The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
IQ: A Skeptic’s View
🔊 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

Intelligence is worth talking about because both the reality of intelligence and perceptions regarding intelligence set limits on the possible and influence policy. For example, if the population of India on average really is below borderline retardation, the country can never amount to anything. If Latino immigrants really are as stupid as white nationalists hope, then they will always inhabit an underclass and, through intermarriage, enstupidate the American population. IQists–those who believe that IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence–insist that intelligence is largely genetic, which it obviously is, and that IQ tests reliably measure it. The latter is doubtful.

A bit of history: For years I was on Steve Sailer’s Human-Biodiversity List, now defunct. It focused on IQ and on natural selection with the fervor of snake-handlers in the backwoods of North Carolina. Contradictions in their views were stark in regard to intelligence, which was assumed identical to IQ. In communities of like-thinking enthusiasts, contradictions go unnoticed.

For example, American blacks, the Irish, and Mexicans had IQs accepted by the list as being 85, 86, and 87 respectively—almost identical. It seemed odd to me that identical IQs had produced (a) the on-going academic disaster of American blacks (b) an upper Third World country running the usual infrastructure of telecommunications, medicine, airlines, and so on, and (c) a First World European country. This, though IQist doctrine argued vociferously that IQ correlates closely with achievement. Well, it didn’t.

I was struck by the perfect acceptance of these numbers even though they made no sense. IQists simply do not question IQ. I pointed out the obvious conclusion, that if Mexicans could run the infrastructure of modern nations, decent if not spectacular universities, and so on, then so, on the basis of IQ, could blacks—none of which they in fact do, or have done.

When I pointed this out, there came the IQist shuck-and-jive: Well, black IQ you see was actually a bit lower, 83 or maybe even 81, and maybe the Mexicans were as much as 89 or even 90, etc. That is, IQ varies with the argument being made. (For the record, Mexicans have been promoted from 87 to 90, IQ being remarkably fluid.)

Colombia-city
Photo: Cartagena, Colombia. Do you really believe that this city was designed and built by people with a mean IQ of 84? That is six points below Mexicans, and below American blacks? As a matter of logic, it follows that if people of IQ 84 can design, build, and operate a city with all the credentials of modernity, so can a population of IQ 85. It’s either both can, or neither can, or something is wrong with the purported IQs. For what it’s worth, my wife and I recently spent a month traveling widely in the country. No sign of stupidity.

Meanwhile, it turns out that, heh, the Irish IQ has risen 13 points to 100, exactly what one would expect of a white European nation. (It is sometimes put at 93, arrived at by averaging the 86 and the 100, horrible methodology since if two tests differed so much, then one or both must be nonsense.) For that matter, one reads that Argentine scores rose 22 points between 1964 and 1998. Meanwhile Jewish scores and academic achievement in America, astonishingly high a couple of generations back, have fallen precipitately. Since genetics cannot explain rapid changes in IQ, we conclude that a thirteen-point (or 22 point) change can be entirely due to non-genetic effects—diet, culture, ineffective tests, what have you.

This is furiously denied in IQist circles. The reason, in my judgement, is that thirteen points is exactly the purported gap between Mexicans and US whites insisted upon by IQists. These, often rabidly anti-immigration, do not want to admit any possibility that the immigrants might not be suitably stupid. Why they want immigrants to their country to be moronic is not clear.

Maya city
Photo: Uxmal, Yucatan, built by baffled Maya Indians with a mean IQ of 83. This is two points below borderline retarded. They also also invented writing, done perhaps three times on the planet, and had a fully functional, positional, base-20 number system complete with zero. The borderline retarded characteristically invent number systems. It’s how you know they are retarded.

The IQ edifice is often chaotic and contradictory. For example, Science: “A new study in the journal Intelligence from researchers in Europe claims that the average IQ in Western nations dropped by a staggering 13 points over the past century.” The suggested explanation is that smart women have fewer children, de-braining the gene pool.

So IQ is down by about a standard deviation. On the other hand, it is up a standard deviation. There is the Flynn effect in which IQ scores have risen three points per decade for a long time. (Because IQ is normalized to 100, the rise isn’t obvious.) This means that in the fifty years since I graduated from high school in 1964, IQ has risen fifteen points, a standard deviation and exactly the amount said to separate blacks and whites. This is a huge difference. If IQ measured intelligence, we would be in the midst of an intellectual explosion. We are not. If the Flynn effect applies to blacks, they should now be as smart as whites were in 1964. You know, when the Saturn V was being designed.

The question of variation in intelligence over historical time, usually attributed to some evolutionary process, is murky. Everything is posited, little demonstrated. However, I suggest that anyone reading the Greeks of 2500 years ago–Plato, Xenophon come to mind–or the Romans–Juvenal, Ovid, Ulpian and Papinian–will recognize minds as good as any deployed today.

MexFacts2

Mexico, God knows when but maybe in 1900. It is the Mexico of IQist fantasy.

DavyCrockett
Fifteen-year-olds, a few years ago, probably genetically indistinguishable from the foregoing. First-generation middle-class. One a Mensa shoe-in if she applied. None of them white, not from rich families. Do you really, really think that perfect health, eleven years of schooling, and exposure to the internet do not give them an advantage in IQ over illiterate unhealthy peasants?

Then in the IQ brew there is the occasional intrusion of common sense. (Not much of it, I grant.) A country whose purported IQ seems to me to fail the test of common sense is India, mean IQ 81. Here we have a billion people averaging well below borderline-retarded. Say again? Anyone even vaguely familiar with the intellectual, artistic, and musical history of India is going to think, “What are you guys smoking?”

There immediately springs to everyone’s mind that Indian kids dominate the Scripps National Spelling Bee. The IQist response is that only the smartest Indian kids come to the US. Perhaps, but the smartest American kids are already here, aren’t they? And since the kids got their visas based on the brains of their parents, shouldn’t they be regressing to the (dismal) mean?

IQNew--Spelling
Photo: 2015 co-champions.

I would have to believe real hard to believe that the large number of incandescently smart Indians who litter Silicon Valley, who in my tech-reporting days I found all over engineering departments and Bell Labs and the like, spring from sub-retarded stock. Yes, I know the IQist explanation, that they are genetically-selected Brahmans, said to have a mean IQ of 96, the rest of the country being wretchedly stupid. Well, maybe. Like so much in IQist thought, it relies on genes posited but not identified, acted upon by selective pressures assumed but not quantifiable, to produce assumed effects that cannot be correlated with the pressures. If that isn’t rock-solid, I can’t imagine what could be.

Having spent twelve years in Mexico, I can see no difference in intelligence between Mexicans and Americans. Nor when I lived in Taiwan, Vietnam, or Thailand. This raises the question: How great would the difference have to be to be noticeable? Clearly, greater than thirteen points (OK, now reduced, sometimes, to ten points), since that is the Mexi-American gap measured by IQists. The response will be that I am reasonably intelligent and so spend my time with the reasonably intelligent, but that is equally true in the US, and of course I am in frequent contact with ordinary citizens.

As a sort of by-guess-and-by-God way of getting around this, I have compared Americans and Mexicans in trades I know well in the US–medicine, journalism, etc–and still can see no difference.

ORDER IT NOW

A final question, and I will go for breakfast. What mean IQ is thought necessary to run the infrastructure of modernity? I don’t know, but I would like to. A modern country requires a lot of intelligence—different degrees of it, but nonetheless a lot. Stupid bank clerks can’t handle currency transactions internationally (SWIFT codes, intermediary banks, exchange rates, and complex regulations). The stupid cannot repair ATMs or avionics or run computerized auto-repair or internet services. At what mean IQ, going down the scale, does a country simply become incapable of producing enough smart people to keep functioning? In a country with a mean IQ of 84, fewer than one in six have an IQ of 100 or better. Is that enough? You tell me.

Eggs over, bacon on the side…

Fred can be reached at [email protected] Put the letters pdq somewhere in the subject line to avoid autodeletion.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Immigration, IQ, Race/IQ 
Hide 506 CommentsLeave a Comment
506 Comments to "IQ: A Skeptic’s View"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. People must put emotions first.

    After all, ideas and knowledge are nice, but they are secondary to affection and attachment.

    But in order to maintain a culture, it is an imperative to love one’s own kind.

    If there’s a couple and they have a 100 books on the shelf, should one spouse love the other more based on her reading more books on the shelf?
    Should he love her less if she read only 20 books than all 100 books?

    Ideas, arts, and knowledge are nice, but emotions come first.

    A parent shouldn’t love the child more or love the child less on the basis of how many books the kid read. It’s good to read, but emotions are not first and foremost about ideas in the head.

    This photo says it all. The daughter is severely crippled, but the emotions are there. That makes people human.

    We need to go from ‘intellectuals’ to ‘emotionales’.

  2. FKA Max says:

    If the Flynn effect applies to blacks, they should now be as smart as whites were in 1964. You know, when the Saturn V was being designed.

    Personally, I believe that the MAOA gene is more important and has more of an effect on the functioning or non-functioning of a society than “just” IQ. It just happens to be, that many of the lower-IQ societies also happen to have a higher number of low-activity MAOA carriers, and most IQ researchers do not control for that, and attribute all those nations’ “shortcomings” just to IQ, when the “real” explanation is a combination of lack of impulse control (low-activity MAOA) and (low) IQ, IMO:

    Scientists Rediscover the Violence Gene, MAOA-2R

    In fact, the Guo et al 2008 study in the European Journal of Human Genetics included an in-vitro functional analysis of MAOA in human brain-tumor cells. MAOA-2R was less active than MAOA-3R, which was less active than MAOA-4R, the most common version in white people. MAOA-4R was more than three times as active as MAOA-2R. [...]

    For instance, low IQ does not increase violent tendencies in men with MAOA-4R, but it does in men with MAOA-3R.

    http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2012/12/scientists-rediscover-violence-gene.html

    There is not that much difference between Western and Asian IQs, but the difference in the frequency of the low(er)-activity MAOA (3R) allele between those two races is quite significant, and I posit the reason why Western/White societies are less corrupt, etc. than Asian societies: http://www.unz.com/jman/clannishness-the-series-how-it-happened/ and http://www.unz.com/jman/clannishness-the-series-how-it-happened/#comment-1701996

    Studies have found differences in the frequency distribution of variants of the MAOA gene between ethnic groups:[32][33] of the participants, 59% of Black men, 54% of Chinese men, 56% of Maori men, and 34% of Caucasian men carried the 3R allele, while 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carried the 2R allele.[23][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#Aggression_and_the_.22Warrior_gene.22

    See also: http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2013/01/monoamine-oxidase-bibliography.html

    So the perfect violence soup is low MAO-A, social isolation, high testosterone, being poor and having a low IQ.[...] The 2R version, which produces the least MAO-A, is found in 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men. [ A study in Saudi Arabia ( El-Tarras et al.) found 15.6% of a control group carried the very low-activity 2-repeat MAO-A allele: page 3; Table 1; http://adhdnet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/El-Tarras-2012-Association-study-betwee.pdf]

    http://www.unz.com/article/americas-white-gun-culture-isnt-killing-blacks-other-blacks-are/#comment-1613821

    How do you explain the high prevalence of MAOA-2R in the Saudi population? Did Saudis select for the ”warrior gene” in the past, and now, through their cousin marriage tradition/custom, these traits are widespread in the population? Do you think MAOA-2R aka the ”warrior gene” is as prevalent in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan et al, or is Saudi Arabia an extreme outlier here?

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/open-thread-732016/#comment-1484306

    Also interesting to this discussion: http://www.unz.com/gnxp/middle-eastern-populations-have-higher-recessive-disease-load/#comment-1515804 and http://www.unz.com/gnxp/indonesian-islam-is-getting-modern-not-conservative/#comment-1649658

    The Stupid Stupidity Surrounding the Warrior Gene, MAOA, is Stupid

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @FKA Max
  3. The IQ debates remind me of the “instinct” debates of the 1960s and 1970s. The behaviorists insisted that man had no instincts except (possibly) hunger and elimination. Aggression was damnable heresy to be hunted down and rooted out.

    Science did not have the tools to precisely qualify (let alone quantify) what instinctive drives were, but only a fool would deny they existed (and then for political reasons). But instincts are there (inherent drives) and we are slowly identifying them.

    Just as gravity exists even though we do not know how or why (at least it does if WE exist), intelligence exists whether or not we can precisely identify it. It is obviously partly heritable and partly environmental, though that again we cannot quantify (yet), probably partly because it differs by case.

    Bring forth your silly quibbles all you Tweedle Dees and Dums.

    but though mankind persuades
    itself that every weed’s
    a rose,roses(you feel
    certain)will only smile”

    e. e. cummings

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  4. sturbain says:

    Well done Fred. Such simple questions, such obvious and evident critiques of the IQ ideology. In my view IQ is downstream of culture, which is downstream of religion. Some religions and cultures encourage critical thought and mental activity, others do not. If your cultural history has included generations of grass hut building, and warthog hunting is your most strenuous mental activity, guess what, you won’t do well on an IQ test. If your people have been merchants and bankers for centuries, you’ll ace that test. Sure, there’s undoubtedly some genetic influence, but the IQ guys cook the books to make IQs fit the theory.

    East Indians have a mean IQ of 81? Hilarious. Tell that to your IT department.

  5. Life is an IQ test, Fred.

    Forget all the tests. Let’s just look at accomplishments. Accomplishments tests all matter of intelligence.

    Compare a nearly all-white Western city or country (granted, those are getting thin on the ground) to a Mexican or Indian or, even, Chinese city. Compare, say, Salt Lake City to Mexico City. Prague vs Mumbai. What do you see?

    Also, Fred, I appreciate your loyalty to friends and family, but your Mexico and South America references are getting tiresome. Mexico and South America have a significant European-derived population. Is it the Mestizo or the 90%+ Europeans that create the cities that you show in the pictures?

    Look, I’d fight for my kids too, but at some point you need to be realistic.

    Btw, straw man arguments are beneath you, so please stop. Exhibit A:

    “If Latino immigrants really are as stupid as white nationalists hope, then they will always inhabit an underclass and, through intermarriage, enstupidate the American population.”

    Jeez, Fred, loving your own kind doesn’t always mean hating others. You should know that.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @Ivy
    , @dc.sunsets
  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t think you could find ONE La Raza activist that’s not skeptical about IQ…

  7. Songbird says:

    I’ve always viewed the lowball estimate of Irish IQ to be pretty questionable, despite Lynn at least formerly believing in it. Even based on old, conjectural evidence: small geographic distance between Ireland and Britain, paired with a high phenotypic similarity, and mixed history. Irish people have also long been known to have large heads.

    Emmigration from Ireland was mainly pretty nonselective, many American purebloods still exist, yet there is no contemporary marked disparity. No one ever talked about closing the Irish-American test gap, despite heavy involvement of the Irish in politics. There was no Irish affirmative action.

    Now it appears, the genetic distance between Ireland and England is pretty low, so I think that really takes away any power for Ireland as a counterexample.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @Ned2
  8. “designed and built” is shorthand for copied from.
    The first Glass walled building was in Liverpool, the first steel framed building was in the US, the roads- remember the word Tarmac- was a tarry invention of a Scott called Macadam.

    Etc, Etc, Etc……

    • Replies: @Hodag
  9. A final question, and I will go for breakfast. What mean IQ is thought necessary to run the infrastructure of modernity? I don’t know, but I would like to.

    Ask Marilyn:

    Marilyn vos Savant ( born August 11, 1946) is an American who is known for having the highest recorded IQ according to the Guinness Book of Records, a competitive category the publication has since retired.

    Marilyn vos Savant was born Marilyn Mach in St. Louis, Missouri, to parents Joseph Mach and Marina vos Savant. Savant says one should keep premarital surnames, with sons taking their fathers’ and daughters their mothers’ The word savant, meaning someone of learning, appears twice in her family: her grandmother’s name was Savant; her grandfather’s, vos Savant. She is of Italian, Czechoslovak, German, and Austrian ancestry, being descended from physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach.

    I was going to write and ask her about WTC BLD #7, but I decided agin it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant

  10. FKA Max says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Mexico and South America have a significant European-derived population. Is it the Mestizo or the 90%+ Europeans that create the cities that you show in the pictures?

    One of the biggest construction companies in South America is called “Odebrecht”:

    Odebrecht Organization is a Brazilian conglomerate consisting of diversified businesses in the fields of engineering, construction, chemicals and petrochemicals. The company was founded in 1944 in Salvador da Bahia by Norberto Odebrecht, and is now present in South America, Central America, North America, the Caribbean, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Its leading company is Norberto Odebrecht Construtora.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odebrecht

    Norberto Odebrecht was born on October 9, 1920 in Recife, Brazil. He was the son of the pioneer Emílio Odebrecht, Sr. (de) and a grandson of Emil Odebrecht (de), a German geodetical engineer and cartographer, who emigrated to Brazil in 1856. He studied at the Polytechnic School of Bahia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norberto_Odebrecht

    In 1988 the Odebrecht Foundation began focusing on preparing and grooming adolescents for life due to the realization that adolescence is the period when people consolidate the values and ideas that shape their character.

    By 2000, the Odebrecht Foundation’s work in this area had benefited 500,000 adolescents and 12,000 educators in several Brazilian states. That year, while maintaining its focus on the objectives established in 1988, the Foundation began concentrating its efforts on the Brazilian Northeast – more precisely on areas with low human development indexes that were outside the dynamic hubs of the nation’s economy.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odebrecht_Foundation

  11. Gene Su says:

    I think the classic mistake that racialists make is to assume that IQ/intelligence is only determined by one’s genes. Long post follows.

    I am a first-gen East Asian. I believe that there are other independent variables that IQ depends on such as discipline, attitude, culture, and emotional state. While environment does effect IQ it is also true that culture affects environment.

    Here’s what I think about blacks: I don’t think they are dumb at all. I think the reason they don’t like to learn in school is because they watch a lot of TV telling them that they don’t have to or are not supposed to learn anything in school. Just look at the 80′s hit sitcom Saved By the Bell. The nerd of the group, Screech, is mocked furiously. The other two males are held in higher regard. Slater was a Jock. Zack was an ultra social slacker. Ultra social slackers and jocks … blacks fit into those two archtypes. Note that Zack and Slater are white.

    One last note: I don’t see much difference between rowdy blacks and the rowdy whites who gave me a hard time during my public school days, even if rowdy whites are “smarter” by one standard deviation. If things don’t turn around, there is gonna be a white underclass.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/honey-boo-boo-nation/

  12. The piece should be retitled, “IQ: The Ignoramus’s View.”

    This is a confused rant that cherry-picks exceptions to a general rule. And the rule is this: Countries with higher-IQ populations (based on IQ, PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS results) have better health, higher GDP, more wealth (per capita), more high-tech exports, more Nobel laureates, longer lifespans, more and better quality education, less crime, less AIDS, fewer homicides, more economic freedom, more religious freedom, more democracy, stronger property rights, and less corruption.

    Next time, before ranting about national IQs, try skimming articles by Rindermann, Lynn, or Meisneberg.

    • Agree: Realist
  13. @sturbain

    Not sure why this is hard to understand, but yet again: the people coming here from India and China are a tiny percentage of their countries’ populations and are completely UN-representative of the larger populations.

    Tell THAT to your IT department.

    • Replies: @macilrae
  14. As always, with Fred, everything is about defending the honor of those poor unfairly slandered Mexicans.

    Jeez, I don’t know. Risking your life and paying some coyote your life savings to ferry you across the desert, where you may die of exposure, dehydration or wild animal attacks smacks of something a low IQ person would do.

    And some of the most notorious Mexican criminals in the Estados Unidos have made this particular trip five, six, seven times.

    But then, Trump was right. We’re not getting their best.

  15. Ivy says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Fred lapses into his inner Jared Diamond, with those brilliant locals in New Guinea. Gone native at times.

    • Agree: syonredux, bomag
  16. phil says:

    Fred,

    Love your writing, but the demolition of strawmen and some of the sloppy work of Richard Lynn does not make for a very strong argument. A few points:

    At a country level, Rindermann found that the correlation between IQ and student achievement is more than 0.8 — a pretty good correlation, but with plenty of exceptions to talk about.

    The Irish score of 87 was published in 1973. The test-takers were children from ages 6-13. In his work, Lynn assumes that the Flynn effect operated uniformly across countries, but given the extraordinary growth of Ireland from the 1970s to the early 2000s, the Flynn Effect was probably much stronger in Ireland than most other countries. It does indeed seem questionable to make conclusions about the general intelligence of the Irish from the 1973 test score.

    The Colombian score of 84 was Lynn’s estimate of the IQ of the Native Americans there. The test-takers were 4 years old. Twenty percent of the Colombian people were ethnically European and 5 percent were ethnically African. Based on these data, with 4 times as many Europeans as Africans, plus many mestizos with a lot of European admixture, it is indeed hard to believe that 84 represents the general intelligence of Colombians. Perhaps a better question for you to address is the extent to which the architects and engineers for those buildings in Bogota had Amerindian as opposed to European admixture.

    In their paper, “Admixture in the Americas,” Fuerst and Kierkegaard provided much evidence (Colombia included) that cause-and-effect runs for the most part from Race to IQ and then to Socioeconomic Status.

  17. I’m very old fashioned on race relations. I agree with what might be called a White Nationalist, even a Segregationist, agenda. However, I also think that HBD and its derivative, IQ, is precisely the worst ground on which to make this case. Pseudo-scientific malarkey is no foundation on which to build an ethno-nationalist ethic.

  18. FKA Max says:
    @Songbird

    Irish people have also long been known to have large heads.

    This post might be of interest to you:

    [”]Brain size has increased about 350% over human evolution, but we found that blood flow to the brain increased an amazing 600%[”]

    Actually what was observed was the increasing of the foramina carotid diameter. Carotid arteries are smaller in women (http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/37/4/1103.full.pdf ] even after adjusting for body and neck size, age, and blood pressure. Any conclusions?” – http://m.phys.org/comments/391793277/

    Could the combination of a large brain and insufficient blood supply to it actually mean less brain power? Is the ratio between blood supply (carotid artery diameter) and brain size the true determinant of intelligence/brain power? Of course, a big brain plus sufficient blood supply (wide carotid artery diameter) would then likely mean very high intelligence/brain nerve cell connectivity/activity.

    Could especially women with large brains/heads, like Oprah, who lack the proper blood supply to power their large brains actually be the least cognitively competent?

    These findings from the study match with and confirm the findings and hypothesis I cited in my above comment on neural connectiveness and neural efficiency: ””We believe this is possibly related to the brain’s need to satisfy increasingly energetic connections between nerve cells that allowed the evolution of complex thinking and learning.”

    To allow our brain to be so intelligent, it must be constantly fed oxygen and nutrients from the blood.”

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-iq-researchers-really-think-about-the-flynn-effect/#comment-1706913

    In regards to the Irish, this is just speculation on my part, but I think they are carriers of the low-activity MAOA gene more often than other Northern Europeans. See my post above on lack of impulse control, etc.: http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1725649

    See Irish Travelers:

    The birth rate of Irish Travellers has decreased since the 1990s, but they still have one of the highest birth rates in Europe. The birth rate for the Traveller community for the year 2005 was 33.32 per 1,000, possibly the highest birth rate recorded for any community in Europe.

    On average there are ten times more driving fatalities within the Traveller community. At 22%, this represents the most common cause of death among Traveller males. Some 10% of Traveller children die before their second birthday, compared to just 1% of the general population. In Ireland, 2.6% of all deaths in the total population were for people aged under 25, versus 32% for the Travellers.[55][56] In addition, 80% of Travellers die before the age of 65.

    According to the National Traveller Suicide Awareness Project, Traveller men are over six times more likely to commit suicide than the general population.[57]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Travellers#Health

    Ginger Jihadis:

    Although jihadists aren’t in a database somewhere categorized by their hair color, Breitbart did a study which sampled national newspaper coverage of white radical Islam converts between August 2013 and August 2014 to examine the correlation. They discovered that 76 percent of white British converts to radical Islam had red hair. The Daily Mail archived that 69 percent of white Brits who converted to Islam were also gingers. The Mirror and the Telegraph also yielded extremely high numbers, while the Guardian revealed that a whopping 100 percent of the white radical converts had red hair.

    http://ufpnews.com/ginger-jihadis-why-red-heads-are-converting-to-radical-islam/

    • Replies: @EH
  19. Rod1963 says:
    @sturbain

    The Indians and Chinese we’re getting are the cream of the crop so to speak. These are not offspring from Untouchables or any of the lower castes but the Brahmins. The Chinese kids that populate our colleges are from very successful families back in China. not some offspring from a peasant farmer in Tianjin.

    In addition both come from a culture and families that prize learning as well.

    And those Hindu IT types? Having dealt with many of them over the years, many are just duds hired by white execs on the cheap. The ones that man the call centers in Bombay are just atrocious. They are they very model of organic robots with bad accents.

  20. Rod1963 says:
    @Fred, You're Not a Skeptic

    And all those high IQ white countries are dying, basically committing suicide on scale not seen since early Imperial Rome. The only ones that are holding on are those states composed of lower IQ types, namely Poles, Russians and Hungarians.

    IQ isn’t the end all. Here in the U.S. you have the Silicon Valley elite (really smart white nerds) that have embraced every toxic liberal meme in existence including demographic obliteration. Same with the whites on Wall Street embracing the same toxic crap. Tell me again where brains fits in with embracing idiocy that any white working stiff would know better. It’s aptly demonstrated with college educated whites and white professionals that voted for Hillary whose agenda was no different than Merkel’s.

    Same in Europe. Mass insanity among the intellectuals.

    IQ isn’t enough to keep the system going, especially in the West.

    Problem is the cognitive elites of the West jettisoned the one thing that kept everything together – culture and replaced it with post-modernism and it’s derivatives that only offer unrestrained egomania and the cold death.

    • Agree: Talha, CanSpeccy, Stonehands
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    , @antyrod
  21. @sturbain

    When you start talking about populations of billions of people, selection bias goes nuclear.

  22. @Gene Su

    Start downtown. Drive between one and two miles, heading northeast on Gratiot St. Take any left.

    Keep driving until you change your mind.

    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @Dwright
  23. Realist says:

    “For example, if the population of India on average really is below borderline retardation, the country can never amount to anything. If Latino immigrants really are as stupid as white nationalists hope, then they will always inhabit an underclass and, through intermarriage, enstupidate the American population. IQists–those who believe that IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence–insist that intelligence is largely genetic, which it obviously is, and that IQ tests reliably measure it. The latter is doubtful.”

    Reality is hard/impossible for liberals to accept.

  24. Folks from India (or anywhere else) may be neither dumber nor smarter, but H1Bs are definitely cheaper to hire than Americans for the same work.

    • Agree: frayedthread
    • Replies: @The Grate Deign
  25. @another fred

    But instincts are there (inherent drives) and we are slowly identifying them.

    Instincts aren’t inherent drives. By definition, ‘instinct’ is complex behavior that isn’t learned but inherited.

    Humans have only one instinct: the sucking instinct of infants. Inherited emotional responses exist, but they’re not instincts — they’re feelings, not complex behavior.

  26. If Latino immigrants really are as stupid as white nationalists hope, then they will always inhabit an underclass and, through intermarriage, enstupidate the American population

    They are, believe in me…

    You’re over-generalizing ”latino” middle classes you see in Mexico as if all ”latinos” were like that and only inequality were real issue that prevent them to become ”middle-classe-isch”.

    You’re anticipating things here ”… throught intermarriage, enstupidate the americans”

    Yes, stupidify some population seems more easy to be done than otherwise.

    To say

    ”they are just stupid” is a stupid thing to say, but at least to sustain a civilization they has proved many times they are not capable.

    Avg white american are partial to predominantly irrational, now just think about ”avg latinos”, some degree below.

    Think about your avg white american you dispise and think about them some step below…

    As usually happen, people tend to be wrongly collectivistic to deal with individuality/personal intimacy AND individualistic to deal with collective well-being.

    In other words, people are, on avg, more concerned about what you do in your intimacy than if you need something, if you need some help, as good real friends usually to do one each other.

    Even ”middle classes” whatever place they are already tend to not to be positively impressive, and i’m also talking about moral issues, real moral/decisive issues, what most people here like to say ”intelligence”.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  27. TheJester says:

    Years ago I read an article about Mensa … that a surprisingly large percent of members are not economically or professionally successful. Indeed, many of them have problems managing the practical affairs of their lives, simple things such as keeping track of funds in their checkbooks that we might otherwise attribute to populations with lower IQs.

    I’ve also run into many people in my 69 years who had reputations for brilliance. However, quite a few of them had “means-ends” problems. They might be clever enough to manipulate their way to the economic and professional heights … but they had serious problems with choosing proper ends or goals in life. They had serious ethics issues.

    Hence, I decided to call these people clever not intelligent, lest we forget that sociopaths also have a reputation for extreme cleverness. An intelligent person balances means and ends.

    So, is IQ a measure of cleverness or intelligence or both … or neither?

  28. IQists–those who believe that IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence–insist that intelligence is largely genetic, which it obviously is, and that IQ tests reliably measure it. The latter is doubtful.

    IQ measure reasonably well the size of intelligence, say, the size of cognitive aspect of the intelligence, because this don’t measure the entire size, also of psychological aspect of the intelligence.

    BUT

    measure is something

    analyse is other thing

    analysis is usually a qualitative way to understand something…
    measurement is isually a quantitative/size–d way to capture the physical or comparative dimensions of something…

    both are important, but the first is decisive.

    I can know the size of the planet earth but if i don’t know how the planet earth is in all their diversity, multiple nuances of all types, this NUMBER will be at the best sterile.

  29. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Obviously they are not sending us their best!

  30. For example, American blacks, the Irish, and Mexicans had IQs accepted by the list as being 85, 86, and 87 respectively—almost identical. It seemed odd to me that identical IQs had produced (a) the on-going academic disaster of American blacks (b) an upper Third World country running the usual infrastructure of telecommunications, medicine, airlines, and so on, and (c) a First World European country.

    The first case is well documented, consistent throughout space and time, at least during the XX century but even with this aparent consistency their demographic dynamics also has been great, namely the huge dysgenics with the poorest, dumbest and criminal of blacks having many kids and being supported by social assistence. But based on large sample-studies comparing black, white and other groups their avg scores around 85 has been solid since the first comparative studies.

    The second case is a misterious, but keep in mind that Ireland has been a place of huge demographic changing.

    A one million died during the XIX century, millions immigrated to the other anglo countries and with the entry to the EU other demographic movimentation happened in Ireland, for example, many irish descendents and irish citizens come back to this country, as well the poor administration or control of this tests during their first applications maybe it’s difficult to trust in the first scores. Today we have a similar case of very lower scores of argentinian and brazilian students in PISA tests, i know they, specially brazilians, are not super scholastic clevers, but this scores seems are too lower to be true.

    IQ or scholastic tests are not infallible to produce correct informations. Many times they don’t.

    Yes, as usual every human intellectual niche have potential to become a cult, and IQ is not different.

  31. Photo: Cartagena, Colombia. Do you really believe that this city was designed and built by people with a mean IQ of 84?

    You’re not saying it seriously do you are*

    This city has been projected/designed by clever people (10% of colombian people who are part of ”cognitive elite”) and builty by bricklayers [yes, avg IQ around 80's], ;)

    That is six points below Mexicans, and below American blacks? As a matter of logic, it follows that if people of IQ 84 can design, build, and operate a city with all the credentials of modernity, so can a population of IQ 85.

    They don’t honey…

    It’s either both can, or neither can, or something is wrong with the purported IQs. For what it’s worth, my wife and I recently spent a month traveling widely in the country.

    Nothing wrong with that, it’s wrong with your observations.

    No sign of stupidity.

    I found it in your observations.

  32. @anonymous coward

    Back in the 60s again (sing to the tune of “Back in the saddle”).

    Definition of instinct (from Merriam Webster)

    1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity

    2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
    b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

    Yes, the people who lost the argument try to narrow the definition (2.a) to say, “See, we were right,” but plenty of scientists go right on using 1a or 2b.

  33. @sturbain

    “East Indians have a mean IQ of 81? Hilarious. Tell that to your IT department.”

    I would, but I would doubt they could comprehend. Being IT techs does not mean they are particularly bright … when was the last time you actually interfaced with an IT tech, Western or East Indian?

  34. Meanwhile, it turns out that, heh, the Irish IQ has risen 13 points to 100, exactly what one would expect of a white European nation. (It is sometimes put at 93, arrived at by averaging the 86 and the 100, horrible methodology since if two tests differed so much, then one or both must be nonsense

    You answered your own question.

    Seems impossible intelligence change so much in very few years.

  35. @anonymous coward

    “…Humans have only one instinct: the sucking instinct of infants….”

    WRONG! Ask someone who’s ever had any intense physical contact with another human being. The very first time that happened that person undoubtedly felt an irresistible urge to grind their pelvis against that of their partner, even in the absence of training or the presence of “moral” training that suggested such behavior is wrong. This is exactly equivalent to the instinct towards lordosis exhibited in rats, mice, and other mammals.

    I could describe a score of other human instincts but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the ill informed student who raised the issue.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  36. @Santoculto

    ””they are just stupid” is a stupid thing to say, but at least to sustain a civilization they has proved many times they are not capable.”

    If you sterilize criminal ones, high and low functioning, maybe we can talk about it….

  37. For that matter, one reads that Argentine scores rose 22 points between 1964 and 1998. Meanwhile Jewish scores and academic achievement in America, astonishingly high a couple of generations back, have fallen precipitately. Since genetics cannot explain rapid changes in IQ, we conclude that a thirteen-point (or 22 point) change can be entirely due to non-genetic effects—diet, culture, ineffective tests, what have you.

    Seems psychometrics before globalization era was a very mutually atomized community, so it’s very difficult to believe that most of the test applications was perfectly administered and standardized.

    Only USA seems have provided general good control on all this variables since beggining of XX century.

    Human factor seems a huge factor to explain this variations. By now with better control and global laws in application and standardization i believe this errors will be reduced but there are other interesting ways that also can be good to analyse and compare human groups of all types.

  38. ”Fifteen-year-olds, a few years ago, probably genetically indistinguishable from the foregoing. First-generation middle-class. One a Mensa shoe-in if she applied. None of them white, not from rich families. Do you really, really think that perfect health, eleven years of schooling, and exposure to the internet do not give them an advantage in IQ over illiterate unhealthy peasants?”

    Nothing proved. I believe people are whatever they want, with or without environmental advantages, with or without culture, even in feral states, without a language…

    Our real intelligence is our skin, as well the clothes is the culture we are.

    Freed, believe in me, there are biological variation of proclivities within families.

    Maybe a highly intelligent relative Was born in this family a century before, without ” Flynn Effect”, without internet, without access to education.

    Curious people, whatever the place they born, always think their glasses are not full enough.

    ”Advantage in IQ”

    maybe, but

    and about intelligence*

  39. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the intellectual, artistic, and musical history of India is going to think, “What are you guys smoking?”

    Most of this achievements were done thousand centuries before, ”India” have a millenial civilization.

    But yes, India as a gigantic demographic ocean is unlikely to has been very well ”analysed” via psychometric ways or any other at least by now.

    Indians, i mean, avg ones, appear to be more orderly than latin americans, with less ”warrior-genes” among them and with little higher avg intelligence size/IQ.

  40. macilrae says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Right. They are like the high energy molecules that can take off from the body of a liquid to become vapor – thus depleting its mean energy (i.e. causing it to cool by evaporation). Where this applies to immigrants, those who take to the air are by no means always the ones you’d like to welcome: for example the majority of mainland Chinese are the offspring of party officials who were raised up on under-table money.

  41. There immediately springs to everyone’s mind that Indian kids dominate the Scripps National Spelling Bee. The IQist response is that only the smartest Indian kids come to the US. Perhaps, but the smartest American kids are already here, aren’t they? And since the kids got their visas based on the brains of their parents, shouldn’t they be regressing to the (dismal) mean?

    Now a very good point. Yes smartest american kids is there but this don’t disprove that has happened a filtering of intelligence among indian immigrants.

    And in the end all this CONTESTS about ”who are more intelligent to spelling” or any other contest still is not what has done western civilization greater…

    creativity.

    When experts on intelligence stop to pay exclusive attention to ”what they perceive superficially as intelligence” OR experts on creativity start to be more active we will start to understand more precisely all this phenomenon.

  42. Sean says:

    Why were the elite WASP establishment never as clever as Jewish immigrants, if not because all the health care, nutrition, schooling and intellectual stimulation in the world cannot do what you claim.

    • Replies: @Rich
  43. @Fran Macadam

    To speak in generalities about working with south Asian H1B guys, it’s like working with geniuses who can’t fix their own bicycles. They end up being deployed in jobs where engineering calculations are required — and they seem to do these quite well — but if you need a guy who can go to the field and fix the turbine controls, you end up sending a white man or north Asian man. Again, those are generalities, but these things recur so regularly that people who work in production industry know it’s true.

  44. You’re confusing cultural with cognitive aspects. Avg americans have partially similar cultural level tastes than avg mexicans, i said partially. Avg americans tend to be little sophisticated AS WELL avg mexicans… period.

    But to learn things avg americans are overwhelm* better than avg mexicans, that’s the crucial question you’re missing.

    Just because you’re married a mexican woman you are doing it*

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  45. IQ seems to be much like global warming/Climate change (or whatever the label deejour is today). How much data lies behind those “mean IQ” quotes has always been questionable to me.

    OTOH, like it or not, measuring intelligence is possible and the military has been doing a bang up job of it for a lot of years.

  46. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max

    One of the ways lack or low impulse control expresses itself in Asians is gambling, despite strong social disapproval of the practice and state bans on it:

    Moving from city to city, he spent countless nights around card tables in the smoke-filled apartments that act as secret casinos in a country where gambling is illegal and regarded by the authorities as a serious social evil.

    Now he has embarked on a different career: persuading China’s growing army of illegal gamblers to think again about what to many has become a destructive addiction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6942975/Chinas-secret-gambling-problem.html

    Research shows Asians in the U.S. have a disproportionate number of pathological gamblers (i.e. addicted) as compared to the general American population. According to Dr. Timothy Fong, an associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA and co-director of the UCLA Gambling Studies Program, the rate of gambling addiction ranges from 6 percent to nearly 60 percent, depending on the specific Asian ethnicity (Southeast Asian refugees scoring highest) as opposed to the national rate of 1-2 percent.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/minority-report/201407/asian-gambling-addiction

    Researchers found that only 13% of British Asian children questioned were found to be regular gamblers, compared to 20% overall.

    But Asians were proportionately at greatest risk of developing addictive and problem behaviour, such as lying to friends and family or using money meant for other things.

    Slot machines and betting with friends on cards were the most popular methods of gambling. [...]

    “In the Asian community there is strong social disapproval of gambling in general,” said Prof David Forrest, who led the research. “This means the minority who choose to gamble are already overcoming a barrier – already suffering a cost in terms of social disapproval.”

    So probably a lot of Asians who gamble are people drawn to risk-taking whereas among whites many players are not candidates for hardened gambling because they’re playing for social reasons rather than a driver in their inner self,” he said.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17049110

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  47. woodNfish says:

    A quibble – the Irish are not European as Ireland, an island, is not part of the European continent. Same for Brits.

    • Replies: @Cletus Rothschild
    , @Alden
  48. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Seems if we don’t think about it holistically, we’re going to run into trouble. That is, trying to pack hundreds of thousands of years of evolution into a “rough sketch,” i.e. IQ, while useful, doesn’t tell enough of the story to implement effective and humane population planning.

    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-cultural-differences-dna.html

    I believe without comprehensive population planning, global warming and/or environmental protection concerns are irrelevant. Average people can’t comprehend the power of exponentialism related to population growth, as it’s currently playing out in Africa. Hundreds of millions of people are going to die horribly, mostly black, global warming or not.

    When that Tse Tse Fly Coates goes on about “black bodies piling up,” he has no idea what’s around the corner for millions of black bodies, which begs the question, if you mean well, but create tremendous suffering, are you still a good person? Tse Tse believes so.

    In any case, the black gene pool is a hot mess, and transporting them here from Africa, as Obama has done, will lead to more suffering in the United States for generations to come. But isn’t he a good person for making a wretched life from a foreign land better, while making american lives worse? Is the White Man’s Burden just another a point of view, or moral imperative?

    If they are our burden, can’t we manage them more effectively to end their suffering around the world?

    If so, how?

  49. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max

    Correction: One of the ways lack *of* or low impulse control expresses itself in Asians is gambling…

    Nearly five percent of Japanese are addicted to gambling – even though it’s still “illegal”

    This past summer the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare conducted research on the number of citizens addicted to gambling, including boat and horse racing, pachinko, slots and even mahjong. The study found that over 5.36 million people are addicted to gambling (4.3 million men, and just under 1 million women)—that’s almost five percent of the population (and almost nine percent of all men). Further, they discovered that within this group, eighty percent of them are addicted to pachinko and slots, specifically. [...]

    It was such a problem in Korea that the government effectively banned it, leading many addicts to travel to Japan to get their fix. [...]

    http://en.rocketnews24.com/2014/11/23/nearly-five-percent-of-japanese-are-addicted-to-gambling-even-though-its-still-illegal/

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  50. A word about Brahmins. I knew a few smart ones, but a few very stupid ones too. I blame inbreeding for the latter – (sub-sub-sub-caste level marriage).
    Same phenomenon as one sees among Ultra Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Amish, etc.. I suspect.
    A shout out to their culture of opportunism. Even the dumb ones researched the stock market and were well versed in Phynance. Sounds familiar?

    A word about IQ tests. I’ve taken them a few times and my performance varied greatly, depending on my state at the time. Well-fed and happy me scores higher.

    • Replies: @rw95
  51. I am sceptical of making IQ assumptions about entire nations and ethnic groups. I tend to assume the prejudice arrived first and perhaps unconsciously influenced the results attributed to tests. The alleged stupidity of the Irish was a deeply ingrained prejudice for the British, certainly in 1973. How much British influence was there on test results? Strangely, since the Troubles more or less ended, there seems to be less motivation to treat the Irish as subhumans and so you don’t hear so much about Irish stupidity as you once did.

  52. @Fred, You're Not a Skeptic

    I liked your comment. I have one question – and it is a genuine question, not a snide observation. Wouldn’t it possible to say:

    And the rule is this: Countries with more economic freedom have better health, higher GDP, more wealth (per capita), more high-tech exports, more Nobel laureates, longer lifespans, more and better quality education, less crime, less AIDS, fewer homicides, higher-IQ populations (based on IQ, PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS results) etc.

    I chose ‘economic freedom’ at random. I could have chosen anything in your list. My question is, what suggests that IQ is upstream rather than downstream of all the good things you listed?

    And on a slightly different point, what do you think about Fred Reed’s idea that IQ and intelligence are very different things? He admits that blacks have low IQs and have achieved next to nothing. However, I see his point that a lack of intelligence is less easy to spot in, say, Indians, Mexicans and South Americans, despite their measured low IQ.

    • Replies: @bomag
  53. JVC says:

    that IQ tests reliably measure it

    IQ tests reflect whatever the IQ test creator wants it to reflect. Other than that, it’s just bull.

    • Replies: @anon
  54. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max

    I have a theory, that high(er)-IQ Asians developed all sorts of meditation and mind and body-calming techniques (acupressure, etc.), formulas (herbal tinctures, etc.) and philosophies ( Zen, etc.) to cope with the high percentage/number of low-activity MAOA carriers and the resulting low levels of impulse control in their populations and societies.

    There was a program on the “warrior gene” on NatGeoTV a couple of years ago: http://natgeotv.com/ca/inside-the-warrior-gene

    They tested all kinds of different groups of people if they were low-activity MAOA (“warrior gene”) carriers; among the people being tested were also a group of mixed-martial-arts fighters and a group of Buddhist monks. All the martial artists tested negative and all the Buddhist monks tested positive for low-activity MAOA. Looks can be deceiving…

    Warrior Gene – Part 10

    Jews (2R 1.3%; 3R 62%) carry low-activity MAOA at much higher rates than Whites (2R 0.2%; 3R 36%): http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2013/01/monoamine-oxidase-bibliography.html Low-activity MAOA is associated with higher levels of aggressiveness and risk-taking

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/class-status-matters-more-for-success-than-performance/#comment-1507010

    I believe too, that the high prevalence of low-activity MAOA among Jews is the reason why Buddhism, meditation, etc. is so popular with Jews, i.e., a healthy and productive way for high(er)-IQ individuals to deal/cope with their low-activity MAOA:

    Jews are overrepresented in American Buddhism specifically among those whose parents are not Buddhist, and without Buddhist heritage, with between one fifth[125] and 30% of all American Buddhists identifying as Jewish[126] though only 2% of Americans are Jewish. Nicknamed Jubus, an increasing number of American Jews have begun adopting Buddhist spiritual practice, while at the same time continuing to identify with and practice Judaism. Notable American Jewish Buddhists include: Robert Downey, Jr.[127] Allen Ginsberg,[128] Goldie Hawn[129] and daughter Kate Hudson, Steven Seagal, Adam Yauch of the rap group The Beastie Boys, and Garry Shandling. Film makers the Coen Brothers have been influenced by Buddhism as well for a time.[130] Founder of the New York City Marathon, Fred Lebow, dabbled in Buddhism for a brief period.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews#Buddhism

  55. anon • Disclaimer says:

    And on a slightly different point, what do you think about Fred Reed’s idea that IQ and intelligence are very different things? He admits that blacks have low IQs and have achieved next to nothing. However, I see his point that a lack of intelligence is less easy to spot in, say, Indians, Mexicans and South Americans, despite their measured low IQ.

    The majority of blacks have shittious executive function, while hispanics, while it’s not stellar, tend to get the job done, more or less, although designing and building sky scrapers probably isn’t in their wheel house. I would say the metropolis photos submitted here by the author, claiming hispanics ability to nation-build has more to do with hispanic’s ability to hand off the big brain stuff to the Germans. German archetects and builders likely have a lot to do with this, just as they are primarily responsible for the sky scrapers, and other architectual wonders in Dubai.

    Speaking of which, I recall speaking to a contractor who’s american company handled some of the electrical infrastructure of Dubai and surrounding areas. He said Arabs don’t have an affinity to maintenance of their power grid structure, and the further out he went, the worse it got. He worked on power lines out in the desert that hadn’t be serviced in a decade. He said they don’t seem to believe in, or put much value on telephone line maintenance or power cables, and they’d rot out and fail if his company wasn’t running about keeping them online. He said, left on their own, areas throughout Saudi Arabia would go dark after a few years.

  56. @Intelligent Dasein

    I wouldn’t call IQ research malarkey. It’s pretty useful, if imperfect.

    But, yes, I agree that fixating on IQ as the only measure of human beings or groups isn’t right. I don’t want to live in a 90%+ white country because our average IQ is higher or lower than other groups. I simply want to live with my own kind because we understand each other in a way that we could never understand other groups.

    Whether other groups have higher or lower IQs or achievements doesn’t much matter to me. A 95% white country (oh, what a wonderful thought) with 10 million people could improve its overall IQ by importing 10 million 130+ IQ Chinese, but that’d be silly.

    I don’t want to live in a country without blacks and browns because I hate them. I wish them well. I want to live in a white country for the same reason I care for and understand my children more than I care for and understand other people’s children. I wouldn’t replace one of my kids for a high IQ Indian kid, so why would I let them into my country.

  57. Rich says:
    @Sean

    You’re buying into the propaganda, Sean. The Wasps were a pretty smart group. They conquered almost half the earth, wrote the US Constitution, invented almost everything and even put a man on the moon. What have Jewish immigrants done besides leech off of that and take over institutions already set up by Wasps. I’m not a Wasp, but I have a lot of respect for their achievements and I appreciate the great country they founded here and allowed my ancestors to escape to, from poverty, and do pretty well. I’m glad my ancestors didn’t make a wrong turn and end up in Palestine. Your pick for top dog hasn’t exactly founded a land friendly to those of a different religion than theirs, while in this Protestant founded country, my Catholic family did fine.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Sean
  58. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Did I miss Fred debunking Charles Murray’s chronicle of human achievement?

  59. @anon

    The dirty little secret Fred failed to mention is that POMEA (people of mostly European Ancestry) are doing all the heavy lifting in 2nd and 3rd world countries where there are signs of modernity. Asians are doing well because they are outstanding reverse-engineers.

    IQ isn’t all. Everyone knows that, so using it as a target just makes it a straw man.

    Smart people embrace some really dumb ideas (e.g., leftism & Holy Diversity) in part because they have lots of mental horsepower to devote to rationalizing their way around the contradictions and obvious folly.

    I joined Colloquy Society and was utterly disappointed by the embrace of utter insanity I found there. The threshold for membership is four times more selective than Mensa.

    So much for IQ tests revealing whose got a clue. A high IQ and a dollar buys you a cup of joe at McDonald’s. What is measured by an IQ test (or surrogate) is one let of a stool. A stool with one leg is a useless piece of furniture.

    High IQ people from India, China, etc. have DNA-coded cultures that are not compatible with Western Civ. Their IQ doesn’t matter. Culture is all. China for the Chinese, India for Indians, Mexico for Mexicans and the USA for people whose ancestors BUILT IT.

    • Replies: @Anon
  60. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I wouldn’t replace one of my kids for a high IQ Indian kid, so why would I let them into my country.

    Ditto.

    My ancestors made the USA what it was in the 1960′s (at its peak.) My ancestors were stupid enough to invite everyone and their village idiot to join the party, move next door and date my grand kids.

    Thanks for the former, but you really screwed up on the latter.

    The Holy Sacrament of Diversity is going to be overturned (it’s in the process of turning now) and the result will prove that Diversity + Proximity = War (sooner or later.) I chose to live in a place surrounded by people who are quiet like me, law-abiding like me, who keep their property neat like me, who respect the property of others like me, and who are considerate to their neighbors as I am.

    Inviting people who hold “diverse” approaches to all this irritates me (at best), and stands a good chance of enraging me at some point.

    Those who celebrate the sacrament of Holy Diversity by inflicting their cult religion on the rest of us need to be beaten senseless and dumped in a deep well.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  61. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    What have Jewish immigrants done besides leech off of that and take over institutions already set up by Wasps.

    Quite a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann . Otherwise, point well taken.

    • Replies: @Rich
  62. @Negrolphin Pool

    I’m tempted to take this seriously. Record a video of this?

    • Replies: @anon
  63. Rich says:
    @Anon

    Kind of proves my point, doesn’t it? Where would von Neumann have been without the Wasps who came before him? Who built a nation he could immigrate to and set up an infrastructure he could use? I’m not saying the various immigrants didn’t succeed when they came to America, I’m saying that without America, most of them would’ve been unknown, many trapped in poverty.

  64. Tony says:

    ” Irish people have also long been known to have large heads.”
    This makes up for their other small extremities.

  65. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    If you do, go before noon – the psycho gangsta types mostly sleep late.

  66. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JVC

    The military have been using them for decades – it’s why fighter jets aren’t crashing every five minutes.

    (both pilots and maintenance crews are selected on IQ)

  67. Photo: Cartagena, Colombia. “Do you really believe that this city was designed and built by people with a mean IQ of 84? ”

    No. It was conceived, designed and construction managed by people (not necessarily Colombian either) of a mean IQ of 120 or greater and built by considerably lesser IQ labor who obeyed their elitest overlords. Ditto for Mexico. Those are NOT however the people crossing our southern border.

    Spot on with El Negro though. I found a new Youtube on milestones in Kenyan aviation history(Hidden Figures anybody??) for your amusement.

  68. An speaking of Cartegena, Colombia– their elite engineers live a few miles to the north.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  69. utu says:

    Mr. Fred Reed, I liked this article very much. It was refreshing. It is good to shake up those IQers from the mutual admiration society particularly here at unz.com where they like to spout their pathetic and often vile wisdoms without much challenge from anybody.

    It is interesting that the group think can make so many seeming intelligent people to be so wrong. Climate science is just another example. I think that people with science or engineering background are particularly susceptible. Is it a lure of reductionism? What is behind it? What does drive these individuals to become a herd?

    “There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.” George Orwell

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  70. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @dc.sunsets

    High IQ people from India, China, etc. have DNA-coded cultures that are not compatible with Western Civ. Their IQ doesn’t matter. Culture is all. China for the Chinese, India for Indians, Mexico for Mexicans and the USA for people whose ancestors BUILT IT.

    Indeed…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4116252/Punch-35-000-feet-Chaotic-moment-passengers-launch-violent-brawl-flight-London-sparking-emergency-landing.html

  71. well, Fred is right about Jews anyway; I am Jewish and I’m getting dumber by the minute, possibly because I waste my time reading articles like this one. But possibly this is more a genetic quality of people generally; one starts out smart when one is young and then gets dumber and dumber as one gets older and older. Fortunately experience can sometimes substitute for intelligence, so one can slop by.

    Apparently Black racism has been instilled in Americanism the way Jew hatred has been instilled in the West by the Christian religion. It’s an historical thing, so deeply irrational that mere reason or evidence is powerless against it. Maybe the rise of Africa, which is increasing its economic product much faster than America, will influence American cretinism about African Americans, the way Israel did about Jews. Hopefully most of the racist on these racist blogs will have gone to Hell by then, a largely White homeland.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @anon
    , @Pierre
  72. Dan Hayes says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Jim Bob Lassiter:

    I would contrast this use (or what the more squeamous would term the abuse) of donkeys with the care and devotion to these animals that I have witnessed in the “Donkey Sanctuaries” in the Irish Republic and England.

  73. utu says:
    @folktruther

    “Apparently Black racism has been instilled in Americanism the way Jew hatred has been instilled in the West by the Christian religion. It’s an historical thing, so deeply irrational that mere reason or evidence is powerless against it.”

    Stop projecting. Jews hate everybody. Sometimes for good reason and sometime for irrational reasons. Also Anti-Semitism is sometimes irrational but sometime it is quite rational.

  74. Colombia LOL.

    List of countries by intentional homicide rate
    Colombia 27.9
    Denmark 1.0

    [MORE]

    Colombia 2016 Crime & Safety Report: Cartagena
    … In rural areas, public and private buses have been attacked by the terrorist groups Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and National Liberation Army (ELN) and by organized crime elements Bandas Criminales (BACRIM). Terrorists, criminals, and demonstrators sometimes burn buses.

    Americans serving at the U.S. diplomatic mission to Colombia and their families must ask for permission to travel throughout much of Colombia. Embassy official Americans and their families are not permitted to travel by road outside of urban areas at night. They are required to fly to most major cities. All Americans in Colombia are urged to follow these precautions.

    In general, road conditions in the major cities are adequate, but not good, for vehicle travel. Traffic in Cartagena is congested and road conditions are often poor, contributing to traffic accidents and creating opportunities for criminals to rob vehicles. In rural areas, roads can be substandard and dangerous (no emergency lanes, poor lighting), and landslides frequently close roads. Accident response in rural areas is slow. Travel at night is also dangerous due to the potential for accidents along mountain roads and violence from criminal groups.

    The Colombian National Police (CNP) has a presence on major roads, including at well-marked, fixed checkpoints. The government deploys extra security to promote road travel during holidays. Outside of these periods and in rural areas, terrorists and criminals can make road travel dangerous. In areas where the government does not have a strong presence, terrorist and criminal groups have set up roadblocks to rob and kidnap travelers.

    Traffic laws, including speed limits, are often not obeyed/enforced, creating chaotic and dangerous conditions for drivers and pedestrians.

    Colombia is in the midst of a decades-long conflict, pitting the government against two leftist terrorist organizations (the FARC and ELN) and organized crime groups (BACRIMs) that evolved from demobilized right-wing paramilitary organizations. The FARC, ELN, and BACRIM are well-organized criminal enterprises that regularly carry out kidnappings, extortion, assassinations, bombings, and other terroristic activities throughout Colombia. Throughout the conflict, over 225,000 Colombians have lost their lives, and six million have been forcibly displaced.

  75. … Maya Indians with a mean IQ of 83
    … They also also invented writing, done perhaps three times on the planet, and had a fully functional, positional, base-20 number system complete with zero.

    No one ever said people with an IQ of 83 can’t read or do simple arithmetic. Stone masonry is obsolete 4,000 year old technology, literally stone age. That makes them qualified to tile driveways, and many are in fact now employed doing just that.

  76. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I can’t believe this is so hard to understand.

    The Indian iq is indeed 81. If you spend time in India you will see this yourself.

    The reason there are so many smart Indians in America and top university posts is because India is a caste society. So the upper smarter classes never intermarry with the dumber lower classes.

    This leaves a very intelligent upper crust in India which is responsible for the arts and science. And a huge amount of lower caste Indians who are barely functional in a modern world.

    The smart fraction in India is a tiny tiny proportion compared to the lower iq lower caste society. Hence the low average iq.

  77. It is quite obvious that within ethnicities IQ is both measurable and heritable. Clever parent tend to have clever kids. Between different ethnicities this is much more difficult. It simply makes no sense that 50% of all Subsaharan Africans are as intelligent as whites who get counted as “retarded”. This matches in no way with any of my experiences with subsaharan Africans.

    “Do you really, really think that perfect health, eleven years of schooling, and exposure to the internet do not give them an advantage in IQ over illiterate unhealthy peasants?”
    I think perfect health make a difference but eleven years of school not.

  78. @Jus' Sayin'...

    The very first time that happened that person undoubtedly felt an irresistible urge to grind their pelvis against that of their partner, even in the absence of training or the presence of “moral” training that suggested such behavior is wrong.

    Again: feelings aren’t instinct, by definition. Grinding also isn’t an instinct. Even walking isn’t an instinct.

    Building nests, or beaver dams, or suckling is an instinct. Something is an instinct if a) it is something you’re born with, and not something you have to learn or practice, and b) if it is complex, structured behavior in a series of steps.

    You’re confusing instinct with reflexes and unconscious behavior. Reflexes are something you’re born with, but they aren’t complex behavior. (I.e., jerking your hand when you touch a stove, or moving your pelvis during sex.)

    Unconscious behavior (walking, catching a ball or riding a bicycle) can be complex, but you’re not born with it. (Kids won’t learn to walk by themselves if left alone, see feral kids.)

  79. @utu

    Climate science is just another example. I think that people with science or engineering background are particularly susceptible.

    Yes, those people certainly know nothing about how the world works.

    • Replies: @utu
  80. br. says:

    not that you haven’t emberassed yourself enough with that language here on these racist blogs, but could you give an example of an African economic miracle? or how it relates to economic expectations of Israel at founding? I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure nobody was claiming that Israel couldn’t succeed because the jews were less bright?

    • Replies: @Max Payne
  81. @woodNfish

    “A quibble – the Irish are not European as Ireland, an island, is not part of the European continent. Same for Brits.”

    Right. Just as Sicily is not part of Europe. And Long Island is not part of North America.

  82. @anon

    “The majority of blacks have shittious executive function . . .”

    Bringing executive function into the discussion is of tremendous importance. It helps explain, among other things, why a brilliant person with a high IQ can be functionally illiterate. It can also help understand why people who are genetically intelligent, yet raised in a simple culture, won’t have developed the ability to function in a more complex culture.

  83. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @folktruther

    the way Jew hatred has been instilled in the West by the Christian religion

    usury is parasitic

    it may not have been Jews fault they ended up in the money-lending niche but once they did the cycle of
    - Jewish wealth
    - economic collapse
    - anti-Jewish backlash
    was inevitable.

  84. I love Fred, but he is a bit off course on this one. Yes, IQ matters, He used Cartagena, Colombia as an example of how 84 IQ people can build and maintain such a fine place. Sorry to shoot down his theories but here goes. Colombia received more Spanish (white) immigrants than any other Spanish colony during the colonial period. Of course, the relatively few immigrants since then have been almost all white. Colombia has a 50 percent white population at the time of independence, with most of the rest mestizos. There were, of course, still parts of the native population and black slaves, mainly along the coasts. With every generation since the “white” percentage of genes has increased because more of the white babies survived. The mean IQ of Colombia might well be 84 percent, but that is because the average is dragged down by the large black populations of the costal regions. I have news for Fred: Quibdo, Choco Department (about 100 percent black) does not look a bit like Cartagena. Ditto Buenaventura, a nasty, filthy, all-black hellhole. The truth is that the mostly white (and high IQ) middle and upper classes build places like Cartagena, besides producing some of the most stunning women on earth. Colombia has plenty of whites and, while it has its problems, is a far modern and pleasant place than many of its close neighbors. A relatively small group of high IQ whites, firmly in control, can make a very low IQ country a pretty impressive place, South Africa under the white regime being the most glaring example of this.

    • Replies: @utu
  85. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    IQ tests reflect whatever the IQ test creator wants it to reflect. Other than that, it’s just bull.

    A majority of the people taking IQ tests will get a score lower than they wished.
    A majority is ever going to play down, and hard, intelligence tests significance.

    As for South America & Reed: you don’t talk with someone in mad love of the object of their love, because it makes no sense.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  86. Tulip says:

    This work is confused.

    I.) The Metaphysical: What is Intelligence? How can it be Measured? Sigh.

    II.) Bloody Knuckles: Does IQ have predictive validity? If we measure two children at age 11 as having an 85 and 115 IQ, can we predict anything about their prospects in life and longevity?

    Yes, IQ has strong predictive validity.

    III.) Is IQ genetic? All evidence suggests IQ is partially genetic, although the degree outcomes are attributable to strictly genetic factors over environmental or individual factors is debated.

    The liberals lead with I., ignore or minimize II., and if trapped, cling to strict environmental or mostly environmental on III.

    The racialists ignore I., gloat regarding II, and tend to deny or minimize environmental factors with respect to III.

    No one seems to focus on the individual factors, the big known unknown above.

    That is because liberals and racialists aren’t really staking out a position on empirical data, they are staking out an ideological stance for political reasons. Both positions are partially true, ergo, both are wrong. The racialist perspective is more important, because it exposes the weaknesses in the structure of the conventional wisdom.

    Developments in epigenetics are likely to make the whole story a lot more complicated.

  87. Dwright says:
    @Negrolphin Pool

    “Start downtown. Drive between one and two miles, heading northeast on Gratiot St. Take any left.

    Keep driving until you change your mind.”

    Yes, been working around there the last month. No, I will not be taking any impromptu tours. I know Detroit and it’s denizens far too well.

  88. Tulip says:

    BTW where are all these liberal IQ skeptics when the State of Texas wants to gas some serial killer with an IQ of 65?

  89. rec1man says:

    India has a 3 layer IQ structure

    The top layer – 20%, consists of Brahmins, Merchants, Scribes, Nobility etc

    The middle layer – 40% consists of Patels, Sikhs, peasants

    Bottom layer – 40%, Muslims, Untouchables, Forest Tribals

    Per Devesh Kapur book, The other 1%,

    In the USA, this group, mainly Tamils, Telugu, Maharashtrians and Bengali Hindus
    has a median household income of $140K, far above Jews, and for comparison, Bangladeshi ( muslims from a low caste origin ) have median household income of $40K

    Caribbean Indians, also from a low caste have similar performance to Bangladeshi

    *2nd Generation Indians in USA, show no signs of regression to mean, in fact they have widened performance gap vs whites , much more than 1st generation Indians, per the Devesh Kapur book

    If you look at US National Merit, for California 2017,
    there are 125 Jews vs 275 Indians, but zoom-in further and 125 Indians are Brahmins, 65 are Merchants, 60 are Dravidian ( South Indian ) Landlords – all from layer 1

    and just 3 Sikhs and 4 Patels – from layer 2
    But Sikhs in USA have median household income of $80k and Patels about $120k, vs $55k for whites

    This is because even lower IQ Indians dont tolerate unwed mothers, alchoholism, drugs , crime etc

    *Devesh Kapur also documents that Indians in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK also outperform almost everybody else

  90. Max Payne says:

    I feel as if the vast majority of those that believe in IQ are scared old white men who have never left their incest-laden villages. Or worse, young “intellectuals” who has never traveled outside the Western sphere of influence.

    People go on comparing things like inventions or cities and quality of life but the West is in such decline I can’t help but notice how Eastern cities, such as Shanghai or Singapore, are vastly superior. I assure you I’m no fan of the Chinese for obvious reasons (their social etiquette leaves much to be desired) but….

    In the East I’ve seen transportation systems move tens of millions of people without a hitch. I’ve seen more luxury then I would ever see in places like Monaco. I’ve noticed large expat communities spring up in almost every major city in China. I’ve seen major floods and natural disasters appropriately handled with military efficiency saving both lives and property (heck I can remember the cluster-f**k that happened after Katrina and that’s the reaction of a world “super power”…).

    Some guy up above posted about how none of these countries invent anything, they can just mimic. I can’t help but laugh considering peoples from China invented silk, paper, gunpowder, an early civilization that mastered war before anyone could grasp organized group violence (not to mention indirect warfare such as subterfuge and counterintelligence).

    But I guess its just better to bang your sister and pretend you belong to a race of intellectuals while turning a blind eye to the fact vast stretches of Western scientific and technological positions are loaded with Indians (because the white man refuses to work hard for some reason).

    Sure… I won’t deny the East has lots of slums and an underclass that’s in permanent poverty which can only contribute raw labor as its contribution to society. However the West also has its slums and ghettos which draws the underclass black society, white trash, and criminal Hispanics. The difference is in the East quality of life is improving even for those who are on the cusp of social death (a billionaire is created everyday in China)….in the West the middle class is being butchered for a few points on the stock exchange.

    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    , @KenH
    , @anon
  91. Max Payne says:
    @br.

    Nothing to do with intelligence son.

    When you steal land, have the West give free handouts and extend its political clout, and solidify a nation which relies on an industry and economy based on bombing helpless villagers in the name of some religious dogma then any half-blind monkey can become successful.

    No one had the level of assistance that Israel received in founding a nation to compare it to anything else.

    You’d actually have to be a special type of retard to fail with those odds.

  92. Good points. The silliest thing about IQ extremism is the awfully weak data much of these ‘averages’ are based on, especially in the third world. I spend a couple months a year in a third world country and have up close experience of what passes for ‘education’ in its public schools. The idea that kids who have been taught literally no analytical reasoning in their entire lives and instead been given a diet of 100% mindless rote learning would be able to demonstrate a real ‘genetic potential’ or ‘deep intelligence’ on an IQ test is laughable. And btw when kids from that country do get a real education (rare) they have demonstrated excellence in difficult, technical areas, beyond what one would expect of a relatively small population.

    • Replies: @anon
  93. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    The Holy Sacrament of Diversity is going to be overturned (it’s in the process of turning now) and the result will prove that Diversity + Proximity = War (sooner or later.)

    But the war will not begin in earnest before fighting-age whites and Christians are outnumbered both in the US and Europe. Then it’ll be game over for the Europeans not only in North America but in Europe, an outcome our “leaders” evidently intend.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  94. polistra says:

    National economic success comes from the ability to organize and accomplish the right goals, which has no connection to IQ. America’s economic success in 1960 was built on the systematic work of uneducated and low-IQ people, and we REWARDED those uneducated people for their work.

    Russia had much better education but much less economic success because Russians don’t organize well.

    We’re no longer successful because our government and corporations no longer bother to organize and REWARD the work of ordinary people.

  95. @Gene Su

    You’re an Asian. You don’t belong in the West. The West is Caucasian, European. You have slanted eyes, black hair, yellowish skin. You are physically not acceptable. You can use your IQ in Asia.

  96. FLgeezer says:

    Chinese architects and capital are likely responsible for Cartagena flourishing. They own the west end of the Panama Canal (see Panama City, Panama skyline) and now the east end too. America spends its capital killing innocents in the Middle East. China spends its capital encouraging development and making friends internationally. In doing so, they have established a ligature to our south with which to strangle America.

  97. KenH says:

    It seems Fred’s ulterior motive in writing articles like this is so that whites will become more amenable to allowing the entire nation of Mexico to migrate north to the U.S. and Canada. He keeps trying to sell the mestizo to white Americans just like the Jewish media moguls sell the negro to whites and particularly white females.

    If Fred really thinks IQ is overrated and that mestizos are the equals of white Americans then fine, but that doesn’t mean we are obligated interbreed with them and become Brazil Norte.

    IQ is important and should be given proper weight but white Europeans also have a whole range of racial characteristics beyond IQ that makes their nations so functional and livable and why third worlders find our nations so desirable and much preferable to their own.

    I would have to believe real hard to believe that the large number of incandescently smart Indians who litter Silicon Valley,

    But where is the equivalent of Silicon Valley in India, Fred? And the technology they’ve mastered sufficient to work in that field was invented and pioneered by white men and they largely learned it in Western institutions of learning. There’s articles around the net about the overpopulation in India and resultant shortage of residential latrines which forces a segment of the population to defecate in farm fields, city streets and private residences. If Indians are collectively so intelligent and the intellectual equals or betters of Europeans then why can’t they remedy this problem?

    • Replies: @FLgeezer
  98. @Max Payne

    “In the East I’ve seen transportation systems move tens of millions of people without a hitch”
    I have the impression that public transportation is something which works better for East Asians than for Non East Asians. Amongst Non East Asians there are always males who look out for fights, want tp preserve their honor etc. I don´t know whether testosterone is the reason for this. But I would guess that transportation for an all female western society could work almost as good as transportation is East Asian countries

  99. KenH says:
    @Max Payne

    People go on comparing things like inventions or cities and quality of life but the West is in such decline I can’t help but notice how Eastern cities, such as Shanghai or Singapore, are vastly superior.

    This is because China isn’t forced by a Jewish elite and racially masochistic Chinamen to import hordes of Africans, Latinos and Muslims who turn once beautiful cities into hellholes of vice and crime. Thanks to greedy Western capitalists China enjoys a massive trade surplus which enables them to build and maintain these great cities and their advanced transportation systems. They deserve credit for what they’ve accomplished but without the West willingly moving half or more of its industrial base into China and the wealth and technology transfers derived therefrom these cities would still be mostly rice paddies and their most sophisticated pieces of military hardware would be outdated MIGs and AK-47′s.

    …while turning a blind eye to the fact vast stretches of Western scientific and technological positions are loaded with Indians (because the white man refuses to work hard for some reason).

    Have you ever worked in a large corporation or worked at all with Indians? Large corporations hire Indians not because they possess genius lacking in white Americans but primarily because they work for about 1/3 the salary of a white American. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has called a tech support line only to be greeted by an Indian reading off a screen who has no earthly idea on how to fix your problem. I’ve also worked with Indians in a professional capacity and while they are superior to blacks and with perhaps a few exceptions their skills are nothing to write home about and I’ve never seen a more overrated group of people.

    ….in the West the middle class is being butchered for a few points on the stock exchange.

    On that point we are 100% in agreement.

  100. @Santoculto

    Cherchez la femme/le homme is always critical. Reed has a Mexican wife so we know what his angle is. Like John Derbyshire who has a Chinese wife – critical of Christianity the religion of the West, but always helps his wife with her pagan ancestor worship rituals.

  101. Consider the possibility that IQ is a metric created by academics for the purposes of measuring what academic weenies think is important.

  102. RobRich says: • Website

    The Libertarians (WASPS/Spanish elites) and fans have the right idea–after raising IQ’s with capitalism / Flynn effect to 140 in 1900 terms, raise base IQ to 145 (i.e. not most of you) in constantly adjusted terms and while promoting free immigration, that also means expansion of the US to most of the globe and outer space.

    The US (and Russian) military gets it. They love Libertarians.

  103. Pierre says:
    @folktruther

    Without the billions from holocaust reparations and the billions handed-out to Israel over the years by US tax payers, without the billions from the jewish diaspora, Israel would be nowhere. Still, Israel must be the ugliest country you can imagine. Millions of tons of concrete everywhere, ugly high rises growing like mushrooms and walls everywhere to keep the savages out. Without millions of workers from China and elsewhere the Jews would never be able to maintain this artificial country. Jews hate physical work, too tiring and too hard for their lazy brains. They prefer to argue endlessly about meaningless problems. Their greatest strength lies in deception and how to steal money and ideas from everybody else. There’s a reason why most people hate them.

  104. I always laugh at the way people use Indians as an example for how I.Q tests are wrong .

    Have any of you ever seen India ? It is one of the most dirty and disease-ridden places on the planet. Its the definition of a third world country.

    Even the Brahmin thing is laughable.

    the Brahmin are the top 10-15% of the country and have a mean of 96, which is exactly what we would expect from a population with a mean in the 80s.

    Its like saying that doctors in the Italy are a separate group from the rest of the population.

    If you want to know how smart a country is just look at it . No need for fancy theories.

  105. utu says:
    @Chris Bridges

    “I have news for Fred: Quibdo, Choco Department (about 100 percent black) does not look a bit like Cartagena.”

    Many places do not look a bit like Cartagena:

    • Replies: @annamaria
  106. utu says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    “Yes, those people certainly know nothing about how the world works.”

    Engineers and scientist make things that often work in this world. Knowing how the world works is entirely different ball game.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  107. FLgeezer says:
    @KenH

    >And the technology they’ve mastered sufficient to work in that field was invented and pioneered by white men and they largely learned it in Western institutions of learning.

    Spot on KenH! And your comment applies equally well to Israelis. Their alleged software wizardy is all accomplished using western programming languages, compilers, and debuggers. They are however, exceptionally strong in industrial espionage and theft. I must give credit where credit is due. ☹️

  108. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Max Payne

    Three phases

    1) East was ahead – interesting question is why did it stagnate?

    2) West was ahead – interesting question is why did it explode?

    3) Western decline – why so?

    The answer to the 3rd question is simple – the Western world is being destroyed from within by a parasite.

  109. Sean says:
    @Rich

    An s5053ar3y irrelevant assertion would be that the Yamnaya did not clear the land they conquered in north Europe. So what, the immigrants were superior and they proved it, as did the Conquistadors. And they took their choice of the the local women.

    The WASPs were the best test of good environment for IQ, because they had the most favourable environment for developing high IQ in the world and they were beaten at their own game by poor desperate immigrant slum dwelling Jews, every time.

    Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants were obviously superior to the American elite so the Ashkenazi advantage was genetic and not due to better nutrition, schooling or intellectual stimulation. Moreover, there has been no such superiority in subsequent non Jewish immigrants, who have not been able to even attain WASP level.

    A New York Ashkenazi Jew with the IQ of Muhammad Ali would seem obviously mentally handicapped, but Ali didn’t even though he was rejected as unsuitable for the US army on the grounds of his test result.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @anon
    , @Rich
  110. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @blank-misgivings

    The silliest thing about IQ extremism is the awfully weak data much of these ‘averages’ are based on, especially in the third world.

    If the blank slatists believed their argument they wouldn’t be so resistant to extensive data collection.

    They are terrified of comprehensive IQ testing because they know it’s true.

    • Agree: res
  111. Another purported critique of IQ based on a handful of examples. What people that deny IQ exists (doesn’t say what IQ is, just that it measures something) tend to do is follow this script:

    1.IQ can’t exist because I know an intelligent fill-in-the-blank.
    2. IQ can’t exist because 3rd world countries have some nice buildings (maybe because they were built by 1st world companies?).
    3. IQ can’t exist because we can’t agree on what it measures.

    IQ does not mean that everyone of every race or culture is a moron. However, when you have millions of individuals within a certain population, you can make certain assumptions based on the history, performance, cleanliness, criminality, happiness, and creativity of this population. Non-white populations recognize these differences because they are beating a path to White countries as quickly as possible. If all groups are “equal” then different groups should have “equal” outcomes. They don’t, do they? Why not? Cuz YT be holdin’ dem down? Nigga, please!

  112. @Anonymous

    No, Marilyn vos Savant is not a genius because she scored super higher in IQ tests, sorry for that!

    IQ is not intelligence,

    IQ is a mean to MEASURE intelligence, period,

    IQ measure the size of intelligence, partly, specially their cognitive aspects, but don’t MEASURE their quality,

    to have a bigger intelligence is not always the same to have a better intelligence.

    IQ by now don’t MEASURE rationality/wisdom and creativity skills/potential,

    IQ don’t measure psychopatic traits.

    Use only IQ tests as parameter of intelligence and to select people to occupy decisive positions has been proved a wrong thing to do.

    Unfortunately or not most of IQ-criticizers are very liberal in their ideology, or better, on the left. So most of their criticisms as Freed did here in this post end up serving to fuel their ideological beliefs but they are not completely wrong to criticize IQ tests and many of their criticisms, namely without try to descredit racial/ethnic/group differences, are far to be incongruent.

    For example, ”IQ tests measure what IQ tests measure”, well, this assumption is far to be wrong, seems self-evident, ;)

  113. @Sean

    by poor desperate immigrant slum dwelling Jews, every time.

    You’re right about it*

  114. Fred, as a regular on H-bd for perhaps 20 years, you should be aware that it is better described as mostly dormant rather than defunct. Also, if you had been paying attention you would have noticed that there was plenty of scepticism about the usefulness of the Lynn and Vanhenen figures (e.g. Anorigines and Khoi San average IQs of 60 ish). Philippe Rushton may not have been a sceptic but plenty were well before Ron did his demolition job in TAC.

    When I say “demolition job” I am not conceding at all that IQ measurements do not have predictive value or that whatever is measured by the tests is not substantially hereditary or that different extended families (races or clans or castes or whatever) do not have different average IQs. I also predict that a random couple of immigrant Rwandans are far more likely to produce offspring who become NBL stats than a random couple of Inuit.

    Of course sceptics of left and right should feel free to hand over their future tax affairs to their tax accountants/lawyers’ latest hire whose IQ has several times been measured at about 105. I’ll look for 125 and a good deal more when it comes to the crunches. Of course I would want to make a few other checks too: laziness, ADHD, drugs….

  115. For example, American blacks, the Irish, and Mexicans had IQs accepted by the list as being 85, 86, and 87 respectively—almost identical.

    This is nonsense, thought nonsense beloved of the open borders and anti-IQ factions. There was never a shred of credible evidence that the Irish (who are genetically indistinguishable from the other inhabitants of the British Isles) had an IQ of 86.

  116. EH says:

    IQ is an imperfect measure of general intelligence. General intelligence is the most common limiting factor in human performance at all jobs. More measured intelligence predicts job performance better than education, experience, resume, references, interest, age or combinations of these. Not using intelligence measures because they are racially unequal costs untold sums – all the student loans times a hefty factor, degrees are just a poor substitute for more direct measures of intelligence.

    General intelligence is, mathematically speaking, a measure of the difficulty of the problems you can solve. Country IQs are literally from one guy guesstimating based on tests that mostly weren’t designed to be IQ tests or from studies based on small or unrepresentative samples. That those country scores are unreliable says nothing about the state of the art in psychometrics. There are other factors at work as well, countries aren’t homogenous, in particular Latin American regions either have an upper class that is noticeably European or they’re generally doing badly. The fraction smart enough to be doctors, lawyers and engineers is the real limiting factor, and an upper class may provide these in a country whose lower classes wouldn’t provide a sufficient number to allow modern civilization, a situation we see in all the poorest countries. On the other hand, the upper class may not be big enough or have a high enough average intelligence for a sufficient number of professionals, so to that extent their country would still be at a low level, as with India.

    You won’t notice a difference in intelligence with another person in situations where both have enough intelligence to handle the situation. Only in situations where the difficulty is greater than the intelligence of one person but not the other will a difference in intelligence become apparent. Most daily social interactions aren’t mentally taxing enough to reveal differences in intelligence except for the very lowest levels. Even then, projection, almost anthropomorphization, makes smarter people think dumber people have an interior life that isn’t really there.

  117. Meanwhile Jewish scores and academic achievement in America, astonishingly high a couple of generations back, have fallen precipitately.

    “Jewish scores” are notoriously difficult to measure, dependent as they are on the question ‘What’s a Jew?” But even allowing for that it seem false that Jewish IQ scores have fallen precipitately. It may seem that way to people under the mistaken impression that Jewish-American IQ was formerly in the 130 range, but there was never any good reason to believe that.

    Achievement is a whole different matter, but its connection to IQ is murky. Whites have certainly achieved much more in the fields of intellectual endeavor, historically, than have Asians, though IQ current data indicates it should be the other way around.

  118. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    So your prediction is Jews will easily out-compete equally nepotistic Asian groups who have already started to out-compete them?

    Seems like a foolish prediction.

    #

    NW Euros evolved a system of voluntary large-scale cooperation that required relatively low levels of nepotism to work. This system works exceptionally well at producing surplus but is weak against internal competitors who are more nepotistic.

    Everyone knows that left alone in their own countries NW Euros would create the best places to live.

  119. EH says:
    @FKA Max

    All interesting. It should be noted though, that the higher the intelligence the lower the brain metabolism increase for any particular task. Intelligence is not muscular effort, but finesse.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  120. Many older men get weak in the head, just as Fred Reed demonstrates. He is saying to not believe your lying eyes when you look at white areas compared to Mexican or black areas. Pathetic!

  121. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    “I wouldn’t replace one of my kids for a high IQ Indian kid, so why would I let them into my country.”

    I used to make this argument but I have stopped doing so. I know a lot of east Asians and like them. Given the chance I would gladly swap them for some welfare-sponging, drug-taking, alcohol-binging, foul-mouthed Brits, despite the fact that I am genetically closer to the latter. Wanting to be with people like yourself is natural but there are many ways to be like someone: political beliefs, musical tastes, religion, values, shared history, manners plus lots more ways. While I’d accept close family members regardless of how rubbish they were, I don’t feel the same about feckless louts with whom I might share a common ancestor several centuries ago. Then ethnic solidarity gets swamped by other concerns.

    In short, I think there are good reasons why ethnonationalism is a sensible way to structure your country and that while ethnic purity is a myth – Who qualifies for that? – a super-majority of a more or less homogenous group is certainly possible. I just don’t think the scaling up from your own child to society as a whole works as an argument. Not for me anyway.

  122. Alden says:
    @woodNfish

    Another inane, off topic, stupid, snarky, smart ass quibble

    Cerca 12 thousand years ago, the North Sea did not exist and people lived on the land between Britian and what is now the Netherlands. The ice age was ending and the Atlantic flooded those lowlands and created a sea barrier between Britian and the continent.
    But Britian was still connected to the continent by land at the Dover Calais crossing. That crossing was not covered by water until about 9 thousand years ago.

    N. Ireland was connected to Scotland until about 9 thousand years ago when the sea rose at the end of the ice age.

    Today there are numerous large sand bars in the channel and North Sea that are covered with water at high tide and rise above the water at low tide.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  123. @utu

    Knowing how the world works

    explain this in detail please, give an example or two :)

    • Replies: @utu
  124. Well, I expected a little more from this article. Then again I may be too stupid to understand. Good point, though, about the Greeks of 2500 years ago.

  125. Hodag says:
    @Bill Jones

    Many were designed in Europe and North America. Plans travel well.

  126. We can use the example of skyscrapers in Colombia to examine HBD in detail, as opposed to in the large scale as in IQ and GDP relation.

    Put your physiognomy thinking caps on and cut a square out of a paper bag.

    Let’s look at the tallest skyscraper in Cartagena now:

    Parque Central Complex

    In 1969 Enrique Gustavo Delfino Arriens engineer and CEO of the construction Delpre CA submitted the draft to the president of Central Park Centro Simón Bolívar during the period of the then President of the Republic Rafael Caldera

    Central Park Towers … the tallest in South America …
    designed by the Venezuelan architect Daniel Fernández Shaw.

    Let’s now look at pictures of the important people mentioned:

    Picture of the CEO of company that built it: Enrique Gustavo Delfino Arriens.

    Picture of the architect that designed it: Daniel Fernández Shaw. From the Spanish wikipedia biography: nace el 29 de septiembre de 1933 en Madrid, España.

    Picture of president of Colombia when it was built: Rafael Caldera.

    As an aside, there was a fire in 2004: “firefighting efforts were hampered by non-working automatic sprinkler and standpipe systems“. Oh, and another fire occured in 2013.

    Now we can look at the next tallest building:

    Tower of David
    … nicknamed “Torre de David” after David Brillembourg, the tower’s main investor

    Picture of David Brillembourg. The name Brillembourg comes from a Mayan god perhaps?

    See, they have cities with skyscrapers just like any first world city, only they catch fire more often because it’s hotter in the Tropics.

    More about the Tower of David:

    … the government took control of the building and it has not been completed since. The building lacks elevators, installed electricity, running water, balcony railing, windows and even walls in many places. … In 2001, the Venezuelan government made the attempt to auction off the complex, though no one made an offer.
    … Construction of homes halted in Venezuela due to the fears of expropriations that occurred under the Bolivarian government
    … The housing shortage led to occupation of the complex by squatters led by ex-convicts in October 2007.
    … They could use motorcycles to travel up and down the first 10 floors, but had to use the stairs for the remaining levels.

    Third-world gonna third-world.

    Some pictures of the resident squatters and their decor can be seen here:

    Squatters in Venezuela’s 45-Story ‘Tower of David’

    Compare the physiognomy of the residents of the skyscraper to that of its creators and architects.

  127. bomag says:
    @The Unrecorded Man

    I chose ‘economic freedom’ at random. I could have chosen anything in your list. My question is, what suggests that IQ is upstream rather than downstream of all the good things you listed?

    What fits with observation? Somalia has lots of ‘economic freedom’, but not much to show for it. Europe and Singapore are not exactly high on the ‘economic freedom’ chart, but they have quite a bit of civilization.

    IQ is one of our best predictors of accomplishment.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  128. Rich says:
    @Sean

    So you’re a fan of the Ashkenazi subset of Jewish immigrants. Good for you. I don’t see the so-called obvious superiority that you do, but I suppose we all have our own viewpoints. I see Jewish immigrants who lived in an urban environment with small families that used education and ethnic ties to get ahead and did a decent job of it. I’m not begrudging them their success here in the US, I just don’t think they are any smarter than any of the other European immigrants who settled in urban environments and I don’t believe they would have had the success they had if not for the Wasps allowing them into their country clubs. I guess we’ll see how Israel looks in another 50 years or so and if it becomes comparable to a European nation.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  129. Over the last 100 years Eugenics has dated both the left and the right, whenever she got knocked up she consistently gave birth to bloody genocide and horror.

    Her favorite party dress (aside from retro-chic phrenology) is IQ. It is just quantitative-seeming enough to appeal to not-very-smart decision makers, who need a white-coated pseudo-scientific fig leaf to cover their crimes.

    Here in the West we really are obsessed with ‘intelligence’. Why do we have antibiotics and jet engines and Kalihari bushmen don’t? Surely we who are so clever and well-educated can devise an objective measure of this crucial metric. And so we construct a hall of fun-house mirrors, which reflect back that which we desire to see, namely, OUR superiority…..

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  130. jivilov says:

    Great article. Been wondering why the “race realists” haven’t been able to produce much new stuff since The Bell Curve. Or why they can’t come up with sensible explanations regarding the Flynn Effect, rapid changes in group IQ, or the ability of countries with supposedly borderline mentally retarded populations to handle modern infrastructure, finance, etc.

    This pretty much blows out of the water any presumptions of the IQ-is-destiny crowd about how “scientific” they are. Thanks Mr. Reed!

  131. sb says:

    Isn’t the Mayan site shown Palenque and not Uxmal?

  132. Yoyo says:

    A low mean IQ doesn’t preclude significant achievements.

    You could create great music with one genius composer, one fairly bright choirmaster, and a chorus of mongoloids.

    • Replies: @wealthy farmer
    , @Anon
  133. @Yoyo

    Yes, but could that genius composer survive for one week out on the steppes of Mongolia, in winter? DUBIOUS.

    While genius composer is dying of hypothermia, ‘mongoloids’ are warm and cozy in their yurts, drinking hot yak butter tea, happily chatting and gossiping….

    • Replies: @anon
  134. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Yoyo

    A low mean IQ doesn’t preclude significant achievements.

    You could create great music with one genius composer, one fairly bright choirmaster, and a chorus of mongoloids.

    A low IQ doesn’t preclude significant achievements, except for most of the time.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  135. The Swiss today are generally prosperous and about as First World as they come, but historically they were very violent and a significant number of their young men would leave to fight as mercenaries for foreigners. In Utopia, Thomas More alluded to a violent nation who the Utopians hired to do their fighting for them so they would not have to, and it is widely believed he was alluding to the Swiss of his day, who certainly were not yet the “gnomes of Zurich”. The Reformation did not contribute to Swiss harmony either, as Catholic and Protestant areas frequently fought one another. Was their IQ low in 1520 and high in 1920, or something?

    • Replies: @anon
  136. @jivilov

    Freed have just a one very good point the rest is pure trash. Indeed this article is a IQ test itself, O_O

    A test of factual understanding.

    You scored lower, congrats!! ^.^

    No doubt leftbeefs are just quasi-pathological liars who are unable to be intellectually honest and follows facts, real justice and the truth.

  137. @wealthy farmer

    Here in the west we are obsessed with intelligence

    All nations, people and organisms there is a universal obsession with some type of intelligence called survivability.

  138. Che Guava says:
    @FKA Max

    Nearly five percent of Japanese are addicted to gambling – even though it’s still “illegal”

    Addicted to pachinko? You may well be right. The papa at one bar I used to like (now closed) would burn through 70,000 yen once or twice a month.

    Of the examples you cite, gambling on boat, bicycle and horse racing is legal.

    For the boat, cycle, and horse races, the only legal facilities are officially on-site, but the evening tabloids have a lot of coverage, so there must be a thriving and tolerated bookmaking scene. Maybe on-line betting now, too.

    Mahjong, gambling is illegal, but there are small mahjong parlours everywhere, and every player I know gambles, usually for very small stakes, but there must be exceptions to that (large-stakes games at some places).

    Pachinko and our version of slot machines, gambling is illegal, but both have a tolerated subterfuge to exchange wins for cash, in the case of pachinko, some people make a living out of it, there are comics and movies about it, instructional magazines, simulations of the machines to practice on with a game console, it is a small sub-culture.

    Some of the pros really make a very good living from it (anecdotes from playing friends and the very occasional coverage on mass-media convince me that this is not just a lure, a few really do consistently make pretty good money from pachinko).

    Where the govt. is really serious is in not allowing casino-style games. I have never seen a sign that they exist, would guess that Yakuza gangs sometimes hold high-stakes card games, at least, but there is no sign of illegal casinos.

    One of former Governor Ishihara’s many ideas (mainly bad) was a legal casino near or by Tokyo Bay, his former colleagues in the ruling party did not allow it, so our polity seems serious on that.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  139. Che Guava says:
    @anonymous coward

    Humans have only one instinct: the sucking instinct of infants.

    It is ‘suckling’, not ‘sucking’. Human babies are born with several instinctual behaviours. All but that one disappear within 48 or so hours of birth.

    The most striking was grip, a newborn, soon after birth, generally has a grip strong enough to support its own weight.

    There are three or four others.

  140. @Rich

    Are you serious? “I don’t think they would have had the success they have had if not for the Wasps allowing them into their country clubs”. When did the Wasps start letting them into “their” country clubs? And how could that have made any difference to their worldly success (any actual examples or evidence?). Do you even know what an extraordinarily disproportionate number of America’s Nobel Prizes have been won by Jews? How do you explain them winning about ten times as many as their proportion of the total population would indicate?

    • Replies: @Rich
  141. If you accept intelligence exists and is heritable it is much less important whether IQ tests measure it accurately. You are still going to get differences in intelligence between people that pas in families, and you are still going to get the possibility (indeed, the likelihood) that there are group differences between peoples widely separated and adapted to different environments.

    You say that the literature on IQ is messy and not fully explained, which is true. You imply that this means we should fall back on an assumption that everyone has about the same IQ (or at least all groups have about the same IQ) which doesn’t follow. If IQ data is worthless, the likelihood is still that there are important group differences, we just don’t know what they are.

    Rebutting your specific claims is less important, but three things to bear in mind when evaluating IQ test results:

    1. IQ is much more malleable and less heritable in children than adults. Unfortunately, it’s much easíer to get captive groups of pliant and representative children than adults to whom to administer IQ tests. So many of these IQ test studies have used child subjects and they are therefore not very accurate. I think all of this data should be thrown away in fact. When you do that, a lot of the weird enormous jumps and dramatic changes in IQ over the past few decades just disappear.

    2. Mean IQ is just one number; standard deviation also matters, and it is also likely that IQ just isn’t normally distributed at all in some countries. A country in which everyone has an IQ of exactly 85 is going to have big problems doing much of anything, but a country in which 20% of people have an IQ of 120 and 80% of people have an IQ of 74 can easily have working advanced infrastructure (plus a lot of other problems) even though the mean is the same. And that’s what we see in places like India: space and nuclear programmes, but also people sleeping in newspapers. Both Mexico and India and not racially homogeneous; they’re the result of a high IQ invader race partially but not fully replacing a low IQ aboriginal race. So a wide variance in IQ, within people who look racially mixed, is exactly what you expect.

    3. Science is messy. Not every measurement is correct. The Irish data, for instance, doesn’t make sense to me. But it’s well possible that that study was just wrong, or the sample was for random reasons not very representative. When you have a plausible theory, a proven mechanism, and a lot of supporting data, you don’t chuck the whole thing because of one inconsistent measurement. The inconsistent measurement does deserve further investigation though.

    • Agree: res
  142. @jivilov

    Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don’t recall any cogent objections by Fred to race realism or Lynn and Vanhenen’s ingenuous belief in their figures but Ron Unz in TAC set out the most compelling case for doubting that many of L & V’s figures could be given simple genetic explanations. None of that precludes firm belief on much evidence (a) that the persistent one sd IQ difference between American whites and African-Americans over 100 years is substantially genetic; (b) that Ashkenazi and some true out-of-Iberia Sephardi Jews have substantially higher heritable verbal and mathematical abilities than the average European which IQ tests reflect; (c) that IQ scores reflect on average real differences in cognitive potential such that schools rightly stream pupils so that those with IQ scores above say 120 will be given a chance of learning the material which is a precondition of professional occupations and those with IQs under say 105 will be steered towards something “practical”. I have an inlaw who owned her own primary school for many years and she could easily estimate with accuracy from a child’s schoolwork what its score on IQ tests would be AND get pretty close in predicting which of them years later would get into top universities. There is of course a certain asymmetry. Someone with a measured IQ of 150 can readily see that someone with an IQ of 125 is smarter than someone with an IQ of 115 but someone with an IQ of 120 may detect no difference between 135 and 145. Not that the one with the 145 IQ is necessarily going to be the better CEO but he’s more likely on average to solve your tax problem or become a court of appeal judge.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  143. @bomag

    Yes to your last statement because even if the Flynn effect is going to take over in such a way that the poor nation’s average IQ eventually equates to that of the developed world it won’t happen overnight.

  144. @Gene Su

    If your theory was true then surely we’d see some sign of intellectual achievement in history before the arrival of the malign influence of ‘Saved By the Bell’, no?

    Do we find this?

  145. Edit that was eaten by the time limit:

    Another thing to bear in mind when trying to assess the IQ of countries by personal experience is that you live in a self-selected bubble. I for instance work in scientific computing and spend most of my time around people with 120+ IQs. They come from all over the world. I could easily conclude that everyone in the world has a 120+ IQ – that that is just normal for humans – but that isn’t the case, I just work in an environment in which people with lower than 120 IQs can’t be hired.
    When you go to Mexico you probably stay in hotels that offer what an American considers good service; you probably go to the good restaurants and are willing and able to pay for them; you probably select your circle of Mexican friends and family for people who are intelligent, interesting, possibly also English speaking, all of which will give you an unrepresentative sample of the Mexican population.

    And if you go to a shop, it might seem that the shop guy is intelligent enough to run a shop everywhere. Well, obviously. The question isn’t whether the shop guy is intelligent enough to run a shop, but how high up a country’s IQ scale you need to be to be a shop guy. 20th percentile or 80th percentile? Without seeing how many people applied to run the shop and didn’t get the job, or indeed how many people there are who just aren’t capable of any real employment at all, you simply don’t know, and you won’t see these people. (that said, after visiting a diverse part of the US from a Northern European state, the US did strike me as a low IQ country and the capability and services expected from low level employees was much less than I’m used to)

    Intuition is good for some things, but measuring the IQ of people whom you encounter is going to tell you much more about *your* IQ than that of the places you are visiting. The IQ test measurements are much more reliable for that purpose.

  146. Interesting how Freed is calmly ”racist” against blacks and how he believe ”latinos” and ”blacks” are very different peoples while in the truth they are not so different, specially south americans, and colombians, who tend to have significative subsaharian admixture. Freed seems believe that most of ”latinos” are just like mexicans, who tend to have less subsaharian blood in their veins and significative amerindian ones.

  147. @Wizard of Oz

    some true out-of-Iberia Sephardi Jews have substantially higher heritable verbal and mathematical abilities

    I think all jewish groups have this pattern, explicitly observable by IQ tests OR NOT.

    Or smarter jewish individuals of all groups have the same pattern than a avg ashkenaziS.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  148. woodNfish says:
    @Alden

    “12 thousand years ago”

    ‘Nuff said.

  149. utu says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    I looked up synonyms antonyms for intelligent in Webster:

    Synonyms alert, brainy, bright, brilliant, clever, exceptional, fast, hyperintelligent, keen, nimble, quick, quick-witted, sharp, sharp-witted, smart, supersmart, ultrasmart

    Related Words
    apt, ingenious, resourceful; acute, astute, discerning, heady, insightful, knowing, perceptive, percipient, perspicacious, sagacious, sapient, savvy, wise; cerebral, erudite, genial, highbrow, knowledgeable, learned, literate, scholarly, well-read; educated, informed, schooled, skilled, trained; creative, inventive, judicious, prudent, sage, sane, sapient, sensible, sound, wise; crafty, cunning, foxy, shrewd, wily; logical, rational, reasonable

    Near Antonyms feebleminded, simpleminded; boobish, foolish, half-baked, idiotic (also idiotical), imbecile (or imbecilic), moronic, silly; ignorant, illiterate, lowbrow, nonintellectual, unacademic, uneducated, uninformed, unintellectual, untaught, unthinking; absurd, asinine, balmy, cockeyed, crackpot, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, dippy, dotty, featherheaded, fool, half-baked, harebrained, insane, kooky (also kookie), loony (also looney), lunatic, mad, nonsensical, nutty, preposterous, sappy, screwball, tomfool, unwise, wacky (also whacky), zany

    Antonyms airheaded, birdbrained, boneheaded, brain-dead, brainless, bubbleheaded, chuckleheaded, dense, dim, dim-witted, doltish, dopey (also dopy), dorky [slang], dull, dumb, dunderheaded, empty-headed, fatuous, gormless [chiefly British], half-witted, knuckleheaded, lamebrain (or lamebrained), lunkheaded, mindless, obtuse, opaque, pinheaded, senseless, simple, slow, slow-witted, soft, softheaded, stupid, thick, thickheaded, thick-witted, unbrilliant, unintelligent, unsmart, vacuous, weak-minded, witless

    The IQists are reductionists. They do not need these words. Only one suffices, the IQ and the number attached to it. Life seems be simpler in the IQists world, right? They do not need personality traits to take into account either. So let get rid of these words from dictionary:

    Adventurous Affable Conscientious Cultured Dependable Discreet Fair Fearless Observant Impartial Independent Optimistic Intelligent Keen Gregarious Persistent Capable Charming Precise Confident Dutiful Encouraging Reliable Exuberant Helpful Humble Suave Imaginative Meticulous Obedient Trusting Valiant

    Laziness Picky Sullen Pompous Dishonesty Finicky Sarcastic Arrogant Cowardly Sneaky Rude Quarrelsome Impulsive Slovenly Self-centered Boorish Surly Unfriendly Unruly Thoughless Stingy Bossy Vulgar Malicious Conceited Obnoxious

    Simpletons like simple ideas. Ideas have consequences. Sometimes the phenomenon of the self-fulfilled prophesy kick in. IQists would like to construct IQ-topia where everybody is assigned the IQ number early in life and perhaps has the number tattooed on one’s forehead. The life in IQ-topia is the life of just one number. Literature would be so much simpler. In the IQ-topia Tolstoy’s War and Piece would be no more than 100 page long.

  150. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I think they started letting them into both their country clubs and universities in the early 20th century. I know both Obama and Bob Dylan have won Nobel Prizes, too, so I don’t think that’s actually a good barometer of achievement. I wouldn’t even know how to check the religion or ethnicity of American Nobel winners anyway, but if you want to, go ahead and let everyone know.

    Again, I’m not begrudging, nor discounting, the achievements of Jews and other minorities who’ve come to the US, I’m merely stating that it was the genius of the Wasps who built this nation and set up its infrastructure that allowed immigrant Jews, Poles, Italians, Hungarians, Greeks, etc, etc. to succeed. It was in the US that your favorite ethnic group succeeded so disproportionately, shouldn’t that be appreciated? Why do so many people seem to get upset if other people don’t accept the principle of Ashkenazi superiority? Israel is a nation with a majority Jewish population, if they are a tenth as successful as the Wasps have been with the nations they’ve founded, I will certainly tip my hat to them.

  151. FKA Max says:
    @Che Guava

    Thank you very much for your insider’s perspective!

    I actually partially agree with Mr. Reed’s criticism of the “race realist” community. They have an extreme blind spot or an extreme fetish when it comes to Northeast Asians’ and Ashkenazi Jews’ high IQ/SAT test scores and rarely seem to take into account other genetic factors like the MAOA gene and its different allele expressions among the different races; which is more, or at least as equally as important to do, IMO: http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1725649

    They are also obsessed with Black/common crime and seem to mostly ignore high white-collar crime rates among Ashkenazi Jews, Asians, etc.:

    It is impossible to suppose that East Asians commit less crime than Whites given the extent of bribery and “kick-backs” in Asian society, which is a way of life. Tax evasion and the use of a cash economy is also a matter of fact. None of this is considered by Rushton.[...]
    I am always flabbergasted by the assertion of many prominent ”race realists” that Asians/Northeast Asians have the lowest crime rates, low (violent) common crime rates that is, but they completely ignore, or are oblivious to Asian/Northeast Asian (non-violent) white-collar crime. [...]
    White-collar crime has been defined recently as the use of a significant position of power for illegal gain that results in damage or harm to victims as measured by financial loss, physical harm, and damage to the community’s moral climate. Most experts agree that the economic impact of white-collar crime is far more costly than ordinary crime.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/sat-scandal/#comment-1544526

    On the Asian rise: I live in California. It is impossible to understand what people like me mean by “Asian test prep” unless you live in one of the areas where it exists. So unless you see “SAT academies” on every street corner, sometimes 3 to a building, and realize that each of those business is selling a minimum of 50-70 hours of test prep per kid, it might be difficult to understand. Kaplan has largely disappeared in my neck of the woods. Whites in my area are doing far, far less test prep. I don’t know why specifically, but I suspect that many of them have realized that grades determine so much of UC admissions that there’s no point in paying for a higher test score. A 2400 SAT scorer with a 3.8 GPA has zero chance at Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD.

    You’ve mentioned that the SAT has no ability to predict IQs over 130. This is consistent with my observations (anecdotal though they are) and it also suggests, I think, that it would be possible for the Asians to achieve overrepresentation through test prep. This does not have to mean that Asians would be schlubs without test prep, of course.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/he-who-controls-test-prep-controls-the-future/#comment-1512545

    Some more reading here, that might be of interest to you: http://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692309

    Lynn is skeptical about environmental explanations of this
    difference. He says “Environmental explanations for the high Jewish [verbal] IQ are difficult to
    find. Even if it is supposed that Jews provide their children with a good environment for fostering the intelligence of their children, there is a problem for providing an explanation for why they do this”. [18] There are no shortages of environmental explanations of the high Jewish IQ, including Jewish urbanization and professional aggressiveness, a culture valuing learning and language (especially learning other languages which improves language cognitive abilities), and a culture fostering success. [19] Lynn’s statement is absurd because it is obvious why Jewish parents provide a good environment for fostering their children’s intelligence – and that is for success. [20]

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @res
  152. @utu

    ahh, I think I got where you are coming from. you basically disagree with the entire idea of measured IQ. or anything related.

  153. annamaria says:
    @utu

    Thank you. I am reposting your link:

  154. Art says:

    Photo: Cartagena, Colombia. Do you really believe that this city was designed and built by people with a mean IQ of 84?

    To say that a mean IQ of 84 built Cartagena is preposterous – genius built Cartagena – mostly European genius. The very highest of human culture built that city – not average IQ. Individual genius brings down to the masses the actual knowledge needed to be smart.

    Culture feeds progress – culture is the reason behind these swings of IQ. It is culture that finds the genius among the masses, which makes for overall achievement.

    When a culture can reach the stability to allow the middle class intellectual cream to rise and consume the genius of others – is when the whole culture can be elevated. Well-fed, non-traumatized, well-educated children build greater IQ.

    If we want a better world we must acknowledge intellectual culture as the driving force of advancement – not group IQ.

    Peace — Art

  155. @CanSpeccy

    Perhaps, but I think home field will be an advantage. Me & mine have nowhere else to go. The invaders know where they can retreat to.

  156. @utu

    As always I agree with most part of your comment but I know your ideology affect your full factual understanding of this piece as I said in other comment about leftists and Freed. IQ measure intelligence, partly, part of their cognitive aspect, nothing more by now. If psychometricians start to embody the extreme relevance of rationality/wisdom and creativity”quantitative levels” so i think IQ will become much more accurate and that number will express more near the real size of our intellects.

    Psychometricians on the right, specially, are essentially concerned with “achievements” in school, faculty or university and in material terms, they pay little attention to the everyday “little’ achievements people usually do or not, mostly of them are social, emotional and rational.

    They believe this work-life cycle express intelligence, only this. In other words they are basically applying their own masculine and ant-worker mentality trying over-generalize intelligence, concepts and their expressions to their own side. Just like if engineers try to impose that engineering is the genuine or central manifestation of human intelligence.

    Unfortunately seems so many “intelligence experts” don’t appear to be intelligent enough to understand what they are studying, dedicating their lifes.

    • Replies: @utu
  157. @Rich

    I’m merely stating that it was the genius of the Wasps who built this nation and set up its infrastructure that allowed immigrant Jews, Poles, Italians, Hungarians, Greeks, etc, etc. to succeed.

    Yes, you’ve stated this very clearly and you are correct. The recalcitrance that others have displayed in acknowledging this point and its implications, is a genuine curiosity.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  158. Sean says:

    There is a lot of truth is the observation that Mexicans in Mexico can do thing fairly well, but where Fred falls down is in thinking Mexicans could do even better in the US.Because he is an Anglo cultural supremacist who thinks any immigrants must have great outcomes when given access to the unalloyed boon of GROWING UP IN THE USA, Fred assumes Mexicans are being held back by Mexican ways that depress their inhabitants potential for achievement. I have good news Mexican culture is GOOD for Mexicans.

    http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21645996-one-american-six-now-hispanic-up-small-minority-two-generations-ago

    PREVIOUS immigrant groups typically saw progress with each passing generation, but Hispanic numbers have a habit of stalling or even heading backwards. American-born children of Hispanic immigrants tend to be less healthy than their parents, have higher divorce rates and go to jail more often. Jump from migrants’ children to their grandchildren, and studies have shown academic results slipping in the third generation. Conservatives fret about “downward assimilation” [...]Steve Murdock of Rice University, a former boss of the US Census bureau, recently published a paper warning Texans that Hispanics are not getting enough advanced degrees and qualifications to replace highly educated whites retiring from their state’s workforce. By 2050, his study predicts, Hispanic workers will outnumber white ones in Texas by almost three to one, but without a change in education policy the state will be poorer and less competitive.

    The best place for Mexican is in their own country, which funnily enough knows how to get the best out of them.

  159. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @jivilov

    Been wondering why the “race realists” haven’t been able to produce much new stuff since The Bell Curve.

    It’s been replicated many times. The media/academia won’t report it.

  160. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @wealthy farmer

    The genius composer would be the chief or the witch doctor – sitting in the yurt with the rest.

    In a simple society you only need a few leaders to handle the complicated stuff – hence a bell curve where the bulk of the population are around the average level needed for that society and 6-16% are much higher and capable of dealing with the rest.

    populations with average 85 IQ have a significant minority who are 100+

  161. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Uebersetzer

    The Swiss fought a lot because they were so diverse.

    After they developed the canton system they didn’t fight so much.

  162. joe webb says:

    among the multitudes of errors, the mexico lover here, neglects to remark that every IQ bell curve contains a left and right tail. The tale is that a right tail includes a fair number of folks who are smart enough to build things and also smart enough to repress their dummies thoroughly.

    If they do not, their world dies. So, the various architectural monuments in the Third World (and nothing else worth writing home about) indicate a few fellows with brains of the engineering type, not usually associated with Free Speech, etc.) are there because , again, every bell curve has a right tail with a few smarties.

    Fred on Everything is Nothing. I recall the old communist jewish gal in S. Africa, Nadine Gordimer , who championed Black insurrection, etc. A couple years ago she experienced the fruits of her labor by a home invasion by her Liberated Ones. She said she was not raped, and that may be true since she, if ever she had any attractiveness, was long gone.

    Fred needs to get a similar experience, but he, like Nadine, will never admit to Reality.

    Joe Webb

  163. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    The IQists are reductionists. They do not need these words. Only one suffices, the IQ and the number attached to it.

    I’d say the reason they often come across as reductionist is because the pushback from the dominant culture is so extreme (because the dominant culture is built on a lie).

    There’s a lot to quibble over in the IQ data because the dominant culture doesn’t want it figured out but the Boasian blank slate is clearly total NONSENSE – invented out of whole cloth to change US immigration policy.

    If dog breeds can be more intelligent then human breeds can be more intelligent and if you create more (or less) intelligent dogs by breeding then you create more (or less) intelligent humans the same way.

    Anywhere there’s a dog, horse or cattle breeder adjacent to a university there’s an invisible wall of nonsense in between.

  164. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    Add a “C” to WASP for the Scots and Scots-Irish and you’re more or less covered.

  165. @Intelligent Dasein

    Yes to those who built a rich economically diverse country with freedoms and legal structure that provided opportunity for many non Wasps from the late 19th century to build on that for themsekves, the country and the modern world. But so what? If that’s all he’s saying what has that got to do with IQ or what IQ tests measure or group differences in average IQ?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  166. @Anon

    Are you disagreeing with Yoyo or have you perhas missed his/her point? (“mean IQ”)

    • Replies: @Anon
  167. @Wizard of Oz

    He’s setting up a double reductio with regard to Ashkenazis and their supposedly high IQs. He’s saying, on the one hand, that if Askenazis really do possess high average IQs, then that which IQ tests measure must not be really all that significant, since Western Civilization is really what we’re interested in here, and WASPs invented Western Civilization while Ashkenazis merely benefitted therefrom; and, on the other hand, that if IQ tests really do measure intelligence, and if high IQs are all it takes to produce something like Western Civilization, then the Askenazis reputed high scores must be either a fraudulent data set or a fluke, since they did not produce it and the WASPs did.

    • Agree: utu
  168. @Rich

    I’m not a psychometrician or psychologist but I suggest, with respect, that you are about 30 years of intermittent reading and discussing on and around the subject away from relevance to the issues Fred has been going on about or what can actually be said with some cettainty about differences in average cognitive abilities between groups. It doesn’t help that you don’t seem even to know that the Nobel Peace Prize is a completely different animal than those for sciences or the new one for economics which happens to have lots of Jewish winners too.

    Nor do you seem to know much about Israel which no longer has a majority of Ashkenazi Jews and/but has in fact a notably successful economy based on high tech. Of course its huge defence and immigrant integration costs have meant that its average standard of living is not notably luxurious.

    Your saying that the still current president of the US getting a Nobel Prize (for Peace from the Norwegians not science from the Swedes I note) shows it is not a measure of achievement is confused. You seem to be confusing here what you obviously consider to be a poor record as president with the absurd idea that anyone could be president and not have well above average cognitive ability (and measured IQ).

    And your remark that you wouldn’t know how to discover the religion or ethnicity of American Nobel Prize winners suggests you should get your grandchildren to bring you up to the 21st century in use of Google and smartphones. Please get up to speed before waffling commonplace prejudices about subjects on which there is a lot of research and reliable literature (and unreliable like Stephen Jay Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man”).

    • Replies: @Rich
  169. @Santoculto

    No, not true I think of the mass of Mizrahi Jews and certainly not the Falasha from Ethiopia.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  170. FKA Max says:
    @EH

    It should be noted though, that the higher the intelligence the lower the brain metabolism increase for any particular task. Intelligence is not muscular effort, but finesse.

    I am not sure I quite agree with this, but you could be right. If one owns a high performance/horsepower race car, and even if one was to drive it gently and smartly it will still have a relatively bad base gas mileage compared to an average non-racing car. Just as an analogy.

    I believe high intelligence is a built-in/genetic feature, that brings certain challenges with it (higher brain energy/fuel consumption being one of them).

    Also, if you were correct, don’t high(er)-IQ people tend to devote much more of their time and energy toward solving and thinking about the “big and hard” (often stressful; having a non-“ignorance is blissful” attitude) and mentally-challenging problems and tasks facing the world and humanity; and are therefore mentally much more active and are burning many more “mental calories” than the average person?

    So, in most cases, short periods of additional mental effort require a little more brainpower than usual, but not much more. Most laboratory experiments, however, have not subjected volunteers to several hours’ worth of challenging mental acrobatics. [...]
    Some studies have found that when people are not very good at a particular task, they exert more mental effort and use more glucose and that, likewise, the more skilled you are, the more efficient your brain is and the less glucose you need. Complicating matters, at least one study suggests the opposite—that more skillful brains recruit more energy.*

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calories/

    It is worth noting that there is even dissenting opinion about the alleged survival value of high intelligence. Arthur C. Clarke has said: “It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.” Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has also said: “Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together make genius.”

    Swiss researchers Fredric Mer[y] and others at the University of Fribourg found that fast learning fruit fly larvae competing against more slow-witted ones in scarce food conditions did not win! More energy was devoted to making and rearranging neural connections in their brains leaving less energy to forage. Decisive action requires consideration of limited alternatives and smart people often out-smart themselves by complicating matters.

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/why-its-not-surprising-west-africans-dominate-sprinting/#comment-1530687

    My apologies for not having been more precise in my above comment. I should have written, that individually high IQ persons will manage just fine on their own, and probably will live pretty long, productive, and semi- to completely-fulfilling lives, but collectively they are an endangered species, due to their reproductive behavior/inactivity, and therefore worthy of protection, (financial, etc.) nurturing/aid, and other sorts of positive encouragement and reinforcement in general.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/when-viacom-ceo-philippe-dauman-still-had-an-iq-of-260/#comment-1526049

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  171. @Wizard of Oz

    Well we have higher and Lower IQ merchants but they tend to have the same personality types and mental styles. All them in the end are merchants.

  172. @FKA Max

    Maybe creativity require more mental energy while learn something you are naturally skilled (“intelligence”) require less.

  173. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You’re a sarcastic fellow, aren’t you? Why are you so hot and bothered about other people not believing in Ashkenazi superiority? You guys are really hung up on believing you’re smarter than everyone else, aren’t you? Do you really think I don’t know that prizes for Peace and Literature aren’t the same as those awarded for Science? My point is that if members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee can make such an obviously bad choice, the committee that chooses their science award recipients is also suspect. That might be beyond your “genius IQ’ to comprehend, but it’s pretty obvious.
    I would suggest that you are some kind of an Ashkenazi supremacist who tries to make himself feel superior to others because someone somewhere who may share a bit of ethnic and religious history with you was successful, you feel successful.
    Produce for me the IQ tests that show your group as having the highest IQ. Show me how the participants in the test were chosen, how tightly the test was supervised and evidence the test wasn’t tampered with. The most reliable tests we have regarding Jewish intelligence come from the Israeli military which shows the average IQ of Israelis to be in the mid 90 range. Where is the IQ test that you’re using to base your assumption of higher IQs for the Ashkenazi subset of Jews? I’ve searched the web and can’t find any evidence of a test showing this.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @Wizard of Oz
  174. KenH says:

    Fred’s a funny guy because I’m pretty sure a number of years ago Fred wrote an article which was in part an ode to Jews over their high IQ’s and concomitant accomplishments relative to everyone else. I almost got the impression that mestizos were doing the physical labor while Jews were attending to the brain tasks while whites brought up the rear. Yet in this article he decries and laments “IQists” when practiced by non-Jewish whites who are using it as a tool to compare white to non-whites and his beloved mestizos.

    The other thing is that Jews are IQist in Israel but anti-IQist in the Western diaspora since that gives them a competitive advantage over the vast numbers of non-Jews they live among and often loathe.

  175. utu says:

    “Fred’s a funny guy because I’m pretty sure a number of years ago Fred wrote an article which was in part an ode to Jews over their high IQ’s …” – He is all over. Whatever suits him at a given moment. But you see, this the whole point of this BS IQ stuff.

  176. joe webb says:

    about 5 years ago at an anti-immigrant demo in Petaluma CA ( slightly north of SF Bay Area and close to grape growers and some other agriculture and Santa Rosa, a used to be cow-town but now a wonderfully diverse city with many gangs, mexico of course….I had deployed my Uncle Sam act with a sign about borders, and so on.

    A big and tall guy strides up to me with a cowboy hat and says, “I’m a Mexican!” without a smile on his face. I said, “no you’re not, you got blue eyes, are tall and you are a Spaniard. ” He laughed and said, “we are shipping all our shit people up to you.”

    Mexico is approximately 9 per cent Spaniard, who have been keeping their blood relatively pure for a long time, after having miscegenated a while back of course. The Portuguese and the Spaniards came without women and the English did come with their women. The difference is a century or two and Protestantism vs. Catholicism.

    About 60% in Mexico are mestizos, and 30 % are injuns, with an average IQ, per Lynn, of about 83. Put an injun and a Spaniard together and you get an IQ of about 90. Now, I dunno about the Spanish these days. Spain’s IQ is 97 per Lynn, and Portugal’s is 95, as I recall (Portugal was the only European country to bring in African slaves…I have read…true?)

    My only brief sojourn in Spain was going over the border from the Dordoggne (?) in France to see Gaudi’s architecture in Barcelona. It was very hot. I had two nights and 3 days there, and got nicked or attempted nicking , as in petty theft, 5 times. Never anywhere else in Europe. (Gaudi’s art is worth seeing but not worth a special trip…stick to the picture books.)

    So, Europe’s southern blood probably leaves something to be desired, given the Arab and Turk mixtures over the centuries. Thank god the Germans rescued Europe after the fall of Rome, by invading it. The beauty of some Spanish ladies , however, is probably due in part to Arab blood.
    The typical aryan woman has long legs but a face that is somewhat mannish. I prefer brunettes but with legs…you can’t have everything.

    So, Fred on Nothing spreads his verbiage around about how great mexicans are. My local mid-peninsula (south of San Francisco) jail in Redwood City, has just added another jail to handle the mexican diversity. Go into the Hall of Justice, and the courtroom floors are about 90 % peopled with mexicans. I assume that the remaining ten percent are about half white lawyers.

    Race Traitors are real, plentiful, and like many jews, their mouths never shut up.
    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @edNels
    , @Songbird
  177. utu says:
    @jivilov

    “Been wondering why the “race realists” haven’t been able to produce much new stuff since The Bell Curve.”

    Because there is nothing to it. Charles Murray wrote couple article son Jewish superiority and since he has a comfy living on neocon money. More recently he started supporting gay marriage.

    Do you think these people those people like Murrays and Karlins, etc are for real? There are only two kinds among them: smooth operators or useful idiots. Still they can do enough damage to keep the herd of iSteve audience and similar ilk yapping for ever. Divide and rule cleverly applied works every time.

  178. FKA Max says:
    @Rich

    Interesting in this context:

    Albert Einstein, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud Exposed!

    Published on Sep 23, 2013

    The truth about these fake media/academia idols.

    Christopher Jon Bjerknes – Albert Einstein: The Myth, the Plagiarist & the Zionist – Hour 1

    Published on Feb 29, 2016

    Christopher Jon Bjerknes is a writer and researcher who has published numerous books and articles on the history of the theory of relativity, Einstein, Zionism and the Armenian Genocide. “Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist” and “Mileva Einstein-Marity: Einstein’s Partner in Crime” are among Bjerknes’ most controversial works.

    Some critics argue that the prestige of the Prize in Economics derives in part from its association with the Nobel Prizes, an association that has often been a source of controversy. Among them is the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandson of Ludvig Nobel.[28] Nobel criticizes the awarding institution of misusing his family’s name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics.[29] [...]

    Overall, Jews or people of Jewish descent [Note 1] have won a total of 41% of all the Nobel Prizes in economics,

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-undocumented-student-denounces-free-speech-on-immigration-policy/#comment-1639898

  179. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Are you disagreeing with Yoyo or have you perhas missed his/her point? (“mean IQ”)

    I’m pointing out that creating hypothetical exceptions does not undermine a scientifically verified Bell Curve. Apparently, it cannot be pointed out enough.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  180. @Rich

    A glance is all I can bear. I am used to some minimum of logic and precision in arguments and irritated by baseless false assumptions.
    (a) I have no known Jewish ancestors so you are letting your muddled brain make things up.
    (b) the words I use do not include “superiority” but do refer to the mathematical and verbal cognitive abilities which are obviously critical to many of the admired Jewish successes in the post Enlightenment West into which they were emancipated after about 1760;
    (c) your reference to the Israeli military’s testing is just dopey especially combined with your inability to do something as elementary as Googling for “what is the best estimate of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ” which will give you a very informative reading list led off by something from Greg Cochran who sometimes contributes comments on UR and is perhaps the leading expert on the subject as you would know if you read Nicholas Wade’s NYT review of the work he did with Henry Harpending and anor. about 10 years ago. Did you not understand the point about Ashkenazim and Mizrahi Jews?
    (d) your defence of your silly point about a couple of prizes with the name Nobel attached being given to people you think aren’t wonderful get even more bizarre. (Stop digging). You say you are aware of the prizes for Peace and Literature not being the same as those for sciences then immediately disclose your great ignorance, laziness and ignorance that you are ignorant. Your reasoning is that if the Peace Prize committee can make such an obviously bad choice** then “the [sic] committee which chooses their [sic] science award recipients is also suspect”. What is your defence at this stage of the discussion against your ignorance of the fact that the Peace Prize is awarded by a Norwegian organisation and the science prizes by a Swedish organisation – not the same organisation as your word “their” implies? Indeed (fom memory: I don’t need precise accuracy to make the point) physics and chemistry prizes are awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the literature prize by the Swedish Academy and the Medicine and Physiology Prize – another science prize – by the Karolinska Institute.

    So your point comes down to something like saying that a couple of charlatans have been elected to the Royal Society and the (US) National Academy of Sciences over a century and more so we shouldn’t regard election to those bodies as any evidence for the superior intellects of most of their members. And of course George W. Bush got into Yale so there’s no great evidence of intellectual promise in getting into the Ivy League (and don’t think Ron Unz’s demonstration that the Ivies are not as meritocratic as Caltech even touches the sides of your misconceived argument).

    **as to the Peace Prize specifically I would interpret its conferring as closer to propaganda than objective judgment, or perhaps as a way of helping a process keep up momentum. Hardly relevant FWIW to IQ at all either in the committee members or the recipients or to judgments on scientific achievement.

    • Replies: @Rich
  181. @Rod1963

    Poles, Russians and Hungarians are all high IQ. The only Europeans scoring much below 100 are in the Balkans, countries that suffered badly under the Ottomans.

  182. Article just seems to say that intelligence is real but IQ is an imperfect measurement, and doesn’t really allow for African-American vs Venezuelan comparison because A-A IQ develops in an environment dominated by a higher IQ white population, so it reflects a largely environment-equalised genoptypic IQ disparity, whereas Venezuelan IQ will reflect development in a slightly lower IQ environment, ie there’s a sort of double counting. Likewise African IQ in Africa scoring much lower than A-A IQ.

  183. Che Guava says:

    I am very surprised and disappointed that AuthenticJazzMan, Mensa member for blah, blah, blah, hasn’t weighed in on this thread.

    It would be a natural topic, and the response likely very entertaining!

  184. Che Guava says:
    @FKA Max

    You are making many good points, I am glad that you appreciated my accurate comments.

    Of course, there are lotteries, too, and I know that some of the very wealthy make trips to Macao etc. for giant-stakes games, but it is not the same as mainland east Asia, many people wreck their finances over pachinko, but not much else.

    I wanted to reply to other specific points you make in your reply, but this site’s policy (good, I think) of showing the thread in strict time order makes it difficult, will replying to the couple where I have relevant replies tomorrow or Wed. night.

  185. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You still haven’t provided details of any test given that shows your favorite ethnic group’s IQ superiority. I’ve done a little research and can’t find where, when, or who gave this IQ test that supposedly proves the Ashkenazi have the highest IQs. I understand, and I think everyone else who’s reading your responses understands, why you’re clinging to my comparison of different Nobel awards, but it’s not working. All you have to do is provide the details of the IQ exam that you’re basing all your assumptions on. That’s it. If your info proves to be accurate, I’ll give you kudos.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @utu
  186. @Anon

    Agreed, but I don’t think Yoyo was so much pointing to hypothetical exceptions as pointing to different circumstances in which the (perhaps few) people with high IQs could create the trappings of high material civilisation. People often talk of the Bell Curve as if there is only one. But it often makes sense to think of several, even if thete are fuzzy overlaps. Thus one for Brahmins in India perhaps, one for Dalits and many more. Indeed Dravidian Brahmins and Indo-Aryan northerners could well need two – or more. In the US African-Americans, Ashkenazim etc. but more recently class stratification as well amongst those with and without several generations at top universities.

    • Replies: @utu
  187. @Rich

    I’m not going to do your homework for you. I haven’t been personally involved in investigating test results for perhaps 14 or 15 years when I noted that the previously quoted figure of 115 for average Ashkenazi IQ Was said by some to be more like 110-112 and the Flynn Effect beganto be more widely noticed. I had already had an argument with Greg Cochran over the nature of the selective process up to about 1650. Tbc

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Rich
  188. @Wizard of Oz

    Cont.

    His emphasis was on the rabbi’s children marrying the successful businessman’s children operating on the right tail of the Bell Curve whereas I posited that dim Jewish males didn’t have much mating success within the Jewish community and calculated that you could move an average IQ of 100 to 115 in 500 years if you eliminated all under 75 (I think) IQ matings. The Parsees and English uper middle classes till about 1880 were other good examples of selective breeding for something that correlated with high IQ scores so it wasn’t surprising….tbc

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  189. @Wizard of Oz

    Further Cont.

    I have just lost a lot of my recording of calculations I made 10 -15 years or more ago without bothering to go over old stuff and was going to suggest you write to Steve Sailer or La Griffe du Lion (pseudonym used on Steve’s H-BD list and on his website –[email protected] – because each might have just the reading list you need ready to hand. But now I have found

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/ashkenaz.htm

    and that should keep you busy and leave you better informed.

  190. res says:
    @FKA Max

    They are also obsessed with Black/common crime and seem to mostly ignore high white-collar crime rates among Ashkenazi Jews, Asians, etc.:

    It’s amazing how persistent this canard is. I guess that is what happens when something can be used to support the Narrative.

    Crime statistics by race are available at: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43

    I consider Forgery and counterfeiting, Fraud, and Embezzlement to be the white collar crimes in that table. If you look at the data you will see that for those crimes whites are represented at about their proportion of the population, blacks appear at about 2.5x their proportion of the population (more than for all crimes!), and the other groups represent a very small proportion.

    So contrary to your assertion, blacks are also overrepresented per capita as white collar criminals.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  191. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “People often talk of the Bell Curve as if there is only one. But it often makes sense to think of several, even if thete are fuzzy overlaps. Thus one for Brahmins in India perhaps, one for Dalits and many more. ”

    A sum of two normal random variables is not normal. So if the Bell Curve of the sum is Gaussian, the Bell Curves of the components cannot be Gaussian and vice versa.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Wizard of Oz
  192. utu says:
    @Rich

    Basically you are saying that high IQ of A-Jews is a hoax, right? You might be right. Talking about high IQ is preferable instead of talking of ethnic networking, ethnic collusion, ethnic nepotism.

  193. dropingin says:

    Discreet details from “scientific” studies and concocted theories tend to loose sight of the greater truth.

    This whole IQ argument is being used as a manufactured justification for one race or “group” to feel vindicated for exploiting the hell out of and stealing from other human beings. The IQ arguments are all about separation (discrimination) for the sake of institutionalizing the fantasy and lie that various individual’s possess inherent overall “superiority” over others. Societies that are not stuck in the individual’s rights (and the rights of their possessions) reigning supreme recognize that for Human’s to actually keep progressing it is an entire group endeavor and all accomplishments of anyone are only made possible by the integrity and presence of the entire group. The collective consciousness is not a myth. In addition, We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before and none of what we do do would be possible without those antecedents.

    It is too much to expect that “supremacists” of every ilk will acknowledge:

    A species is not about the individuals of which it is made up (or their individual accomplishments or thoughts/ideas),
    AND
    Biology is only an element of what makes Humans Human.

    • Replies: @res
    , @MarkinLA
    , @Wizard of Oz
  194. res says:
    @utu

    A sum of two normal random variables is not normal. So if the Bell Curve of the sum is Gaussian, the Bell Curves of the components cannot be Gaussian and vice versa.

    Right. But we are not talking about an ideal theoretical curve, rather noisy IQ data for what are best viewed as multiple groups.

    As long as the means and SDs are fairly close or the minority groups are fairly small the result should stay close to Gaussian. In the real situation where the means can vary by an SD or more between groups and the minority populations are significant the result is more complicated. There is much talk about the IQ distribution being fat tailed (relative to the Gaussian distribution), but it is unclear to me if:
    1. This is false
    2. If true is it an artifact of multiple smaller groups on either side of the majority averaging near 100.
    3. The IQ distribution for a given group really is fat tailed.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  195. res says:
    @dropingin

    It is too much to expect that “supremacists” of every ilk will acknowledge:

    So if I acknowledge that East Asians have higher average IQs than Whites does that make me an “inferiorcist”?

  196. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Oh, so there is no actual test that shows this huge IQ disparity. It’s just a feeling you have. That’s how I had it figured. I wasted a bit of time looking for evidence of high Ashkenazi IQ test results, and found none. Thanks for confirming my results.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  197. edNels says:
    @joe webb

    I know what your talkin’ about, the only folks that have enough self preservation visa race are the Jews Japs and chinamen. (and who ever I left out, aint’ too important.

    So since most of the americans and europeans are Christians, they already are worshiping a Jew. Probably don’t think of it like that, because Jesus got crucified, but it was in the holy land, and he was a jew, so it is said. Until I see otherwise, he was. He must have been a higher than normal IQ type, maybe even a psychic or shaman.

    So, since the organized religions of Christianity have mainly been totally cooped into Mammon, gots to realize that, and figure another strategy. OK, go find a reasonably acceptable Jewis, not too ethnic looking,there are many, and convert to the Jew religion. THen you are protected, and you can be a jew for christ at home in your basement if that helps, and go to temple and all that stuff.

    I doubt there would be much success to conversion with out the marriage angle, people would be against it, and they have endless road blocks to conversion, as I was told.

    But when you know there is organized miscegenation well advanced even through Scandinavia to break up the blond critical mass center, (Barbara Spector tells it out loud).

    Europe is being taken care of under full view. Russia is well mixed, but has some nordic components that bug some runty little squirts, that’s pretty plain.

    I don’t know where you could find a better spot to go forth and multiply successfully than to be a jew, they’re the only ones who have any protected status today.

    Why are you so down on Mexican indigenous, many of them were the ancestors of the American indians, who were chased away. America was a beautiful place before the
    Spanish came and murdered and enslaved pillaged. Spanish, half Moor blood of course!

    Something for everybody

    • Replies: @joe webb
  198. FKA Max says:
    @res

    There are different categories of white-collar crime. I am pretty certain Blacks commit mostly lower and medium category white-collar crimes, whereas Jews and other high(er)-IQ white-collar criminals commit most of the high category white-collar crimes, which are the crimes, that are the most costly to society, in financial terms. The quality/size of the white-collar crime measured in financial damage caused by the crime is very important to take into account. Just focusing on the quantity of white-collar crimes committed by certain ethnic groups while leaving out their size/quality can be misleading/obfuscating, in my opinion, e.g., the“street con” versus the “Big Store con”:

    In 2014, a rural co-operative in Nanjing, China constructed an entire brick-and-mortar fake bank with uniformed clerks behind counters; the unlicensed bank operated for a little over a year, then defaulted on its obligations, swindling Chinese savers out of 200 million Chinese yuan.[50]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_confidence_tricks#Big_Store

    While Stanton’s statistics are enlightening in themselves, a more detailed picture emerges in David Weisburd’s Yale-published Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts (1991). Here Weisburd informs us that although Jews comprise only around 2% of the United States population, they contribute at least 9% of lower category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes (mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud).

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/05/philip-green-jewish-criminality-and-the-cost-of-economic-parasitism/#_ftnref2

    Spring 2012 White Collar Crime and the United States’ Economy Megan Graham University of New Hampshire – Main Campus

    White collar crime has such a high financial impact on business and society that it becomes far more widespread. When a company shuts down due to a criminal act, there are jobs lost at all levels, as well as investors who lose money, upset consumers, and years’ worth of litigation involved. The sheer impact of scandals such as AIG and Lehman Brothers is a great example. Almost everyone knew someone was affected by these corporate failings. [...] Blue collar crime is expensive, costing roughly $14 billion every year (Veen). This seems like a
    lot of money, and until it is put into perspective with the cost of white collar crime, it seems as
    though the main focus of policing efforts should go towards blue collar crimes. Unfortunately, white collar crime costs roughly 14 times the amount blue collar crime does, or about 200 billion each year (Veen). Most people are unaware of this cost, and just choose to focus on blue collar crime.

    http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=honors

    Introduction: White-Collar and Corporate Crime in Asia

    In the case of Japan, criminological interest traditionally has been focused on the country’s much-heralded low crime rate. Given that the depth of the problem of white-collar crime goes far deeper than adjudicated cases, Japan’s remarkably low rate of common crime is likely eclipsed by the level of white-collar and corporate crime. Numerous cases abound of egregious wrongdoing by banks, corporations, and politicians at the highest levels of government. [...] Johnson (2003) notes some of Japan’s “intractable problems,” including trillions of dollars in unrecoverable bank loans, nuclear accidents and cover-up, and structural corruption. He points out that compared to the U.S., laws directed against the wrongdoing of powerful people and organizations are weaker in Japan. “In the words of Jonathan Swift, this disparity means that Japanese law is like a cobweb, catching small flies but letting wasps and hornets break through” (Johnson 2003:778).

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11417-010-9093-4

    • Replies: @res
  199. America was a beautiful place before the
    Spanish came and murdered and enslaved pillaged. Spanish, half Moor blood of course!

    I agree, huuu

    • Replies: @edNels
    , @joe webb
  200. utu says:
    @Santoculto

    I have to admit that I agree with your comment. Except for the part “I know your ideology affect your full factual understanding.” You do not know my ideology. By now I understand this stuff pretty well. What I try to figure out by reading here the articles and comments what does make all those people who are into the IQistry tick. Where are they coming from and what their psychological needs are being satisfied? Certainly this ain’t the need to know and understand?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Santoculto
  201. @res

    Thanks. I don’t think he was disagreeing with me but you anyway put the situation clearly. I think your answer 2. re fat tails is probably the best one at least for the right tails because left tails might all be similarly affected by congenital and other defects which are not just minor genetically caused deficiencies on a continuum. However 3. could be the answer if you want to define your “given group” so it doesn’t recognise generations of caste or class difference or treats all Israelis (e.g.) as one group. Now we should probably define the Ivy League Assortative Mating League as a separately defined group which doesn’t itself have fat tails…

  202. edNels says:
    @Santoculto

    Good visual, but with 2.5m wherehoused in concrete tombs, maybe it would be good to build morePyramids and less (for profit) incarceration facilities.

    https://www.adobegallery.com/art/original-casein-painting-indian-farmer-

    hyahya

  203. @utu

    Isn’t it enough to be interested -as people have been since anout 1880 – in preventing the degradation of populations by the dim who breed early and often (though not in every country and every age) outbreeding the smart who took to family planning and many years of education for women increasingly, starting with the Protestant upper middle classes who, per Greg Clark, had been outbreeding the rest for several hundred years before that. Consider…three Jews and six Catholics on the highest court of a Protestant country! And Jews then Catholics followed the down trend of smart pekple’s fertility. It’s a worry.

  204. @Rich

    Your reply has the truly pathetic air of the behaviour of the dim child of ambitious parents who wants to say something rather than just give up arguing with the class swat and you can’t even stop yourself spouting your ya-boo stand in for a response before taking notice of two succeasive Tbc replies which would have led you to La Griffe du Lion’s work that I linked. But for your information EVERY professionally designed IQ test, plus SATs and alternatives, shows the big disparity between Adhkenazic IQs and those of almost any defined group you can think of.

    • Replies: @Rich
  205. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Except, I went to your link and apparently everything is based on “estimated IQ.” There is absolutely no information anywhere on the internet that provides information about a separate test of Ashkenazi IQ. All I’m asking you to do is to provide information on the actual test given. Not on estimates, not on guesses. You’ve been unable to do that, so you engage in personal attacks. (I’m curious how any SAT test would show the disparity since neither religion nor ethnicity is given when the SAT is taken, only race.) If the information about an actual IQ test given to people who were Ashkenazi is readily available, why are you refusing to provide it? Oftentimes, people believe something to be common knowledge, but once they investigate they find out it is untrue.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @FKA Max
  206. @Rich

    I’m not refusing anything except to humour a dolt. Your question is infantile.

    There is no such thing as “a separate test of Ashkenazi IQ” as you would know if you knew anything about the subject you purport to discuss.

    Your objection to “estimates” is equally outlandish. An IQ measure is itself an estimate in the sense of approximation or indication of various human attributes or combinations of attributes and/or potential. You seem to be forgetting that you started asking a question, which if it embodied any clear thinking by you, was about the evidence that Ashkenazi Jews (though you wandered off into a rabbit hole inhabited by “Israelis” at one stage) scored on average, or would if any large group of them were tested score, substantially higher than other ethnic groups. Alternatively you seem to be denying a connection between their high IQ scores and significant achievement requiring high cognitive ability. I take it that you have abandoned your ridiculous suggestion that winning disproportionate numbers of Nobel Prizes for physics, chemistry, medicine and economics is no evidence of superior average cognitive ability??? So perhaps now you just want to know why one should suppose a randomly selected large group of Ashkenazi Jews would probably score as much as 0.7 sds above the North European average. And there is the difficulty that, if you are not trolling, you just can’t understand La Griffe’s reasoning. Well, if you aren’t trolling and you genuinely want to understand I REPEAT that you should email Griffe and Steve Sailer who probably have a Psychometrics for Dummies package ready to hand out to people who need their hands held. If you can’t be bothered to do that I assume you are just trolling and I can’t be bothered to do your homework or engage tutors for you.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Rich
  207. @utu

    Yes you’re right I’m little suspicious. What is your ideology? Your nationality? Ethnicity? This way I will become knowledgeable about part of your intentions, or not.

    I think you’re against IQ tests and their results specially to disprove racial differences in intelligence and specially when IQ prove whites are on disproportional avg smarter than blacks. Again, my suspicions can be wrong.

    Most of what I prefer call less polite way “IQdiots” are unaware about their own intentions and flaws. They think they are protected from cognitive dissonance, only on the left and religious on the right who can make ad hoc rationalizations about personal beliefs, after all “they are SCIENTIFIC WHITE ‘MAAALE’”!!!

    Hbd truly believe they are protected from cognitive dissonance. None is totally and naturally safe. To fight against it is at daily basis (proxy to the wisdom).

    • Replies: @res
  208. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    There is no such thing as “a separate test of Ashkenazi IQ” as you would know if you knew anything about the subject you purport to discuss.

    For those of us who don’t know anything about the subject, why not? Can’t you get a randomly selected group of a couple of hundred or thousand Ashkenazim, ditto Sephardim, ditto Mizrahim, controlling for income, in say the Tel Aviv area, and give them all IQ tests? It would be expensive, but why unfeasible?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  209. Rdm says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I want to live in a white country for the same reason I care for and understand my children more than I care for and understand other people’s children. I wouldn’t replace one of my kids for a high IQ Indian kid, so why would I let them into my country.

    It’s the same mentality as those chimpanzees. They enjoy being around to their own kinds. There’s nothing wrong with that. No chimpanzee will enjoy interacting with high IQ homo sapiens. Over a couple of centuries, those high IQ homo sapiens come and take over those low IQ chimpanzee, put them in a cage, showcase in a zoo. This is to show you the mental image of how species evolve.

    If and only if Chimpanzee realize how beneficial to them if they start making a policy, interacting with those high IQ homo sapiens, dwell with them, become a pet to them, they will have no danger in the future. Look at Cats and Dogs. That’s how they evolve. So there’s no harm to them.

  210. Songbird says:
    @joe webb

    I agree. Jury duty is eye-opening. My last experience: all the jurors were white (I’m guessing the non-whites were among the people who didn’t show up.) The people hanging out on the court floors (giant herd) were nearly all brown. Everyone who betokened law and order or civilization was white.

    The accused, an immigrant, had tattoos on all his fingers. He was obviously guilty from his own testimony, but there were too many brainwashed, bleeding-hearts on the jury. They kept making absurd excuses. They wanted a videotape, and so he got off scott-free. All that expense – the prosecutor, the defense lawyer, the judge, the court officers, the cop who testified, the jurors’ time – was wasted.

    And this is alarming to think about – theoretically, the juries are only getting stupider.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  211. Ned2 says:
    @Songbird

    Everyone knows the Irishman’s IQ rises dramatically after the consumption of six to eight pints of Guinness.

    • Replies: @Ivy
  212. FKA Max says:
    @Rich

    I’m curious how any SAT test would show the disparity since neither religion nor ethnicity is given when the SAT is taken, only race.

    There are actually some average SAT scores recorded by religious affiliation of the test takers. Unitarians and Quakers had higher scores than Jews one year, but just barely:

    Arthur Hu has the 1990 average SAT scores by religion and by race. Note that scores averaged about 100 points lower than today before “recentering” in mid-1995. The two letter prefixes refer to race (Wh = white, AS = Asian, Al = All, etc.). In this, white Episcopalians barely outscored black Unitarians, and were 60 points behind Jews.

    Race Religion Number Math + Verbal SAT
    Wh Unitarian 1,745 1073
    Wh Quaker 894 1037
    Wh Judaism 25,600 1030 * Jewish Avg
    Al Quaker 1,009 1029
    [...]
    And here’s a 2002 report on high SAT scoring groups from Gene Expression: Average SAT score by religion for 2002, average ~1000, about 40% of each students take it
    Unitarian-Universalists 1209
    Judaism 1161
    Quakers 1153

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/10/episcopalians-v-jews-on-iq.html

    Money talks when it comes to the SATs, in my opinion. Asians, and I assume Jews and other wealthy groups as well, hire expensive and experienced tutors to help them/their kids prepare for the test. Also Asians, and I assume Jews and other wealthy groups, take the test several times, not just once, and usually do better on their second or third attempt. A poor smart kid, whatever his or her ethnicity/religion, who can’t afford to take the test several times, is at a disadvantage here, and it skews the test results in favor of wealthier religious and ethnic groups; when they might in fact not be smarter, but just can afford to dedicate more time and resources towards achieving higher SAT scores:

    On the Asian rise: I live in California. It is impossible to understand what people like me mean by “Asian test prep” unless you live in one of the areas where it exists. So unless you see “SAT academies” on every street corner, sometimes 3 to a building, and realize that each of those business is selling a minimum of 50-70 hours of test prep per kid, it might be difficult to understand. Kaplan has largely disappeared in my neck of the woods. Whites in my area are doing far, far less test prep.

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1728574

    Also there is cheating…

    Law-enforcement officials in this country say that highly organized rings of college-admission-exams imposters—once considered a unique artifact of the high-stakes, test-driven Chinese education system—have arrived on U.S. shores.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/how-sophisticated-test-scams-from-china-are-making-their-way-into-the-us/474474/

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/sat-scandal/#comment-1544526

    Jews and the Chinese seem to be equally ambitious and competitive, some might even call it cunning. Interestingly, the two groups/races seem to have comparable IQs and seem to be carrying the low-activity 3-repeat MAOA allele at very similar rates:

    Jews (2R 1.3%; 3R 62%) carry low-activity MAOA at much higher rates than Whites (2R 0.2%; 3R 36%): http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2013/01/monoamine-oxidase-bibliography.html Low-activity MAOA is associated with higher levels of aggressiveness and risk-taking

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1726637

    Low MAO-A activity is associated with a significantly increased risk of aggressive and antisocial behavior.[100][102][103][104]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Genetic

    As both authors belong to one of the above groups and coming from an immigrant family, namely Chua being Chinese and Rubenfeld being Jewish, Chua further claims that “Chinese Americans are three generations behind the Jews” as both Jewish Americans and Chinese Americans share lots of similar behaviors like being instructed to learn how to play a musical instrument when they were little and encouraged to become a doctor, teacher or a lawyer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Triple_Package#Methodology

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  213. res says:
    @FKA Max

    A good point about differing values of crime by group. Unfortunately, I don’t see much data covering that.

    Thanks for supplying some links. Of those, only the second really seems to speak to group representation. I looked at the Google preview of Weisburd’s book (pages 71-73) referenced in the article and the data there looks suggestive (I find the basic point convincing), but neither rigorous nor complete.

    Beyond that, I don’t know about Jewish over representation in white collar crime (the FBI stats don’t have that breakdown), but I will observe that if whites are roughly proportionally represented and Jews are over represented that implies non-Jewish whites are under represented (assuming almost all Jews are white). None of this changes the black over representation in the FBI stats though, but your point about low vs. high value crime is worthwhile and I’d like to see an analysis capturing that.

    I also think it is worth emphasizing that Asians are substantially under represented in the FBI white collar crime statistics–about one fourth of their population proportion.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  214. res says:
    @Santoculto

    Hbd truly believe they are protected from cognitive dissonance. None is totally and naturally safe. To fight against it is at daily basis (proxy to the wisdom).

    Indeed (the 2nd and 3rd sentences at least). Hopefully you are self aware enough to realize this applies to you as well. Please be careful when assuming others aren’t that self aware.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  215. Ryan says:

    Two important points:

    1. Every scientific notion is basically just a prediction. In the case of IQ the prediction goes something along these lines. Go to a school, find 100 kids with IQ’s around 100. Find another with IQ’s around 115. The second group of kids will learn more and get better grades. This prediction is as rock solid guaranteed to be true as predictions you find in physics or chemistry.

    2. An IQ test can only measure the general intelligence of the group of people it was normed against. There is no IQ test that is normed to test both Americans and Mexicans, and as such direct scientifically accurate comparisons of average intelligence are impossible. People try to proxy what the results of a proper test through various methods. It’s not reliable the way that actual IQ testing is, as evidenced by the fact that it doesn’t make rock solid verifiable predictions.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  216. FKA Max says: • Website
    @res

    I also think it is worth emphasizing that Asians are substantially under represented in the FBI white collar crime statistics–about one fourth of their population proportion.

    This is true, but I think it can be explained by the fact, that most jobs, especially high-powered ones, in finance and in business in the U.S. are still currently held by Whites and Jews mostly. Once the percentage of Chinese-Americans increases as their share of the population, they will behave differently.

    I think if Asians/Chinese were more strongly represented at the higher levels of the finance and business communities in the U.S., we would probably see more of them commit high value/category white-collar crimes. One needs opportunity to commit these high value white-collar crimes.

    This is why I shared the paper about white-collar crime in Asia and in Japan above, which is a field not very well researched and understood, yet.

    High(er)-IQ Asians are smart enough to know, that it is not worth taking the risk of committing a white-collar crime if the payout is small. Blacks usually don’t think in terms of a risk-reward ratio when they commit crimes, in my experience.

    Also, even if some Blacks had access to the higher levels and positions of power within the financial and business sector in America, they would just not have high enough IQs to pull off big-scale ponzi schemes and cons à la Bernie Madoff, in my opinion.

    One needs opportunity AND ability (a high(er) IQ) to commit and pull off these high value white-collar crimes.

    Blacks’ lower average IQ prevents them from committing high value/high category types of white-collar crimes, in my opinion.

    This was actually my original point, that corrupt and sociopathic/psychopathic high(er)-IQ individuals/races can do a lot more damage than low(er)-IQ ones, in terms of financial damage caused by their crimes, etc., and many so-called “race realists” and IQists completely ignore this dynamic, or even welcome it, which really makes them Social Darwinists, in my opinion.

    There have been anecdotal reports that at least one UK bank was using a psychopathy measure to actively recruit psychopaths.[37]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#Screening

    I think Social Darwinsts are dangerous.

    I personally believe Chinese immigration to the U.S. is a greater threat to America than Mexican immigration for example, precisely because of their high IQs and the high prevalence of the low-activity MAOA allele in their gene pool, which is associated with psychopathy/anti-social behavior: http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1725649

    I still do not want the Hispanic and Black populations in the U.S. to grow, because it is not good for the traditionally Northern European/Protestant culture and innovativeness of the country. This is why I support Planned Parenthood, want immigration to stop, and oppose amnesty, birthright citizenship and the Catholic Church (http://www.population-security.org/, etc..
    But, I think, qualitatively, Chinese immigrants are far more dangerous and can do a lot more damage and harm to the U.S., e.g., industrial and military espionage, takeover of higher education institutions, etc., than African Americans or Hispanics could ever do, because of their higher IQs.

    These are not good and healthy developments, in my opinion:

    Obama Won’t Stay at Waldorf Astoria for U.N. Event; Security Concerns Are Cited

    The hotel’s owner, the Anbang Insurance Group, may not be a household name in China or the United States, but it is highly connected in China. Its chairman is the husband of the granddaughter of Deng Xiaoping, who was China’s leader from 1978 to 1992. Its board of directors includes Chen Xiaolu, a former officer in the People’s Liberation Army who is the son of Marshal Chen Yi, a revolutionary military commander who later served as foreign minister.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/us/politics/white-house-spurns-waldorf-astoria-out-of-security-concerns.html?_r=0

    Buying influence…

    Largest Donors to Harvard No Longer Chinese

    http://www.asianphilanthropyforum.org/donor-harvard-chinese/

    American-Buddhist billionaires, who are most likely ethnically Jewish, are selling out to the Chinese http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1726637 :

    Linda Pritzker (born 1953) is an American lama in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, author, and co-founder of the Namchak Foundation and Namchak Retreat Ranch in Missoula, Montana. She is a member of the Pritzker family, known for the Hyatt Hotel fortune, and is also known by the name Lama Tsomo.[3]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Pritzker

    Like the president, a rising number of international billionaires have begun to worry that backing the Dalai Lama could pose a risk to their personal wealth by potentially limiting access to lucrative markets in China. Years ago, before surging Asian industry became a force impossible to ignore, such fears were remote, if they existed at all, for the American super-rich. But now that the seat of financial power has started shifting eastward, patronage of the Dalai Lama can come at a considerable cost.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/07/harmonic-divergence-wealthy-dropping-the-dalai-lamas-name-literally

    • Replies: @res
  217. @res

    Bear in mind most people simply never question themselves. They most time are congratulating themselves and reinforcing their own beliefs whatever factual or not and the bigger is the intelligence bigger will be these “rationalization” skills.

    People are faster and often brilliant to point out the flaws of other persons, rarely they do it with themselves. So the simple fact I have a solid consciousness about my limitations and mistakes already make me capable to judge fairly other people if I’m always judging myself instead congratulating myself.

    • Replies: @res
  218. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Well, even though you’re probably the biggest fanboy of the Ashkenazi that I’ve ever come across in my life, you’ve finally admitted that there is no actual proof of Ashkenazi IQ superiority. I won’t go into why some Ashkenazi may have won political awards or may be over-represented in certain fields, obviously that would be beyond your ability to understand. I grew up in Queens and Long Island and I’ve never even met a Jew who was as crazy as you about Ashkenazi intelligence, it’s really weird. But at least, after many responses, you’ve admitted the truth. There is no IQ test that shows Ashkenazi score higher than any other Europeans.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  219. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Great blogpost. Exactly (part of) my issues with this HBD/IQ cult.
    I have strong faith that much of this psychometric pseudoscience will be destroyed by a proper biological and neurological of intelligence, and so called g. And even though I expect genetic data to show differences between populations, I expect the maximal differences to be much smaller than those posited by HBD cultists, and expect microgroups (for example Russian-French) to vary as much in IQ as macrogroups (so called races of Caucasoid etc.).

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Wizard of Oz
  220. @Anonymous

    “Russians” are already a reasonably mixed people. Ethnic Slavic Russians maybe will varies less with French people than “Russians”, I mean all people with Russian nationality.

  221. @Anon

    Indeed you are right but you missed the word “separate” which the irritating fool used. While I realise, on the one hand, that his language and logic are so loose that he may not mean what he appears to say I am not willing to go fossicking in the rabbit warren of his mind and verbiage to try and create a sensible question to answer. Life’s too short, or at least my patience is.

    Ashkenazi Jews on average score high on every g related test from Wechsler (successive versions) to Stanford-Binet to Cattell and Raven’s Progressive Matrices plus SAT, Field Medals, Nobel Prizes, memberships of scientific academies, professorships in math and the hard (actually all) sciences, success in legal practice, competitive chess and a thousand other activities where the smart do better than the dim.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Santoculto
  222. MarkinLA says:
    @dropingin

    This whole IQ argument is being used as a manufactured justification for one race or “group” to feel vindicated for exploiting the hell out of and stealing from other human beings.

    To some yes. To others it is for the purpose of getting the government to stop this useless nonsense of trying to put square pegs in round holes.

  223. @Anonymous

    OYou are preaching to the choir in your last remarks or, to change the metaphor, late to jump on to the wagon.

    It is a commonplace, true but barely relevant response of the ultra egalitarians that there is more IQ difference within one large population than there is between popuĺations.

    And I think you are out of date in criticising what I think can fairly be said to be naive belief in the validity of Lynn and Vanhenen’s figures as indicating the more or less permanent genetic differences. Many of us didn’t take that interpretation of the figures seriously and Ron Unz’s demolition job of several years ago should be familiar to you.

    I am an enthusiast (entirely amateur and in no way expert) about what has been emerging from neuroscience over the last 30 years, and where it will take us. But I don’t think it is going to help confirm or dispel your prejudices. Obviously gross disabilities are likely to show up both in brain scans and IQ tests but it is very unlikely that the workings of the brain will ever be observed so precisely that one could say “Aha! No trouble in seeing there who could solve that differential equation in his head correctly and quickly”. Intelligence testing for the forseeable future will require performance tests including ones validated by factor analysis and multivariate correlations with no immediate practical import; e.g. IQ tests.

  224. @utu

    As I have said in my reply to res I don’t think you are disagreeing with me. But???

  225. @dropingin

    Isn’t it largely a reaction to the humbug aspects of affirmative action?

    After all that encompasses the myth (if it is) that African-Americans only need lots of solicitous help for a generation or two to be able to cope withthe cognitive demands of the modern world as well as any other group, the unjustified discrimination against whites that AA can involve, and the cost of ineffective programs to the taxpayer.

    What authors and wtitings do you accuse of justifying your interpretation?

  226. @Rich

    I think you are probably too stupid to lie, but, still, why do you have to expose yourself so nakedly? I have NOT admitted that there is “no actual proof of Ashkenazi IQ superiority”. The reverse is true and indeed I would go further and say that, if the proposition “Average Ashkenazi IQ is between 0.5 and 1.1 SDs above the white American average” were litigated the evidence of expert witnesses and of multiple IQ and near equivalent g-loaded tests would result in the court finding the proposition proved (and not just “on the balance of probabilities” but “beyond reasonable doubt” as in a criminal trial).

    Maybe your problem is that you haven’t given any thought to the concepts of evidence or proof.

    As to you final falsehood that I have “admitted” that “there is no IQ test that shows Ashkenazi score higher than any other Europeans” it is hard to believe that you are so stupid as to believe that others can’t check and see that I have (a) said that EVERY g loaded test shows that, and (b) pointed out that if you are genuinely interested in the literature on the subject which would discuss, inter alia, the numerous actual test results, you would write to Steve Sailer or La Griffe du Lion – or, I might have said, just about any professor of psychology in your country.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Rich
  227. Ivy says:
    @Ned2

    Don’t forget the potato, makes a seven course meal with a six pack.

  228. @FKA Max

    I think you point to evidence that sanguine hopes for testing that couldn’t be prepared for were bound to be disappointed. But I recall that Eysenck wrote in favour of England’s 11 plus tests for entry to grammar schools – possibly as early as the 50s – but made it clear that he thought fairness would be assured by giving the test three times so as to virtually eliminate the coaching effect. (Pity about the smart kids who got bored doing the same sort of stuff three times!). I am a bit sceptical about Raven’s Progressiv Matrices really being a good universal IQ test but would have to agree that only a limited amount of coaching or repetitions of the test would be likely to boost scores.

    In the context of coaching and cramming effects that you have brought up it interests me that the generally quoted figure of 115 for average Ashkenazi IQ of 20 years ago became more like 112 by the time La Griffe wrote the piece I linked above. And the wider recognition of the Flynn Effect is another reason for being sceptical about any claims to precision.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  229. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Jews are incredibly ambitious. I’m sure we both know the incredible, almost insane, pressure within the Jewish community to succeed, and the rather one-dimensional understanding of the word success – i.e any kind of ‘recognition’, whether wealth or status, however gained. The thing is to be ‘recognized’, or amass wealth.

    I’m sure you’re also quite familiar with the immense social pressure brought to bear for the molding of each young Jew into a vehicle for ‘success’ – the mockery, the sarcasm, the withdrawal of affection – even attention – by parents or other significant others, the early training for an attitude of arrogance and authoritarian narcissism, the ceaseless competition and comparisons within families and the community at large.

    It all adds up to a rather pathological brew, the foremost victims of which are of course the ‘elite’ Jews themselves, few of whom derive any satisfaction from life or know how to be happy and find themselves driven by a relentless demon from whom they can find no peace.

    My point is – how much of Jewish accomplishment do you believe is just posturing and aggressive social tactics designed to elicit recognition from people not suffering from a similarly pathological need to be recognized? In other words, people who “care” intensely are better positioned to extract social recognition – perhaps unearned – from people who simply don’t “care” quite as much?

    I am sure you are aware that Jewish “accomplishment” is far, far in excess of anything indicated by their IQ scores. IQ scores simply cannot explain the level of Jewish ‘success’.

    And secondly, although its beyond doubt that average Jewish intelligence is higher than Europeans in at least some fields (primarily verbal, although its quite a bit lower in spatial, which is important to some kinds of mathematics and of course all artistic endeavors. Jewish IQ is higher in math, but not enormously so) is accounted for by this incredible and immense drive to attain success and recognition?

    Of course, what I am asking is a more general question, which I have asked before – how much of IQ is simply ambition?

    Quite a bit, I’d wager. Certainly not all, but certainly far more than is generally let on.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  230. @Ryan

    Your first point is well made but your second point I think only sounds sensible. Do you have any sources you would like to cite?

    My understanding is that the deficiencies in early IQ testing practice (classically the failure to realise that the low scores of many Jews in the early 20th century were a result of poor English literacy) have led to great efforts to create a culture fair test. It seems that Raven’s Progressive Matrices meet at least a major part of that requirement by not requiring literacy. That just practising doing one even three times might risk madness or death by boredom doesn’t seem to have been authoritatively commented on so I take the negative of that on trust. When you find that the test results correlate extremely well with all other g laden tests you conclude that you have a good test for mental speed, short term memory, working memory, pattern recognition and whatever that can be reasonably inferred to be the main requirements for good cognitive performance. There is, on this view, no reason to expect the latest culture free tests not to measure the same qualities in Chinese as in Nigerians

    • Replies: @AaronB
  231. @AaronB

    I’m not in a position to dispute your general thesis though I think there is predictable attenuation of effort and drive over the years. A Chinese (Australian) accountant of my acquaintance (whose daughter had just won a scholarship to one of the most academic private girls schools) told me that he worked with Jewish partners who lamented the apparent loss of ambition in their children – mostly boys I guess!

    I have been known to make a remark which is probably better to leave Jews to make, as they certainly might, namely that they tend to be better as art dealers than artists. Yes, it is not spatial ability that they were selected for though it is interesting to note that the remarkable Benoit Mandelbrot was Jewish. But you are wrong I think in saying their achievement cannot be predicted from or correlated with their IQ. As I posted recently I made a calculation over 10 years ago of what you would expect of Jews in cognitively demanding occupations where you wanted people to have an IQ of 140 or 145 on the assumption of 115 average and sd about 15. It worked very well though I might have left out proper consideration of Jews in academe where Ron Unz’s work would suggest that Jewish networking in the Ivies distorts the figures. Likewise perhaps on Wall Street. As a sidenote I was interested to find in Jim Collins great books “Built to Last” and “Great to Good” that Jews weren’t notably overrepresented amongst successful non-financial CEOs. I see there is now “Great by Choice” from him. I shall get it. It could well more Wall Street oriented judging by the blurb.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  232. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “culture free test” – rather a fantasy, that. What about the culture of ambition.

    The Ravens is often seen as culture free, but is also most prone to the Flynn Effect.

    In a subtle but obvious way, the Ravens is clearly the least culture free, as exposure to modern techno-culture seems to dramatically affect scores.

    There is no such thing as a g laden test, however the concept is beloved by psycometricians – g is derived from the tendency to do well on all IQ subtests. Any single subtest seen in isolation cannot yield g, a statistical abstract of performance on multiple tests. The whole point of g is that it cannot ‘reside’ in any one test, but is derived from multiple tests.

    Moreover, since differences in sub-factor performance can be enormous, g cannot have the significance attributed to it (some people can have more than a standard deviation difference between sub-tests – some g!)

    People are famously confused by g, and reading the entire psycomwtricians literature will do little to clear it up. One suspects we are being had.

    At this late date, one can only conclude that psycometricians are, if not exactly idiots, at least controlled by emotion and caprured by ideolofy to some significant extent.

    The logical ommissions, the simplistic interpretations, the selective use of facts are so many and so obvious by the IQ pushers it’s increasingly difficult to see it as anything other than a cult.

    Anyways, this stuff is just whistling in the wind – believers are gonna believe, and those capable of skepticism will notice inconvenient facts, and never the twain shall meet. So I’ll shut up now.

  233. FKA Max says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    This is the most realistic assessment of Jewish IQ/intelligence I have come across so far in the IQist-sphere:

    Given such a wide range of scores, it’s fascinating to ask what the overall Jewish IQ is. Averaging across all six subtests, Jewish Americans outperformed U.S. whites by 0.12 SD. Converting that into a composite IQ requires knowing the intercorrelations of the subtests, however on a comparable battery of tests (the WISC-R), someone who averages +0.12 SD across all the subtests has a composite score that is +0.13 SD, equating to a full-scale IQ of 102.

    This is substantially lower than the U.S. Jewish mean of 110 commonly cited by Richard Lynn. Of course it depends on the test. If one goes by tests like the SAT, which are all about verbal and math talent, Jews should easily score 110, but on a more comprehensive global sample of intellectual abilities, it seems U.S. Jews are virtually tied with U.S. whites.
    [...]

    Why did Jews struggle to adapt for so long, and then suddenly start thriving economically and culturally? Is this because Jews only recently evolved their high IQs as scholars Cochran and Harpending argued, or did their genes stay the same, while the environment suddenly began to favour their specific cognitive talents (verbal and math)? Spatial IQ might be useful for building a civilization, but once the buildings and technology is built by others, wordsmiths and math types rule the roost.

    https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/26/excellent-data-on-jewish-iq-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers/

    He ended up revising his, in my opinion, very good and realistic estimate up again, because some people criticized him:

    In my last post I cited excellent data showing Jewish Americans have a math IQ of 113, a verbal IQ of 109, a processing speed IQ of 100, a grammar IQ of 100, a memory IQ of 96, and a spatial IQ of 93. I crudely estimated that a composite score of all of these abilities would yield an IQ of 102.

    However I was criticised for giving all of these abilities equal weight, when some are better measures of intelligence than others.
    [...]
    A full-scale IQ of 107 is 7 points above the white means and is probably a good estimate for Jewish IQ. High enough to partly explain their wealth, influence and scholarship, but low enough to explain their somewhat smaller brains and dark Caucasoid ancestry.

    https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/28/follow-up-on-jewish-iq/comment-page-1/

    I in turn criticized him for that. I commented as commenter “Guest 101”:

    You generally do great research, but then there are instances, where you seem irrational, biased, or naive. Your latest article on Jewish intelligence https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/26/excellent-data-on-jewish-iq-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers/ was great, but then you revised your finding of a likely and realistic Jewish Ashkenazi IQ of 102 up to 107 !? Why didn’t you stick to your guns, and kept the reasonable equal weighting on the six subtests !?

    ” … it is inconsistent with the incredible scientific achievements of Jews throughout the 20th century.” I recommend for you to read the following paper: JEWISH INTELLECTUAL SUPREMACISM: A REFUTATION by Andrew Ryan and Peter J. White https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf

    And watch this Youtube video: Albert Einstein, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud Exposed!

    Jewish media/publishing, lobbying, and networking are a huge factor to consider when it comes to ”the incredible scientific [etc.] achievements of Jews throughout the 20th century.” You don’t seem to do that. Why !?

    https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/29/big-brained-black-billionaire/#comment-32754

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  234. @Wizard of Oz

    They excel in the noble art of lies, the smurder also tend to be “good” to do, isn’t?

  235. @Wizard of Oz

    The crucial question would be:

    How important is spatial IQ to compose performance IQ?

    And IQ tests also measure working memory, strategic thinking, is not?

    If ashkenazis score around 110 on verbal and math but 95 in spatial they will have similar avgs on performance with Europeans and east Asians. When people say “ashkenazis score 110… The smartest human ‘race’” they are using “only” verb and arithmetic skills and forgetting spatial IQ.

  236. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Ron Unz has documented the decline in Jewish ambition as measured by the winning of fewer and fewer ‘prestige’ prizes like Fields, etc – Jews are barely represented these days. Its a quite telling confirmation that ambition is the elephant in the room we are all ignoring when we talk about group achievement, but no one seems to have made that connection.

    There are something like 4.5 times as many white gentiles with IQ above 140 than Jews – that doesn’t tally with the actual representation of Jews in elite occupations, institutions, etc.

    Does it really make sense to you that Jews dominate Hollywood? Capable white gentile directors and producers simply can’t be found? It doesn’t, and we both know something else is going on.

    Having grown up in the Jewish community in Brooklyn NY, I have a little feeling I know what that something is. I’m pretty sure you do too.

    There’s been a tremendous and widely acknowledged decline in the intellectual life of the US during the era of Jewish ascendancy. Read almost any book published before WW2, and the difference in quality is palpable. And standards in elite universities have become a joke precisely during the era of Jewish rise.

    I don’t know what’s going in, but it is very strange that Jews are supposed to have risen to the top because of genuine merit, yet this coincides with a massive decline in quality across all intellectual fields.

    Shouldn’t the opposite be the case? Shouldn’t Jewish dominated Harvard have more rigorous academic standards than ever? Shouldn’t books written today be so much better? Shouldn’t the post-war era of Jewish ascendancy have ushered in a period of dazzling cultural efflorescence greater than anything WASPs were ever capable of?

    The country as a whole doesn’t seem to be doing too well on any level since the introduction of the new “meritocracy”.

    We are discovering that tactics – honed over centuries – that allowed outsiders to wrest position and prestige for themselves, often unfairly, from an alien majority, aren’t really that effective for genuine leadership, intellectual or otherwise. It’s as if filling one ecological niche for centuries can make you unfit for other roles when you find yourself. perhaps to your own surprise, occupying them.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  237. antyrod says:
    @Rod1963

    @Rod1963

    ” namely Poles, Russians and Hungarians.”

    Namely Rod you are too stupid to hold IQ of 100. Poland & Hungary has higher avg IQ then USA, while Russia is just 1 point below.

  238. @AaronB

    Good point about the culture of ambition though one would hope it didn’t much affect 7 year olds being asked to do something by an adult they liked. And I too have found the applicabilty of the Flynn effect to Ravens curious.

    Howrver i am not sure that you are right about “g laden” as I have always assumed that a test was more g laden if its results on average correlated more with the overall g than other tests. Of course the differences on different subtests that you mention emphasise that we are dealing woth an abstract measure rathercthan a reliable pointer to a single or uniform underlying neurological reality. All that suggests to me is that the predictions one might be inclined to make – even based on averages over large groups which eliminates some of the possible confounding factors – are inevitably made cruder by the fact that some of the more unusual and highly diverse results on different subtests could vitiate reliance on what a given IQ score (g) would normally suggest.

    Also g is not just a mathematical artefact I understand because the original IQ tests were subjected to validation by judgment of teachers and others used tp assessing “intelligence”. Yes I can see scope for scepticism but it seems fair enough to rely sonewhat on a measure which leads experienced teachers/examiners to say “there are some anomalies and surprises but it is really remarkable how well those IQ scores they arrived with stack up with their exam results, essays and contributions in class”.

    As it happens I had access to hundreds of reports which included IQ test results during my last year at secondary school and it is remarkable how well the scores correlated with exam results and later life success in cognitively demanding occupations. No surprise that one boy whose IQ was recorded as 183 became first a particle physicist at Cambridge and MIT then retired to study law and quickly rise to the top of the IP bar. And so on.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  239. @FKA Max

    Thank you for that. I shall have to hope that someone like Steve Sailer or James Thomson follows this up. I simply note with a little scepticism that you have invoked the Jews-as-boosters-of Jews meme that I only came across about 10 years ago when a friend complained about Jews trying to have Mahler acknowledged as superior to Brückner. I am of course aware that Poincaré anticipated much of the work on relativity for which Einstein is famous but don’t propose to go down that burrow unless and until someone qualified whom I know personally and respect gives me reason.

  240. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Again with the personal attacks. Very childish. I thought you admitted that there is no separate IQ test that shows actual Ashkenazi IQ test scores. If such a test exists, produce it. You can’t, so you ramble on, trying to find something different to argue about.
    There are many reasons, other than IQ, that the ethnic group you appear to worship might be over-represented in certain fields, but you seem unable to comprehend that. It’s okay, sometimes lower IQ people have difficulty with comprehension.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  241. @AaronB

    I think yours is an appropriately intelligent comment to attach a couple of afterthoughts to beyond my initial response.

    There are many reasons beside your diverging subtest results point to be sceptical about the use of IQ beyond acknowledging the use of averages. For example what would one make of someone’s potential who could do amazing feats of calculation in his head in 2 minutes that would take most trained mathematicians an hour? Suppose the same person was dyslexic and had a poor vocabulary?

    But what prompted this addendum was the thought that having an efficient processor and lots of fast RAM isn’t likely to make the interface work with equivalent superior performance. A friend of mine with IQ measured at 180 understandably likes to read very fast but I can’t help noticing that accuracy is not her strong suit at least not on politics and general subjects. (Maybe in her areas of special knowledge and interest her reckless driving is disciplined to stick to the bitumen). And hearing is even more likely to limit input speed if only because clear speech is relaiively slow. Indeed wandering attention could be a problem for efficient aural intake by the smart. Finally a very high IQ may mean that the words to be written or spoken are formulated accurately at somewhat greater speed than can be achieved with a lower IQ but even that likely increase in speed van’t be matched by the articulation of sounds or even the fastest typing.

  242. Ron Unz says: • Website

    Well, I’m totally preoccupied with my software work right now, but I noticed that this extremely long 30,000 word comment-thread included a heavy back-and-forth regarding evidence of high Ashk Jewish IQ. Considering that this is my own webzine and I’ve published tens of thousands of words on the topic myself, some of the commenters here seem remarkably lazy and ignorant for endlessly spouting off without bothering to take a look at my own writings, so I guess I’ll have to provide a few of the relevant links:

    As I pointed out in a short note a few years ago, Richard Lynn published an entire *book* on Jewish intelligence, and among other things, he provided an entire listing of the 32 available IQ studies of American Jews, nearly all of which show figures well above the white 100 average:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    However, the widespread figure of IQ=115 which always used to float around the Internet a decade or two ago seems complete nonsense. I think only one or two of the 32 studies produced a figure that high, and most of the ones from recent decades seem to average around IQ=110-112, which is a much more reasonable figure.

    However, much more intriguingly, I pointed out that the average for the 14 studies from 1920-1937 was scarcely above the white average, being only 101.5, while the average of the nine studies from 1944-1960 was still only 107, while only the last nine studies from 1970-2008 averaged 111 (all of these were Flynn-adjusted). This stunning rise of tested Jewish IQ over merely a couple of generations obviously cannot be genetic and the pattern seems too striking for measurement-effects, very likely pointing to the impact of affluence, or educational/cultural factors.

    Furthermore, there seems enormous evidence that in the last couple of decades or so, there’s been a considerable decline in Jewish academic achievement, though the actual factors responsible are not entirely clear:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/#the-strange-collapse-of-jewish-academic-achievement

  243. edNels says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thank you Ron Unz for this (The Best ) Magazine.

    I am not detail oriented, nor completely sold on things dry and rational, I sketch with an broad old brush often enough, in attempts to illuminate for my own benefit, but I am forever seeing the fallacies in accepted opinion.

    To your point, that seems reasonable. The higher average IQ of Jews isn’t too hard to fathom, especially factoring in:

    impact of affluence, or educational/cultural factors.

    By the same yardstick, it would be reasonable to factor in deficit effects thereof, for other subjects to this testing. That especially might do some justice to those cultures not too advanced from hunter gatherer in the present, or what’s left of the Northern peoples who obsess over the many forms of ice and snow…! Inother words, Nurture shouldn’t be thrown out completely, at least when dealing with whole groups much less ”races”.

  244. res says:
    @FKA Max

    Good points. Thanks for a thoughtful discussion.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @FKA Max
  245. res says:
    @Santoculto

    I tend to agree with this (and the correlation between intelligence and “rationalization” skills is an excellent point). I’m mainly noting that judging groups (especially blanket judgments, all …) can be a problem. It’s also good to retain some humility when attempting to judge others (sometimes I’m not as good about this as I would like).

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  246. joe webb says:
    @edNels

    well Ednels, as for the amerindians, at 83 IQ per Lynn, they are still savages. jewyorktimes reported about a year ago that the rez violence rate was 20 times higher than the national average, which of course is upped by the Blacks.

    If you look at mestizo and injun numbers in “Latin America” the violence, never mind economic condition, of various countries is heavily linked to the aforesaid folks. Honduras is the murder capital of the world, and Honduras also has a lot of black blood.

    I hate to use movies…but Gibson’s Apocolypto is a good guide to amerindian savagery. They refused Christ, went back to the jungle, and here we are.

    Look at Venezuela now, with the madcap capers of Castro lovin’ Hugo and Co. Stupid and violent. That is what they are. possibly worse than Blacks.

    the old ‘sustain’ argument about third world peoples, even smart ones like northern Asia, that they cannot sustain a White type democratic governance, elections, free speech, etc. is totally true. Chaos only in the black and brown world, and in the yellow world, regimentation and despotism.

    Joe Webb

  247. joe webb says:
    @Songbird

    right…the violence and mayhem of mexers will accelerate as they realize they cannot get ahead and have forgotten the dirt of mexico. JW

  248. joe webb says:
    @Santoculto

    you need a course in amerindian history. For example, the Trail of Tears injuns brought their mostly black slaves with them.

    Slavery, torture, constant warfare….was the absolute norm. Look at pacific northwest injuns…you held your territory from creek x to creek y, and anybody who trespassed was dead meat. You see it in their masks and other images… terrify your enemies. Not any better than Africans or Aztecs who incidentally also ate their victims.

    Joe Webb

  249. joe webb says:

    btw, Fred on Nothing Much talks about the mexers he knows who are doctors, and so on.

    Right. I did not see him distinguish between blood Spaniards and mixed bloods. I guess that would be discriminatory. JW

  250. FKA Max says:
    @res

    Thank you very much for your open-mindedness!

    I highly appreciate it!

  251. @Ron Unz

    Thanks Ron. Nothing new to me except that I had forgotten (presuming I actually read them) those surprising figures for 1920-1937, 1944-1960 and 1970-2008. They certainly add explosive force to the bombs you have thrown including “Meritocracy” and the severe undermining of Lynn (the latter of which was totally unsurprising to me given the nonsense about Aborigines and Khoi San that only Phil Rushton solemnly defended). However…

    I wonder if English literacy and what might be called “culture unfairness” didn’t still play a big part in the first set of figures. It would be quite plausible that the later 107 figure was about right (what Nature intended :-) ) and that some of the known and unknown confounding factors contributing to the Flynn effect plus superior ambition, urban living, coaching etc produced the higher scores. [I was quite open to scepticism about the testing itself because I remembered that at 10 I recognised the format of the IQ test from having done one of similar design the year before and that I saved quite a bit of time which presumably boosted my score]. The lower achievement you noted, particularly in your Meritocracy piece, is consistent with not much or no lowering of scores on IQ tests (though boredom when confronted yet again by Raven’s Progressive Matrices could have become a factor amongst those brought up rich) but it would be naive not to expect “women and champagne and bridge” to have had their effect – though I know you have to exercise all your imaginative powers to envisage it. OMG another wipeout of entered text. I shall resort to TBC…

  252. @Ron Unz

    Cont….

    My ISP is driving me and my bookkkeepers mad but I think before giving up I should add that there is perhaps scope for factoring in the dysgenic breeding of whites for cognitive abilities since upper middle class WASPs took to small families about 1880. And Jewish genetic characteristics in America have obviously been changing rapidly in the last 50 years or so since the smart tend to have so few children (thanks very much Paul Ehrlich for the unfortunate well advertised example) and there is a huge rate of intermarriage.

    My last incomplete comment was meant to posit the case of the privately schooled 120 IQ chap who hasn’t got into the Ivies but can have a good time with family money and connections.

  253. @Rich

    It is hard to believe your comments are bona fide rather than just trolling to see when someone’s patience might snap rather than go on investigating the psychology of the apparently stupid. You keep on repeating the word “separate” idiotically, ignoring the logical completeness of my answer wrt ALL g laden tests.

    What would constitute a “separate” test of the proposition that Tutsi are on average taller than Japanese? Every test of large numbers would show it.

    And your lack of genuine interest in the simple truth is demonstrated by your failure to try the means I proposed for you to get comprehensive data. Now Ron has come to your rescue with a post referring to the figures from nearly 30 tests or studies of, or including, Ashkenazi IQs. Obviously there is a causal connection between whatever IQ tests measure and the great success of Jews in cognitively demanding occupations without denying the place of nurture, culture, ambition, networking etc. It could well be that the factors that lead to performance beyond the genes appear to be responsible for work to increase IQ scores as well as the more complex achievements required in academe and the real world. It doesn’t really matter if the contributions of nature and nurture are uncertain: higher IQ points to the probability of being able to do cognitively demanding tasks better than likely to be achieved by those with lower measured IQs.

    • Replies: @Rich
  254. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You still haven’t provided one link to a test that shows Ashkenazi IQ scores. Not a single one. If the information was readily available, you would have supplied a link, you can’t. For the last time, there is nowhere on the internet that provides information about any test, large or small, of Ashkenazi IQ scores. I would think that if such a test existed, even one with a small sampling, someone would have given the link. Instead, all you do is try to insult me with the pseudo-intelligent language of a low IQ clerk. If you had genuine information, you would have provided it. Richard Lynn’s estimates aren’t good enough for real statistical verification. His estimates have been proven false again and again. He is simply a man who knows where his bread is buttered and plays up to the butterers. You appear to be a low IQ individual in search of a reason for your failure so you bow before supposed Ashkenzi superiority in order to justify your lack of ambition and/or success.

  255. @AaronB

    You introduce s very big subject and contestable proposition when you write of the decline in intellectual quality over a period you associate with Jewish dominance. I was adrift until I suppoosed that you were referring to the group of anti-objective-truth schools that might be grouped as or round or under Post Modernism. After all the hard sciences, and even aspects of psychology (cf. The Undoing Project for a Tom Wolfe like account) have made enormous strides.

    Even PoMo nonsense you might find hard to pin on Jews if you consider who wrote (about 1994) “The Higher Superstition: the Academic Left Against Science”. Consider too Harold Bloom. And Philip Rieff e.g.

    Of course increased numbers in tertiary education has led to some dumbing down of academic standards and AA may have affected even the top universities.

    Now to your proposition that there are 4.5 times as many non-Jewish whites as Jews in America with IQs over 140 to support the view that IQ doesn’t adequately expĺain Jewish success. My alternative rough and ready approach gave me a different result. I seem to have got the figure 17 times – proportioned to population – the number of Jews with IQs of 145 compared to whites and then noted for example that 3 per cent times 17 produced your 50 per cent of top Hollywood directors or major newspaper editors. I’ve just done a quick check online and find some confirmation of my remembered methodology in a chart which has the number 44 against 130 and 741 against 145….all back in the days of the assumed 115 average. You are right that not all is explained by IQ but there is yet another complicating factor which I drew attention to by reference to Jim Collins’s great books in which Jewish CEOs were not as noticeable as in Hollywood or Wall Street.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  256. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    According to google, there are roughly 5 million Jews in the US, and 200 million non Hispanic whites.

    Let’s assume average Jewish IQ is 110 and the usual 100 for whites with SD 15 for both.

    An IQ of 140 is exactly +2 SD for Jews and + 2 and 2/3 for whites.

    That means 2.2% of Jews are at or above IQ 140, and .4% of whites.

    That equals 110,000 Jews in the entire US with IQS of 140 or above.

    Whites have 800,000 people with IQS of 140 or above.

    So actually I was quite wrong – there are almost 8 times as many gentile whites at this IQ level than Jews!

    And this doesn’t event factor in Asians and Indians!

    Plus, at lower levels of IQ which are still high the numbers skew even more towards whites as the tails grow narrow at the edges.

    Now, either IQ tests are complete bullhshit or something is very, very fishy about Jewish representation in elite American institutions.

    Wouldn’t you say?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  257. @Rich

    You appear to be not only stupid, but disingenuous if not dishonest as well. You pretend to be interested in Ashkenazi IQ – presumably including how it is measured as well as what the measures show – but you

    1. Just go on repeating a meaningless question which has been thoroughly dealt with;
    2. Decline to make any intelligent effort to ascertain the answers for yourself, specifically, after I have expressly declined to do your homework for you,
    3. By writing to the experts I nominated;
    4. By doing the most elementary online searches such as “ashkenazi Jewish IQ scores” which will give you a whole first page of links that would answer your implicit if not your dopey express questions.

    You evidently haven’t read the piece by La Griffe that I linked. Have you even read Ron Unz’s comment (supra) in which he refers to nearly 30 separate (in a useful and meaningful sense) studies of Ashkenazi IQ? You are a timewasting nuisance and fraud. My apologies if you are in fact a retarded person from a bright family who has always been desperately trying to get into the conversational swim with others.

    • Replies: @Rich
  258. @AaronB

    Interesting yes. Over to Ron perhaps on the fishiness because he has pointed to overrepresentation of Jews in the Ivies. But it also suggests some interesting biases and preferences that just are so without any great nepotistic networking effort. I think my next set of questions would try and disentangle the different areas of high cognitive achievement perhaps discovering much less engineering outperformance than legal, consistent with a special bias toward the verbal which is itself consistent with the Cochran, Hardy, Harpending explanatory themes.

  259. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    ‘g’ is perhaps a highly misleading concept. It suggests that someone whose total IQ score is high can master any task – we don’t have to match his sub-test score to the task – because there is a single underlying factor that powers performance on all tasks.

    In other words, it suggests the correlation is extremely tight between sub-tests, when in fact the correlation is “extremely” weak – if someone can have a spatial of 95 and a verbal of 120, then g simply doesn’t amount to much.

    When you examine the facts, it becomes obvious that ‘g’ is more of an ideological construct that satisfies the desire to quantify and contain the threateningly elusive and messy phenomena of human intelligence.

    Now, I am not in the least surprised that IQ scores correlate well with school performance and even life performance in industrial economies. Since I believe simple ambition is a huge, perhaps preponderant, element in all three, they would have to correlate.

    This seems blindingly obvious to me, and I am baffled at why there is such resistance to the idea that ambition is a key factor in the difference in group outcomes, and even on IQ scores themselves – how could it not be?

    What’s more, the drive and ambition of some groups compared to others is proverbial – today, Asian ambition is proverbial (a hundred years ago, Asian laziness was equally proverbial, lol, but that’s another story), and Jewish drive and ambition has been proverbial from at least the 19th century.

    Amy Chua wrote about the Tiger Mom – can anyone honestly deny that this kind of thing has enormous impact on group outcomes, and probably on IQ scores?

    By contrast, whites have spawned a sub-culture of low ambition lotus eaters that has become proverbial – “slacker culture” in its various forms, the lifestyle of Portland, OR, etc, and many cultures have “manana” cultures; Spain, Mexico, Thailand, and countless others.

    Lest you misunderstand me, I am equally opposed to Western supremacism of any kind – the West conquered Asia not because of any inherent superiority, but because at that period in time the ambition and drive “differential” favored the West, and the West invented technology for similar reasons – material domination supplanted spiritual development as the primary goal of Western society, when everyone else despised that approach to life.

    I think much can be explained, historically and in society today, by paying attention to the “ambition differential”.

    But in the end I can see why people are loathe to do that – it is unflattering. If the only reason you’re on top, or a huge part of it, is because you cared about it more intensely than the other guy, then that isn’t exactly the most flattering self-portrait you could paint.

    So much more flattering to claim that your dominance is based on inherent superiority – except, you have to ignore too much of history, and some thorny facts, to believe that.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Wizard of Oz
    , @FKA Max
  260. @res

    I’m very curious about the stuff I become interested, and I’m also intellectually honest and/OR humble, objective. People make a enormous gymnastics to go from point A to the point B even to the non-moral aspect of subjects. When I’m analyzing something I try to do without any subjective interference, at priore. First I need understand factually speaking what I’m dealing.

    I jump from quasi pseudo white nationalist to what I’m by now. I remember when I try to justify American Anglo wars against amerindians during the XIX in anthroscape site. War is the last option. Now I know very clearly about it. Most people seems don’t change their point of views and they are becoming progressively ossified and old fashioned/ involuntarily atomized even at the point to put themselves in danger places/perspectives without consciousness about it.

    I think the capacity to justify their own attitudes evolved faster/has been more selected than the extremely important capacity to factual understanding via simple analytical and critical thinking skills. Most people use it but to justify themselves, they are often divorced from the real interaction with the world they are, and this real interaction must start with itself or self knowledge, the knowledge about the place and time you are and other-self knowledge all them that are highly mutually integrative. this is the basis to understand the world: Yourself, your place, your time, other-selfs.

  261. utu says:
    @AaronB

    “it becomes obvious that ‘g’ is more of an ideological construct that satisfies the desire to quantify and contain”

    Very true. It is a mathematical construct. Relatively trivial: if you have N random variables that have non-zero mutual correlation you can construct N variables that do not correlate with each other (they are orthogonal). The variable that is the strongest among them (has largest eigenvalue) is called g. This is just a mathematical fact that is true for any symmetric matrix. And the matrix of mutual correlations of the N variables must be symmetric with the diagonal of ones. This g is a linear combination of the original variables. And vice versa: each original variable is a linear combination of the orthogonal variables.

    The construct of g in practice will depend on which random variables (which tests) are used. So the relations of g to IQ test results obtained, say in Russia might be very different than those obtained in Ireland. For this reason in practice nobody is really using g. It is not even established what units g should be in. No convention was decided upon. Because nobody uses g. Nobody will tell you: my g is… Newton’s or Einstein’s g was… You would not now what is high or low g.

    The whole concept of g has only a rhetorical value, so the IQist can argue that there a deeper scientific and mathematical basis to their mumbo jumbo. Most hangers-ons like a part of commentariat here at Unz buys it because they do not understand enough of the math to see the triviality and hidden tautology behind the g concept.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @AaronB
  262. @utu

    Real g is pattern recognition. Also overrated validation of g concept is used to prove, supposedly, that exist only one intelligence. What intelligence?? Those that is MEASURED by IQ tests. ^^

    Yeah yeah yeah

  263. FKA Max says:
    @res

    Just a quick addendum and one exception to the rule.

    Among the largest rogue-trader losses in history there is a $2.3 billion loss caused by an African: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kweku_Adoboli

    Interestingly, in the Top 5 of rouge traders there are two Japanese; in 2nd and 5th place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuo_Hamanaka and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshihide_Iguchi

    There is one more Asian in the Top 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Jiulin

    The rest are people of White-European heritage, as far as I can tell. There are no Jews on that list:

    The key factor determining the use of the term is lack of authorisation. There have been colossal financial losses and bankruptcies from what are considered to be catastrophically bad decisions by senior decision-makers in financial institutions, such as the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers which necessitated the 2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package, but this is not described as rogue trading and is not punishable.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_trader

    Lehman Brothers’ final CEO Richard S. Fuld Jr. is Jewish, though:

    Fuld was nicknamed the “Gorilla” on Wall Street for his competitiveness.[6] Condé Nast Portfolio ranked Fuld number one on their Worst American CEOs of All Time list, stating he was “belligerent and unrepentant”.[7] Fuld was also named in Time magazine’s list of “25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis”.[8] [...] Fuld was born to a Jewish family in New York City, the son of Richard Severin Fuld Sr. and Elizabeth Schwab.[9]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Fuld_Jr.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  264. utu says:
    @AaronB

    “The logical ommissions, the simplistic interpretations, the selective use of facts are so many and so obvious by the IQ pushers it’s increasingly difficult to see it as anything other than a cult.”

    I go with it. It would need to be elaborated further and compared to other “intellectual cults” from the past like for example psychoanalysis that was able to have a very significant following among people who considered themselves to be smart. Many of them were very smart indeed. What is the mechanism of people getting fooled by the pseudoscience? It works on the demand-supply curve. The demand must be first. The IQ-ist have a deep psychological need for IQ-”science” to be true. They get want they want.

    Structurally the concepts around the IQ “theories” are much more simplistic than in psychoanalysis so it has much higher followings among those with rather modest intellectual means.

    In find James Flynn to be the most reasonable (palatable) among the IQ-”scientist”. He seems to have some distance to the subject perhaps because he got somehow inoculated to the temptations of reification that others cannot resist. The reification is the fundamental trick played on the adherents. W/o it the quasi scientific status would not be possible and the thing would die on its own or just vegetate on the level of mere empirical curiosity.

    The followers (like followers of any cult) like to think of themselves of being the part of counter Zeitgeist but in reality they are a part of the main stream Zeitgeist because all cults are part of the Zeitgeist.

  265. @utu

    Utu do you’re African? Or have African heritage?

  266. @utu

    Flynn is more distance from hbd epicenter or psychometrics on the right

    But

    It don’t make him less cultist/leftist, ;)

  267. Sanders says:
    @sturbain

    East Indians have a mean IQ of 81? Hilarious. Tell that to your IT department.

    Shhh I will tell you a secret, most Indians suck at IT, they are hired because they are cheap.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  268. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You must have some serious mental issues with your nonsensical replies, but I’m beginning to think you are really as far gone as your comments make you appear. Didn’t your mother ever teach you not to use words like “stupid ” or “retarded” in conversation? How low class are you? I shouldn’t have gone on with you for this long, but as a fan of the circus. I always enjoyed watching a clown dance.

    Provide a link that shows actual IQ test scores. Every single link you’ve provided, as well as the ones by Mr Unz,have been about estimates. If you can’t do that, just stop repeating the same nonsense.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  269. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max

    Correction: …in the Top 5 of *rogue* traders… not rouge traders.

    The single-biggest non-rogue trading loss was caused by one Howie Hubler, roughly US$9 billion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howie_Hubler

    The following contains a list of trading losses of the equivalent of USD100 million or higher. Trading losses are the amount of principal losses in an account.[1] Because of the secretive nature of many hedge funds and fund managers, some notable losses may never be reported to the public. The list is ordered by the real amount lost, starting with the greatest.

    This list includes both fraudulent and non-fraudulent losses, but excludes losses associated with Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, which is estimated in the $50 billion range, because Madoff did not lose the majority of this money in trading.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trading_losses

    The curious thing about Kweku Adoboli is, that his illegal trading activity was actually detected, but at first nothing was done about it:

    It later emerged that UBS had failed to act on a warning issued by its computer system about Adoboli’s trading.[6][7][8]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_UBS_rogue_trader_scandal

    I wonder if this was, because the bank did not want to be seen as racist, etc., or if they were somehow encouraging this type of behavior like in the case of Jérôme Kerviel?

    Société Générale characterizes Kerviel as a rogue trader and claims Kerviel worked these trades alone and without its authorization. These assertions have been met with skepticism by some of Kerviel’s former colleagues and acquaintances, as well as by some members of the news media.[4][5] Kerviel had told investigators that his trading behavior was widespread at the company and that making a profit made the hierarchy turn a blind eye.[6]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel

  270. @Rich

    You ask a lot of questions but let’s see, as one last chance, if you can answer what is put to you. Please explain what is wrong with estimates? You had better define what you mean by “estimate” and what would qualify as not being just an estimate as otherwise we are left in the position of listening to Alice’s Humpty Dumpty.

    • Replies: @Rich
  271. @AaronB

    You are right of course about much being explicable by the “ambition differential” (and some other more or less related non-genetic differences like traditions of literacy such as Talmudic study, in contrast perhaps the mere wrote learning of the Koran). However I can’t really believe that you would expect ambition to have anything like the same effect on a child doing a game like IQ test and various later life performances in school and business or professions. You surely take that point beyond its explanatory capabilities.

    Also your point about g not meaning much because it is an abstraction from multiple tests which *sometimes* give very different results goes too far because (a) the high g with different components may still mean that the person has the high mental speed and good working memory which will be able to find *some* route to high performance, (b) it is a bit like saying that it doesn’t help to be 7 ft tall at asketball because some of the 7 footers are freaks with overactive pituitary glands and associated deformities.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @AaronB
  272. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Provide a link showing an actual IQ test of Ashkenazi. If you don’t understand the difference between an “estimate” and an actual test number, I can’t help you.

    And good luck with your job search now that Ringling Brothers is going out of business.

  273. @Sanders

    I’m sure someone will have pointed out to you that the caste system for a thousand years and more makes it useless to treat East Indians as one group in the context of this discussion.

  274. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “(a) the high g with different components may still mean that the person has the high mental speed and good working memory which will be able to find *some* route to high performance, (b) it is a bit like saying that it doesn’t help to be 7 ft tall at asketball because some of the 7 footers are freaks with overactive pituitary glands and associated deformities.”

    It seems you got no clue what g really is or supposed to be.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  275. @Rich

    Infantile to try that kindergarten stuff (scil. “low IQ”) . How do you think that you would go suggesting a 6ft 10 basket ball player was a shorty? A school principal friend looked at your stuff and opined “no more than 112 I would say with some confidence”. How’s that estimate stand up to the actual test result you would no doubt remember?

  276. Rich says:

    Are you into your mom’s liquor cabinet again? First off, you’re not fooling anyone with talk of a “friend.” An obvious boor like you who uses words like “stupid”, “retarded”, “dolt”, etc. doesn’t have any friends. Now, just give one test, just one from somewhere that shows actual Ashkenazi test scores. You can’t. Now get back into your clown suit and juggle for me, “Wizard of Oz.”

  277. AaronB says:
    @utu

    Excellent comment, utu.

    Especially your point about how nobody has assigned any value or content to g – a point completely missed by our friend Wizard of OZ who claims it represents working memory and speed and can be likened to height in basketball – because g represents a “relationship” between sub-tests and cannot be reduced to a specific “thing”.

    A “relationship” between sub-tests is an abstraction – it cannot be made “concrete”.

    Now ‘g’ can be a useful concept if it really signified a very tight correlation between sub-tests. But notice, if ‘g’ was really believed in, then why are we still giving entire IQ tests? We should be able to give almost any sub-test at random if each sub-test predicted performance on all the others very well.

    Why are we talking about how Jews are good at verbal and atrocious at spatial? That they are good at verbal should mean that they are good at spatial, if g really has any great importance.

    So what bothers me is really that ‘g’ has almost no validity even as an abstract concept – it simply isn’t true that performance on one sub-test predicts performance on all the other sub-tests to a very high degree.

    So even when using g accurately and not reifying it, it is an almost useless concept from a “practical” point of view.

    Once you grasp that, it becomes obvious, as you say, that its main purpose is rhetorical and ideological, and as a tool to deceive the masses.

  278. AaronB says:
    @utu

    Well, yes, it answers to a deep emotional need, several of them. That’s how all cults originate.

    The fact is, that simplistic and reductionist thinking really has yielded enormous control over the physical world, but its becoming apparent that its less useful when it comes to messy humans.

    If there are, as I suspect, dozens of ambiguous factors that influence IQ, things that are unlikely to yield easily to measurement and that if factored in honestly would produce a rich complicated picture that can’t be quantified – well, then what do you do if your goal is power and control?

    You close your eyes.

    Beyond that, people like simple stories of superior and inferior (at least modern people do) – its really no fun if IQ measures to a large extent mental habits that are just part of operating in a modern technological society, or that a large part of it just measures ambition, that you cared more about it then the next guy.

    You don’t get to feel all smug and superior and congratulate yourself, if that’s what it is.

    So yes, there are obviously lots of emotional reasons why modern people really want to believe in the hard IQ theory, it can be very ego flattering.

    And so you get a “cult” that simply ignores all the messy llittle details. But we’re living through the breakdown of faith in the “experts”, so the message is beginning to unravel.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @res
  279. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Well, that’s just your assumption, that ambition can’t have a huge impact, and it’s one you should question.

    Little kids born in highly ambitious families are subject to intense pressure from parents to succeed. Lots of kids at age 7 are under extreme pressure. An incredible amount of psychological and emotional pressure rides on kids of these families at a very young age, not to mention later in life.

    I grew up around extremely ambitious people – ambition is an enormous factor in almost every activity, at least as important as ability. Asians are more honest about this – they know the role of ambition.

    You may not be aware of this depending on your exposure to other communities. For a very long time I thought the level of ambition where I grew up was “normal” – but exposure to other communities made me aware that in fact it was unique and pathological. I’m betting you just aren’t aware of this.

    But to be honest with you, I am just using ambition as a catch-all phrase to signify a whole host of ambiguous factors that would be hard to quantify – at its simplest level, even just exposure to the mental habits of modern techno-culture. Its far more complex than just ambition, and can include thinks like life goals, priorities, values, and others.

    Ron Unz has made a good case showing that IQ scores rise AFTER a country becomes modernized, rather than high IQ being a necessary pre-condition, which is consistent with the Flynn effect, perhaps at its core really an example of it.

    And of course, the Ravens test, the most g-loaded (sic) and culture-free (sic) test we have, is the one most prone to the Flynn effect.

    At what point do we start noticing inconvenient facts?

    So – the simplistic IQ fairy tale really needs to be abandoned.

    As for your likening of ‘g’ to height in a basketball players, please see my comment to utu above.

  280. @AaronB

    Perhaps you are right about what you have wrapped up in the word “ambition” even affecting Jewish IQ scores as children. That’s your speculation and I have no means of testing or disputing it.

    A more important question left open is the extent to which useful intellectual qualities or results are predicted by higher IQs even if they are the result of early training or other influences. A somewhat related question is whether one should say that encouraging indiscriminate immigration from Africa is almost as bad an idea if IQ scores of 70 or 80 are likely to rise eventually as if they are really genetically determined to a high degree (that is the group differences/averages).

    • Replies: @AaronB
  281. @utu

    Your anonymous comments don’t automatically carry the authority or weight that would allow you to presume that you can just dismiss someone’s understanding of “what g really is or is supposed to be”. You would have to know that it really is pretty easy to Google “Spearman’s g” and read tbat up as a starting point so I am intrigued at what might be your understanding of my misconception of g. Please enlighten me.

    Better, please give a succinct account of what g is and what it is good for (if anything) so anyone in conversation or debate with you will know what playing field they are on.

    • Replies: @utu
  282. @AaronB

    I think your rather superior attitude to the psyches of those who have found some value in measures of IQs and explorations of its correlates fails to acknowledge
    1. That really smart people usually enjoy being sceptic’s sceptics and are happy to explode their own received or previous ideas (Ron Unz being a good example);
    2. A lot of what you see as cultism is probably just persistence while the overwhelmingly popular cult is the leftish one for which Stephen Jay Gould wrote and really doesn’t want people to have been the subjects of continuing evolution or otherwise unequal.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  283. @AaronB

    In which previous comment do you deal with my basketballer analogy? (Obviously the 6ft 10 measurement isn’t to be likened as a measurement to an abstraction like g to prove some idea of reality of g. They do, come to think of it, have in common that height’s genetic causation involves quite a lot of genes and g’s genetic causes lie in the action and interaction of very great numbers of genes).

    • Replies: @AaronB
  284. FKA Max says:
    @AaronB

    It has been an absolute pleasure to read your comments in this comment thread, AaronB.

    Your prose flows mightily fine and you have hit the nail on the head so many times throughout your comments here, that I’ve lost count. Well done.

    I think much can be explained, historically and in society today, by paying attention to the “ambition differential”.

    But in the end I can see why people are loathe to do that – it is unflattering. If the only reason you’re on top, or a huge part of it, is because you cared about it more intensely than the other guy, then that isn’t exactly the most flattering self-portrait you could paint.

    So much more flattering to claim that your dominance is based on inherent superiority – except, you have to ignore too much of history, and some thorny facts, to believe that.

    The Late, Great American WASP
    The old U.S. ruling class had plenty of problems. But are we really better off with a country run by the self-involved, over-schooled products of modern meritocracy?

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579268301043949952

    Having been a good student, no matter how good the reputation of the school—and most of the good schools, we are coming to learn, are good chiefly in reputation—is no indication of one’s quality or promise as a leader. A good student might even be more than a bit of a follower, a conformist, standing ready to give satisfaction to the powers that be so that one can proceed to the next good school, taking another step up the ladder of meritocracy.

    What our new meritocrats have failed to evince—and what the older WASP generation prided itself on—is character and the ability to put the well-being of the nation before their own. Character embodied in honorable action is at the heart of the novels and stories of Louis Auchincloss, America’s last unembarrassedly WASP writer. Doing the right thing, especially in the face of temptations to do otherwise, was the WASP test par excellence. Most of our meritocrats, by contrast, seem to be in business for themselves.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/sat-scandal/#comment-1547220

    Thank you, as always, to Mr. Unz for this great website and the outstanding commenting experience.

    Great comment, as well:

    This stunning rise of tested Jewish IQ over merely a couple of generations obviously cannot be genetic and the pattern seems too striking for measurement-effects, very likely pointing to the impact of affluence, or educational/cultural factors.

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1732044

    • Replies: @AaronB
  285. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Better, please give a succinct account of what g is and what it is good for (if anything) so anyone in conversation or debate with you will know what playing field they are on.”

    You can read this comment http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1732884 and AaronB’s reply.

    How g is constructed?

    Say you have tested some population X with n tests T1,…,Tn. Presumably one of the tests is the IQ test. We calculate correlations Rij=Corr(Ti,Tj). The matrix R={Rij} is real, symmetric and let’s assume it is not singular (I skip the explanation of singularity.). Then one can construct uniquely n variables G1,…,Gn that are linear combination of variables Ti, eg: Gj=Aj1*T1+…+Ajn*Tn that have the following property: Corr(Gi,Gj)=0 when i≠j. In other words variables Gj are orthogonal. The matrix A={Aij} can be inverted (because it is not singular) to obtain the inverse matrix B={Bij} that allows to express original variables Tj in terms of the orthogonal variables: Tj=Bj1*G1+…+Bjn*Gn. Among the orthogonal set of Gj variables we find the “strongest” one. Mathematically it is the one that is associated with largest eigenvalue. In practice it will be the one that approximately will have the largest correlation values with Ti variables. Let’s say the “strongest” one is G1 and let’s rename g=G1. The correlation Corr(Tj,g) are called g-loading in variable Tj.

    It may sound complicated but it is just a basic linear algebra and some matrix properties. There is no mystery or no magic in it and there is no room for the aha moment. It is trivial if one knows the math behind it. The existence of g is necessitated by the property of correlation matrix R={Rij} that by definition must be real and symmetric and the fact that by a proper selection of tests {T1,…,Tn} the matrix will be non-singular. For example the matrix would be singular if two tests, say Ti and Tj had mutual correlation equal to 1 or -1.

    Criticism 1: g is trivial

    Any real symmetric (and non-singular) matrix can be decomposed into eigenvectors. The reason correlation is real and symmetric follows from the definition of correlation. There is no other possibility. There are no magical wondrous reasons why g can be constructed. It is about as wondrous as stating that one can take a square root of everybody’s shoe sizes and multiply it by a cosine of angle between nose and forehead. These are mathematically permitted operations. Are they meaningful?

    Criticism 2: g is constructed by tautological operation

    Blood pressure measures blood pressure. Height measures height. We have physical definitions of height and blood pressure which are independent of their measurements. g measures g but we do not have a definition of g that would be independent of its measurement because g is a mathematical construct that is contained in the set of measurements. There is no value added. This is tautology.

    Criticism 3: g is test dependent and thus it is not unique

    Test results on populations X and Y lead to different g construct even if the same tests T1, …, Tn were applied on both populations. The set of coefficients A1j in g=G1=A11*T1+…+A1n*Tn will different for populations X and Y.

    Even a bigger problem appears when not the same tests were applied in both populations.

    • Replies: @res
  286. AaronB says:
    @FKA Max

    Thank you for your kind words, Max.

    Ah character – it’s one of those intangible, so officially we’re supposed to ignore it.

    But if you think about it, the acceptance process in elite universities has a huge ‘character’ element – i.e they screen very carefully for certain personalities, its almost as if they select for a kind of ‘anti-character’, in fact. And to join the elite in America you really do need a very specific kind of ‘character’, so to speak.

    But I was thinking about this issue the other day – you’ve no doubt heard of Winston Churchills famous quip about democracy, that its terrible but the best system we have. But it seems events have shown rather the opposite. In a democratic system, the hustlers and con men rise to the top, and to retain their position they have to remain on their toes – they can’t develop the refined culture or the gracious altruism – the noblesse oblige – of a hereditary aristocracy. And there seems to be just as many cretins and idiots and utter mediocrities who have the requisite skills to rise to the top in a democracy – trust me, I personally know many of them. The idea is, that each faction of hustlers and con-men balance each other out, producing a messy kind of fairness – but that hasn’t happened, has it. The con men begin, at some point, to just collude and rig the system, as we’re seeing now.

    A hereditary aristocracy has many injustices, and many mediocrities and cretins, no doubt, but since their ancestors have taken care of the ruthless scramble to the top and their personal position has a certain amount of security, they can produce many fine characters who feel a deep sense of oblesse noblige and develop an interest in gracious living and a refined culture.

    It may be unfair, but life in such a system isn’t all just about hustling at least. Gracious living and culture – and yes, character – have a place in this system.

    It may be another one of those unexpected reversals so common in the real world – where an abstract perfection, democracy, ends up being inferior to a concrete imperfection, aristocracy, that is better adapted to human fallibility.

    Anyways, just my recent thoughts on the subject.

  287. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You’re right, we have no means of really testing for ambition, nor for many other intangibles that might affect IQ, which should make us drastically limit our claims about IQ. It’s simply a limited thing.

    As for the usefulness of IQ tests, yes, they do have some limited utility, I wouldn’t deny that, especially in predicting results in modern industrial economies. Whatever conglomerate of psychological and mental qualities IQ tests for, it does have some predictive ability in certain contexts – although even here we must use severe caution, as for instance IQ doesn’t correlate very well to “creativity”, and forget about g and pay more attention to sub-tests.

    Encouraging immigration of low-IQ foreigners – perhaps we shouldn’t. Even if their low IQ scores reflect cultural practices and mental habits rather than intelligence and they aren’t nearly as stupid as we think, still, they probably won’t thrive in modern industrial economies unless they utterly shed their cultural personals and re-invent themselves as ambitious Americans without a spiritual or emotional care. And that is a fate I wish on no one.

  288. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I’m not against the idea that IQ tests have some value, just against the “hard IQ” hypothesis – the claims made on its behalf, and consequently the conclusions we draw about the world, ourselves, how we relate others, and why others aren’t like us, just can’t be justified. And so we end up self-deluding. But IQ tests definitely have some value.

    I question that skepticism is related to intelligence – really smart people are often just good at rationalizing their preferences. How many Ron Unz’s are there? Not too many.

    Stephen Jay Gould is also a cult, I’d agree, but that doesn’t invalidate that people who fail to see the severe limitations of IQ are also a cult.

  289. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    In comment #282 I explain why your attempts to ascribe specific content to ‘g’ aren’t valid.

    From utu’s post – “….we do not have a definition of g that would be independent of its measurement…”

    This says it well. You see, you keep on trying to see g as a specific attribute – working memory, speed, or like being 7 ft tall (a specific attribute) – when ‘g’ has never been given any specific attribute and cannot be seen as one.

    It’s often described as “the general factor of intelligence” – i.e, what lays under all the tests. But this “what” is mysterious and cannot be defined. We surmise its existence because of factor analysis. We have never seen it or identified it with anything specific. If it was a combination of working memory and speed, they’d call it that. Or any other specific set of attributes.

    In the end, it is a ghost, an artefact, a product of math, and not a “thing” at all – and thus perfect for rhetorical purposes.

    Look, I understand why you’re struggling to understand this because your assumptions won’t let you – you think IQ studies simply must make far more sense than they do. If you allowed yourself for a moment to contemplate the possibility that you’re being had, you’d understand what ‘g’ is immediately. Your natural instinct is to make it into a specific, if speculative, attribute or skill, because that would make eminent sense. You have good intellectual instincts. But that’s not what ‘g’ is – its something derived from analyzing performance on all sub-tests, and finding there is a correlation there. We surmise this points to an underlying factor, but we can’t get any more specific than that.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  290. phil says:
    @AaronB

    Nice try. For all your questioning of people’s motivations, g is widely-accepted in the peer-reviewed literature of serious intelligence researchers. It is also reliably linked to brain biology.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @AaronB
  291. res says:
    @AaronB

    And so you get a “cult” that simply ignores all the messy llittle details. But we’re living through the breakdown of faith in the “experts”, so the message is beginning to unravel.

    Heh. Given the IQ literature I think you may have trouble distinguishing between a cult and science. Hint, one uses evidence rather than rhetoric. The other, not so much. Worth reading your posts to assess the relative balance of those…

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @AaronB
  292. res says:
    @utu

    This sounds like a version of Cosma Shalizi’s argument. If you actually have an open mind, here is a detailed rebuttal of that: http://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/03/is-psychometric-g-a-myth/#more-1422

    • Replies: @utu
  293. utu says:
    @res

    “This sounds like a version of Cosma Shalizi’s argument. If you actually have an open mind, here is a detailed rebuttal of that: http://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/03/is-psychometric-g-a-myth/#more-1422″

    I looked at it. His arguments are much broader than mine. But he indeed also makes similar argument to mine http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html :

    If I take any group of variables which are positively correlated, there will, as a matter of algebraic necessity, be a single dominant general factor, which describes more of the variance than any other, and all of them will be “positively loaded” on this factor, i.e., positively correlated with it. Similarly, if you do hierarchical factor analysis, you will always be able to find a single higher-order factor which loads positively onto the lower-order factors and, through them, the actual observables [8] What psychologists sometimes call the “positive manifold” condition is enough, in and of itself, to guarantee that there will appear to be a general factor. Since intelligence tests are made to correlate with each other, it follows trivially that there must appear to be a general factor of intelligence. This is true whether or not there really is a single variable which explains test scores or not.

    This cannot be rebutted.

    The concept of g is trivial. There is nothing to it. It does not explain anything because it is necessitated by a mathematical property. There is no reason to be impressed by it or be at awe. Nevertheless the construct of g is used exactly to impress which is easy on those who have no sufficient mathematical knowledge. Actually it is the only purpose of g: to be a rhetorical tool. By using ignotum per ignotius argument (an explanation that is less familiar than the concept it would explain). Since most people do not understand how g was constructed they succumb to arguments like this: something is g-loaded and thus blah, blah… But it is the other way around. Something is g-loaded because g was constructed so to make the something to be g- loaded.

    If you are not ready to see through what g is perhaps you can start with learning about math tricks first. They are all built on mathematical necessity of the outcome. This is what makes them trivial which you see once you understand the math behind them.

    How to Read Someone’s Mind With Math (Math Trick)

    http://www.wikihow.com/Read-Someone’s-Mind-With-Math-(Math-Trick)

    • Replies: @res
    , @Wizard of Oz
  294. @res

    Nothing prevent that even genuine science can become a cult.

    IQ researchers namely those on the hbd vibe tend to pay little (to nonexistent) attention to the weaknesses of IQ comprehension.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @res
  295. @Santoculto

    IQ research is becoming a cult but why??

    All cults are characterized by lack of significant self criticism and logically subsequent/expected improvement whatever how scientifically valid it is on this basis. Lack of intellectual honesty.

    IQ researchers and namely most enthusiastic are little open to this criticism even starting from themselves.

  296. V. Uil says:

    No wonder you are skeptical regarding IQ. It must be personal. Surely you know that anecdotal examples – when I lived in xxxxxx ……… is just fatuous.

    IQ, by country, is an average. There is a distribution of IQ in each population that closely follows the Bell Curve.

    There are plenty of clever Mexicans, Indians and for that matter blacks. It is just that they are a smaller percentage than, say, an equivalent Chinese population. And these clever Mexicans, Indians, etc. are quite capable of designing and organizing the building of skyscrapers and all the other infrastructure of the modern world especially if someone else, somewhere else first thought of it.

    As I read through the article a slow realization dawned on me: the author does not understand the basic Bell Curve and how measurements, including IQ are distributed around the mean.

    Quite embarrassing.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  297. res says:
    @utu

    If I take any group of variables which are positively correlated, there will, as a matter of algebraic necessity, be a single dominant general factor, which describes more of the variance than any other, and all of them will be “positively loaded” on this factor, i.e., positively correlated with it.

    This is true. The interesting questions are:
    1. How much of the variance does the principal component account for?
    2. How consistently does the same (or a very similar) principal component appear given different starting data?

    Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) the answer to 1. is 40-50%. If you have ever actually done principal component analysis this is quite high. I don’t have a handy link discussing 2., but perhaps someone like phil does?

    As I see it the major points behind g are that that single principal component accounts for much of the variance in intelligence tests and appears consistently. This to me indicates it is a useful construct.

    For a more detailed argument see the link I gave earlier or Jensen’s The g Factor.

    P.S. Not sure how much math you really know, but it’s prudent to be careful about getting into arguments about advanced mathematics here on unz.com unless you really know what you are talking about.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @utu
  298. res says:
    @Santoculto

    Nothing prevent that even genuine science can become a cult.

    Agreed. How do YOU tell non-cult science from cult science?

    One thing I look at is replicability of the research. IQ research is one of the best replicating subdisciplines of psychology (and social science as a whole). If you are really concerned about the problem of science as a cult there are much better targets. May I suggest “stereotype threat” as one for you to pursue?

    IQ researchers namely those on the hbd vibe tend to pay little (to nonexistent) attention to the weaknesses of IQ comprehension.

    Perhaps you could give some examples of IQ researchers doing this? I get that sometimes commenters here go beyond the data, but that seems pretty well distributed on both sides of the IQ or HBD denying/affirming argument.

    I would say IQ researchers are probably more careful than most social scientists doing more Narrative friendly research if only because there are plenty of critics waiting to pounce on any inaccuracies.

    I also don’t see much sign of commenters here paying attention to the strengths of IQ research. Some examples:
    - A consistent body of work extending back over a hundred years.
    - Replicability.
    - Effective real world use of the results (e.g. the AFQT).
    - Multiple studies showing correlation of real world success with higher IQ (e.g. SMPY and TIP, but many more).

  299. @res

    Cult is even worse when the basis is consistent. What happens with IQsm. Yes, all hbds and psychometricians on the right repeat this fact that IQ studies are the best replicated in psychology. Yes but also because so many % of psychology is pretty weak, so it’s not just a pure virtue of IQ studies but also lack of reliable and competitive psychological studies of other and of the same area, namely those who are more skeptical and critical about IQ valid, almost them who are new leftists.

    When it’s clear that “it’s not enough”, that the area need to be constantly improved , and indeed it’s needed, BUT most of researchers and amateur enthusiasts fight against own improvement of their own pet area no doubt cultism is a matter of time.

    You agree with me that IQ in fact don’t measure creativity, rationality skills, both considerably important to the human intelligence, Don’t measure character,

    Measure

    Don’t analyze the quality of our intellect instead tend to be reasonably solid to measure the cognitive size of our intelligence. Rationality namely speaking, is correlated or better, strongly influenced by psychological aspects of our intelligences, so IQ also Don’t measure our psychological quality.

    IQ treat us as machines, as workers and not as full human beings, full living beings. Do you can agree with me??

    How the % of “IQ researchers” who are in that time looking for what IQ is not good to measure/ to predict??

    Again, almost of IQ criticals have ulterior ideological motivations to be criticals and not because it’s scientifically and factually important to be taking into account.it’s. Blatantly evident that it’s not enough to reflect perfectly what intelligence is, how it is distributed, how it work.

    Most IQ enthusiasts also have their ideological motivations, for example to prove that certain race is for ever cognitively smarter than other.

  300. AaronB says:
    @phil

    My entire point here has been to question the experts – your response is that all the experts agree?

    I claim g exists but doesn’t mean what they say it means and you say it’s linked to brain biology so it must exist?

    My friend, the level of argument on this thread is a bit more subtle than “all the experts agree”. I’d happily hear your points, if you have other ones.

  301. AaronB says:
    @res

    Lol, so you’re making a rhetorical point agains me.

    That’s ok, but do you have any arguments?

    • Replies: @res
  302. AaronB says:
    @res

    “Replicability” – we are criticizing IQ on completely different grounds, but it’s obvious you have not read the comments on this thread. No one denies it’s replicability.

    People here also did give attention to the ways in which IQ is valid, at least I did.

    A cult indeed.

  303. AaronB says:
    @res

    So it’s like the famous .5 that has been “consensus” decided by sociologists as being meaningful, because no scientifuc reasons could be found to establish a cut off point.

    Interestingly, this consensus is increasingly being seen as a failure if science and hardly one of its glories.

    What astonishes me is how afraid ordinary people are to use their brains – it’s obvious that a 40-50 percent variance accounted for by a single factor isn’t very significant, but the experts say differently….

    Even the experts don’t “really” believe it’s significant, as they continue to give entire IQ tests…

    Truly, a cult.

    Beyond that, of course there is the issue of “reificatuon” of g committed by WOZ, of course.

    • Replies: @res
  304. @res

    I’m aware about both strengths and weaknesses of IQ.

  305. @res

    The fact you don’t see many IQ critical commenters here paying attention to their strengths look like you’re agreeing with me that indeed IQ enthusiasts and researchers ALSO pay little attention to the IQ weaknesses.

    Some IQ enthusiasts are also so obsessed and wrongly obsessed with this stuff they really believe that five or, eight point differences in IQ scores are undoubtedly significant in any comparative case.

    I’m a rare Individual, seems, because I’m IQ critical but I’m not a fervent leftist who advocates for behaviorism, blank slate or supposed extremely environmentally manageable IQ hypothesis (just give the same environmental outcomes and IQ racial differences will disappear). I truly believe IQ scores say something solid, important about intelligence and hardly manageable without directional selective pressures. Again IQ measure the cognitive size of human intelligence… By now lack creativity, rationality and possibly psychological aspects for example psychological resilience levels. Lack qualitative aspect. IQ Don’t measure or predict cognitive dissonance for example. All of this are extremely important to complete this puzzles.

    • Replies: @res
  306. utu says:
    @res

    You have brought two issues: (1) the usefulness of the construct and (2) the prudence in making arguments. The two issues are connected but not necessarily in the way you may like. If one did the survey of articles on intelligence testing and searched for sentences in which g was invoked, one would have to conclude that in many cases g is used in arguments rather imprudently, usually by exaggerating g’s importance and by overreaching g’s actual meaning. If these imprudent arguments were to be removed form the discourse the usefulness of the construct such as g would greatly diminish. In other words the chief usefulness of g comes from it being just a rhetorical device.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @res
  307. res says:
    @AaronB

    See above (or some of James Thompson’s posts, there tends to be a bit more information content in the IQ threads there). And think about the question as applies to yourself.

  308. res says:
    @AaronB

    So it’s like the famous .5 that has been “consensus” decided by sociologists as being meaningful, because no scientifuc reasons could be found to establish a cut off point.

    I assume you mean the 0.05 metric for statistical significance established by statisticians not sociologists (and yes, p values have their problems). What’s an order of magnitude between friends (except for serving to give me an idea of your knowledge base and attention to detail in this area, cue wailing of “it was a typo”).

    it’s obvious that a 40-50 percent variance accounted for by a single factor isn’t very significant

    Well that was convincing (I love proof by assertion). Perhaps you can back up your statement by showing me some other examples of this in psychology?

    Truly, a cult.

    The louder you proclaim this the more I think “well, at least he’s self aware.”

    • Replies: @AaronB
  309. res says:
    @Santoculto

    The fact you don’t see many IQ critical commenters here paying attention to their strengths look like you’re agreeing with me that indeed IQ enthusiasts and researchers ALSO pay little attention to the IQ weaknesses.

    No. Well, at least the researchers. The enthusiasts are a mixed bag. The issue I see is that the enthusiasts at least have positive arguments which the denialists of IQ’s value (not including you as you have described yourself in the following quote) tend to lack. That is why I tend to be a bit more forgiving of them.

    I’m IQ critical but I’m not a fervent leftist who advocates for behaviorism, blank slate or supposed extremely environmentally manageable IQ hypothesis (just give the same environmental outcomes and IQ racial differences will disappear). I truly believe IQ scores say something solid, important about intelligence and hardly manageable without directional selective pressures. Again IQ measure the cognitive size of human intelligence… By now lack creativity, rationality and possibly psychological aspects for example psychological resilience levels. Lack qualitative aspect.

    We are in vigorous agreement here. It’s just that I don’t see that as a reason to denigrate the value of IQ for what it is. There is also a useful conversation to have about what IQ is not. It would be even more interesting if those other things had more research and measuring tools associated with them though. By the way, that paragraph captures well what I find most interesting about your posts.

    What non-IQ cognitive assessment tests/tools do you recommend?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  310. res says:
    @utu

    There are people who overly advocate for their position in every field of human endeavor (and IMHO this is not hyperbole, it is fact). Bad arguments should encourage skepticism, but are not a refutation of good arguments.

    If these imprudent arguments were to be removed from the discourse the usefulness of the construct such as g would greatly diminish.

    Not much information content in that. What do you think the reality of the usefulness of g as a construct is?
    I think this piece from Linda Gottfredson gives a good summary:

    http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html

    In other words the chief usefulness of g comes from it being just a rhetorical device.

    P.S. If that is your response to my prudence comment you are either trying to redirect or you might want to try reading it again.

    • Replies: @res
    , @utu
  311. res says:
    @res

    Lost the last part of my previous comment to the edit window.

    In other words the chief usefulness of g comes from it being just a rhetorical device.

    This is ludicrous. See Gottfredson’s piece linked in my previous comment.

  312. @res

    “No”

    Some evidence?

    • Replies: @res
  313. utu says:
    @res

    “If that is your response to my prudence comment you are either trying to redirect or you might want to try reading it again.”

    No, I understood what you meant by bringing up prudence. It was a threat, an attempt to intimidate me by reminding me that you might poses an older brother who may come to the sand box to teach me a lesson. I decided to turn it around by reinforcing my original argument. But you do not get it. Perhaps you should ask the older brother to explain it?

    • Replies: @res
  314. @AaronB

    When I had got as far as “whatever my misconceptions I think you have misconceived them” I was diverted and realised that there was a lot to read in the comments before i used up others’ and my time again with something at least superficially needing rigorous thought.

    I was toying with the idea of invoking the great Frank Ramsey’s “Is there anything to talk about?” dictum where he opined that many [most?] conversations were of the form A. I like that painting. B. No I don’t.

    At the moment I am recovering my breath from a gym workout so forgive me rattling on without precise footnotes.

    I must make sure the name of Frank Ramsey is not unknown to the brighter half of UR commenters. One reason it occurs to me on this thread is that he lends plausibility to the standard story of Ashkenazi IQ because he is surely a great example of that British upper middle class which got to much the same level before birth control and WW1 started the Brits downward path (Flynn effect discounted). He died at 26 and I only knew of him from Keynes’s scintillating “Essays in Biography” where he quotes favourably another’s description of Ramsey as “one of the the chief intellectual glories of Cambridge”. Not many people could teach themselves German so that, at 19, he could translate Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and at 24 become Wittgenstein’s PhD thesis supervisor!

    Here is a quote almost relevant to this threaf before TBC for technical reasons

    Logic issues in tautologies, mathematics in identities, philosophy in definitions; all trivial, but all part of the vital work of clarifying and organising our thought. – Frank P. Ramsey

    • Replies: @AaronB
  315. @V. Uil

    Actually I’ve known Fred electronically for 20 years and i wouldn’t assume his g was unworthy of Ron’s patronage, but he does have some mental kinks that should help to remind us that g isn’t everything. Another is his take on evolution by natural selection, presumably because he stops listening when someone explains yet again that our modern societies’ breeding habits fostered by the welfare state are not inconsistent with Darwinian evolution.

  316. res says:
    @Santoculto

    Some evidence?

    You are saying:

    look like you’re agreeing with me that indeed IQ enthusiasts and researchers ALSO pay little attention to the IQ weaknesses.

    No evidence needed to respond to that. I do not agree. That statement stands alone unless you believe I am lying about my opinion. If you are asking me to justify my disagreement with evidence, well that seems like a waste of time to me (almost any research paper will cover some types of shortcomings, and I don’t see any researchers claiming that IQ captures all things cognitive which seems to be your major point of objection). If you would like to show some good faith by presenting some evidence for your point of view I will consider gathering some of my own.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  317. res says:
    @utu

    Heh. Well at least you have some ability for reading comprehension. Except for the older brother part. I don’t think that is necessary. More a statement that there are enough smart people here at unz.com that mathematical BS is unlikely to go unchallenged.

    • Replies: @utu
  318. utu says:
    @res

    “there are enough smart people here at unz.com” – Perhaps, but certainly you are not one of them. Keep hoping they will come to your rescue.

    • LOL: res
  319. AaronB says:
    @res

    Res, all I’m getting from you is posturing, and insults – I’ve hit an obvious nerve with you – so there probably isn’t much point in us continuing our conversation. Neither of us will benefit.

    You probably don’t realize it, but you did not substantively address any of my points in your reply, and I am not sure you are capable of understanding what I am saying – all you are doing is adopting a snarky and mocking tone, out of defensiveness.

    Unfortunately I’ve dealt with too many people like you, and if I “responded” to you, it’d be an endless – and pointless – back and forth consisting mostly of posturing and tone-adoption.

    So – good luck to you, and I hope you derive the satisfaction you expect from your beliefs about IQ.

    WOZ, if you are still around, talking to you was a pleasure, as you seem open and genuinely intellectually curious – feel free to return, if you wish.

  320. AaronB says:

    I’m actually surprised at how well this thread went for quite some time – I was holding my breath – but eventually these threads always get derailed by the posturers, the insecure, and those who substitute mockery for argument. It’s inevitable, but we had a good run.

    Good luck, everyone.

  321. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Ah, you are still around! My apologies, I didn’t notice.

    Thanks for introducing us to Frank Ramsay :) I love those old Oxbridge English intellectuals – few people nowadays match their level, and its clear the intellectual world has suffered a loss of dimension.

    P.S – if you haven’t yet, you might want to read that Ron Unz link. Embarrassingly for me, I hadn’t read it before. He discusses and provides good evidence for my hypothesis that ambition is one of the key factors in the variance in top-level group achievement. He discusses the collapse in achievement of various groups, not just the Jews, and he contrasts the vast difference in achievement between recent immigrants and later generations which leaves no room for doubt that ambition is the elephant in the room. Apparently, I’m not the only one who thought of it, and I should have better read Unz. I’m not done yet, but its fascinating stuff so far.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @utu
  322. @utu

    You seem to be saying that your argument is very much Cosma Shalizi’s but you don’t appear to counter the detailed and cogent criticism of Shalizi which res linked. Or, naturally I suppose, Linda Gottfriedson’s 1998 piece that he linked later.

    Both seem to make a convincing case for the value of administering tests of cognitive abilities or performance which are highly correlated and can produce a reasonably stable g by appropriate calculation.

    Whether you want to pick soldiers who can be trained quickly (or will just have fewer accidents) or children who might sensibly be encouraged to learn a second language or be given an early look at calculus you have, in g, the best single predictor (absent some outlier feature like blindness or schizophrenia or…).

    Amongst remaining puzzles and uncertainties I think the causes of the Flynn effect are less puzzling than the increase in heritability of g with age. I wonder if it means that that phenomenon could be countered by forcing a lifelong monastic concentration on cognitively difficult tasks and training on the relatively dim.

    While I am pursuing possibibities how about comparing the limited use of GDP as a messure with the usefulness of g?

    • Replies: @utu
  323. @AaronB

    I think you are referring to Ron’s “Myth of Meritocracy” article which didn’t quite save TAC from his own disgruntlement at its self-indulgent management. Yes, a brilliant foundation for his later campaign for the Harvard Board of Overseers and one that I wasn’t disposed to quibble with at any point.

    While it does support the ambition point – as I think I put in reference to the Jewish accountants complaint to my Chinese accountant friend about their children – the WASPs got there first thanks to “women and champagne and bridge” as delightfully put by that staunch Catholic G. K. Chesterton. It doesn’t mean you should play anyone at bridge for serious money, Jewish, WASP or titled Italian without serious forethought if he has a very high IQ and only uses the champagne as a prop or diversion.

    As you can see from #327 I remain not too far beyond where Arthur Jensen and Linda Gottfriedson were in the late 90s. Nothing on this thread has displaced my hope that immigrants to Australia will on average perform or be able to perform after a little practice measurably better on IQ tests than the average native. I don’t think we need all the Jews in Israel and America to invent an ever better future for us (and preserve what we have of nature) since there are still tens of millions of very good (high g indeed) brains left unexploited in China and India but I see a need to counter the dysgenic breeding of native Australians like native white Europeans.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Anon
  324. utu says:
    @AaronB

    I think bringing up Frank Ramsay was way of saying I do not have relevant arguments but I know so much.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  325. AaronB says:
    @utu

    You are probably right. At a certain point, these conversations just become about posturing.

    It is amazing to me that many here continue to not grasp our points about g. I guess there is nothing more you can really say about it. Some people just won’t accept it.

    What can you do when someone asks you to “prove” that 50% attributed to a single factor hardly justifies claiming that factor as the be all and end of intelligence ? In the end, I suggest we clearly tell the common man on the street that ‘g’ accounts for 40%-50%, and let him decide. Because right now, to hear the people who talk about g, you would be forgiven for thinking its closer to 99%.

    Let me just say I appreciated your comments on this thread. I approached it from a layman’s point of view, applying simple common sense to what the experts say, but the math apparently is even more damning. While our points complement each other, I feel your point is even damning and you show that ‘g’ has even less meaning than I am willing to grant it.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @res
  326. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I wish you good luck. I hope your high ‘g’ immigrants, whose ‘g’ we can never measure, and whose ‘g’ accounts for maybe 50% at best of their group variance in intelligence, will do all that you hope of them, and much, much more.

    Amen, and adios.

  327. @res

    Basically, most if not almost of IQ- enthusiasts und researchers are little critical about IQ, all the time they are repeating the good points of IQ, never the bad or incomplete points. IQ criticals are, even most of them are ideologues pretend to be neutral, very useful, very important because without them/us this positive thinking ”IQ is extremely important/explain everything/ it’s a thing/ it’s near to perfect as tool/ it’s intelligence” will becoming more and more bigger, more and more distorted.

    You guys to do your jobs in incomplete ways, over-concentrating in the good [but-incomplete] points, opening gaps so others, rightly / honestly way or otherwise, work within their flaws. In the same way leftists are predominantly responsible for ”reactionary” reactions from the right, you are responsible for the existence of IQ criticals. Impeccable works are irrefutable or hardly reffutable.

    No evidence needed to respond to that. I do not agree. That statement stands alone unless you believe I am lying about my opinion.

    Maybe not intentionally, most people invariably lie, unfortunately.

    I don’t see any researchers claiming that IQ captures all things cognitive which seems to be your major point of objection

    Steve Sailer a long long time said that IQ is not good to measure at individual level as it is to measure at collective levels as well, something most people both sides tend to conclude.

    OK.

    Everyone who are not nosy nut can conclude at reasonable way that IQ is far to be perfect but it’s still very efficient.

    Now it’s important start to analyse the areas IQ is not comprehensive, the aspects of intelligence IQ don’t measure, to start, and not just repeat ”IQ is not perfect but it’s something” and from there extrapolate if the basis is not near to perfect.

    And i believe that only when the basis of cognitive tests is complemented with creativity and rationality (the latter that tends to relate to psychological health) can we actually extrapolate to a number of other related areas such as the IQ and income relationship because In this way we will be being conclusively fair / accurate, comparing and producing comparative hierarchies of people and not just through cognitive aspects.

    Because of the misconception that “behavior is fundamentally relative or amoral,” we tend to forget that in the end, proper behavior, in terms of character, honesty, empathy and even courage and self-defense, Are essential characteristics of intelligence, not just having a large vocabulary or knowing how to do math.

    • Replies: @res
  328. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “but you don’t appear to counter the detailed and cogent criticism”

    So you found it cogent? The implication is that you have read it, or somebody told you that there are cogent criticisms? You know, I do not believe you.

  329. utu says:
    @AaronB

    Posturing is purely defensive. Poor WOZ has no clue. Yeah, Frank Ramsey to the rescue. Did you see his today’s comment:

    http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-trump-speech-that-no-one-heard/#comment-1737235

    “I have just received an email from a retired *very* senior person in the Australian Treasury”

    This is WOZ for you. A pompous windbag. Like some deranged character form a Graham Greene’s novel (like “Major” Jones in The Comedians). I did not know they still make them like that but perhaps WOZ is old and, you know, Australia and NZ are kind of 30 years behind the rest of the world.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Wizard of Oz
  330. @res

    No. Well, at least the researchers.

    Well, so show me some work done for them that is correctly critical about IQ as i have done here. There is some*

    We are in vigorous agreement here. It’s just that I don’t see that as a reason to denigrate the value of IQ for what it is. There is also a useful conversation to have about what IQ is not. It would be even more interesting if those other things had more research and measuring tools associated with them though. By the way, that paragraph captures well what I find most interesting about your posts.

    What non-IQ cognitive assessment tests/tools do you recommend?

    For example, you scored around 120 on a cognitive tests battery. First, analyze your strengths/ comfort zone, challenge zone and weaknesses/discomfort zone, giving preference to the most salient aspects. You may have gone good but not excellent in a verbal qi test, but exceptional in some verbal subtest. Second, transferring this psychometric reality to a reality, by itself, that is, if you are very good to compare, understand and associate words, in IQ tests, how good you will to do it in relation to the real world, integrating this facility, captured in a psychometric reality, into a perceived/lived reality *

    How do you explain to me the huge proportion of boiling lefties in colleges, most of which are definitely not cognitively foolish [score at a least above average in IQ tests] *

    They lack a qualitative part of intelligence. However you don’t think that in other areas of the university beyond the humanities, the situation is better. In cognitive terms it is better, but not in the rest, because they continue as uncritical and often amoral high-profile replicators.

    First, we create competency benchmarks [meritocracy] and believe, in good faith, that these parameters are close to being perfect to select people. So we believe that if a person goes wrong on a cognitive test, he will be a poor worker, and we see every moment that most people tend to do very well in specific activities, especially those that are tied to their areas of greatest interest.

    A good example

    what you need to be a lawyer*

    right answer

    moral integrity/character, wisdom [capacity to judge correctly, to see the big picture], humility.

    how system select lawyers and judges*

    via indirect psycho-metric criteria: IQ.

    Why*

    Because they need to show that they can decorate a large number of laws. Basically…

    However,

    Many if not most laws are written in a very complicated, pedantically intellectual way.

    In the end what is most important is how wise a judge or lawyer can be to judge others.

    What is more important, its quality, is not measured in any way, in law school, and by any iq test, until now.

    Ideally, in fact, it would be that in addition to these selection changes, judges and lawyers who had obvious character flaws would be eliminated from the competition.

    The opposite happens and this happens only because it is selected by indirectly psychometric criteria (diploma that is a proxy for IQ).

    About creativity, I believe that every creative person tends to be very perceptive, usually of the more specific type, and that’s where creative accomplishment tends to come of course when related to other factors as intrinsic motivation. You may, perhaps, have people with above average creative potential, but without the fire of motivation to make it turn that potential into reality. For the time being, introducing divergent thinking tests is a way to start widening the horizons of cognitive testing. For example, tests of creative verbal analogy (logical-divergent, which makes sense but is not conventional).

    Just as we have school exams with multiple choice questions and open questions, for the personal development of the answers, we could do the same with the tests with respect to both creativity and rationality, since both are more nuanced.

    The most important point is

    Transfer and / or compare psychometric results with results in the real world, more specifically, in the pure capacity of reasoning and linked to the real world, is clear and evident, and not exactly material realization, although it is also important and placed in this equation, but As a more auxiliary and less conclusive comparison criterion because there are lots of very intelligent people who are under-accomplished, professionally speaking, and other lots of variably mediocre people who are very successful.

    In order to understand the intelligence itself, we must begin to disconnect it, even superficially, from the environment, because at least in relation to other animals, we analyze their capacities according to the demands of their environments, as they adapt to these demands , Clearly a case of descriptive criterion dependence on the environment.

    For example, high verbal iq = high capacity for understanding the meaning of words, curiosity and perfectionism to improve this understanding and its subsequent application, especially intellectually accurate and honest. Only in this case will we fall into the influence of cognitive prejudices in the distortion of direct understanding of this particular or any other reality.

    • Replies: @res
  331. res says:
    @AaronB

    claiming that factor as the be all and end of intelligence

    Nice strawman. If you read my comments above I make it clear in multiple places that I do not believe this. That does not mean g lacks utility. That is also addressed in my comments above (primarily the Linda Gottfredson link).

    • Replies: @utu
  332. res says:
    @Santoculto

    Now it’s important start to analyse the areas IQ is not comprehensive, the aspects of intelligence IQ don’t measure, to start, and not just repeat ”IQ is not perfect but it’s something” and from there extrapolate if the basis is not near to perfect.

    I strongly agree with this. The examples I am aware of that get the most discussion are creativity and “emotional quotient” (aka EQ). However, I have neither seen convincing measures of those nor large scale studies demonstrating their importance (but of course absence of proof is not proof of absence, and I am the last to underrate the importance of creativity). If you know of any alternative measures of cognitive ability, preferably with large scale studies supporting them, please point me to them (I am aware of the personality literature, e.g. the Big Five, but consider that something different). Much of my frustration with the conversation above comes from features like people gleefully pouncing on my “admission” that IQ only accounts for 40-50% of the variance in cognitive variability, but utterly failing to engage with the topics of what makes up the rest and how relatively important are these other components (worth noting that measurement noise is part of this).

    Just so you don’t get the idea that I only care about IQ, I’d like to mention that I have a great deal of interest in Hans Eysenck’s creativity/psychoticism theory and his contention that (simplifying) the uncommon combination of traits like ego strength and psychoticism is an important component of much creativity. If you are interested, here is a link that does a good job of summarizing the theory while attempting to debunk it (I am more sympathetic to Eysenck’s view than the author is): http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/porzio.html

    Because of the misconception that “behavior is fundamentally relative or amoral,” we tend to forget that in the end, proper behavior, in terms of character, honesty, empathy and even courage and self-defense, Are essential characteristics of intelligence, not just having a large vocabulary or knowing how to do math.

    This is an important point (I’m not sure how many people actually believe in your quote, but many do tend to forget), but we differ in how we partition and talk about these characteristics. I strongly agree that all of IQ and morality, etc. are important as human characteristics, but think of the latter as being distinct traits from intelligence/IQ although they are critical in ensuring that intelligence is put to effective and admirable uses.

  333. res says:
    @Santoculto

    Your comment is long and rambling. I’ll try to make some responses, but not sure I will do it justice.

    Well, so show me some work done for them that is correctly critical about IQ as i have done here. There is some*

    Well, from the fourth paragraph of my Linda Gottfredson link above (you did read that, right? It is a wonderful summary of what g is and is neither long nor complex) we have:
    “Of course, there are many kinds of talent, many kinds of mental ability and many other aspects of personality and character that influence a person’s chances of happiness and success. ” and later,
    “Conversely, because every mental test is “contaminated” by the effects of specific mental skills, no single test measures only g.” and
    “with more specific aptitudes arrayed at successively lower levels: the so-called group factors, such as verbal ability, mathematical reasoning, spatial visualization and memory, are just below g, and below these are skills that are more dependent on knowledge or experience, such as the principles and practices of a particular job or profession.”

    Now perhaps you could provide an example of one of those unreasonable research papers?

    First, analyze your strengths/ comfort zone, challenge zone and weaknesses/discomfort zone, giving preference to the most salient aspects.

    My understanding is professional IQ testing does this. I don’t have direct experience with that though.

    How do you explain to me the huge proportion of boiling lefties in colleges, most of which are definitely not cognitively foolish [score at a least above average in IQ tests] *

    Good question. First response is that they seem to be disproportionately drawn from the less cognitively demanding majors (even though some of the students there may be smart). Not sure why that is, but I suspect it is relevant. How do you explain this?

    First, we create competency benchmarks [meritocracy] and believe, in good faith, that these parameters are close to being perfect to select people. So we believe that if a person goes wrong on a cognitive test, he will be a poor worker,

    “Close to perfect” is a long way from “good enough” which I believe to be more accurate. A more accurate second sentence IMHO would be “a person scoring higher (by a non-trivial margin) on a cognitive test is more likely to be effective in a job with cognitive demands.” And of course, most use of tests like this (e.g. the AFQT) is as a screen followed by other relevant criteria. Do some people who would be good workers get screened out? Probably. How do you do hiring? Day long interviews of every single person who expresses interest in a position?

    I believe that every creative person tends to be very perceptive

    Here is that “every” again. Things like this make me start to think your criticism of IQ researchers is mostly projection (you seem to be just trying to elevate creativity above IQ on the desirable human traits totem pole). Might agree if you qualify it something like “in their area of creativity”, but I think plenty of creative people have percepual blind spots in their non-focal areas. Do you disagree with this?

    Just as we have school exams with multiple choice questions and open questions, for the personal development of the answers, we could do the same with the tests with respect to both creativity and rationality, since both are more nuanced.

    I would like that. Why have the creativity and rationality researchers (or you) not done that yet? Perhaps because those characteristics are both harder to measure and more difficult to relate to outcome data than IQ?

    I really don’t know how to interpret your most important point in the last three paragraphs. I don’t know if is a translation issue, me being a “smart dummy” (or whatever that phrase was), or something else. But, to me they read as a word salad of interesting sounding words that never quite come together into a coherent whole.

  334. res says:
    @utu

    Poor WOZ has no clue.

    This is WOZ for you. A pompous windbag. Like some deranged character form a Graham Greene’s novel (like “Major” Jones in The Comedians). I did not know they still make them like that but perhaps WOZ is old and, you know, Australia and NZ are kind of 30 years behind the rest of the world.

    Nothing like a bunch of ad hominem attacks to convince everyone Wizard of Oz is not worth listening to and utu is. You do realize that when this is the best you can do it is pretty much equivalent to raising a white flag signalling you have lost the debate and are surrendering, right?

    P.S. Given the things you are objecting to in this thread, you are starting to come off as having a massive inferiority complex.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  335. @utu

    I recall vaguely wondering about your curious, from memory incoherent and somewhat obtuse posts on UR, even wondering what , if any, your pseudonym indicated. Now I know that you are a fool and one of a kind that I can largely avoid in my real world. You are a not very successfuĺ academic with some mathematical skills that hard work and an IQ of +1.2 sds could achieve, and very little successful interaction with the real world . And you lack imagination. It shouldn’t have have been difficult for a normal human being to intuit that the reason for referring to a *very* senior Treasury person was to (a) obscure recognition of someone who might not choose to be seen in your company or even to think of corresponding with you, and (b) to say that i was enquiring about the curious rumour concerning John Brennan with an open mind but only because I had come across it in what couldn’t be dismissed as a frivolous context.
    I suspect that your institution is not one with a lustrous name or reputation. Still I can get some guidance from the professorial selection committees i have served on even if you wouldn’t have reached the interview stage. I think you have tenure but no full professorship.

    If you are not one to be glad for an introduction to Frank Plumpton Ramsey then that’s just sad. I wouldn’t expect to find bores like you at the dinner parties I go to.

    When I got round to doing the reading I hadn’t done when I gave an initial light touch reply to AromB I did read every word of both pieces that i described as cogent. You, by contrast have said nothing coherent.about either. As a judge mivht put it the expertise of tbe witnesz is brought into doubt by nonresonsiveness to the question.You insult AronB by your implicafion that you can bond witb him by your cheap jibes.

    All science is open to challenge but I have seen no evidence in anything you have written that I should have diminished regard for the relevant work of Arthur Jensen and Linda Gottfriedson (or Hans Eysenck for that matter), with all of whom i spoke to about their work on intelligence. Of course it is a long time since even Marxists like SJ Gould could make the old clodhopping objections to the utility of IQ and similar tests seem to be live issues in psychology. After all Kahnemann and Tversky were beginning to come out of the shadows 45 years ago.

  336. @res

    Congratulations on proving that patience doesn’t have to be negatively correlated with IQ :-)

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  337. @Wizard of Oz

    Some comments are just non-useful in any single angle made by self-claimed juvenihile geniuses, there are many here…

    The next time try avoid waste your time with it.

  338. @res

    Your comment is long and rambling. I’ll try to make some responses, but not sure I will do it justice.

    wandering mind…

    Well, from the fourth paragraph of my Linda Gottfredson link above (you did read that, right? It is a wonderful summary of what g is and is neither long nor complex) we have:
    “Of course, there are many kinds of talent, many kinds of mental ability and many other aspects of personality and character that influence a person’s chances of happiness and success. ” and later,
    “Conversely, because every mental test is “contaminated” by the effects of specific mental skills, no single test measures only g.”

    and

    “with more specific aptitudes arrayed at successively lower levels: the so-called group factors, such as verbal ability, mathematical reasoning, spatial visualization and memory, are just below g, and below these are skills that are more dependent on knowledge or experience, such as the principles and practices of a particular job or profession.”

    you did read that, right?

    If i can’t read english i would not be here. I will control my nerves and be polite with you.

    Read a foreign, weakly familiar (thanks romans and french) and non-versed language is not difficult as write it correctly.

    Verbal and math specially are culturally dependent, without language and numeric system both are not viable to be learned (in feral state). The reasoning that is behind all of it is what express intelligence in very deep and authentic way. I no dispute that chess game ability is hierarchically below verbal ability, also because the later is universally instrumental while chess game is culturally optional.

    Intelligence is not just ”have higher verbal aptitude”, it’s how you can integrate it with other psycho-cognitive components to respond [invariably] correctly to the everyday interactions of all natures.

    Now perhaps you could provide an example of one of those unreasonable research papers?

    I believe Linda Gottfredson think everyone or almost everyone who score higher on IQ tests (120 or more) is undoubtly smarter than other people. Great part of IQsm or IQ-cultism has been unitentionally created exactly by IQ-researchers.

    A subtletly

    No one but many times i already read in psychommetric or psychological papers: ”IQ/intelligence”.

    It seems chrystallized. Many people already think that IQ IS intelligence. Think about how many times hbd people talk about intelligence, using the word intelligence and using the acronym IQ** All the time.

    • Replies: @res
  339. @res

    ”My understanding is professional IQ testing does this. I don’t have direct experience with that though.”

    Only at cognitive and de-contextualized ways.

    For example, a very good example,

    avg verbal IQ of many blacks and their avg oral intelligence.

    How people who talk fluently, quickly and yes, ”surprinsingly” factual in many ”soft” aspects can have a lower verbal intelligence*

    Gypsy roma!!

    They are so persuasive, they use their verbal intelligence in some useful but morally cavernous way, but at least as example, it serve quite well to explain this disparities.

    Yes, there are strong psychological (dark triad) aspects here but integrated with verbal/oral skills.

    IQ measure and predict potential, but there is a way to conclude it just looking for how people behave and use their intelligence to perceive, understand and interact with their realities.

    Good question. First response is that they seem to be disproportionately drawn from the less cognitively demanding majors (even though some of the students there may be smart). Not sure why that is, but I suspect it is relevant. How do you explain this?

    For you, because your dependence on IQ results and correlations [or not] this seems a paradox, to me it’s a pseudo-paradox at the best. Yes, leftism have their epicenter in academia in less demanding areas but still is quite common in other places. There are many good points of new left many conservatives seems naturally illiterate not just to understand but to accept that is relevant.

    If someone score higher in IQ test(s), usually in performance, than other individual, so inevitably he will be smarter*

    What i see this quantitative/size and qualitative stuff, IQ measure the size of cognitive aspect of human intelligence as usually measurements to do, measure the size. You can have a bigger intelligence but with lower useful integrative efficience. You can have a little intelligence (avg IQ around 90′s or 80′s) but with greater useful integrative efficiency. Every IQ layers may have their optimum levels and personality interaction have huge influence.

    “Close to perfect” is a long way from “good enough” which I believe to be more accurate.

    But it’s not good enough. People who like that about meritocracy is in the same ship than those who think it’s close to perfect.

    “a person scoring higher (by a non-trivial margin) on a cognitive test is more likely to be effective in a job with cognitive demands.”

    I don’t dispute it, totally, but ”tend to be” or ”is more likely”.

    So, many people JUST because score higher in IQ tests and have high-profile credentials [or via nepotism] BUT it’s not effective enought to work in this jobs are in the wrong place occupying the jobs of people who are more specifically smarter/perfect to do it but no have performance IQ size enough to be easily detected by massified exames or just and simple luck.

    And of course, most use of tests like this (e.g. the AFQT) is as a screen followed by other relevant criteria. Do some people who would be good workers get screened out? Probably. How do you do hiring? Day long interviews of every single person who expresses interest in a position?

    You’re reducing the level of serioussness that this subject requires.

    You’re agreeing with me that any ”character test” don’t need to be done to select people.

  340. @res

    I hope you don’t believe by good faith people tend to be very good analysing others and selecting the best specially in character.

    Would be very gullible to believe.

    Here is that “every” again. Things like this make me start to think your criticism of IQ researchers is mostly projection (you seem to be just trying to elevate creativity above IQ on the desirable human traits totem pole). Might agree if you qualify it something like “in their area of creativity”, but I think plenty of creative people have percepual blind spots in their non-focal areas. Do you disagree with this?

    I wrote:

    ” i believe every creative people are more perceptive, usually of the more specific type

    the part you forget, ;)

    We are all the time projecting yourselves, u2.

    what differentiate us is how effective we are to neutralize or to integrate our selves into knowledge to perceive and understand the world we live.

    Well, the words we are using are creative inventions, to start. Without creativity, we don’t have nothing. I think i’m being fair.

    ”elevate creativity above IQ”’

    oops, i think you want to say ”intelligence”.

    Yes, IQ is a tool of measurement, it’s not even a neurological/organic thing as creative expression of behavior.

    but I think plenty of creative people have percepual blind spots in their non-focal areas. Do you disagree with this

    usually of the more specific type

    No, i don’t disagree with you, ;)

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  341. @res

    I would like that. Why have the creativity and rationality researchers (or you) not done that yet? Perhaps because those characteristics are both harder to measure and more difficult to relate to outcome data than IQ?

    A good example of rationality.

    So-called ”anti-semitism”.

    Most self-claimed reasonable people on the west think that anti-semitism in every aspect is simply wrong. But based on universal/neutral criteria, to be at least suspicious about jewish people, collective levels, at least, it’s not irrational, far to be irrational.

    But i believe miss Gottfredson never will agree with me, i maybe wrong about that.

    Rationality is usually analysed (better than just measure) as how people respond to their everyday interactions or perceptions. There are some rationality tests available, but again, always happen, they are de-contextualized. A ”test-creator” select some de-contextualized questions and formulate a test. So, maybe many many people can be good to answer correctly this de-contextualized tests but when they are really interacting with real-world stuff they are completely draged by their cognitive dissonance’s. They are not integrating informations with their psycho-cognitive systems and producing a factually correct conclusions.

    This transference from the psychometric expectations or predictions to the real world achievements is important BUT specially the ”little’ achievements, how people interact and understand the world they live at daily basis, at their intimacy, personal levels. I think rationality, because its essential/basal nature, anterior to verbal and math skills, what is the least culturally-dependent psycho-cognitive characteristic we have, even at feral state [thinking style], seems the real manifestation of the concept of intelligence.

    I’m not a fan of creativity, i fall in love with rationality and specially with wisdom, both superior but not completely superior to the creativity. Creativity always have pros and cons. Rationality and specially wisdom hardly have some cons, because they are always reducing the problem density while creativity create so many.

    I really don’t know how to interpret your most important point in the last three paragraphs. I don’t know if is a translation issue, me being a “smart dummy” (or whatever that phrase was), or something else. But, to me they read as a word salad of interesting sounding words that never quite come together into a coherent whole.

    but as a more auxiliary and less conclusive comparison criterion because there are lots of very intelligent people who are under-accomplished, professionally speaking, and other lots of variably mediocre people who are very successful.

    Material realization/income is auxiliar to understand the correlations with INTELLIGENCE’S.

    I just repeat the same stuff, ”wrong people in wrong place, but perceived as right people because indirect and vague criteria”.

    Do you also don’t understand environment and intelligence stuff i wrote*

  342. @Santoculto

    ”projecting ourselves

    so-sorry

  343. res says:
    @Santoculto

    I was a bit obnoxious to you in my previous comment. Please accept my apologies. I try to return like for like (both good and bad), but that time I overstepped.

    you did read that, right?

    If i can’t read english i would not be here. I will control my nerves and be polite with you.

    Read a foreign, weakly familiar (thanks romans and french) and non-versed language is not difficult as write it correctly.

    I was not intending to imply you could not read it, rather that not many people here seem to make the effort to read linked material. Even when it is as good and as apropos to the conversation as I think that Gottfredson piece is. Thanks for controlling your nerves, especially since that was a misunderstanding. I think you’ve noticed that I don’t simplify my vocabulary or grammar for you– that is because I get the impression I don’t need to (I hope that is OK).

    Now perhaps you could provide an example of one of those unreasonable research papers?

    I believe Linda Gottfredson think everyone or almost everyone who score higher on IQ tests (120 or more) is undoubtly smarter than other people. Great part of IQsm or IQ-cultism has been unitentionally created exactly by IQ-researchers.

    I don’t know if this is a subtlety that gets lost when writing in a foreign language, but when you state you believe you know what Linda Gottfredson thinks without giving evidence, that is improper. It is not up to you decide what you think she thinks. It is up to you to provide evidence from her writing that demonstrates your point.

    No one but many times i already read in psychommetric or psychological papers: ”IQ/intelligence”.

    Citation required (if it’s that common an occurrence it should not be hard to find an example). Yes, people do sometimes conflate those terms (but much more often in casual conversation than in papers). Intelligence is hard to define rigorously and deeming it equivalent to IQ (or g) is a seductive convenience.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  344. @res

    I don’t decide what/how Gottfredson think about this particularity if I can infer based on what she have wrote.

    What I’m saying: IQ researchers or whatever the name you prefer to use…are at the best softly critical about IQ, very superficial at the least by now. One of the best criticism have been done by IQ criticals, most of them who are fanatical ideologues.

    Quantitative stuff put many people on the pantheon of human intelligence but qualitative stuff may replace many them from this comfortable and possibly unfair position. One of my central advocating here is, no there only one intelligence-bell curve. Seems reasonable to me.

    Maybe you’re very proud about your IQ scores…

    I really know that if it got a IQ tests I will score higher but not impressive in verbal IQ, I really don’t know about mathematical part, I believe below avg and no doubt below avg in spatial. I really don’t know about other subtests. No doubt I have personal reasons to be critical against IQ tests but also because I know that intelligence is not just have a big vocabulary or be skilled on mathematics and I perceive that many “higher IQ” people, not just where I live, anecdotically speaking, but even here in hbd sphere are not unbeatable superior in every psychological and even cognitive thing as many people here seems believe, at literal way. Rationality and wisdom are qualitatively superior/more relevant than intelligence. Just think about madness today?! But also the prevalent madness since early civilizations!! Creativity is the soul of intelligence. Without it intelligence is basically a dynamic mix of personality and cognition repeating itself for timeless period and “expecting” for new challenge or changes that “she” is not prepared to fight.

  345. @res

    I have a insight by know. Intelligence as a recipe. Verb, spat, math, memory as their ingredients.

    What would be “de contextualized” I’m talking about??

    IQ is divided in sectors or parts but intelligence in real world is always integrated. Just like analyze functioning of organism organ by organ or system by system without analyze it in all their whole. We use verb, numerical, spatial, memory at the same time all the time even about trivial activities even we don’t take notice, basically pure math or pure verb or pure spatial is impossible to exist in real world, all verb-charged activity is contamined with numeric/ proportions, spatial, memory. Because IQ tests separates intelligence in their parts/ingredients and measure them separately one each other this factor mean that IQ measurement can be understood as de contextualized because in real world contexts and specially to integrate informations this artificialism is possibly very difficult to be done and still be efficient.

    So this “internal” interactions among this “sectors” or reasoning really result in intelligence.

    The problem about intelligence concept is both semantic (too vague… All vague concepts are more problematic or less precise than objective ones) and intrinsically descriptive, because your nature is really diversified. The concept become artificially difficult when we try to reduce this diversity of intelligence combinations specially among humans who tend to be quite idiosyncratic.

    There is only one human species but there are human races/ethnicities or subspecies.

    There is only one human intelligence but there are many sub-intelligences, ;)

    Or not and I’m wrong about everything.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  346. This insane guy [Stuart little Ritchie] is a perfect example of IQdiot many people here are talking about.

    IQ ”is progressively” becoming a cult… or better, IQ already is a cult, the difference now is that it’s becoming more and more popular, specially when you have a lucky asshole as minster Tramp in the Whaite House.

    Evident that IQ only correlates partly with rationality but he is convinced that IQ is considerably comprehensive.

    And better about all of it, IQ clearly IS NOT rationality, they are synonimous, they are not basically the same thing, even intelligence IQ really is.

    Again, ratio-nality = weight attitudes and thoughts to produce a better judgment/understanding is hardly possibly to be ”measured” without a real-world context, i mean, real-world that is completely indifferent about your subjective assumptions, what is wrong and right based on ideal metric.

    IQ

    - predict

    - measure

    - correlate

    - it’s near

    but evidently it’s not enough…

    when IQ indeed start to reflect perfectly intelligence, its dynamics and complexity, i will agree that it’s enough, by now.

    There is two types of rational behavior:

    psychological/mentalist or behavioral proportionality

    cognitive/mechanicist or intellectual proportionality.

    To understand something you need ”recognize many, most or all of their pieces and how they are integrated one each other to compose your reality in proportionally correct way” to avoid distort it.

    Basically look for things as they are, firstly, without any subjective interference,

    and secondly, interact this intro and extrospective spheres specially when we are talking about morality.

    Ritchie is not super-rational guy he think he is as well most people, because i really believe he have little curiosity and perfeccionism about your own attitudes, thoughts, little negligent with your self-knowledge, as usual among most of cognitively smarter people. Ritchie is other hero yours that is very likely that never will agree with me about so-called ”anti-semitism”, a single sign of something more generalized about him, that make him less qualified to talk with property about rationality, what is, how manifest, degree of correlation between IQ and rationality, etc…

    I’m super-sensitive with my attitudes, all the time thinking how improve it, how behave well (not based on normalcy laws)., all the time using golden-rule/play fair to understand the world firstly, and not create my own version of the world in both mechanicist and mentalist spheres.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @res
  347. @Santoculto

    ”they are not synonimous”, just correcting, again.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  348. res says:
    @Santoculto

    Way too many words and too little useful information in that burst of posts to reply in detail (sorry Wiz, I might be giving support to that correlation now), but this caught my eye.

    This insane guy [Stuart little Ritchie] is a perfect example of IQdiot many people here are talking about.

    This is a perfect representative of many of the arguments I see deployed above against IQ. Ad hominem responses with zero actual criticism of the points Ritchie made.

    Then there was this in the same vein.

    Ritchie is not super-rational guy he think he is as well most people, because i really believe he have little curiosity and perfeccionism about your own attitudes, thoughts, little negligent with your self-knowledge, as usual among most of cognitively smarter people. Ritchie is other hero yours that is very likely that never will agree with me about so-called ”anti-semitism”, a single sign of something more generalized about him, that make him less qualified to talk with property about rationality, what is, how manifest, degree of correlation between IQ and rationality, etc…

    I would not call Ritchie a hero, but he does seem to know what he is talking about. Perhaps you could critique his point about IQ and rationality tests overlapping so much in variance explained? That’s actually a good example of one of the findings from the research literature. Almost (I actually don’t know of a counterexample, perhaps you could supply one) every time someone comes up with a new cognitive measure intended to improve on IQ it correlates heavily with IQ.

    Speaking of ad hominem attacks and lack of evidence, in all those words above surely you could have included a quote from Linda Gottfredson showing an example justifying the complaints you have made about her? I guess not… Must be hard to find one.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  349. @res

    Your nervous is blinding you. So many interesting things i write here and just for you.

    This is a perfect representative of many of the arguments I see deployed above against IQ. Ad hominem responses with zero actual criticism of the points Ritchie made.

    Then there was this in the same vein.

    Ok, Stui is a angel on earth that/and don’t deserve any criticism, even ad hominem.

    What point**

    He never have.

    would not call Ritchie a hero, but he does seem to know what he is talking about.

    hahahahahahahahahaha

    yesss

    he know repeat the same IQ-istic stuff.

    Supposedly i don’t know what i’m talking*

    Perhaps you could critique his point about IQ and rationality tests overlapping so much in variance explained?

    ”rationality tests”

    i imagine how ”precious” IT can be.

    AGAIN, rationality is hardly divorced from real-world reality to be trully understood and easily captured, but we live in world of lies of all types, weight, perspectives and most people seems little capable or protected from this mountains of lies that populate human realities, they are subconsciously-voluntarily happy to engage in this lies.

    For sure, Gottfredson actually believe people who score super higher on IQ tests are not invencibly smarter, i mean, about everything….

    Show me your evidences about it, she ”talking” clearly, directly, that she know that ”is not that terra plana-bell curve” most IQ-cultists believe. You are more knowledgeable about their works, as well Ritchy.

    • Replies: @res
  350. @res

    To know the concepts is one thing. To know how to apply this concepts is very different and decisive thing. Many times we know how to apply something but not what is it. Other and usual times we know the concepts but not how to apply them.

    Most people can define reasonably well what intelligence and rationality are. But to apply this concepts most people are dragged by their subjective preconceptions resulting in the distortion of their factual understanding.

    Most people and Ritchie included believe that rationality is essentially the good use of mind to the cognitive challenges.

    To be against en masse immigration is rational for me and for Ritchie, both right here.

    But Ritchie seems based on what he have posted in your twitter pay little attention to the “sentimental” things also as example of rationality. For example the underlying rationality of vegetarianism and by less degree veganism (not about conscious choice of clothes and other products that don’t hurt guinea pigs to be “tested”). He is a typical nerd bacon-lover, so he is not well qualified to talk about rationality start the moment he weakly pay attention for your moral attitudes. Integral intellectual honesty is required to understand rationality and wisdom and he by subconscious or conscious way is not by permanent and constant time intellectually honest even he is not aware about it, and it’s extremely common.

  351. res says:
    @Santoculto

    Show me your evidences about it, she ”talking” clearly, directly, that she know that ”is not that terra plana-bell curve” most IQ-cultists believe. You are more knowledgeable about their works, as well Ritchy.

    Already asked and answered. See my comments above along with the associated link to her piece (primarily comments 315 and 338).

    Still waiting for you to find one of those oh so common problematic examples from Gottfredson’s work (but I’m not foolish enough to hold my breath while doing so). The game of you asking me questions, me responding to your questions/requests and then asking questions of you followed by you not actually addressing anything I ask became tiresome a while ago. Is that some kind of power play or are you really unable to find evidence for your assertions?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  352. @res

    So we are in dead end because you can’t find any evidence that prove otherwise about my affirmations while i no have any patience or motivation to search what seems very easy to conclude.

    Ritchie is a good example about the ignomyny of so-called ”intelligence experts” who are over-obsessed with IQ at the point to believe ”IQ is neeaar to rationality … basically the same thing” exactly as he is doing now. Next time if you want, please, refute point by point, i have many good ones. Try my observation that Ritchie look like a typical nerd who love bacon and pay little attention to the emotional/psychological aspect of rationality.

    To hell all your tests, no tests is capable to express perfectly something real than JUST

    observe,

    analyse,

    criticize

    and

    conclude/judge correctly

    I don’t deny where IQ is strong and i’m not that people who are critical against IQ by ideological motivations, i already said it. The racial differences in intelligence and other psycho-cognitive aspects is undeniable for those who follow patterns and facts.

    IQ measure cognitive aspects, predict them and tend to be very good in its predictions.

    I will not repeat what, seems, you and me know about IQ weaknesses.

    Your Gottfredson evidences prove just what i already said here: too much soft and still extrapoling this incomplete basis, what you strongly agreed with me.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-7-tribes-of-intellect/

    Finally, =) =) =)

  353. utu says:
    @res

    “That is also addressed in my comments above (primarily the Linda Gottfredson link).”

    The only argument you are capable of are of argumentum ad verecundiam type.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Wizard of Oz
  354. res says:
    @utu

    There’s that inferiority complex again. At least acknowledge I can do argumentum ad hominem as well (although that ability is pretty common and appears to be one of your special skills). In case I haven’t demonstrated that sufficiently above, it is clear utu is clueless about IQ, advanced math, and much else and therefore should not be listened to concerning this topic. I think that is sufficient to disprove your statement. (I enjoy double entendres)

    But seriously, please point to my appeals to authority in this thread. You do understand that pointing to the work of IQ researchers is a reference to the evidence and arguments they present, not to their authority, right? You are always free to point out where their research is incorrect (in detail, not just saying “that’s wrong”). You also might want to consider this excerpt from

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

    However, it is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.[19] As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.

    But I suppose that is an appeal to authority as well. Much better to rely on argumentum ad opinione utu (not sure that Latin is correct, I am most decidedly not an authority on Latin).

    And my reference to the Shalizi rebuttal was also not an appeal to the expertise of the author (whom I don’t know, even by reputation). Again, it is a reference to a detailed argument. The funniest part of that exchange was your rejoinder which made it clear you are unable to understand the argument (comment 333, i.e. because you were unable to understand it surely Wiz couldn’t either):

    So you found it cogent? The implication is that you have read it, or somebody told you that there are cogent criticisms? You know, I do not believe you.

    Which also happens to provide a great example of argumentum ad opinione utu

    P.S. I’m not sure whether it is more entertaining or frustrating to debate with people who think referencing peer reviewed research literature and detailed arguments is insufficient while also appearing to believe their opinion should have the weight of fact.

    P.P.S. Yes, I realize that this comment is over the top rude. I do think utu has asked for it though. The funny thing is I actually defended him in another thread a while ago where I thought someone else was being overly harsh to him. Hopefully at least some of my joke attempts are funny. I figure I’m doing OK as long as I can maintain my sense of humor. I will definitely be reusing variations of argumentum ad opinione utu in the future.

    • Replies: @utu
  355. You have a complete loser who think by heart he is a genius only exclusively because he score higher in IQ tests.

    This is real manifestation of inferiority complex. This is a real emotional issues.

    What is more funny and interesting about it is that the most IQ enthusiasts, many them who score higher in IQ tests, rarely prove their naturally superior intelligence in debates like that, trying to prove their points.

    I will not forget this sentence

    “You are trying to put creativity above IQ/oops intelligence?”

    Refute point by point and not just that points you qualify as weak, ^_~

    • Replies: @res
  356. res says:
    @Santoculto

    You have a complete loser who think by heart he is a genius only exclusively because he score higher in IQ tests.

    I assume you are referring to me (not because it fits, but because the last part of your comment refers to my writing, if you want to attempt to insult me at least have the guts to do it directly). Not exclusively, there are also little things like achievements in education, work, etc. And I don’t think either my abilities or achievements qualify me to be considered a genius. But there is a long way between genius and average with lots of room in between. One aspect of IQ we probably agree on is that the idea that someone achieving a certain threshold of IQ score makes them a genius is ludicrous.

    Also, where above (until the previous paragraph) have I claimed exceptional expertise or ability (that would be you lovingly describing all of your positive attributes. see for example the last paragraph of comment 352, the last paragraph of comment 310, the first paragraph of comment 265 [especially the humble part], and comment 222)

    Refute point by point and not just that points you qualify as weak, ^_~

    Pot, kettle, black. Also, do you really expect me to go through 53 (so far) of your comments totaling around 7800 words and refute them point by point?! Your comments on this article have 5x the number of words as are in the article (1500)! Of course, I am arguably worse with 26 comments totaling about 8600 words, but if you look at them you’ll notice most include substantial quotes (included in the word count) and are attempts at point by point refutation as requested.

    I’ll add to that, refute points actually made rather than your strawmen (like the oops above).

    And do you honestly disagree with: You are trying to put creativity above IQ/intelligence? (paraphrased from my earlier comment)
    Perhaps I erred by leaving out rationality, but the theme of arguing for the importance of creativity/rationality and the non-importance of IQ echoes throughout your writing.
    And from the last paragraph of comment 350 we have you explicitly writing: “Rationality and wisdom are qualitatively superior/more relevant than intelligence.” You do say that rationality is more important than creativity in comment 347, but I don’t see an explicit rank of creativity vs. IQ (since you object to what I said before, how do you rank them?):

    I’m not a fan of creativity, i fall in love with rationality and specially with wisdom, both superior but not completely superior to the creativity. Creativity always have pros and cons. Rationality and specially wisdom hardly have some cons, because they are always reducing the problem density while creativity create so many.

    Actually, I guess the theme that echoes most is that whatever attributes Santoculto possesses are important (most convenient if these are unmeasurable) while those he does not possess are unimportant. There is an obvious inference to be drawn from viewing this whole thread in that light, but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

  357. @res

    You have and not you are.

    You have problems to understand minutiae?

    Do you believe you are genius because your higher scores in IQ tests?

    • Replies: @res
  358. @res

    If you only understand or see one of my personal motivations in this sentences, to treat rationality and wisdom as superior than creativity so you really don’t want to capture the interesting part of my comment.

    Even if I’m not wise or creative or rational but I had objective eyes as I really have I still would conclude the same thing.

    Better, even I score higher in IQ tests AND still see “higher IQ” people who are not invincibly smarter than others or even stupid in many important qualitative aspects I would not conclude that … because I score higher in IQ tests IQ is rigidly perfect to measure human intelligence.

    But I catch your dishonest strategy here. You are accusing me to do what you also do but by different perspectives but you’re trying to put the hot potato in my hands. You are content/happy because you score higher in IQ tests and many morons believe it mean you are totally smarter than most people. I’m discontent because instead my clear sign of better intelligence my possible scores on IQ tests put me in rigidly non-”gifted” position. I act smart, I think smart, I make most thing in smart way (smarter personality) but because I’m wasn’t superb in this tests so I’m not what most signs show what I’m, supposedly. I need to be vassal with you and with miss Vos Savant. Isn’t?

    • Replies: @res
  359. @res

    I never said IQ is not important. Evidence?

    • Replies: @res
  360. res says:
    @Santoculto

    That’s a fair response. Let’s change it to “IQ is less important” (i.e. replace unimportant with less important in the original sentence). Evidence for that already supplied. Does that work for you?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  361. res says:
    @Santoculto

    You have and not you are.

    Sorry, but I don’t understand what this means. Please elaborate.

    You have problems to understand minutiae?

    I’m not sure of the context here. Please elaborate. It would help if you would quote my words that you have an issue with or that you think support your point. Or, as you would say, Evidence?

    Do you believe you are genius because your higher scores in IQ tests?

    No. I am surprised you ask this given that in the first paragraph of the comment you replied to I said: “One aspect of IQ we probably agree on is that the idea that someone achieving a certain threshold of IQ score makes them a genius is ludicrous.”

    For that matter, I don’t know that my IQ score tests are higher than those of anyone here. And I am quite sure there are commenters on the Unz Review who have higher IQs (e.g. the site owner). When interacting with commenters here I am much more concerned with their ability to understand and articulate arguments and provide and evaluate evidence. Of course I think a good case can be made that those traits correlate with IQ, just not perfectly.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Anon
  362. res says:
    @Santoculto

    But I catch your dishonest strategy here. You are accusing me to do what you also do but by different perspectives but you’re trying to put the hot potato in my hands.

    If you are going to accuse me of dishonesty at least quote the words making you think that. Or, as you would say, Evidence?

    You are content/happy because you score higher in IQ tests and many morons believe it mean you are totally smarter than most people.

    Do you really think scoring well on IQ tests is enough to make one content/happy?! And as far as what people who are average or closer to it think about it, as with most things reactions vary. But one thing you can believe is that many people treat you differently, and that is often not a good thing. One sense I get from your comments is that you think differently from most people, so I think you know what I mean.

    I’m discontent because instead my clear sign of better intelligence my possible scores on IQ tests put me in rigidly non-”gifted” position. I act smart, I think smart, I make most thing in smart way (smarter personality) but because I’m wasn’t superb in this tests so I’m not what most signs show what I’m, supposedly.

    This seems like the crux of things. I can totally understand that. I am somewhat short in a (popular) society that values (male) height much more than IQ. And height is much more readily apparent. In my experience if you truly do act and think smart and have some objective accomplishments to back that up (which might be creativity and/or rationality based) then people in the world at large won’t care about your IQ (although I also understand credential gathering might be inhibited, if you are a student this could be a big deal at the moment).

    If I might be so presumptuous as to offer advice, I think you would be wise to worry less about IQ and focus on areas where you are skilled and confident. Let people see those things and see the things you are able to accomplish with them. The focus on male height in American society annoys me sometimes, but if I complain about it I just sound bitter (and like I have an inferiority complex) which does not help anyone.

    I need to be vassal with you and with miss Vos Savant. Isn’t?

    Of course not, but it also doesn’t mean you need to expend thousands of words denigrating IQ tests in favor of the (unmeasurable) things you are good at. People are different with a wide range of diverse skills. Should I complain about stopwatches because I’m not a good sprinter and that has excluded me from certain opportunities?

    I am really not fond of your tactic of trying to put words in my mouth (at least that is how that sentence, and others of yours, reads to me).

  363. @res

    Sorry, but I don’t understand what this means. Please elaborate.

    I need do it*

    Ok…

    You have [other person who is not you] a loser…

    I’m not sure of the context here. Please elaborate. It would help if you would quote my words that you have an issue with or that you think support your point. Or, as you would say, Evidence?

    again, have & are…

    No. I am surprised you ask this given that in the first paragraph of the comment you replied to I said: “One aspect of IQ we probably agree on is that the idea that someone achieving a certain threshold of IQ score makes them a genius is ludicrous.”

    For that matter, I don’t know that my IQ score tests are higher than those of anyone here. And I am quite sure there are commenters on the Unz Review who have higher IQs (e.g. the site owner). When interacting with commenters here I am much more concerned with their ability to understand and articulate arguments and provide and evaluate evidence. Of course I think a good case can be made that those traits correlate with IQ, just not perfectly.

    So, sorry because i don’t read this part or pay deserved attention to this part. My question was stupid.

    When interacting with commenters here I am much more concerned with their ability to understand and articulate arguments and provide and evaluate evidence

    Agree absolutely, and this is real-time demonstration of ability.

    But do you read the link i posted here**

    Gottfredson seems disagree with you about this

    ”One aspect of IQ we probably agree on is that the idea that someone achieving a certain threshold of IQ score makes them a genius is ludicrous”

    • Replies: @res
  364. @res

    IQ is not or never should be central rule in INTELLIGENCE studies. IQ is one of the tools that are used to

    measure
    analyse
    conceptualize or re-conceptualize

    But i thought you agree with me about many reasonable points and it’s enough for me, instead other points..

    I don’t think it’s problematic to refute or try to refute my numerous points but the choice is yours.

  365. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Not SC, but

    You have a complete loser

    vs.

    You are a complete loser

    See?

    • Replies: @res
    , @Santoculto
  366. utu says:
    @res

    The reason your comment is over the top rude is because that is all what you got at this point. You do not understand how g is constructed and what is its actual meaning. You go along with opinions of people who over interpret the meaning of g. They do it because they think they can make stronger arguments by invoking it. Most of them do it in a good faith because they do understand what g really is. I wrote several comments here where I explained the nature of g construction. I hope there are some who found them useful. However I have no illusion that I could convince everybody particularly when dealing with borderline cult-like adherence. Then Mark Twain’s dictum seems to be almost always valid: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

    My clarifications about g do not bring down the structure the intelligence research has built. They remove just one element that is not really structurally fundamental, as some mistakenly believe, but is really a part of its facade. This element is just a PR effort to strengthen the scientific legitimization of the research.

    I suspect that deep down you know I am correct. Reread my comments and apply your brain.

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1734386

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1735424

    Also Aaronb has made several good points. In particular here:

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1733586

    Why are we talking about how Jews are good at verbal and atrocious at spatial? That they are good at verbal should mean that they are good at spatial, if g really has any great importance.

    Factor analysis always gives as many orthogonal factors as many variables you have started with. By definition g is the “strongest”, i.e., g is associated with the largest eigenvalue. I haven’t seen anybody asking the question how strong is the next factor second in strength to g. Let’s call it gg. Would you like to know what is gg-loading in IQ test or in RT test? Certainly it is not zero. If g-loading in RT test is, say 30%-40% other factors or their linear combination must account for something. Their correlations with RT are not zero. But you have never heard of them, right?

    Linda S. Gottfredson

    No general factor has been found in the analysis of personality tests, for example; instead the method usually yields at least five dimensions (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to ideas), each relating to different subsets of tests. But, as Spearman observed, a general factor does emerge from analysis of mental ability tests, and leading psychologists, such as Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley and John B. Carroll of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have confirmed his findings in the decades since. Partly because of this research, most intelligence experts now use g as the working definition of intelligence.

    is not concerned with other factors yielded by the same factor analysis that produced g. She actually strongly emphasizes that only one factor could be identified which Aaronb deduced that it cannot be so if you allow for Jews to have two different types of intelligence that rather anti-correlate with each other.

    Linda S. Gottfredson in passing acknowledges the problem I am bringing up here:

    A general factor suffusing all tests is not, as is sometimes argued, a necessary outcome of factor analysis.

    probably because she wants to pass as a scrupulous academician but at the same time she dismisses the argument w/o any argument.

    Probably the most revealing is her last sentence in the cited text: “most intelligence experts now use g as the working definition of intelligence.” Personality traits were known before tests to measure them were invented. Actually the tests were specially designed to capture neuroticism, extraversion, etc. but psychologists knew what neuroticism or extraversion were before anybody heard of any multi-axial personality test. In intelligence research it ain’t so. There is no foundation like this. There is no definition of intelligence that would be independent of measurement. This causes some epistemic if not ontological issues. And perhaps it explains why psychometricians like the g construct. It really justify their existence. For the lack of a better definition they use g. Bu doing so they force intelligence to be uni-axial. They painted themselves into a cul-de-sac.

    • Replies: @res
  367. res says:
    @Santoculto

    So, sorry because i don’t read this part or pay deserved attention to this part.

    No problem. Thanks for owning it. We are writing many words here so it is easy for either of us to miss something.

    Gottfredson seems disagree with you about this

    Where? She has been an academic for decades and has a substantial body of work. Statements like that are useless without a citation. Specific words and context matter greatly! Especially when there are ideas out there like “someone with over 140 IQ is a genius”. Which obviously I don’t agree with.

    I looked further and in the link I provided she does talk about thresholds for different levels (but not “genius”) and I did not see the qualifiers I would like. But when she talks about a threshold of 125 I doubt if pressed she would say there is any meaningful difference between 124.9 and 125.1 or that any of it is certain. The same criticism applies to much medical use of thresholds. I doubt anyone believes there is much difference between a systolic blood pressure of 139.9 and 140.1, but they use the threshold just the same. You have to draw a line somewhere to make the analysis categorical (as an aside, I prefer using spline curve fits in my medical models for precisely this reason).

    But yes, she is playing fast and loose with those threshold judgments. I wonder if the presentation differs in her peer reviewed papers on the same topic.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  368. res says:
    @Anon

    That helped me. Thanks.

    If I might try restating, I usually refer to that as the distinction between criticizing behavior vs. criticizing a personal characteristic. (I consider this a critical distinction to maintain for a civil debate, though I am certainly capable of failing to do so) For example, I would contrast:
    1. You are X.
    with
    2. Your comment “…” was X.
    I would not say
    3. You have an X.
    But I am taking it that 3. is similar to my 2. Is this right Anon and Santoculto?

    Given all of that, what specific statement of mine was it in reference to?

    P.S. Is there a language issue happening here? Different languages can be idiosyncratic about which common verbs (e.g. is, have, do, go) are used in colloquialisms.

  369. @Anon

    I already explain for him.

    have is different than be, isn’t*

  370. @res

    ”Where? She has been an academic for decades and has a substantial body of work. Statements like that are useless without a citation. Specific words and context matter greatly! Especially when there are ideas out there like “someone with over 140 IQ is a genius”. Which obviously I don’t agree with.”

    The link of Psychological Comments. Do you saw*

  371. @res

    Eminent (or Scary Bright) the top 0.01% (1 in 10,000) There would be one such person in our town. The town’s progress might depend on whether they are able to contribute their ideas and see them implemented. More likely, they will leave town and search out other eminent people just for the fun of exchanging ideas. Their vocabularies will be above 40,000 words. They are unlikely to believe in gods or superstitions, and can calculate coincidences. (Dick Feynman used to begin his lectures by saying: “As I parked my car today I noticed that the licence plate of the car in front of me was 79346229. What’s the chance of that?”). They may be seen as unconventional, and can be difficult to understand. In IQ terms they are 155. Call them the Three Sigmas.

    from http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-7-tribes-of-intellect/

    The above results are largely from the US and the results are mostly from the 1993 data on National Literacy with some later findings, and my main source has been Linda Gottfredson’s papers on this subject

    You want a direct quote from her to make sure *

    What you and me agree… create a artificial and rigid line of intelligence via IQ is not a bright thing to do.

    I think Terman used this methodology too is not*

    Seems most of gifted education also use it or … less today specially to find real and not-so-real gifted non-white children and teens.

    I bet you also are critical about ”multiple” intelligence theory.

    • Replies: @res
  372. res says:
    @utu

    all what you got at this point.

    Leaving aside the impressive grammar, one of us is overrating the evidence and arguments we are bringing to this conversation. Given things like my following points I feel confident in my assessment so I don’t think either of us are likely to change our minds.

    If g-loading in RT test is, say 30%-40%

    If you look at my comment 302 I already addressed this, if we are talking about intelligence ( RT is just one aspect) and g:

    Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) the answer to 1. is 40-50%.

    This is an interesting question from your comment:

    By definition g is the “strongest”, i.e., g is associated with the largest eigenvalue. I haven’t seen anybody asking the question how strong is the next factor second in strength to g.

    I looked for a good quantitative reference concerning this and was unable to find one (do you know of any?). Everyone seems in agreement that there are other factors (e.g. spatial, verbal/math split, or any of a few to many more) but no numbers that I see. Given that g is 40-50% of variance there is not that much left over to divide between the remainder of the factors.

    Regarding:

    probably because she wants to pass as a scrupulous academician but at the same time she dismisses the argument w/o any argument.

    On the contrary she gives an existence proof type argument by saying (in the very next sentence after your quote! which you actually quoted elsewhere):

    No general factor has been found in the analysis of personality tests, for example; instead the method usually yields at least five dimensions (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to ideas), each relating to different subsets of tests.

    To lay the argument out in detail:
    1. Here is an example where factor analysis does not result in a general factor
    2. Given a single example (existence) where a general factor does not result we can conclude
    3. A general factor suffusing all tests is not a necessary outcome of factor analysis. (her conclusion)

    In intelligence research it ain’t so.

    So you are telling me before psychometricians nobody recognized a concept called intelligence, that some people were more/less intelligent than others, and that there were different “types” of intelligence?!

    If you spend any time looking, there is plenty of work trying to come up with multi factor intelligence models. It’s just that there is no consensus and those models have far less explanatory power than g does. Here are some links:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory_of_intelligence

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-stratum_theory

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell%E2%80%93Horn%E2%80%93Carroll_theory

    I am definitely in favor of trying to improve the modeling (although I do think verbal/mathematical/spatial comes close to being sufficient). But again, that does not mean IQ and g are without value.

    I’m curious, what do you think about the rest of psychology? The existence and utility of g is one of the best established results in the psychological literature.

    • Replies: @utu
  373. res says:
    @Santoculto

    I bet you also are critical about ”multiple” intelligence theory.

    Yes. Are you? (more or less so than you are of IQ research?) In my opinion it has some merit (i.e. to some extent the different MI’s exist), but is much overrated because people who don’t like IQ see it as a useful counterargument. Perhaps you can point me to MI research that gives effective measures and correlates them with outcomes? Even better, compares the predictive/explanatory value with IQ.

    You want a direct quote from her to make sure

    In general, yes. It’s much better to have a concrete discussion than some kind of “my opinion of what James Thompson’s opinion of what Linda Gottfredson might have said is.”

    Regarding James Thompson’s article, there are multiple uses for IQ thresholds. For example:
    1. Creating categorical variables for analysis. e.g. for the mortality data he cites. The analysis is valid, but we must keep the caveat in mind that the boundaries are fuzzy.
    2. As the sole screen for something like G&T programs. I think this is imperfect and favor 3. instead, but the question then becomes what criteria improve the screening?
    3. As a prescreen (or partial screen) for something like the Duke TIP study. If I understand correctly they use the SAT as a prescreen then do more detailed tests to select the study participants from the prescreened group.
    4. Rough conclusions like Gottfredson makes about what careers are best suited for what IQs. Realizing that even though 120, 125, and 130 might not provide an exact ranking, we can be confident 80 and 120 are different enough to matter.
    5. Absolutist statements like an IQ over 140 means someone is a genius. Already discussed.

    It’s important to remember that the relevant question is not “Is screening by IQ perfect” (obviously not), but rather:
    1. Is it good enough to give useful results?
    2. What do we have that is better?

    If you don’t have a good answer for 2, IMHO bashing the lack of perfection is not very useful. Do you have an answer for 2?

    I think Terman used this methodology too is not

    Yes. He used an IQ threshold of 135. Since commenters here seem to be desperately looking for arguments against IQ, I’ll help you all out by giving you one (remember this the next time someone tries to accuse me of not paying attention to contrary arguments). Terman badly wanted to find a high achiever (e.g. a Nobel Prize winner). He not only failed in that, but his screening missed two future Nobel Prize winners who scored below his threshold: William Shockley and Luis Alvarez. IQ apologists (I am being sarcastic) like me will note that a more math weighted test might have helped better find future physics Nobel Prize winners.
    More details with a bias that will probably be appreciated here: https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=40678

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Santoculto
  374. @Santoculto

    You don’t seem to be “wrong about everything”, just not writing about the core question of what IQ scores may be useful for – and which tests and scores are capable of being really useful. Actually I was going to suggest that Lynn and Vanhenen’s scores like 57 or 63 for Australian Aborigines and Khoi San were so ridiculous as to be useless, but in fact they are useful in confirming that making an IQ test culture fair is very difficult and in predicting well enough that you won’t sensibly go to their tribes or clans to recruit bookkeepers or teachers of reading snd writing – not for quite a few years anyway.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  375. @Santoculto

    “synonymous” : just correcting again.

  376. @utu

    Rubbish. Not an appeal to authority but adopting her exposition of the facts and her conclusions as well expressing his own and usefully making the excitable SantoCulto, in particular, consider the quality and authority of a respected expert’s published non-anonymous work before he takes up people’s time again with emotional rambling that res has responded to with remarkable patience.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  377. AaronB says:
    @res

    res, I’m going to try to talk to you free of posturing and free of rhetoric – just man to man, intellect to intellect, human to human. Maybe we can drain this swamp. I ask you to return me the courtesy, if you choose to reply, and speak to me in simple terms, without posturing or rhetoric. To that end, I numbered my points –

    1) Since ‘g’ is a product of factor analysis using multiple sub-tests, do you think a single test can more ‘g-loaded’ than any other test? If yes, what does this mean?

    2) What is the real world usefulness of ‘g’? Can you explain how it would be used in the real world?

    3) ‘g’ is said to derive from the facts that if someone does well on one sub-test, he will do well on all the other ones. However, we see that Jews score 95 on spatial, and 120 on verbal, and that Asians score 110 on spatial, and 100 or below on verbal. Women have a similar variance. And these are just groups. Individuals display great variance as well.

    Do you feel these facts mitigate the usefulness of ‘g’ in the real world? For instance, if I’m a boss and want to hire someone with good mathematical potential, I’d have to give a math sub-test, as his score on verbal won’t really predict his score on math.

    This ties in to my next question.

    4) Do you think a 40-50 percent variance accounted for by one factor is very significant? What would be the real world usefulness of this fact? Do you think this is significant enough that it would allow bosses who are looking for talent in one area to test in another area, assuming that there is one underlying ability?

    5) Do you agree that ‘g’ – the common factor of intelligence – has not been defined? We deduce its existence but cannot describe it or say *what* it is? We cannot “reifiy” it, as WOZ tried to do?

    6) Do you think that psychometricians who, as Linda Gottfried says, are in the habit of referring to ‘g’ as just shorthand for intelligence overall, are justified in doing so, that this is an appropriate and accurate use of ‘g’? And do you think that the average layman, basing himself on what he hears from the experts, assumes ‘g’ means that one fact accounts for *most* of what we describe as intelligence across fields, and would be surprised – maybe shocked – to find out that this one factor that is given such attention only account for 40-50 percent?

    7) Do you think that IQ tests might be measuring for ambition, a socially trained predilection to think abstractly and reductionistically, and possibly many other factors that we are not accounting for? While this may not mitigate its usefulness for predicting some results in modern industrial economies, do you think that this may have a huge impact on how we understand intelligence overall, and how we see understand *underdevelopment* in poor countries, and that it would shape our approach to raising IQ – for instance, raising IQs in poor countries might mean making them into ambitious strivers – destroy the well-known “manana” syndrome – and tech to them to replace their complex, intuitive thinking with abstract reductionist thinking?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @res
  378. @res

    Yes. Are you? (more or less so than you are of IQ research?) In my opinion it has some merit (i.e. to some extent the different MI’s exist), but is much overrated because people who don’t like IQ see it as a useful counterargument. Perhaps you can point me to MI research that gives effective measures and correlates them with outcomes? Even better, compares the predictive/explanatory value with IQ.

    Perhaps you can point me to MI research that gives effective measures and correlates them with outcomes?

    Why you need it to know that some people are naturally better to learn certain things than others*

    Do you need it to prove that MI is factually correct theory*

    Ok it’s important, but, look excessive…

    To say ”humans have different psycho-cognitive combinations, aka, different types of ”intelligence’s ”, is not even a theory, it’s a real thing.

    It’s like i ‘discover’ a rock existence and i create a ”theory of the rock”.

    If you believe that there are genes or whatever intrinsic thing that predispose some people, than others, to be naturally learners (proxy to be talented) if correctly exposed for specific environmental stimuli, specially for certain types of skills, so your next step is to conclude that there are more than one psycho-cognitive combinations, aka, ”intelligence”, or if you want: sub-intelligence’s.

    Are you? (more or less so than you are of IQ research?)

    No.

    In my opinion it has some merit (i.e. to some extent the different MI’s exist), but is much overrated because people who don’t like IQ see it as a useful counterargument

    So your problem and maybe, the problem of many IQ enthusiasts, is not exactly about MI but about people who like to use it as ideological counterargument, i think the same and make me nervous.

    You already know that it’s not MI ”theory” your problem, now you need work with it to differentiate this very reasonable ”idea” or better, reality, from people who use it only to attack IQ by ideological/leftist reasons.

    In the end of day, MI even if wasn’t used to attack racial hierarchy fomented by IQ will demolish anyway IQ hierarchy, both agree here it’s not fair/ completely precise/correct.

    And i still not saying that IQ is weakly useful, i already said here it’s not my point of view about this subject.

    Individuals are universe with weaknesses, challenges and strenghts. Is absolutely possible you be better on something and worst in other-thing, you just need be self-knowledgeable to understand it, this universal condition everyone have, and yes, i believe lower IQ scores (~90) for example will reduce significatively but not totally this possibility to be much smarter than others, despising autistic and other abnormal cases.

    Even better, compares the predictive/explanatory value with IQ

    Verbal, mathematical and spatial intelligence or sub-intelligence are obviously correlated with IQ, why* Because IQ measure [more purely] cognitive aspects of intelligence. Seems also obvious that kinestesic intelligence correlates less with IQ or in very diverse way. Better athletes are smarter* Interpersonal intelligence or maybe socio-emotional [sub] intelligence correlates but in this case i create a parenthesis because you can be theorically bright to understand human behavior and social stuff BUT not in the practices. And many people who are socially succesful seems born with the right combinations of personality + avg, above avg cognitive skills and in their right place and time. Intrapersonal sub-intelligence seems tend to more correlated with verbal intelligence in my opinion, but also with rational skills… directed to their own self-understanding. Musical seems diversely associated with IQ, it’s depend what type of profession, just like creative skills, depend what your type, if you are spatially creative so will be expected you, is likely, will score higher in spatial tests OR subtests.

    So mathematical seems strongly associated with higher IQ scores,
    Verbal,
    Spatial,

    debatable among intrapersonal, interpersonal and musical,

    Kinestesic less associated with any type of higher IQ scores.

    In therms of personality traits, i believe, via big five traits, interpersonal = extraversion, intrapersonal = neuroticism and or introversion but less than the typical neurotic with possible protective factors; verbal (some studies have found) = extraversion, agreeableness, on avg; mathematical = i really don’t know, maybe psychoticism, not too high on avg + introversion* kinestesic = extraversion

    Bear in mind that extraversion, namely in western society is or seems to be more common and desirable (for me, by stupid reasons, ;) ) so it’s expected that will be logically more common among this pedantic hint.

    Sorry my comments are bigger.

    • Replies: @res
  379. @Wizard of Oz

    Thank you honey! ;)

    If we have many individuals who scoring below 80 in IQ tests and they are functional, namely in african nations, so we have something cannot be ignored and re-interpreted.

    I believe yes IQ was created by western smart people to measure the level of cognitive skills within civilization levels and it’s biased (but not totally biased) with non- pre-civilization societies, with people who weren’t selected to be capable to work in modern societies (specially in profession that required three digits)

    Civilization levels are strongly correlated with cognitive skills of people who live and sustain this civilization. Before industrialization, civilization levels between east asians [namely chineses, koreans and japaneses] and europeans were very similar, and in terms of social harmony, seems east asians was better than europeans until XIX.

    Remember culture co-evolution. There is the necessity to have a reciprocity between culture levels (cognition), types (personality traits) and people. For example, we have a vegetarian culture and people who are not more engaged, even at organic level, to eat only or specially non-’meat’ food. If no have any selective pressures to select people who are less organically dependent on carnivorous diet this culture will suffer with incompatibility. What is happen among many but not all newcomers in western Europe.

    Brazil:

    Brazil is a modern nation, with modern cities, many reasonable laws. Why this is not working or working below expectations **

    Many brazilians, maybe more than a half, are hard-worker, socially and culturally conformist, ok, they far to be perfectly niponic or scandinavian, but this is something. But we have a culture of free wil [everywhere], where we believe everyone is equal, what differentiate us is how hard-worker or self-motivated/ and conscious you or me will be [but not].

    Most japaneses are or can be hard-worker and conscious AND the japanese politicians also creates a more organized society that increase the expression and usefulness of this (relatively debatable) positive traits, why* Because they are also alike other japaneses, not perfectly, not ideally, but yes, they still are.

    If brazilians politicians decide to push a negative eugenic agenda i believe Brazil would improve so much with less violence, less criminal-prone people walking free in the streets.

    Just like a crazy race we have a perfect citizen required by governments, avg iq around 100 + ‘positive” personality traits, and in Scandinavia, this invariably perfect citizen will be around 80% of native population, in Brazil they will be around 50%, among pre-civilization people’s this invariably perfect citizen, specially via IQ levels, will be very few*

    In terms of politics, laws and willingness to build a fair and well-behaved society ”Scandinavia” and Brazil differentiates very few. No there enormous differences between scholastic system in nordic countries and Brazil. In this case what differentiate more is how naturally well-behaved students are. Brazil copy, not perfectly, but copy ”well succesful” policy of other countries. the expectations are higher, the reality is hard.

    IQ is cognitive-culturally incompatible/ unfair, even in my opinion, this type of measurement in interesting anyway. to measure the intelligence levels of this pre-civilization people’s.

    So, IQ was designed by individuals who are the epitome of selective pressures for intelligence in their space and time (culture).

    In the end of all this unnecessary verborragy, i believe there is a optimum level of functionality for all IQ layers. What is debatable is verbal IQ of this people who score very lower on IQ tests. Verbal IQ measure size of vocabulary, capacity to do analogy among words (similarities, differences, etc), knowledge of the words…..

    Maybe sam people who live in urban or proto-urban areas of South Africa and Namibia and already were exposed early to the european languages must score higher than 50,60′s, at least in verbal IQ. There is some study about it*

    Societies will advancing for higher levels when people are capable to sustain this improvement.

    Thank you for your patience! =)

    • Replies: @res
  380. @Wizard of Oz

    Rubbish. Not an appeal to authority

    res has responded to with remarkable patience.

    Hes is a authority**

  381. @Wizard of Oz

    Blizzard,

    i’m highly psychoticist, please, you need have tolerance, =(

  382. res says:
    @Santoculto

    So your problem and maybe, the problem of many IQ enthusiasts, is not exactly about MI but about people who like to use it as ideological counterargument, i think the same and make me nervous.

    My problem with it is a combination of what you said and that the people using it as an ideological counterargument tend to go far beyond the evidence supporting MI in their effort to “debunk” IQ. The MI research I have seen is nowhere near as well supported as IQ research. In particular, I have yet to see a good way to measure most (all?) of the MIs (a critical requirement for doing studies of effects on individual outcomes). In the studies I have seen, if there are observable correlations with outcomes the effect sizes are much smaller than for IQ. IMO MIs exist, but with a fraction of the explanatory power of IQ.

    Please point me to an example of MI research you find compelling if you wish me to continue talking about it.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  383. @AaronB

    Let me see if I can produce a simple argument for the utility of g or IQ.

    If you want to fill a rare and valuable place at Caltech or MIT to study physics you might well think that the best test to apply would be just the math part of a battery of IQ subtests (plus tests of actual mathematical and physics knowledge). But it is clear that you won’t get a very different result if other subtests are included and g /IQ is extracted from them mathematically. And, as it happens, puzzling as it may seem (and I find it curious) it wouĺdn’t matter if you just took the results from using Raven’s Progressive Matrices (plus whatever test of math or physics knowledge you decided was appropriate for thoroughly coached candidates). Following the experts like Linda Gottliebsen you might want to use s large battery of IQ subtests with their varying but all positive correlations with each other and the abstracted g (no reification there: I don’t know where you found “reification” as you claimed). Then the weight of, for example, *relatively* low Jewish spatial ability might be a mere blip instead of looking to you like *the* big problem in getting validity for and value out of g.

    So let’s settle for a g which may correlate 0.93 with facility at a video game as reported but, however that may be, is produced remarkably reliably and consistently from a wide battery of tests which all have obviously substantial connection with cognitive abilities. A bit like a SAT without subject content perhaps, or just SAT translated to g/IQ. Are you going to deny its validity for selecting those who will be best able to master and subsequently use university level courses, especially STEM? Of course that actual procedure probably accepts one third who don’t do as well as a similar number not accepted would have done. But getting it much more right than by random selection or auctioning the places surely has to be good.

    I proffer a technical quibble. Range restriction reduces the discriminatory power of any such testing. That is to say it would do an almost perfect job if you had to choose 500 out of 1000 randomly selected from the population; but it will be less precise in its rankings when all 1000 have cognitive abilities more than 1.5 sds above average.

    Other real world validations follow. The same tests predict on average the material success that the test takers will have – on average of course. At a lower IQ level IQ type tests with high g loading allow the armed forces to reject those who would take too much time and money to train and, on average, be dangerous to fellow servicemen.

    Doesn’t that solve your problem?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @utu
  384. res says:
    @Santoculto

    If we have many individuals who scoring below 80 in IQ tests and they are functional, namely in african nations, so we have something cannot be ignored and re-interpreted.

    Well, given the state of functionality of Africa (e.g. its perpetual need for foreign aid) I’m not sure how good an argument this is. But leaving that aside, many animals are functional in their environments. Do you think they score below 80 IQ? IQ is not AFQ (animal functionality quotient).

    I believe yes IQ was created by western smart people to measure the level of cognitive skills within civilization levels and it’s biased (but not totally biased) with non- pre-civilization societies, with people who weren’t selected to be capable to work in modern societies (specially in profession that required three digits)

    I agree with this. IQ isbiased towards skills needed to survive in complex civilizations. Again, IQ is not the be all and end all of cognitive ability. I welcome efforts to measure other aspects of intelligence. What I don’t welcome is endlessly going on about them when they are difficult to define much less measure.

  385. @res

    You have a problem with the word measure, seems obsessed with it. Everything need to be measured to be considered as real or valid? By now lack of good works of MI don’t mean it’s not valid, just prove itself: lack of good works of MI.

    Again because lack of good research of MI don’t mean what you are impliciting here.

    Maybe will be a good measure for all of sub intelligences. For example intrapersonal intelligence. This is the most subjective of all because we need analyze how good people are to understand themselves, it’s hardly inter-individual comparable because your self knowledge will be different than my self knowledge if we are two different individuals. Some predictive aspects for intrapersonal intelligence, what is underlies or universal in all self knowledge, for example, understand the type and magnitude of our own cognitive prejudices and start to block, neutralize or even use them properly of necessary. But self knowledge is not like math knowledge. Everyone in the end, at basal levels, will learn basically the same thing about mathematics and this can be inter-individually comparable.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  386. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I have to be honest I don’t understand what you’re saying, but I will try my best to make sense of what you mean and answer you anyways.

    I think you are trying to say that if we just took someone’s IQ score from a battery of tests, or gave them the math sub-test, we’d have an equally good idea if he was a fit candidate for a top level math position.

    I am sorry, but this simply isn’t true, as I’ve demonstrated, and as is demonstrated by the fact that only 40-50 percent is accounted for by g. The variance between sub-tests is simply too great.

    What’s more, you seem to be suggesting that we extract ‘g’ and assign a number to it, as if it were an IQ score, when we can’t do that. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

    The Ravens Matrices, also, cannot substitute for a math sub-test, or a verbal sub-test, if we want to assess a persons math ability, or verbal ability, unfortunately.

    You say we should give a battery of sub-tests, and then abstract g, which accounts for 40-50 of our performance on each test, and then Jewish spatial will seem like a blip -

    I confess I don’t understand what you are saying, but as far as I can make out you’re suggesting that if most tests correlate well with each other then we can ignore the one test that might not?

    Again, we just don’t see that most tests correlate all that well, and different groups and different individuals have different variance, and we see that the variance can be quite enormous.

    I understand what the real world utility of an IQ score is, but can you explain to me what the real world utility of g is?

    As far as I can tell, the only possible real world utility of g would be if the correlations between tests are so tight that we can give any one sub-test and get a great idea of that persons performance on any of the other sub-tests – we’d maybe only have to give specific sub-tests to isolate the top 1% or something on that specific ability.

    Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case at all.

    You say that we can translate SATs into g/IQ – I’m sorry, but g is just a percentage of performance on all the tests that make up IQ. You can’t translate SATs into g or give g any number.

    Again, I’m not rejecting that IQ has some utility – I’ve made that quite clear. I do agree that it can help predict who will be successful in a modern economy. I’ve never denied that. If you remember, my main point really has been that IQ scores measure things like ambition and other intangibles just as much as intelligence, and that the claims made on behalf of g are baloney, and, really, incoherent and contradictory. But I never did – nor will I ever – deny that IQ tests have real world utility in making predictions of success in modern economies.

    I don’t see how an IQ test with a high g loading – whatever that means (since g is derived from analyzing relationships between tests, I don’t see how we can design tests to have g. That’s getting it backward) – can really tell us much about an Army candidates aptitude for specific tasks, as g only accounts for a half or less of his performance on any specific task. I’m pretty sure we’d need to test for specific abilities. If the Army isn’t doing it this way, then the Army is being pretty stupid.

    While I enjoy talking to you and have no problem continuing, I am honestly not sure that we are really getting anywhere here.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  387. @Santoculto

    Some predictive aspects for intrapersonal intelligence, what is underlies or universal in all self knowledge, for example, understand the type and magnitude of our own cognitive prejudices and start to block, neutralize or even use them properly of necessary

    Sorry, correcting

    … this can be inter-individually measurable and comparable. The individual trajectories will be over-logically different and personalized and dificult to be comparable, the quality of how self-knowledgeable we are, yes, we can.

  388. res says:
    @AaronB

    res, I’m going to try to talk to you free of posturing and free of rhetoric – just man to man, intellect to intellect, human to human. Maybe we can drain this swamp. I ask you to return me the courtesy, if you choose to reply, and speak to me in simple terms, without posturing or rhetoric. To that end, I numbered my points –

    Thanks for this, AaronB. I will make an effort to do the same. I have chosen to quote your entire post to preserve context so this will be a long comment. I will also number my responses with an ‘a’ suffix. If you like we can use numbers only in further conversation.

    1) Since ‘g’ is a product of factor analysis using multiple sub-tests, do you think a single test can more ‘g-loaded’ than any other test? If yes, what does this mean?

    1a) Yes. This link gives a formal definition I agree with: https://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-Validity-and-g-loading-of-specific-tests-1000.html
    but I tend to think about g-loading as just expressing the correlation of the subtest with g.

    2) What is the real world usefulness of ‘g’? Can you explain how it would be used in the real world?

    2a) I’ve talked about and linked some answers to this above, but I think these are good examples:
    - As a partial screen for job or education selection. The AFQT provides a good example which I think can be considered a success (for example, witness the negative consequences when it was misnormed during part of the 70s). It is a partial (specific subtests are needed for finer placement) and imperfect (possibly excludes some good soldiers) screen, but overall IMHO has a positive effect on the quality and efficiency of the US military.
    - As a way for individuals to better understand their strengths and weaknesses–especially relative to others. Clearly more specific measurements are also relevant here. The analogy I would use is that my height indicates I am unlikely to succeed in the NBA therefore it would be unwise to make that a priority in my life (but counterexamples exist, see Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues, then consider all the other attributes they have that I lack). Similarly, it is probably unwise for someone with an 85 IQ to aspire to being a lawyer. And someone with a 100 IQ should be aware that they will have a difficult road to being a lawyer.

    3) ‘g’ is said to derive from the facts that if someone does well on one sub-test, he will do well on all the other ones. However, we see that Jews score 95 on spatial, and 120 on verbal, and that Asians score 110 on spatial, and 100 or below on verbal. Women have a similar variance. And these are just groups. Individuals display great variance as well.

    3a) I agree with your first sentence except I would add “tends to”. g is a measure of that tendency. I agree with your examples as well. In the end it comes back to percent of variance explained though. Your examples are exceptions (otherwise the percent variance explained would be even smaller). The exceptions are important enough to require attention. For example, US college admissions rely on both verbal and math tests. This does not mean g is useless. Just that it may be inadequate to fulfill a given purpose.

    Do you feel these facts mitigate the usefulness of ‘g’ in the real world? For instance, if I’m a boss and want to hire someone with good mathematical potential, I’d have to give a math sub-test, as his score on verbal won’t really predict his score on math.

    Mitigate but not eliminate. I think I captured my thoughts here in my previous responses.

    This ties in to my next question.

    4) Do you think a 40-50 percent variance accounted for by one factor is very significant? What would be the real world usefulness of this fact? Do you think this is significant enough that it would allow bosses who are looking for talent in one area to test in another area, assuming that there is one underlying ability?

    4a) I do (first sentence). I think differing perceptions here account for much of our disagreement. One perspective is that 49% variance explained is equivalent to a correlation of 0.7 (36% is 0.6 giving us a rough range of correlations). By the standards of social science that is unheard of. By the standards of medicine that is still an exceptional amount of predictive power. I do some work creating medical models. If I were to encounter a (generic, say blood pressure) risk factor with that kind of predictive power I would run around in circles shouting “Woo Hoo!” I’d be happy with a dedicated diagnostic test that did so well at predicting future problems.

    Regarding your last sentence I have to waffle with an “it depends.” How much does skill in the specific area correlate with g? How much value does the general skill indicated by g provide relative to the specific skill? Is it possible to get the more detailed information desired?

    To be practical and concrete, here is a way I might hire if allowed to use tests.
    - Initial g screen with a threshold a little lower than I think desirable (allowing strong candidates who are close in that trait to be further screened).
    - Further subtest and/or education and/or demonstrated ability screens.
    - Even more detailed screening including an interview.

    The point of hiring (and other, e.g. educational) screens is to balance efficiency (e.g. expense in time and money) and accuracy. I think everybody understands this deep down. That’s why we talk about “tradeoffs.” Do mistakes happen? Probably. That’s a good argument for different people screening as they see fit. Different sets of mistakes being made mean fewer people are likely to completely fall through the cracks.

    5) Do you agree that ‘g’ – the common factor of intelligence – has not been defined? We deduce its existence but cannot describe it or say *what* it is? We cannot “reifiy” it, as WOZ tried to do?

    5a) This one is a bit of a tarbaby (I hope that wasn’t too much rhetoric, but I think it is a valid observation). I think g has been defined and probably in as rigorous a fashion as is really possible (well, perhaps pending fundamental advances in genetics, neuroscience, or fMRI). The definition I mean is the mathematical one relating to a given set of subtests. I do not find this definition completely satisfactory and it is somewhat tautological.

    I think (please correct me if I am wrong) what you are really asking about is how we reconcile our definitions of g and intelligence. I disagree with “cannot describe it or say *what* it is”, but agree our attempts to define either of those terms aren’t completely satisfactory. And reconciling them is even more difficult.

    At the end of the day I’m not sure how useful endlessly arguing about these definitional questions is (at some point I say close enough). Bill Clinton was famously able to argue about the meaning of “is”, but IMHO that was hardly constructive.

    6) Do you think that psychometricians who, as Linda Gottfried says, are in the habit of referring to ‘g’ as just shorthand for intelligence overall, are justified in doing so, that this is an appropriate and accurate use of ‘g’? And do you think that the average layman, basing himself on what he hears from the experts, assumes ‘g’ means that one fact accounts for *most* of what we describe as intelligence across fields, and would be surprised – maybe shocked – to find out that this one factor that is given such attention only account for 40-50 percent?

    6a) I think they are justified in doing so in short relatively informal work (such as the link I gave earlier) provided:
    - They admit to the subtleties if challenged. But I don’t believe the subtleties contradict the broad argument. For example, being unable to define an exact division between red and orange does not mean red and orange are useless concepts.
    - The more formal work (peer reviewed literature) discusses the appropriate issues.

    I doubt everyone perfectly adheres to these. This is perhaps a bit rhetorical (I like using analogies though), but at some point one gets tired of arguing about an impossible to define exact division between red and orange.

    I honestly don’t know what the average layman thinks. I think views exist anywhere along the spectrum from “IQ is meaningless” to “IQ defines who you are in life” (I don’t think either extreme is common though). I think people at both extremes would be surprised in opposite directions. I’m not even sure which side of reality the average layman’s view resides on.

    7) Do you think that IQ tests might be measuring for ambition, a socially trained predilection to think abstractly and reductionistically, and possibly many other factors that we are not accounting for? While this may not mitigate its usefulness for predicting some results in modern industrial economies, do you think that this may have a huge impact on how we understand intelligence overall, and how we see understand *underdevelopment* in poor countries, and that it would shape our approach to raising IQ – for instance, raising IQs in poor countries might mean making them into ambitious strivers – destroy the well-known “manana” syndrome – and tech to them to replace their complex, intuitive thinking with abstract reductionist thinking?

    7a) Many questions there. We might need subsubheadings.

    IQ tests definitely measure many things (and some tests are better/different from others). Nutrition, persistence, luck, physical status on the given day, etc.

    This has an impact, but I’m not sure about “huge.” I value different thinking styles, but at the end of the day there are objective measures of how functional different styles are in different environments. Individual choices are key. But I really don’t want to see manana affirmative action slots in a striving society. If one can succeed despite manana tendencies, great, but don’t ask for accommodations. Sometimes the best alternative is to seek out environments that match your strengths.

    I don’t care for this dichotomy or wording (it seems like there is an implicit value judgment): “replace their complex, intuitive thinking with abstract reductionist thinking?”. The splits I more frequently encounter are abstract/concrete and holistic/reductionist. I think cultivating abilities across both splits is valuable, but people generally have preferences. For example, I tend to think overly abstractly for most people’s tastes so I have tried to cultivate the use of concrete examples and analogies. I think it is critical that everyone realize both aspects of those splits are valuable, but that there are situations where one (either!) tendency may be “better”. I don’t think it is possible to understand the human body from the atoms up in a holistic fashion, but incorporating holistic thinking when bridging layers of abstraction (which here correspond to layers of reductionist approximation) can be useful.

    As for whether people should change or feel “forced” to do so. That is really up to them. I cultivate my concrete side because it helps me communicate. I am annoyed sometimes when people don’t understand my abstract arguments (especially when they respond that my arguments are invalid), but catering to them by speaking in concrete terms is my choice and does not demean me.

    Sorry for the length. Because of that my proofreading probably isn’t up to my usual standard so please be tolerant. I tried to avoid posturing and rhetoric, but I think without complete success. Hopefully it was close enough.

    • Replies: @res
    , @AaronB
  389. res says:
    @res

    And I forgot an important part: I am looking forward to your responses.

    One meta comment. I am hoping we are close enough to agreement on most of these to not have to repeatedly hash them out in detail. Perhaps a few we will agree to disagree and just end with our concisely stated positions. And for a few more (the fun few IMHO) we can elaborate our points of commonality and difference. In your response perhaps you can take a stab at categorizing them thus (or I might do so in a further followup). Is this acceptable to you?

  390. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You and res do not get g at all. For example to AaronB you wrote

    “But it is clear that you won’t get a very different result if other subtests are included and g /IQ is extracted from them mathematically.”

    which implies that you believe that there is some test for g. BTW, what “g/IQ” suppose to stand for? Is it “g or IQ”, “g and IQ”, IQ as surrogate of g?

    And here is res to AaronB’s question

    2) What is the real world usefulness of ‘g’? Can you explain how it would be used in the real world?

    says this:

    ” As a partial screen for job or education selection. [...] As a way for individuals to better understand their strengths and weaknesses–especially relative to others. “

    Clearly your and res’s statements imply that you do not understand what g is, how it is used and by whom and to what purpose.

    IQ can be obtained from one or several tests for a single individual. But there are no tests for g for individuals. The g-factor is derived form a correlation matrix which is obtained from results of battery of tests administered to large number of individual. Actually the value of the factor is not derived at al. Only the loading (correlation with) of this factor in the tests that were used to generate the correlation matrix.

    Nobody calculates the value of g for an individual though it is possible once the linear relationship between g and all used tests is established from the factor analysis. But g has no established scale or units. What was Einstein’s g? Did you hear about anybody who talked about g of their super bright children? What was the value? 3.15, 0.7, 10000? Nobody knows because as a scale or metrics of measuring intelligence g is not used. There was no decision made by some international body of psychometricians to recommend a formula how to calculate g that would establish its units and range. Why do you think it is so? Because two different batteries of tests yield very different g’s. However it is often claimed that the two different g’s will produce similar loadings, say for IQ, if IQ test was present in both batteries of tests. The claim that loadings from different g’s are similar is called g stability. But how similar are they?

    In “Stability of factor loadings” THORNDIKE (1986) used results from 65 different tests used in military. The first 48 he divided in six groups (batteries) of eight (G=1,…,6). Each of the remaining 17 tests was inserted one at a time to each group and a loading of g on the inserted test was calculated. This produced 6×17=102 loadings. For example “Instrument comprehension” got g-loading of 48, 56 63, 51,49,58 in each group from 1 to 6, respectively. Or “Mechanical information” got the following g-loadings: 20, 30, 26, 18, 08, 49

    You can find the paper here: http://www.iapsych.com/articles/thorndike1987.pdf

    Clearly you can see that g-loadings can vary substantially among the batteries of tests. I do not think one could say that g is very stable when it is 8 for battery 5 and 49 for battery 6. However Thorndike does not dwell on this. He compares loadings as a sets of 17 values and correlates them among different batteries. Unsurprisingly he gets high correlations. Anyway, nowhere in the paper values of g are calculated because they are not needed but if they were calculated, g’s from different batteries could not be compared to each other because they would be in different units.

    I think I clearly demonstrated to you and res that g is not used for testing and also explained why it is not used in testing and why no g values were assigned to Einstein or anybody? So what is a purpose of g? Very simple and brutal answer would go like this: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit” or in other words to bring scientific and mathematical legitimacy to intelligence testing. IMO we could live w/o g and the research could go on w/o any change.

    However factor analysis is a legitimate and useful technique. For example it would be interesting to find out what are the loadings of gg, i.e., the second in strength to g factor. If g-loading in RT is 40 what is gg-loading in RT? Why following the invention of g by Spearman nobody looked into 2nd and 3rd order factors? Are they zero? They can’t be zero. Are they negligible? Nobody is curious? Why Linda S. Gottfredson so strongly emphasizes that there is only one GENERAL FACTOR unlike in personality inventories?

    My personal hypothesis is that at time of Spearman decomposing matrix into eigenvectors was not an easy task, particularly when the matrix was large. But finding a g-loading for the strongest factor via successive approximation (that converged to the strongest factor) was possible. And then it stuck. Perhaps there was some curious PhD trying to publish on the issue but the clique that controls the discourse shot it down. It is very easy. For years the clique consisted of very few underfunded researchers living in paranoia and fear of being purged form universities and having funding taken away from there. This kind of climate might be fertile for various dysfunctions.

    Clearly there is lots of misuse of g. Not in itself but as an argument in a discourse on intelligence. It suffices to look at sentences that contain g-factor in them to see how this concept is used in arguments. There is nothing wrong with calculating g-loadings but problem begins when the results are misinterpreted and given too much weight. Scientists can calculate their g’s but one has to be on guard against popularizers and propagandists like Linda S. Gottfredson or James Thompson who can do lots of damage.

    The bottom line is that with or w/o the g concept/construct nothing really changes in a real world. Don’t be afraid.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  391. utu says:
    @res

    “I looked for a good quantitative reference concerning this and was unable to find one (do you know of any?).”

    No, I could not find any that showed all factors and their eigenvalues. But I found this 1933 L. L. Thurstone’s (I think he was not in favor of Spearman work) paper

    http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thurstone/

    in which he does factor analysis of personality traits as well as intelligence tests and he gets two factors not one: verbal ability and visual form perception.

    In Figure 7 we have plotted the two-factor coordinates for these twenty tests and we then see that they fall into two constellations. Reference to the tests shows that all of the verbal tests are in one group and that all of the perceptual tests are found in the other group. We might regard these two groups as representing two mental abilities, one of which we should call verbal ability, while the other one might be called visual farm perception. The correlation between pure measures of these two abilities is the cosine of the angular separation between the two centroids.

    When Linda says that “No general factor has been found” it does not mean that in case of intelligence tests more than one factor was ever sought. Perhaps nobody wanted to find since Spearman. Perhaps Spearman was using a method that finds just one factor. It is much simpler than a full blown multi-axial factor or principal component analysis. Finding eigenvalues of large matrices was not simple in those times.

    There is a rule of thumb that if you have a NxN matrix then N minus the largest eigenvalue is approximately equal to the number of relevant factors. Perhaps I can find eigenvalues if they were published.

    • Replies: @res
  392. AaronB says:
    @res

    Thank you for responding so civilly to me, res. There really shouldn’t be any reason we can’t discuss this civilly, and I’m happy that you feel the same way. Rhetoric can be a temptation, I know, and I fall for it myself more than I’d like, if I’m honest :) Small amounts of rhetoric add spice, but too much spice makes food un-eatable.

    Well! Reading your response makes me think we have some areas of broad agreement, but we probably will never see completely eye to eye on this, and that’s perfectly OK. I think our brains function at a bit of an “angle” to each other, in some ways, which create different perspectives that can’t be fully bridged. Still, I’m happy to respond as best I can to all your points, and add what clarity I am capable of.

    I numbered my responses here to correspond to my initial numbering and your response, instead of reproducing quotes, which I felt would be too cumbersome.

    So, here goes –

    1) From the link you provided – Tests also differ in their g-loading, which is the degree to which the test score reflects general mental ability rather than a specific skill or “group factor” such as verbal ability, spatial visualization, or mathematical reasoning). g-loading and validity have been observed to be related in the sense that most IQ tests derive their validity mostly or entirely from the degree to which they measure g (Jensen 1998).

    I have to confess that this seems to me to make no sense, and its a good example of why I think the experts are “having” us (and also, fooling themselves). I can understand how we can design a test to measure “ability” rather than “skill” – that much I understand (although I think that too may be a delusion, but lets not complicate things at this stage.) The distinction between “ability” and “learned skill” seems quite clear to me.

    But here is the crux of the issue – how can we design a single test (not a battery of tests) that measures “general mental ability” rather than “group factor” ability?

    As far as I know, every sub-test measures a specific “group factor”. Verbal reasoning, math reasoning, spatial reasoning, memory, etc. Since these tests have positive correlation, we deduce the existence of of something we cannot directly test for. This something we call “general mental ability”, or ‘g’.

    This is the crucial point. We deduce the existence of g, but we cannot directly test for it.

    And here is an even more crucial point – by definition if we could design a test that measures ‘g’ instead of a “group factor”, it would no longer be – it could no longer be – “the general factor of intelligence”. It would have to become just another “group factor”!

    The “general factor of intelligence”, since it is general and not specific, has to be something we cannot directly test for – if we could, it would automatically become *specific*.

    Now, this is a fairly subtle point that I am struggling to express clearly, and I apologize if I have not succeeded in doing so.

    But the main point is really quite simple – since we can only deduce the existence of g, it can only be expressed as a property between tests, and cannot be seen in any single test (even though we know its there), there can be no way to measure it directly, and there can be no such thing as a “g-loaded” test.

    2) It seems to me the examples you give provide good reasons for why IQ tests are useful, but I am asking a narrower and more specific question. What is the usefulness of the concept of ‘g’ in the real world? What does it “add” to the utility of IQ tests? That IQ test are useful, I do not doubt. ‘G’, however, is another matter.

    Now as far as I can see, the only way ‘g’ can “add” to the utility of IQ tests is, really, by rendering entire IQ tests unnecessary unless we want to capture the top percentile or so. In other words, the positive correlation between sub-tests that ‘g’ expresses, is so close, that we if we are only interested in relatively high math ability, say, we’d be fine giving a verbal test. However, since know an individual can have an entire SD difference between sub-tests, we know this isn’t so.

    Now, it seems to me you are making a very grievous error here. You liken ‘g’ to “height” – but the analogy is a poor one. Height is a very specific thing, but remember, g is something we deduce the existence of, but cannot directly see. It is poor also because in the world of basketball, height would be a “specific factor”, and not a “general factor” – height clearly does not “underlay” other abilities like dribbling, endurance, shooting, etc. It is an important factor in its own right, but does not “participate” in the other factors.

    Now, let us say we looked at different players and found that every player who was good at dribbling, was good at shooting, who had high endurance, also had great nimbleness, etc, etc.

    We could then deduce that there was some common factor here, perhaps, but we could not say *what* it is – it is something that is common to everything but specific to nothing. It “participates” in everything but is not specific in itself.

    3) It seems to me you are saying that indeed ‘g’ has some utility in that the positive correlation it expresses can help us make some limited claims about a persons performance in all fields based on his results in one field, but you admit that its utility is limited enough that in many situations we still have to give multiple sub-tests, like college admissions. Fair enough, and maybe this is a difference in judgement. To me, ‘g’ seems to account for very little variance, certainly less than commonly supposed and not the impression you’d get hearing experts speak about it. You seem more like a “the glass is half full” kind of guy on this issue.

    But to be honest, if Jews can score way above average on verbal and actually below average on spatial, and Asians can go way above average on spatial and below average on verbal, then I don’t know how even the “limited” utility of ‘g’ can hold water, since in fact this is NOT a positive correlation at all. You say these are exceptions, and that most tests, for most people, there is a positive correlation, however mild. Perhaps, but if we are seeing a fair number of instances where there isn’t even a positive correlation, then I for one can only say this limits the usefulness of g even further.

    4) Fair enough. I get that its statistically significant. However, if a statistically significant finding of positive correlation can disguise the fact that individuals or groups can actually have negative correlations in important ways, I’m skeptical of the real world utility of this. Or at least, we’d have to be really cautious, and with anything remotely important we’d have to not use it. In a way, I’m beginning to understand why many people distrust statistics!

    But my real beef is that average people don’t see it with the nuance you do, and I think the experts talk about g as if its way more important than what is suggested by these kinds of numbers. They are dazzled by the statistical significance, which as you claim may indeed be very high, but fail to see the concrete ways this fails us – statistics notwithstanding, an individual may have a 120 on verbal, and 95 on spatial, even if the *trend* is in the opposite direction.

    I basically agree with your steps on how you’d screen for ability – but it does seem to me that g – on its own, and in the manner we can use it – would only be useful if I was looking for the slightest blip above average intelligence, and even here, only if I could deal with the fact that there are “exceptions” (i.e it wasn’t super important, say, if in the aggregate I got some duds). If I wanted anything more, I’d have to do subtests.

    So maybe this is really a glass half full/half empty kind of thing, for us, at least (I do think the experts are captives to self-delusion)

    Which is fine, and then our only substantial disagreement would be about presentation and message – I feel a badly distorted picture is getting out there, and I think its important to correct it.

    5) I understand what you mean about arguing endlessly about trivial details, but I do feel that understanding this point is crucial to properly understanding what ‘g’ is. If we don’t understand this, we understand nothing.

    Now you have given a very good explanation here of what we mean by the concept ‘g’, and I agree with it completely. However, in 2 instances above, you use a very different understanding of ‘g’ which completely changes the nature of the argument, and shows why clarity on this point is so crucial. (likening it to “height”, etc, and confusing it with a full IQ test)

    So a thorough understand that ‘g’ is a mathematical deduction and not an observed quality – according to your excellent and correct definition here – will save us from accidentally converting it into a “specific ability”, as we did when we likened it to “height”.

    6) But I do think it goes far beyond how red shades into orange, which I agree would be a pointless discussion.

    In a nutshell, I think the utility of ‘g’ is vastly oversold, and I think describing it as “general intelligence” is indefensibly misleading. Not because it is strictly wrong, but because of the impression it creates that general intelligence accounts for most of the performance in all cognitive fields. In reality, one can be brilliant at math, and a very poor verbal thinker. For instance, look at the Samuel Johnson quote on Anatoly Karlins blog – that is the impression ‘g’ leads to, but it is false. And I think we need clarity that we cannot describe it as any specific ability and that we cannot measure it or isolate it within any single test.

    Again, messaging and branding, I suppose.

    7) Ok, I suppose we are in broad agreement here.

    I agree with you that IQ tests have predictive utility in modern industrial economies, but I do feel that greater understanding of these issues – ambition, persistence, etc, thinking styles, and cultural priorities – and how they relate to IQ and group performance is critical if we are to understand the world and what is going on.

    How much of group differences are based on, say, ambition makes a huge difference in how we think about this issue and has vast policy implications on the practical plane.

    I guess in the end, I find that discussions about IQ usually contain so many implicit assumptions that I find highly questionable, and obviously so, and seems to be presented in so simplistic and misleading a way, that I am often driven to try and introduce what I believe is essential nuance.

    Also, in the end, even though I feel that more than once I lost the thread of my argument and didn’t succeed in stitching my points together into a perfectly coherent hole, my gist is clear, and though I suspect many differences remain between us on this, there is perhaps a broad agreement here, if I’m not mistaken.

    • Replies: @res
  393. @AaronB

    And I don’t know why there is anything left to discuss. You say that you “understand what the real world utility of an IQ score is”. End of argument, because logically you are saying that you accept the utility of any score, measure or construction which correlates very highly with IQ scores.

    I did a number of Google searches along the lines of “what is the difference between g and IQ” and “what is the correlation between g and IQ” and, after coming up with reference to a correlation of 0.97 between an up to date Wechsler test and g, which, unfortunately I didn’t copy before moving on and coming up with this from the first page of the lastmentioned search:

    There is little evidence showing the relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and g (general intelligence).** This research established the relationship between SAT and g, as well as the appropriateness of the SAT as a measure of g, and examined the SAT as a premorbid measure of intelligence. In Study 1, we used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Measures of g were extracted from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and correlated with SAT scores of 917 participants. The resulting correlation was.82 (.86 corrected for nonlinearity). Study 2 investigated the correlation between revised and recentered SAT scores and scores on the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices among 104 undergraduates. The resulting correlation was.483 (.72 corrected for restricted range). These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g. We provide equations for converting SAT scores to estimated IQs; such conversion could be useful for estimating premorbid IQ or conducting individual difference research with college students.

    **note this is about the situation as it allegedly was before this paper.

    ***** ***** *****

    So, if you want a reasonably good way of sorting out candidates who might justify the expense of military or trade training or STEM degree courses, or a bank’s graduate recruitment scheme you have lots of more or less equally useful ways of testing and compiling the results. Thus you can have the candidaates (with or without restricted range allowance) ranked on a scale where the results for a large enough sample of the population can be similarly (i.e. similarly as between different tests or measures of cognitive abilities) distributed on a normal curve and the average results mean much the same in terms of cognitive ability.

    You say potayto, I say potahto (actually I say both).

    • Replies: @AaronB
  394. @utu

    See #397. And you may get some idea of why someone can be puzzled about seems to be an artificially got up debate concerning nothing with real world consequences. Also…

    I have met and talked to Linda Gottfriedson, Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck as well as others who were, more recently, attending an ISIR conference in Australia for which I assisted in securing media coverage and finding a guest commentator/lecturer so you can see why I am not as impressed by the comments of anonymous blog commenter “utu” as I would be if he or she would give us name, CV, academic positions/affiliations, and links to peer reviewed papers.

    I remain interested enough to be convinced, and that is in part because of your reference to Linda G and James Thompson as “propagandists”. I would be intrigued to read your setting out of the particulars of this charge including a detailed summary of the case you suggest they are pushing.

    • Replies: @utu
  395. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Your problem is you accept on faith what you read without examining the logic of it. That’s why its better to use simple, plain language. Scientific jargon, like political euphemism, can be used to obfuscate.

    SAT’s can indeed correlate well to IQ scores, and probably do. But SATs cannot correlate to g, because g is a concept that only has meaning in relation to IQ scores – it expresses a relationship between IQ sub-tests.

    If you trusted yourself more, actually examined the concepts and language being used, you’d probably see this. You’re definitely smart enough to understand this.

    Plus, I never said IQ scores have no real world utility – I said ‘g’ has no real world utility, although after talking to res I’d modify that to ‘g’ has exceedingly limited real world utility.

    But – we have probably reached the end of the tether here, I’d say.

    I will leave you with one piece of friendly advice – we live in an age where its becoming increasingly clear that the experts do not deserve the trust they claim, and its becoming increasingly clear that scientific sounding language is often used to disguise rather than reveal. Psychology is not physics, and does not have the level of certainty physics does. Use your own brain, and you will be amazed at how poorly the experts outside of physics stand up.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  396. @AaronB

    Perhaps we have both been writing too much to be able to expect the other to have read and understood all. However I do want to point out that you have oddly treated me as saying you denied the real world utility of IQ scores when the opposite is true. In fact I treated your acceptance as so important that I made it a premise of my argument that g also had to have potential utility.

    And that brings me to your biggest omission. You have simply not addressed my proposition that anything highly correlated with IQ scores has to have much of the same potential utility as IQ scores. You can’t deny the logic so am I to assume that you deny the correlations despite what I quoted and referred to?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Anon
  397. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “I assisted in securing media coverage and finding a guest commentator/lecturer so you can see why I am not as impressed by the comments of anonymous blog commenter “utu” as I would be if he or she would give us name, CV, academic positions/affiliations, and links to peer reviewed papers.”

    I can see your problem. You are not into understanding but into being impressed. Once you are impressed then you may acquire a sense of understanding, right? However the key word here is sense not understanding.

    Now I also see why you so strongly objected to my comment on argumentum ad verecundiam directed to res because your knowledge comes from authority a not from the process of thinking things through.

    Should we be all impressed that you met Linda Gottfriedson, Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck? It does not matter in this discussion. Besides nobody can verify it like in all other cases of those dime a dozen name dropping anonymous blog commenters.

    It seems that I wasted my time trying to explain what g really is in hope that you may digest it and figure it out on your. But you are telling me your digestive system won’t start to function w/o a digestif of CV, academic positions/affiliations…

    Definitively you should take the advice AaronB gave you concerning the experts.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Wizard of Oz
  398. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Indeed you are correct. I am sorry, I read you wrong. You did acknowledge that, I see now, and you based your argument on that. My mistake.

    “after coming up with reference to a correlation of 0.97 between an up to date Wechsler test and g,”

    You cannot correlate an IQ test with g, since g is an internal property of an IQ test, not an external one. It doesn’t exist independently of an IQ test. To correlate an IQ test with g, g would have to exist as a separate measure outside of IQ tests. It does not.

    My reply above to your point about SAT’s correlating with g still stands. SATs can correlate to IQ tests but not to g, an internal property of IQ tests for which we have no independent measure. How would we be able to determine what portion of performance on SAT verbal and math correlates to specific factor on IQ tests, or general factor on IQ tests? Does SAT math, for instance, correlate better to total IQ score than math sub-test score? By definition, it cannot. Specific factor must correlate better than general factor, since it always contains the general factor.

    “You have simply not addressed my proposition that anything highly correlated with IQ scores has to have much of the same potential utility as IQ scores.”

    I agree that anything highly correlated with IQ scores, can at the moment, be treated as having almost as much utility as actual IQ scores. To have exactly the same utility, the correlation would have to be perfect, which it rarely is. And it would have to be periodically re-tested, to see if the correlation holds.

    SATs can, to some extent, stand in for IQ tests.

    • Replies: @res
    , @utu
    , @utu
  399. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You:

    And that brings me to your biggest omission. You have simply not addressed my proposition that anything highly correlated with IQ scores has to have much of the same potential utility as IQ scores. You can’t deny the logic so am I to assume that you deny the correlations despite what I quoted and referred to?

    AaronB:

    g is a concept that only has meaning in relation to IQ scores

  400. Maybe g can be understood as the epicenter of more salient cognitive traits, where intelligence is more developed and articulated with more than one “sub intelligence”. In the case of Ashkenazis their g would be stronger, developed/ influential among verbal traits (memory, fluidity, crystallized) and mathematical/arithmetic traits (again, memory, fluidity, crystallized) than spatial and cognitive coherence??

    People understand g as levels of symmetry among all perspective/ types of “intelligence”. Ashkenazis already have higher levels of asymmetry in cognitive aspects, Caucasians, on avg, have more symmetry. Seems to live in modern world verbal and mathematical (both related with literacy/communication and numeracy/use math to earn money,etc) are more important than spatial. Verbal is the most basal of all.

    G

    “what you are good in something you will be ‘Similarly’ good in other activity”

    G work perfectly for people with symmetric cognitive profiles and seems it was based on western avg profile that is symmetric. It’s more a ideal than a reality where super (psycho-) cognitive symmetry will be near to nonexistent. But at least among western gentiles G tend to be “symmetrical”, with their avg verbal, mathematical and spatial very near one each other.

    • Replies: @res
  401. res says:
    @utu

    No, I could not find any that showed all factors and their eigenvalues. But I found this 1933 L. L. Thurstone’s (I think he was not in favor of Spearman work) paper

    http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thurstone/

    in which he does factor analysis of personality traits as well as intelligence tests and he gets two factors not one: verbal ability and visual form perception.

    Thanks. That is an interesting paper and a significant contribution to this discussion. I did not read it completely (read the first part and most of the two factor discussion but skimmed a lot in between, I actually do have things to do other than this conversation ; ), but if that 2D visualization can be used to draw conclusions I would say that g is the vector between them (the x axis) and the other factor is the perpendicular to that (the y axis). Remember that eigenvectors are all orthogonal! From that visual argument g would be larger (as the primary eigenvalue that would follow naturally), but I can’t really judge the relative magnitude of the second factor.

    When Linda says that “No general factor has been found” it does not mean that in case of intelligence tests more than one factor was ever sought. Perhaps nobody wanted to find since Spearman. Perhaps Spearman was using a method that finds just one factor. It is much simpler than a full blown multi-axial factor or principal component analysis. Finding eigenvalues of large matrices was not simple in those times.

    I’m pretty sure at least some modern researchers are using multi-variable methods. Once you have the data in a statistical package that is trivial to do these days.
    Assumptions should always be checked though.

    There is a rule of thumb that if you have a NxN matrix then N minus the largest eigenvalue is approximately equal to the number of relevant factors. Perhaps I can find eigenvalues if they were published.

    How are the eigenvalues normalized to make them comparable to N for that rule?

    The approach I am used to is using the eigenvalues normalized by their sum to give the percent variance explained by each. See 11.2 in https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat505/book/export/html/49
    The common way to visualize this is to show a plot of the magnitude of the eigenvalues versus the ordered component numbers (i.e. monotonically decreasing left to right). The number of important factors is usually defined not by the size of the first, but either by how many are needed to explain a certain percent of variance or by observing a large falloff in explanatory power between them (I believe the latter is the case that applies to g, two or more factors are probably necessary to meet the former criterion, this might be a good way to frame the discussion of AaronB’s point 4 and possibly 3 as well. Especially if we find hard data.). Not trying to brag, but I have actually done this type of analysis before using R (not for intelligence though) so I do have some idea what I am talking about.

    Long story short, finding eigenvalues would help greatly. I think you are more likely to find a table of percent variance explained though since that is more meaningful for typical readers (especially in the social sciences IMHO).

    • Replies: @utu
  402. res says:
    @Santoculto

    Many good points in that comment! That is a perfect example of why I go to the trouble of reading your comments even if I find some confusing, overly long (pot, kettle, black), and/or disagreeable to me.

    I’m not sure whether your observations about symmetry and g are intrinsic to g or an artifact of the populations used for the factor analysis. I suspect it is the latter, but have no proof. When looking at any statistical analysis it is critical to have an understanding of the reference population (e.g. for medical studies it makes a big difference whether your subjects are all sick or are representative of the population at large, that’s why you see something like the Framingham Study).

    P.S. If anyone doesn’t get what I mean by “pot, kettle, black” (which I have used multiple times in this thread), it as a compression of the idiom “the pot calling the kettle black”. Here I am making fun of myself for calling out Santoculto’s sometimes long comments when I am prone to that as well.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  403. res says:
    @AaronB

    You cannot correlate an IQ test with g, since g is an internal property of an IQ test, not an external one. It doesn’t exist independently of an IQ test. To correlate an IQ test with g, g would have to exist as a separate measure outside of IQ tests. It does not.

    My reply above to your point about SAT’s correlating with g still stands. SATs can correlate to IQ tests but not to g, an internal property of IQ tests for which we have no independent measure.

    Although perhaps literally true, I find this distinction overly pedantic. Given the rest of your comment I don’t think you and I have a substantive disagreement here, but I can’t speak for Wiz. My counterargument would be that given estimates of g (from the IQ test) and SAT scores we can determine the correlation (easily). Thus, the only question is whether the estimate of g is close enough to g, which I consider interesting philosophically but not terribly important practically.

    How would we be able to determine what portion of performance on SAT verbal and math correlates to specific factor on IQ tests, or general factor on IQ tests?

    I think a regression analysis with the SAT subscores as targets and the specific/general IQ factors as explanatory variables would go a long way towards doing this (nonlinearity would be an issue).

    I agree that anything highly correlated with IQ scores, can at the moment, be treated as having almost as much utility as actual IQ scores. To have exactly the same utility, the correlation would have to be perfect, which it rarely is. And it would have to be periodically re-tested, to see if the correlation holds.

    SATs can, to some extent, stand in for IQ tests.

    These are important points of agreement for us IMHO. Although obviously we are deferring discussions of the meanings of “almost” and “to some extent”.

    One quibble is that I think the pair of SAT subscores might have more practical utility than a single IQ score, (but less than a full set of IQ subtests) even if the SAT is not as good a measure of g it provides an indicator of the verbal/math split.

    P.S. I will respond to your long comment, but that will take some time and I might put it off until tomorrow.

  404. res says:
    @utu

    utu, I think Wiz’s point is that given his background in this area (and from what I read in his comments I find his claims credible, the words we write here are our only claim to credibility in the end) he doesn’t need to have g defined for him by you. It would behoove him (and me) to read your definition carefully if only to understand where you are coming from though. In return, I think you would do well to realize Wiz and I have some knowledge in relevant areas that is worth at least giving a hearing.

    Talking about one’s background as I see being done here is not “I am an expert and you are not therefore I win” (that is how I define “appeal to authority”). I consider it to have multiple purposes:
    - To set a framework for evaluating one’s comments. Knowing a bit about Wiz’s background helps me better understand his comments and know areas I should pay special attention to. It also makes it easier to check his overall work for consistency. Just how easy do you think it is to successfully pose as having knowledge in some area over an extended conversation?
    - As an indicator of knowledge and relevant experience. This does not mean bowing down to someone, but it does imply that their arguments are likely good enough to deserve a fair hearing. Who knows, someone might actually learn something new here.
    - This also helps others determine areas for engagement. I will probably be asking Wiz for stories about those people in the future (hint ; ). My practical experience with PCA might suggest areas for others to engage me.
    - To give an idea of biases. Knowing what people or knowledge someone considers important is a very useful clue for that.
    - IMHO to brag a little and hope to be taken a bit more seriously. Yes, we are all human.

    It seems that I wasted my time trying to explain what g really is in hope that you may digest it and figure it out on your.

    The most annoying thing to me about this expert/authority side debate is that based on the quoted sentence and other things you have written earlier I think you are doing exactly what you are accusing Wiz of (except minus references to people and areas of knowledge, which IMHO actually makes it worse). This is why I complained about you treating your opinion as fact above. If you want someone else to take your arguments seriously you should at least have the courtesy to do the same.

    • Replies: @utu
  405. @res

    Res,

    i believe G is based on logical conjecture, when we say ”it’s logic, it’s make sense” but without really prove it. If my avg iq performance, without assymetrical noise, is around 105, so most of my capacities will gravitates around/towards this levels, not necessarily at the exact same level, but this will be our basis/our avg’s.

    My ”zero-kilometer” start in the ”105 position’, ;)

    My impression is that even when we have symmetrical profiles, it’s near to impossible be good in almost activities at the same level if not, we no had strenghts, avg and weaknesses.

    IQ tests can capture cognitive gaps but there is also a psychological gap.

    G, how it has been understood, create a false idea that everyone with assymmetrical noise have some cognitive pathology while it’s perfectly possible we have very assymmetrical profiles without huge or intrinsically challenged gaps.

    I also believe thinking style have a huge influence there. Clearly we have people who are more ambiguity-prone, binary-prone, apofenic, logic, etc .. and thinking style tend to be very important, of course, to decide our professional path, even the perfect thinking style cannot be biased and perfectly or perfectionistically able to apply the correct style depending the situation.

    I’m not sure whether your observations about symmetry and g are intrinsic to g or an artifact of the populations used for the factor analysis.

    I don’t understand this part. Do you could explain me what you mean*

    I will try to answer.

    I understand the g concept as a ”ideal”: be equally good to do whatever activity you are engaged.

    The reality is quasi-always more nuanced, more mountainous, full of ups and downs.

    But to do trivial things for neurotypical people there is a common individual basis, maybe could be that.

    Maybe we have a primary G, what lack among people with severe mental deficiencies and tend to be quite assymmetrical among people with not-so-severe mental deficiencies.

    And we have a ”secondary” G, our cognitive capacities that are measured/predicted by IQ tests: verbal, math, spatial, memory, etc

    Symmetry levels of G is relative to the historical selective patterns of the population.

    Paul Cooijmans, if i’m not wrong, said that pattern recognition is the most underlying factor about behavior/intelligence. Indeed for everything we do, we need recognize patterns, preferencially, factual ones, whatever their nature.

    Again, verborraging, ;)

    • Replies: @res
  406. res says:
    @AaronB

    Agreed with your prefatory points, and I will be going lighter on the quotes as well this time. I will also use the MORE tag to make it easier for people trying to scroll through the comments. I will use a b suffix to distinguish this comment from my previous.

    I think our brains function at a bit of an “angle” to each other, in some ways, which create different perspectives that can’t be fully bridged.

    I agree. I also think this is true with all people to a greater or lesser extent. IMHO it provides much of the opportunity for us to learn from one another.

    [MORE]

    1b) I think this is a good passage to discuss in more detail:

    From the link you provided – Tests also differ in their g-loading, which is the degree to which the test score reflects general mental ability rather than a specific skill or “group factor” such as verbal ability, spatial visualization, or mathematical reasoning). g-loading and validity have been observed to be related in the sense that most IQ tests derive their validity mostly or entirely from the degree to which they measure g (Jensen 1998).

    I actually find this meaningful even though I’m not sure I fully comprehend Jensen’s definition of validity. I agree that prose is quite dense (not infrequent with Jensen I think, I also think it’s important to realize the man really was as smart as he thought he was and mostly gave well considered opinions, however controversial). The first sentence is simply defining g-loading as the extent to which a test reflects g rather than specific factors. The second sentence is observing the relationship (with a citation) that g-loading and validity have. This is considered important because it supports the relevance of g. Stated more informally I would express it as the portion of a test that reflects g is the most reliable part of that test from a measurement standpoint. One extension, I think this has interesting implications for the relative ability of the tests to correctly capture the specific factors versus their effectiveness for g. I do not know how large the difference in g/not validity is though.

    I will agree that a quick superficial read of that passage has a strong resemblance with experts “having” us. I always wonder if some of the social science research I disparage is similarly a matter of me just not getting it (part of the problem is that is the first accusatory response given when confronting those “having” us). Or perhaps I am just deluded re: Jensen…

    This is the crucial point. We deduce the existence of g, but we cannot directly test for it.

    I think the crucial point is that we disagree greatly about the importance of this point. You make some interesting arguments, but in the end I see it as a philosophical difference with little practical relevance.

    As a sample counterargument, we do have a single test that measures g (as best we can). It just happens to have multiple weighted components. At some level every test with more than one question or criteria (e.g. an fMRI related test) falls afoul of your arguments. There is very little direct measurement in the world. Even a mercury thermometer is arguably measuring the expansion of mercury with temperature rather than temperature.

    I’m guessing this one falls into the agree to disagree category? In any case, feel free to expand on your arguments. I am not trying to silence you by saying that here or below, just indicating when I think we are hitting diminishing returns.

    2b)

    It seems to me the examples you give provide good reasons for why IQ tests are useful, but I am asking a narrower and more specific question. What is the usefulness of the concept of ‘g’ in the real world? What does it “add” to the utility of IQ tests? That IQ test are useful, I do not doubt. ‘G’, however, is another matter.

    Given that framing I think the real world utility of g is that it provides a theoretical underpinning for the observed quantity of IQ. Hopefully we will someday be able to link this theory to some explanations from neuroscience. Another thought, I think divorcing the utility of g from the utility of IQ is an artificial distinction.

    Of course, lacking those neuroscience linkages the current theory of g is far from entirely satisfactory.

    I don’t know how familiar you are with the debates concerning theoretical vs. empirical models. I have some background in this and tend to seek a middle ground, for example
    - Accuracy is important. Empirical models tend to be good at this.
    - Explanatory power and extensibility are important. Theoretical models tend to be good at this.
    - The best model does what you need. To steal a quote from George Box: “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”
    I can go on about this if you like, but I think that gives an idea of what I am trying to say.

    3b)

    To me, ‘g’ seems to account for very little variance, certainly less than commonly supposed and not the impression you’d get hearing experts speak about it. You seem more like a “the glass is half full” kind of guy on this issue.

    There is definitely a glass half full/empty dynamic on this one. I think I mostly made the relevant arguments in 3a and I don’t want to repeat myself. But I should elaborate a bit on your lack of positive correlations points here. I suspect (without proof) that part of what you are seeing is due to the exception groups being a small portion of the reference populations. My bet would be that the more similar a population you examine the more g will explain the results while a more diverse population will see g having less explanatory power. That would be very interesting to test.

    This might be worth asking intelligence researchers. Perhaps in James Thompson’s blog? Wiz, any thoughts?

    I will just reiterate a plea to consider how much explanatory power g offers compared to what is encountered in other areas. Hopefully utu will find data for percent variance explained of multiple factors.

    4b)

    I’m skeptical of the real world utility of this.

    I think the best response to this beyond the arguments I already gave is to look at real world cases where IQ (or rough equivalents) is or has been used to select people. I talked about the AFQT earlier. Another example is school tracking. Did you experience that? If so, how well do you think the placement worked? Another example would be use of the SAT in college admissions.

    I understand the screens are imperfect. It’s just that the question is not “is IQ perfect” it is “is IQ good enough and what would be better?”

    In a way, I’m beginning to understand why many people distrust statistics!

    Part of that is also due to people actively using statistics to lie. Have you ever read How to Lie with Statistics? If not, I think you would like it.

    Which is fine, and then our only substantial disagreement would be about presentation and message – I feel a badly distorted picture is getting out there, and I think its important to correct it.

    To my mind the big problem is people on both sides being more entrenched and dogmatic than justified and that has created a positive (reinforcing) feedback loop. Given current trends (e.g. away from tracking in schools) I think the “IQ bad and/or useless” side is actually winning the messaging war in the larger populace. That’s part of why I expend so much effort trying to put forth a reasonable argument. The irony in this whole situation is that when it was introduced testing was presented as (and IMHO provided) a more equitable way of making decisions like this. As opposed to say “how much money/influence do the parents have.”

    I think the IQ researchers do a much better job of being nuanced than some commenters are giving them credit for. It’s really necessary to read their own words (and preferably the research papers) rather than newspaper headlines talking about their work.

    5b) I think we are getting back into 1b here. The height analogy exacerbates that problem. I think it has value for talking about things like probability distributions and population differences, but perhaps not for our discussion given how much that is centering around observability, measurability, and exceptions.

    In reality, one can be brilliant at math, and a very poor verbal thinker.

    I think that level of extreme split is so rare as to be negligible. To my mind your words correspond to something like a 125/90 split at minimum (for me using those words would imply something even wider). I think people tending to focus on their strengths (and often to denigrate their weaknesses) makes it hard to assess balance anecdotally. Another factor is some tendency for extreme splits to cluster occupationally (e.g. high V low M become journalists/writers, low V high M become STEM, not to say those occupations are solely composed that way, and some balance is probably best for success).

    One factor that I think is underestimated is how important one’s peer groups are for making assessments like this. Due to my schooling and work I have spent a great deal of time around smart people–admittedly with a bit of a high M profile.

    7b) “Ok, I suppose we are in broad agreement here.” Good.

    but I do feel that greater understanding of these issues – ambition, persistence, etc, thinking styles, and cultural priorities – and how they relate to IQ and group performance is critical if we are to understand the world and what is going on.

    How much of group differences are based on, say, ambition makes a huge difference in how we think about this issue and has vast policy implications on the practical plane.

    I think we agree a fair bit even here. We disagree in how we assign the magnitudes of the importance of IQ and other, but I am not saying the other areas are unimportant to understand and assess.

    I think an area where we likely strongly disagree is that I believe the non-IQ and non-genetic aspects are actually overemphasized in real policy decisions in the US today. I would mention school tracking going away again and the utter lack of acceptance of a genetic contribution to IQ for many people and policies.

    Also, in the end, even though I feel that more than once I lost the thread of my argument and didn’t succeed in stitching my points together into a perfectly coherent hole, my gist is clear, and though I suspect many differences remain between us on this, there is perhaps a broad agreement here, if I’m not mistaken.

    Agreed. And I have the same trouble. One thing I think worth noting is if it is this difficult for us to stitch these arguments together coherently think how hard it is for us to do the same for someone else’s arguments.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  407. res says:
    @Santoculto

    G, how it has been understood, create a false idea that everyone with assymmetrical noise have some cognitive pathology

    I strongly agree with you that argument is false while allowing the possibility that there are some people like that (and even there I would likely say aberration rather than pathology).

    I’m not sure whether your observations about symmetry and g are intrinsic to g or an artifact of the populations used for the factor analysis.

    I don’t understand this part. Do you could explain me what you mean

    My statement was both terse and obscure. To use an example (I have been discussing this point in other comments as well).

    My suspicion is that we would come up with a different factor weighting for g (and also different subfactor weights) if we looked at multiple uniform subpopulations, say white gentiles, Jews, and Asians. Assuming this is true (which I don’t know, but am very curious about) then your observations about which groups/people are un/balanced would change depending on which group’s factor analysis you were comparing to. More concretely, the average white would look unbalanced if evaluated using a factor analysis performed on Asians. Just as the average Asian looks unbalanced on currently normed tests.

    Paul Cooijmans, if i’m not wrong, said that pattern recognition is the most underlying factor about behavior/intelligence. Indeed for everything we do, we need recognize patterns, preferencially, factual ones, whatever their nature.

    Agreed. The visual system is particularly well understood and fascinating in all of the algorithms and layers devoted to this.

    verborraging

    I like the coinage. I wrote some pretty epic examples of that above.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  408. @res

    My suspicion is that we would come up with a different factor weighting for g (and also different subfactor weights) if we looked at multiple uniform subpopulations, say white gentiles, Jews, and Asians. Assuming this is true (which I don’t know, but am very curious about) then your observations about which groups/people are un/balanced would change depending on which group’s factor analysis you were comparing to. More concretely, the average white would look unbalanced if evaluated using a factor analysis performed on Asians. Just as the average Asian looks unbalanced on currently normed tests.

    More concretely, the average white would look unbalanced if evaluated using a factor analysis performed on Asians. Just as the average Asian looks unbalanced on currently normed tests

    Yes, specially if the group who are being compared really is un-balanced. What i said, the ”ideal” for g would be: be symmetrically good in ”everything” or ”at least” in the most important aspects, like verbal, spatial and mathematics but we come up from non-human animals who tend to be quite assymmetrical/super specialized isn’t*

    the ideal G would be our [psycho] cognitive basis are in the same level-ground, but some people have depressions, geographically speaking, ;)

  409. utu says:
    @AaronB

    “You cannot correlate an IQ test with g, since g is an internal property of an IQ test, not an external one. It doesn’t exist independently of an IQ test. To correlate an IQ test with g, g would have to exist as a separate measure outside of IQ tests. It does not.”

    Not really. g-loading is actually a correlation with a given variable. This g-loading is obtained from factor analysis but not calculated explicitly from data that created the covariance matrix. So g-loading is correlation obtained implicitly.

    One can assign g values to individual subject that were tested with the battery of tests (T1,…,Ti) that produced the covariance matrix using the linear combination: g=An*T1+…+An*Tn, where Ti are test results for individuals subjects for the i-th test and Ai are coefficients obtained from factor analysis. The correlation between g and Ti for any i (say T1=IQ) then can calculated explicitly. I believe that implicitly obtained correlation should equal to the explicitly calculated correlation.

    I must emphasize that the explicit calculations are not usually performed nor g values for individual subject are calculated. So in this sense you were correct that correlation between IQ and g is not obtained (but explicitly only).

    You are correct that g is not external to the battery of tests used to obtain it. It is dependent on all the tests as a linear combination of them: g=An*T1+…+An*Tn, so g does not carry any extra information or added value beyond what already is in the battery of the tests.

    RELATED: I have written a long comment to WOZ (mea culpa)

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1742112

    that was provoked by WOZ and res replies to your questions: “what g is good for”. Both of their replies implied that they thought that g values were assigned to individual subjects from some tests and that g values are used to evaluate the test subjects… WE know it is not true. Nobody uses g for that purpose. There are no direct tests for g. g can only be calculate but is not. I have tried to rectify their understanding but they are blackballing me. WOZ would like to see my CV and publication list and res rationalizes WOZ’s peculiar response. Interesting interlocutors.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  410. @utu

    You don’t seem to understand your limitations as an expositor. Why should I spend my time on reading the blog comments of a no-name minor academic at a minor institution when his assault on long settled and common sense views is little more than assertions and he can be seen sometimes to miss the point? And especially when he doesn’t attend to the specific questions and issues raised by others. To find one’s views supported by known scholars like Linda Gottfriedson and he who dealt at length with Cosma Shalizi in the link provided by res means that you, by contrast, just don’t get over the threshold of being worth spending more time on. After all the onus is on you if you want to be taken seriouly when you challenge the conventional wisdom – and the plain common sense of using a battery of cognitively demanding tests and the correlates of their results to provide much-better-than-nothing decisions about who to back with scarce resources.

  411. utu says:
    @AaronB

    Further clarification on explicit and implicit calculation of correlation:

    From the factor analysis you got coefficients Ai so you can express g as a linear combination of tests:

    g=A1*T1+…+An*Tn (1)

    Implicit calculation of covariance Cov(g,T1) (Note: for normalized variables covariance is correlation)

    Cov(g,T1)= A1*Cov(T1,T1)+…+An*Cov(Tn,T1)

    where Cov(Ti,T1) for i=1,…,n are values of the first column in the covariance matrix you already have.

    Explicit calculation of covariance Cov(g,T1)

    You plug test values T1,…,Tn to formula (1) and calculate g for every test subject. Then you calculate covariance from the standard formula: see “Calculating the sample covariance” in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance

    Clarification on calculating of g for individual subjects

    I stated that g is rarely calculated as a score for individual test subjects. Reason for this is that different test batteries produce different scales of g. So from one battery of test the calculated g for John can be, say 0.6 while from the other battery of tests it could be 0.8. If John and Jane took different tests you could not compare them by using g’s but you could compare them with tests common in two batteries. However g for individuals is calculated in research when different batteries of tests are compared. For example, you have a battery of cognitive tests that yields COG-g and a battery of academic achievement tests that yields ACH-g. To compare how the two batteries are realted to each other you calculate both g’s for all individuals who took both sets of tests and then analyze COG-g and ACH-g vectors. There is no point of comparing relative magnitudes but you can calculate their correlation.

    Here is a paper I have recently found where this was done:

    Are cognitive g and academic achievement g one and the same g?

    http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Kaufman-et-al.-2012.pdf

    The correlations were around 0.8 and were relatively stable, i.e., not changing with age.

    “Therefore, Binet and Simon (1916) succeeded in their goal of predicting broad academic achievement from tests of general cognitive ability. Even present day tests of general cognitive ability show extremely high correlations with general academic achievement. In the title of this paper, however, we posed the question: Is COG-g and ACH-g one and the same g? The answer to this question is no. They are highly related, yet distinct constructs.

    These results counter the findings of prior studies, which have demonstrated declining correlations between intelligence and academic achievement with school age (Jensen,1998).”

    • Replies: @AaronB
  412. utu says:
    @res

    “that 2D visualization can be used to draw conclusions ” – it seems so since it is being used, but I am not familiar with it.

    “I’m pretty sure at least some modern researchers are using multi-variable methods. “ – I would like to believe this, however since I haven’t seen it yet I am skeptical. Some science circles (cliques) are susceptible to very limiting group think, particularly when under dogmatic leadership. There have their taboos. There are known cases when research was held up because of unhealthy climate (eg: ulcers or brain plasticity). I do not know much about what is going on in this field, what is its dynamic? who are dominant leaders? infighting? where the money comes from? I know they are defensive because they see themselves as underdogs fighting against the liberal taboos. So, there will be a tendency of closing ranks which always results in lack of transparency and reluctance to admitting mistakes. I think I should contact somebody from the enemy camp for the initial approximation. I never was interested in this stuff. I stumbled onto this subject here at unz. com several months ago. Some article on Syria brought me here not the IQ research. Then I read many comments and some articles and I was struck by the degree of uncritical reverence for the subject bordering on idolatry. Once Steve Sailer posted a very simple statistical problem that was framed in the context of IQ values. Many commenters could not solve the problem correctly because they were blinded by the fact that it was about IQ’s which was irrelevant to the actual solution of the problem. They could not move on the next level of abstraction. It also showed poor mathematical skills with few very impressive exceptions. In other discussion on Bayes’ theorem several commenters were outstanding.

    I take it back. I found this

    http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/98568/1/v01n4p465.pdf

    where two factors were extracted with somewhat cryptic conclusion:

    After varimax rotation, only one factor accounted for a substantial proportion of the common variance. An inspection of the loadings suggested that the first factor concerned evaluation,while the second factor seemed uninterpretable.

    The 2nd factor has high loadings for some tests and negative loadings for other tests. She does not know how to interpret it. Me neither. But I would not dismiss it.

    “How are the eigenvalues normalized to make them comparable to N for that rule?” - I do not think that they suppose to be normalized. Certainly you normalize raw data by standard deviation so you can replace correlation with covariance because the latter is linear (covariance of sum is sum of covariances) which simplifies life a great deal. Besides normalized data produce smaller round off errors in some calculations. I found this that illustrate the rule of thumb that I have mentioned:

    http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/factor-analysis-1-introduction/
    So if the factor for socioeconomic status had an eigenvalue of 2.3 it would explain as much variance as 2.3 of the three variables.

    The number of important factors is usually defined not by the size of the first, but either by how many are needed to explain a certain percent of variance or by observing a large falloff in explanatory power between them (I believe the latter is the case that applies to g, two or more factors are probably necessary to meet the former criterion, this might be a good way to frame the discussion of AaronB’s point 4 and possibly 3 as well. Especially if we find hard data.)

    I am not sure what you are saying here. Yes, more variance you want to account for you need more factors. No, the eigenvalue can tell you how many factors you need. Now, what about g? Why they do not want to explain more variance and use the second factor? What’s their rationale. Ask WOZ, perhaps Linda told him during cocktail hours.

    • Replies: @res
  413. utu says:
    @res

    Do you really think that WOZ needs an advocate? Are you his toady? The truth is in the plain sight. For the case is closed.

    “This is why I complained about you treating your opinion as fact above.” – Sometimes I speculate or hypothesize on secondary issues like whether something was done or not and what are possible motives. But when it comes to mathematical issues behind calculation of g I figured it all out form first principles w/o much additional readings just few days ago. (Many, many years ago I underwent very heavy mathematical indoctrination. A labor camp really. Fortunately it is all behind me. I do not need to use math anymore.) Few weeks ago I did not think much about g and what kind of animal it was. Most of what I said here you can take to the bank. Possibly there can be few mistakes, possibly I misspoke here and there. I think I presented the reasoning in such a way that it can be verified. You can’t equate the level of my arguments that are made in good faith and which were arrived to through a serious thinking process to rehashed opinions and irrelevant and vacuous utterances made by WOZ. You suggest that I am guilty of what I am accusing him? Don’t you have eyes? I appreciate his knowledge on history and recently, as I found out, on Zionism but, I am sorry, he is not qualified to participate in the discussion on this subject. Just does not have what it takes. Is it lack of sitzfleisch? Bad attitude? Mind power? In addition he peppers his utterances with gems like who did he talk to:

    I have met and talked to Linda Gottfriedson, Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck

    or what important person contacted him

    I have just received an email from a retired *very* senior person in the Australian Treasury

    that kind of get on my nerves. My people do not behave like that. It’s so pretentious. But he does not even know it. Sorry, the times of Major Jones are over. We are living in a different Zeitgeist now. Perhaps if I met him face to face I would tolerate him better because probably I would feel sorry for him. But here, why should I feel sorry for an anonymous somebody? A bot who would like to see my CV and publications?

    • Replies: @res
  414. AaronB says:
    @res

    It seems that -mostly – we aren’t so far apart on brute facts, but we differ on how to characterize and assess these facts.

    I’m gonna try and be as concrete as possible, because I find the more abstract I go, the more the potential for self-delusion, at least for me.

    What it comes down to, in very concrete terms, is how much of what we call “smart” is really a single thing. What strikes me is how important the special group factors are, and how being smart really can’t be reduced to a single thing. Yet on the other hand, its also pretty impressive the extent to which being smart is really one thing.

    I think its a valid point that we’ve found that there is this one thing that shows up in all the different skills we think of as intelligence – after all, we could have found only multiple intelligences – and I can see why this is an exciting and interesting fact.

    But at the same time, the special factors seem to be hugely important, and not just at the rarefied heights of the topmost percentiles, but at levels that I’d consider to hover around the medium.

    What I think is particularly mistaken is that Samuel Johnson quote – that seems to be a very common view, and quite mistaken, I feel.

    But everything in the end is context, context, context – I suppose if I heard someone going on about how there are only multiple intellgicences and no common element among them, I’d be trotting out the facts about g. Maybe I spend too much time on HBD sites, but in these circles the bias flows in the opposite direction – there is a huge tendency to think in a very reductionist way (gene x invariably produces outcome y, etc), and to reduce complex things to simplicities.

    If someone tells me a test is g-loaded, with the implication that this largely measures a persons’ ability across all intellectual fields, I will say in a world where the special factors contribute so much, that isn’t really true, even though I can see why in some situations, maybe all you want to know is a persons all around ability, whatever that is.

    I suppose you are operating in a very different context, which imposes a different set of priorities on you.

    My other point about g, is that I’m not sure what information it adds to IQ tests in general, since its an internal quality of IQ tests, you’ve answered in two ways. One, if I understand you correctly, is that it clarifies our theoretical understanding of the structure of intelligence, quite aside from any real world applicability it might have. I think that’s a perfectly valid point, and useful. You’ve also answered my question indirectly – you keep on conflating g with IQ, which suggests an implicit tendency to see g as not really adding any real world utility above and beyond IQ :)

    My final point about g, about how no test can be more g loaded than another, it seems was wrong. So that I have to take back. In retrospect, it seems obviously wrong – since a persons g remains invariant across tests, yet his special factor scores differ, the balance of these two factors would be different for each test. Unless I’m misunderstanding that, which is possible.

    I suppose my point was that g, as the common factor, must exist equally in each test. Which is true, but the special factor can exist in different force, rendering the g factor more or less important. I failed to account for that.

    Funny thing is, my main polemic against IQ that I bring up a fair amount all over the place doesn’t center on g at all, and doesn’t deny the utility of IQ in predicting outcomes in modern industrial economies, the two points which I feel are most relevant for you. G is something of a side issue for me, really.

    My main point is that IQ may capture all sorts of things other than intelligence that also correlate well to success in modern economies, and that we may not understand intelligence as much as we think, and that it seems kind of naive, and really in the end weird and rather strikingly bold, to think that figuring out which shape comes next on a sequence has all that much to do with deep insight into complex situations or forming connections across multiple fields in novel and surprising ways. Or even that the abstract really does translate into the concrete. Thinking in concrete terms is very different than thinking in abstract terms. People may lose their sense of how to manipulate concrete factors.

    You would probably say that, OK, but IQ is still pretty darn useful – and I’d agree.

    In the end, what strikes me and fascinates me is all the ways in which IQ doesn’t correlate well to real world outcomes – that the higher IQ Asian countries are poorer than Western countries, and less creative, for instance – or that Jewish outcomes in the real word vastly exceed anything predicted by their IQ, etc, as well as the many layers of implicit assumptions that underlay belief in IQ, for instance that people in poor countries are simply stupider (how would we know if in large part they were just less ambitious?)

    So when I see some simplistic HBD believer droning on about IQ and its incredible explanatory power, I feel like banging my head on a wall. But if someone like you comes along with a nuanced and intelligent description of the ways IQ really is useful and explanatory, I’m inclined to listen sympathetically, and agree.

    Context, context, context.

    • Replies: @res
  415. AaronB says:
    @utu

    Thanks for the clarification, utu.

    Although I lack your math skills, I try to follow what you’re saying, and I think I get it.

    “You are correct that g is not external to the battery of tests used to obtain it. It is dependent on all the tests as a linear combination of them: g=An*T1+…+An*Tn, so g does not carry any extra information or added value beyond what already is in the battery of the tests.”

    Perhaps, though, as res says it adds to our theoretical understanding of the “structure” of intelligence? (that its composed of a factor common to all plus a special factor)

    But I think we both see eye to eye on the ways in which g is abused in discourse about IQ, and the ways in which it is limited in how it can add to our real world knowledge.

    And yes, you cannot test for g directly, but only deduce and extract it, and people often talk about g as if this isn’t true.

    They’re being ridiculous for blackballing you- I think your contributions to this discussion are great, and you obviously have a deeper understanding of the math of it.

    • Replies: @utu
  416. AaronB says:
    @utu

    Thanks, this further adds clarity.

    “Even present day tests of general cognitive ability show extremely high correlations with general academic achievement.”

    Not surprised at this. But in my view, they both measure in large part ambition :)

    • Replies: @res
  417. res says:
    @utu

    Do you really think that WOZ needs an advocate? Are you his toady? The truth is in the plain sight. For the case is closed.

    Do you honestly think calling me a toady is less offensive than Wiz’s statements about his background?! And your conclusion is a perfect summary of your style of argument. (although, funnily enough, I agree with you, just that my truth is very different)

    I do not think Wiz needs an advocate. I do think sometimes it is easier for a third party to rebut criticisms. It is all too easy to sound “defensive” when defending oneself. And I have encountered enough people who try to use that Catch 22 to advantage that I am sensitive about it.

    that kind of get on my nerves. My people do not behave like that. It’s so pretentious.

    It gets on my nerves a little too (but see the positive sides in my earlier comment). MUCH more so if I don’t see it backed up by articulate and informative comments such as those Wiz provides. My perspective about commenters (and bloggers) is largely dictated by my perception of their “signal to noise ratio.” I am willing to put up with a good deal of obnoxious behavior from people who make insightful comments (e.g. see Razib, Jayman, or Greg Cochran). Others may see this differently.

    You do understand there are major cultural differences concerning this kind of thing, right? (even if you don’t, “my people …” makes it clear) Based on your comment about Syria above, I am guessing you are from the Middle East, correct? I believe Wiz is in Australia, Santoculto is in Brazil, and I am in the US. We have some significant cross cultural discussion going on here which does not make things any easier.
    I gave a detailed list of reasons I find knowing Wiz’s background valuable. I try not to be a cultural imperialist, but I do believe in the philosophy “When in Rome…” and I think it is fair to say the norms on the Unz Review tend towards those of the developed world. IMHO in technical discussions the norm there is to permit discussion of background and relevant knowledge/experience (FWIW, my definition of arrogance, internalized at college, is: “It’s arrogance if you can’t back it up.” Then there is being an assh*le, which is different.). There is room for differences, but when I experience things very differently from those around me it usually indicates a good time to pause for reflection and ask some questions like: “Am I wrong?”, “Do I really want to be around these people?”, “Are there other people here feeling as I do?” (this last is part of the reason I make supportive comments when I agree with Wiz. it is very lonely to be the only one disagreeing with multiple people)

    One additional thought regarding your reaction to Wiz’s claims. Projection is both real and common (I know I am vulnerable to it, and I’m sure if I look closely there is some on display in my comments in this thread). You might consider taking my earlier comment about you doing the same thing as Wiz (but in a slightly different way, e.g. your claims are vague, his are specific) more seriously.

    But when it comes to mathematical issues behind calculation of g I figured it all out form first principles w/o much additional readings just few days ago. (Many, many years ago I underwent very heavy mathematical indoctrination. A labor camp really. Fortunately it is all behind me. I do not need to use math anymore.) Few weeks ago I did not think much about g and what kind of animal it was. Most of what I said here you can take to the bank. Possibly there can be few mistakes, possibly I misspoke here and there. I think I presented the reasoning in such a way that it can be verified. You can’t equate the level of my arguments that are made in good faith and which were arrived to through a serious thinking process to rehashed opinions and irrelevant and vacuous utterances made by WOZ. You suggest that I am guilty of what I am accusing him? Don’t you have eyes?

    Again, “Don’t you have eyes?” might not be offensive in your culture, but it is in mine. But I think you are well aware of that.

    What was your mathematical labor camp? Mine was studying engineering at a university famed for that. I don’t provide details because I am anonymous here, but I think my comments corroborate my statement. How can I evaluate your labor camp statement at all? And are you really putting your few days of studying g above Wiz’s background? That might be the funniest thing I have read this week (and there is a great deal of humor in the UR articles and comments).

    I don’t know if you realize how revealing “I do not need to use math anymore” is, but I think those of us here who have used math extensively professionally do.

  418. Maybe we are missing the crucial point. Yes human intelligence have many types and SPECIFIC utilities but the most important about all of it, what is basal but hugely important is: Survivability.

    And survivability is strongly correlated with all of this specific skills. We need at least at basal levels verbal intelligence to: understand the name, concepts and application of this concepts of the elements we are daily interacting and with fundamental/underlined function: help us to survive. We need mathematical or quantitative understanding to know how to compare, weight, differentiate quantitative values. And for sure our quantitative sense is absolutely related with our verbal sense(description of the elements). As well spatial, inter and intrapersonal. All of them that are instinctively available at basal levels for us. Only musical intelligence that have a optional function even we know for culture, to distract a energic human mind, our musical sense work very well.

    So it’s not verbal or mathematical or memory only, but how we use all of it in integrated and useful way, and in the case of more rational people, not just the utility but also the perfection level (maximization of utility via comprehensive critical analytical perception).

  419. res says:
    @AaronB

    But in my view, they both measure in large part ambition.

    I think that is true (perhaps modulo the large), but much more so for academic achievement than g/IQ (I would be in much closer agreement with you earlier if this thread was about the former and not the latter). I tend to refer more to drive (the ability to work hard to get things done) than ambition (the desire to achieve great things). Both are important, but I think ambition is much more common than drive.

    AaronB, I am honestly not trying to be offensive with this question and my statements following, but I think they are important for this discussion. How much time have you spent around elite (say 1 in 100 and on up to 1 in 10,000 and beyond) talent–either intellectual or athletic? Ambition and drive are important, but IMHO sometimes there is no substitute for intelligence or athleticism. A very driven and accomplished (in both domains) friend of mine who also is quite athletic makes interesting comments sometimes when discussing mutual friends who are head and shoulders above him as natural athletic talents (although much closer in terms of realized ability). I find it truly shocking how much talent the best possess, and often also how hard they work to turn that into accomplishment.

    My own perspective is that I have spent more time around (and interact more as a peer with) top intellectual talent (e.g. top students at elite universities) than top athletic talent (e.g. D1 college athletes in popular sports like soccer or football, or top athletes at more obscure sports). My own talents lie more in the intellectual domain, but it’s fun to compete with the best even if it is hard on the ego sometimes.

    I am guessing the relationship between what I have written here and earlier is obvious.

  420. res says:
    @utu

    How are the eigenvalues normalized to make them comparable to N for that rule?” – I do not think that they suppose to be normalized.

    I disagree. The sum of the eigenvalues is the trace of the matrix (i.e. not necessarily N, is there some characteristic of these matrices that forces the trace to be N?): http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/546155/proof-that-the-trace-of-a-matrix-is-the-sum-of-its-eigenvalues
    To convert to percent variance explained you normalize each eigenvalue by their sum as I mentioned and linked above. To convert to an “equivalent number of factors” (I think, I’m not sure that is a technically rigorous concept) you multiply that by N. My linear algebra course was a long time ago, but I have used the material professionally somewhat (NOT a great deal and not recently though, except implicitly by doing things like PCA, so I am rusty on the theory). When and how did you study linear algebra?

    Here is a discussion of PCA and percent variance explained that may be helpful: http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/22569/pca-and-proportion-of-variance-explained
    Based on that the trace (sum of the diagonals) is the “overall variation” not N which answers my earlier parenthetical question. Notice the normalization done in the first answer.

    The number of important factors is usually defined not by the size of the first, but either by how many are needed to explain a certain percent of variance or by observing a large falloff in explanatory power between them (I believe the latter is the case that applies to g, two or more factors are probably necessary to meet the former criterion, this might be a good way to frame the discussion of AaronB’s point 4 and possibly 3 as well. Especially if we find hard data.)

    I am not sure what you are saying here. Yes, more variance you want to account for you need more factors. No, the eigenvalue can tell you how many factors you need. Now, what about g? Why they do not want to explain more variance and use the second factor? What’s their rationale. Ask WOZ, perhaps Linda told him during cocktail hours.

    I’m not sure how to respond. My explanation seems perfectly lucid to me (anyone else have any suggestions?). The eigenvalues are how you determine the percent variance explained (I am calling it size here). My parenthetical comment explicitly says how I think they decide about g. To reiterate: because (I believe) the second factor explains significantly less variance than the 40-50% explained by g. Have you ever done PCA? Choosing the factors to use is a fundamental step. Here is a discussion of factor selection along with a link to more detailed treatments: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_many_components_can_I_retrieve_in_principal_component_analysis

    And I am interested in asking Wiz. My guess is he understands PCA/factor analysis better than you do (though I might be wrong, depends on his specific background).

    • Replies: @utu
  421. res says:
    @AaronB

    You call it conflating IQ with g. I call it noting that IQ is an empirical measurement of the theoretical quantity g (general intelligence).

    That is very much agree to disagree IMHO.

    Since you keep bringing up (twice) the Samuel Johnson quote. I’ll reproduce it here for discussion.

    Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) expressed it tersely when he heard a noted historian pro­ claim that it was by virtue of their very different gifts that Caesar became a great commander, Shakespeare a great poet, and Newton a great scientist. Dr. Johnson replied, ‘ ‘No, it is only that one man has more mind than another; he may direct it differently, or prefer this study to that. Sir, the man who has vigor may walk to the North as well as to the South, to the East as well as to the West.” – Arthur Jensen, The g Factor (its most poetic elucidation?).

    That is a clear example of the overreach you are criticizing. I tend to invoke poetic license and note that if g is “mind” there it does explain 40-50% of intellectual variance. In my mind, though not literally true, that statement contains a great deal of truth eloquently and concisely expressed.

    Although I don’t think that Caesar could have been Newton (or any of the other combinations) I do think that each one of the people cited could have been eminent in a number of different fields (some were in fact, e.g. Caesar was eminent both as a military commander and politician, Newton in math, physics, and as Master of the Mint).

    I do understand why you find the quote annoying (and I agree it oversteps). I’ll just conclude by asking if you apply this level of rigor and resulting level of dismissal to everything you read like this? The world is full of more egregious examples in the newspaper headlines every single day.

    • Replies: @utu
  422. utu says:
    @AaronB

    ” I think we both see eye to eye on the ways in which g is abused in discourse about IQ, and the ways in which it is limited in how it can add to our real world knowledge.”

    Correct. I knew there was something fishy about g – w/o knowing much about g – from how it was used in discourse: “Look, it’s g-loaded, so it must be important.” A killer argument that suppose to shut you up. I recognized the excessive reverence indicating some degree of reification. I joined the discussion here and did some figuring out. Believe me, just few weeks earlier I did not know much about it. The mathematical construct of g is relatively complicated and beyond understanding to most of the IQ research aficionados. Many of them agreed with the results already before any data were presented. They just want confirmation. The concept of g gives them reassurance that the research is grounded in something deeper. A kind of ignotum per ignotius fallacy, i.e., an explanation that is less familiar than the concept it would explain. If I were naive it would be somewhat disappointing that the luminaries of IQ research establishment who should know better keep promulgating this false narrative. But I have no illusions about these crowd. I know how the group think works in academia. Thanks to res I learned that all what I figured out was already on Cosma Rohilla Shalizi site:

    g, a Statistical Myth

    http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html

    Cosma Rohilla Shalizi has few other interesting articles on the site (which is hard to navigate through):

    Yet More on the Heritability and Malleability of IQ, http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html
    Review of Flynn book: http://bactra.org/reviews/flynn-beyond/

    Since g is really irrelevant and serves just as a rhetorical device it is not really an issue. In my opinion more important is (1) Flynn effect ( Flynn is a good guy though somewhat naive; he was really an accidental whistleblower, actually) and (2) dubious results concerning the heritability of “intelligence”. Also it would be useful to find out about inner working of the IQ research establishment. Yesterday I commented to res:

    Some science circles (cliques) are susceptible to very limiting group think, particularly when under dogmatic leadership. They have their taboos. There are known cases when research was held up because of unhealthy climate (eg: ulcers or brain plasticity). I do not know much about what is going on in this field, what is its dynamic? who are dominant leaders? infighting? where the money comes from? I know they are defensive because they see themselves as underdogs fighting against the liberal taboos. So, there will be a tendency of closing ranks which always results in lack of transparency and reluctance to admitting mistakes. I think I should contact somebody from the enemy camp for the initial approximation.

    “But in my view, they both measure in large part ambition” – I think you are onto something. I wish I could contribute to this idea but I really do not know how to think about things like that – a different level of abstraction I am used to, but I will try.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  423. utu says:
    @res

    “The sum of the eigenvalues is the trace of the matrix (i.e. not necessarily N, is there some characteristic of these matrices that forces the trace to be N?)”

    Yes, not necessarily N. But in the correlation matrix there are ones on the main diagonal, so it is N.

    • Replies: @res
  424. utu says:
    @res

    “Newton a great scientist” – What made Newton to waste more time on numerology, Kabbalah and hidden messages in Bible than on science? Did Samuel Johnson knew about it? Sure, but it was a closely kept secret over several centuries. Newton was packaged and sold as an exemplar of superiority of British Empire (Myth of Einstein was created for similar purpose but not for the British.) In contrast Leibniz, a close competitor to Newton in mathematics, made significant contributions to philosophy even though he was ridiculed by Voltaire in Candide.

    Anyway, you brought up Johnson to suggest that Caesar, Shakespeare and Newton had large g.

    • Replies: @res
  425. res says:
    @utu

    Yes, not necessarily N. But in the correlation matrix there are ones on the main diagonal, so it is N.

    That makes sense. Thanks. I’m much more acquainted with PCA than factor analysis.

  426. res says:
    @utu

    Anyway, you brought up Johnson to suggest that Caesar, Shakespeare and Newton had large g.

    No, I brought up Johnson because AaronB mentioned Anatoly Karlin’s use of the quote twice without actually giving the quote. I do think it likely all three had high g though. I doubt we will ever know for sure.

    Are you actually arguing Newton was not a great scientist? Yes he went into the weeds with his numerology, alchemy, etc. More on those at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton’s_occult_studies
    for anyone interested. But that by no means negates his contributions.

    It is interesting that brilliant people go off like that sometimes. I think John Nash said it well: “Because the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously.”

  427. res says:

    Finally found a reference with eigenvalues for lower level factors.
    Factor analysis of the Wechsler adult intelligence scale-revised (WAIS-R): An examination of the standardization sample

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022440584900542

    Full text is available on libgen.
    The sample was 1880 people from the WAIS-R standardization sample (i.e. decent sample size and should be representative).

    This looks like the key conclusion:

    Taking the sample as a whole, the eigenvalues for the first, second, and third factors were 6.09, 0.96, and 0.74, respectively.

    So we are looking at a clearly dominant first factor (i.e. g). The algorithm they chose was to keep factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. If I read and interpret correctly, there are 11 subtests meaning g accounts for 6/11 or over 50% (54.5%) of the variance from all subtests. With the second factor accounting for less than 9% of the variance. So g explains 6x as much variance as the second factor and more than all of the other factors combined.

    Just after that they state:

    General Intelligence (g) Factor

    As in previous studies with the WAIS, there was clear support for a robust general intelligence (g) factor and the validity of the Full Scale IQ. Every subtest showed a substantial loading (2.50) at virtually every age level on the first unrotated factor (see Table 1). As found by Cohen (1957b) and Wallbrown et al. (1974), Information and Vocabulary had the strongest relationship with the g factor while Digit Span and Object Assembly had the weakest. Additional evidence supporting the g factor was found in the .64 to .70 correlations between the first and second factors obtained through direct oblimin rotation.

    My understanding is that eigenvectors in PCA are orthogonal. But the last sentence reads like that is not the case for the factors in factor analysis. Can anyone (utu?) explain that last sentence?

    On page 85 they say something that may cast some light:

    These two widely divergent factor analytic procedures, the former designed to produce uncorrelated factors and the latter designed to yield correlated factors, were used to assess the degree to which the study’s results were specific to a particular factor analytic approach.

    But my understanding of factor analysis is insufficient to interpret the subtleties.

    That seems like a pretty compelling case for the importance of g relative to the other factors (for me, anyway). What do you skeptics think? I think this ends the discussion about whether or not researchers have actually run a full factor analysis.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @utu
  428. AaronB says:
    @res

    I’m not at all offended at your question about whether I’ve been around truly smart people – I often bring my experiences into the fray and its a perfectly legitimate point. To answer your question – yes, most of my life. But it was only by leaving my community that I was able to see it from the outside – which brings me to my question to you – have you ever been around people NOT “formally” in the top 1 percent? Because to get a good perspective we need to see both sides of the aisle.

    In fact, having been around really smart people – in a formal sense – my whole life and then leaving that community is precisely what made me think ambition – simple effort – is a huge elephant in the room when talking about ability. Too many discrepancies kept on popping up.

    I want to make clear that I don’t think IQ captures “only” ambition, just that a large part of what it is testing for is ambition and thought habits, and we have no way of knowing this isn’t true. And we ignore this fact at our peril.

    But my point about ambition is structural, built-in – the “super smart” guy you meet whose intelligence may seem so effortless and natural, and who doesn’t seem particularly ambitious, may have an intellect that reflects ambition in the following manner –

    Suppose we give two people a logic problem. One person focuses, concentrates, and makes a real effort to solve this problem. The other person doesn’t care. He makes much less of an effort to solve the problem, gives up more easily, doesn’t really focus too hard. He simply doesn’t care.

    How could we possibly know how much of the result is based on “effort” and “caring”. Since its an entirely internal process, you may not even be able to “see” this – both look like they’re making the same effort.

    Suppose one person grows up in a culture and family where he’s been trained from an early age to exert maximum effort on all and every problem he encounters, in all situations, and “win”. As he grows up he’s trained and developed his faculties of concentration, focus, and perseverance, so that its second nature to him. He lives in a day to day to state of immense psychological pressure built up over his childhood that creates a strong internal force pushing him towards maximum effort and the need to win.

    Suppose someone lives in a much more easy going culture. This immense internal pressure to succeed simply isn’t there. Values revolve around family, enjoyment of nature, community, or simply spiritual and aesthetic values. Faced with abstract problems, he just doesn’t care very much about solving them.

    In the end, our real world performance cannot be abstracted from our deepest existential values as well as our most fundamental psychological and emotional imperatives. The scientific imperative to abstract and isolate may yield a badly distorted picture when it comes to human beings. “Ability” may not be able to be isolated from the larger human existential matrix.

    Cultures find it very hard to question – even perceive – their own values and assumptions. Our culture gives us particular goals – success, power, technology – so we assume they are human universals. We are culturally determined to give only one answer to the question of why other cultures don’t perform as well as us – they must not have the ability. Since clearly, our goals are humanly universal, it can only be ability. Because our goals and values are the framework within which we think – not what we think about – they are “givens” that color our perceptions.

    This has real world policy implications. To raise the IQ of other countries or groups, we may have to pull the “existential rug” out from under them, so to speak – destroy the sense of ease and security they have in the world, make them anxious and afraid, infuse them with a desire for power and technology, and much more. In a word, we’d have to existentially transform them. This idea that we can isolate “ability” and increase this single unit of human nature without regard to the total human being may be a total and utter fantasy resting on delusion and the inability to see our own highly conditioned thinking for what it is.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @res
    , @res
  429. AaronB says:

    My analysis above applies to individuals an sub-groups within our culture as well.

  430. @AaronB

    Suppose one person grows up in a culture and family where he’s been trained from an early age to exert maximum effort on all and every problem he encounters, in all situations, and “win”. As he grows up he’s trained and developed his faculties of concentration, focus, and perseverance, so that its second nature to him. He lives in a day to day to state of immense psychological pressure built up over his childhood that creates a strong internal force pushing him towards maximum effort and the need to win.

    Suppose someone lives in a much more easy going culture. This immense internal pressure to succeed simply isn’t there. Values revolve around family, enjoyment of nature, community, or simply spiritual and aesthetic values. Faced with abstract problems, he just doesn’t care very much about solving them.

    So we may have a spectrum of ambition, a trait of personality. Yes, cultural or meritocratic cultural systems can be changed and this changes will promote certain types over others. A very capitalistic society, very ambitious, ”hard-working” or cleverness both required, will select to the top that people who are highly ambitious and at the same time it’s likely to promote rampant social inequalities. A society with different values, who promote social harmony over social economic dynamism (even i believe it’s not a absolute dychotomy) will des-select highly ambitious people and select for sustainable, probably, more empathetic ones.

    Ambition as well any other behavioral trait/ behavioral INTENSITY or phenotype is heritable. Some people will be very very ambitious, proxy for authoritarian/dominant/sociopathic personality. Most people will be variably ambitious and different enviroments can push them to become more competitive and other environments can push them to become less or more cooperative. And we will have those who are highly relaxed in this aspects and of course less ambitious. My opinion is that both, too much conformist and empathetic will tend to be like that.

    What make us believe that environment have a primordial role in our short and long term behavioral responses is exactly that people on the middle of personality/behavioral intensity spectrum. This people are more environmentally ”adaptative”, or better, easily conformative to any environment type, BECAUSE their higher social conformity. Environment dictates and they obey. So they have the capacity to adapt to both scenarios, and we similar outcomes, even we know there are subgroups of ”middle-folks” who are more prone to be ”more succesful” in highly competitive/ambitious environment than others.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  431. AaronB says:
    @utu

    Totally agree about the suspiciousness of g the way its being used – obviously something off about it and its obviously given way too much value. People go on and on about the g of this or that country or group, when its so obvious that special strengths and weaknesses make a real difference in the world. Its this desire to “reduce” everything to simple and single factors. Its out of control. We end up distorting reality.

    Great quite about incentives in science and how they corrupt! People forget that science is a human social activity in the end and subject to all the limitations of human nature. The aura of infallibility that surrounds anything dressed up as science is absurd, but I think its crumbling.

    Thanks for all the useful perspectives you’ve provided in this thread, utu.

  432. AaronB says:
    @Santoculto

    Yes, there may be a genetic element. For instance, the US over the centuries may have gotten the most materialistic and wealth obsessed elements from various societies, leading to a high concentration of that type having a huge influence on our culture.

    But I don’t think traits are directly heritable -for instance, gene x leads to sociopathy. That’s too simplistic. Its more like gene x leads to anxiety, which can lead to a pathological desire for control and dominance if the child is raised in an abusive household, etc, etc. And we get a sociopath.

    In other words there are second order and third order effects that are very complex, and that are mediated by lots of factors in the environment, and there is epigenetics.

    In the end, cultures are a bit mysterious. Genes clearly play a role, but culture can change dramatically in far too little time for genes to have any effect – Germany did a sharp volte face in a hundred years, and now China.

    Environment, and the specific challenges one faces, is another factor. China after the threat of the West isn’t China before the threat of the West. Germany after the humiliation of the Napoleonic Wars isn’t Germany before those wars.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  433. res says:
    @AaronB

    have you ever been around people NOT “formally” in the top 1 percent?

    Yes. I grew up in a rural area that was very much mixed. Probably a little more people at the high end (both top 5% and 1% IMHO) because of somewhat nearby employers (and at that time the lowest end was usually in some form of special ed), but overall a great deal of variety. Some of the people I was closest to were decidedly not at the top end (e.g. bottom track academically at our school, though they would make interesting case studies for ambition/drive/IQ importance discussions). In some ways it was easier to relate to them because they didn’t feel in competition with me academically or pigeonhole me to that trait quite so thoroughly. I also shared other characteristics with them like a love of doing things outdoors and a certain amount of, shall we say, rambunctiousness.

    Then I went to an elite university which was quite a bit of culture shock–both good and bad. Things might be different now, but at that time I was amazed by the depth, breadth (and sheer ability) of interests people there had. Lots of “nerds”, but virtually every time you looked more closely there was some really cool hobby or interest present and impressively realized (as an example, my girlfriend for most of college had performed–solo IIRC–on piano at a large well known venue).

    One reason I consider questions like these important is I believe much of people’s perception of the IQ/ambition/drive/other skills relationship is colored by both range restriction of IQ in their environment and other selection effects. This is an important reason I think it better to rely on statistical arguments based on the general population (note that this is an important flaw in many psychology studies that rely on college undergrads as subjects).

    To think about this consider a simple college model where V and M are both important and are positively correlated (as we know) (this is representative for any two positively correlated traits, say ambition and IQ). Colleges and students are both selective (i.e. they each try to select the best they can get). This results in a fair amount of stratification of students in colleges by ability (obviously there are exceptions, primarily top students going to lower ranked colleges for various personal reasons and the opposite from non-ability related admissions decisions). The ability stratified by tends to some combination of V and M. If you plotted V vs. M you could visualize this as diagonal lines along roughly V+M = constant contours. If you investigate this mathematically (and I have done simulations to check) you find that within these strata not only does the correlation between V and M within the subpopulations diminish it actually disappears or even turns negative (!). This happens even at the top end per simulation. Further stratification and selection happens within majors.

    That was very abstract so let’s be concrete for a moment. What I am saying is that a mid-range college is likely to have a mix of people with balanced and moderate V/M and people with unbalanced V/M with one below “moderate” and one above. This makes it appear to the observer (even statistically for this subpopulation) that V and M are negatively correlated.

    I believe this causes most people’s intuition about the relationship between correlated abilities to be wrong. Especially regarding intelligence since that is precisely what college (where most people form many important views of the world) is stratified by. I believe a similar effect is present in the work world. In a mediocre workplace there is a decent chance the oddly high IQ person is dysfunctional in some other way. Otherwise he would be at a better workplace.

    This paper has a more formal discussion relating to this: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ744793

    You make a number of interesting points that I find hard to respond to without writing an inordinate number of words. I’ll just note one thing that I think relevant. I think a significant portion of the environmental influence on IQ (or perhaps more accurately, realization of IQ as accomplishment) is caused by the IQ of other people–both family and the surrounding society. If this idea is correct it means IQ is more important than generally interpreted from the data.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  434. @AaronB

    ”But I don’t think traits are directly heritable -for instance, gene x leads to sociopathy. That’s too simplistic.”

    I don’t think it’s wrong being simplistic BUT factually correct. And it’s not so simple as you are thinking, seems.

    There are people who born like that, period. Some people just born socio or psychopath. Other people born with some ”free will” to choice different path but still near to the anti-social personality spectrum. They can mimic normative behaviors, superficially way, but they are still ”20,30,50%” socio or psychopath while full-blown anti-social ones would be ”near to 100%” like that.

    Because in the period of wars most of younger men can become a killer doesn’t mean they born more psychopaths but they have their dark side and can use it in this scenarios and this relative behavioral plasticity is heritable, is genetic, intrinsic.

    We are not mono-behavers and this doesn’t mean it’s not heritable or nothing to do with genetics. Environment usually change but we are crucially responsible for our own responses.

  435. res says: