The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
More Responses to Vox Attack on Charles Murray
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Houston Euler has lots of up to date graphs.

James Lee reviews Nisbett’s 2009 book.

Keep in mind that the Vox article is largely agreeing with Murray about IQ and race, just not about racial differences in IQ likely being partially genetic. It’s an example of a common tactic that I call Siberian-sleigh-pursued-by-wolves. The idea is you throw one person in your sleigh out for the wolves to eat so the rest of you IQ researchers can get away.

 
Hide 115 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Here’s what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.

    I think it’s pretty obvious that Murray’s just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.

    Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you’re the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.
    Back in late 1980s, I read Murray’s anti-Welfare “Losing Ground,” which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he’d left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn’t blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don’t they?

    But then after his big IQ book “The Bell Curve” came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he’d been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

    Next, Murray’s Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn’t really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn’t already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein’s research, which he didn’t fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn’t really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn’t around to pass him the answers.

    Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American “custodial democracy.” Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

    Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.

    Well, I haven’t read the book or the review, but Murray’s always struck me as something of a fool, and a pretty dishonest one at that. It sounds like his book this time should be dedicated to his neocon paymasters at AEI.

    I consider Murray a shill and a fool

    Read More
    • Agree: Jack Hanson, utu
    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Mr. Unz, has your opinion changed?
    , @Anonymous
    Hello, JohnnyWalker123.
    Can you provide the reference to the article(s), where Mr. Unz has made those statements about Ch. Murray ?
    , @syonredux
    Of course, one must always bear in mind Ron Unz' s theory that "Super-Flynn" is going to raise Hispanic Amerind and Mestizo IQ to the White American mean real soon now....
    , @Anonymous
    JohnnyWalker123 generates lie.
    He could not provide the reference to Unz, where according to 123, Unz wrote that.
    , @Anonymous
    So what? Our host, God bless him, is known to be delusional on some topics some times. We all are for as long as we are human. In the end, Murray, Unz and Sailer are still right much more frequently than they are wrong. Which is exactly opposite to the prevailing PC wisdom on just about any subject. Which is what makes reading these authors interesting.
    , @TWS
    If Unz isn't the most dishonest and deliberately obtuse person who writes here it's only because Truth does it for free as well. He can't even admit that Hispanics commit crimes at a rate greater than the white average. Or illegal aliens represent any kind of danger at all.

    I know three people killed by illegal aliens. Murdered. One has attacked my daughter. Two of those four illegals are now back in the states or walking free somewhere.

    There are a metric ass load of reasons to figure that illegals might not have the impulse control, investment in community, and ties to keep them on the straight and narrow that native born folks do but hey, lets model the heck out of the data until it kind of, sort of, looks like what we want.
    , @syonredux

    He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion.
     
    The problem there is that Murray believes that the ancient Israelites possessed an usually high mean IQ. On this point, he is quite wrong. None of the neighbors of the Israelites thought that they were smarter than average, and none of their surviving writings suggest uncommon cleverness.

    And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc
    , @syonredux

    Obviously, I noticed he’d left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role
     
    That's rather funny, seeing as how Ron has expended a lot of energy in defense of his theory that environment determines IQ......

    I think it’s pretty obvious that Murray’s just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     
    How did books like The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment aid in that endeavor? Seems to me that tomes like those aren't exactly going to win accolades from the PC elite......
    , @Reg Cæsar
    I would call Murray a diplomat, not a shill, and probably not a fool. He's useful, if not perfect. Kinda like Mr Unz himself!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/more-responses-to-vox-attack-on-charles-murray/#comment-1877964
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.

    I think it's pretty obvious that Murray's just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     

    Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you're the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.
    Back in late 1980s, I read Murray's anti-Welfare "Losing Ground," which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he'd left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn't blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don't they?

    But then after his big IQ book "The Bell Curve" came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he'd been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

    Next, Murray's Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn't really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn't already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein's research, which he didn't fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn't really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn't around to pass him the answers.

    Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American "custodial democracy." Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

    Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.
     

    Well, I haven't read the book or the review, but Murray's always struck me as something of a fool, and a pretty dishonest one at that. It sounds like his book this time should be dedicated to his neocon paymasters at AEI.
     

    I consider Murray a shill and a fool
     

    Mr. Unz, has your opinion changed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG
    I think they're both anti-Trump now, aren't they?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Here’s an alternative perspective on IQ.

    Asians academically&economically exceed whites not because of higher IQs, but despite slightly lower IQs. That was the finding of Professor Flynn.

    The Asian-American success story had suddenly been turned on its head. The numbers now suggested, Flynn said, that they had succeeded not because of their higher I.Q.s. but despite their lower I.Q.s. Asians were overachievers. In a nifty piece of statistical analysis, Flynn then worked out just how great that overachievement was. Among whites, virtually everyone who joins the ranks of the managerial, professional, and technical occupations has an I.Q. of 97 or above. Among Chinese-Americans, that threshold is 90. A Chinese-American with an I.Q. of 90, it would appear, does as much with it as a white American with an I.Q. of 97.

    Here are Flynn’s thoughts on Chinese-Americans.

    The Chinese Americans I studied were the generation born in 1945-1949. They were no higher than whites even for non-verbal IQ yet out-performed whites by a huge margin in terms of eventual occupational status. That meant that they could give their own children the kind of privileged environment they had never had. The result was a pattern of IQ that put the subsequent generation of Chinese Americans at an IQ of 109 at say age six gradually falling to 103 by the late teens, as parental influence faded away in favor of peers. The extra 3 points the present generation has as adults is due to the fact that they are in cognitively more demanding universities and professions and because they have internalized a positive attitude to cognitively challenging activities and companions.

    So Chinese parenting gives a 9 point IQ advantage. That’s massive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Flynn also had an interesting debate with Charles Murray.

    According to Flynn, black IQ drops from 95 (age 4) to 83 (age 24). That's not a "pattern of genetic influence." That's a product of "disparate cognitive environments."


    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

    That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles.


     

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.


    Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in. ♦
     

    Ron Unz came to similar conclusions about the malleability of IQ and importance of environment.

    The origin of this inversion of ethnic hierarchies may be quite simple. When desperately poor immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, or Greeks arrived on our shores, they were unable to afford farmland, and therefore permanently remained in their East Coast cities of landing, while less-poor Germans might move to the Midwest and become farmers, following the agricultural choice made by many of the earliest frontier settlers derived from the British and the Dutch. So the more rural populations from Europe often became the more urban ones in America, leading to a gradual inversion of their relative IQ rankings.
     

    If we combine this apparent rural/urban achievement pattern with the evidence of the Flynn Effect, we might speculate that scoring well on an IQ test tends to require a certain amount of “mental priming” or complex stimulation while growing up and that in the past such stimulation tended to be lacking in poor rural areas compared with more urban, affluent, or industrial ones. Obviously, working on a farm in a less developed country carries its own complexity, but it could be that the mental skills exercised are far less applicable to the strongly abstract and analytical thinking required on an IQ test.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.

    I think it's pretty obvious that Murray's just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     

    Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you're the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.
    Back in late 1980s, I read Murray's anti-Welfare "Losing Ground," which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he'd left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn't blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don't they?

    But then after his big IQ book "The Bell Curve" came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he'd been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

    Next, Murray's Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn't really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn't already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein's research, which he didn't fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn't really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn't around to pass him the answers.

    Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American "custodial democracy." Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

    Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.
     

    Well, I haven't read the book or the review, but Murray's always struck me as something of a fool, and a pretty dishonest one at that. It sounds like his book this time should be dedicated to his neocon paymasters at AEI.
     

    I consider Murray a shill and a fool
     

    Hello, JohnnyWalker123.
    Can you provide the reference to the article(s), where Mr. Unz has made those statements about Ch. Murray ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/02/ross-douthat-gets-charles-murray-books.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's an alternative perspective on IQ.

    Asians academically&economically exceed whites not because of higher IQs, but despite slightly lower IQs. That was the finding of Professor Flynn.

    The Asian-American success story had suddenly been turned on its head. The numbers now suggested, Flynn said, that they had succeeded not because of their higher I.Q.s. but despite their lower I.Q.s. Asians were overachievers. In a nifty piece of statistical analysis, Flynn then worked out just how great that overachievement was. Among whites, virtually everyone who joins the ranks of the managerial, professional, and technical occupations has an I.Q. of 97 or above. Among Chinese-Americans, that threshold is 90. A Chinese-American with an I.Q. of 90, it would appear, does as much with it as a white American with an I.Q. of 97.
     
    Here are Flynn's thoughts on Chinese-Americans.

    The Chinese Americans I studied were the generation born in 1945-1949. They were no higher than whites even for non-verbal IQ yet out-performed whites by a huge margin in terms of eventual occupational status. That meant that they could give their own children the kind of privileged environment they had never had. The result was a pattern of IQ that put the subsequent generation of Chinese Americans at an IQ of 109 at say age six gradually falling to 103 by the late teens, as parental influence faded away in favor of peers. The extra 3 points the present generation has as adults is due to the fact that they are in cognitively more demanding universities and professions and because they have internalized a positive attitude to cognitively challenging activities and companions.
     
    So Chinese parenting gives a 9 point IQ advantage. That's massive.

    Flynn also had an interesting debate with Charles Murray.

    According to Flynn, black IQ drops from 95 (age 4) to 83 (age 24). That’s not a “pattern of genetic influence.” That’s a product of “disparate cognitive environments.”

    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

    That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles.

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.

    Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in. ♦

    Ron Unz came to similar conclusions about the malleability of IQ and importance of environment.

    The origin of this inversion of ethnic hierarchies may be quite simple. When desperately poor immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, or Greeks arrived on our shores, they were unable to afford farmland, and therefore permanently remained in their East Coast cities of landing, while less-poor Germans might move to the Midwest and become farmers, following the agricultural choice made by many of the earliest frontier settlers derived from the British and the Dutch. So the more rural populations from Europe often became the more urban ones in America, leading to a gradual inversion of their relative IQ rankings.

    If we combine this apparent rural/urban achievement pattern with the evidence of the Flynn Effect, we might speculate that scoring well on an IQ test tends to require a certain amount of “mental priming” or complex stimulation while growing up and that in the past such stimulation tended to be lacking in poor rural areas compared with more urban, affluent, or industrial ones. Obviously, working on a farm in a less developed country carries its own complexity, but it could be that the mental skills exercised are far less applicable to the strongly abstract and analytical thinking required on an IQ test.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    "Ron Unz came to similar conclusions"

    He's wrong.
    , @mobi

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.
     
    Or - white female - black male couplings are drawn from the bottom of the pool, while white male - black female ones are drawn from much higher up in both pools; thus, the difference is indeed mostly or purely genetic.
    , @Daniel Chieh

    But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness...
     
    No, not really. I believe this being one of the first things I read and studied about IQ, back when I was basically a liberal and how completely this was refuted. Black American GIs were IQ tested and were at least 100 IQ, or else they wouldn't be allowed to be GIs.

    Therefore, this rather significantly throws the entire assumptions he made off course.
    , @syonredux

    the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in.
     
    Is this a reference to the never replicated Eyferth study? Let's just say that it has problems......

    Several other researchers have been skeptical about the value of the study for illuminating the causes of racial IQ differences.
    Arthur Jensen has pointed out that the white girls in the study obtained an average IQ eight points below that of the white boys, suggesting a sampling error, because in the WISC standardization sample the average IQs of boys and girls are equal (among the mixed-race subjects in the Eyferth study, there was a small sex difference of 1 point, favoring boys). He has also noted that the IQs of the children's mothers and fathers are unknown, and that white and black G.I.'s in Germany were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces. He further argues that the selective preferences of the German women with regard to sexual partners may have influenced the results in an unknown manner. Moreover, nearly all of the children were tested before adolescence, i.e. before the genotypic aspect of IQ has become fully manifested.
     
    <blockquote>Rushton and Jensen have further pointed out that 20–25% of the fathers in the study were not African Americans but rather French North Africans
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study
    , @syonredux

    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same
     
    .

    "[A]dmittedly crude" is an understatement. For infants, we don't have IQ tests; we have "liveliness" tests.....And East Asian infants perform rather poorly on them:

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/

    And comparing infant IQ is like testing infant prowess at the 100 meter dash. I'm pretty sure that Black and White six-month old babies are pretty much equal at that one.....but differences do develop later in life.....I suppose that that's due to disparate environments...

    By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.
     
    Genetic differences trump environment as we age....
    , @Difference Maker
    Low IQ individuals develop faster and their brains stop growing earlier.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Notice figure 2 and other tables in

    http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf .

    The correlation was 91 percent between national IQ score and a simple genetic predictor: select several of the most easily found intelligence genes (big GWAS hits on IQ or education), and ask how many of those a person has. The average value of this number for individuals in a population is the quantity that Piffer found to correlate very well with average IQ in that population.

    This doesn’t mean that personal IQ can be genetically predicted to that accuracy, but it does support the Watson-esque idea that national or continental-scale population differences can be understood easily using genetics. Also the Steve-ish idea that group stereotypes can be very accurate and have a straightforward basis in physical reality (such as genes, hormone levels, or climate differences) independent of whether the stereotype is super-accurate for predictions about individuals from the group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. eah says:

    How many IQ researchers do you have to throw to the wolves before ‘the gap’ disappears?

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/occdissent/status/865983327114674176
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. gcochran says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Flynn also had an interesting debate with Charles Murray.

    According to Flynn, black IQ drops from 95 (age 4) to 83 (age 24). That's not a "pattern of genetic influence." That's a product of "disparate cognitive environments."


    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

    That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles.


     

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.


    Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in. ♦
     

    Ron Unz came to similar conclusions about the malleability of IQ and importance of environment.

    The origin of this inversion of ethnic hierarchies may be quite simple. When desperately poor immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, or Greeks arrived on our shores, they were unable to afford farmland, and therefore permanently remained in their East Coast cities of landing, while less-poor Germans might move to the Midwest and become farmers, following the agricultural choice made by many of the earliest frontier settlers derived from the British and the Dutch. So the more rural populations from Europe often became the more urban ones in America, leading to a gradual inversion of their relative IQ rankings.
     

    If we combine this apparent rural/urban achievement pattern with the evidence of the Flynn Effect, we might speculate that scoring well on an IQ test tends to require a certain amount of “mental priming” or complex stimulation while growing up and that in the past such stimulation tended to be lacking in poor rural areas compared with more urban, affluent, or industrial ones. Obviously, working on a farm in a less developed country carries its own complexity, but it could be that the mental skills exercised are far less applicable to the strongly abstract and analytical thinking required on an IQ test.
     

    “Ron Unz came to similar conclusions”

    He’s wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    How do you explain the rise in Jewish-American IQ?

    American Jews saw their mean IQ rise from 101.5 (1920-1937) to 107 (1944-1960) to 111 (1970-2008). So 10 points.

    Didn't Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?

    Also, if IQ points are rising by 3 points per decade, doesn't that suggest that there's a strong non-genetic component to IQ? If there is, then differences in cognitive environment matter a lot. Especially when comparing two populations in very dissimilar circumstances.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. mobi says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Flynn also had an interesting debate with Charles Murray.

    According to Flynn, black IQ drops from 95 (age 4) to 83 (age 24). That's not a "pattern of genetic influence." That's a product of "disparate cognitive environments."


    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

    That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles.


     

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.


    Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in. ♦
     

    Ron Unz came to similar conclusions about the malleability of IQ and importance of environment.

    The origin of this inversion of ethnic hierarchies may be quite simple. When desperately poor immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, or Greeks arrived on our shores, they were unable to afford farmland, and therefore permanently remained in their East Coast cities of landing, while less-poor Germans might move to the Midwest and become farmers, following the agricultural choice made by many of the earliest frontier settlers derived from the British and the Dutch. So the more rural populations from Europe often became the more urban ones in America, leading to a gradual inversion of their relative IQ rankings.
     

    If we combine this apparent rural/urban achievement pattern with the evidence of the Flynn Effect, we might speculate that scoring well on an IQ test tends to require a certain amount of “mental priming” or complex stimulation while growing up and that in the past such stimulation tended to be lacking in poor rural areas compared with more urban, affluent, or industrial ones. Obviously, working on a farm in a less developed country carries its own complexity, but it could be that the mental skills exercised are far less applicable to the strongly abstract and analytical thinking required on an IQ test.
     

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.

    Or – white female – black male couplings are drawn from the bottom of the pool, while white male – black female ones are drawn from much higher up in both pools; thus, the difference is indeed mostly or purely genetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    The white mother/black father couples have higher IQs.
    , @Dana Thompson
    FWIW, I found this statement in the wikipedia article for X_chromosome:
    "For reasons that are not yet understood, there is an excess proportion of genes on the X-chromosome that are associated with the development of intelligence, with no obvious links to other significant biological functions."
    If there's truth to this, then you would expect the mixed-race children of white mothers to be brighter, since all of them carry a "white" X, whereas male children with a white father can get their X only from their mother.
    , @mobi

    Or – white female – black male couplings are drawn from the bottom of the pool, while white male – black female ones are drawn from much higher up in both pools; thus, the difference is indeed mostly or purely genetic.
     
    Disregard - completely misread that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. IHTG says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Mr. Unz, has your opinion changed?

    I think they’re both anti-Trump now, aren’t they?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @JohnnyWalker123
    Flynn also had an interesting debate with Charles Murray.

    According to Flynn, black IQ drops from 95 (age 4) to 83 (age 24). That's not a "pattern of genetic influence." That's a product of "disparate cognitive environments."


    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

    That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles.


     

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.


    Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in. ♦
     

    Ron Unz came to similar conclusions about the malleability of IQ and importance of environment.

    The origin of this inversion of ethnic hierarchies may be quite simple. When desperately poor immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, or Greeks arrived on our shores, they were unable to afford farmland, and therefore permanently remained in their East Coast cities of landing, while less-poor Germans might move to the Midwest and become farmers, following the agricultural choice made by many of the earliest frontier settlers derived from the British and the Dutch. So the more rural populations from Europe often became the more urban ones in America, leading to a gradual inversion of their relative IQ rankings.
     

    If we combine this apparent rural/urban achievement pattern with the evidence of the Flynn Effect, we might speculate that scoring well on an IQ test tends to require a certain amount of “mental priming” or complex stimulation while growing up and that in the past such stimulation tended to be lacking in poor rural areas compared with more urban, affluent, or industrial ones. Obviously, working on a farm in a less developed country carries its own complexity, but it could be that the mental skills exercised are far less applicable to the strongly abstract and analytical thinking required on an IQ test.
     

    But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness…

    No, not really. I believe this being one of the first things I read and studied about IQ, back when I was basically a liberal and how completely this was refuted. Black American GIs were IQ tested and were at least 100 IQ, or else they wouldn’t be allowed to be GIs.

    Therefore, this rather significantly throws the entire assumptions he made off course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Back during WWII, the U.S. military was taking almost everyone. So it's unlikely the fathered children had particularly high-IQ fathers.

    Also, even if black GIs had higher-IQ, their children should partly regress to the lower black mean (weighted by ancestry).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Anonymous
    Hello, JohnnyWalker123.
    Can you provide the reference to the article(s), where Mr. Unz has made those statements about Ch. Murray ?
    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In what alphabet "Ross Douthat" ,
    or "Steve Sailer", to that matter,
    is written as "Ron Unz" ?
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    This cite cannot be correct. I went to your cite, did a search for the final comment in your original quote, "I consider Murray a shill and a fool", and could not find it.

    I'm concerned because the quotes you give in your original post do not sound like the kind of thing Ron Unz would write.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @mobi

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.
     
    Or - white female - black male couplings are drawn from the bottom of the pool, while white male - black female ones are drawn from much higher up in both pools; thus, the difference is indeed mostly or purely genetic.

    The white mother/black father couples have higher IQs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Daniel Chieh

    But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness...
     
    No, not really. I believe this being one of the first things I read and studied about IQ, back when I was basically a liberal and how completely this was refuted. Black American GIs were IQ tested and were at least 100 IQ, or else they wouldn't be allowed to be GIs.

    Therefore, this rather significantly throws the entire assumptions he made off course.

    Back during WWII, the U.S. military was taking almost everyone. So it’s unlikely the fathered children had particularly high-IQ fathers.

    Also, even if black GIs had higher-IQ, their children should partly regress to the lower black mean (weighted by ancestry).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Actually in the study, they did show -very slightly- lower performance later so, so that might be a hint of regression(95 IQ vs 97 IQ for white GI children). But yes, the US Army was still filtering for IQ in WW2 and had been doing so since WW1.

    It effectively filtered out the lowest IQ blacks and at any rate, would obviously no longer be simply a demographic representation of the black population. I personally don't doubt that environment can make some difference in IQ(and with a ball-peen hammer to the head, you can do a lot..negatively), but its probably not that drastic.

    http://www.official-asvab.com/history_res.htm

    , @syonredux

    Back during WWII, the U.S. military was taking almost everyone. So it’s unlikely the fathered children had particularly high-IQ fathers.
     
    The study was published in 1959, with the children ranging in age between 5 and 13 (mean age: 10). That means that a rather large percentage of the children were fathered by Black men who were inducted after 1950.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @gcochran
    "Ron Unz came to similar conclusions"

    He's wrong.

    How do you explain the rise in Jewish-American IQ?

    American Jews saw their mean IQ rise from 101.5 (1920-1937) to 107 (1944-1960) to 111 (1970-2008). So 10 points.

    Didn’t Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?

    Also, if IQ points are rising by 3 points per decade, doesn’t that suggest that there’s a strong non-genetic component to IQ? If there is, then differences in cognitive environment matter a lot. Especially when comparing two populations in very dissimilar circumstances.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Didn’t Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?
     
    Hey, you've found the solution to low Black and Mestizo-Amerind Hispanic IQ! We just need to have Chinese families adopt all the Black and Mestizo-Amerind Hispanic children in the USA!
    , @gcochran
    There was no such rise in Jewish IQ. It was already high in 1920: that's why Harvard ( and the rest of the Ivy league) was inventing strategies['well-rounded' students] for keeping them out in the 1920s. And it's not as if there wasn't plenty of real-world evidence of higher-than-average Jewish IQ by 1920: read the math and physics journals. Read Annalen der Physik for 1905 !

    If you have references, I'll look at them, but I've never seen any results like those you cite. And I've looked hard. I don't believe them.

    Nor do I believe that was much real increase in IQ over the 20th century. Math subscores hardly budged. In terms of real-world accomplishment, math rules OK.

    It looks as if there are strong genetic influences and random, non-social non-genetic influences. Developmental noise, maybe. Between cohorts, differences in test familiarity.

    For new immigrants, language problems affect test results in the first generation - afterwards, depends on the flavor of immigrant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Dilemna says:

    These articles “debunking” Murray will ultimately vindicate him and promote HDB more than anything.

    Your average prog (and this means nearly everyone) doesn’t even understand that there are historic groups differences in tested IQ.

    They think this is an *argument* that The Bell Curve advances, not a simple observed fact about test results.

    IF they do understand the above they assume the differences disappear when you simply control for poverty.

    Once that bubble is burst* the world starts to become a little more predictable and you are more or less in the HBD camp.

    I can’t speak for all y’all but I’ve understood group differences and the likelyhood of a genetic component for a decade now and it has engendered zero animosity for outgroups and it’s made no difference in the courtesy and respect I extend to anyone.

    In 25 years it’s all gonna be drones, mass unemployment, designer drugs and sex robots anyway let’s just get on with it.

    —-

    *a sizeable percentage of the population simply isn’t smart enough to understand group averages, and no matter what will think that because Neil de grass Tyson is smarter than the duck dynasty dudes IQ tests must be “pseudoscience”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood

    They think this is an *argument* that The Bell Curve advances, not a simple observed fact about test results.
     
    I think this is a very important point that we iSteve readers and the like tend to forget.

    I had a (well-educated, talented, white, lesbian) friend who attended John Derbyshire's 2010 talk at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on group differences in IQ. (Recounted at the link below.) Even several days later when she told me about the experience, my friend was still outraged at Derbyshire's simply mentioning the fact that the black-white gap exists. She couldn't believe that he had even been invited to speak and (although she didn't use the term) felt that at a minimum a trigger warning should have been given to attendees.

    http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/upennlaw.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @JohnnyWalker123
    Back during WWII, the U.S. military was taking almost everyone. So it's unlikely the fathered children had particularly high-IQ fathers.

    Also, even if black GIs had higher-IQ, their children should partly regress to the lower black mean (weighted by ancestry).

    Actually in the study, they did show -very slightly- lower performance later so, so that might be a hint of regression(95 IQ vs 97 IQ for white GI children). But yes, the US Army was still filtering for IQ in WW2 and had been doing so since WW1.

    It effectively filtered out the lowest IQ blacks and at any rate, would obviously no longer be simply a demographic representation of the black population. I personally don’t doubt that environment can make some difference in IQ(and with a ball-peen hammer to the head, you can do a lot..negatively), but its probably not that drastic.

    http://www.official-asvab.com/history_res.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    According to this source, blacks were 11% of the military-eligible population of the U.S. (during WWII) and 10.7% of the soldiers.

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

    So it doesn't seem that IQ tests disqualified a hugely disproportionate number of black soldiers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.

    I think it's pretty obvious that Murray's just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     

    Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you're the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.
    Back in late 1980s, I read Murray's anti-Welfare "Losing Ground," which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he'd left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn't blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don't they?

    But then after his big IQ book "The Bell Curve" came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he'd been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

    Next, Murray's Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn't really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn't already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein's research, which he didn't fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn't really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn't around to pass him the answers.

    Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American "custodial democracy." Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

    Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.
     

    Well, I haven't read the book or the review, but Murray's always struck me as something of a fool, and a pretty dishonest one at that. It sounds like his book this time should be dedicated to his neocon paymasters at AEI.
     

    I consider Murray a shill and a fool
     

    Of course, one must always bear in mind Ron Unz’ s theory that “Super-Flynn” is going to raise Hispanic Amerind and Mestizo IQ to the White American mean real soon now….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    How do you explain the rise in Jewish-American IQ?

    American Jews saw their mean IQ rise from 101.5 (1920-1937) to 107 (1944-1960) to 111 (1970-2008). So 10 points.

    Didn't Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?

    Also, if IQ points are rising by 3 points per decade, doesn't that suggest that there's a strong non-genetic component to IQ? If there is, then differences in cognitive environment matter a lot. Especially when comparing two populations in very dissimilar circumstances.

    Didn’t Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?

    Hey, you’ve found the solution to low Black and Mestizo-Amerind Hispanic IQ! We just need to have Chinese families adopt all the Black and Mestizo-Amerind Hispanic children in the USA!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    They would kill us, or themselves. 50/50.

    That actually does remind me of an amusing story though - there was this relatively intelligent black woman I know, who, of course, had a child without a father. She proceeded to do everything she could to try to mimic Jewish culture, hopeful that it might at least keep her boy out of crime or something.

    Hope for the best and all, I suppose. I've actually known a very few blacks who tried to mimic what they thought was Chinese culture in the same way, but there's an overall lack of understanding.

    Still, there's the Confucian Institutes for all who wish to try, I'm sure.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @syonredux

    Didn’t Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?
     
    Hey, you've found the solution to low Black and Mestizo-Amerind Hispanic IQ! We just need to have Chinese families adopt all the Black and Mestizo-Amerind Hispanic children in the USA!

    They would kill us, or themselves. 50/50.

    That actually does remind me of an amusing story though – there was this relatively intelligent black woman I know, who, of course, had a child without a father. She proceeded to do everything she could to try to mimic Jewish culture, hopeful that it might at least keep her boy out of crime or something.

    Hope for the best and all, I suppose. I’ve actually known a very few blacks who tried to mimic what they thought was Chinese culture in the same way, but there’s an overall lack of understanding.

    Still, there’s the Confucian Institutes for all who wish to try, I’m sure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Flynn also had an interesting debate with Charles Murray.

    According to Flynn, black IQ drops from 95 (age 4) to 83 (age 24). That's not a "pattern of genetic influence." That's a product of "disparate cognitive environments."


    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

    That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles.


     

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.


    Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in. ♦
     

    Ron Unz came to similar conclusions about the malleability of IQ and importance of environment.

    The origin of this inversion of ethnic hierarchies may be quite simple. When desperately poor immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, or Greeks arrived on our shores, they were unable to afford farmland, and therefore permanently remained in their East Coast cities of landing, while less-poor Germans might move to the Midwest and become farmers, following the agricultural choice made by many of the earliest frontier settlers derived from the British and the Dutch. So the more rural populations from Europe often became the more urban ones in America, leading to a gradual inversion of their relative IQ rankings.
     

    If we combine this apparent rural/urban achievement pattern with the evidence of the Flynn Effect, we might speculate that scoring well on an IQ test tends to require a certain amount of “mental priming” or complex stimulation while growing up and that in the past such stimulation tended to be lacking in poor rural areas compared with more urban, affluent, or industrial ones. Obviously, working on a farm in a less developed country carries its own complexity, but it could be that the mental skills exercised are far less applicable to the strongly abstract and analytical thinking required on an IQ test.
     

    the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in.

    Is this a reference to the never replicated Eyferth study? Let’s just say that it has problems……

    Several other researchers have been skeptical about the value of the study for illuminating the causes of racial IQ differences.
    Arthur Jensen has pointed out that the white girls in the study obtained an average IQ eight points below that of the white boys, suggesting a sampling error, because in the WISC standardization sample the average IQs of boys and girls are equal (among the mixed-race subjects in the Eyferth study, there was a small sex difference of 1 point, favoring boys). He has also noted that the IQs of the children’s mothers and fathers are unknown, and that white and black G.I.’s in Germany were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces. He further argues that the selective preferences of the German women with regard to sexual partners may have influenced the results in an unknown manner. Moreover, nearly all of the children were tested before adolescence, i.e. before the genotypic aspect of IQ has become fully manifested.

    <blockquote>Rushton and Jensen have further pointed out that 20–25% of the fathers in the study were not African Americans but rather French North Africans

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    He has also noted that the IQs of the children’s mothers and fathers are unknown, and that white and black G.I.’s in Germany were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces.
     
    Is this true or is Jensen fabricating this? According to the statistics, blacks were 11% of the population and 10.7% of WWII soldiers.

    Also, even if these were high-IQ black soldiers, wouldn't their children regress to the mean?

    North African migrants in Europe score in the low 80s. So their mean IQ seems similar to that of Africans.


    Check the dates on the Eyferth study; the overwhelming majority of the children were born after 1945……
     
    These were the children of WWII soldiers stationed in Germany. Many of those soldiers never left.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Blacks were 9% of the soldiers in Korea during the 1950s.

    So we can assume that the percentage of black soldiers in the post-WWWII era is in the range of roughly 9-11%. At a time when blacks were 11% of the military-age population.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. gcochran says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    How do you explain the rise in Jewish-American IQ?

    American Jews saw their mean IQ rise from 101.5 (1920-1937) to 107 (1944-1960) to 111 (1970-2008). So 10 points.

    Didn't Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?

    Also, if IQ points are rising by 3 points per decade, doesn't that suggest that there's a strong non-genetic component to IQ? If there is, then differences in cognitive environment matter a lot. Especially when comparing two populations in very dissimilar circumstances.

    There was no such rise in Jewish IQ. It was already high in 1920: that’s why Harvard ( and the rest of the Ivy league) was inventing strategies['well-rounded' students] for keeping them out in the 1920s. And it’s not as if there wasn’t plenty of real-world evidence of higher-than-average Jewish IQ by 1920: read the math and physics journals. Read Annalen der Physik for 1905 !

    If you have references, I’ll look at them, but I’ve never seen any results like those you cite. And I’ve looked hard. I don’t believe them.

    Nor do I believe that was much real increase in IQ over the 20th century. Math subscores hardly budged. In terms of real-world accomplishment, math rules OK.

    It looks as if there are strong genetic influences and random, non-social non-genetic influences. Developmental noise, maybe. Between cohorts, differences in test familiarity.

    For new immigrants, language problems affect test results in the first generation – afterwards, depends on the flavor of immigrant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    The Terman study of high-IQ children in the 1920s found that 10.5 percent of California children with IQs of 135+ were Jewish (Murray, Human Accomplishment, 291). And that's during an era when most Jews in the USA were first and second generation Americans.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    On pp. 273-279, Lynn performed an exhaustive literature search for all Jewish IQ studies in America, and presented the 32 examples he found, ranging in date from 1920 to the present day. He then noted the intriguing fact that Jewish IQs had substantially risen relative to white gentile scores during the course of the 20th century. Jewish IQ had averaged 101.5 in the first 14 studies from 1920-1937, then 107 in the nine studies from 1944-1960, and finally 111 in the last nine studies from 1970-2008. All these results had been separately normed against a fixed IQ of 100 for the average white population.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Back during WWII, the U.S. military was taking almost everyone. So it's unlikely the fathered children had particularly high-IQ fathers.

    Also, even if black GIs had higher-IQ, their children should partly regress to the lower black mean (weighted by ancestry).

    Back during WWII, the U.S. military was taking almost everyone. So it’s unlikely the fathered children had particularly high-IQ fathers.

    The study was published in 1959, with the children ranging in age between 5 and 13 (mean age: 10). That means that a rather large percentage of the children were fathered by Black men who were inducted after 1950…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @JohnnyWalker123
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/02/ross-douthat-gets-charles-murray-books.html

    In what alphabet “Ross Douthat” ,
    or “Steve Sailer“, to that matter,
    is written as “Ron Unz” ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Um, read the comment section.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @JohnnyWalker123
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/02/ross-douthat-gets-charles-murray-books.html

    This cite cannot be correct. I went to your cite, did a search for the final comment in your original quote, “I consider Murray a shill and a fool”, and could not find it.

    I’m concerned because the quotes you give in your original post do not sound like the kind of thing Ron Unz would write.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/01/charles-murrays-coming-apart-state-of.html

    Comment made on the following date.

    1/31/12, 7:34 PM

    He's discussed Murray multiple times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Flynn also had an interesting debate with Charles Murray.

    According to Flynn, black IQ drops from 95 (age 4) to 83 (age 24). That's not a "pattern of genetic influence." That's a product of "disparate cognitive environments."


    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

    That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles.


     

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.


    Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in. ♦
     

    Ron Unz came to similar conclusions about the malleability of IQ and importance of environment.

    The origin of this inversion of ethnic hierarchies may be quite simple. When desperately poor immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, or Greeks arrived on our shores, they were unable to afford farmland, and therefore permanently remained in their East Coast cities of landing, while less-poor Germans might move to the Midwest and become farmers, following the agricultural choice made by many of the earliest frontier settlers derived from the British and the Dutch. So the more rural populations from Europe often became the more urban ones in America, leading to a gradual inversion of their relative IQ rankings.
     

    If we combine this apparent rural/urban achievement pattern with the evidence of the Flynn Effect, we might speculate that scoring well on an IQ test tends to require a certain amount of “mental priming” or complex stimulation while growing up and that in the past such stimulation tended to be lacking in poor rural areas compared with more urban, affluent, or industrial ones. Obviously, working on a farm in a less developed country carries its own complexity, but it could be that the mental skills exercised are far less applicable to the strongly abstract and analytical thinking required on an IQ test.
     

    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same

    .

    “[A]dmittedly crude” is an understatement. For infants, we don’t have IQ tests; we have “liveliness” tests…..And East Asian infants perform rather poorly on them:

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/

    And comparing infant IQ is like testing infant prowess at the 100 meter dash. I’m pretty sure that Black and White six-month old babies are pretty much equal at that one…..but differences do develop later in life…..I suppose that that’s due to disparate environments…

    By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

    Genetic differences trump environment as we age….

    Read More
    • Replies: @DRA
    Seems that I read somewhere that different populations mature at different rates. As IQ is a ratio of intellectual age to chronological age, that may square the circle.

    Related, I remember it seemed that many "big-men-on campus" in high school turned out to be more average in adult life. Perhaps for the same reason of differing maturation rates, even within a population. Never read it anywhere, just personal perception.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. syonredux says:
    @gcochran
    There was no such rise in Jewish IQ. It was already high in 1920: that's why Harvard ( and the rest of the Ivy league) was inventing strategies['well-rounded' students] for keeping them out in the 1920s. And it's not as if there wasn't plenty of real-world evidence of higher-than-average Jewish IQ by 1920: read the math and physics journals. Read Annalen der Physik for 1905 !

    If you have references, I'll look at them, but I've never seen any results like those you cite. And I've looked hard. I don't believe them.

    Nor do I believe that was much real increase in IQ over the 20th century. Math subscores hardly budged. In terms of real-world accomplishment, math rules OK.

    It looks as if there are strong genetic influences and random, non-social non-genetic influences. Developmental noise, maybe. Between cohorts, differences in test familiarity.

    For new immigrants, language problems affect test results in the first generation - afterwards, depends on the flavor of immigrant.

    The Terman study of high-IQ children in the 1920s found that 10.5 percent of California children with IQs of 135+ were Jewish (Murray, Human Accomplishment, 291). And that’s during an era when most Jews in the USA were first and second generation Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @mobi

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.
     
    Or - white female - black male couplings are drawn from the bottom of the pool, while white male - black female ones are drawn from much higher up in both pools; thus, the difference is indeed mostly or purely genetic.

    FWIW, I found this statement in the wikipedia article for X_chromosome:
    “For reasons that are not yet understood, there is an excess proportion of genes on the X-chromosome that are associated with the development of intelligence, with no obvious links to other significant biological functions.”
    If there’s truth to this, then you would expect the mixed-race children of white mothers to be brighter, since all of them carry a “white” X, whereas male children with a white father can get their X only from their mother.

    Read More
    • Agree: prole
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    This is news to me, and fascinating. If true, it further explains women's attraction to troglodytes and rejection of decent, intelligent men: they only need the troglodytes musculuture and aggression foe their children if they themselves are (disproportionately) determining the children's intelligence....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Dilemna
    These articles "debunking" Murray will ultimately vindicate him and promote HDB more than anything.

    Your average prog (and this means nearly everyone) doesn't even understand that there are historic groups differences in tested IQ.

    They think this is an *argument* that The Bell Curve advances, not a simple observed fact about test results.

    IF they do understand the above they assume the differences disappear when you simply control for poverty.

    Once that bubble is burst* the world starts to become a little more predictable and you are more or less in the HBD camp.

    I can't speak for all y'all but I've understood group differences and the likelyhood of a genetic component for a decade now and it has engendered zero animosity for outgroups and it's made no difference in the courtesy and respect I extend to anyone.

    In 25 years it's all gonna be drones, mass unemployment, designer drugs and sex robots anyway let's just get on with it.

    ----

    *a sizeable percentage of the population simply isn't smart enough to understand group averages, and no matter what will think that because Neil de grass Tyson is smarter than the duck dynasty dudes IQ tests must be "pseudoscience".

    They think this is an *argument* that The Bell Curve advances, not a simple observed fact about test results.

    I think this is a very important point that we iSteve readers and the like tend to forget.

    I had a (well-educated, talented, white, lesbian) friend who attended John Derbyshire’s 2010 talk at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on group differences in IQ. (Recounted at the link below.) Even several days later when she told me about the experience, my friend was still outraged at Derbyshire’s simply mentioning the fact that the black-white gap exists. She couldn’t believe that he had even been invited to speak and (although she didn’t use the term) felt that at a minimum a trigger warning should have been given to attendees.

    http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/upennlaw.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Poor old girl, her post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a mention of the black-white gap. Foaming on the floor, screaming and searching for the door out while appalled academics look on, sweating bullets, huddled in pain with chattering teeth, mindlessly cutting herself in the lecture hall, once again fleeing back into the fentanyl haze she brought in her tote bag. What happened to you, ole lez? Whatever in the world happened to you? Was it patriarchy.
    , @b.t.o
    And right on cue Brookings just noted research showing that 50% of voters don't even know the racial achievement gap exists.

    Imagine being an american in the current climate trying to make sense of the zeitgeist while concurrently believing there is no difference between blacks and whites in standardize testing achievement, graduation rates, years of schooling etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.

    I think it's pretty obvious that Murray's just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     

    Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you're the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.
    Back in late 1980s, I read Murray's anti-Welfare "Losing Ground," which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he'd left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn't blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don't they?

    But then after his big IQ book "The Bell Curve" came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he'd been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

    Next, Murray's Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn't really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn't already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein's research, which he didn't fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn't really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn't around to pass him the answers.

    Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American "custodial democracy." Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

    Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.
     

    Well, I haven't read the book or the review, but Murray's always struck me as something of a fool, and a pretty dishonest one at that. It sounds like his book this time should be dedicated to his neocon paymasters at AEI.
     

    I consider Murray a shill and a fool
     

    JohnnyWalker123 generates lie.
    He could not provide the reference to Unz, where according to 123, Unz wrote that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.

    I think it's pretty obvious that Murray's just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     

    Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you're the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.
    Back in late 1980s, I read Murray's anti-Welfare "Losing Ground," which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he'd left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn't blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don't they?

    But then after his big IQ book "The Bell Curve" came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he'd been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

    Next, Murray's Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn't really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn't already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein's research, which he didn't fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn't really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn't around to pass him the answers.

    Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American "custodial democracy." Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

    Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.
     

    Well, I haven't read the book or the review, but Murray's always struck me as something of a fool, and a pretty dishonest one at that. It sounds like his book this time should be dedicated to his neocon paymasters at AEI.
     

    I consider Murray a shill and a fool
     

    So what? Our host, God bless him, is known to be delusional on some topics some times. We all are for as long as we are human. In the end, Murray, Unz and Sailer are still right much more frequently than they are wrong. Which is exactly opposite to the prevailing PC wisdom on just about any subject. Which is what makes reading these authors interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. TWS says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.

    I think it's pretty obvious that Murray's just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     

    Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you're the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.
    Back in late 1980s, I read Murray's anti-Welfare "Losing Ground," which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he'd left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn't blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don't they?

    But then after his big IQ book "The Bell Curve" came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he'd been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

    Next, Murray's Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn't really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn't already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein's research, which he didn't fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn't really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn't around to pass him the answers.

    Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American "custodial democracy." Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

    Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.
     

    Well, I haven't read the book or the review, but Murray's always struck me as something of a fool, and a pretty dishonest one at that. It sounds like his book this time should be dedicated to his neocon paymasters at AEI.
     

    I consider Murray a shill and a fool
     

    If Unz isn’t the most dishonest and deliberately obtuse person who writes here it’s only because Truth does it for free as well. He can’t even admit that Hispanics commit crimes at a rate greater than the white average. Or illegal aliens represent any kind of danger at all.

    I know three people killed by illegal aliens. Murdered. One has attacked my daughter. Two of those four illegals are now back in the states or walking free somewhere.

    There are a metric ass load of reasons to figure that illegals might not have the impulse control, investment in community, and ties to keep them on the straight and narrow that native born folks do but hey, lets model the heck out of the data until it kind of, sort of, looks like what we want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Here were the finding of statistician La Griffe Du Lion.

    He did a regression of violent urban crime and ethnicity.

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

    It has been conjectured that the contribution of Hispanics to violent crime is on the point of advancing to the standing enjoyed by blacks. This, however, is not confirmed by our evidence, at least in our largest cities. Whoever thinks or has thought this to be so has come to this determination from evidence not directly related to what is happening on the street, but rather from incarceration records, court appearances or sentencing data. When crimes rather than criminals are counted, and the Hispanic effect is appropriately removed, the data show that violent crime rates for Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, though a bit higher for Hispanics, are in actual fact quite similar. As for blacks, their crime rate remains by any measure uniquely high.
     
    Hispanics are only slightly than whites in violent urban crime.

    Once you adjust for age and gender, perhaps that'd decrease Hispanic crime rates.

    Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.
    , @cynthia curran
    Actually, Heather MacDonald did studies on crime and illegal immigrants commit less crime than blacks or their offspring. The best argument against illegal immigrants is not crime since they are less likely to belong to MS-13 or the Latin Kings than their kids but that they have offspring that have higher crime rates than whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. mobi says:
    @mobi

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.
     
    Or - white female - black male couplings are drawn from the bottom of the pool, while white male - black female ones are drawn from much higher up in both pools; thus, the difference is indeed mostly or purely genetic.

    Or – white female – black male couplings are drawn from the bottom of the pool, while white male – black female ones are drawn from much higher up in both pools; thus, the difference is indeed mostly or purely genetic.

    Disregard – completely misread that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You had me puzzled for a few minutes...
    I think your observation is actually on the mark, but I think it serves to confirm the point you were opposing.
    I think it is actually a very good point... in support of nurture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Anonymous
    In what alphabet "Ross Douthat" ,
    or "Steve Sailer", to that matter,
    is written as "Ron Unz" ?

    Um, read the comment section.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Jus' Sayin'...
    This cite cannot be correct. I went to your cite, did a search for the final comment in your original quote, "I consider Murray a shill and a fool", and could not find it.

    I'm concerned because the quotes you give in your original post do not sound like the kind of thing Ron Unz would write.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/01/charles-murrays-coming-apart-state-of.html

    Comment made on the following date.

    1/31/12, 7:34 PM

    He’s discussed Murray multiple times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.

    I think it's pretty obvious that Murray's just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     

    Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you're the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.
    Back in late 1980s, I read Murray's anti-Welfare "Losing Ground," which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he'd left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn't blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don't they?

    But then after his big IQ book "The Bell Curve" came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he'd been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

    Next, Murray's Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn't really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn't already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein's research, which he didn't fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn't really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn't around to pass him the answers.

    Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American "custodial democracy." Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

    Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.
     

    Well, I haven't read the book or the review, but Murray's always struck me as something of a fool, and a pretty dishonest one at that. It sounds like his book this time should be dedicated to his neocon paymasters at AEI.
     

    I consider Murray a shill and a fool
     

    He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion.

    The problem there is that Murray believes that the ancient Israelites possessed an usually high mean IQ. On this point, he is quite wrong. None of the neighbors of the Israelites thought that they were smarter than average, and none of their surviving writings suggest uncommon cleverness.

    And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    And since modern Jews [ Ashkenazi Jews] do not derive most of their ancestry from ancient Israelites, yet score higher than those with a higher fraction of ancient-Israelite ancestry, there is no way that their high scores are caused by that ancient Israelite ancestry. Except as part of a long, meandering causal chain.
    , @syonredux
    Corrected a typo

    He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion.
     
    The problem there is that Murray believes that the ancient Israelites possessed an unusually high mean IQ. On this point, he is quite wrong. None of the neighbors of the Israelites thought that they were smarter than average, and none of their surviving writings suggest uncommon cleverness.

    And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc
    , @Jack D
    Many factors point to Ashkenazi Jewish brilliance emerging only later. First you have a big infusion of Euro genes and not just any but (ancient) Roman and Greek who as you say were the heavy hitters of the ancient world. And then you have a eugenic breeding program where survival depends on living by your wits rather than the strength of your back and scholarly prowess is more prestigious than fighting skill. Even so, Jews make very little mark on Western scholarship until the 19th century when they emerge from the ghettos.
    , @anonymous
    So then. What happened to the Greeks that they have failed to produce one thinker of note for the past 1000+ years and has become known more for souvlaki than Socrates. Seriously.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Daniel Chieh
    Actually in the study, they did show -very slightly- lower performance later so, so that might be a hint of regression(95 IQ vs 97 IQ for white GI children). But yes, the US Army was still filtering for IQ in WW2 and had been doing so since WW1.

    It effectively filtered out the lowest IQ blacks and at any rate, would obviously no longer be simply a demographic representation of the black population. I personally don't doubt that environment can make some difference in IQ(and with a ball-peen hammer to the head, you can do a lot..negatively), but its probably not that drastic.

    http://www.official-asvab.com/history_res.htm

    According to this source, blacks were 11% of the military-eligible population of the U.S. (during WWII) and 10.7% of the soldiers.

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

    So it doesn’t seem that IQ tests disqualified a hugely disproportionate number of black soldiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    According to this source, blacks were 11% of the military-eligible population of the U.S. (during WWII) and 10.7% of the soldiers.

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

    So it doesn’t seem that IQ tests disqualified a hugely disproportionate number of black soldiers.
     
    Check the dates on the Eyferth study; the overwhelming majority of the children were born after 1945......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.

    I think it's pretty obvious that Murray's just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     

    Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you're the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.
    Back in late 1980s, I read Murray's anti-Welfare "Losing Ground," which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he'd left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn't blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don't they?

    But then after his big IQ book "The Bell Curve" came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he'd been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

    Next, Murray's Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn't really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn't already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein's research, which he didn't fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn't really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn't around to pass him the answers.

    Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American "custodial democracy." Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

    Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.
     

    Well, I haven't read the book or the review, but Murray's always struck me as something of a fool, and a pretty dishonest one at that. It sounds like his book this time should be dedicated to his neocon paymasters at AEI.
     

    I consider Murray a shill and a fool
     

    Obviously, I noticed he’d left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role

    That’s rather funny, seeing as how Ron has expended a lot of energy in defense of his theory that environment determines IQ……

    I think it’s pretty obvious that Murray’s just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.

    How did books like The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment aid in that endeavor? Seems to me that tomes like those aren’t exactly going to win accolades from the PC elite……

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    His paymaster is AEI, isn't it?

    I'd like to see a debate between these two so Ron Unz could air his specific criticisms and let Murray reply.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    According to this source, blacks were 11% of the military-eligible population of the U.S. (during WWII) and 10.7% of the soldiers.

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

    So it doesn't seem that IQ tests disqualified a hugely disproportionate number of black soldiers.

    According to this source, blacks were 11% of the military-eligible population of the U.S. (during WWII) and 10.7% of the soldiers.

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

    So it doesn’t seem that IQ tests disqualified a hugely disproportionate number of black soldiers.

    Check the dates on the Eyferth study; the overwhelming majority of the children were born after 1945……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @syonredux

    the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in.
     
    Is this a reference to the never replicated Eyferth study? Let's just say that it has problems......

    Several other researchers have been skeptical about the value of the study for illuminating the causes of racial IQ differences.
    Arthur Jensen has pointed out that the white girls in the study obtained an average IQ eight points below that of the white boys, suggesting a sampling error, because in the WISC standardization sample the average IQs of boys and girls are equal (among the mixed-race subjects in the Eyferth study, there was a small sex difference of 1 point, favoring boys). He has also noted that the IQs of the children's mothers and fathers are unknown, and that white and black G.I.'s in Germany were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces. He further argues that the selective preferences of the German women with regard to sexual partners may have influenced the results in an unknown manner. Moreover, nearly all of the children were tested before adolescence, i.e. before the genotypic aspect of IQ has become fully manifested.
     
    <blockquote>Rushton and Jensen have further pointed out that 20–25% of the fathers in the study were not African Americans but rather French North Africans
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study

    He has also noted that the IQs of the children’s mothers and fathers are unknown, and that white and black G.I.’s in Germany were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces.

    Is this true or is Jensen fabricating this? According to the statistics, blacks were 11% of the population and 10.7% of WWII soldiers.

    Also, even if these were high-IQ black soldiers, wouldn’t their children regress to the mean?

    North African migrants in Europe score in the low 80s. So their mean IQ seems similar to that of Africans.

    Check the dates on the Eyferth study; the overwhelming majority of the children were born after 1945……

    These were the children of WWII soldiers stationed in Germany. Many of those soldiers never left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Is this true or is Jensen fabricating this?
     
    Dunno. Feel free to do the research.I will point out, however, that Arthur Jensen is listed as the paper's co-author, and he has a very high reputation in the field.

    According to the statistics, blacks were 11% of the population and 10.7% of WWII soldiers.
     
    The test largely involved children born after 1945.

    Also, even if these were high-IQ black soldiers, wouldn’t their children regress to the mean?
     
    Which mean? The Black American? Or the German? Remember, we are talking about mixed-race offspring. Also, isn't the first generation a bit early for regression to the mean?

    North African migrants in Europe score in the low 80s. So their mean IQ seems similar to that of Africans.
     
    Different population, though, with different genetics.

    Check the dates on the Eyferth study; the overwhelming majority of the children were born after 1945……

    These were the children of WWII soldiers stationed in Germany. Many of those soldiers never left.

     

    Were they all the children of WW2 vets? The WIKIPEDIA article simply says that the children are the offspring of "US occupation forces stationed in Germany."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @syonredux

    the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in.
     
    Is this a reference to the never replicated Eyferth study? Let's just say that it has problems......

    Several other researchers have been skeptical about the value of the study for illuminating the causes of racial IQ differences.
    Arthur Jensen has pointed out that the white girls in the study obtained an average IQ eight points below that of the white boys, suggesting a sampling error, because in the WISC standardization sample the average IQs of boys and girls are equal (among the mixed-race subjects in the Eyferth study, there was a small sex difference of 1 point, favoring boys). He has also noted that the IQs of the children's mothers and fathers are unknown, and that white and black G.I.'s in Germany were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces. He further argues that the selective preferences of the German women with regard to sexual partners may have influenced the results in an unknown manner. Moreover, nearly all of the children were tested before adolescence, i.e. before the genotypic aspect of IQ has become fully manifested.
     
    <blockquote>Rushton and Jensen have further pointed out that 20–25% of the fathers in the study were not African Americans but rather French North Africans
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study

    Blacks were 9% of the soldiers in Korea during the 1950s.

    So we can assume that the percentage of black soldiers in the post-WWWII era is in the range of roughly 9-11%. At a time when blacks were 11% of the military-age population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @TWS
    If Unz isn't the most dishonest and deliberately obtuse person who writes here it's only because Truth does it for free as well. He can't even admit that Hispanics commit crimes at a rate greater than the white average. Or illegal aliens represent any kind of danger at all.

    I know three people killed by illegal aliens. Murdered. One has attacked my daughter. Two of those four illegals are now back in the states or walking free somewhere.

    There are a metric ass load of reasons to figure that illegals might not have the impulse control, investment in community, and ties to keep them on the straight and narrow that native born folks do but hey, lets model the heck out of the data until it kind of, sort of, looks like what we want.

    Here were the finding of statistician La Griffe Du Lion.

    He did a regression of violent urban crime and ethnicity.

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

    It has been conjectured that the contribution of Hispanics to violent crime is on the point of advancing to the standing enjoyed by blacks. This, however, is not confirmed by our evidence, at least in our largest cities. Whoever thinks or has thought this to be so has come to this determination from evidence not directly related to what is happening on the street, but rather from incarceration records, court appearances or sentencing data. When crimes rather than criminals are counted, and the Hispanic effect is appropriately removed, the data show that violent crime rates for Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, though a bit higher for Hispanics, are in actual fact quite similar. As for blacks, their crime rate remains by any measure uniquely high.

    Hispanics are only slightly than whites in violent urban crime.

    Once you adjust for age and gender, perhaps that’d decrease Hispanic crime rates.

    Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.
     
    Sub-Saharan African admixture. Blacks have high rates of violent crime.

    Interesting how Ron goes all "genetic determinism" where Blacks are concerned.....
    , @TWS
    Here's the problem with that. I know they lie, I know how they lie. I know they under-report, I know how they do that too. I know they refuse to charge, again I know how, why, and how they hide it.

    It's not 'Rotherham' levels but it's getting there. The first murder in my town in twenty or so years was a friend, I heard him shot from my front porch, the city declined to file charges. The county forced the city's hand and after investigation lo and behold the guy had murdered someone else. The second one the city learned their lesson, no they didn't charge our investigate, they released the guy fast as they could because they could not find an interpreter. Never mind the interpreter came to town twice a week. With the third murder a girl I watched grow up her boy friend left her preschool daughter standing in a puddle of her mother's blood and guts. This guy despite being a known illegal alien gang member was listed as white.

    And the guy who assaulted my pregnant daughter? He was trying too grab a child as a hostage . He was never charged with anything not even criminal trespass. He's walking the streets of our town.

    I've seen it as a police officer, probation, and working as a bailiff and in prisons. I've seen it as a victim and witness. Deliberate, systematic, and systemic under reporting and prosecution and mislabling ethnicity.
    , @MarkinLA
    One has to live in Hispanic neighborhoods to see the difference. See the difference in breaking and entering, running red lights, hit and run, graffiti, drug sales, and gang activity. Then realize that for political reasons many of these crimes are ignored or never charged if nobody is seriously hurt.

    Another problem is criminal gang activity and how a series of crimes end up being charged to one person. Recently we had an 18 year old murder a 20 year old (assumed) gang member who was discharged from the army (given his early discharge it was likely general and not honorable). How does an 18 year old in California get a handgun or decide to kill a guy who joined the army when the killer was still in high school. It has ordered hit from a senior gang member all over it but the stupid kid will serve life in prison because he won't snitch on the leadership that gave him the gun or ordered the hit. Multiple crimes, multiple criminals, criminal conspiracy and one guy pleading it all away as a lone murderer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @gcochran
    There was no such rise in Jewish IQ. It was already high in 1920: that's why Harvard ( and the rest of the Ivy league) was inventing strategies['well-rounded' students] for keeping them out in the 1920s. And it's not as if there wasn't plenty of real-world evidence of higher-than-average Jewish IQ by 1920: read the math and physics journals. Read Annalen der Physik for 1905 !

    If you have references, I'll look at them, but I've never seen any results like those you cite. And I've looked hard. I don't believe them.

    Nor do I believe that was much real increase in IQ over the 20th century. Math subscores hardly budged. In terms of real-world accomplishment, math rules OK.

    It looks as if there are strong genetic influences and random, non-social non-genetic influences. Developmental noise, maybe. Between cohorts, differences in test familiarity.

    For new immigrants, language problems affect test results in the first generation - afterwards, depends on the flavor of immigrant.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    On pp. 273-279, Lynn performed an exhaustive literature search for all Jewish IQ studies in America, and presented the 32 examples he found, ranging in date from 1920 to the present day. He then noted the intriguing fact that Jewish IQs had substantially risen relative to white gentile scores during the course of the 20th century. Jewish IQ had averaged 101.5 in the first 14 studies from 1920-1937, then 107 in the nine studies from 1944-1960, and finally 111 in the last nine studies from 1970-2008. All these results had been separately normed against a fixed IQ of 100 for the average white population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    . Jewish IQ had averaged 101.5 in the first 14 studies from 1920-1937, then 107 in the nine studies from 1944-1960, and finally 111 in the last nine studies from 1970-2008. All these results had been separately normed against a fixed IQ of 100 for the average white population.
     
    Which means that American Jews during the period 1920-1937 had mean IQs that were slightly higher than the White American mean, and this was during a period when most American Jews were first and second generation Americans.....
    , @gcochran
    Pulling the book off the shelf, Lynn thinks that Jewish scores, especially verbal, were depressed by being Yiddish speakers in the first half of the 209th century. They scored a lot higher than other non-native-English speaking groups in the same town and same schools.

    A lot of Ron's IQ malleability argument boils down to first-generation-types not knowing English while the later generations do. That's a stereotype that always show up about first-generation immigrants: dumb Swedes, for example. But that one went away, because Swedes aren't dumb. That was obvious from considering the accomplishments of Swedes in Sweden. I doubt if that stereotype will go away in the same way with second-generation Somalis, when you consider the accomplishments of Somalis in Somalia. .

    People do better on most IQ tests if they are fluent in the language it is written in. This improves in the second generation. does mean that the population in question actually got smarter? No.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    He has also noted that the IQs of the children’s mothers and fathers are unknown, and that white and black G.I.’s in Germany were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces.
     
    Is this true or is Jensen fabricating this? According to the statistics, blacks were 11% of the population and 10.7% of WWII soldiers.

    Also, even if these were high-IQ black soldiers, wouldn't their children regress to the mean?

    North African migrants in Europe score in the low 80s. So their mean IQ seems similar to that of Africans.


    Check the dates on the Eyferth study; the overwhelming majority of the children were born after 1945……
     
    These were the children of WWII soldiers stationed in Germany. Many of those soldiers never left.

    Is this true or is Jensen fabricating this?

    Dunno. Feel free to do the research.I will point out, however, that Arthur Jensen is listed as the paper’s co-author, and he has a very high reputation in the field.

    According to the statistics, blacks were 11% of the population and 10.7% of WWII soldiers.

    The test largely involved children born after 1945.

    Also, even if these were high-IQ black soldiers, wouldn’t their children regress to the mean?

    Which mean? The Black American? Or the German? Remember, we are talking about mixed-race offspring. Also, isn’t the first generation a bit early for regression to the mean?

    North African migrants in Europe score in the low 80s. So their mean IQ seems similar to that of Africans.

    Different population, though, with different genetics.

    Check the dates on the Eyferth study; the overwhelming majority of the children were born after 1945……

    These were the children of WWII soldiers stationed in Germany. Many of those soldiers never left.

    Were they all the children of WW2 vets? The WIKIPEDIA article simply says that the children are the offspring of “US occupation forces stationed in Germany.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    If 30% of blacks were disqualified from the military, how'd they form 10.7% of WWII soldiers (and 11% of the population)? It sounds like he misinterpreted, fabricated, or distorted the information.

    Blacks were roughly 9-11% of the military during the time in question. They were also 11% of the national population.

    North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
    about 90.5 in IQ.
    , @gcochran
    Regression to the mean happens immediately.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Charles Murray gave bad advice to high school graduates.

    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/09/college-is-still-best-pay-off.php

    He reccomended that lower-IQ graduates pursue vocational training instead of college. It turns out this was not good advice.

    Recently Charles Murray has promoted the idea that too many people are seeking 4 year degrees: “Let’s stop this business of the B.A., this meaningless credential”. Last year he wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

    If you want to do well [in college], you should have an IQ of 115 or higher. Put another way, it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education. And yet more than … 40% of all persons in their late teens are trying to go to a four-year college–enough people to absorb everyone down through an IQ of 104.

    Several months ago, the Inductivist found this to be a canny estimate: in the 1960s the average college graduate had an IQ very close to 115, and today the average college graduate has an IQ of 105.

    But what does this mean for the individual? Murray suggests that college debt, lack of relevant job training, and years of lost workforce wages and experience await those below the 85th percentile:

    They are in college to improve their chances of making a good living … and would do better in vocational training … two-year colleges … [are] about right for learning many technical specialties, while four years is unnecessarily long … Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason–the list goes on and on–is difficult, and it is a seller’s market. Journeymen craftsmen routinely make incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master craftsmen can make six figures.

    I find the thinking here plausible, and these seem like testable enough ideas. Luckily, all the relevant variables are included in the General Social Survey.

    It’s graph day on gnxp. The x axis in the figure below represents the number of correct answers on the 10 question WORDSUM mini IQ test included in the GSS. The y axis represents the respondent’s income in constant dollars. The colored lines represent five educational categories, and one occupational category. Moving left to right we see the average income of people in each category as their IQ score increases from 0-10 correct answers. ‘Junior college’ represents the two-year vocational degree Murray references. And ‘Craft and Trade Workers’ covers over 50 skilled trade categories like electrician, mason, plumber, carpenter, and mechanic, coded by the survey.

    The first observation here is that educational degrees, whether they confer skills or credentials, are more important to income than IQ when minimum thresholds are met. Trade workers, and 2 and 4-year college graduates are not significantly represented in the lowest three IQ categories. Graduate holders have an even higher minimum IQ. Second, income rises within 5 of the 6 categories as IQ increases. Higher IQ generates the biggest pay-off differences between those with advanced degrees, which is consistent with IQ increasing in importance as jobs become more complex. Third, merely earning a Bachelor’s degree is a golden ticket. People with average and below average IQs are getting just as much of a financial return out of their 4-year degree as those above the 85th percentile. This suggests many more people of marginal ability should be seeking a Bachelor’s degree, not less. Fourth, the two lines for junior college and trade occupations overlap substantially, as we would expect if most people in trade occupations went to trade school. Fifth, and most directly related to Murray’s argument, people with 4-year degrees earn much more than people with 2-year degrees and trade jobs at every level of IQ. Average IQ people will get a much, much larger monetary reward from completing a 4 year school than a 2 year school. So the BA is far from being a “meaningless credential” when it comes to “chances of making a good living”.

    It’s possible people with average IQs who complete college are exceptional in other ways. But there is no other empirical evidence that vocational school is better at generating income for those <85th percentile.

    Also, secular trends could distort data in the first graph, which combines all survey data from 1972-2006. So the second graph below represents only people who were 35 and older and surveyed between 2000-2006. Fortunately, the results are not too different from the first graph. The IQ categories are condensed and transformed, and we see that 96 is about the minimum to complete 2 and 4 year college, and 111 the minimum for graduate degrees. Again we find that IQ shows no relationship to income for those with a BA, and, in fact, those with lower IQs might profit the most. For those without advanced degrees, people who are moderately above and moderately below average intelligence might earn the most (this balance might be because other socially valued personality traits, like masculinity, are inversely associated with IQ).

    So, while I have yet to read Real Education — which may address these issues — it would appear that Murray is mistaken in some of his crucial premises.

    Still undetermined is if people with 4 year degrees earn a lot more money because they actually acquire important skills, or if inefficient laws/taboos against employee IQ testing, sustain a comically messy and tragically expensive employment screening method. If the latter was true Murray could still be partially correct: 4 year college could be worthless for the <85th percentile, if employers began to use 20 minutes of psychometric testing, instead of 4 year degrees, as their screening filter.

    But, ceteris paribus, college is still the best pay-off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here were the finding of statistician La Griffe Du Lion.

    He did a regression of violent urban crime and ethnicity.

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

    It has been conjectured that the contribution of Hispanics to violent crime is on the point of advancing to the standing enjoyed by blacks. This, however, is not confirmed by our evidence, at least in our largest cities. Whoever thinks or has thought this to be so has come to this determination from evidence not directly related to what is happening on the street, but rather from incarceration records, court appearances or sentencing data. When crimes rather than criminals are counted, and the Hispanic effect is appropriately removed, the data show that violent crime rates for Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, though a bit higher for Hispanics, are in actual fact quite similar. As for blacks, their crime rate remains by any measure uniquely high.
     
    Hispanics are only slightly than whites in violent urban crime.

    Once you adjust for age and gender, perhaps that'd decrease Hispanic crime rates.

    Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.

    Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.

    Sub-Saharan African admixture. Blacks have high rates of violent crime.

    Interesting how Ron goes all “genetic determinism” where Blacks are concerned…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @syonredux

    Is this true or is Jensen fabricating this?
     
    Dunno. Feel free to do the research.I will point out, however, that Arthur Jensen is listed as the paper's co-author, and he has a very high reputation in the field.

    According to the statistics, blacks were 11% of the population and 10.7% of WWII soldiers.
     
    The test largely involved children born after 1945.

    Also, even if these were high-IQ black soldiers, wouldn’t their children regress to the mean?
     
    Which mean? The Black American? Or the German? Remember, we are talking about mixed-race offspring. Also, isn't the first generation a bit early for regression to the mean?

    North African migrants in Europe score in the low 80s. So their mean IQ seems similar to that of Africans.
     
    Different population, though, with different genetics.

    Check the dates on the Eyferth study; the overwhelming majority of the children were born after 1945……

    These were the children of WWII soldiers stationed in Germany. Many of those soldiers never left.

     

    Were they all the children of WW2 vets? The WIKIPEDIA article simply says that the children are the offspring of "US occupation forces stationed in Germany."

    If 30% of blacks were disqualified from the military, how’d they form 10.7% of WWII soldiers (and 11% of the population)? It sounds like he misinterpreted, fabricated, or distorted the information.

    Blacks were roughly 9-11% of the military during the time in question. They were also 11% of the national population.

    North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
    about 90.5 in IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    If 30% of blacks were disqualified from the military, how’d they form 10.7% of WWII soldiers (and 11% of the population)? It sounds like he misinterpreted, fabricated, or distorted the information.
     
    Depends on what cohort formed the bulk of the soldiers. Post-WW2, the military raised standards and banned people with IQs below 80. McNamara overturned that policy in the mid-'60s ("The Moron Corps").

    As I mentioned above, the WIKIPEDIA article doesn't say that the fathers were all WW2 vets.

    North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
    about 90.5 in IQ.
     
    Do you have data on the mean IQs of North African troops serving in the US armed forces in the 1940s-50s? It might have been higher than the NA mean.
    , @syonredux

    North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
    about 90.5 in IQ.
     
    And we don't know if any of the North Africans were Jews.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    On pp. 273-279, Lynn performed an exhaustive literature search for all Jewish IQ studies in America, and presented the 32 examples he found, ranging in date from 1920 to the present day. He then noted the intriguing fact that Jewish IQs had substantially risen relative to white gentile scores during the course of the 20th century. Jewish IQ had averaged 101.5 in the first 14 studies from 1920-1937, then 107 in the nine studies from 1944-1960, and finally 111 in the last nine studies from 1970-2008. All these results had been separately normed against a fixed IQ of 100 for the average white population.
     

    . Jewish IQ had averaged 101.5 in the first 14 studies from 1920-1937, then 107 in the nine studies from 1944-1960, and finally 111 in the last nine studies from 1970-2008. All these results had been separately normed against a fixed IQ of 100 for the average white population.

    Which means that American Jews during the period 1920-1937 had mean IQs that were slightly higher than the White American mean, and this was during a period when most American Jews were first and second generation Americans…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    If 30% of blacks were disqualified from the military, how'd they form 10.7% of WWII soldiers (and 11% of the population)? It sounds like he misinterpreted, fabricated, or distorted the information.

    Blacks were roughly 9-11% of the military during the time in question. They were also 11% of the national population.

    North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
    about 90.5 in IQ.

    If 30% of blacks were disqualified from the military, how’d they form 10.7% of WWII soldiers (and 11% of the population)? It sounds like he misinterpreted, fabricated, or distorted the information.

    Depends on what cohort formed the bulk of the soldiers. Post-WW2, the military raised standards and banned people with IQs below 80. McNamara overturned that policy in the mid-’60s (“The Moron Corps”).

    As I mentioned above, the WIKIPEDIA article doesn’t say that the fathers were all WW2 vets.

    North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
    about 90.5 in IQ.

    Do you have data on the mean IQs of North African troops serving in the US armed forces in the 1940s-50s? It might have been higher than the NA mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @syonredux

    Obviously, I noticed he’d left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role
     
    That's rather funny, seeing as how Ron has expended a lot of energy in defense of his theory that environment determines IQ......

    I think it’s pretty obvious that Murray’s just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     
    How did books like The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment aid in that endeavor? Seems to me that tomes like those aren't exactly going to win accolades from the PC elite......

    His paymaster is AEI, isn’t it?

    I’d like to see a debate between these two so Ron Unz could air his specific criticisms and let Murray reply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    His paymaster is AEI, isn’t it?
     
    Yeah, but I tend to doubt that writing The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment made AEI happy....

    I’d like to see a debate between these two so Ron Unz could air his specific criticisms and let Murray reply.
     
    I'd be up for that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    If 30% of blacks were disqualified from the military, how'd they form 10.7% of WWII soldiers (and 11% of the population)? It sounds like he misinterpreted, fabricated, or distorted the information.

    Blacks were roughly 9-11% of the military during the time in question. They were also 11% of the national population.

    North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
    about 90.5 in IQ.

    North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
    about 90.5 in IQ.

    And we don’t know if any of the North Africans were Jews…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    Goums. Jews? unlikely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. syonredux says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    His paymaster is AEI, isn't it?

    I'd like to see a debate between these two so Ron Unz could air his specific criticisms and let Murray reply.

    His paymaster is AEI, isn’t it?

    Yeah, but I tend to doubt that writing The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment made AEI happy….

    I’d like to see a debate between these two so Ron Unz could air his specific criticisms and let Murray reply.

    I’d be up for that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. TWS says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here were the finding of statistician La Griffe Du Lion.

    He did a regression of violent urban crime and ethnicity.

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

    It has been conjectured that the contribution of Hispanics to violent crime is on the point of advancing to the standing enjoyed by blacks. This, however, is not confirmed by our evidence, at least in our largest cities. Whoever thinks or has thought this to be so has come to this determination from evidence not directly related to what is happening on the street, but rather from incarceration records, court appearances or sentencing data. When crimes rather than criminals are counted, and the Hispanic effect is appropriately removed, the data show that violent crime rates for Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, though a bit higher for Hispanics, are in actual fact quite similar. As for blacks, their crime rate remains by any measure uniquely high.
     
    Hispanics are only slightly than whites in violent urban crime.

    Once you adjust for age and gender, perhaps that'd decrease Hispanic crime rates.

    Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.

    Here’s the problem with that. I know they lie, I know how they lie. I know they under-report, I know how they do that too. I know they refuse to charge, again I know how, why, and how they hide it.

    It’s not ‘Rotherham’ levels but it’s getting there. The first murder in my town in twenty or so years was a friend, I heard him shot from my front porch, the city declined to file charges. The county forced the city’s hand and after investigation lo and behold the guy had murdered someone else. The second one the city learned their lesson, no they didn’t charge our investigate, they released the guy fast as they could because they could not find an interpreter. Never mind the interpreter came to town twice a week. With the third murder a girl I watched grow up her boy friend left her preschool daughter standing in a puddle of her mother’s blood and guts. This guy despite being a known illegal alien gang member was listed as white.

    And the guy who assaulted my pregnant daughter? He was trying too grab a child as a hostage . He was never charged with anything not even criminal trespass. He’s walking the streets of our town.

    I’ve seen it as a police officer, probation, and working as a bailiff and in prisons. I’ve seen it as a victim and witness. Deliberate, systematic, and systemic under reporting and prosecution and mislabling ethnicity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    I've often wondered how much underreporting results in racial crime multiples being underestimated.

    La Griffe did estimate that blacks have 4x the violent crime rate of Hispanics. If we assume that underreporting is no more an issue for Hispanics than blacks, then I suppose we can conclude Hispanics (on average) are 1/4th as violent as blacks.

    However, the question is this. How violent are blacks?

    According to La Griffe's analysis of urban violent crime, blacks are about 4.5x as violent as whites. Recorded incarceration rates are about 6-7x as high. However, if we assume there's a high rate of underreported violent crime in black (as well as Hispanic) areas, then that multiple could be MUCH higher.

    This is an interesting issue, but I'd like to see more than anecdotes. Not that anecdotes don't matter (they do), but some data would help us to make a forceful case.

    If blacks and Hispanics commit a lot of violent crime that's unrecorded, then that'd be interesting to know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. gcochran says:
    @syonredux

    He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion.
     
    The problem there is that Murray believes that the ancient Israelites possessed an usually high mean IQ. On this point, he is quite wrong. None of the neighbors of the Israelites thought that they were smarter than average, and none of their surviving writings suggest uncommon cleverness.

    And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc

    And since modern Jews [ Ashkenazi Jews] do not derive most of their ancestry from ancient Israelites, yet score higher than those with a higher fraction of ancient-Israelite ancestry, there is no way that their high scores are caused by that ancient Israelite ancestry. Except as part of a long, meandering causal chain.

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

    Is this true or is Jensen fabricating this?
     
    Dunno. Feel free to do the research.I will point out, however, that Arthur Jensen is listed as the paper's co-author, and he has a very high reputation in the field.

    According to the statistics, blacks were 11% of the population and 10.7% of WWII soldiers.
     
    The test largely involved children born after 1945.

    Also, even if these were high-IQ black soldiers, wouldn’t their children regress to the mean?
     
    Which mean? The Black American? Or the German? Remember, we are talking about mixed-race offspring. Also, isn't the first generation a bit early for regression to the mean?

    North African migrants in Europe score in the low 80s. So their mean IQ seems similar to that of Africans.
     
    Different population, though, with different genetics.

    Check the dates on the Eyferth study; the overwhelming majority of the children were born after 1945……

    These were the children of WWII soldiers stationed in Germany. Many of those soldiers never left.

     

    Were they all the children of WW2 vets? The WIKIPEDIA article simply says that the children are the offspring of "US occupation forces stationed in Germany."

    Regression to the mean happens immediately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Regression to the mean happens immediately.

    What do you mean by this? If your children are smarter than you then your IQ must be below 100? Does it mean that parents with IQ>100 never (statistically never, i.e., on average) have smarter then them children?

    I suspect there is a great misunderstanding of the breeder's equation and its range of validity.

    , @syonredux

    Regression to the mean happens immediately.
     
    I should have phrased that a bit better. I meant to say that regression doesn't go all the way to the mean in the first generation. I.e, if two people with 130 IQs from a population with a mean of 100 have kids, their kids probably are not going to have 100 IQs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. syonredux says:
    @syonredux

    He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion.
     
    The problem there is that Murray believes that the ancient Israelites possessed an usually high mean IQ. On this point, he is quite wrong. None of the neighbors of the Israelites thought that they were smarter than average, and none of their surviving writings suggest uncommon cleverness.

    And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc

    Corrected a typo

    He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion.

    The problem there is that Murray believes that the ancient Israelites possessed an unusually high mean IQ. On this point, he is quite wrong. None of the neighbors of the Israelites thought that they were smarter than average, and none of their surviving writings suggest uncommon cleverness.

    And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. gcochran says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    On pp. 273-279, Lynn performed an exhaustive literature search for all Jewish IQ studies in America, and presented the 32 examples he found, ranging in date from 1920 to the present day. He then noted the intriguing fact that Jewish IQs had substantially risen relative to white gentile scores during the course of the 20th century. Jewish IQ had averaged 101.5 in the first 14 studies from 1920-1937, then 107 in the nine studies from 1944-1960, and finally 111 in the last nine studies from 1970-2008. All these results had been separately normed against a fixed IQ of 100 for the average white population.
     

    Pulling the book off the shelf, Lynn thinks that Jewish scores, especially verbal, were depressed by being Yiddish speakers in the first half of the 209th century. They scored a lot higher than other non-native-English speaking groups in the same town and same schools.

    A lot of Ron’s IQ malleability argument boils down to first-generation-types not knowing English while the later generations do. That’s a stereotype that always show up about first-generation immigrants: dumb Swedes, for example. But that one went away, because Swedes aren’t dumb. That was obvious from considering the accomplishments of Swedes in Sweden. I doubt if that stereotype will go away in the same way with second-generation Somalis, when you consider the accomplishments of Somalis in Somalia. .

    People do better on most IQ tests if they are fluent in the language it is written in. This improves in the second generation. does mean that the population in question actually got smarter? No.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Here are Jewish IQ scores from Project Talent (1960). N = 1236. The sample were high school students.

    Verbal comprehension factor—107.8
    English language—99.5
    Mathematics—109.7
    Visual reasoning —91.3
    Perceptual speed and accuracy—102.2
    Memory —95.1

    Given the immigration cut off in 1924, I'd assume almost all the Jewish students were 2nd generation native-born in the Project Talent sample. Language shouldn't have been an issue.

    In more recent years, Jewish-American Verbal IQ has been estimated in the 117-125 range. Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.

    Based on the Project Talent data, I'd conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era. So that'd suggest that Ron Unz's malleable IQ hypothesis is correct. If he's wrong, why did Jewish IQ continue to rise even after 1960?

    I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn't that true of almost all current immigrants? Also, from what I gather, English was the first language for Jews (especially Jewish youths) even back in the 1960s.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    There also seems to have been a very significant rise in Irish IQ from 87 (1972) to 100 (2009).

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/


    First, Lynn was hardly unique among leading IQ experts in characterizing the Irish as being low IQ. For example, Hans Eysenck, one of the foremost IQ researchers of the 20th century said exactly the same thing in his 1971 book “Race, Intelligence, & Education,” claiming that the Irish IQ was very close to that of American blacks, and that the Irish/English IQ gap was almost exactly the same size as the black/white gap in the U.S., being roughly a full standard deviation. Eysenck’s stated position unsurprisingly caused a considerable furor in the British media, including all sorts of angry responses and even (facetious) threats of violence. So the huge and apparently well-designed 1972 study of 3,466 Irish schoolchildren which placed the mean Irish IQ at just 87 hardly seems an absurd outlier.

    But let’s explore the Irish IQ data in a more systematic fashion. Although Lynn has inexplicibly dropped that 1972 study in his latest 2012 book, this new volume otherwise contains a plethora of additional Irish IQ studies, displaying a wide variety of results. Indeed, when we consider the total number of Irish studies–10–and the total aggregate sample size—over 20,000 individuals—we discover that Lynn provides us with more aggregate test data on the IQ of Ireland than for any other country in the entire world. Furthermore, since Lynn used British scores for normalization, and Ireland is geographically and culturally an immediate British neighbor as well as English-speaking, British tests could presumably be used without modification, reducing the risk of language or cultural bias during the translation process. Thus, I think a case can be made that we have more reliable information about the recent IQ history of the Irish than that of any other people in the world.

    And what does that information tell us? Here is the complete listing of all IQ studies provided by Lynn (omitting his careless duplications), including sample-size, year, and Flynn-adjusted score, to which I have added a 2009 IQ of 100 based on the recent PISA results, which were almost identical to those of Britain:
    96 (1964) = 90
    3466 (1972) = 87
    1361 (1988) = 97
    191 (1990) = 87
    2029 (1991) = 96
    1361 (1993) = 93
    2029 (1993) = 91
    10000 (2000) = 95
    3937 (2009 PISA) = 100
    200 (2012) = 92

    Now to my eye, this list of datapoints indicates a clear and obvious rise in Irish IQ, during which the gap to British scores steadily dropped from 13 points in 1972 to zero in 2009. But since my critics will surely say I’m as blind as a bat, I also took out my statistical toolkit and ran a weighted-correlation on the data, comparing year with IQ and weighting by sample size. The result was a correlation of 0.86. Indeed, the pattern is so robust that even if we drop the 2009 PISA score since “it’s not really IQ,” the correlation scarcely changes. Obviously, if tested Irish IQs were innate and unchanging as so many seem to claim, the correlation would have been 0.00, a very different value.

    Within the social sciences, a correlation of 0.86 is extraordinarily high, almost implausibly so. The inescapable conclusion is that Irish IQs rose at an almost linear rate during the three or four decades after 1972.

    Why this occurred is an entirely different matter. I find it extremely difficult to think of a plausible biological explanation, though others are welcome to try. During this exact period, Ireland was undergoing a very rapid rise in urbanization and affluence, and I’d suggest those factors. Perhaps there’s some other cause instead. But the empirical rise of Flynn-adjusted Irish IQ by nearly a full standard deviation in 37 years seems proven fact.

    This rapid convergence between Irish and British IQs should hardly surprise us. According to the GSS, the Wordsum-IQs of (Catholic) Irish-Americans rank among the very highest of any white ethnic group, with a value almost identical to that of their British-American ethnic cousins.
     
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. gcochran says:
    @syonredux

    North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
    about 90.5 in IQ.
     
    And we don't know if any of the North Africans were Jews.....

    Goums. Jews? unlikely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @mobi

    Or – white female – black male couplings are drawn from the bottom of the pool, while white male – black female ones are drawn from much higher up in both pools; thus, the difference is indeed mostly or purely genetic.
     
    Disregard - completely misread that.

    You had me puzzled for a few minutes…
    I think your observation is actually on the mark, but I think it serves to confirm the point you were opposing.
    I think it is actually a very good point… in support of nurture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mobi

    You had me puzzled for a few minutes…
    I think your observation is actually on the mark, but I think it serves to confirm the point you were opposing.
    I think it is actually a very good point… in support of nurture.
     
    In my defence, I think my general point remains valid - that the stated result isn't 'proof of environment' if the pairings studied were drawn from different parts of their respective pools.

    I erred on the specifics of who was probably drawn from where.

    My anecdotal impression is that white male/black female pairs tend to be less ghetto than the reverse.

    But that's a modern day impression. The result showing an 8-points higher IQ for offspring of white female/black male vs the opposite appears to trace back to a single study - very small (120 or so kids) - in the early 1970s. And a study of 4 year olds, to boot.

    It's mostly behind a paywall, but discussion of it elsewhere concedes that the black males involved were unusually well-educated for their group. I would also assume white females in 1974 were under considerably more pressure to avoid pairing with black males unless they were fairly high-status, than is the case today.

    I don't know how valid the finding is still considered (beyond simply how valid it's assumed to be by those who want it be valid).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. dfordoom says: • Website

    If you accept that HBD is true then you have to accept the need for a welfare state. You also have to accept the need for large-scale government intervention in the economy. In fact you have to accept the need for a fairly high degree of socialism. HBD is the strongest of all arguments in favour of socialism.

    HBD also completely blows libertarianism out of the water.

    Maybe I’m wrong about this. If I am would anyone care to point why I’m wrong?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. TheJester says:

    The Left’s pushback on race and IQ is strange given the ample scientific evidence that human evolution is real and is associated with varying physical environments. Hence, given the evidence, it is not a stretch to assume that natural selection also affects such things as IQ and human reproductive strategies. (Translation: The practical need for varying degrees of intelligence to survive radically different environmental conditions in the Tropical, Temperate, and Arctic Biozones just happens to map to the common classification of racial genotypes. Indeed, the challenge would be to explain why radically different environmental conditions would not impact IQ, given that the different conditions affect so much else in the human genome.)

    Below is a short list of human evolutionary adaptations from the April issue of National Geographic. If different environmental conditions can impact the human genome in such minor ways in different environmental conditions, would it not also make sense that the aggregate genetic variations could create racial genotypes associated with those environments?

    1. Thrifty Genes. Some genes found in tropical islanders aid survival on limited food resources but could lead to obesity in a high-calorie environment.

    2. Thick Hair. East Indians evolved thick hair shafts 35,000 years ago, perhaps through sexual selection or as an aid in regulating heat.

    3. Digesting Seaweed. In Japan, where the coastal diet dominates, genes in human gut bacteria help the local population extract nutrition from seaweed.

    4. Fat Metabolism. Inuit populations have a genetic variant that allows them to digest the fatty foods of their regional diet, like whales and seals.

    5. Arsenic Tolerance. Some Argentine populations have adapted to tolerate high levels of arsenic commonly found in the groundwater where they live.

    6. Urban Resistance. As humans settled in more densely packed communities, they evolved a stronger natural resistance to infectious diseases.

    7. Lactose Tolerators. Early groups that domesticated animals, like herders in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, evolved the ability to digest milk beyond infancy.

    8. Skin Color. Light skin (higher latitudes) increases absorption of ultraviolet light and the production of vitamin D. Dark skin (lower latitudes) offers UV protection.

    9. Blood Mutations. Different populations exhibit various blood mutations; in a tropical climate, sickle-shaped cells can bestow resistance to malaria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. mobi says:
    @Anonymous
    You had me puzzled for a few minutes...
    I think your observation is actually on the mark, but I think it serves to confirm the point you were opposing.
    I think it is actually a very good point... in support of nurture.

    You had me puzzled for a few minutes…
    I think your observation is actually on the mark, but I think it serves to confirm the point you were opposing.
    I think it is actually a very good point… in support of nurture.

    In my defence, I think my general point remains valid – that the stated result isn’t ‘proof of environment’ if the pairings studied were drawn from different parts of their respective pools.

    I erred on the specifics of who was probably drawn from where.

    My anecdotal impression is that white male/black female pairs tend to be less ghetto than the reverse.

    But that’s a modern day impression. The result showing an 8-points higher IQ for offspring of white female/black male vs the opposite appears to trace back to a single study – very small (120 or so kids) – in the early 1970s. And a study of 4 year olds, to boot.

    It’s mostly behind a paywall, but discussion of it elsewhere concedes that the black males involved were unusually well-educated for their group. I would also assume white females in 1974 were under considerably more pressure to avoid pairing with black males unless they were fairly high-status, than is the case today.

    I don’t know how valid the finding is still considered (beyond simply how valid it’s assumed to be by those who want it be valid).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is actually a tricky issue, and I think it deserves more attention.
    I wasn't aware of the results mentioned above.... but I think some reflection is warranted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Jack D says:
    @syonredux

    He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion.
     
    The problem there is that Murray believes that the ancient Israelites possessed an usually high mean IQ. On this point, he is quite wrong. None of the neighbors of the Israelites thought that they were smarter than average, and none of their surviving writings suggest uncommon cleverness.

    And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc

    Many factors point to Ashkenazi Jewish brilliance emerging only later. First you have a big infusion of Euro genes and not just any but (ancient) Roman and Greek who as you say were the heavy hitters of the ancient world. And then you have a eugenic breeding program where survival depends on living by your wits rather than the strength of your back and scholarly prowess is more prestigious than fighting skill. Even so, Jews make very little mark on Western scholarship until the 19th century when they emerge from the ghettos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    . First you have a big infusion of Euro genes and not just any but (ancient) Roman and Greek who as you say were the heavy hitters of the ancient world.
     
    Greeks, not Romans. The Romans were well aware that they were inferior to the Greeks in the smarts department. Of course, the Romans felt that they had compensating virtues:

    Let others better mold the running mass
    Of metals, and inform the breathing brass,
    And soften into flesh a marble face;
    Plead better at the bar; describe the skies,
    And when the stars descend, and when they rise.
    But, Rome, ‘t is thine alone, with awful sway,
    To rule mankind, and make the world obey,
    Disposing peace and war by thy own majestic way;
    To tame the proud, the fetter’d slave to free:
    These are imperial arts, and worthy thee.”

    Aeneid, Dryden’s translation
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. mobi says:

    Quick question:

    Is the oft-cited exceptionally high average IQ of jews – namely, nearly a full standard deviation above Caucasians – usually referring to specifically Ashkenazi jews, or to jews overall (in which case, the Ashkanazi are even smarter than this, on average)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ic1000
    > Is the oft-cited exceptionally high average IQ of jews... usually referring to specifically Ashkenazi jews, or to jews overall?

    Ashkenizi Jews. Sometime back, Greg Cochran (gcochran) presented evidence on this point at his blog West Hunter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. utu says:
    @gcochran
    Regression to the mean happens immediately.

    Regression to the mean happens immediately.

    What do you mean by this? If your children are smarter than you then your IQ must be below 100? Does it mean that parents with IQ>100 never (statistically never, i.e., on average) have smarter then them children?

    I suspect there is a great misunderstanding of the breeder’s equation and its range of validity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    Immediately means the first generation


    I understand it, you don't. You have a lot of company.

    If the parental average IQ is 140, while the population average is 100 and the narrow-sense heritability of IQ in that environment is 0.7, the average value of the kid's IQ is 128. That is, the expectation value of the kids IQ is 128. Look up "expectation value".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.

    I think it's pretty obvious that Murray's just a dishonest shill, who sings for his supper.
     

    Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you're the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.
    Back in late 1980s, I read Murray's anti-Welfare "Losing Ground," which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he'd left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn't blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don't they?

    But then after his big IQ book "The Bell Curve" came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he'd been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

    Next, Murray's Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn't really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn't already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein's research, which he didn't fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn't really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn't around to pass him the answers.

    Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American "custodial democracy." Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

    Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.
     

    Well, I haven't read the book or the review, but Murray's always struck me as something of a fool, and a pretty dishonest one at that. It sounds like his book this time should be dedicated to his neocon paymasters at AEI.
     

    I consider Murray a shill and a fool
     

    I would call Murray a diplomat, not a shill, and probably not a fool. He’s useful, if not perfect. Kinda like Mr Unz himself!

    Read More
    • LOL: bomag
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. eah says:
    @eah
    How many IQ researchers do you have to throw to the wolves before 'the gap' disappears?

    https://twitter.com/PlugsBiden14/status/865597308284657664

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Unreal.

    https://twitter.com/vdare/status/866384815771320321
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. ic1000 says:
    @mobi
    Quick question:

    Is the oft-cited exceptionally high average IQ of jews - namely, nearly a full standard deviation above Caucasians - usually referring to specifically Ashkenazi jews, or to jews overall (in which case, the Ashkanazi are even smarter than this, on average)?

    > Is the oft-cited exceptionally high average IQ of jews… usually referring to specifically Ashkenazi jews, or to jews overall?

    Ashkenizi Jews. Sometime back, Greg Cochran (gcochran) presented evidence on this point at his blog West Hunter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. gcochran says:
    @utu
    Regression to the mean happens immediately.

    What do you mean by this? If your children are smarter than you then your IQ must be below 100? Does it mean that parents with IQ>100 never (statistically never, i.e., on average) have smarter then them children?

    I suspect there is a great misunderstanding of the breeder's equation and its range of validity.

    Immediately means the first generation

    I understand it, you don’t. You have a lot of company.

    If the parental average IQ is 140, while the population average is 100 and the narrow-sense heritability of IQ in that environment is 0.7, the average value of the kid’s IQ is 128. That is, the expectation value of the kids IQ is 128. Look up “expectation value”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glaivester
    This brings up a question - regression to the mean would decrease drastically in the second generation, would it not? That is, if there were two sets of parents both sets with a parental average of 140, and one of each of their children married with their average IQ being 128, the expected IQ of any offspring produced would be higher than that of randomly picked people with IQs of 128, correct?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. MarkinLA says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here were the finding of statistician La Griffe Du Lion.

    He did a regression of violent urban crime and ethnicity.

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

    It has been conjectured that the contribution of Hispanics to violent crime is on the point of advancing to the standing enjoyed by blacks. This, however, is not confirmed by our evidence, at least in our largest cities. Whoever thinks or has thought this to be so has come to this determination from evidence not directly related to what is happening on the street, but rather from incarceration records, court appearances or sentencing data. When crimes rather than criminals are counted, and the Hispanic effect is appropriately removed, the data show that violent crime rates for Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, though a bit higher for Hispanics, are in actual fact quite similar. As for blacks, their crime rate remains by any measure uniquely high.
     
    Hispanics are only slightly than whites in violent urban crime.

    Once you adjust for age and gender, perhaps that'd decrease Hispanic crime rates.

    Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.

    One has to live in Hispanic neighborhoods to see the difference. See the difference in breaking and entering, running red lights, hit and run, graffiti, drug sales, and gang activity. Then realize that for political reasons many of these crimes are ignored or never charged if nobody is seriously hurt.

    Another problem is criminal gang activity and how a series of crimes end up being charged to one person. Recently we had an 18 year old murder a 20 year old (assumed) gang member who was discharged from the army (given his early discharge it was likely general and not honorable). How does an 18 year old in California get a handgun or decide to kill a guy who joined the army when the killer was still in high school. It has ordered hit from a senior gang member all over it but the stupid kid will serve life in prison because he won’t snitch on the leadership that gave him the gun or ordered the hit. Multiple crimes, multiple criminals, criminal conspiracy and one guy pleading it all away as a lone murderer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. syonredux says:
    @Jack D
    Many factors point to Ashkenazi Jewish brilliance emerging only later. First you have a big infusion of Euro genes and not just any but (ancient) Roman and Greek who as you say were the heavy hitters of the ancient world. And then you have a eugenic breeding program where survival depends on living by your wits rather than the strength of your back and scholarly prowess is more prestigious than fighting skill. Even so, Jews make very little mark on Western scholarship until the 19th century when they emerge from the ghettos.

    . First you have a big infusion of Euro genes and not just any but (ancient) Roman and Greek who as you say were the heavy hitters of the ancient world.

    Greeks, not Romans. The Romans were well aware that they were inferior to the Greeks in the smarts department. Of course, the Romans felt that they had compensating virtues:

    Let others better mold the running mass
    Of metals, and inform the breathing brass,
    And soften into flesh a marble face;
    Plead better at the bar; describe the skies,
    And when the stars descend, and when they rise.
    But, Rome, ‘t is thine alone, with awful sway,
    To rule mankind, and make the world obey,
    Disposing peace and war by thy own majestic way;
    To tame the proud, the fetter’d slave to free:
    These are imperial arts, and worthy thee.”

    Aeneid, Dryden’s translation

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. syonredux says:
    @gcochran
    Regression to the mean happens immediately.

    Regression to the mean happens immediately.

    I should have phrased that a bit better. I meant to say that regression doesn’t go all the way to the mean in the first generation. I.e, if two people with 130 IQs from a population with a mean of 100 have kids, their kids probably are not going to have 100 IQs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    Take a population of such kids with IQ 130 parents, with lets say an average IQ of 120: drop them on a distant island so they eventually marry each other, and IQ drops no further.

    You would have created a new ethnic group, smarter than any other on Earth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. gcochran says:
    @syonredux

    Regression to the mean happens immediately.
     
    I should have phrased that a bit better. I meant to say that regression doesn't go all the way to the mean in the first generation. I.e, if two people with 130 IQs from a population with a mean of 100 have kids, their kids probably are not going to have 100 IQs.

    Take a population of such kids with IQ 130 parents, with lets say an average IQ of 120: drop them on a distant island so they eventually marry each other, and IQ drops no further.

    You would have created a new ethnic group, smarter than any other on Earth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Take a population of such kids with IQ 130 parents, with lets say an average IQ of 120: drop them on a distant island so they eventually marry each other, and IQ drops no further.

    You would have created a new ethnic group, smarter than any other on Earth.
     
    Wonder if there's a billionaire somewhere who would be willing to bankroll something like that....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. syonredux says:
    @gcochran
    Take a population of such kids with IQ 130 parents, with lets say an average IQ of 120: drop them on a distant island so they eventually marry each other, and IQ drops no further.

    You would have created a new ethnic group, smarter than any other on Earth.

    Take a population of such kids with IQ 130 parents, with lets say an average IQ of 120: drop them on a distant island so they eventually marry each other, and IQ drops no further.

    You would have created a new ethnic group, smarter than any other on Earth.

    Wonder if there’s a billionaire somewhere who would be willing to bankroll something like that….

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    As I understand it, this is something that billionaires are not meant to know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. gcochran says:
    @syonredux

    Take a population of such kids with IQ 130 parents, with lets say an average IQ of 120: drop them on a distant island so they eventually marry each other, and IQ drops no further.

    You would have created a new ethnic group, smarter than any other on Earth.
     
    Wonder if there's a billionaire somewhere who would be willing to bankroll something like that....

    As I understand it, this is something that billionaires are not meant to know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Glaivester says: • Website
    @gcochran
    Immediately means the first generation


    I understand it, you don't. You have a lot of company.

    If the parental average IQ is 140, while the population average is 100 and the narrow-sense heritability of IQ in that environment is 0.7, the average value of the kid's IQ is 128. That is, the expectation value of the kids IQ is 128. Look up "expectation value".

    This brings up a question – regression to the mean would decrease drastically in the second generation, would it not? That is, if there were two sets of parents both sets with a parental average of 140, and one of each of their children married with their average IQ being 128, the expected IQ of any offspring produced would be higher than that of randomly picked people with IQs of 128, correct?

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    Al the regression is in the first generation.
    , @candid_observer
    The answer to the exact question you asked is, yes, the expected IQ of the progeny of randomly selected parents of IQ 128 would be less than 128 (as according to the breeder's equation) but the expected IQ of the progeny of the progeny of parents of 140 IQ would be 128 -- the same as that of the progeny of the parents of 140 IQ themselves.

    A lot of how these questions get answered depends on the exact method of picking out the class of interest -- pretty typical of questions in probability and statistics.

    All of which reminds me of one of the dumbest arguments I've ever encountered regarding the question of race vs. IQ. It was generated by a famous philosopher of mind, and "philosopher of science", Ned Block, along with a fellow philosopher Gerald Dworkin. They argued that the one SD difference between blacks and whites was, in effect, really only half a standard deviation, because the principle of regression to the mean implied that (roughly) half of it would go away were they to repeat the test. They seemed not to grasp that picking out a reference class using as criterion their performance on a given IQ test is not the same as picking them out by means of something like racial group. (Nor did basic sanity checks on an inference like theirs seem to occur to them, such as, what is, on average, the repeat performance of the same individual black student on various IQ tests?)

    I'm not sure that Block and Dworkin continue to peddle this impressively stupid argument, but they certainly had done so for several decades.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. gcochran says:
    @Glaivester
    This brings up a question - regression to the mean would decrease drastically in the second generation, would it not? That is, if there were two sets of parents both sets with a parental average of 140, and one of each of their children married with their average IQ being 128, the expected IQ of any offspring produced would be higher than that of randomly picked people with IQs of 128, correct?

    Al the regression is in the first generation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    But there is a similar effect with each new first generation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @TWS
    Here's the problem with that. I know they lie, I know how they lie. I know they under-report, I know how they do that too. I know they refuse to charge, again I know how, why, and how they hide it.

    It's not 'Rotherham' levels but it's getting there. The first murder in my town in twenty or so years was a friend, I heard him shot from my front porch, the city declined to file charges. The county forced the city's hand and after investigation lo and behold the guy had murdered someone else. The second one the city learned their lesson, no they didn't charge our investigate, they released the guy fast as they could because they could not find an interpreter. Never mind the interpreter came to town twice a week. With the third murder a girl I watched grow up her boy friend left her preschool daughter standing in a puddle of her mother's blood and guts. This guy despite being a known illegal alien gang member was listed as white.

    And the guy who assaulted my pregnant daughter? He was trying too grab a child as a hostage . He was never charged with anything not even criminal trespass. He's walking the streets of our town.

    I've seen it as a police officer, probation, and working as a bailiff and in prisons. I've seen it as a victim and witness. Deliberate, systematic, and systemic under reporting and prosecution and mislabling ethnicity.

    I’ve often wondered how much underreporting results in racial crime multiples being underestimated.

    La Griffe did estimate that blacks have 4x the violent crime rate of Hispanics. If we assume that underreporting is no more an issue for Hispanics than blacks, then I suppose we can conclude Hispanics (on average) are 1/4th as violent as blacks.

    However, the question is this. How violent are blacks?

    According to La Griffe’s analysis of urban violent crime, blacks are about 4.5x as violent as whites. Recorded incarceration rates are about 6-7x as high. However, if we assume there’s a high rate of underreported violent crime in black (as well as Hispanic) areas, then that multiple could be MUCH higher.

    This is an interesting issue, but I’d like to see more than anecdotes. Not that anecdotes don’t matter (they do), but some data would help us to make a forceful case.

    If blacks and Hispanics commit a lot of violent crime that’s unrecorded, then that’d be interesting to know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    Incarceration under counts crime. For instance, it takes eight or so convictions for auto theft before you get prison time. Now you are not arrested every time you commit a crime. Murder rates in Chicago are in single digits. Imagine how many murders are running free in Chicago. Trayvon Martin was a known burglar with burglary tools and stolen property and the authorities did everything to keep him from facing the consequences.

    Michael Brown was a 'gentle giant' even after we saw him commit felony assault on cctv. He's not the exception that's the rule. Why do we have so many drug convictions? Because everything gets pled down to the easiest and least penalty. And dirt bags always have drugs. You go to a domestic and the wife is beating her husband and kids with a bong. Some strong arm guy decides to show his ass to cops and he's got a bindle fold of coke in his pocket.

    I guarantee you if Brown had been arrested he would probably been pled down to his drug possession and received treatment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @gcochran
    Pulling the book off the shelf, Lynn thinks that Jewish scores, especially verbal, were depressed by being Yiddish speakers in the first half of the 209th century. They scored a lot higher than other non-native-English speaking groups in the same town and same schools.

    A lot of Ron's IQ malleability argument boils down to first-generation-types not knowing English while the later generations do. That's a stereotype that always show up about first-generation immigrants: dumb Swedes, for example. But that one went away, because Swedes aren't dumb. That was obvious from considering the accomplishments of Swedes in Sweden. I doubt if that stereotype will go away in the same way with second-generation Somalis, when you consider the accomplishments of Somalis in Somalia. .

    People do better on most IQ tests if they are fluent in the language it is written in. This improves in the second generation. does mean that the population in question actually got smarter? No.

    Here are Jewish IQ scores from Project Talent (1960). N = 1236. The sample were high school students.

    Verbal comprehension factor—107.8
    English language—99.5
    Mathematics—109.7
    Visual reasoning —91.3
    Perceptual speed and accuracy—102.2
    Memory —95.1

    Given the immigration cut off in 1924, I’d assume almost all the Jewish students were 2nd generation native-born in the Project Talent sample. Language shouldn’t have been an issue.

    In more recent years, Jewish-American Verbal IQ has been estimated in the 117-125 range. Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.

    Based on the Project Talent data, I’d conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era. So that’d suggest that Ron Unz’s malleable IQ hypothesis is correct. If he’s wrong, why did Jewish IQ continue to rise even after 1960?

    I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn’t that true of almost all current immigrants? Also, from what I gather, English was the first language for Jews (especially Jewish youths) even back in the 1960s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.
     
    117 is something of a high-end estimate:

    The average IQ score of Jews has been calculated to be 112–115 (Cochran et al.),[8] and 107–115 (Murray; Entine).[9][10][11]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

    Based on the Project Talent data, I’d conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era.
     
    Has there?

    In 1954, a psychologist took advantage of New York City’s universal IQ-testing to identify all 28 children with measured IQs of 170 or higher. Twenty-four of them were Jews.
     
    Murray, Charles,Human Accomplishment
    , @syonredux

    I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn’t that true of almost all current immigrants?
     
    So when should we expect to see Mestizo Hispanics reaching Ashkenazi levels of achievement?

    One observational basis for inferring that Jews have high intelligence is their prevalence in intellectually demanding fields. While only about 2% of the U.S. population is of full Jewish descent,[2] 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century,[2][3] 25% of Fields Medal winners,[4] 25% of ACM Turing Award winners,[2] 9 out of the 19 world chess champions, and a quarter of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners have either full or partial Jewish ancestry
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
    , @gcochran
    MacDonald's numbers are based on bupkus.

    As for Yiddish being the first language of Jewish youth in the 1960s: no sir. Totally false. Very rare by that time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @gcochran
    Pulling the book off the shelf, Lynn thinks that Jewish scores, especially verbal, were depressed by being Yiddish speakers in the first half of the 209th century. They scored a lot higher than other non-native-English speaking groups in the same town and same schools.

    A lot of Ron's IQ malleability argument boils down to first-generation-types not knowing English while the later generations do. That's a stereotype that always show up about first-generation immigrants: dumb Swedes, for example. But that one went away, because Swedes aren't dumb. That was obvious from considering the accomplishments of Swedes in Sweden. I doubt if that stereotype will go away in the same way with second-generation Somalis, when you consider the accomplishments of Somalis in Somalia. .

    People do better on most IQ tests if they are fluent in the language it is written in. This improves in the second generation. does mean that the population in question actually got smarter? No.

    There also seems to have been a very significant rise in Irish IQ from 87 (1972) to 100 (2009).

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/

    First, Lynn was hardly unique among leading IQ experts in characterizing the Irish as being low IQ. For example, Hans Eysenck, one of the foremost IQ researchers of the 20th century said exactly the same thing in his 1971 book “Race, Intelligence, & Education,” claiming that the Irish IQ was very close to that of American blacks, and that the Irish/English IQ gap was almost exactly the same size as the black/white gap in the U.S., being roughly a full standard deviation. Eysenck’s stated position unsurprisingly caused a considerable furor in the British media, including all sorts of angry responses and even (facetious) threats of violence. So the huge and apparently well-designed 1972 study of 3,466 Irish schoolchildren which placed the mean Irish IQ at just 87 hardly seems an absurd outlier.

    But let’s explore the Irish IQ data in a more systematic fashion. Although Lynn has inexplicibly dropped that 1972 study in his latest 2012 book, this new volume otherwise contains a plethora of additional Irish IQ studies, displaying a wide variety of results. Indeed, when we consider the total number of Irish studies–10–and the total aggregate sample size—over 20,000 individuals—we discover that Lynn provides us with more aggregate test data on the IQ of Ireland than for any other country in the entire world. Furthermore, since Lynn used British scores for normalization, and Ireland is geographically and culturally an immediate British neighbor as well as English-speaking, British tests could presumably be used without modification, reducing the risk of language or cultural bias during the translation process. Thus, I think a case can be made that we have more reliable information about the recent IQ history of the Irish than that of any other people in the world.

    And what does that information tell us? Here is the complete listing of all IQ studies provided by Lynn (omitting his careless duplications), including sample-size, year, and Flynn-adjusted score, to which I have added a 2009 IQ of 100 based on the recent PISA results, which were almost identical to those of Britain:
    96 (1964) = 90
    3466 (1972) = 87
    1361 (1988) = 97
    191 (1990) = 87
    2029 (1991) = 96
    1361 (1993) = 93
    2029 (1993) = 91
    10000 (2000) = 95
    3937 (2009 PISA) = 100
    200 (2012) = 92

    Now to my eye, this list of datapoints indicates a clear and obvious rise in Irish IQ, during which the gap to British scores steadily dropped from 13 points in 1972 to zero in 2009. But since my critics will surely say I’m as blind as a bat, I also took out my statistical toolkit and ran a weighted-correlation on the data, comparing year with IQ and weighting by sample size. The result was a correlation of 0.86. Indeed, the pattern is so robust that even if we drop the 2009 PISA score since “it’s not really IQ,” the correlation scarcely changes. Obviously, if tested Irish IQs were innate and unchanging as so many seem to claim, the correlation would have been 0.00, a very different value.

    Within the social sciences, a correlation of 0.86 is extraordinarily high, almost implausibly so. The inescapable conclusion is that Irish IQs rose at an almost linear rate during the three or four decades after 1972.

    Why this occurred is an entirely different matter. I find it extremely difficult to think of a plausible biological explanation, though others are welcome to try. During this exact period, Ireland was undergoing a very rapid rise in urbanization and affluence, and I’d suggest those factors. Perhaps there’s some other cause instead. But the empirical rise of Flynn-adjusted Irish IQ by nearly a full standard deviation in 37 years seems proven fact.

    This rapid convergence between Irish and British IQs should hardly surprise us. According to the GSS, the Wordsum-IQs of (Catholic) Irish-Americans rank among the very highest of any white ethnic group, with a value almost identical to that of their British-American ethnic cousins.

     

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Maybe we should convince American Blacks to move to Ireland? You know, let them experience all that Emerald Isle IQ voodoo.....
    , @syonredux

    According to the GSS, the Wordsum-IQs of (Catholic) Irish-Americans rank among the very highest of any white ethnic group, with a value almost identical to that of their British-American ethnic cousins.
     
    How exactly do they determine Irish ancestry on those surveys? Is it self-reported?Because just about all the self-proclaimed (Catholic) Irish-Americans that I know are not completely Irish in terms of ancestry.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here are Jewish IQ scores from Project Talent (1960). N = 1236. The sample were high school students.

    Verbal comprehension factor—107.8
    English language—99.5
    Mathematics—109.7
    Visual reasoning —91.3
    Perceptual speed and accuracy—102.2
    Memory —95.1

    Given the immigration cut off in 1924, I'd assume almost all the Jewish students were 2nd generation native-born in the Project Talent sample. Language shouldn't have been an issue.

    In more recent years, Jewish-American Verbal IQ has been estimated in the 117-125 range. Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.

    Based on the Project Talent data, I'd conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era. So that'd suggest that Ron Unz's malleable IQ hypothesis is correct. If he's wrong, why did Jewish IQ continue to rise even after 1960?

    I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn't that true of almost all current immigrants? Also, from what I gather, English was the first language for Jews (especially Jewish youths) even back in the 1960s.

    Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.

    117 is something of a high-end estimate:

    The average IQ score of Jews has been calculated to be 112–115 (Cochran et al.),[8] and 107–115 (Murray; Entine).[9][10][11]

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

    Based on the Project Talent data, I’d conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era.

    Has there?

    In 1954, a psychologist took advantage of New York City’s universal IQ-testing to identify all 28 children with measured IQs of 170 or higher. Twenty-four of them were Jews.

    Murray, Charles,Human Accomplishment

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here are Jewish IQ scores from Project Talent (1960). N = 1236. The sample were high school students.

    Verbal comprehension factor—107.8
    English language—99.5
    Mathematics—109.7
    Visual reasoning —91.3
    Perceptual speed and accuracy—102.2
    Memory —95.1

    Given the immigration cut off in 1924, I'd assume almost all the Jewish students were 2nd generation native-born in the Project Talent sample. Language shouldn't have been an issue.

    In more recent years, Jewish-American Verbal IQ has been estimated in the 117-125 range. Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.

    Based on the Project Talent data, I'd conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era. So that'd suggest that Ron Unz's malleable IQ hypothesis is correct. If he's wrong, why did Jewish IQ continue to rise even after 1960?

    I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn't that true of almost all current immigrants? Also, from what I gather, English was the first language for Jews (especially Jewish youths) even back in the 1960s.

    I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn’t that true of almost all current immigrants?

    So when should we expect to see Mestizo Hispanics reaching Ashkenazi levels of achievement?

    One observational basis for inferring that Jews have high intelligence is their prevalence in intellectually demanding fields. While only about 2% of the U.S. population is of full Jewish descent,[2] 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century,[2][3] 25% of Fields Medal winners,[4] 25% of ACM Turing Award winners,[2] 9 out of the 19 world chess champions, and a quarter of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners have either full or partial Jewish ancestry

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Decline of Jewish achievement.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

    For example, consider California, second only to New York in the total number of its Jews, and with its Jewish percentage far above the national average. Over the last couple of years, blogger Steve Sailer and some of his commenters have examined the complete 2010 and 2012 NMS semifinalist lists of the 2000 or so top-scoring California high school seniors for ethnicity, and discovered that as few as 4–5 percent of the names seem to be Jewish, a figure not so dramatically different than the state’s 3.3 percent Jewish population, and an estimate which I have personally confirmed.54 Meanwhile, the state’s 13 percent Asians account for over 57 percent of the top performing students. Thus, it appears that California Asians are perhaps three times as likely as Jews to do extremely well on academic tests, and this result remains unchanged if we adjust for the age distributions of the two populations.

    One means of corroborating these surprising results is to consider the ratios of particularly distinctive ethnic names, and Sailer reported such exact findings made by one of his Jewish readers. For example, across the 2000-odd top scoring California students in 2010, there was just a single NMS semifinalist named Cohen, and also one each for Levy, Kaplan, and a last name beginning with “Gold.” Meanwhile, there were 49 Wangs and 36 Kims, plus a vast number of other highly distinctive Asian names. But according to Census data, the combined number of American Cohens and Levys together outnumber the Wangs almost two-to-one, and the same is true for the four most common names beginning with “Gold.” Put another way, California contains nearly one-fifth of all American Jews, hence almost 60,000 Cohens, Kaplans, Levys, Goldens, Goldsteins, Goldbergs, Goldmans, and Golds, and this population produced only 4 NMS semifinalists, a ratio almost identical to that produced by our general last name estimates. The 2012 California NMS semifinalist lists yield approximately the same ratios.

    When we consider the apparent number of Jewish students across the NMS semifinalist lists of other major states, we get roughly similar results. New York has always been the center of the American Jewish community, and at 8.4 percent is half again as heavily Jewish as any other state, while probably containing a large fraction of America’s Jewish financial and intellectual elite. Just as we might expect, the 2011 roster of New York NMS semifinalists is disproportionately filled with Jewish names, constituting about 21 percent of the total, a ratio twice as high as for any other state whose figures are available. But even here, New York’s smaller and much less affluent Asian population is far better represented, providing around 34 percent of the top scoring students. Jews and Asians are today about equal in number within New York City but whereas a generation ago, elite local public schools such as Stuyvesant were very heavily Jewish, today Jews are outnumbered at least several times over by Asians.55
    This same pattern of relative Asian and Jewish performance on aptitude exams

     


    The U.S. Math Olympiad began in 1974, and all the names of the top scoring students are easily available on the Internet. During the 1970s, well over 40 percent of the total were Jewish, and during the 1980s and 1990s, the fraction averaged about one-third. However, during the thirteen years since 2000, just two names out of 78 or 2.5 percent appear to be Jewish. The Putnam Exam is the most difficult and prestigious mathematics competition for American college students, with five or six Putnam winners having been selected each year since 1938. Over 40 percent of the Putnam winners prior to 1950 were Jewish, and during every decade from the 1950s through the 1990s, between 22 percent and 31 percent of the winners seem to have come from that same ethnic background. But since 2000, the percentage has dropped to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish name in the last seven years.

    This consistent picture of stark ethnic decline recurs when we examine the statistics for the
    Science Talent Search, which has been selecting 40 students as national finalists for America’s most prestigious high school science award since 1942, thus providing a huge statistical dataset of over 2800 top science students. During every decade from the 1950s through the 1980s, Jewish students were consistently 22–23 percent of the recipients, with the percentage then declining to 17 percent in the 1990s, 15 percent in the 2000s, and just 7 percent since 2010. Indeed, of the thirty top ranked students over the last three years, only a single one seems likely to have been Jewish. Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just 5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave.

    Other science competitions provide generally consistent recent results, though without the long track record allowing useful historical comparisons. Over the last dozen years, just 8 percent of the top students in the Biology Olympiad have been Jewish, with none in the last three years. Between 1992 and 2012, only 11 percent of the winners of the Computing Olympiad had Jewish names, as did just 8 percent of the Siemens AP Award winners. And although I have only managed to locate the last two years of Chemistry Olympiad winners, these lists of 40 top students contained not a single probable Jewish name.

    Further evidence is supplied by Weyl, who estimated that over 8 percent of the 1987 NMS semifinalists were Jewish,60 a figure 35 percent higher than found in today’s results. Moreover, in that period the math and verbal scores were weighted equally for qualification purposes, but after 1997 the verbal score was double-weighted,61 which should have produced a large rise in the number of Jewish semifinalists, given the verbal-loading of Jewish ability. But instead, today’s Jewish numbers are far below those of the late 1980s.

    Taken in combination, these trends all provide powerful evidence that over the last decade or more there has been a dramatic collapse in Jewish academic achievement, at least at the high end.

     

    Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    There also seems to have been a very significant rise in Irish IQ from 87 (1972) to 100 (2009).

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/


    First, Lynn was hardly unique among leading IQ experts in characterizing the Irish as being low IQ. For example, Hans Eysenck, one of the foremost IQ researchers of the 20th century said exactly the same thing in his 1971 book “Race, Intelligence, & Education,” claiming that the Irish IQ was very close to that of American blacks, and that the Irish/English IQ gap was almost exactly the same size as the black/white gap in the U.S., being roughly a full standard deviation. Eysenck’s stated position unsurprisingly caused a considerable furor in the British media, including all sorts of angry responses and even (facetious) threats of violence. So the huge and apparently well-designed 1972 study of 3,466 Irish schoolchildren which placed the mean Irish IQ at just 87 hardly seems an absurd outlier.

    But let’s explore the Irish IQ data in a more systematic fashion. Although Lynn has inexplicibly dropped that 1972 study in his latest 2012 book, this new volume otherwise contains a plethora of additional Irish IQ studies, displaying a wide variety of results. Indeed, when we consider the total number of Irish studies–10–and the total aggregate sample size—over 20,000 individuals—we discover that Lynn provides us with more aggregate test data on the IQ of Ireland than for any other country in the entire world. Furthermore, since Lynn used British scores for normalization, and Ireland is geographically and culturally an immediate British neighbor as well as English-speaking, British tests could presumably be used without modification, reducing the risk of language or cultural bias during the translation process. Thus, I think a case can be made that we have more reliable information about the recent IQ history of the Irish than that of any other people in the world.

    And what does that information tell us? Here is the complete listing of all IQ studies provided by Lynn (omitting his careless duplications), including sample-size, year, and Flynn-adjusted score, to which I have added a 2009 IQ of 100 based on the recent PISA results, which were almost identical to those of Britain:
    96 (1964) = 90
    3466 (1972) = 87
    1361 (1988) = 97
    191 (1990) = 87
    2029 (1991) = 96
    1361 (1993) = 93
    2029 (1993) = 91
    10000 (2000) = 95
    3937 (2009 PISA) = 100
    200 (2012) = 92

    Now to my eye, this list of datapoints indicates a clear and obvious rise in Irish IQ, during which the gap to British scores steadily dropped from 13 points in 1972 to zero in 2009. But since my critics will surely say I’m as blind as a bat, I also took out my statistical toolkit and ran a weighted-correlation on the data, comparing year with IQ and weighting by sample size. The result was a correlation of 0.86. Indeed, the pattern is so robust that even if we drop the 2009 PISA score since “it’s not really IQ,” the correlation scarcely changes. Obviously, if tested Irish IQs were innate and unchanging as so many seem to claim, the correlation would have been 0.00, a very different value.

    Within the social sciences, a correlation of 0.86 is extraordinarily high, almost implausibly so. The inescapable conclusion is that Irish IQs rose at an almost linear rate during the three or four decades after 1972.

    Why this occurred is an entirely different matter. I find it extremely difficult to think of a plausible biological explanation, though others are welcome to try. During this exact period, Ireland was undergoing a very rapid rise in urbanization and affluence, and I’d suggest those factors. Perhaps there’s some other cause instead. But the empirical rise of Flynn-adjusted Irish IQ by nearly a full standard deviation in 37 years seems proven fact.

    This rapid convergence between Irish and British IQs should hardly surprise us. According to the GSS, the Wordsum-IQs of (Catholic) Irish-Americans rank among the very highest of any white ethnic group, with a value almost identical to that of their British-American ethnic cousins.
     
     

    Maybe we should convince American Blacks to move to Ireland? You know, let them experience all that Emerald Isle IQ voodoo…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    There also seems to have been a very significant rise in Irish IQ from 87 (1972) to 100 (2009).

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/


    First, Lynn was hardly unique among leading IQ experts in characterizing the Irish as being low IQ. For example, Hans Eysenck, one of the foremost IQ researchers of the 20th century said exactly the same thing in his 1971 book “Race, Intelligence, & Education,” claiming that the Irish IQ was very close to that of American blacks, and that the Irish/English IQ gap was almost exactly the same size as the black/white gap in the U.S., being roughly a full standard deviation. Eysenck’s stated position unsurprisingly caused a considerable furor in the British media, including all sorts of angry responses and even (facetious) threats of violence. So the huge and apparently well-designed 1972 study of 3,466 Irish schoolchildren which placed the mean Irish IQ at just 87 hardly seems an absurd outlier.

    But let’s explore the Irish IQ data in a more systematic fashion. Although Lynn has inexplicibly dropped that 1972 study in his latest 2012 book, this new volume otherwise contains a plethora of additional Irish IQ studies, displaying a wide variety of results. Indeed, when we consider the total number of Irish studies–10–and the total aggregate sample size—over 20,000 individuals—we discover that Lynn provides us with more aggregate test data on the IQ of Ireland than for any other country in the entire world. Furthermore, since Lynn used British scores for normalization, and Ireland is geographically and culturally an immediate British neighbor as well as English-speaking, British tests could presumably be used without modification, reducing the risk of language or cultural bias during the translation process. Thus, I think a case can be made that we have more reliable information about the recent IQ history of the Irish than that of any other people in the world.

    And what does that information tell us? Here is the complete listing of all IQ studies provided by Lynn (omitting his careless duplications), including sample-size, year, and Flynn-adjusted score, to which I have added a 2009 IQ of 100 based on the recent PISA results, which were almost identical to those of Britain:
    96 (1964) = 90
    3466 (1972) = 87
    1361 (1988) = 97
    191 (1990) = 87
    2029 (1991) = 96
    1361 (1993) = 93
    2029 (1993) = 91
    10000 (2000) = 95
    3937 (2009 PISA) = 100
    200 (2012) = 92

    Now to my eye, this list of datapoints indicates a clear and obvious rise in Irish IQ, during which the gap to British scores steadily dropped from 13 points in 1972 to zero in 2009. But since my critics will surely say I’m as blind as a bat, I also took out my statistical toolkit and ran a weighted-correlation on the data, comparing year with IQ and weighting by sample size. The result was a correlation of 0.86. Indeed, the pattern is so robust that even if we drop the 2009 PISA score since “it’s not really IQ,” the correlation scarcely changes. Obviously, if tested Irish IQs were innate and unchanging as so many seem to claim, the correlation would have been 0.00, a very different value.

    Within the social sciences, a correlation of 0.86 is extraordinarily high, almost implausibly so. The inescapable conclusion is that Irish IQs rose at an almost linear rate during the three or four decades after 1972.

    Why this occurred is an entirely different matter. I find it extremely difficult to think of a plausible biological explanation, though others are welcome to try. During this exact period, Ireland was undergoing a very rapid rise in urbanization and affluence, and I’d suggest those factors. Perhaps there’s some other cause instead. But the empirical rise of Flynn-adjusted Irish IQ by nearly a full standard deviation in 37 years seems proven fact.

    This rapid convergence between Irish and British IQs should hardly surprise us. According to the GSS, the Wordsum-IQs of (Catholic) Irish-Americans rank among the very highest of any white ethnic group, with a value almost identical to that of their British-American ethnic cousins.
     
     

    According to the GSS, the Wordsum-IQs of (Catholic) Irish-Americans rank among the very highest of any white ethnic group, with a value almost identical to that of their British-American ethnic cousins.

    How exactly do they determine Irish ancestry on those surveys? Is it self-reported?Because just about all the self-proclaimed (Catholic) Irish-Americans that I know are not completely Irish in terms of ancestry…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @syonredux

    I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn’t that true of almost all current immigrants?
     
    So when should we expect to see Mestizo Hispanics reaching Ashkenazi levels of achievement?

    One observational basis for inferring that Jews have high intelligence is their prevalence in intellectually demanding fields. While only about 2% of the U.S. population is of full Jewish descent,[2] 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century,[2][3] 25% of Fields Medal winners,[4] 25% of ACM Turing Award winners,[2] 9 out of the 19 world chess champions, and a quarter of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners have either full or partial Jewish ancestry
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

    Decline of Jewish achievement.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

    For example, consider California, second only to New York in the total number of its Jews, and with its Jewish percentage far above the national average. Over the last couple of years, blogger Steve Sailer and some of his commenters have examined the complete 2010 and 2012 NMS semifinalist lists of the 2000 or so top-scoring California high school seniors for ethnicity, and discovered that as few as 4–5 percent of the names seem to be Jewish, a figure not so dramatically different than the state’s 3.3 percent Jewish population, and an estimate which I have personally confirmed.54 Meanwhile, the state’s 13 percent Asians account for over 57 percent of the top performing students. Thus, it appears that California Asians are perhaps three times as likely as Jews to do extremely well on academic tests, and this result remains unchanged if we adjust for the age distributions of the two populations.

    One means of corroborating these surprising results is to consider the ratios of particularly distinctive ethnic names, and Sailer reported such exact findings made by one of his Jewish readers. For example, across the 2000-odd top scoring California students in 2010, there was just a single NMS semifinalist named Cohen, and also one each for Levy, Kaplan, and a last name beginning with “Gold.” Meanwhile, there were 49 Wangs and 36 Kims, plus a vast number of other highly distinctive Asian names. But according to Census data, the combined number of American Cohens and Levys together outnumber the Wangs almost two-to-one, and the same is true for the four most common names beginning with “Gold.” Put another way, California contains nearly one-fifth of all American Jews, hence almost 60,000 Cohens, Kaplans, Levys, Goldens, Goldsteins, Goldbergs, Goldmans, and Golds, and this population produced only 4 NMS semifinalists, a ratio almost identical to that produced by our general last name estimates. The 2012 California NMS semifinalist lists yield approximately the same ratios.

    When we consider the apparent number of Jewish students across the NMS semifinalist lists of other major states, we get roughly similar results. New York has always been the center of the American Jewish community, and at 8.4 percent is half again as heavily Jewish as any other state, while probably containing a large fraction of America’s Jewish financial and intellectual elite. Just as we might expect, the 2011 roster of New York NMS semifinalists is disproportionately filled with Jewish names, constituting about 21 percent of the total, a ratio twice as high as for any other state whose figures are available. But even here, New York’s smaller and much less affluent Asian population is far better represented, providing around 34 percent of the top scoring students. Jews and Asians are today about equal in number within New York City but whereas a generation ago, elite local public schools such as Stuyvesant were very heavily Jewish, today Jews are outnumbered at least several times over by Asians.55
    This same pattern of relative Asian and Jewish performance on aptitude exams

    The U.S. Math Olympiad began in 1974, and all the names of the top scoring students are easily available on the Internet. During the 1970s, well over 40 percent of the total were Jewish, and during the 1980s and 1990s, the fraction averaged about one-third. However, during the thirteen years since 2000, just two names out of 78 or 2.5 percent appear to be Jewish. The Putnam Exam is the most difficult and prestigious mathematics competition for American college students, with five or six Putnam winners having been selected each year since 1938. Over 40 percent of the Putnam winners prior to 1950 were Jewish, and during every decade from the 1950s through the 1990s, between 22 percent and 31 percent of the winners seem to have come from that same ethnic background. But since 2000, the percentage has dropped to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish name in the last seven years.

    This consistent picture of stark ethnic decline recurs when we examine the statistics for the
    Science Talent Search, which has been selecting 40 students as national finalists for America’s most prestigious high school science award since 1942, thus providing a huge statistical dataset of over 2800 top science students. During every decade from the 1950s through the 1980s, Jewish students were consistently 22–23 percent of the recipients, with the percentage then declining to 17 percent in the 1990s, 15 percent in the 2000s, and just 7 percent since 2010. Indeed, of the thirty top ranked students over the last three years, only a single one seems likely to have been Jewish. Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just 5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave.

    Other science competitions provide generally consistent recent results, though without the long track record allowing useful historical comparisons. Over the last dozen years, just 8 percent of the top students in the Biology Olympiad have been Jewish, with none in the last three years. Between 1992 and 2012, only 11 percent of the winners of the Computing Olympiad had Jewish names, as did just 8 percent of the Siemens AP Award winners. And although I have only managed to locate the last two years of Chemistry Olympiad winners, these lists of 40 top students contained not a single probable Jewish name.

    Further evidence is supplied by Weyl, who estimated that over 8 percent of the 1987 NMS semifinalists were Jewish,60 a figure 35 percent higher than found in today’s results. Moreover, in that period the math and verbal scores were weighted equally for qualification purposes, but after 1997 the verbal score was double-weighted,61 which should have produced a large rise in the number of Jewish semifinalists, given the verbal-loading of Jewish ability. But instead, today’s Jewish numbers are far below those of the late 1980s.

    Taken in combination, these trends all provide powerful evidence that over the last decade or more there has been a dramatic collapse in Jewish academic achievement, at least at the high end.

    Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.
     
    So, if we raise a bunch of Hispanic Mestizos according to the Ashkenazi Jewish cultural norms that prevailed during the period, say, 1920-1960, they're going to equal the achievements that Jews made during that period? And we'll start seeing Hispanic Mestizo versions of Richard Feynman? I'm sold! When can we start?
    , @syonredux

    Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.
     
    When will the Ashkenazi success rate drop to the Black American level?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Decline of Jewish achievement.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

    For example, consider California, second only to New York in the total number of its Jews, and with its Jewish percentage far above the national average. Over the last couple of years, blogger Steve Sailer and some of his commenters have examined the complete 2010 and 2012 NMS semifinalist lists of the 2000 or so top-scoring California high school seniors for ethnicity, and discovered that as few as 4–5 percent of the names seem to be Jewish, a figure not so dramatically different than the state’s 3.3 percent Jewish population, and an estimate which I have personally confirmed.54 Meanwhile, the state’s 13 percent Asians account for over 57 percent of the top performing students. Thus, it appears that California Asians are perhaps three times as likely as Jews to do extremely well on academic tests, and this result remains unchanged if we adjust for the age distributions of the two populations.

    One means of corroborating these surprising results is to consider the ratios of particularly distinctive ethnic names, and Sailer reported such exact findings made by one of his Jewish readers. For example, across the 2000-odd top scoring California students in 2010, there was just a single NMS semifinalist named Cohen, and also one each for Levy, Kaplan, and a last name beginning with “Gold.” Meanwhile, there were 49 Wangs and 36 Kims, plus a vast number of other highly distinctive Asian names. But according to Census data, the combined number of American Cohens and Levys together outnumber the Wangs almost two-to-one, and the same is true for the four most common names beginning with “Gold.” Put another way, California contains nearly one-fifth of all American Jews, hence almost 60,000 Cohens, Kaplans, Levys, Goldens, Goldsteins, Goldbergs, Goldmans, and Golds, and this population produced only 4 NMS semifinalists, a ratio almost identical to that produced by our general last name estimates. The 2012 California NMS semifinalist lists yield approximately the same ratios.

    When we consider the apparent number of Jewish students across the NMS semifinalist lists of other major states, we get roughly similar results. New York has always been the center of the American Jewish community, and at 8.4 percent is half again as heavily Jewish as any other state, while probably containing a large fraction of America’s Jewish financial and intellectual elite. Just as we might expect, the 2011 roster of New York NMS semifinalists is disproportionately filled with Jewish names, constituting about 21 percent of the total, a ratio twice as high as for any other state whose figures are available. But even here, New York’s smaller and much less affluent Asian population is far better represented, providing around 34 percent of the top scoring students. Jews and Asians are today about equal in number within New York City but whereas a generation ago, elite local public schools such as Stuyvesant were very heavily Jewish, today Jews are outnumbered at least several times over by Asians.55
    This same pattern of relative Asian and Jewish performance on aptitude exams

     


    The U.S. Math Olympiad began in 1974, and all the names of the top scoring students are easily available on the Internet. During the 1970s, well over 40 percent of the total were Jewish, and during the 1980s and 1990s, the fraction averaged about one-third. However, during the thirteen years since 2000, just two names out of 78 or 2.5 percent appear to be Jewish. The Putnam Exam is the most difficult and prestigious mathematics competition for American college students, with five or six Putnam winners having been selected each year since 1938. Over 40 percent of the Putnam winners prior to 1950 were Jewish, and during every decade from the 1950s through the 1990s, between 22 percent and 31 percent of the winners seem to have come from that same ethnic background. But since 2000, the percentage has dropped to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish name in the last seven years.

    This consistent picture of stark ethnic decline recurs when we examine the statistics for the
    Science Talent Search, which has been selecting 40 students as national finalists for America’s most prestigious high school science award since 1942, thus providing a huge statistical dataset of over 2800 top science students. During every decade from the 1950s through the 1980s, Jewish students were consistently 22–23 percent of the recipients, with the percentage then declining to 17 percent in the 1990s, 15 percent in the 2000s, and just 7 percent since 2010. Indeed, of the thirty top ranked students over the last three years, only a single one seems likely to have been Jewish. Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just 5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave.

    Other science competitions provide generally consistent recent results, though without the long track record allowing useful historical comparisons. Over the last dozen years, just 8 percent of the top students in the Biology Olympiad have been Jewish, with none in the last three years. Between 1992 and 2012, only 11 percent of the winners of the Computing Olympiad had Jewish names, as did just 8 percent of the Siemens AP Award winners. And although I have only managed to locate the last two years of Chemistry Olympiad winners, these lists of 40 top students contained not a single probable Jewish name.

    Further evidence is supplied by Weyl, who estimated that over 8 percent of the 1987 NMS semifinalists were Jewish,60 a figure 35 percent higher than found in today’s results. Moreover, in that period the math and verbal scores were weighted equally for qualification purposes, but after 1997 the verbal score was double-weighted,61 which should have produced a large rise in the number of Jewish semifinalists, given the verbal-loading of Jewish ability. But instead, today’s Jewish numbers are far below those of the late 1980s.

    Taken in combination, these trends all provide powerful evidence that over the last decade or more there has been a dramatic collapse in Jewish academic achievement, at least at the high end.

     

    Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.

    Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.

    So, if we raise a bunch of Hispanic Mestizos according to the Ashkenazi Jewish cultural norms that prevailed during the period, say, 1920-1960, they’re going to equal the achievements that Jews made during that period? And we’ll start seeing Hispanic Mestizo versions of Richard Feynman? I’m sold! When can we start?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Pericles says:
    @Clark Westwood

    They think this is an *argument* that The Bell Curve advances, not a simple observed fact about test results.
     
    I think this is a very important point that we iSteve readers and the like tend to forget.

    I had a (well-educated, talented, white, lesbian) friend who attended John Derbyshire's 2010 talk at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on group differences in IQ. (Recounted at the link below.) Even several days later when she told me about the experience, my friend was still outraged at Derbyshire's simply mentioning the fact that the black-white gap exists. She couldn't believe that he had even been invited to speak and (although she didn't use the term) felt that at a minimum a trigger warning should have been given to attendees.

    http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/upennlaw.html

    Poor old girl, her post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a mention of the black-white gap. Foaming on the floor, screaming and searching for the door out while appalled academics look on, sweating bullets, huddled in pain with chattering teeth, mindlessly cutting herself in the lecture hall, once again fleeing back into the fentanyl haze she brought in her tote bag. What happened to you, ole lez? Whatever in the world happened to you? Was it patriarchy.

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

    The Vox authors did deviate from the usual strategy, the usual being cursory dismissal, ad hominem attacks, distractions about Pioneer Fund, etc. Based on the title (“junk science”), that’s what I expected. I was surprised to see them actually engage, and I was further surprised to see them casually cede some much ground. They essentially redeployed all the troops to defend the “racial gap isn’t genetic” position, abandoning most everything else.

    Here’s why they don’t make a very compelling case: They lazily note something like the Flynn effect and act like this, in and of itself, is some sort of kill shot. (They also seemed to think their line about there being no single intelligence gene was a kill shot). These arguments come down to some variant of “it’s possible it’s not genetic” or “it’s possible the gap will close someday.”

    So you’re telling me there’s a chance!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Decline of Jewish achievement.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

    For example, consider California, second only to New York in the total number of its Jews, and with its Jewish percentage far above the national average. Over the last couple of years, blogger Steve Sailer and some of his commenters have examined the complete 2010 and 2012 NMS semifinalist lists of the 2000 or so top-scoring California high school seniors for ethnicity, and discovered that as few as 4–5 percent of the names seem to be Jewish, a figure not so dramatically different than the state’s 3.3 percent Jewish population, and an estimate which I have personally confirmed.54 Meanwhile, the state’s 13 percent Asians account for over 57 percent of the top performing students. Thus, it appears that California Asians are perhaps three times as likely as Jews to do extremely well on academic tests, and this result remains unchanged if we adjust for the age distributions of the two populations.

    One means of corroborating these surprising results is to consider the ratios of particularly distinctive ethnic names, and Sailer reported such exact findings made by one of his Jewish readers. For example, across the 2000-odd top scoring California students in 2010, there was just a single NMS semifinalist named Cohen, and also one each for Levy, Kaplan, and a last name beginning with “Gold.” Meanwhile, there were 49 Wangs and 36 Kims, plus a vast number of other highly distinctive Asian names. But according to Census data, the combined number of American Cohens and Levys together outnumber the Wangs almost two-to-one, and the same is true for the four most common names beginning with “Gold.” Put another way, California contains nearly one-fifth of all American Jews, hence almost 60,000 Cohens, Kaplans, Levys, Goldens, Goldsteins, Goldbergs, Goldmans, and Golds, and this population produced only 4 NMS semifinalists, a ratio almost identical to that produced by our general last name estimates. The 2012 California NMS semifinalist lists yield approximately the same ratios.

    When we consider the apparent number of Jewish students across the NMS semifinalist lists of other major states, we get roughly similar results. New York has always been the center of the American Jewish community, and at 8.4 percent is half again as heavily Jewish as any other state, while probably containing a large fraction of America’s Jewish financial and intellectual elite. Just as we might expect, the 2011 roster of New York NMS semifinalists is disproportionately filled with Jewish names, constituting about 21 percent of the total, a ratio twice as high as for any other state whose figures are available. But even here, New York’s smaller and much less affluent Asian population is far better represented, providing around 34 percent of the top scoring students. Jews and Asians are today about equal in number within New York City but whereas a generation ago, elite local public schools such as Stuyvesant were very heavily Jewish, today Jews are outnumbered at least several times over by Asians.55
    This same pattern of relative Asian and Jewish performance on aptitude exams

     


    The U.S. Math Olympiad began in 1974, and all the names of the top scoring students are easily available on the Internet. During the 1970s, well over 40 percent of the total were Jewish, and during the 1980s and 1990s, the fraction averaged about one-third. However, during the thirteen years since 2000, just two names out of 78 or 2.5 percent appear to be Jewish. The Putnam Exam is the most difficult and prestigious mathematics competition for American college students, with five or six Putnam winners having been selected each year since 1938. Over 40 percent of the Putnam winners prior to 1950 were Jewish, and during every decade from the 1950s through the 1990s, between 22 percent and 31 percent of the winners seem to have come from that same ethnic background. But since 2000, the percentage has dropped to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish name in the last seven years.

    This consistent picture of stark ethnic decline recurs when we examine the statistics for the
    Science Talent Search, which has been selecting 40 students as national finalists for America’s most prestigious high school science award since 1942, thus providing a huge statistical dataset of over 2800 top science students. During every decade from the 1950s through the 1980s, Jewish students were consistently 22–23 percent of the recipients, with the percentage then declining to 17 percent in the 1990s, 15 percent in the 2000s, and just 7 percent since 2010. Indeed, of the thirty top ranked students over the last three years, only a single one seems likely to have been Jewish. Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just 5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave.

    Other science competitions provide generally consistent recent results, though without the long track record allowing useful historical comparisons. Over the last dozen years, just 8 percent of the top students in the Biology Olympiad have been Jewish, with none in the last three years. Between 1992 and 2012, only 11 percent of the winners of the Computing Olympiad had Jewish names, as did just 8 percent of the Siemens AP Award winners. And although I have only managed to locate the last two years of Chemistry Olympiad winners, these lists of 40 top students contained not a single probable Jewish name.

    Further evidence is supplied by Weyl, who estimated that over 8 percent of the 1987 NMS semifinalists were Jewish,60 a figure 35 percent higher than found in today’s results. Moreover, in that period the math and verbal scores were weighted equally for qualification purposes, but after 1997 the verbal score was double-weighted,61 which should have produced a large rise in the number of Jewish semifinalists, given the verbal-loading of Jewish ability. But instead, today’s Jewish numbers are far below those of the late 1980s.

    Taken in combination, these trends all provide powerful evidence that over the last decade or more there has been a dramatic collapse in Jewish academic achievement, at least at the high end.

     

    Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.

    Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.

    When will the Ashkenazi success rate drop to the Black American level?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @mobi

    You had me puzzled for a few minutes…
    I think your observation is actually on the mark, but I think it serves to confirm the point you were opposing.
    I think it is actually a very good point… in support of nurture.
     
    In my defence, I think my general point remains valid - that the stated result isn't 'proof of environment' if the pairings studied were drawn from different parts of their respective pools.

    I erred on the specifics of who was probably drawn from where.

    My anecdotal impression is that white male/black female pairs tend to be less ghetto than the reverse.

    But that's a modern day impression. The result showing an 8-points higher IQ for offspring of white female/black male vs the opposite appears to trace back to a single study - very small (120 or so kids) - in the early 1970s. And a study of 4 year olds, to boot.

    It's mostly behind a paywall, but discussion of it elsewhere concedes that the black males involved were unusually well-educated for their group. I would also assume white females in 1974 were under considerably more pressure to avoid pairing with black males unless they were fairly high-status, than is the case today.

    I don't know how valid the finding is still considered (beyond simply how valid it's assumed to be by those who want it be valid).

    This is actually a tricky issue, and I think it deserves more attention.
    I wasn’t aware of the results mentioned above…. but I think some reflection is warranted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. dr kill says:
    @gcochran
    Al the regression is in the first generation.

    But there is a similar effect with each new first generation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    It all depends on how the parents of the "first generation" have been picked out.

    If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.

    If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.

    The key difference is that if the parents are selected by performance on some measurement, then they are going to be, on average, luckier than most on those components of that measurement that are based on luck. If they are selected for other reasons, there will be no expectation that they will be luckier than most.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. res says:

    Razib’s response to the Vox piece is depressing (also see his comments there): https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/18/the-misrepresentation-of-genetic-science-in-the-vox-piece-on-race-and-iq/
    It looks like the PC Komissars are really getting to him. It must be brutal to be a geneticist inclined towards truth telling right now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    No wonder! After seeing Murray thrown under the bus, what is a lowly postgraduate like Razib Khan supposed to expect from the usual suspects? After all, he's got two small children to feed. Sad. Razib shouldn't have come out of the hbd closet until tenure. Well, he still could have pursued a career of some kind in his native Bangladesh if he hadn't committed apostasy.
    Here's a lesson for all Asians: the Asian card won't save you from being called a racist hbd'er...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. TWS says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    I've often wondered how much underreporting results in racial crime multiples being underestimated.

    La Griffe did estimate that blacks have 4x the violent crime rate of Hispanics. If we assume that underreporting is no more an issue for Hispanics than blacks, then I suppose we can conclude Hispanics (on average) are 1/4th as violent as blacks.

    However, the question is this. How violent are blacks?

    According to La Griffe's analysis of urban violent crime, blacks are about 4.5x as violent as whites. Recorded incarceration rates are about 6-7x as high. However, if we assume there's a high rate of underreported violent crime in black (as well as Hispanic) areas, then that multiple could be MUCH higher.

    This is an interesting issue, but I'd like to see more than anecdotes. Not that anecdotes don't matter (they do), but some data would help us to make a forceful case.

    If blacks and Hispanics commit a lot of violent crime that's unrecorded, then that'd be interesting to know.

    Incarceration under counts crime. For instance, it takes eight or so convictions for auto theft before you get prison time. Now you are not arrested every time you commit a crime. Murder rates in Chicago are in single digits. Imagine how many murders are running free in Chicago. Trayvon Martin was a known burglar with burglary tools and stolen property and the authorities did everything to keep him from facing the consequences.

    Michael Brown was a ‘gentle giant’ even after we saw him commit felony assault on cctv. He’s not the exception that’s the rule. Why do we have so many drug convictions? Because everything gets pled down to the easiest and least penalty. And dirt bags always have drugs. You go to a domestic and the wife is beating her husband and kids with a bong. Some strong arm guy decides to show his ass to cops and he’s got a bindle fold of coke in his pocket.

    I guarantee you if Brown had been arrested he would probably been pled down to his drug possession and received treatment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. gcochran says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Here are Jewish IQ scores from Project Talent (1960). N = 1236. The sample were high school students.

    Verbal comprehension factor—107.8
    English language—99.5
    Mathematics—109.7
    Visual reasoning —91.3
    Perceptual speed and accuracy—102.2
    Memory —95.1

    Given the immigration cut off in 1924, I'd assume almost all the Jewish students were 2nd generation native-born in the Project Talent sample. Language shouldn't have been an issue.

    In more recent years, Jewish-American Verbal IQ has been estimated in the 117-125 range. Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.

    Based on the Project Talent data, I'd conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era. So that'd suggest that Ron Unz's malleable IQ hypothesis is correct. If he's wrong, why did Jewish IQ continue to rise even after 1960?

    I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn't that true of almost all current immigrants? Also, from what I gather, English was the first language for Jews (especially Jewish youths) even back in the 1960s.

    MacDonald’s numbers are based on bupkus.

    As for Yiddish being the first language of Jewish youth in the 1960s: no sir. Totally false. Very rare by that time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    So if Project Talent estimated Jewish verbal IQ to be 107.8 in 1960 and Jewish verbal IQ is now estimated at 117, then what explains the rise?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Glaivester
    This brings up a question - regression to the mean would decrease drastically in the second generation, would it not? That is, if there were two sets of parents both sets with a parental average of 140, and one of each of their children married with their average IQ being 128, the expected IQ of any offspring produced would be higher than that of randomly picked people with IQs of 128, correct?

    The answer to the exact question you asked is, yes, the expected IQ of the progeny of randomly selected parents of IQ 128 would be less than 128 (as according to the breeder’s equation) but the expected IQ of the progeny of the progeny of parents of 140 IQ would be 128 — the same as that of the progeny of the parents of 140 IQ themselves.

    A lot of how these questions get answered depends on the exact method of picking out the class of interest — pretty typical of questions in probability and statistics.

    All of which reminds me of one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever encountered regarding the question of race vs. IQ. It was generated by a famous philosopher of mind, and “philosopher of science”, Ned Block, along with a fellow philosopher Gerald Dworkin. They argued that the one SD difference between blacks and whites was, in effect, really only half a standard deviation, because the principle of regression to the mean implied that (roughly) half of it would go away were they to repeat the test. They seemed not to grasp that picking out a reference class using as criterion their performance on a given IQ test is not the same as picking them out by means of something like racial group. (Nor did basic sanity checks on an inference like theirs seem to occur to them, such as, what is, on average, the repeat performance of the same individual black student on various IQ tests?)

    I’m not sure that Block and Dworkin continue to peddle this impressively stupid argument, but they certainly had done so for several decades.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @dr kill
    But there is a similar effect with each new first generation.

    It all depends on how the parents of the “first generation” have been picked out.

    If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.

    If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.

    The key difference is that if the parents are selected by performance on some measurement, then they are going to be, on average, luckier than most on those components of that measurement that are based on luck. If they are selected for other reasons, there will be no expectation that they will be luckier than most.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    As I think about it, if parents are selected for economic class, there will of course be some regression to the mean in their kids. But this is again a case in which the measurement of economic class is based on metrics that involve a certain amount of luck. Therefore their children won't do on average as well as they, enjoying only average luck.
    , @utu
    It all depends on how the parents of the “first generation” have been picked out.

    If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.

    If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.

    How the breeder's equation is supposed to know when to work and when it not to supposed to work? How is this extra information carried?

    If breeder's equation would work in general then the variance of parent generation would be larger than the variance of children generation. But we do no see it, right? IQ's do not converge to 100, right? Since we do not see the reduction of variance then the regression to the mean effect implied by the breeder's equation must be counteracted statistically by an opposite effect.
    Thus it is not correct to say that if parents have IQ=140 then children IQ will be, say, 128 as a general statistical rule. There must be parents of IQ<140 who will produce children with IQ=140 to replace the parents of the children with IQ=128 in order to keep the variance unchanged.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @candid_observer
    It all depends on how the parents of the "first generation" have been picked out.

    If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.

    If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.

    The key difference is that if the parents are selected by performance on some measurement, then they are going to be, on average, luckier than most on those components of that measurement that are based on luck. If they are selected for other reasons, there will be no expectation that they will be luckier than most.

    As I think about it, if parents are selected for economic class, there will of course be some regression to the mean in their kids. But this is again a case in which the measurement of economic class is based on metrics that involve a certain amount of luck. Therefore their children won’t do on average as well as they, enjoying only average luck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. eah says:
    @eah
    https://twitter.com/occdissent/status/865983327114674176

    Unreal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. utu says:
    @candid_observer
    It all depends on how the parents of the "first generation" have been picked out.

    If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.

    If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.

    The key difference is that if the parents are selected by performance on some measurement, then they are going to be, on average, luckier than most on those components of that measurement that are based on luck. If they are selected for other reasons, there will be no expectation that they will be luckier than most.

    It all depends on how the parents of the “first generation” have been picked out.

    If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.

    If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.

    How the breeder’s equation is supposed to know when to work and when it not to supposed to work? How is this extra information carried?

    If breeder’s equation would work in general then the variance of parent generation would be larger than the variance of children generation. But we do no see it, right? IQ’s do not converge to 100, right? Since we do not see the reduction of variance then the regression to the mean effect implied by the breeder’s equation must be counteracted statistically by an opposite effect.
    Thus it is not correct to say that if parents have IQ=140 then children IQ will be, say, 128 as a general statistical rule. There must be parents of IQ<140 who will produce children with IQ=140 to replace the parents of the children with IQ=128 in order to keep the variance unchanged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    At base, the breeder's equation is a statistical statement. It produces a prediction of a trait measurement in progeny based purely on a measurement of that trait in the parents, and knowing nothing more. Insofar as one knows further information about a class in that population the predictions might well be different. If we know a set of parents were the children of a randomly selected parents from the pool of 140 IQ individuals, then we know something more, and will make different predictions.

    So it's not "what the breeder equation knows." It's what we know when we make our predictions. Sometimes the breeder equation applies; sometimes it does not.

    As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).

    If the breeder's equation predicts an IQ of 128 for a set of parents of IQ 140, then that's an expected, average, value. Some children will indeed score 140 (or above) -- as will a certain number whose parents are less than 140, and a number whose parents are more than 140. The way it works is that, across the full population of parents, enough of their children will score 140 that the same number of children will have 140 IQ as did the parents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @gcochran
    MacDonald's numbers are based on bupkus.

    As for Yiddish being the first language of Jewish youth in the 1960s: no sir. Totally false. Very rare by that time.

    So if Project Talent estimated Jewish verbal IQ to be 107.8 in 1960 and Jewish verbal IQ is now estimated at 117, then what explains the rise?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. DRA says:
    @syonredux

    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same
     
    .

    "[A]dmittedly crude" is an understatement. For infants, we don't have IQ tests; we have "liveliness" tests.....And East Asian infants perform rather poorly on them:

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/

    And comparing infant IQ is like testing infant prowess at the 100 meter dash. I'm pretty sure that Black and White six-month old babies are pretty much equal at that one.....but differences do develop later in life.....I suppose that that's due to disparate environments...

    By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.
     
    Genetic differences trump environment as we age....

    Seems that I read somewhere that different populations mature at different rates. As IQ is a ratio of intellectual age to chronological age, that may square the circle.

    Related, I remember it seemed that many “big-men-on campus” in high school turned out to be more average in adult life. Perhaps for the same reason of differing maturation rates, even within a population. Never read it anywhere, just personal perception.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Springsteen has a song about peaking in high school: Glory Days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @DRA
    Seems that I read somewhere that different populations mature at different rates. As IQ is a ratio of intellectual age to chronological age, that may square the circle.

    Related, I remember it seemed that many "big-men-on campus" in high school turned out to be more average in adult life. Perhaps for the same reason of differing maturation rates, even within a population. Never read it anywhere, just personal perception.

    Springsteen has a song about peaking in high school: Glory Days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @utu
    It all depends on how the parents of the “first generation” have been picked out.

    If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.

    If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.

    How the breeder's equation is supposed to know when to work and when it not to supposed to work? How is this extra information carried?

    If breeder's equation would work in general then the variance of parent generation would be larger than the variance of children generation. But we do no see it, right? IQ's do not converge to 100, right? Since we do not see the reduction of variance then the regression to the mean effect implied by the breeder's equation must be counteracted statistically by an opposite effect.
    Thus it is not correct to say that if parents have IQ=140 then children IQ will be, say, 128 as a general statistical rule. There must be parents of IQ<140 who will produce children with IQ=140 to replace the parents of the children with IQ=128 in order to keep the variance unchanged.

    At base, the breeder’s equation is a statistical statement. It produces a prediction of a trait measurement in progeny based purely on a measurement of that trait in the parents, and knowing nothing more. Insofar as one knows further information about a class in that population the predictions might well be different. If we know a set of parents were the children of a randomly selected parents from the pool of 140 IQ individuals, then we know something more, and will make different predictions.

    So it’s not “what the breeder equation knows.” It’s what we know when we make our predictions. Sometimes the breeder equation applies; sometimes it does not.

    As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).

    If the breeder’s equation predicts an IQ of 128 for a set of parents of IQ 140, then that’s an expected, average, value. Some children will indeed score 140 (or above) — as will a certain number whose parents are less than 140, and a number whose parents are more than 140. The way it works is that, across the full population of parents, enough of their children will score 140 that the same number of children will have 140 IQ as did the parents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    As I think about it, probably a better way to think about when the breeder's equation applies is consider whether the model assumptions are satisfied in a particular case: e.g., it is applying to a full population, from which parents are randomly selected, and predictions made about the (expected) trait value of their children are based solely on the trait measurement of the parents.

    The issue isn't so much what we know, but whether the model assumptions apply. Thus, for example, we might stumble upon a set of individuals whose average IQ is 128, but (unbeknownst to us) all of whom happen to be children of parents of 140 IQ. Using the breeder's equation, we might predict that their children's IQ would be 119.6. But that would be an incorrect prediction because the assumptions of the model weren't satisfied.
    , @utu
    Thank you for your explanations.

    As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).

    I begin to see that the breeder's equation does not need to contradict the observation that the variance of population is constant. For IQ_parent the breeder's equation predicts the expected value of children IQ_child

    E(IQ_child) = Mean+ (IQ_parent -Mean)*h^2
     
    where h^2≤1 is heritability which probably is not constant across the population but depends on IQ_parent. IQ_child is a random variable with mean E(IQ_child) and some variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) that probably must be dependent on IQ_parent. Say, this variable IQ_child has a normal distribution. The question is what constraints must be imposed on the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) to assure than variance of population V(IQ) remains unchanged. Knowing the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) we will be able to answer the question what is a the probability of having offspring of equal or higher IQ than your IQ if your IQ is (IQ -Mean) points off of the Mean?

    So when we talk about the breeder's equation and the implied regression to the mean we do not need to sound alarmist. The "smart fraction" will not be lost. Equally smart children will be born. So if your children are not as smart as you do not despair. Somebody will produce children that are as smart as you. Population's statistics will remain unchanged.
    ___________

    (i) I have an impression that the regression to the mean is way too often invoked in an alarmist way.

    (ii) It would be interesting to find out who has a higher probability of having children smarter than them: parents with IQ=120 or parents with IQ=140? To answer this, as I said above I think we need to know V(IQ_child|IQ_parent). There should be some empirical data that V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) could be estimated.

    (iii) The breeder's equation does not tell us what happens to the Mean when the actual mean of population is changing as the result e.g. that smarter people have less children than others. The Mean in the equation is not the actual mean but it will not remain unchanged.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @candid_observer
    At base, the breeder's equation is a statistical statement. It produces a prediction of a trait measurement in progeny based purely on a measurement of that trait in the parents, and knowing nothing more. Insofar as one knows further information about a class in that population the predictions might well be different. If we know a set of parents were the children of a randomly selected parents from the pool of 140 IQ individuals, then we know something more, and will make different predictions.

    So it's not "what the breeder equation knows." It's what we know when we make our predictions. Sometimes the breeder equation applies; sometimes it does not.

    As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).

    If the breeder's equation predicts an IQ of 128 for a set of parents of IQ 140, then that's an expected, average, value. Some children will indeed score 140 (or above) -- as will a certain number whose parents are less than 140, and a number whose parents are more than 140. The way it works is that, across the full population of parents, enough of their children will score 140 that the same number of children will have 140 IQ as did the parents.

    As I think about it, probably a better way to think about when the breeder’s equation applies is consider whether the model assumptions are satisfied in a particular case: e.g., it is applying to a full population, from which parents are randomly selected, and predictions made about the (expected) trait value of their children are based solely on the trait measurement of the parents.

    The issue isn’t so much what we know, but whether the model assumptions apply. Thus, for example, we might stumble upon a set of individuals whose average IQ is 128, but (unbeknownst to us) all of whom happen to be children of parents of 140 IQ. Using the breeder’s equation, we might predict that their children’s IQ would be 119.6. But that would be an incorrect prediction because the assumptions of the model weren’t satisfied.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. utu says:
    @candid_observer
    At base, the breeder's equation is a statistical statement. It produces a prediction of a trait measurement in progeny based purely on a measurement of that trait in the parents, and knowing nothing more. Insofar as one knows further information about a class in that population the predictions might well be different. If we know a set of parents were the children of a randomly selected parents from the pool of 140 IQ individuals, then we know something more, and will make different predictions.

    So it's not "what the breeder equation knows." It's what we know when we make our predictions. Sometimes the breeder equation applies; sometimes it does not.

    As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).

    If the breeder's equation predicts an IQ of 128 for a set of parents of IQ 140, then that's an expected, average, value. Some children will indeed score 140 (or above) -- as will a certain number whose parents are less than 140, and a number whose parents are more than 140. The way it works is that, across the full population of parents, enough of their children will score 140 that the same number of children will have 140 IQ as did the parents.

    Thank you for your explanations.

    As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).

    I begin to see that the breeder’s equation does not need to contradict the observation that the variance of population is constant. For IQ_parent the breeder’s equation predicts the expected value of children IQ_child

    E(IQ_child) = Mean+ (IQ_parent -Mean)*h^2

    where h^2≤1 is heritability which probably is not constant across the population but depends on IQ_parent. IQ_child is a random variable with mean E(IQ_child) and some variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) that probably must be dependent on IQ_parent. Say, this variable IQ_child has a normal distribution. The question is what constraints must be imposed on the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) to assure than variance of population V(IQ) remains unchanged. Knowing the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) we will be able to answer the question what is a the probability of having offspring of equal or higher IQ than your IQ if your IQ is (IQ -Mean) points off of the Mean?

    So when we talk about the breeder’s equation and the implied regression to the mean we do not need to sound alarmist. The “smart fraction” will not be lost. Equally smart children will be born. So if your children are not as smart as you do not despair. Somebody will produce children that are as smart as you. Population’s statistics will remain unchanged.
    ___________

    (i) I have an impression that the regression to the mean is way too often invoked in an alarmist way.

    (ii) It would be interesting to find out who has a higher probability of having children smarter than them: parents with IQ=120 or parents with IQ=140? To answer this, as I said above I think we need to know V(IQ_child|IQ_parent). There should be some empirical data that V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) could be estimated.

    (iii) The breeder’s equation does not tell us what happens to the Mean when the actual mean of population is changing as the result e.g. that smarter people have less children than others. The Mean in the equation is not the actual mean but it will not remain unchanged.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. b.t.o says:
    @Clark Westwood

    They think this is an *argument* that The Bell Curve advances, not a simple observed fact about test results.
     
    I think this is a very important point that we iSteve readers and the like tend to forget.

    I had a (well-educated, talented, white, lesbian) friend who attended John Derbyshire's 2010 talk at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on group differences in IQ. (Recounted at the link below.) Even several days later when she told me about the experience, my friend was still outraged at Derbyshire's simply mentioning the fact that the black-white gap exists. She couldn't believe that he had even been invited to speak and (although she didn't use the term) felt that at a minimum a trigger warning should have been given to attendees.

    http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/upennlaw.html

    And right on cue Brookings just noted research showing that 50% of voters don’t even know the racial achievement gap exists.

    Imagine being an american in the current climate trying to make sense of the zeitgeist while concurrently believing there is no difference between blacks and whites in standardize testing achievement, graduation rates, years of schooling etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Can you point me to that research? I searched and the closest I saw was https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/01/16/race-class-and-americans-perspectives-of-achievement-gaps/
    which discusses how people feel about class and race based achievement gaps, but as far as I can tell just assumed people knew the gaps existed. Their main point was that people thought it was more important to attempt closing the class gaps. It also had this interesting tidbit:

    Perhaps most unnerving from the perspective of racial attitudes, we found that almost half of respondents assigned to either the white-black or white-Hispanic gap group (44 percent of each) said that “none” of that test score gap could be explained by discrimination or injustice in society.
     
    Holy crimethink, Batman. But see PS below and Table A4, not really crimethink IMHO, just spun that way (which is in itself interesting).

    Underlying paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X16658447

    P.S. Looking closer, perhaps you are referring to Table A4 which shows 69% think there is no genetic contribution to the black-white gap. That table is very interesting. It looks at the three gaps (poor-wealthy, black-white, hispanic-white) and breaks survey responses for the importance of discrimination/injustice, student motivation, parenting, and genetic differences down into four categories (none, a little, some, a great deal) by race and separately by income ($100k, unfortunately not controlled by race).

    Looking at that table for the black-white gap is illuminating in a very iSteveish sense. Whites and high earners are most skeptical of genetic differences. Blacks are most skeptical (by a large margin) of parenting as a contributor. More whites thought genetic differences explained part of the poor-wealthy test gap than for the B-W gap.

    Direct link to Table A4

    Worth noting that (Table 1) the overall unweighted sample was 8/6/78/7% black/hispanic/white/other and they weighted it to 11/12/70/7% so whites tend to dominate the average values.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. BB753 says:
    @res
    Razib's response to the Vox piece is depressing (also see his comments there): https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/18/the-misrepresentation-of-genetic-science-in-the-vox-piece-on-race-and-iq/
    It looks like the PC Komissars are really getting to him. It must be brutal to be a geneticist inclined towards truth telling right now.

    No wonder! After seeing Murray thrown under the bus, what is a lowly postgraduate like Razib Khan supposed to expect from the usual suspects? After all, he’s got two small children to feed. Sad. Razib shouldn’t have come out of the hbd closet until tenure. Well, he still could have pursued a career of some kind in his native Bangladesh if he hadn’t committed apostasy.
    Here’s a lesson for all Asians: the Asian card won’t save you from being called a racist hbd’er…

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Agreed. And Razib has made similar comments in the past, but that was the most defeatist sounding I have ever heard him.

    FWIW tenure (and being a white woman) aren't completely protective either. Look up Linda Gottfredson.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. res says:
    @b.t.o
    And right on cue Brookings just noted research showing that 50% of voters don't even know the racial achievement gap exists.

    Imagine being an american in the current climate trying to make sense of the zeitgeist while concurrently believing there is no difference between blacks and whites in standardize testing achievement, graduation rates, years of schooling etc.

    Can you point me to that research? I searched and the closest I saw was https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/01/16/race-class-and-americans-perspectives-of-achievement-gaps/
    which discusses how people feel about class and race based achievement gaps, but as far as I can tell just assumed people knew the gaps existed. Their main point was that people thought it was more important to attempt closing the class gaps. It also had this interesting tidbit:

    Perhaps most unnerving from the perspective of racial attitudes, we found that almost half of respondents assigned to either the white-black or white-Hispanic gap group (44 percent of each) said that “none” of that test score gap could be explained by discrimination or injustice in society.

    Holy crimethink, Batman. But see PS below and Table A4, not really crimethink IMHO, just spun that way (which is in itself interesting).

    Underlying paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X16658447

    P.S. Looking closer, perhaps you are referring to Table A4 which shows 69% think there is no genetic contribution to the black-white gap. That table is very interesting. It looks at the three gaps (poor-wealthy, black-white, hispanic-white) and breaks survey responses for the importance of discrimination/injustice, student motivation, parenting, and genetic differences down into four categories (none, a little, some, a great deal) by race and separately by income ($100k, unfortunately not controlled by race).

    Looking at that table for the black-white gap is illuminating in a very iSteveish sense. Whites and high earners are most skeptical of genetic differences. Blacks are most skeptical (by a large margin) of parenting as a contributor. More whites thought genetic differences explained part of the poor-wealthy test gap than for the B-W gap.

    Direct link to Table A4

    Worth noting that (Table 1) the overall unweighted sample was 8/6/78/7% black/hispanic/white/other and they weighted it to 11/12/70/7% so whites tend to dominate the average values.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. res says:
    @BB753
    No wonder! After seeing Murray thrown under the bus, what is a lowly postgraduate like Razib Khan supposed to expect from the usual suspects? After all, he's got two small children to feed. Sad. Razib shouldn't have come out of the hbd closet until tenure. Well, he still could have pursued a career of some kind in his native Bangladesh if he hadn't committed apostasy.
    Here's a lesson for all Asians: the Asian card won't save you from being called a racist hbd'er...

    Agreed. And Razib has made similar comments in the past, but that was the most defeatist sounding I have ever heard him.

    FWIW tenure (and being a white woman) aren’t completely protective either. Look up Linda Gottfredson.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @syonredux

    He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion.
     
    The problem there is that Murray believes that the ancient Israelites possessed an usually high mean IQ. On this point, he is quite wrong. None of the neighbors of the Israelites thought that they were smarter than average, and none of their surviving writings suggest uncommon cleverness.

    And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc

    So then. What happened to the Greeks that they have failed to produce one thinker of note for the past 1000+ years and has become known more for souvlaki than Socrates. Seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Selection for intelligence relaxed. In the diaspora, Greeks remained prominent in business but not intellectual endeavors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Dana Thompson
    FWIW, I found this statement in the wikipedia article for X_chromosome:
    "For reasons that are not yet understood, there is an excess proportion of genes on the X-chromosome that are associated with the development of intelligence, with no obvious links to other significant biological functions."
    If there's truth to this, then you would expect the mixed-race children of white mothers to be brighter, since all of them carry a "white" X, whereas male children with a white father can get their X only from their mother.

    This is news to me, and fascinating. If true, it further explains women’s attraction to troglodytes and rejection of decent, intelligent men: they only need the troglodytes musculuture and aggression foe their children if they themselves are (disproportionately) determining the children’s intelligence….

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    As much as 52%, instead of a mere 50% influence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @TWS
    If Unz isn't the most dishonest and deliberately obtuse person who writes here it's only because Truth does it for free as well. He can't even admit that Hispanics commit crimes at a rate greater than the white average. Or illegal aliens represent any kind of danger at all.

    I know three people killed by illegal aliens. Murdered. One has attacked my daughter. Two of those four illegals are now back in the states or walking free somewhere.

    There are a metric ass load of reasons to figure that illegals might not have the impulse control, investment in community, and ties to keep them on the straight and narrow that native born folks do but hey, lets model the heck out of the data until it kind of, sort of, looks like what we want.

    Actually, Heather MacDonald did studies on crime and illegal immigrants commit less crime than blacks or their offspring. The best argument against illegal immigrants is not crime since they are less likely to belong to MS-13 or the Latin Kings than their kids but that they have offspring that have higher crime rates than whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. gcochran says:
    @Autochthon
    This is news to me, and fascinating. If true, it further explains women's attraction to troglodytes and rejection of decent, intelligent men: they only need the troglodytes musculuture and aggression foe their children if they themselves are (disproportionately) determining the children's intelligence....

    As much as 52%, instead of a mere 50% influence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. BB753 says:
    @anonymous
    So then. What happened to the Greeks that they have failed to produce one thinker of note for the past 1000+ years and has become known more for souvlaki than Socrates. Seriously.

    Selection for intelligence relaxed. In the diaspora, Greeks remained prominent in business but not intellectual endeavors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @JohnnyWalker123
    Flynn also had an interesting debate with Charles Murray.

    According to Flynn, black IQ drops from 95 (age 4) to 83 (age 24). That's not a "pattern of genetic influence." That's a product of "disparate cognitive environments."


    Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

    That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles.


     

    Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.


    Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. “The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in. ♦
     

    Ron Unz came to similar conclusions about the malleability of IQ and importance of environment.

    The origin of this inversion of ethnic hierarchies may be quite simple. When desperately poor immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, or Greeks arrived on our shores, they were unable to afford farmland, and therefore permanently remained in their East Coast cities of landing, while less-poor Germans might move to the Midwest and become farmers, following the agricultural choice made by many of the earliest frontier settlers derived from the British and the Dutch. So the more rural populations from Europe often became the more urban ones in America, leading to a gradual inversion of their relative IQ rankings.
     

    If we combine this apparent rural/urban achievement pattern with the evidence of the Flynn Effect, we might speculate that scoring well on an IQ test tends to require a certain amount of “mental priming” or complex stimulation while growing up and that in the past such stimulation tended to be lacking in poor rural areas compared with more urban, affluent, or industrial ones. Obviously, working on a farm in a less developed country carries its own complexity, but it could be that the mental skills exercised are far less applicable to the strongly abstract and analytical thinking required on an IQ test.
     

    Low IQ individuals develop faster and their brains stop growing earlier.

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

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation