiological explanation for African achievement at Scrabble is truly difficult to envisage and I will not attempt to offer a suggestion of what might constitute such a theory.

    Of the three possibilities, then, the first, an environmental or cultural factor affecting learned ability seems the most plausible explanation for a possibly different ability profile among Africans compared with non-Africans. However, cultural differences between Africans and non-Africans could lead to anatomical differences as the result of the reassignment of neural resources.

    It thus seems necessary to conclude that success at competitive Scrabble requires high intelligence, and that the only way to explain the success of African Scrabble players in competition with non-Africans, despite the low reported IQ of Africans is due to cultural differences between Africans and non-Africans giving rise to either (1) IQ test results for Africans and non-Africans that are incommensurable, or (2) a culturally-driven difference between Africans and non-Africans in intellectual aptitude profile. I would put my money on (1).

    • Replies: @utu
    , @TelfoedJohn
  192. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Are you being disingenuous here? I think it’s clear the “nto” was meant to be “not”, but you seem to be interpreting it as “into”.

    I didn’t realize you were IQ-testing me. I thought you were mistyping. And, yes, I did, for some reason assume “NTO” meant “into,” not “not.” LOL

    But it’s good to know that we agree on something. Although not altogether, since I don’t agree that g is anything, or can therefore be, in part or in whole, into or not into, anything else.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @res
    , @CanSpeccy
  193. szopen says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    WHy?

    (1st speculation, scrabble-specific abilities, stronger) states that there might be abilities which are correlated with math abilities, on which there is a difference in gap between whites-black. E.g. “mental rotation” is correlated with math abilities, but maybe in different populations (a) the correlation is different (b) the difference in mental rotation between whites-gap is different that difference in “g”

    (2nd speculation, self-selection of high IQ, much weaker) states that on the entrance to Scrabble, high IQ helps. I.e. on amateur level not many people train a lot, so IQ matters; hence to the professional level advance only high-IQ people (high in a given population). At the professional level, however, all that matters is how much do you train. It could be also, that the train hours would be more improtant in say Gabon, because there are not enough high-iq people to overcome the gap in train hours.

    Sorry, English is not my native language, I will try to restate:

    Say there is some cut-off level of IQ, over which all that matters is expertise (experience+time dedicated to scrabble), and before that, below that cut-off, higher IQ is important, then you got diminishing returns, and expertise matters more. And say you can invest more hours to defeat player with higher IQ, but initially, at amateur level, no one invest enough time, so higher IQ level players pass. All others are deterred from playing and resign.

    Say in Gabon, no one has high IQ enough, and all it matters is the training, from the very beginning.

    • Replies: @Chanda Chisala
  194. @CanSpeccy

    “Although not altogether, since I don’t agree that g is anything, or can therefore be, in part or in whole, into or not into, anything else.”

    Why?

  195. szopen says:

    Now, why I think the expertise (Experience+training) might be more important at some levels:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17924798?dopt=Abstract

    “The analyses revealed that elite- and average-level rated players only significantly differed from each other on tasks representative of SCRABBLE performance. Furthermore, domain-relevant practice mediated the effects of SCRABBLE tournament ratings on representative task performance, suggesting that SCRABBLE players can acquire some of the knowledge necessary for success at the highest levels of competition by engaging in activities deliberately designed to maximize adaptation to SCRABBLE-specific task constraints. “

  196. utu says:
    @szopen

    The individuals with higher “g” will TEND to show more brightness in all cognitive domains.

    This is an axiom, correct? It can’t be really verified. It has to be believed in. Because g is constructed form a battery of cognitive subtests. Circular thinking. Tautology. So you did not really say much. Actually you have said nothing.

    • Replies: @szopen
  197. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You are doing a very good job. I admire your patience.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  198. szopen says:

    Some random papers on scrabble no comments:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5101412/

    “. Here we investigated the potential for far transfer to a symbol decision task (SDT); in particular, transfer of enhanced long-term working memory for vertically presented stimuli. Our behavioral results showed no evidence for far transfer. Despite years of intensive practice, Scrabble experts were no faster and no more accurate than controls in the SDT. However, our fMRI and EEG data from the SDT suggest that the neural repertoire that Scrabble experts develop supports task performance even outside of the practiced domain, in a non-linguistic context. ” … “, the neuroimaging results provide evidence of brain transfer in the absence of behavioral transfer, providing new clues about the consequences of long-term training associated with competitive Scrabble expertise.”

    “players’ ratings are correlated with the number of years spent training (Halpern and Wai, 2007; Tuffiash et al., 2007). Furthermore, the enhanced skills of competitive players are attributed to their training activities and competitive play, rather than pre-existing differences in vocabulary, visuospatial, or other skills (Halpern and Wai, 2007; Tuffiash et al., 2007).”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17535133

    Behind the paywall for me.
    “Competitive Scrabble players spend a mean of 4.5 hr a week memorizing words from the official Scrabble dictionary. When asked if they learn word meanings when studying word lists, only 6.4% replied “always,” with the rest split between “sometimes” and “rarely or never.” Number of years of play correlated positively with expertise ratings, suggesting that expertise develops with practice”

    If someone has access – please do read.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17924798

    Behind the paywall.

    “. Forty tournament-rated SCRABBLE players (20 elite, 20 average) and 40 unrated novice players completed a battery of domain-representative laboratory tasks and standardized verbal ability tests. The analyses revealed that elite- and average-level rated players only significantly differed from each other on tasks representative of SCRABBLE performance.”

    • Replies: @res
  199. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    To be clear, the original typo was from szopen, I was merely inferring what he meant. This isn’t the first time you have misattributed a comment to me. Not a big deal in this case, but I think it would help improve the harmony here if you made a bit more of an effort with that. Part of the problem seems to be when I comment on a cranky response from you and you assume I am the one who made the original comment.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  200. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    And, adding to the confusion, I am mistakenly addressing res as the author of a comment by szopen.

    But while we’re talking of shoes and ships and sealing wax, what is this g thing? It seems to me that there’s some motte and bailey about it. Is it a physical thing, like a brain, in which case I concede it exists, but that obviously does not differentiate a man from a mollusk, since both have a brain.

    Or is it a measure of the size of a brain, in which case, which part of the brain? The brain has many parts and the different parts have different functions. So does high g mean having a general enlargement of the brain, and if so, how come Anatole France, Nobel Prize winner, was found at autopsy to have a brain weighing barely a kilogram?

    Or is it something physiological: high glutamate, at the glutamatergic synapse, or low gaba at the gabaergic synapse, perhaps. But if so, how come autistics, people suffering a defect in the gabaergic transduction pathway, are so consistently uneven in aptitude profile, e.g., Derek Paravicini?

    Far from their being some basic factor that links aptitude in one area with aptitude in all other areas, the evidence points to individual intellectual heterogeneity. True, there are rare polymaths (and Pollydopes, and Pollyaverages) but so one would expect if aptitude of every kind is randomly distributed. The fact that polymaths are the exception among geniuses is confirmed by the unenlightening tiresomeness of Nobel Prize winners, great actors, and pop stars who take to explaining to the world their views about Donald Trump, geopolitics, and climate change.

  201. @CanSpeccy

    The arguments seem backwards and that’s why reading them is like going down a rabbit hole.

    Rather than start with the idea of race differences, and shoe-horning scrabble into the mix, start with scrabble itself.

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  202. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    I think it would help improve the harmony here if you made a bit more of an effort with that.

    All harmony to be shortly restored with my comment currently, or until recently, awaiting moderation.

    • Agree: res
  203. res says:
    @szopen

    Behind the paywall for me.

    If someone has access – please do read.

    Get the DOI from the pubmed page (here 10.1037/1076-898X.13.2.79 ) then go to libgen.io and use the DOI to search in Scientific Articles.

  204. @Santoculto

    “Because personal reasons for sure

    When the psychological is not ok cognitive is affected = cognitive bias.”

    No personal reasons at all. I used to believe it. Then after extensive reading I changed my view. Like with a lot of things over the past year.

    If I’m wrong, present counter evidence and counter arguments. If not, keep your accusations of my motives to yourself. That’s a logically fallacious statement. You’re assuming my motivation,

    Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

    A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

    Keep the fallacies to yourself and argue for Lynn’s garbage Italian “IQ data” yourself. Fallacies aren’t cool man.

    If this is the case, as you propose, then all of the counter arguments to Lynn’s papers are to be thrown out because people of Southern Italian descent have problems with his “methodology”, they must have a motivation to disprove it because of feelings! I can day that Richard Lynn is a Nordicist and throw out the garbage he proposes. But looking at the data is better, because it’s a joke. PISA is not an IQ test bro. It’s strongly predicated on school environment. Don’t believe me? Read some of the responses to Richard Lynn’s papers on the matter.

    When people use fallacious arguments, it shows their attitude—or lack thereof—in what is being discussed.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  205. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    LOL.

    Actually, I get a kick out of debating, and though that does not make me a genius debater, I think that what gives one a kick is what can make one an obsessive, and what makes one an obsessive, may make one a genius, even if one has perhaps only modest intellectual tools to work with. That, incidentally, is my theory of African world-class performance at Scrabble. And I would bet that give them time and the Africans will show similar world-class performance in other domains, as they have already in literature and the arts.

    Speaking of genius and modest ability, Einstein, by his own admission, relied on friends to help him with math, e.g., Marcel Grossman, and later at Princeton, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 20th Century, Kurt Goedel. Thus aided, Einstein was able to pursue the implications of his obsessive attention to such questions as how the world would look to a photon, his achievements earning him a popular reputation as the most intelligent man in the world, a standing with probably little relation to Einstein’s IQ.

    • Replies: @utu
  206. szopen says:
    @utu

    No. Because you construct “g” from tests of A, B, C, and use it to predict performance on D, E, F, G… So no circular thinking here.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @utu
  207. Logan says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You know, one way to settle this would be to measure the IQs of champion Scrabble players. Then we could measure how great the correspondence is.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  208. Logan says:
    @MarkinLA

    Even “memory” has sub-abilities in it. For instance, I was a one-day champion a couple decades ago on Jeopardy. To be good at that game, the primary talent needed is not necessarily a good memory, it’s immediate access to that memory.

    There are a great many people who can’t come up with the answer in 1/2 second, but have more general knowledge than those who can and would do much better if given 5 or 15 seconds to think about the answer.

    But given the rules of the game, wide knowledge and excellent memory are completely useless unless combined with a “knack” for almost-instant recall.

  209. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Logan

    Yes, to measure the IQ’s of champion Scrabble players would provide clarification.

    Trouble is, it would be a bit like asking Newton or Einstein to take an IQ test. They’d surely refuse, since a high score would merely confirm the justice of their celebrity, whereas a low score would seriously detract from it, as the IQ-ists and Mensa members preened themselves on having higher IQ’s than those supposed geniuses, who must have merely lucked out on something without having any real brains at all.

  210. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @szopen

    you construct “g” from tests of A, B, C, and use it to predict performance on D, E, F, G…

    Predict all you like, but how accurately can you predict?

    With a coefficient of determination of less than 0.5, your predictions aren’t worth a lot, and the correlations your are depending on must in part be due to cultural factors. If you went to school with these guys, you probably had a better chance of learning all kinds of cognitive skills than these guys.

    Then there’d nutrition, disease, access to iPads, cell phones and the Internet.

    The accuracy, of you predictions, such as it is, is largely if not entirely a consequence of the Flynn Effect, not genetics.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  211. @RaceRealist88

    Comment directed to Utu…

    You I don’t need say what I already said to you hundred times..

    Goodbye

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  212. @CanSpeccy

    No have excuses for those who really like to learn or have intellectual curiosity. You can learn a lot of useful things in the middle of amazon forest without any drop of western knowledges. I think you’re being western supremacist.

    Every explicit clever people who live or who was born in deprived environments are live evidence that this uber-environmental explanations are not factually and long term sustainable only via cultural indoctrination.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  213. @CanSpeccy

    You don’t seem very well informed about Richard Feynman.

    True; I wasn’t aware that his books were ghostwritten. Makes a big difference. (Scratch that argument.)

    A little googling tells me the consensus is that Feynman had some kind of verbal deficit. (It seems likely that he was dyslexic. “he sometimes hung his keys on the right side of his belt to help him remember which was his right hand.” – http://labvislearn.com/topic/feynman-dyslexic/)

    So, what would happen, then, if Feynman had taken a stardard individual intelligence test? If he took (today’s) WAIS, he would show a very large difference between Verbal and Performance subtests. (This might require assuming that the WAIS has a higher ceiling that it does.) A competent psychologist would refuse to report a Full Scale IQ, since it would be meaningless in light of such disparate components. (Which is to say, on its face, both scores cannot be measuring g.)

    You may respond that this is a fudge in that relevant evidence against g is being automatically discounted. But 1) such large discrepancies are rare; and 2) the deficit is circumscribed (Feynman was an engaging speaker.)

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  214. @Santoculto

    You are talking about me, assuming my motivation. Fallacy.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  215. @CanSpeccy

    We have intelligence and IQ
    IQ have the mission to reflect intelligence in summarized and numerical symbol.

    But IQsts use IQ scores as ultimate evidence of intelligence levels while they despise completely or near to completely the intelligence facets IQ by now don’t measure/estimative.

    Genius achievements are impersonal even evidently we need brilliant individuals to do it. IQ”achievements” are personal, it’s not the achievement itself but the prediction to achieve. Indeed IQ is not even a achievement.

    We just know what intelligence can be via achievements, behave well, adapt well, learn faster or learn better, be creative or inventive, etc… In other words we just know what intelligence is via evidenced behavior and not by “prediction”.

    Weight size is not what we (can) do with it. So weight size is not exactly weight itself.
    IQ/intelligence size prediction is not what we do with our central nervous system.

    IQ is unreal in some aspects because it’s just like a prize you have in your home. Intelligence as essential feature of behavior is everytime, everywhere, it’s a involuntary and evolutionary invitation to do the best you can do while you exist.

    Yes IQ have a lot of good points and it’s far to be useless. What seems are useless are that people who insist in this kind of supremacy. The fundamental point of IQsts is: They think if you score higher on IQ tests so you are invincibly, totally smarter about 99% of people who are “below” you. It’s the central stupidity that make IQsts naturally wrong about their unconsciously perceived cult.

    Why??

    Because since the first modern psychometricians they have established that psychological side of our behavior is not intelligence.

    • Replies: @Logan
    , @Logan
  216. @CanSpeccy

    Yes, to measure the IQ’s of champion Scrabble players would provide clarification. Trouble is, it would be a bit like asking Newton or Einstein to take an IQ test.

    If by “a bit,” you mean, ‘not at all.’ Newton and Einstein were epochal scientific minds. You can’t seriously mean to compare that on any level to players of a board game, which involves a considerable elements of chance.

    Compared to chess or go, scrabble is a low prestige game. I would think the champions would want to establish some respectability through a quantitative measure that could be compared to activities widely perceived as being intellectually meritorious.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  217. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Boudica-Judaica

    No I did not “mean to compare” Newton and Einstein with players of a board game” and didn’t do so.

  218. @szopen

    Both of your theories are falsified by the dominance of mathematicians at the top.

    Theory 1: If there is some ability that correlates with math ability, but does not actually make you good at math, hence permitting Africans with lots of x to be Scrabble champions, THEN the mathematicians would not be dominant even in America. Because whatever that x is, there will also be people in America who have it in abundance who are not mathematicians or are even bad at math. A strong selection on that factor x would make it harder for actual mathematicians to qualify.

    For your theory to even have a remote chance of working, you have to make the further claim: that Africans have much more of this x than other populations. Your problem then, as a hereditarian, is that you will have no candidate among cognitive abilities for that x, because the hereditarian literature puts Africans way below other populations on just about any cognitive ability you would choose for such candidacy.

    Theory 2: you’re essentially saying that experience/training is much more important than intelligence, except among people who have little or no experience. Again, if this was true, you would not have that many mathematicians at the top. The fact that there are many other professions of people who play the game seriously and have lots of experience, and yet the mathematicians (and other high IQ professions) rise to the top falsifies your theory: it means that intelligence/math ability continues to be a significant factor even among the highly experienced people. If your theory was true, the mathematicians would dominate at the top only if they were already the majority of the experienced players.

    [Note: I can repeat the logic similarly for Ashkenazi Jewish dominance, etc and show how Occam's razor alone makes any other speculations implausible. And I can also get into the game of checkers etc (an alternative hypothesis should integrate all that). But I don't want to end up re-writing my entire article(s) in the comments thread!]

    Thanks.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @res
    , @szopen
  219. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    You hypothetical evaluation of Feynman’s intelligence seems plausible, and if correct, confirms that g, which is a construct based on correlation among aptitudes, is meaningless. There is no core facility that dictates all others.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  220. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    Lord Rutherford, would agree. A New Zealander, he was rejected by Cambridge, so went to Canada where he did important research in physics at McGill University. For that, Cambridge reconsidered and had him along. When he arrived in Britain he was asked, how he could possibly have done such important work in Canada, to which he replied, “if you are any good at it, you can do good research at the North Pole.”

    However, I would contend that a stone age indian at the heart of the Amazon forest will learn quite different things to a scholar at Eton College and hence will perform differently, and less well on a test designed to measure cognitive aptitude in graduates of traditional Western schools. That’s why I said, several hundred comments ago, that the African environment is not “cognitively deficient,” as Chisala termed it, but “cognitively different.” It produces a different mentality that adapts the individual to a different environment.

  221. @CanSpeccy

    Get your grandchildren to show you how to use the device efficiently (but don’t be tempted fo try dictation unless you are willing to spend hours training it or hours on editing)

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  222. @TelfoedJohn

    Would Dustin Hoffman’s “Rainman” have been good at Scrabble if interested? Just toying with the point that maybe Aspergerish or Idiot Savant types are suited to high performance Scrabble. Then the question arises as to their frequency in African countries. It fits with the ptedominance of males.

    • Replies: @Triumph104
  223. @res

    I had a connection problem in the middle of a post and have just got back hours later so, for the moment, direct your attention to #229

  224. @Jay Ritchie

    Indeed it is unfortunate that this, by far the best of CC’s articles that I have read starts with that absurd figure of 70 – absurd anyway if it is intended to portray just what you would expect of an average of 70 for a group of contemporary NW Europeans. It seems likely that the there are castes and other subpopulations that make the distribution of g not totally unlike that in India at least if one has any taste for accepting Jared Diamond’s “Guns Germs & Steel” thesis for why Eurasians got ahead. (If only those cuassed zebras had taken to being harnessed!).

    Also plausible I suggest is the notion that superior performance at Scrabble need have little to do with g but about Aspergerish or Idiot Savant qualities that tend to be male and might be just as prevalent in Africa as elsewhere.

    There remains to be examined the a priori probability that there were pro g mutations in the difficult conditions of Ice Age Eurasia that, even if they or comparable ones occurred in Africa, weren’t matched for selective advantage in Africa. (And I seem to remember reading about one which seems to have occurred about 20,000 year s ago in Eurasia. We know that there are such major differences as no Neanderthal genes in Africa so it would be best not to be too dogmatic until much more empirical research into African genomes is available. Do we have any idea how much Eurasian DNA might be found in the very black peoples of NE Africa?)

  225. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I side with your theory of Scrabble in Africa. I used to tutor people for entrance exams to university in phys and math many years ago when I was in college. It was then that I realized that knowing physics and mathematics was nothing really special. I could teach almost anybody as long as they worked a lot. Often they were motivated by fear of their parents. Parents were ambitious and had aspirations for their children so they were hiring an expensive tutor. On few occasions I thought I was dealing with a moron but after one year of work 2-3 times a week (and him applying himself) he could pass quite competitive entrance exam. I do not know if I could be so successful in Africa. If I were younger I would try. But I would not touch African Americans. With the prevalent attitude they have it is really pointless.

    Einstein? I looked into it lots of times. Origins of Relativity was my hobby some years ago. I read papers by the predecessors: Lorentz and Poincare and have no doubt that some plagiarism occurred. More and more I have doubts about his alleged genius or even originality. General Relativity certainly is a great achievement but w/o Grossman and probably w/o lifting Hilbert’s result it would be a different story. Certainly he had a talent how to use people and the people apparently did not mind to remain unacknowledged and forever in shadows.

    Feynman? After what you wrote about him I started looking into it. He was a showman. Very strong ego and extremely competitive. He wanted to shine and give impression that things were coming easy to him and that he did not really care. But he actually worked very hard on everything just to shine. He practice his antics at home and kept formulating his saying and editing them before he uttered them “spontaneously.” So he cared very much. Not necessarily for the truth itself by for being right every time. If he did not go to physics perhaps he could have a career in Borscht Belt where he could have the last word as a stand up. Lot’s of chutzpah and manipulation.

    Their IQ’s do not interest me as I consider this whole IQ business really of secondary importance. Yes, it is important if you want to join MENSA, an organization for people whose only accomplishment is being members of MENSA. It is the personality and moral stature of people like Einstein and Feynman that are really interesting.

  226. utu says:
    @szopen

    Because you construct “g” from tests of A, B, C, and use it to predict performance on D, E, F, G… So no circular thinking here.

    If you really were serious about predicting D, E, F, G… you wouldn’t use g because it correlates with D, E, F, G… less than some other linear combinations of scores A, B, C. For D a different combination of A,B, C than for E and so on.

    Nobody does it. So, once again why do you need g? Certainly not for its predictive powers.

    Who does use g? For instance did you see anywhere a study whether g has a Gaussian distribution? IQ has, supposedly. I wonder how well this hypothesis of IQ having normal distribution was tested, btw? But what about g? What is the mean and standard deviation of g for White people or Jews?

    Szopen, you have been had. But keeping in mind Mark Twain dictum that it’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled, I do not hold my breath that you will admit it to yourself soon regardless of my efforts. Or perhaps your g is too small to see through it.

    • Replies: @szopen
  227. utu says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    Very good article. Somebody above wrote: “The author makes a judo-like use of his opponents’ arguments.” You will not convince anybody because it never works but it’s satisfying to see g-mongers and IQ-ists squirm a little and come up with harebrained theories like szopen above.

  228. res says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    dominance of mathematicians at the top.

    Is this true across all countries? Do you have a reference?

    One thing worth noting is that Ashkenazi Jewish success in Scrabble calls into question my hypothesis (in an earlier thread IIRC) that spatial ability is important for Scrabble.

  229. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Get your grandchildren to show you how to use the device efficiently…

    My grand-daughter, aged 3 and a half, already has her doubts about my mental compentence, since it takes me more than just a second or two to set up a Skype link. There’s no way I am prepared to reveal the full extent of my ineptitude by asking for her help with something so simple as an iPad — damn thing.

  230. @Wizard of Oz

    Dustin Hoffman’s character was fantasy. The real Rainman, Kim Peek, could remember everything he read and have complex discussions about musical compositions but he literally couldn’t do anything. The right and left hemispheres of his brain were not connected so he didn’t know how to get out of bed or dress himself. His father did everything for him. He wouldn’t have been able to count cards or figure out where to advantageously place Scrabble tiles. Peek had an IQ of 87.

    Most savants are mentally retarded and only have one “party trick” that makes them stand out from other retarded people. They may be able to put together puzzles, draw intricately, or name the day of the week for any date.

    The only savant that I know of who may be able to count cards or play Scrabble is Daniel Tammet. He had epileptic seizures as a child and is high-functioning autistic. He can recite pi to over 22,000 decimal places and does calculator math in his head such a cube roots and multiplying five digit numbers. He speaks at least 10 languages. He is the savant exception to the rule.

    Based on the Scrabble documentary Word Wars, I assume that plenty of high-functioning autistics or at least eccentrics already play.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  231. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    All the malice in the world coming from Jewish subversives would be of little or no consequence without the frank stupidity and gullibility of too many of the goyim, and the treachery of far too many of our political leaders who have sold their nation and their people out while getting in bed with the tribalist program of cultural destruction. It is these leaders, people like the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons, Romney, McCain, Graham, Blair,Merkel, etc. etc. ad infinitum that are the true enemies of our civilization.

    If we can be so easily manipulated and controlled by a small but powerful minority of the population, that does not say much about us, does it?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  232. Harold says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    What IQ ‘fundamentalists’ are unaware of any of that, or think human creativity is reducible to IQ?
    They don’t exist.

  233. @CanSpeccy

    There is no core facility that dictates all others.

    The idea is that it strongly influences intellectual performances of all sorts. I think there’s room yet for disagreement on this question, but I don’t think it is disproven by occasional examples where a standard intelligence test doesn’t produce a determinate answer. If dyslexia is the correct explanation, then it’s no counterexample to g. The standard tests for g just happen to fail to measure it for determinate individuals.

    I wonder if we have different intuitions about this thought experiment. Imagine having an ordinary intellectual conversation with Feynman, about some subject unrelated to math or physics yet of interest to him (and in which you are knowledgeable). You don’t know who you are talking to. Do you think you would judge your interlocutor intelligent, mediocre in intelligence, or of completely unknown ability?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  234. @Triumph104

    Thanks. I hope Ron keeps a liitle list of those who sound as if they know what tbey’te talking about (and probably do) and don’t go too far beyond it, apart from humour. Then he might be able to keep some interesting conversation going when he’s too old and lacking the energy and tolerance to put up with a house full of madnen, drunks and obsessives.

    And thanks for, as I haven’t failed to notice, putting a bit of flesh on one of my ideas while discarding bits.

  235. szopen says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    Thanks, that’s sound argument, but still – if Gabon’s results would be so good, then we ought to see something more than just the good Scrabble results. If to high “g” indicates there ought to be successes in many fields, and we see the successes in only one of two fields, then the ockham razor suggests that many the exceptions are explained by exceptional theory, not by the general theory being false.

    As for: If your theory was true, the mathematicians would dominate at the top only if they were already the majority of the experienced players., the theory stated that at inexperienced or moderately experienced level, IQ matters, hence only high-IQ players enter the competition and start to play more seriously. Hence, mathematicians, Jewish etc may enter the game easily defeating competitors, and only later start to train.

    Remember, the studies show that experience matters A LOT in scrabble and the rating is directly correlated with years spending playing scrabble.

    • Replies: @Chanda Chisala
  236. szopen says:
    @utu

    Except people use IQ tests (SAT _is_ IQ test) for entrance into universities and nobody complains. Once again: you have a theory and the means for falsifying it. For decades many people tried to falsify it and none succeeded. Many tried to propose alternative theories and only one is not yet falsified. “G” theory makes specific predictions which are confirmed. Hence, it should be, tentatively, assumed to be true until better competitor will show. However you are against the theory despite all that – why?

    For a note I can not even imagine how you can think that Feynmann example means “G” theory is wrong. It’s like arguing that because there is some excellent runner who lost both hands, it means there is no need to divide people into fit and unfit.

    • Replies: @utu
  237. Logan says:
    @Santoculto

    The whole argument seems really silly to me.

    One side says IQ has nothing to do with intelligence, while the other says IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence. Both sides generally fail to define exactly what they mean by intelligence, allowing them to a quite considerable degree to simply talk past each other.

    IQ measures something real, we’re not really sure what, and it has been comprehensively proven that whatever “it” is it correlates highly with a great many life outcomes. So those who say it doesn’t measure anything real are just wrong.

    But the notion that “intelligence,” again, whatever that is, can be reduced to a single metric are, IMO, equally wrong. IQ appears to fairly accurately quantify what psychometricians refer to as “g,” or “general intelligence.”

    A certain level of g is most likely a prerequisite to a certain level of functioning in any field, but it seems likely to me that once that minimal level has been reached human excellence is much more dependent on a host of “knacks” and “talents” that are not easily quantified.

  238. For me, the ultimate satire on both chess and scrabble is Woody Allen’s The Gossage-Vardebadian Papers.

  239. @Logan

    Most hereditarians don’t believe that IQ tests perfectly measure intelligence. Care to provide some references showing some researchers who believe this?

    • Replies: @Logan
  240. utu says:
    @szopen

    Did you say at #213 that g is used for prediction? This is no true. I pointed out that using subtests scores from which g might be derived are better predictors than g itself. Stick to it. Let it sink before you start talking about a theory. There is no theory. The theory is empty. Nobody uses g. g was proposed and then constructed to create a pretense that you guys have some theory. But you do not.

    • Replies: @szopen
  241. @lavoisier

    If we can be so easily manipulated and controlled by a small but powerful minority of the population, that does not say much about us, does it?

    We*

    No, i’m not easily manipulated, ;)

    I have facility to manipulate other people, it’s different.

    Well

    ALL societies are less or more dominated by a small but powerful minority, even in hunter-gatherers, it’s not a western feature, it’s a universal feature, period.

    Yes, it’s does say about YOU, not about me, at least.

    All the malice in the world coming from Jewish subversives would be of little or no consequence without the frank stupidity and gullibility of too many of the goyim, and the treachery of far too many of our political leaders who have sold their nation and their people out while getting in bed with the tribalist program of cultural destruction. It is these leaders, people like the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons, Romney, McCain, Graham, Blair,Merkel, etc. etc. ad infinitum that are the true enemies of our civilization.

    ALL*

    not, but ANjooLS have much more of this malice and worst, talent to use it against other people, at generalized way.

    Two vosciferous idiotic subversions: xitianism, islameism come from psychotic jewish minds, isn’t*

    The desert fairy tales conquered blonde barbarians…

    Of course,

    NEVER

    jews

    NEVER have nothing to do with nothing,

    it’s always the globalists, the leftists, the communists, the reptilians, the iluminatti, the masons,

    NEVER the anjools…

    So boring and uncreative arguments, so dishonesty of voluntary mental enslavement for your part… it’s sad!

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  242. @Logan

    The whole argument seems really silly to me.

    Why*

    One side says IQ has nothing to do with intelligence, while the other says IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence. Both sides generally fail to define exactly what they mean by intelligence, allowing them to a quite considerable degree to simply talk past each other.

    Both sides are ideological, and both try to define intelligence in their own image. Leftists try to define intelligence based on their better emotional/errr.. psychologically manipulative skills while rightists try to define intelligence based on what we can do in our jobs, using only our cognitive abilities. The first group want wrongly moralize intelligence, the second want de-moralize.

    Rationality for example have different concepts, usually, for men and women. Women enphasize behavioral rationality while men tend to enphasize cognitive rationality/err factual understanding, while rationality IS both.

    IQ measures something real, we’re not really sure what, and it has been comprehensively proven that whatever “it” is it correlates highly with a great many life outcomes. So those who say it doesn’t measure anything real are just wrong.

    I believe IQ measure our cognitive side, and this explain why he correlates with a lot of outcomes. Also because modern societies selects for IQ-skills: good to learn that scholastic /academic stuff, so the correlation between IQ and [''modern'' society] outcomes seems self-evident to be expected.

    IQ measure, predict and compare the size of our cognitive side, period, It’s what IQ measure. Lacks psychological side, quality [creativity, rationality, etc]… IQ it’s just like measure the size or territorial extension of the countries. But not ”measure” the quality of this countries, so we can have Davids and Golias.

    But the notion that “intelligence,” again, whatever that is, can be reduced to a single metric are, IMO, equally wrong. IQ appears to fairly accurately quantify what psychometricians refer to as “g,” or “general intelligence.”

    I don’t think the notion [or concept] of intelligence but the size/quantitative levels of intelligence that can be MEASURED by IQ fairly well…

    Psychometricians don’t believe emotional or psychological skills are part of intelligence, embarrassing dumb but it’s true, even many them will never admit. They believe intelligence and personality are two different construct and even in the real world this division happen.

    Psycho-metricians over-enphasize the metrics over the analysis. Comparative analysis is also extremely important to give more precision to this type of tasks [psychological evaluations].

  243. @Santoculto

    “Psychometricians don’t believe emotional or psychological skills are part of intelligence, embarrassing dumb but it’s true, even many them will never admit.”

    Emotional intelligence isn’t real. Recall back to the post on PP’s blog.

    That’s not to say that our emotional state doesn’t affect our intellect.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  244. @RaceRealist88

    Stop to answer my comments

    how times i got to say for you

    I DON’T WANT YOUR USELESS ”THOUGHTS”

    You’re nothing to argue about it…

    This is a very verbally abstract department you’re in the delayed levels for ever and ever…

    again

    GOODBYE

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  245. @Santoculto

    I can respond to which ever comments I’d like to.

    “This is a very verbally abstract department you’re in the delayed levels for ever and ever…”

    Correct. And I’m trying to get you to stop pushing this “emotional intelligence” BS because it’s been disproven.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  246. Polymath says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    You are lumping me in with many other commenters who said things I did not say, I don’t have to respond to criticisms of those things.

    My point is most applicable in a place like Nigeria with many different tribes. I do not have demographic data on the genetic homogeneity or inhomogeneity of Gabon as would be represented by data on the existence of subgroups that reproduce primarily with themselves rather than the rest of the country. However, an alternative that would also rebut my point is the actual distribution function of IQ in Gabon, so we could see how fat the tails are directly, relative to a normal distribution with the same mean and S.D.

    My prediction is that, in the countries which greatly outperform the Scrabble performance that would be expected based on the mean and SD of the country’s IQ distribution, the full IQ distribution will have much fatter tails than the normal distribution with the same mean and S.D. The full distribution is theoretically available if the mean and S.D. were calculated from an actual sample of individual IQ tests rather than by some other method; show me that my prediction is false and I will admit I was wrong.

    • Replies: @res
    , @CanSpeccy
  247. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Imagine having an ordinary intellectual conversation with Feynman, about some subject unrelated to math or physics yet of interest to him (and in which you are knowledgeable). You don’t know who you are talking to. Do you think you would judge your interlocutor intelligent, mediocre in intelligence, or of completely unknown ability?

    One of Feynman’s set pieces was about how his father mocked those who knew the names of birds, flowers, etc., his point being that knowing the name of something tells you nothing about it.

    In reponse, I would point out to him the ignorance of his position, since the Linnaean system of classifying organisms is based on structural and anatomical features that are strongly indicative of phylogenetic relationships. Thus if you know the name of a plant or animal you will, if you understand the scientific system of classification, immediately know a great deal about the organism’s structure and evolutionary relationships.

    So on that basis I’d probably consider Feynman a bit of a yahoo, although I personally like amusing yahoos as Feynman seems to have been and would probably have credited him with a good native intelligence.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
  248. szopen says:
    @utu

    No, they are not.

    • Replies: @res
  249. Polymath says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I knew Feynman personally. You’re full of shit. He was more brilliant at physics, of course, than at other things, but his overall intelligence was very high.

    • Replies: @res
  250. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So on that basis I’d probably consider Feynman a bit of a yahoo, although I personally like amusing yahoos as Feynman seems to have been and would probably have credited him with a good native intelligence.

    This sounds like a good observation and I share your opinions. One addition I would make is that I strongly suspect Feynman portrayed himself as being even more of a yahoo than he was in reality.

    As an example, I’ll bet if pressed he would have been well above average knowing names of birds, flowers, etc. Though perhaps not up to his father’s standards.

  251. szopen says:
    @Logan

    Please, please, PLEASE read some f…riendly book. Like Bartholomew, “Measuring Intelligence, facts and fallacies”. Maybe you will stop building strawmen.

    I also direct the same request to Santoculto and Utu. At least chapter 13 of this book.

    Utu may find for example the following helpful:
    “(6) IQ scores are only weak predictors of educational or vocational success
    in individual people. In many cases other kinds of information yield more
    accurate estimates about a person’s future performance.
    This is actually a comment on the usefulness of IQ scores, not on their validity
    as measures of mental ability. The matter of whether IQ scores are only weak
    predictors of educational or vocational success, depends on what you mean by
    ‘only weak’. Even where this is a defensible statement we may not be able, in
    practice, to identify or access the ‘other kinds of information’. The advantage of
    a score like an IQ is that it is available for use in a wide range of circumstances,
    even though there may be better alternatives available in particular cases.”

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  252. res says:
    @szopen

    Careful. All of the subtests together are a better predictor than g alone for outcomes that involve special skills (e.g. math/English majors). I’ve given a detailed argument about percent variance explained (e.g. how shockingly much of all the subtests g explains) to utu before. He just doesn’t care. Not sure why the axe is being ground, but it is.

    • Replies: @utu
  253. utu says:

    It seems that Feynman’s father had a great impact on him by shaping his view and particular set of biases. Furthermore he was very dependent on psychological support and approval of his mother. It is very telling that he wrote letters to his mother describing his clever jokes and pranks that he played on people and lectures where he destroyed his opponents with his cleverness and so on. He was in search of constant approval and confirmation. His doting parents were giving it to their Wunderkind.

  254. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Logan

    IQ measures something real, we’re not really sure what, and it has been comprehensively proven that whatever “it” is it correlates highly with a great many life outcomes. So those who say it doesn’t measure anything real are just wrong.

    Actually, we know quite well what IQ measures. It measures success at doing IQ tests, i.e., showing proficiency in certain verbal and numerical tests of logic. Since many of the more mundane forms of success in life depend on such skills, it is natural enough that IQ tests would predict life outcomes with some degree of success. Top bureaucrats, for example, seem to have high IQ’s, as surely do forensic accountants and good software engineers.

    What is in dispute is (a) to what extent verbal and numerical logical abilities are acquired through education and exposure to the cultural milieu, and (b) to what extent those abilities are are all that there is to what, in the common understanding of the term, constitutes intelligence.

    The Flynn effect establishes that IQ-related logical abilities are in part environmentally determined, not inherited. Moreover, the environmentally determined component is related to wealth. IQ-ists seem to assume that wealth is dependent on IQ, but that IQ is dependent on wealth seems equally likely.

    That there is much more to what is generally understood to be intelligence than mere IQ-test skills is apparent from the failure of IQ as a measure of genius. Thus, Terman who sought to identify high fliers based on an IQ of 150 plus, managed to screen out the only individuals among those he tested who went on to real intellectual achievement, namely, the physics Nobel Prize winners, Shockley and Alvarez. This is consistent with an abundance of evidence that many highly creative individuals lacked exceptional IQ-test skills, e.g., Richard Feynman, and J.D. Watson.

    The assumption that IQ is a measure of the intelligence that transforms civilizations, the intelligence of an Alexander the Great, a Shakespeare, a Tolstoy, a Mozart or a Darwin, seems unjustified.

  255. @RaceRealist88

    So you like me*

    Please, dislike, try to dislike quickly…

    i don’t want become angry with your gigantic stupidity anymore.

    It’s impossible try to debate with you by a lot of reasons

    Your abstract verbal skills are just at very lower levels, so you don’t or can’t understand, we are talking about different languages. It’s equivalent to the calculus II and 2+2 but to the verbal abstractions hierarchy. You’re in 2+2 and still answering wrong;

    Your intrapersonal skills are nonexistent, you think you’re a gifted guy while you’re involuntary funny guy;

    Because your lack of self-knowledge you no have capacity to be intellectually honest nor humble, and i don’t want act as Super Nanny teaching you how to behave correctly;

    You can’t argue, incapable to argue in two sentences without contradict yourself;

    You just repeat simple and short sentences you already have memorized and again, without any substantial and coherent development.

    I can’t, i just can’t.

    This is the SAME debate, since maybe years and you still repeat the same thing, without any development.

    You don’t change, you don’t learn, you don’t try to convince me for yourself about your statements, even i already know most of them are just factually wrong. I don’t want your numerous links, i don’t want the SAME thing since a long time, a deja vu of your stupidity.

    Yes, i know, via SEMANTIC stuff but also structural ones, no there such thing emotional intelligence but there such thing emotional skills.

    Emotion is a one thing, emotional skills is what you can do with it, clearly a sign of intelligence-expression.

    Intelligence is a structural concept, there are general intelligence that is the average or the sum of all intelligence facets: creativity levels, rationality levels, cognitive levels [verbal, numerical, spatial, memory, speed, reasoning, etc], emotional resiliency, emotional or behavioral capacity to adapt to the numerous challenges in our everyday life. In all this tasks pattern recognition is required, sing of intelligence-expression.

    People are diversely better in this tasks, some are better in emotional skills, other are better in psychological resilience, other are better in cognitive part, everything related with behavior, with survive capacity, everything related with intelligence, that express intelligence.

    PERIOD.

    AGAIN

    GOODBYE

  256. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    Emotional intelligence isn’t real.

    How come animals have intelligence? Because it promotes survival and reproduction.

    You think reading and manipulating the emotions of others is not a major factor in the evolution of intelligence? I suggest you think again and while doing so, I suggest you bear in mind Bill Clinton: 2000 women by his own account.

  257. res says:
    @Polymath

    I agree with your prediction and also welcome data either for or against it. The problem I have is PC hamstrings research and conversations about race and IQ so much that I grow tempted to start treating absence of evidence as if it were evidence supporting non-PC views.

    For those (not Polymath) who think summary statistics like mean and SD are the end of the story (e.g. have not taken a decent statistics class), Anscombe’s quartet might provide food for thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscombe%27s_quartet

    At the end of the day the right way to answer questions about IQs in Africa is to make good measurements of IQs in Africa.

    P.S. I don’t know how the IQ statistics for Gabon were constructed, but it’s worth noting they do not appear in Lynn’s 2010 paper for 108 countries: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/48d7/843f6ce714a684a93530a0c8b7da65d185db.pdf
    I don’t think most of the African numbers are based on actual IQ test data, but would be happy to be proven wrong.

  258. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Polymath

    My prediction is that, in the countries which greatly outperform the Scrabble performance that would be expected based on the mean and SD of the country’s IQ distribution, the full IQ distribution will have much fatter tails than the normal distribution with the same mean and S.D.

    Should one not expect a fat tail distribution of IQ, or most other wealth-related characteristics, in just about any African country? We know that most African countries have a political/business elite that has grabbed most of the wealth, and within that group one would expect to see the full manifestation of the Flynn Effect, i.e., with second and third generation members of the elite having IQ distributions comparable to the wealthier social strata in the the developed world.

  259. res says:
    @Polymath

    Could you elaborate? Most of what I have heard (including from other people who knew Feynman) is that his verbal and writing skills were a bit…idiosyncratic. It’s hard to be sure how much of that was an effort to portray a common man image though. It might be a bad example to use given current political polarization, but I think Trump is a good example of someone much smarter than his verbal mannerisms seem to indicate.

    To be clear, I think an IQ figure for Feynman of 124 is silly. I could see it happening on a low ceiling (especially math) test given in childhood, but doubt it very much as a reflection of adult reality. As previously mentioned in other contexts, the real answer to questions like this is not speculation–it is measurement (e.g. did Feynman ever take the SAT?).

    If anyone is interested in a rigorous analytic look at the IQs of top scientists (i.e. not childhood anecdotes) see my Anne Roe reference above.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  260. @szopen

    You seems a moderate ”IQsts”, if i can qualify him like that.

    But you know about ”moderates”… usually a ”silent majority”.

    But, not just regular IQst, also bigger names of this business really believe IQ is everything, is intelligence and… for example, emotional skills are not part of intelligence, but psychological traits.

    Everyone who try to think for themselves you guys like to classify as ”creating the strawman”**

    next refute point by point of Logan comment or my own. instead just accuse us to ”creating the strawman”.

    I liked the Logan Comment, what i don’t understand is why he define my comment as silly.

  261. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    To be clear, I think an IQ figure for Feynman of 124 is silly.

    Naturally. It overthrows your whole view of intelligence.

    But if you take into consideration Terman’s failure to identify two future Physics Nobel Prize winners among those from whom he selected his “high-fliers” (IQ 150-plus) for long-term observation, a Feynman IQ of 124 does not seem particularly silly. And it does not seem silly at all when one takes into account that Princeton University had grave doubts about admitting Feynman to graduate school, despite highly favorable recommendations from MIT, because his score on every test other than math and physics was lower than anyone previously admitted.

    Consistently, however, adherents of the IQ-is-all-there-is-to-intelligence school ignore these well-known and oft stated facts.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @res
  262. @CanSpeccy

    Naturally. It overthrows your whole view of intelligence.

    hehehe, exactly!!!

    waste of patience with this intelectually DISHONEST people.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  263. Leading Nazis at Nuremberg were given IQ tests, and the results published. All scored above 100, which is perhaps not surprising. Albert Speer probably saved himself from a death sentence by his clever tactics at the trial, and he was one of Hitler’s most able subordinates. Yet he was only in about the middle range among the defendants, IQ 127 or 128. Goering scored 138.

  264. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    waste of patience with this intelectually DISHONEST people.

    One is most likely wasting one’s time if one expects to change their opinion, but I don’t think they are dishonest. People just cling to an idea as best they can, denying the facts as necessary to refute their adversaries in debate. This is actually how science progresses. People put up crazy ideas and stick with them against all evidence, and sometimes, new evidence comes along that proves them right.

    But with this idea about IQ, I think the case is hopeless. IQ-tests measure aptitude on IQ-tests, which is a sensible thing to measure if you are selecting people to run the post office. If they’ve got the IQ, you know they can understand what they read, express themselves clearly in writing and can add up. All very useful attributes in a clerk, or indeed, almost anyone. But it’s NOT GENIUS.

    And neither is it a whole lot of other things we call intelligence, nor does it correlate well with other things we call intelligence, and that is because the brain is modular. There is no one central processor that determines uniform ability in every domain. Moreover there is no one software package that runs everything. Everyone has a different life experience and hence a different data package and software program. Some spend 15 years at Eton and Oxford, taught by some of the best pedagogues in the world, and so know many power facts and useful logical routines, others grow up in a favela, their chances blighted by ignorance, even if they have the neurological equipment of an English Prime Minister.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @szopen
  265. @CanSpeccy

    I think neuroscience already have found associations between specific ability or domain and attributed brain area. So I don’t think brain is modular whatever it’s mean.

    And I believe a lot of people are autodidact and don’t need “be educated” in prestigious universities to improve their instinctive skills less when the subject is more mechanicist-scientifically charged. But even in this case what I tell you, excuses to be curious and be anxious to learn for themselves rarify.

    I think they are subconsciously dishonest. It’s just a question of pride. They can’t accept that they may fooling themselves.

    About favelas you’re talking about exceptionalities, a very rare breed surrounded by a predominance of primitivism in high levels but also a relative minority of people with value and virtues as well.

    I believe capacity to govern is also specific but almost of governors are (self) selected by that high G people exactly by the usual thinking That “res” show here. It’s supposedly impossible for a genius score “lower” in IQ tests. It’s impossible for a poor and maybe lower IQ people be a president.

  266. szopen says:
    @CanSpeccy

    IQ-tests measure aptitude on IQ-tests, which is a sensible thing to measure if you are selecting people to run the post office.

    Bartholomew “Measuring intelligence: Facts and and fallacies” “(vii) IQ is a measure of ability to do intelligence tests and very little else5 This is one of those statements which, at first sight, seems obviously correct but on closer examination is, quite simply, silly. It is necessarily true that people with high IQ scores are good at doing IQ tests and vice versa. That much is tautologous so it tells us nothing. The ‘and very little else’ is often implied even if it is not spelt out. It is simply false, as though we were to say, ‘The passing of the driving test is an indicator of the ability to succeed in driving tests and very little else.’ The driving test is specifically designed to test knowledge and skills which a good driver needs to possess. The test items do not necessarily have to be demonstrated at the wheel of a moving car! We have to identify good indicators of ability. The point is made even more forcibly if we think of testing the aptitude of prospective pilots. Demonstrating their ability in the cockpit is, simply, not an option. Ability must be tested by finding much simpler tasks which are indicative of good flying skills. An intelligence test is similarly designed. None of these tests is exhaustive. The items included are only a small sample of those that might be used. The point is that they must have been shown to be sufficient to give a good idea of likely performance in a very wide range of real situations.”

    Note that you may design tests which will not involved reading or writing at all, while still possibly be good tests of “g” (reaction times tests come to mind).

    But, hey, I think it is third time I am saying the same things, and I think it’s third time (or maybe more?) I am hearing exactly the same arguments. What’s most egregious, you all still built the same strawmen and repeat the same myths.

    Hence, I am a bit tired. I stop the discussion and I won’t reply to any of the posts by utu, CanSpeccy or SantoCulto.

    At least not until they will actually read some books by Jensen. Or Bartholomew.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
    , @utu
  267. Logan says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Didn’t mention researchers. Was referring to a lot of the pro vs. con IQ discussions on this forum and elsewhere.

    Some people, not necessarily researchers, seem to believe measured IQ is terribly important. Others seem to believe, or pretend to, that it is meaningless, and that there is in fact no such thing as more or less intelligence.

    All I’ve been trying to say is that I think the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. IQ measures something, and it has meaning, but by itself it does not allow us to define a person.

  268. Logan says:
    @Santoculto

    I should apologize or at least explain. I was not saying your comment was silly. I was referring to the whole discussion, which seems to boil down to IQists vs. anti-IQists.

    I don’t fit into either group, and it seems to me both specialize in strawman arguments.

    IQ is real, and it is important. Is it therefore the most important thing in the world? Nope.

    Was once a member of Mensa, and went to meetings in two different cities. (One meeting per city.) Turns out the members, at least those I met, were primarily impressed by their own “intelligence,” and that was all they wanted to talk about. Possibly there are Mensa groups elsewhere that don’t suffer from this.

    To apply I took two proctored tests.

    1. A fairly normal Stanford Binet type. Scored 134. One in 85 people.

    2. A type I’d never heard of before, where the proctor read a long passage on an obscure subject, then I answered a bunch of multiple choice questions. I assume the test is that “more intelligent” people will have higher recall of the obscure material. Scored 164. One in 100,730 people.

    Now, my intelligence didn’t go up that much from one test to the next. :)

    What happened was that the “obscure subject” was ancient Greek religion, as opposed to mythology. Priests, cult practices, sacrifices and such. But I’d read a book on the subject about a month earlier and could probably have scored pretty high taking the test cold, without the proctor first reading the passage.

    That’s one of the reasons why I think IQ is real but by itself not all that important.

  269. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    Plenty of blame to go around.

    But it is not All about the Jews. Far too simplistic.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  270. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Naturally. It overthrows your whole view of intelligence.

    Well, it certainly is anomalous. I’m just not sure how much to trust anecdotes about results someone saw in his files for some unspecified IQ test during childhood. The usual approach to dealing with anomalies is to investigate them further, not just accept them at face value and use them to create broad generalizations.

    Do you have a citation for “because his score on every test other than math and physics was lower than anyone previously admitted”?
    The closest I find is “He obtained an unprecedented perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University (although he did rather poorly on the history and English portions)” at http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_feynman.html
    It would be interesting to know the actual quantitative results and how they compare with students across all the departments.

    Your Terman case would be improved by using a better estimate for the cutoff. There is some controversy but it looks like the cutoff was more like 140 or a bit lower.

    According to this page (does anyone have access to this data? I don’t): http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/8092
    the average age was 12 with a Stanford Binet Intelligence test score of 135 or more.

    I wouldn’t get too caught up in the narrative of Luis Alvarez having a low IQ. Adult IQ test results for him should be in Anne Roe’s archives if anyone ever gets permission to look.

    Consistently, however, adherents of the IQ-is-all-there-is-to-intelligence school ignore these well-known and oft stated facts.

    First, you guys never tire of this strawman: “adherents of the IQ-is-all-there-is-to-intelligence school”. I have asked repeatedly for a reference to me (or anyone) saying this and have yet to be shown a specific quote.

    Ignore? Hardly. See my arguments about why even if IQ matters for an outcome the effect can be overwhelmed by the greater number of people with lower IQs. The SMPY/Duke TIP studies do a good job of showing how various outcome probabilities change with increasing IQ.

    P.S. I suppose pointing out the deficiencies in your opponent’s arguments so they can improve them is the kind of thing intellectually dishonest people do. Right, Santoculto? What I call dishonest is repeatedly accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty without ever producing evidence.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  271. @lavoisier

    I said it’s ALL about the jews* where*

    I said the core-group responsible for what is going in western world IS jewish, to start…

    But what i said, malignant attitudes are not exclusively jewish. It’s not simplistic, it’s just what this structure work, just like a trojan horse.

    try to argue in the next…

    and refute point by point, please.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  272. @szopen

    It is necessarily true that people with high IQ scores are good at doing IQ tests and vice versa. That much is tautologous so it tells us nothing

    Via multiple perspectives it’s not exactly wrong or tautological to say it, period.

    The ‘and very little else’ is often implied even if it is not spelt out. It is simply false, as though we were to say, ‘The passing of the driving test is an indicator of the ability to succeed in driving tests and very little else.’ The driving test is specifically designed to test knowledge and skills which a good driver needs to possess.

    You’re spending your time to write this comment with this weak arguments* please!

    It’s not simply false, redundant/tautological is not wrong. ”The water is wet”. It’s not wrong. PRIMARILY, IQ TESTS measure how good people are to do it. PRIMARILY, driving test measure how good people are to do it.

    One of my fundamental points.

    CONTEXT.

    driving test PREDICT, ESTIMATE how good people will be to drive. But it’s don’t really show how good people are in the real world, in the real scenarios, in the streets. The same for IQ, and with aggravating because at least driving tests seems more comprehensive to real-world drive ability than IQ.

    ONLY a intimate reality to see how people will be[have] at long term.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  273. @szopen

    Fundamental manifestation of intelligence is

    Reasoning in the real world, period.

    Hence, I am a bit tired. I stop the discussion and I won’t reply to any of the posts by utu, CanSpeccy or SantoCulto.

    Please don’t put me in the same package than Can and Utu, it’s not a offense to them, but i’m not have the same thinking lines. I agree with them that IQ tests don’t measure in comprehensive way intelligence; simply IS NOT intelligence and that there are IQism phenomenon and many people here seems are closeted IQists, IQism phenomenon exist and it’s quite influential in psychometrics.

    But they have different point of views i disagree.

    I will try to explain again.

    If i do a battery of IQ tests, it’s likely i will score in general IQ around 105-115. My verbal skills it’s likely will be higher, namely in my mother tongue. My spatial will be below avg as well mathematics. My short memory will be lower but i have good long-term memory.

    IQ tests will not access my creativity and my rationality, two of the most important traits every decent intelligence tests must need ”measure”.

    Just two and crucial example: psychological or emotional ”intelligence” or skills don’t exist, this is only a good arrangement of personality traits.

    I no doubt MANY IQ-defenders and enthusiasts believe in….

    ”Impossible that Feynman score so ”lower” in IQ tests. Geniuses only can scores super-higher”

    ALMOST IQists believe in, and even those who are DISHONEST believe, but they try to hide it.

  274. @Santoculto

    Because IQ SIMPLY despise creativity and rationality [and since a entire century], it’s just like if drive test don’t compare and measure how good the driver can be to improvise in risky situations, for example.

  275. utu says:
    @szopen

    I won’t reply to any of the posts by utu, CanSpeccy or SantoCulto

    I will be able to abuse you with impunity. Thanks

    • LOL: CanSpeccy
  276. Other interesting finding

    Very good drivers necessarily are not the most responsible. This explain why men are more prone to ”suffer/commit” accidents as well more prone to be the top 1% of the best drivers than women.

    • Replies: @res
  277. @res

    Is that true in all countries?

    It seems to be true universally. The youth world championships are apparently just as male dominated.

    • Replies: @res
  278. @res

    What, for you, ”lower” Feynman IQ scores is a anomaly*

    “He obtained an unprecedented perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University (although he did rather poorly on the history and English portions)”

    well.

    Maybe he wasn’t that genius in some verbal aspects.

    I have irresovable problems in my grammar but in my mother tongue i’m quite good in orthography. That Idiosyncrasies verbal IQ tests seems don’t measure so well.

    I have asked repeatedly for a reference to me (or anyone) saying this and have yet to be shown a specific quote.

    Such hard words to say…

    You already answer for me that psychological or emotional ”intelligence’ is just a good arrangement of personality traits = it’s not intelligence…

    without ever producing evidence.

    IQ is intelligence = you and most people here just use IQ as intelligence, even the word intelligence become secondary, a very characteristic sign of IQism… everywhere in this site IQ initials is use much more than intelligence, BECAUSE most people here believe they are synonimous, period.

    No there such thing psychological or emotional intelligence OR even emotional SKILLS = what a f… exactly one of the major components or facets of intelligence IQ never touch… I ALREADY show you and for others WHY emotional skills is perfectly a facet OF intelligence.

    Super higher IQ is required to the genius = you think Feynman IQ scores is not lower BECAUSE genius namely in sciences, CAN’T score that ”lower”. Now you invent a new excuse for that, saying that because it’s a test he did when he was a child…

    wait, you say it NOW, or it was the first time i saw this comment coming from you. A good argument BUT you say it just now…

    • Replies: @res
  279. res says:
    @Santoculto

    Very good drivers necessarily are not the most responsible.

    Surely you realize driving is not a one dimensional skill? We don’t even have a g factor for driving accounting for most of the variance so you are being even worse than the IQ-ist strawman you keep criticizing. Is there any non-indirect way to measure driving skill?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  280. “Will Scrabble Have the Last Word on the IQ Debate?”

    No. The last word on IQ debate will be to determine what intelligence is and map the genome for all areas that effect it. Even then, if it shows IQ to be a majority of genetic influences, as opposed to environmental influences, it will be swept under the rug. Don’t want those that are predetermined to low intelligence to have their feelings hurt, do we?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  281. res says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    Thanks. To repeat:

    Can you point me to the data supporting that again, please?

    It’s worth mentioning that even for youths the tendency of males to obsessively engage with hobbies matters for how much practice they are getting in the present and recent past.

    To reiterate szopen’s original point:

    However I note that acc to the studies on scrabble I read, one have to spent a LOT of time on a single activity (4-5 hours per day, one study claimed). That level of fixation is rather not expected from women.

    Are you trying to assert that the male tendency to fixate/obsess will not matter at all in youth Scrabble?

    • Replies: @szopen
  282. @res

    Surely you realize driving is not a one dimensional skill?

    duh.

    We don’t even have a g factor for driving accounting for most of the variance so you are being even worse than the IQ-ist strawman you keep criticizing.

    Refute POINT BY POINT. It’s not a real-talk.

    STRAWMAN = RACIST

    it’s the dogmatic word IQists love to use when they no have a good argument.

    Is there any non-indirect way to measure driving skill?

    Irrelevant question because you start from the biased idea that i don’t know driving skills is not ”unidimensional”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
  283. res says:
    @Santoculto

    wait, you say it NOW, or it was the first time i saw this comment coming from you. A good argument BUT you say it just now…

    I have said it before, but I’m not sure about doing so on the Unz Review. It’s neither an original nor a profound observation, but it is relevant.

    My primary objections to the Feynman 124 IQ claim are:
    - Impossible to verify the actual results (i.e. it is an anecdote of someone else seeing his scores in school records).
    - No knowledge of what test it was.
    - Childhood tests can be inaccurate (depends on the age) although they do correlate surprisingly well with adult results.
    - Possibility of the test being low ceiling and/or verbally biased thus not properly measuring IQ for someone with that large a M/V differential.

    How many PhD theoretical physicists do you know? I have known a few and trust me, a 124 IQ IS an anomaly for that group–even more so for Feynman given his elite stature in the field.

    P.S. When I say “evidence” I mean pointing to a specific quote of what I said in context (e.g. a link to a comment of mine). Not your paraphrase of something you think I said.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  284. @res

    Finally i almost agree with you.

    How many PhD theoretical physicists do you know? I have known a few and trust me, a 124 IQ IS an anomaly for that group–even more so for Feynman given his elite stature in the field.

    Why, because they are…. invincibly SMARTER***

    I’m expecting the rest of your refutation..

  285. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous White Male

    Even then, if it shows IQ to be a majority of genetic influences… it will be swept under the rug. Don’t want those that are predetermined to low intelligence to have their feelings hurt, do we?

    Why would IQ not have a strong genetic component? No one disputes that IQ tests measure verbal and numerical reasoning abilities, and there is surely evidence available already to show that such abilities have a large genetic component.

    The question you ignore is whether IQ measures anything other than verbal and numerical reasoning. As noted above, the brain is modular, that means (for the benefit of Santoculto) that different brain functions are performed by different parts of the brain. Therefore there is no obvious reason to suppose that IQ is correlated with forms of intelligence that IQ tests do not measure. Maybe your pathfinding bump, like that of an Australian aboriginal is enlarged and exceptionally effective, despite the fact you can hardly add up.

    This is the crux of the argument. Just because you have brilliant clerical skills, does that make you a potential Einstein? The IQists seem reluctant to address this question, speaking vaguely about statistical constructs and the mysterious g, even resorting when pushed to the suggestion that those who question their hypothesis must have a low IQ .

    Szopen states:

    It is necessarily true that people with high IQ scores are good at doing IQ tests and vice versa. That much is tautologous so it tells us nothing,

    which is like saying math tells us nothing because all mathematical arguments are tautologies. But of course IQ tests tell us something, as do mathematical proofs. They tell us about a person’s verbal reasoning and elementary math skills. These are important qualifications for work in government service, middle management, teaching, and many other professions beside.

    What Szopen cannot explain and thus refuses to take questions on is why anyone should assume that verbal reasoning and numerical skill beyond a certain level are prerequisite to producing, original art work, music, scientific theories, or persuading a girl to remove that last item of clothing, or a crowd to vote for this party rather than that. These are all adaptive skills of vital importance. But there seems no reason to suppose that IQ has much if anything to do with any of them. Indeed, the fact that supposedly high IQ types are seen as nerdy, indicates a general perception that they are not strongly related.

    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
  286. @Santoculto

    “STRAWMAN = RACIST

    it’s the dogmatic word IQists love to use when they no have a good argument.”

    I’m still waiting for a good argument from you. “Racist” is not one. You’re getting upset about this. I find that people that get upset about the genetic nature of IQ invariably don’t have one, although you’ll probably tell us you do. Of course, no proof.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  287. @Anonymous White Male

    Oh dear!!!

    genetic nature of IQ

    What’s your IQ*

    ”I’m still waiting for a good argument from you.”

    I think the same about you.

    genetic nature of weight size/number…

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/07/neurotic-people-see-faces-in-things.html

  288. Genetic nature of…

    a) intelligence

    b) genetics

    c) IQ

    d) nature

    IQists will answer: IQ

    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
  289. @CanSpeccy

    First of all, your comment toward me was rather pointless and neither understood my point nor what I believe. But, I will address two of your points.

    “Why would IQ not have a strong genetic component? No one disputes that IQ tests measure verbal and numerical reasoning abilities, and there is surely evidence available already to show that such abilities have a large genetic component.”

    But, this is not what leftist and blank slate proponents admit, is it? They do not want to acknowledge that people are born with completely different abilities, all of which are genetic. Since this leads to the reasonable conclusion that different races have differing abilities, as measured by statistical sampling, they must try to expunge anything that shows that there are differences between the races since that would show that they do not want a reality based model of the Universe.

    “The question you ignore is whether IQ measures anything other than verbal and numerical reasoning.”

    I didn’t even address this, since it had nothing to do with my comment. However, whatever it does measure correlates well with certain outcomes, such as success in life or with creative productivity. An IQ test is an index of general ability to solve problems and understand concepts. IQ and intelligence are synonymous but not analogous. High IQ is not the whole and sole formula for success. There is much more to success than IQ.

    Even the innocuous paragraph above is taboo for the scientific community to agree with publicly. Why? Because IQ tests can be statistically tabulated and have shown that different races have different mean IQ scores. This is anathema to the left. To admit this would force them to acknowledge that all races are not interchangeable. And since that is a lie they have pushed for almost a century now, it would require them to admit that their policies were not in everyone’s best interests. But, because they have presented themselves as the supreme arbitrators of morality, they could never admit this. This is not science. Science is dispassionate about the results it obtains. If they were wrong about this, they could be wrong about say, climate change. And leftist arguments tend to lean toward, “Science has proven my position!” “Oh, really? How has it been proven?” “You obviously are a hater. Everybody knows its true”.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  290. @Santoculto

    I think your low IQ on verbal ability is showing through. Perhaps you meant to provide a brilliant riposte, but you failed. Do you consider me an IQist? If so, I can tell you that all of the above have a genetic basis.

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/07/neurotic-people-see-faces-in-things.html

    Does this link tell us you are neurotic?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  291. utu says:
    @res

    All of the subtests together are a better predictor than g alone for outcomes

    Correct! g is a linear combination of subtests but not the optimal combination that maximizes correlation(s) with other tests that are not part of the battery tests.

    Actually it is a good mathematical question whether g in some sense maximizes correlations with subtest. I do not know the answer to it. But many optimization problems often can broken/reduced into finding orthogonal vectors/functions, so it might be possible that g (though g by which method on may ask) maximizes correlations with subtest. What would be the actual merit function I am not sure. Perhaps a sum of squared covariances. Anyway this should not be a difficult problem.

    Say you have X1, …Xn tests and (1) you find g defined as the vector of orthogonal decomposition associate with the largest eigenvalue and (2) find h such that the sum of covariance con(Xj,h) or their squares is maximum. How g and h are related?

  292. @Logan

    But I’d read a book on the subject about a month earlier …

    So many so-called bright people cannot understand that intelligence primarily reflects what a person has been exposed to. MIT engineering graduates couldn’t light a bulb with a wire and battery because no one had ever taught them how. LINK

    African countries don’t teach school children in their native languages, instead they kids are expected to simultaneously learn a foreign language and learn how to read, often in primitive conditions. On top of that, they are expected to read and write languages with the most difficult spelling systems – English, French, Portuguese, and sometimes Arabic. “Public” schools charge fees for tuition and uniforms. I don’t know of any country in the West that has as many obstacles to learning except for Haiti.

    Was once a member of Mensa, and went to meetings in two different cities. (One meeting per city.) Turns out the members, at least those I met, were primarily impressed by their own “intelligence,” and that was all they wanted to talk about.

    Author AJ Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically, said many of the people at the Mensa meeting he attended were unemployed or underemployed.

    The best way to meet intelligent people is through group activities/hobbies. The folks at the local astronomy club will have far more interesting things to talk about than their own IQ.

    • Replies: @res
  293. @Logan

    Decades ago I read a British newspaper article about Mensans. The author interviewed them and went to some of their meetings. A pattern came through of people being somewhat obsessed with how clever they supposedly were, and they also seemed to be a little more interested in sex than people in general. The picture presented of Mensans in the article was not an especially attractive one.
    In the UK, one of the most prominent Mensans was Jimmy Savile. He was undoubtedly a clever and also a highly ruthless and manipulative man – he got away with a lifetime of child molestation and necrophilia, perhaps being Britain’s worst ever sex offender.

  294. Are you trying to assert that the male tendency to fixate/obsess will not matter at all in youth Scrabble?

    If it was that simple, the boys would also outperform the WOMEN, not just the girls. They don’t.

    The only factor that is parsimoniously consistent with this hierarchy is just intelligence, particularly mathematical.

    • Replies: @res
    , @res
  295. szopen says:
    @Logan

    The second one was not IQ test.

    • Replies: @Logan
  296. szopen says:
    @res

    Just a correction: a WEEK, not a day. “a player have to train every day, 4-5 hours per week” one article said and I have mixed weeks and days. Embarassment.

    However, another study (linked above) claimed that all it matters were the years of experience to explain the scrabble ratings.

  297. Bliss says:

    Another mind-opening essay by Chanda Chisala.

    Africans reaching the top in games (scrabble, checkers etc), sports (quarterbacking, race car driving etc) and other activities (literature, music, oratory etc) which require brain power makes the IQ fundoos look very foolish indeed.

  298. @Anonymous White Male

    I think your incapacity to detect implicit information and verbal abstractions make you fool yourself here and there, and there and here…

    Maybe i think i’m one of many people here who you already call ”low IQ” [lol IQ]

    IQ is a thing, literally, a two or three digit numbers.

    IQ EXPRESS a non-inanimate thing, ”our” intelligence…

    No there such thing ”genetic nature of IQ”

    There is such organic thing GENETIC NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE

    I doubt you’re geneticist to talk about ”genetic nature of” with substance, you just repeat what other people says as a parrot, and i still think you can’t visualize what genetic nature of INTELLIGENCE really is or mean.

    IQ is equivalent to weight size, in numbers.

    IQ is a abstract/numerical representation of something is trully what ”we” can call a organic thing.

    I consider you a stupid and often it’s also mean ”IQist”

    I’m writing in my non-mother tongue, whatever, what’s matter is factual understanding, you fail to develop and intellectual humility [to find your own mistakes to improve your understanding].

    Neurotic people, i don’t how common is, but i believe it’s common among very neurotic people, tend to see faces in objects as well IQists tend to see genes where no there.

    Confuse what is a abstraction and what is a real thing.

    Intelligence [and creativity, and rationality] is:

    organic correlates: brain size, number of neurons and synapses, levels of conectivity between hemispheres, etc…

    ”We” only can understand or conceptualize intelligence via its expression or behavior.

    So intelligence is:

    - capacity to adapt [namely during the challenging/changing environment]
    - creativity
    - reasoning
    -SELF KNOWLEDGE [one of the most underrated}
    - rationality
    – behavioral rationality
    – cognitive rationality

    Firstly must be needed associate behavior/expression with neurobiological correlates and start from here to search for correlated genes.

    One of the fundamental symptoms of IQism is

    all the time change the word intelligence by the ”word” IQ as if both were synonimous…

    what you do all the time, PERIOD.

  299. @Logan

    I should apologize or at least explain. I was not saying your comment was silly. I was referring to the whole discussion, which seems to boil down to IQists vs. anti-IQists.

    Agree absolutely, we have two type of… sorry, stupid people, at least in this area, fighting one each other to prove not about this science but about themselves, it’s sad. In the end, this type of silly debate is in all spheres. For example the silly debate between ”gender theory” [ light years wrong] and ”binnary or conservative gender theory”. The first say no there such thing gender or that it’s a social construct, but also say that … there are 500 different types of gender self-identification. The second say most people are plain straight heterossexual and the rest is just pathological conditions.

    Well, we have two extremist type of people competing to see who will win this ridiculous competition. And yes, thanks god, we also have moderate people in this debate, and we are, specially, the moderates here in this IQ-intelligence debate.

    I don’t fit into either group, and it seems to me both specialize in strawman arguments.

    Exactly. The first want to prove scientifically that human races differ in intelligence… and i agree with them. The second want to disprove it, but this second group is even worse because they are very incoerent and dishonest, for example, when IQ scores are supposedly increasing thanks to the Flynn miracle, ”people are becoming smarter… and ”diverse’ ”, so those who say ”IQ only measure what IQ measure” change completely their point of views. If IQ would proved that blacks are smarter than whites I NO DOUBT MOST OF THEM will agree that, finally, IQ measure intelligence very well…

    Ideology is when religion invade the science and true filosophy. Expected disaster.

    But bear in mind that there is a ”ideology” that is absolutely right, i call wisdom, and it’s not always recommendable to be moderate, only if the circunstances require.

  300. @Logan

    IQ is real, and it is important. Is it therefore the most important thing in the world? Nope.

    Yes, ”it’s real”.

    What i said, i love this metaphor.

    IQ is a ESTIMATIVE of quantitative levels, quantitative**

    size levels of intelligence. You can have a big intelligence but be a [predominanty] stupid… because what really is intelligence is how great we can use it.

    IQ score pride is quasi like be pride because your big brain…

    The same about drivers.

    Very good drivers who can do a lot of great things BUT are not responsible. Only have the superlativeness, but not the better way to manage it.

    Houston we have a problem!!

    Was once a member of Mensa, and went to meetings in two different cities. (One meeting per city.) Turns out the members, at least those I met, were primarily impressed by their own “intelligence,” and that was all they wanted to talk about. Possibly there are Mensa groups elsewhere that don’t suffer from this.

    IQists, no doubt about it.

    When IQ tests start to measure /estimate creativity and rationality, i will criticize less in this direction because it’s the uber-logical to do. What is a human being without their creativity and rationality, and specially rationality**

    To apply I took two proctored tests.

    1. A fairly normal Stanford Binet type. Scored 134. One in 85 people.

    2. A type I’d never heard of before, where the proctor read a long passage on an obscure subject, then I answered a bunch of multiple choice questions. I assume the test is that “more intelligent” people will have higher recall of the obscure material. Scored 164. One in 100,730 people.

    Now, my intelligence didn’t go up that much from one test to the next.

    Yes, continue please, ;)

    What happened was that the “obscure subject” was ancient Greek religion, as opposed to mythology. Priests, cult practices, sacrifices and such. But I’d read a book on the subject about a month earlier and could probably have scored pretty high taking the test cold, without the proctor first reading the passage.

    That’s one of the reasons why I think IQ is real but by itself not all that important.

    I think every factually correct information and specially about ourselves is important. What is wrong here is this IQistic cult, thanks for Therman study et all, we have today a bunch of people who think they are extremely smart FUNDAMENTALLY because they score higher in IQ tests, they think it’s a ACHIEVEMENT while it’s just the partial and cognitive expression of their intelligence. This people don’t care about intelligence, they care about IQ, period.

    In other words, what they have excessive pride and use it to validate their intelligences is in the true a demonstration of stupidity.

    They believe they are invincibly smarter and one of the fundamental reasons they believe is

    they are far to be that geniuses;

    psychometrics encourage, promote IQism if not we can say that ”both are or become the same”. It’s insane.

  301. res says:
    @Triumph104

    So many so-called bright people cannot understand that intelligence primarily reflects what a person has been exposed to.

    I understand what you are getting at (see PS), but have to disagree with your conclusion (primarily?!). There is a difference measurable with an IQ test. I think of intelligence more as the ability to learn and reason quickly and effectively. That underlying ability means even equivalent environments are likely to be handled differently. Then there is the idea that the intelligent people (all people, really) create their own environment to some degree–this is typically given as the reason IQ heritability increases with age.

    Author AJ Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically, said many of the people at the Mensa meeting he attended were unemployed or underemployed.

    It makes sense to me that Mensa would (unintentionally) select for intelligent people who aren’t getting enough intellectual stimulation in the rest of their lives.

    The best way to meet intelligent people is through group activities/hobbies.

    Agreed. It does help to realize that activities differ in this though, as indicated by your astronomy club example. Some sports are actually quite good in this regard. What works best is finding a group which contains many smart people who share some of your interests.

    P.S. Your MIT engineering example is well chosen. IMO MIT tends to underemphasize (and undervalue) practical skills in favor of theory. Part of the idea is that it is relatively easy for smart people to pick up practical details (which tend to change more over time than theory), but if they are never exposed then we have the problem you describe.

  302. res says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    If it was that simple, the boys would also outperform the WOMEN, not just the girls. They don’t.

    This is a terrible argument.

    1. I am not claiming that is all there is to it.
    2. boys/women is a terrible comparison given the relation of age to both absolute intelligence and experience.

    You are better than that, Chanda. Please engage with my points in a more serious way.

    The only factor that is parsimoniously consistent with this hierarchy is just intelligence, particularly mathematical.

    I don’t understand why CanSpeccy, utu, and Santoculto are arguing with me and szopen rather than you. The statement above is the closest thing I have seen (in this thread) to an assertion of the “IQist” argument I keep referring to as a strawman. szopen and I are both arguing for a multifactorial explanation which I think is actually consistent with the underlying beliefs of our “anti-IQists.”

  303. res says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    The only factor that is parsimoniously consistent with this hierarchy is just intelligence, particularly mathematical.

    As for parsimony…

    If you are proposing intelligence as a single explanatory factor then it seems to me you are implying a 2+ SD (Gabon’s <70 to 100) error in the estimate of African IQ as an indication of underlying genetic IQ. If this is incorrect please describe what exactly you are proposing. For example, describe the other factors in your model (as both szopen and I have done above).

    I consider an error (or environmental effect) of that magnitude unlikely. For this problem I think of parsimony in a statistical sense (see below). For a multifactorial explanation we might consider the estimated probability that each of our factors is true (e.g. how likely is the 80-85 genetic IQ I proposed above?). Once we have those, their product gives the estimate of the probability that our explanation could be true. Given this approach I would propose taking the MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimate) of the proposed explanations as our most likely explanation.

    To relate this to our discussion with (somewhat) made up numbers, I consider a multifactorial explanation with the probability of the IQ portion as 0.2 (a 0.67 to 1 SD error in genetic estimate) and three other factors each of probability 0.5 (total probability 0.025) to be preferable to an IQ only estimate of a 2+ SD error, say probability 0.02.
    (for the peanut gallery, it doesn't get much less "IQist" than this, folks)

    If we want to have a serious conversation about parsimony this page might help focus the discussion: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/

    For example:

    Philosophical interest in these two notions of simplicity may be organized around answers to three basic questions;

    (i) How is simplicity to be defined? [Definition]

    (ii) What is the role of simplicity principles in different areas of inquiry? [Usage]

    (iii) Is there a rational justification for such simplicity principles? [Justification]

    This section delves into the kind of argument I am making above:

    5. Probabilistic/Statistical Justifications of Simplicity

    That section would be worth reading by the anti-IQists if they want to understand my arguments concerning g. In particular, looking at things like AIC and BIC in model evaluation provides a measure of the relative value of different factors (e.g. IQ vs. the other intelligence components) in terms of explanatory power.

  304. “No there such thing ”genetic nature of IQ”

    “IQ is a thing, literally, a two or three digit numbers.”

    Again, your verbal abilities reflect low IQ. IQ means Intelligence Quotient. This is a result of the relationship between genetic factors. What you actually mean when you use the term IQ is “IQ test”. An IQ test is not the same as the thing it measures. If IQ tests measure spatial ability (visualizing shapes and figures), mathematical ability (using logic to solve problems), language ability (solving word puzzles or recognizing words with jumbled letters etc.), and memory (recalling visual or aural information), the resulting quotient will have a “genetic basis” reflecting the level of existing intellectual capabilities. The IQ test (the results – aren’t all tests about results?) measures things with a “genetic basis”. Your need to split hairs about this repeatedly is indicative of an insecure, neurotic individual. Maybe that’s what your link indicated?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  305. @szopen

    I’ll respond one more time and we can continue the discussion later.

    Thanks, that’s sound argument, but still – if Gabon’s results would be so good, then we ought to see something more than just the good Scrabble results.

    It seems you haven’t fully followed my argument, which is the only reason you would commit this obvious circular reasoning fallacy.

    The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any) — is it genetically lower IQ or environmentally lower IQ (relative to whites). You can’t use that same fact (that they don’t achieve much) in your argument to dismiss a theory you disfavor for why they don’t achieve much (see, it even sounds like a circle!). And it doesn’t matter if there have been more “evidence” supposedly pointing in one direction (racial hypothesis). Science is not democracy. We continue investigating precisely for the purpose of establishing if we have read the direction of the “evidence” correctly.

    A biological hypothesis should not allow exceptions. If a certain country does not have fast runners in 100 meters because their adults have extremely weak legs (the strength of 11 year old children’s legs), they should also not run fast in the 5,000 km (or any other race requiring adult legs) because children’s legs CAN’T permit children to run fast in the 5,000 km either (or do long jump, or high jump, etc). We need only ONE adult-leg-dependent competitive race, which children still can’t win, to bring into question our hypothesis about that country’s legs, especially if there is a competing alternative hypothesis that would still stand.

    African (adults) supposedly have the cognitive abilities of 11 year old white children. There is no cognitive activity — academic or games — which 11 year old white children (including the very best among them) can perform on the level of full grown adults (and this doesn’t work even if you randomly decide that Africans are equaivalent to 12 or 14 year old whites at IQ 85 or something). There should be no activities that are an exception (and no, I do not believe that forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would make them become the world champions of any activity; it would have been done by now).

    And yet Africans have exceptions, which just happen to be in areas that do not need book learning. And when they go to a country with books (and other resources), they seem to do just as well as the people in that country academically, EXACTLY AS the alternative theory would predict, even when they are the children of the migrants (no evident huge regression toward the mean for the 2 SD IQ deficit. Remember that the children of black AMERICAN elites do show huge regression — performing below poor white children — despite their deficit being only 1 SD compared to the 2SD for Africans; and much of that racial hypothesis “evidence” has been based on “experiments” with black Americans).

    Racial hypothesists have to claim that games (like Scrabble and checkers) are just an exception for Africans, while they can’t find a SINGLE exception for those white (or Asian or Jewish) children around the entire world, with similar (or higher) intelligence as Africans (Gabon probably has the mental equivalent of 10 or 9 year old white children and maybe 7 year old Jewish children!?). If biology is so strong that it permits no exceptions for children versus adults (just as it also apparently permits no exception for women versus men), then WHY does it permit exceptions for Africans ONLY.

    Thank you for the debate.

    p/s: the research you cite about number of years determining Scrabble performance most likely has the causality wrong: in general, you’re likely to spend more hours/years because you are (genetically) talented (for example, Google the age at which Nigel Richards, the best ever Scrabble player, started playing scrabble — pretty late, which is consistent with causality being the other way around: he became obsessed when he saw how dominant he was). But this point is moot because it is already the argument of hereditarians; the opposite — hours/years of practice as the most significant differentiator — is the argument of (radical)
    environmentalists (as popularized by Malcolm Gladwell). This is why it seems to you (as you stated somewhere above) that I tend to ignore a lot of alternative explanations to this Scrabble phenomenon. It is because I am quite acquainted with the different arguments from the two sides. I have to ignore most of them precisely because they are not consistent with the position I am opposing, which is why I want the full hereditarian racial hypothesists to answer my questions (they’re mute or they make logical/calculation mistakes, but their faith remains happily unfazed!).

    Thanks. Will take a break now before I end up rewriting my two articles here!

    • Replies: @utu
    , @res
    , @szopen
  306. @Anonymous White Male

    Again, your verbal abilities reflect low IQ.

    90% of your try of argumentation is IQistic, i think it’s you who ”have” lower IQ.

    I have exceptional verbal abstraction skills. Please, stop to write shit and REFUTE EVERY POINT if you want.

    A classical ”white-tard nationalist”, i imagine….

    IQ means Intelligence Quotient.

    oh my…

    This is a result of the relationship between genetic factors.


    This sentence…

    oh my…

    IQ as well any test is a abstractization of organic thing.

    What is literal, physical, AS WELL a behavior, is reduced to the abstract symbols.

    What you actually mean when you use the term IQ is “IQ test”. An IQ test is not the same as the thing it measures.

    ooooh

    If IQ tests measure spatial ability (visualizing shapes and figures)

    an

    mathematical ability (using logic to solve problems)

    an

    language ability (solving word puzzles or recognizing words with jumbled letters etc.)

    an

    and memory (recalling visual or aural information)

    an

    the resulting quotient will have a “genetic basis” reflecting the level of existing intellectual abilities.

    an.. diagnosis: you don’t understand nothing what i said, maybe my english is just terrible, maybe you have very lower verbal abstract skills… it’s likely.

    You’re just repeating the same known things everyone in this area know, it’s not a REFUTATION, it’s not just repetitive monologue.

    REFUTE point by point, if not, i will not answer more your comments.

    The IQ test (the results – aren’t all tests about results?) measures things with a “genetic basis”.

    things with a genetic basis, IQ is a vehicle, is a mean to reach a goal and goal is intelligence.

    I agree is need organize, hierarchize, summarize, create a way to identify easily, unify a plethora of organic things in such two a three single numbers.

    BUT, IQ is not intelligence, and when we want know the nature of what IQ express, what’s matter = intelligence, so it’s good avoid use this type of narrative ”search for genetic nature of IQ”… or not.

    in other and summarized words, stop to be IQist and learn the borders between IQ [the mean] and intelligence[ the goal, the end].

  307. @Anonymous White Male

    Your need to split hairs about this repeatedly is indicative of an insecure, neurotic individual. Maybe that’s what your link indicated?

    I’m insecure, maybe it’s reflects in my intellectual humility…

    MY LORD, you do everything fine isn’t**

    You give higher self-esteem to their…. moronic sons…

    I will expect little more when you start to REFUTE point by point my comment and not show me what you know about IQ.

    • Replies: @res
  308. Michaeloh says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “This totally destroys the Fascistic idea of ranking all humanity with an IQ label, and granting them status accordingly.”

    Good work, Holmes. You’ve uncovered the Fascist conspiracy that secretly controls cognitive science.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  309. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    This thought-provoking article by Chanda Chisala has generated what, for me, has been a useful discussion, some keys points of which I will venture to summarize:

    1. Those I have referred to as IQ-ists believe that IQ, representing an individual’s overall score on a battery of verbal reasoning tests, math puzzles, and pattern matching tasks, measures a unitary property of the central nervous system, which is designated intelligence.

    2. To the IQ-ist, the unitary nature of intelligence is established by the correlations between scores on the various puzzles comprising the IQ test. A mathematical construct named g, the exact nature of which probably very few people understand, represents the degree of correlation among tests and effectively conceals the rather limited degree of correlation that is actually observed, i.e., r-squared values less than 0.5.

    3. A biologist will generally understand the term intelligence more broadly than the IQ-ist and in a Darwinian sense. Thus they will usually include within the meaning of the term all cognitive activity that promotes the survival and reproductive success of the organism.

    In this respect, the Darwinian view is much closer to the commonsense understanding of intelligence, which the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as:

    the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations … the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly …

    4. To the Darwinian, the skills required to perform well on an IQ test are extremely limited in range. They demonstrate the capacity to read with comprehension, write with clarity and add up, which are certainly adaptive for those who seek to ensure that there is food in the refrigerator by working at the Post Office or in some other clerical, bureaucratic, or middle-management job.

    In the jungle-dweller or the hunter-gatherer, however, the Darwinist would recognise intelligence in very different skills, including the ability to interpret the sights, and sounds, and smells of both predators and prey; to distinguish the poisonous mushroom among a thousand that are edible; to step from boulder to boulder across a creek in spate when one misstep could mean instant death; to cast a spear or shoot an arrow that saps the strength of an enraged bear, or a charging buffalo.

    5. In addition, the Darwinist will recognize as manifestations of intelligence a multitude of skills that the IQ-ist ignores but which are essential to the survival of mankind both primitive and modern: the ability to charm a maid or beguile a swain; the power to lead in battle, or sway the election crowd; the Machiavellian gift of manipulation; the ability to entertain; the power of technical innovation.

    6. Defined as the Darwinist sees it, the notion of intelligence as a unitary property of the central nervous system is untenable. The nerd who designs the combat aircraft is unlikely to have the coordination to fly it; the charismatic politician may be devoid of understanding in matters of economics, education, or military strategy; the pop singer who can fill a stadium, may be a political imbecile.

    7. The neurologist, examining the substrate of the cognitive activity giving rise to intelligent behavior sees the visual, olfactory, auditory, computational and other aspects of information processing occurring in separate specialized parts of the brain. To the neurologist, therefore, it is evident that aptitudes may vary according to the size, structure, and physiological properties of the various neural components of the brain involved. Thus the Australian aboriginal’s path-finding skill appears related to exceptional development of the visual cortex. Carl Gauss’s extraordinary mathematical gifts may have been due to the exceptional convolutions of his cerebral cortex, as observed at autopsy.

    8. In summary, the IQ-ists view of intelligence is valid only on the IQ-ist’s peculiar and tautological definitions of IQ and intelligence, viz: IQ = intelligence, and intelligence = IQ.

    And even then the definition of intelligence is weak, since it ignores the fact that scores on the components of the IQ test are not tightly correlated, which means that the math geek may have poor linguistic skills, with the result that their IQ reflects neither their mathematical competence nor their linguistic incompetence. Likewise, a literary genius with poor pattern-matching ability would have an IQ reflecting neither their gift nor their weakness.

    9. My conclusion is that if psychology is to advance in the field of intelligence assessment, it must greatly broaden the definition of intelligence and recognize the modularity of both the brain and its properties as manifest in intelligent behavior.

    10. In addition, there has been discussion of environmental influence on intelligence, which is critical to the assessment of the intellectual potential of particular racial or social groups. The Flynn effect, that for a hundred years has added 3 to 5 IQ points to average scores of Western nations makes clear that IQ test results are heavily influenced by environmental factors, though what the key factors are, whether cultural, dietary, or disease-related remains to be determined.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  310. Michaeloh says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Indicating an inability of Europeans to think things through, with the result that they now face a genocidal tide of Muslim settlers intent on conquest by the womb not the sword, plus a mass of highly philoprogenitive African fleeing Muslim persecution

    .

    First, you are confusing intelligence with wisdom. The fact that many Euro elites pursue destructive immigration policies hardly makes them stupid, it is an indictment of their values. Secondly- destructive to whom? Oftentimes not the elites nor their employers who are protected from the downside of immigration, in fact benefit from lower wages and even more importantly use immigrants as cannon fodder in their battle against the real enemy, a coherent, nationalist middle class. Once the great middle class is fully suppressed the taming of low IQ 3rd world illiterates would seem trivial.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  311. szopen says:

    It just came to me today that Chanda Chisala does not simply claim IQ estimation for Gabon is wrong, but also the size of the standard deviation (assumed to be 12).

    Assume SD=12, and supposed IQ of 145 (“The actual average IQ score of these elite Scrabble players, derived directly from their SAT scores, would be approximately 145. “). Now, Gabon have a very young population. By looking at Gabon demographics, we can see that roughly 25% of Gabon population are male in age group 20-60 (i ignore women because there does not seem to be women at all in scrabble even in top 50 in wespa rating, and no women in any top 10 of the scrabble classique).

    Now, correct my calculations if I am wrong, I may did some stupid mistake.
    In first column is assumed mean population of Gabon with SD, then percentage/number of people above the threshold.

    above 115IQ Above 130IQ Above 145 IQ
    110 IQ 12 SD – – 0.17/722
    105 IQ 12 SD – – 0.042/178
    100 IQ 12 SD 10.5/44625 0.62/2635 0.00884/37
    100 IQ 15 SD 15/63000 2.27/9647 0.135/573
    85 IQ 12 SD 0.62/2635 0.0084/35 0.0000287/1
    85 IQ 15 SD 2.27/9647 0.135/573 0.0032/13
    80 IQ 12 SD /722 /6 /0

    Note that with IQ 100 and SD 12, there would be 37 people in Gabon who could be top players.

    I have counted Gabon players.

    There are SEVEN unique players during last few years in top10.

    I consider it extremely unlikely, that from 37 most intelligent people in Gabon (almost one in five) would decide to become scrabble players.

    In fact, with SD 12, there would be something like 128 eligible players with mean IQ 105; and more than 700 with mean IQ of 110. Now, with 700 people eligible, 1% of them deciding to dedicate their lifes to obscure game is plausible, or at least not preposterous; but then, it would mean there are 700+ people with IQ 145 not playing scrabble. What would be the probability, that they show up only in scrabble?

    Note, that one may argue that we do not see those geniuses because they have not access to education, they are poor, live in villages and so on. If yes, then actually the pool of potential elite scrabble players would be smaller; if a genius lives in a god forgotten village and get a decent education, then surely he cant also afford money to get ticket and a visa and become good scrabble player (as this requires a lot of training).

    In short, IF elite scrabble player would have to be around 145 IQ, THEN SD of Gabon cannot be realistically be 12. No way.

    But note, that at IQ=100 and with SD=15, there would be 573 potential Scrabble elite players in Gabon (and again, remember this is OVERestimation). It would mean that 1.2% decided to become Scrabble players. Well, that’s a lot. Yes, it is not totally outlandish claim, but again, what are the rest of 500 geniuses doing? The wikipedia tells me Gabon has public education, universities. 87% is literate. There should be at least few genius Gabon scientists. Also, you cannot have few geniuses without also few of very good ones and so on.

    You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ, because it would depress equally all subscores, and not somehow magically leaving mathematical skills needed in Scrabble intact. Otherwise, it would not be that different from my speculations above. If environment depresses only large part of population, then, obviously, the pool of eligible players would be even lower, meaning scrabble would have to be insanely popular.

    • Replies: @res
  312. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    Another try:

    Jews are almost certainly the most responsible ethnic group promoting ideas that undermine Western cultural cohesion and encouraging massive and unnecessary third world immigration to the West.

    But I believe that despite this malicious and clearly destructive behavior by far too many influential Jews, the single greatest factor that is causing the destruction of Western societies today comes from the brain dead behavior of the white liberal and the treachery of the cuckservative politician. Their inability to stand up for their own culture, their own civilization, their own people, while embracing the hatred that is often preached by too many Jews, is the single greatest problem faced by the West. Without these fools and traitors, we would not be where we are today.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  313. res says:
    @Santoculto

    It’s entertaining to see these statements in two successive comments from you:

    I have exceptional verbal abstraction skills.

    I’m insecure, maybe it’s reflects in my intellectual humility…

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  314. res says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any) — is it genetically lower IQ or environmentally lower IQ (relative to whites).

    The first part is correct: “The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any)”

    The last part is a false dichotomy. http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/fallacies/false-dilemma.php

    Hopefully you will address my earlier points in a more serious fashion once you return from your break.

  315. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    First, you are confusing intelligence with wisdom.

    If intelligence, as you define it, does not yield wisdom, perhaps you need to revise your notion of intelligence.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Michaeloh
  316. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous White Male

    But, this is not what leftist and blank slate proponents admit, is it? They do not want to acknowledge that people are born with completely different abilities, all of which are genetic. Since this leads to the reasonable conclusion that different races have differing abilities, as measured by statistical sampling, they must try to expunge anything that shows that there are differences between the races since that would show that they do not want a reality based model of the Universe.

    I’m not a blank slater. But I don’t think IQ measures intelligence as intelligence is intelligently defined (see #319).

  317. szopen says:
    @Chanda Chisala

    Thank you very much for the answer. I appreciate you have committed your time to write such a long and thoughtful answer. Also, I realise that you may not read my rejoinder very soon, or maybe not at all.

    Nevertheless, I will use this occassion to think aloud. No new arguments here really – simply, writing helps me to think about your arguments.

    A biological hypothesis should not allow exceptions.

    That’s generally true; but I am not postulating an exception. Rather, I am noticing that while indeed every mental game requires (some) intelligence, there are many faces to intelligence, the gaps on subtests between whites/blacks really are different, and in many mental games the training and experience means a lot.

    African (adults) supposedly have the cognitive abilities of 11 year old white children. There is no cognitive activity — academic or games — which 11 year old white children (including the very best among them) can perform on the level of full grown adults (and this doesn’t work even if you randomly decide that Africans are equaivalent to 12 or 14 year old whites at IQ 85 or something). There should be no activities that are an exception (and no, I do not believe that forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would make them become the world champions of any activity; it would have been done by now).

    That’s true, though I would love to dispute the comparison of 12-14 y/o children to 85IQ grownups. WHile I have read this many times, it simply does not believeable, rather like an oversimplification of things. However, since I do not have anything to back this except my intuition, I will just stop.

    However, with 85IQ and average African being equivalent to 12 or 14 years old whites means there still would be a lot of young adult male Africans being equivalent to grown up males; with SD=12, 2635 above 115, and with SD=15, 9647 above 115; Hence while I agree that “forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would [WOULD NOT] make them become the world champions of any activity;”, i do not think this is applicable here, because we are NOT talking about kids, but about people above 100, 115, 130 or 145IQ.

    Also, I do not “randomly decide”. Simply, it seems to me that no matter what large is the correlation between IQ and scrabble, you have decisively proven that Gabon’s IQ _can not_ be 64 or 70 and it has to be higher. The point is how much higher.

    Without the data about gender composition at amateur level of Scrabble (championship+entries) it’s hard for me to answer the rest (i.e. whether the gender differences are really that big); all I have found are lists of players without their gender given, only their names, and frankly I gave up after trying to count female/male names quite quickly. I will only note that even if there would a lot of girls trying to compete, then may simply quickly find out that you need to fixate on Scrabble and then they would resign; or they may find out that in Scrabble you win by memorizing the words, mentally rotating them, quickly recognising shapes and calculating scores and they might find that boring. Hence disparities (I speculate) might be explained by self-selection.

    Also, if Scrabble requires some cognitive abilities, then the SD females/males may be large; for visuospatial reasoning, even the hardest proponents of “gender similarity hypothesis” will admit that the differences between boys/girls are high, and – what’s more important – they seem to become larger as the children mature.

    And yet Africans have exceptions, which just happen to be in areas that do not need book learning.

    Except that it does not seem that those winners are NOT poor children with no access to books.

    http://interlochenpublicradio.org/post/and-no-1-scrabble-nation-world#stream/0

    “Ikolo, who’s also a university mathematician, came up with lists of five-letter words and distributed them to his players, including Jighere the world champion, to train them how to block the board. The coach says, armed with these, the Nigerians could take on and beat competitors playing seven-eight- or even nine-letter words. ”

    Gabon also seem to have universities and mandatory education, and 87% literacy rate.

    Nevertheless, by “environmental depression” we may understand:
    (1) Something which biologically lowers IQ (lead, lack of nutrition, parasites). That would lower “g” and would mean that also there should not be scrabble players (because it cannot be it just lowers “g” enough to depress education scores and everything else except “g” needed for Scrabble). If it would affect only part of population, leaving 10% intact, then with your estimation of required IQ for elite Scrabble players there would be not enough people to become elite players – if I am wrong, it would left 50 or so people with IQ over 145 assuming mean IQ 100 and SD15. To assume that 7 of them decided to become professional scrabble players is not believeable.

    (2) Something which does not depress biological fundaments of IQ. but only deprives of education. Now, that would indeed explain scrabble, though it would mean more 1 in 100 top IQ people in Gabon decides to become Scrabble players. 1% for such a game means really a lot, IMO.
    Obviously, in any case, for so many players from Gabon become elite players would need the game (scrabble classique) MUST be insanely more popular in Gabon than in France (that, or Gabon’s mean IQ would have to be insanely higher than France’s).

    I tried to search for data on Gabon alone for immigrants performation outside Africa, and it seems most which seems to have the data is behind the paywalls, so I give that this point is plausible. But why then this lack of education would depress IQ tests which does not require actually anything besides understanding operations on basic numbers, or mental rotation of objects? Why access to books is actually required to excel at Raven’s coloured matrices? That’s a puzzle.

    Now, the argument about causality in training/being good at scrabble is sound and I had not thought about that, but what about the claim that “ratings are correlated only with number of years playing scrabble, not initial differences in abilities”?

    I am really tired, so forgive me the errors: I spent several hours today searching for data about gender composition of scrabble at all age groups, the educational achievements of Gabonese immigrants and so on.

    • Replies: @res
  318. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Michaeloh

    Good work, Holmes. You’ve uncovered the Fascist conspiracy that secretly controls cognitive science.

    Elementary, my dear Watson.

  319. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Michaeloh

    The fact that many Euro elites pursue destructive immigration policies hardly makes them stupid, it is an indictment of their values. Secondly- destructive to whom? Oftentimes not the elites nor their employers who are protected from the downside of immigration

    This is at a tangent to the current discussion, though an interesting point. Those I would consider the stupids are the middle-class progs. happily promoting the destruction of their own gene pool. The elite probably have no intention of mixing their genes with the lower orders of mankind, or whatever race. Whether they succeed in creating a globe-spanning, multi-racial elite remains to be seen.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Michaeloh
  320. Logan says:
    @szopen

    Quite possibly true. However, it was provided by Mensa and accepted by them as such. As you can probably figure out from my comments, I don’t think it’s a very good test of IQ.

    • Replies: @szopen
  321. res says:
    @szopen

    I like most of your arguments and points, but not this one so much:

    You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ, because it would depress equally all subscores, and not somehow magically leaving mathematical skills needed in Scrabble intact.

    There are two things going on that makes this possible. First, not everyone in Gabon has a problem environment. It is quite possible that there is a large cohort which has a poor environment and dominates the statistics. If we posit (I’m not proving this here, clearly) an elite with both the best genetics and environment in Gabon then that would help explain what we see.

    Second, I don’t think we can a priori rule out the possibility that environment will depress the subscores to different degrees (not all or nothing, just greater or lesser effects). It’s also possible that environmental insults are time dependent (e.g. I think there is some support for prenatal damage at particular times causing idiosyncratic intellectual damage).

    Lastly, if I take “You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ” literally then I emphatically disagree with you (a counterexample is lead poisoning). Did you mean something like “and that this explains the IQ/Scrabble results we see for Gabon”?

    As I (and others, including you IIRC) have said we really need to do real IQ measurements of Gabonese in general and their Scrabble players in particular. Based on the Lynn reference I posted above I think his Gabon estimate is based on neighboring countries (anyone who KNOWS please confirm/deny).

    • Replies: @szopen
  322. szopen says:
    @Logan

    The ideal IQ test should consist of
    (1) a battery of many diverse tests (each tapping at different ability)
    (2) items you should not be familiar with (training to test reduces tests power)

    Of course, ideal IQ test does not really exist, but the latter tests, as you see, was missing the point (1) for everyone, and in your case also missed point (2).

  323. @CanSpeccy

    Because we can and usually use specific part of the brain to do certain and correlated task this in my poorly developed neurobiological view, don’t mean we have “separated” parts of our brains even because all this “sub-systems” tend to interact one each other and often act together. For example when we are thinking in mathematical way to solve some problem we, I believe, need neutralize certain irrelevant parts of the brain or avoid certain operationality style (accessing a combinatory part of the brain at the same time) that it’s not useful at least in some moments of this task. To solve or try to solve a math problem we don’t need, conventionally speaking, to be funny to do this task. So combinatory style of parts of the brain that are responsible for humor sense is not being accessed. I don’t believe in separated parts but in relatively mutually decentralized parts. If I’m not saying too much pedantic silliness.

  324. @CanSpeccy

    Hardly make them stupid

    Easily make them evil and morally stupid.

  325. J1234 says:

    Yeah, the real test for intellectual competence is scrabble. Sorry, I don’t read this guy’s articles anymore, so I don’t actually know the context within which he is referring to scrabble. All I know is that he seems to have a career based on proving blacks are as smart as everyone else, and it’s hard to take him any more seriously than someone who says Eskimos can run just as fast as anyone else.

    He’s like a hypochondriac, but instead of seeing symptoms everywhere when nobody else does, he sees proof.

  326. res says:
    @szopen

    Thanks for providing http://interlochenpublicradio.org/post/and-no-1-scrabble-nation-world#stream/0

    That offers some good explanations as for why we would see Scrabble outperformance relative to other games in Nigeria. For example: “And yet Scrabble has caught on in Nigeria in a big way, among veterans and youth” and “Nigerians have been credited with perfecting that tactic under the tutorship of senior team coach, Prince Anthony Ikolo.”
    If only they were so passionate about improving their water supply: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-26/nigerian-water-shortage-is-bigger-killer-than-boko-haram-cities

    and it seems most which seems to have the data is behind the paywalls

    Please see my libgen.io comment earlier.

    I spent several hours today searching for data about gender composition of scrabble at all age groups, the educational achievements of Gabonese immigrants and so on.

    Thanks for all your work bringing more data and insight to this discussion.

  327. @res

    What for you is a simple contradiction for me it’s just the self knowledge. I know where I’m good and I’m usually very good here. But I also know where I’m very bad, simple and plain stupid. For example in geometry I’m completely stupid, at retarded levels. ;)

    We live in the world where be humble/be arrogant has been excessively literalized. Or you are saint without ego or you are a devil with a gigantic ego??? Be a false totally humble look better for you?

    This remind me this IQ–intelligence and racial differences debate because we have in one side people who always try to act as a humble group, “everyone is equal”, “everyone is capable”, isn’t?? In other side we have those who say otherwise, the “non humble” deplorable ones.

    Intellectually humble is not the same that lower intellectual self esteem but specially be capable to know their own limitations and be always open minded to accept their mistakes. What I’m. Do you knew I accepted that no there multiple intelligence theory?? I already commented here about it.

    Welcome to the world of intrapersonal skills, do you have it??

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  328. @CanSpeccy

    People must understand that because intelligence is a broader and structural concept so there are many ways to be smart.

    Wisdom would be the extreme expression or manifestation of intelligence in qualitative ways. We all are smart avg and dumb everyday, every month, be wise would be try to achieve a progressive generalization of correct judgments/be smart and don’t commit more “de novo” mistakes.

    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  329. @lavoisier

    You believe??
    Are you not sure??

    “Single greatest factor”

    Simplistic???

    Blame the useful idiots, ok.

    How this people dominates every important political key-position?? ;)

    Last try??

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  330. Michaeloh says:
    @CanSpeccy

    If intelligence, as you define it, does not yield wisdom, perhaps you need to revise your notion of intelligence.

    Intelligence is unecessary to wisdom, as the slow kid in school with good values demonstrates. On the other hand remarkably intelligent people with poor values litter history; The Nazis and the Bolsheviks had amongst them some very intelligent people. But were they wise?

    As I said, you confuse intelligence with wisdom, or if you prefer, good values.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  331. Michaeloh says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Those I would consider the stupids are the middle-class progs. happily promoting the destruction of their own gene pool.

    Again, you have confused intelligence for good values, or wisdom. The middle class progs who favor policies which are destructive of their own gene pool are rarely stupid in my experience. But they are status seeking weaklings who find the hate whitey narrative to be both a career and social ladder. A related group are simply tools (i.e. Employees) of the Elite (whom benefit from these policies) often times chosen for their position on the basis of their competence in cognitive tasks ( i.e. Journalist/propagandists). The middle class progs aren’t stupid, they simply value their own status and immediate gratification over that of you, me, and their own progeny. Often intelligent,rarely wise.

  332. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Michaeloh

    you confuse intelligence with wisdom, or if you prefer, good values

    No, wisdom is not a matter of good values. A fool may have good values, a wise scoundrel may have bad values, or as David Hume remarked:

    honesty is the best policy, but the wise knave will take advantage of every exception.

    Wisdom is an active faculty of judgement, defined variously as: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, horse sense, street smarts, gumption — all manifestations of intelligence.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Michaeloh
  333. @CanSpeccy

    would probably have credited him with a good native intelligence.

    If you agree there’s such a thing as “native intelligence,” why do you reject g (which is conceived as just that).

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  334. @Santoculto

    For example in geometry I’m completely stupid, at retarded levels.

    Low spatio-visual aptitude. Maybe you have some Jew in you.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  335. @Santoculto

    People must understand that because intelligence is a broader and structural concept so there are many ways to be smart.

    Whether there’s a single thing necessary (but not sufficient) for success in any intellectual field isn’t an easy question (as most contributors seem to think). But the results of factor analysis certainly suggests that there are not a great many basic ways to be smart. A g theory of intelligence (not of “cognitive ability” generally) is currently best supported, but not in a way that’s decisive. A rival theory to g is the Cattell-Horn theory of two gs: fluid and crystallized intelligence. (Along with a number of broad factors. I long ago proposed that there are three factor of cognitive ability: Conceptual (intelligence); perceptual (spatial, auditory, etc.) ; and metaphorical (divergent). See “Cognitive abilities as expression of three ways of knowing.” – http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327906mbr1501_3

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  336. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    If you agree there’s such a thing as “native intelligence,” why do you reject g (which is conceived as just that).

    native intelligence: sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like.

    As defined, native intelligence has nothing to do with Jensen’s g, which “arises from the empirical fact that scores on various cognitive tests are positively correlated in the population”

    But correlated poorly, because they are more or less independent variables, which is why a math genius such as Feynman can have a modest IQ of 125, his mathematical gift being unmatch by other faculties.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  337. szopen says:
    @res

    In this I mean that if the argument goes “Gabon, Nigeria etc education, iq scores are depressed because of the environment” then it should depress also the “incredible Scrabble skills”; it does not, hence it cannot be environment depressing biological scores of all population.

    If we posit (I’m not proving this here, clearly) an elite with both the best genetics and environment in Gabon then that would help explain what we see.

    IF (as I have written in on eof the comments above), if it only “biologically” depresses part (say 90%) of the population, then, IF elite player need something like IQ -145 and SD = 15, THEN there would be something like 50 people even able to play at this level in Gabon – and the idea, that more than 10% of them decided to play Scrabble seems to me unbelieveable (161 people if you accept IQ140 – still, almost 5% of most intelligent people deciding to go for scrabble!). IF however this is believeable somehow, THEN so are alternatives: lower mean IQ for whole population and maybe a bit lower mean IQ for top elite Scrabble players (like IQ 85, SD15 and threshold 140, or IQ85, threshold 135 and so on).

    So, IMO, either you can’t believe in the environment depressing biological base of iq (lead poisoning, nutrition etc) as explanation of what we see, OR you have to also accept the alternative hypothesis of lower IQ mean (because IF you believe in environmental explanation, you would have to accept at least one of the following a] insane popularity of the scrabble attracting large percent of the most intelligent people in the country b] the mean iq of top elite players of being lower than 145).

    I mean by the above, NOT “environmental explanation is impossible”, but rather “if environmental explanation is possible, THEN it can’t be the only explanation, nor the most parsimonious one”.

    IMO even 1% of the most intelligent people in the country going for some obscure scrabble seems astonishing, but at least believeable. But 5%? 10%? That’s… let’s say possible, but only if you think there are no really other options for intelligent people in Gabon.

    Besides, a large number of people at IQ>145 means much more people at IQ>130, IQ>115 and so on – and with large number of people like this, you would expect some other evidence: patents, highly-quoted scientists and so on.

  338. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Wisdom, intelligence, IQ?

    When thinking of MENSA members certainly wisdom is not the word that comes to your mind.

    • Replies: @res
  339. @Stephen R. Diamond

    No, it’s not a unique jewish feature, it’s just demographically predominant among them than among other gentile groups.

  340. Michaeloh says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Wisdom is an active faculty of judgement, defined variously as: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, horse sense, street smarts, gumption — all manifestations of intelligence.

    Then, you argue that the Nazis and Bolsheviks were wise. Good luck with that. However I would be happy to surrender the word wisdom to put aside this distraction. My point is that it is hardly unusual for intelligent people to make horrible decisions. Very high IQ professors insist, with a straight face, that race is a social construct yet carefully research which breed of dog is most suitable for their young children. This should not be controversial.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  341. gustafus says:

    Who cares? Another worthless diatribe which seeks to affirm the “value” of worthless, violent, breeding hordes of Africans.

    I want them sterilized if they are going to receive ANY assistance, HERE , or in Africa. Sure, we SAVED THE CHILDREN….. at the expense of every bird and butterfly in Africa.

    I CARE about rhinos, lions, cheetahs and the more deserving populations of Africa. I could care a whit whether another dose of penicillin is sent to a population whose children spell absolute doom for Western Civilization and the beauty and splendor of African … without Africans.

    Absent penicillin and vaccines – African might have been saved from a plague of low IQ breeding populations who never discovered the relationship between feces, water, and death.

    The subject makes my blood boil. And once we save them from themselves, they promptly hack their white neighbors to death, and plunder what they are incapable of producing themselves.

    Too many whites visit only the game parks of Africa… and even those existed only when rangers were instructed to shoot on sight, any local populations within the parks.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Santoculto
  342. res says:
    @utu

    When thinking of MENSA members certainly wisdom is not the word that comes to your mind.

    You say this based on personal experience of a variety of people in multiple areas?

  343. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Michaeloh

    Then, you argue that the Nazis and Bolsheviks were wise.

    WTF!

    My point is that it is hardly unusual for intelligent people to make horrible decisions.

    You’re still stuck on the idea of a unitary intelligence. But if you look at the data, you will see that the correlation among aptitudes upon which the concept of g is based are extremely weak, in fact, negative in some cases.

    Once you clear your mind of the IQ-ist BS, you will see that it is possible to be good at math but unable to write a book without the collaboration of a professional writer, e.g., Richard Feynman. Likewise, it is possible to be a political wizard and yet make what to most people look like unwise decisions.

    However, you have to realized that merely because a decision or a series of decisions ends badly it does not mean that they were unwise. There is much uncertainty about almost all major decisions, so even the wisest person, i.e., the person who weighs the odds and considers all possible outcomes in the most intelligent possible way, will often find, in the event, that they made the wrong decision.

  344. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @gustafus

    Gustafus, since your in a mood for blood, why don’t you return to your native Sweden and save your own people from the hordes of marauding invaders, while leaving the Africans to do as they wish with their native lands.

  345. @Stephen R. Diamond

    But the results of factor analysis certainly suggests that there are not a great many basic ways to be smart

    It’s just a CULT. It’s so easy to agree with it that i can’t find other explanations to understand why such smart people as you, can say it without any miserable reflect.

    You’re data-dependent/ need data or ”scientific evidences” to see with your own eyes what seems self-evident*

    ”Factor analysis” whatever it is, don’t analyse the combination of psychological and cognitive traits, both interacting one each other all the time. The ”multiple” [combination] of ”intelligence” [or specific abilities] are wrong only or specially because it’s based on the idea that this abilities are separated while i believe brain tend to be descentralized, i mean, this ”sub-systems” don’t work separately, but in degrees of mutual descentralization. For example, very charged-verbal tasks may be even more near to be separated than descentralized, but still i don’t believe in this theory.

    If you think that be, intrapersonally, interpersonally, verbally, mathematically, spatially, kinestetically, naturalistically/sound ”scientifically”, impersonally smart[er], emotionally, creatively, is ”not great many basic ways to be smart”, ok.

    Seems that entire psychometric castle is based on the idea that intelligence is fundamentally a cognitive skills. So it’s expected that this ”factor analysis” will not find many ways to be smart, only what pyschometric tests analyse and sub-used, in my ”humble” opinion.

    A g theory of intelligence (not of “cognitive ability” generally) is currently best supported, but not in a way that’s decisive.

    What’s your definition of g* and with examples, please.

    A rival theory to g is the Cattell-Horn theory of two gs: fluid and crystallized intelligence.

    RIVAL*

    I don’t think it sound rival, it’s just one of the facets of intelligence. We are talking about perspectives, sides or ”sub-systems” of intelligence. Fluid is related with reasoning without [supposed] prior knowledge [just the instinct or ''inherited knowledge'', ;], crystallized is related with reasoning via memory, short and/to long term.

    G is about the structure of intelligence: pattern recognition, this is the roots of intelligence, in every intelligent behavior, partially to totally correct pattern recognition is required to be characteristically intelligent. Factor g is the fundamental link that sustain a specific structure, it’s what is universally underlying to the given structure, not just intelligence, everything have a factor g, we have.

    I long ago proposed that there are three factor of cognitive ability: Conceptual (intelligence); perceptual (spatial, auditory, etc.) ; and metaphorical (divergent). See “Cognitive abilities as expression of three ways of knowing.”

    Interesting, i have a pet-theory that metaphorical thinkers have little problems to understand abstractions so they need ”translate” it to the concrete, practical or familiar terms. Well, i’m a metaphorical thinker, maybe it’s just a self-extrapolation with possible potential of cohort comprehensiveness. In other hand, ”we” or at least i tend to it because i wan’t trully understand what it’s mean while via possibly obscure conformity, a lot of people simply pretend to understand what they fully don’t understand. It’s bizarre, seems ”new emperor clothes” is more bigger than i actually imagine.

    I’m not familiar if metaphorical thinking is the primordial thinking style of most of creativer people.

    Perceptual seems our first channel of factual understanding, second cognitive or our ”mechanical part” and emotion is in the end the way we judge reality.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  346. @gustafus

    There are horrible white people and great black people, stop with this proto-genocidal generalizations. Yes, a bigger proportion of blacks are quite problematic, but it doesn’t mean it’s the final destiny of black race, it can be changed. And, the most important, if sex is older than races, so, sexual behavior is determinant on racial behavior. Blacks have higher % of individuals, specially among men, who have indigest prevalence of bad masculine behaviors, even we know blacks tend to be psychologically hyper-masculine than most of other human populations. It’s hyper-masculinity, the same shit that made europeans invade, enslave and colonize Africa, as well black men be disproportionally problematic.

  347. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    No, I am not sure. But neither are you despite your self-confidence.

    There are many factors at play in the cultural destruction of the West. I agree with you that Jewish control of far too many of our institutions is not good for either personal freedom, our civilization, or world peace (or for the Jewish people for that matter). But I don’t think it is the primary reason for the dismemberment and decline of Western Civilization. We, and by we I mean those who have gone along with the program of cultural masochism, are the prime movers of our collective destruction and cultural annihilation. Furthermore, I think the loss of our religious faith has played an incredibly destructive role as well. This factor may well be the most important one in facilitating our cultural suicide. I do not believe that our cultural dismemberment is primarily the responsibility of the in your face destructive and subversive tendencies of far too many liberal Jews.

    It is a tragedy for sure and it will ultimately lead to bloodshed. For us, as well as the rest of the world.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  348. @lavoisier

    I don’t think you can tell it for me..

    This is the symptoms not the cause.

    What is the cause???

    “Loss of our religious faith”

    I never have it, ;)

    I test drive god and I disliked the product.

    The rest of the world in the same white Jewish trash pathetic melodrama…

  349. https://mobile.twitter.com/DrDvdLinden/status/854683696905039872?p=v

    Hbd -ears are that people who accuse others to be psycho bubbled (accuse correctly: Right. Believe they are protected from psycho bubbles: Wrong) but that fall in the same magic… Period.

    “General factor of personality”, aka g factor, is not what they think it is… Period.

    And because obviously emotional/psychological intelligence, aka specific skills, correlates with g personality factor, “they’ think it mean that both is the same… Is that??

    It’s in the semantic department hbd’s start to lose themselves.

  350. Zach says:

    An interesting talk by Flynn, but he ends by misattributing a line from Kipling.

  351. szopen says:

    I have just read Dr Thompson post about the latest brain scan study, which detected difference in spatial abilities equivalent to 6IQ points.

    Now: remember there are more boys than girls. 1.08 to 1.05 boys are born for every girl.

    Let’s reasonably assume 1.03 teenage boy for every teenage girl
    Let’s assume that part of being good at scrabble requires spatial abilities (confirmed by the studies claiming scrabble requires “spatial reasoning”).
    Let’s assume difference equivalent to 6 IQ points, with girls 97 boys 103 and SD for boys 15, and for girls 14.

    At IQ=130, there would be 3.9 boys for every girl. , meaning 80% of winners in scrabble would be boys, _without_ taking into account the fixation needed for training at scrabble, knack of boys for competition, and without taking self-selection (i.e. to whom scrabble may appeal) into account

    I would REALLY love to see how many girls/boys enter the scrabble competition vs how many boys are at the top level. Without it, all I can say is that at IQ115 cutoff we can expect being 2.1 boys for every girl (2/3 of top players), hence overrepresentation of boys at the amateur level need not to be effect of very high IQ required for being top scrabble player.

  352. Bliss says:
    @szopen

    I would say the lowest IQ estimation for SSA are untenable. However, Wicherts et al once estimated African IQ to be much higher, in range of American Blacks (lower 80s).

    Of course the IQ estimation for SSA that HBD racists get off on is untenable. Whites with that IQ are literally drooling retards, but blacks are not?

    If as you write, Wicherts at al estimate the correct African IQ to be in the low 80s, that puts Africans on par with Arabs, Persians, Indians etc. The average IQ of Syrians for example is 79 according to Lynn, thus lower than Wicherts estimate for sub Saharan Africans. Note that Syrians and their fellow Levantines the Lebanese are the whitest of the arabs.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Santoculto
  353. szopen says:
    @Bliss

    Well, if you assign IQ80s to SSA, you are HBDer too, just non-racist one, right?

  354. @Bliss

    Of course the IQ estimation for SSA that HBD racists get off on is untenable. Whites with that IQ are literally drooling retards, but blacks are not?

    Humanids [first human beings] is likely would score around ~50 60* They were retarded*

    White and east asian people with very lower IQ has been strongly des-selected while in other hand ”IQ around 100” has been strongly selected [caused ''civilization''] resulting in this situation.

    The idea of mental retardation only via IQ as if score 100 has been the norm since always is stupid of course.

    What is recessive and potentially damage for group Y may not be for group X.

    Different evolutionary stories, different profiles.

    Average 90 whites are on avg very similar to average 90 blacks** Namely in cognition, ;)

    Or this differences in the same IQ range is not only among very lower range*

  355. @CanSpeccy

    native intelligence: sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like.

    As defined, native intelligence has nothing to do with Jensen’s g,

    It’s the same concept. If you speak of native intelligence, then you are speaking of a unitary factor: individuals can be ranked on it.

    In essence, you’re saying there’s a factor of general intelligence, but IQ tests fail to measure it.

    But correlated poorly, because they are more or less independent variables, which is why a math genius such as Feynman can have a modest IQ of 125, his mathematical gift being unmatch by other faculties.

    Well, this is the essence of the question: are they well correlated? But in fact, the correlation between two very different measures of IQ, verbal and performance, correlate .7 rebuts your claim.

    You are putting an awful lot of emphasis on Feynman, a single example, for a claim you recognize as statistical. We don’t even know what test Feynman got this score on. One major possibility is that it was the California Test of Mental Maturity, often administered in grade school, which includes as items hands placed in different positions with the task of saying whether it’s a right or left hand. If he scored very poorly on that section, it could have dragged his score way down if he suffered from dyslexia.

    Yet you ignore the vast evidence that physicists are very high in general intelligence. The classic study is Roe’s where eminent physicists scored around 160 on a Verbal intelligence measure.

    I think potential counter-examples like Feynman are interesting because the theory of g is more than an assertion of positive manifold. With plausible elaboration, it would hold that it’s impossible to have what amounts to a savant physicist. I don’t know for sure that’s the case, but I don’t think it is. If Feynman really were intellectually mediocre, I would find that a convincing argument against g.

    Here’s another bit of evidence about Feynman. He wrote an essay “Cargo Cult Science” that you’ve probably read. This isn’t about physics or math (side note: math talent alone doesn’t make a great theoretical physicist.) That essay alone convinces me Feynman’s level of g is well above 124.

    One more thought. You posted that Feynman rejected taxonomies. Well, theories of the structure of intellect are taxonomies (of abilities).

  356. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    If you speak of native intelligence, then you are speaking of a unitary factor: individuals can be ranked on it.

    Rubbish.

    I know what I am speaking about. And as far as I am concerned, native intelligence is unschooled intelligence, which as it happens, is consistent with the dictionary definition.

    What you don’t grasp is that when people speak of intelligence, they are usually referring to some particular aptitude or accomplishment, but not to the exclusion of all other types of aptitude or accomplishment. One might say Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 21 in C proves that he was a person of great intelligence, as indeed he was, but no one would claim on that basis that Mozart could necessarily have been a literary genius or that he might have shown comparable intellectual eminence in the sciences, the visual arts or any other field.

    Well, this is the essence of the question: are they well correlated?

    Contrary to your claim, they are not. Zero point seven is the max., while the mean among measured aptitudes is 0.3 or there abouts, which means that on average, variation within the population in one variable accounts for less than 10% (r-squared) of the variation in another variable. You can see that in the correlation matrix I have posted here.

    Of course there will be some common factor. To complete an IQ test you have to be able to read and understand the questions, that’s before you apply whatever special skill the question deals with. In addition things like short-term memory and processing speed my give rise to some correlation among aptitudes. But what stands out is the fact that relative scores on the various tests show almost complete independence.

    The common factor, g, is no more than a triviality.

    • Replies: @utu
  357. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Good answers.

    You interlocutor, Diamond, committed the following statement: “That essay alone convinces me Feynman’s level of g is well above 124.” which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion on the topic as somebody who adopted for himself a constructed reality based on reified notion of IQ test results. It is a cartoon 2-D world he lives and as a flatlander he may never know what he misses by rejecting other dimensions.

  358. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    “which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion …”

    Well, after taking a look at the essay, your comment made me smile. The essay, actually a commencement address (here) , is characteristic Feynman. It’s basically illiterate, but it’s also lively. It contains some sense, and some nonsense. It makes Feynman sound like the yahoo he surely was — someone with a good native intelligence, i.e., unschooled in literary and philosophical matters.

    In a good mood, I imagine he was good company. But he was moody, and could, by his own account, be deeply annoyed at interruptions. He was a classic obsessive, able to think deeply about things that interested him, i.e., challenging problems in physics. A man, in other words, of apparently very one-sided development.

    But I’d concede to Stephen something like a 0.3 correlation between his verbal and his math intelligence, i.e., essential none.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
  359. szopen says:

    “In psychological research, we use Cohen’s (1988) conventions to interpret effect size. A correlation coefficient of .10 is thought to represent a weak or small association; a correlation coefficient of .30 is considered a moderate correlation; and a correlation coefficient of .50 or larger is thought to represent a strong or large correlation.”

    BIg Five personalities together explain 14% of school performance. wikipedia: “In elementary school, the correlation between IQ and grades and achievement scores is between .60 and .70. “, ie explaining at least twice as much of the variance. Later the correlation drops, because, as wikipedia states correctly, range restriction.

    It’s also quite interesting that correlation would be explained by “common factors” like (a) reading skills, familiarity with test format (b) speed processing (c) working memory. (a) cannot be possible, as there is very high correlation between subtests such as progressive matrices and vocabulary tests; (b) reflects quality of nervous system, ie postulates that “g” actually exists; (c) cannot explain correlations between reaction times and, for example, mental rotation (and while correlation are bigger for more complicated tasks than for simpler tasks).

    [MORE]

    Moreover: (wikipedia)
    “There is a high correlation of .90 to .95 between the prestige rankings of occupations, as rated by the general population, and the average general intelligence scores of people employed in each occupation. At the level of individual employees, the association between job prestige and g is lower – one large U.S. study reported a correlation of .65″
    I.e. practically whole variation of the “prestige” is explained by average “g” alone.

    Moreover: (wikipedia)
    “Research indicates that tests of g are the best single predictors of job performance, with an average validity coefficient of .55 across several meta-analyses of studies based on supervisor ratings and job samples. The average meta-analytic validity coefficient for performance in job training is .63.[66] The validity of g in the highest complexity jobs (professional, scientific, and upper management jobs) has been found to be greater than in the lowest complexity jobs, but g has predictive validity even for the simplest jobs. Research also shows that specific aptitude tests tailored for each job provide little or no increase in predictive validity over tests of general intelligence.”
    I.e. yes, only 30% of variance explained, but still is THE BEST predictor and specific tests provide no additional benefits over simple IQ test.

    Also, not really related, butto show that “threshold hypothesis” for scrabble is not ad-hoc idea and similarly IQ thresholds may be required elsewhere and after meeting the threshold, no futher correlation is found between iq and the trait:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183/

    “When investigating a liberal criterion of ideational originality (i.e., two original ideas), a threshold was detected at around 100 IQ points. In contrast, a threshold of 120 IQ points emerged when the criterion was more demanding (i.e., many original ideas). Moreover, an IQ of around 85 IQ points was found to form the threshold for a purely quantitative measure of creative potential (i.e., ideational fluency). These results confirm the threshold hypothesis for qualitative indicators of creative potential and may explain some of the observed discrepancies in previous research. In addition, we obtained evidence that once the intelligence threshold is met, personality factors become more predictive for creativity. On the contrary, no threshold was found for creative achievement, i.e. creative achievement benefits from higher intelligence even at fairly high levels of intellectual ability.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  360. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @szopen

    “In elementary school, the correlation between IQ and grades and achievement scores is between .60 and .70. “

    During the twentieth century most indoor jobs were of the bureaucratic/clerical sub-managerial kind. For those positions reading, writing and arithmetic were the essential requirements. Hence IQ tests, based primarily on reading comprehension, verbal reasoning and elementary arithmetic worked quite as a selection tool. But that doesn’t make IQ the measure of intelligence. It just indicates whether you can read and add up.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  361. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But I’d concede to Stephen something like a 0.3 correlation between his verbal and his math intelligence, i.e., essential none.

    Perhaps you could explain how you derive a correlation between a single person’s verbal and math intelligence? What would be example numbers indicating a 0.3 correlation (say your estimates for Feynman?) and how do you compute it?

    • Replies: @utu
    , @CanSpeccy
  362. @CanSpeccy

    But that doesn’t make IQ the measure of intelligence

    I disagree here, sound too dramatic statement, IQ measure intelligence, period, but not analyse intelligence, in my view, analysis is fundamental when we are talking about a very complex and diverse entity as intelligence.

    IQ don’t measure creativity and rationality, AGAIN, two of the most important cognitive features humans invariably tend to have.

    It’s a incomplete but still useful way to access intelligence.

    IQ by self-evident reasons don’t measure quality, even every quantification in the end of the day must measure quality, more or less, anyway. And quality tend to be better accessed via individual approach.

    If IQ don’t measure rationality so it can’t predict how rational/reasonable will be in the real world, even predict. IQ can predict about verbal, math and spatial stuff, but about creativity and rationality, IQ just correlates. Prediction is not correlation, even prediction is also a type of correlation.

    What make IQ a very remarkable tool is its capacity to measure fairly well, when well applied, thousand, million people. It’s a facility of psychology work.

    What seems at in the core of intelligence is: perceptual capacity, aka, connect the dots. IQ tend to be little nasty with people with very well developed specific skills.

    Pattern recognition is not exactly the real or complete factor G of intelligence, but the correct pattern recognition. So, we can have a person with reasonable or even below average general cognitive skills but with remarkable talent in some very specific areas. This people, IQ simply can’t access, or maybe this talent can be observed via some substest.

  363. Boris N says:

    As a language lover who knows a thing or two about languages I’ll provide you another perspective. Discussing Scrabble both sides ignore one crucial if not the most important point: Scrabble championships are carried in English and French, but these languages are foreign to Africans. Just to imagine the situation in which Africans are living: imagine if in the USA the only state language is German (and it might have happened according to one legend), everything around in German from street signs to official documents, from ads to newspapers and books, from radio and TV to the Internet, schools and universities are in German, all state officials speak German, etc., etc., while the majority of the population speak English, Spanish, Polish and whatnot, but they do not use their languages in their writings at all (except in primary school and some limited areas). And in such a situation imagine that Americans would compete in German Scrabble with Germans and Austrians whose native language is German and who speak it 100% of their everyday life from their early childhood. Or a more simple example. Imagine if the champions in English Scrabble would be the French speakers from Quebec for whom English is a foreign language, or vice versa. Note these comparisons are somewhat not fair as all the mentioned languages are related, so for an English speaker German is relatively simple compared to all the Africans whose languages has absolutely nothing to do with any European language.

    So having such a great initial disadvantage any success of Africans in both Scrabble in foreign for them English and French and in academics which they also must conduct in foreign languages is indeed if not surprising but puzzling.

    But consider also if IQ tests are criticized to be culturally relativist then Scrabbles are culturally relativist in absolute terms.

    P.S. I suppose the author could describe his personal linguistic experience himself. I bet his native language is not English. Bad that Africans stick to phoney civil nationalism and they always say like they are “Zambian” or “Nigerian” (phoney artificial nations, like 95% of the African countries), but rarely they will say from what real nation (ethnic group) they are.

  364. Boris N says:

    Africans just have higher participation on this American word game, despite their alarmingly low literacy rates

    Again, when speaking about African low literacy one must always bear in mind that African literacy = literacy in a foreign language. If we count how many Americans can read and write in German or French, the rate of “American literacy” would be as much as appallingly “African”.

    When one speaks about low achievements of Africans in various fields from literacy and beyond, one has to make allowance for them, because they must struggle with a foreign language their whole lives, while most developed countries have enjoyed their native languages. Even tiny Slovenia can enjoy using its language from school to university and everywhere else in their life. Imagine how could perform in their lives, say, Germans, should they have to learn Chinese to do anything above potato-growing and goat-herding.

  365. In most pictures I have seen of African classrooms, the language on the blackboard is either English or French. In East Africa it may sometimes be Swahili, but even this is a second language for most of its users, not a first language.
    A somewhat analogous situation exists for Arabic speakers – written Arabic is dramatically different from, and more complicated grammatically than the various spoken dialects of Arabic. To become literate in Arabic for an Arabic speaker is a little bit like an Italian having to learn Spanish in order to read and write. This tends to hold literacy down in the Arab world.

  366. @CanSpeccy

    It makes Feynman sound like the yahoo he surely was — someone with a good native intelligence, i.e., unschooled in literary and philosophical matters.

    I agree. But I would rate the “native intelligence” demonstrated well over 124. Would you not?

    This “native intelligence” is the intended referent of the g factor (or at least of the factor g sub f – or fluid intelligence. Do you think it is impossible to measure that factor or that for other reasons the effort has been a complete failure. How can you be sure that Feynman has “good native intelligence” yet deny that a good IQ test would probably say the same? I still don’t understand your answer to this point, or to the fact that physicists emminent physicists usually have extraordinary verbal IQs?

    Are the correlations high or low. The correlations between abilities is high, as demonstrated by the high correlation of Verbal and Performance IQ on the WAIS. The correlation between separate test items looks low, but our issue concerns whether abilities in different domains are correlated, not whether their scores on specific tasks are highly correlated. Even the test – retest scores on the same item type will not be extremely high. In other words, short individual subtests are not highly reliable.

    The correlation between WAIS Verbal and Performance, is a good indication of the strength of a g factor because the relevant subtests contain few commonalities besides their form.

    You say that a correlation of .7 means less than 50% of the variability is accounted for. I think this is misleading. Variance is the square of standard deviation, which is the intuitively graspable concept of variability. Variance is adopted by statisticians because of its mathematical tractability. (Actually, average absolute deviation is a still more intuitive measure than standard deviation, but is mathematically very intractable.) The correlation coefficient is the more intuitive measure of degree of association than is r squared. (A .3 correlation is untuitively like 30% rather than 9%.)

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  367. @CanSpeccy

    Well, the correlation between verbal and math SAT is almost .7. (And this with restricted range!)

  368. @utu

    “That essay alone convinces me Feynman’s level of g is well above 124.” which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion on the topic as somebody who adopted for himself a constructed reality based on reified notion of IQ test results.

    Amusing how readily folks here want to “disqualify” people. An idiot named “Rich” once posted that I must have a low IQ because he has never known someone to question IQ tests unless they had obtained a low score.

    CanSpeccy credits Feynman with good native intelligence. The question for the anti-g people is whether an emminent physicist could lack good “native” general intelligence. I say no. Perhaps that convicts me of reification, but I’m waiting for a conterexample.

  369. Gerhard says:

    Just two points, one petty and the other substantive. The petty point is that the conclusion that “The African nominal IQs are artificially depressed by more than 30 IQ points due to an extremely deficient cognitive environment” is odd. The African cognitive environment is the “normal” cognitive environment for our species. Only in the last century, when people realized the importance of formal education and perfected its practice, did western populations reach the IQs that we are used to today. We are the freaks, not the Africans! Actually, based on the data I have seen, even an average African IQ of 70 is an overestimate. Representative population samples (not high school students or job applicants) generally score lower than that.

    More important is that according to most estimates, dysgenics has eroded the “genotypic IQ” of white Western populations by 5-8 points since the 19th century, perhaps even by more than 10 points. Most US studies have shown more dysgenics for Blacks than Whites, so US Blacks may easily have lost something like 10 or 12 points of genotypic IQ to dysgenics. Dysgenics usually starts when people start using contraception, which happened in Africa only during the last 20 or 30 years, so there has not yet been much of an effect in Africa. This explains why many native Africans do much better than African-Americans in many IQ-dependent tasks. The implication is that at this point in history the genotypic IQ differences between Whites and native Africans (but not African-Americans) are not nearly as large as some theorists seem to think.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  370. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Gerhard

    When you say,

    when people realized the importance of formal education and perfected its practice, did western populations reach the IQs that we are used to today.

    you would seem to imply that formal education invariably enhances human intelligence.

    This I very much doubt. During the 19th century, countries that were industrializing and urbanizing had a need for millions of clerks, and mechanics, people who could read with good comprehension, write with clarity and add up. Thus universal education in the West.

    IQ tests chiefly measure how well people have been educated, i.e., it assesses reading comprehension and numerical skills. However, in Africa, and throughout the world in most ages since the emergence of mankind, literacy and numeracy were of little or no importance compared with other mental skills.

    An IQ test thus measures what is essentially a cultural artifact: the mental competence of a K-12-educated Westerner as assessed on tests of competence in the Western environment. Raise European children in Soweto-type environment and I suspect they would perform on IQ tests about the same as black kids, just as black kids in Europe perform about as well as white kids.

    Equally, I suggest that an intelligence test developed by black African psychologists might prove that European kids are retarded compared with Africans.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Gerhard
  371. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    This “native intelligence” is the intended referent of the g factor

    The g factor, as I understand it, is a measure of correlation among alleged facets of intelligence that psychologists claim to measure. The mean correlation coefficient among those factors is around 0.3, meaning that, on average, less than 10% of the variation within a population in one factor is accounted for by variation in another factor. In other words, mental competence as it is measured by a battery of psychometric tests is usually highly variable among facets of intelligence. There is, therefore, nothing in the least bit surprising or interesting in the fact that although Feynman was unquestionably a mathematical genius he was a poor writer whose books, in all but about one case, were ghost-written.

    So no, for all your arm-twisting and hopelessly weak arguments, I see nothing odd in the report that Feynman’s IQ, as measured in high school, was 124, one point less (or was it more), than (by her own account) his sister (also a physicist), and one more than his son, Richard junior (by the account of Feynman’s wife as reported in on of the biographies — Gleick’s maybe).

  372. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Equally, I suggest that an intelligence test developed by black African psychologists might prove that European kids are retarded compared with Africans.

    This is an empirical question. If true it should be straightforward to offer an existence proof. Given all the effort at “gap closing” in the US I think anybody who actually did this would be lionized. Therefore, color me skeptical.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  373. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Therefore, color me skeptical.

    I was presenting a hypothesis.

    But I don’t think it’s a crazy hypothesis.

    Imagine you’re in the the Congo or the Central African Republic. You’re in the forest, there are poisonous snakes, insects and terrifying predators all around. You have lost your way and have no idea how to return to where you started. But you meet a native of the region whose acute awareness of the sights and sounds and smells of the jungle keep him safe. He has a life-time’s experience navigating the forest, and knows exactly where he is and where he is going.

    So what are you going to do, ask the stranger to guide you to safety, or decide that there’s no way this low IQ moron can save your skin?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  374. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    So the African Intelligence Test (AIT) would, presumably, include:

    jungle scenes in which to identify well-camouflaged lions, tigers, etc;

    audio files from which one would have to deduce whether the monkeys were chattering over the discovery of a bunch of coconuts or in panic at the sight of a snake;

    and olfactory tests requiring discrimination between the scent of a leopard and an elephant, or whatever.

    In addition, I guess there’d be a bunch of Scrabble-type questions.

  375. Gerhard says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Education does not always raise intelligence. I remember one study in Nigeria that showed no effect of education, but here the conclusion should be that the quality of schooling was so abysmal that the children were better off staying at home. When I interviewed older people in a backward part of the Caribbean, many of them mentioned spontaneously that education was not considered important when they were young. When economic development creates new opportunities, people realize that learning is important. If high-quality education is provided at that time, IQs will rise. If quality of education is low, as it is in most parts of Africa, IQ is stuck at about 70. I guess that of all the environmental effects that have driven the Flynn effect, better and longer schooling is responsible for perhaps half of it.

    What we should conclude from this is that the high IQs of modern societies are highly artificial. We live in a house of cards. We already see Flynn effects ending in the high-IQ countries. IQ seems to start declining in several Northern European countries, and economic growth and political stability are expected to follow. Of course this means that IQ gaps between countries are getting smaller. The PISA results show this for the 2000-2015 period. Every world region is going through the same curve of cognitive and economic development. In Africa the rise, plateau and decline phases will be delayed by more than a century relative to Europe, and the peak will most likely be lower. This is also happening in other developing countries. In a few years we may be able to better predict future trajectories of different world regions as we get better polygenic scores for IQ, educational attainment and similar traits, ones that are based on causal variants, not the GWAS hits that are merely linked to the causal variants.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  376. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Gerhard

    the conclusion should be that the quality of schooling [in Africa] was so abysmal that the children were better off staying at home

    In which connection:

    Uganda orders closure of [for profit] schools backed by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg

    Not only was the quality of the schooling abysmal but the relevance of the schooling probably minimal.

    The high IQs of modern societies are highly artificial.

    As I said, IQ is a cultural manifestation.

    IQ seems to start declining in several Northern European countries, and economic growth and political stability are expected to follow.

    Partly, I suggest because education is decreasingly useful to those at the lower margin of society, and partly because of dysgenic breeding behavior, e.g., welfare supported reproduction by the unemployed and often unemployable, while the promotion of girls’ education limits the fertility of the most intelligent.

    In contrast, in Africa, breeding success is still generally related to health, wit and beauty.

  377. The PISA results for Turkey have given rise to comment that they show pupils there are the unhappiest of those tested, or at least among the unhappiest. The social stresses and strains in Turkey are undoubtedly a factor.

  378. George Orwell, extract from “Second thoughts on James Burnham”. To some extent it reflects his own contempt for English intellectuals, even though he was one, but it is another wrinkle in the IQ debate.
    “Suppose in 1940 you had taken a Gallup poll, in England, on the question ‘Will Germany win the war?’ You would have found, curiously enough, that the group answering ‘Yes’ contained a far higher percentage of intelligent people — people with IQ of over 120, shall we say — than the group answering ‘No’. The same would have held good in the middle of 1942. In this case the figures would not have been so striking, but if you had made the question ‘Will the Germans capture Alexandria?’ or ‘Will the Japanese be able to hold on to the territories they have captured?’, then once again there would have been a very marked tendency for intelligence to concentrate in the ‘Yes’ group. In every case the less-gifted person would have been likelier to give a right answer.
    If one went simply by these instances, one might assume that high intelligence and bad military judgement always go together. However, it is not so simple as that. The English intelligentsia, on the whole, were more defeatist than the mass of the people — and some of them went on being defeatist at a time when the war was quite plainly won — partly because they were better able to visualise the dreary years of warfare that lay ahead. Their morale was worse because their imaginations were stronger. The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  379. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Uebersetzer

    Another interpretation is that those of lower IQ, education, whatever, were more readily swayed by the Churchillian rhetoric and the media-dispensed propaganda, which promised eventual victory, whereas the more intellectual members of the community recognized the propaganda for what it was and overcompensated by adopting a unduly pessimistic view.

    In addition, many of those of the higher socio-economic strata in Britain were crypto-fascists and would not have been distressed to see something along the lines of Nazism come to Britain (P.G. Wodehouse for example, who Churchill said should be hanged and who never stepped foot on British territory after the war, or John Amery, son of Churchill’s cabinet colleague Leo Amery, who after the war was hanged for treason). Pessimism about the prospects for the Allies, may thus have been, in part, the result of wishful thinking.

  380. Elsewhere Orwell referred to the crudity of wartime propaganda, which tended to have the effect of making thinking people sympathise with the enemy.

  381. I would believe that a math test and not scrabble would establish some psychometric gap between blacks and whites. Black Americans show a a fair degree of verbal dexterity and it is only in math scores that display any IQ difference.

  382. I am German and I lived in Ireland in the eighties. Ireland with a history of penal laws (no catholic i.e. Irish allowed any higher education except the catholic priesthood) until the 19th century; no higher occupation allowed but mere reading and writing and Irish actually being deported in mass as slaves to the West Indies when the Brisith needed workers on their sugar plantations.
    I remember seeing in England “Irish” cups (handle on the inside) and hearing jokes about the Irish as being no good except for poetry and music. Apart from that appalingly stupid and prone to violence. Prone to violence they certainly were. And more so than the ENglish. I still have the scar on my forehead to prove it.
    I also remember a society where there were 8 public clocks in Galway (I lived there) and none of them worked. It was a society where men could not prove themselves unless as poets or musicians or priests. Exactly what the Brits had conditioned them for 300 years ago. All others with some ambition emigrated to the US.
    Why does that remind me of American blacks? Why would anybody ask? Furthermore my dear proponents of white superiorty I just tell you as a German: we have the greatest musical tradition in Old Europe. I am somewhat of a musician myself. At least I made a living playing music all around Europe when I was young. And just as a musician I want to tell you: whatever is unique abotu your music and whatever inspired the rest of the world is due to the influence of the men of two people who had no other way to prove themselves but through music:
    the Scots-IRish of the Appalachians and the descendants of African slaves. More the latter than the former. And if you want to listen to true genius listen to the “Cologne concerto” by Keith Jarrett. If you want to see the greatest art ever created look up the Bronze sculptues created in Ife in West Africa. Incidentally the homeland of the Igbo. Sure you never heard of them. Just google.
    The world is full of surprises. The Brits were surprised how the Irish made out in the US. I believe the world will yet be quite surprised how the Africans will make out

    • Replies: @TelfoedJohn
  383. Ireland tended to export its best and brightest, while Milwaukee or Detroit got the dullest Germans from the underclass.

    Germany never had an Australia but economically speaking a great many of the underclass shifted over to the Midwest beginning in the 1890′s-1930′s simply because those industrial cities would employ anyone.

  384. Ireland seems to lack a middle-class. You have a small snooty upper-class and then mass poverty throughout.

    The Celtic Tiger changed this though.

  385. @Lessgusteoi

    the Scots-IRish of the Appalachians and the descendants of African slaves. More the latter than the former. And if you want to listen to true genius listen to the “Cologne concerto” by Keith Jarrett.

    I don’t know if you are claiming Jarrett as Scots-Irish or black, but he is neither.

    Linh Dinh talks about Germany’s worship of blacks here: http://www.unz.com/ldinh/black-and-blonde/

    Leni Riefenstahl worshipped the Sudanese after the war. The irony is the worship under National Socialism came from the same mindset. And it continues today.

  386. I don´t worship anybody. I just state as undisputable fact that what ever is original in American music is due to African influence. The only great music to come out of the US is Jazz. And yes I am wrong about Keith Jarrett. Evidently he tried to look as African as possible in his early album covers. But I could have named any other number of true back musical geniuses as John Coltrane or Ornette Coleman. Whatever. It is certainly not music for the masses.
    Something else: if you read Unz´s fantastic piece on admissions to Ivy League Universities you will find the curious fact that Jewish achievement in Stem subjects is dropping like a stone compared to Asians. IQ is ultimately little understood and certainly not as static in certain polutions as people believe.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  387. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @lessgustoi

    if you read Unz´s fantastic piece on admissions to Ivy League Universities you will find the curious fact that Jewish achievement in Stem subjects is dropping like a stone compared to Asians.

    Jews have become more Americanized, and are thus dumber than they used to be. Asians are still not properly assimilated, but as they assimilate, they will become as dopey as regular white Americans. The same would be true of African-Americans if they would just adopt the white culture.

  388. Jews and blacks and Italians concentrate in urban areas where every child is going to develop some street smarts. If you live in NYC or LA you are going to absorb a wider variety of experiences than you will in the sticks.

  389. Agree one hundred percent. Being in the US seems to make people dumb. Why exactly I don´t know but I have it observed too. By the third generation immigrants have lost their edge and become just as “dopey” as the natives.

  390. I knew a Scottish family with distant relatives in Central West Virginia and they were appalled at how unintelligent Appalachians were.

    Appalachia is an embarrassment to Scots, frankly.

  391. Paulo says:

    Curious and impressed by the article.

    I never bought those tabulations of IQ in Africa in the 60s or 70s. It is just too implausible. Either Lynn is grasping for straws at obtaining samples and may be picking up tests that are flawed, or the environment is too dismal, or both. I’ve lived a couple of years in a poor African country. There were many few blacks that spoke the official language (in which presumably the tests were given) as his true first language. They grew up and had primary education in bantu languages, which essentially have no writing, or even numbers above two in many cases. The ones a little better off picked up English/French in their teens, sometimes in the form of a Creole, which obviously separates them in terms of vocabulary from the standard tests prepared in English or French. Besides, one has to take into account the standard explanation for the Flynn effect. People who were perfectly functional in the 1910s would score retarded today. That is because today the dominant patterns of reasoning are more aligned with the logic of the tests. Can’t this be the case in Africa?

    However, I would like a clarification on the author’s position on the “hereditarians”. Do you concede that the gap between blacks and whites within the US is partly genetic? None of the environmental explanations I put forward for Africa/US comparison holds for blacks and whites in America.

    Second, I would like to know why black Africans would outperform black Americans at the top. It defies both environmental and genetic explanations.

  392. A country that seems to have a low overall IQ score of 86 but does well at chess internationally is the Philippines. It’s a game that is a favorite in their culture.

    https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?tops=0&ina=2&country=PHI

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS