The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Thompson ArchiveBlogview
Country IQs and Their Consequences
Cognitive capitalism sinc 800 BC

It is good that people are discussing IQ. Fred Reed’s post has drawn many comments, too many for me to answer individually. Here I outline the main heads of his argument as I see them, and some of the relevant research.

My summary of Reed’s post is:

Intelligence is important; intelligence research is important and can influence social policy; American blacks, the Irish, and Mexicans have similar IQs but different outcomes; IQ scores for some countries have been revised considerably, suggesting that intelligence measures are unreliable; Maya Indians had cultural achievements out of all proportion to the low IQs of the current inhabitants; current research shows European intelligence both falling and rising, the latter because of the Flynn Effect, and this suggests the measures are unreliable; the ancient Greek thinkers were very bright, and not dull as the Flynn Effect might imply; the IQ of India cannot be 81 because of India’s cultural achievements; there is no visible difference in intelligence between Mexicans and Americans, nor also with the inhabitants of Taiwan, Vietnam, or Thailand; and what mean IQ is thought necessary to run the infrastructure of modernity?

 

The first topic to cover is correlation. Correlations are best understood by looking at scatterplots. Any correlation which is less than unity will have discrepant data points scattered along the trend line. Some countries will be outliers for different reasons, all of them worth debating. For example, the usual link between IQ and GDP is altered by two main artefacts: oil and tourism. However, there are other reasons, and it is certainly worth following up all outliers, and putting forward testable hypotheses about why this is so. Of course, these hypotheses need to be tested on the whole data set. Even when the correlation is strong, say 0.8 there will still be discrepant cases (large residuals, in statistical jargon). http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-grand-sweep-of-history

A discrepant data point does not destroy a general correlation. If there are many discrepant results the correlation is lowered. If all results are discrepant there is no correlation to discuss. Individual instances do not refute general findings. A test of intelligence which is an excellent predictor of later success in life will not always identify the most successful individual. There will always be exceptions to be pointed to. Rindermann is a good person to read on the relevant research between country IQ and national achievements. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LCFQWcfhcjPz60xYifkjjaQ6cZeEasYKqMUdDoVnJxo/edit

 

The Flynn Effect co-exists with the Woodley Effect. Since roughly 1870 the Flynn Effect has been stronger, at an apparent 3 points per decade. The Woodley effect is weaker, at very roughly 1 point per decade. Think of Flynn as the soil fertilizer effect and Woodley as the plant genetics effect. The fertilizer effect seems to be fading away in rich countries, while continuing in poor countries, though not as fast as one would desire. The genetic effect seems to show a persistent gradual fall in underlying ability. Intelligence tests are good at identifying skills with high predictive value for life success, but less good at doing historical comparisons, unless one concentrates on specific subtests. IQ percentile ranks hold up very well over six decades. There is much research on this issue. Jim Flynn works with many of the new researchers on the topic, like Elijah Armstrong. It is a somewhat technical field, but very interesting.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/105-years-of-flynn-effect-very-fluid

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

Country totals may appear to change, but that is to be expected if the initial samples were few and not properly representative. Well organized countries provide better data than less organized ones. As more data comes in the results should get to be more accurate. For that reason the whole Lynn database has been made public, and is being improved and extended. There is more work to be done, particularly adding in the cognitive estimates derived from maths and science examination results from international tests. http://www.unz.com/jthompson/world-politics-guide-2017

For the purposes of this discussion, it should be noted that the Lynn database for Mexico references only 3 studies, all of children, in the 6 to 13 year range, which you can see on the National IQ database, ranging from 80 to 88, for an overall mean IQ of 85. Adult data and more data would be better. However, a recent analysis of PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS data (1995 to 2012, N 93 nations) comes up with an IQ derived from those results of 88. The similarly derived IQ for the USA is 99.6. http://www.unz.com/jthompson/migrant-competence

Cognitive capitalism and high ability stem

Historical comparisons over several centuries are harder to carry out, but not impossible. Rindermann and I put in measures of historical cultural ancestors on two time spans: Nobels for the last century, and eminent scientists since 800 BC (the Ancient Greek effect) and showed that they both made a contribution to modern day economies. However, Greece is no longer the centre of the intellectual world, nor are the Mayas. Their accomplishments were real enough in their time. Their best thinkers are still rightly revered, but a nation’s current IQ is not always a good guide to the abilities of very distant ancestors. If populations move of their own volition or are displaced by new entrants, the general intellectual level can change. On the other hand, if selection on a settled population is hard enough then intellectual levels can rise in 8 to 16 generations. That is another interesting story.

The Indian mean IQ of 80 is based on 26 studies, so is well covered. Nevertheless, there is variability according to which province one measures, even more different than the States of the United States. The caste system creates differences. So does the rate of cousin marriage.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-heterogeneous-states-of-india

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/more-sex-cousin

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/inbreeding-two-tribes

 

Naturally, you can have some bright people from all countries: is it the proportions which differ. Any big deviations from what you would expect from the country bell curve calls into question the stated average for that country. http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-scrabble-for-africa

“No visible difference in intelligence between Mexicans and Americans, nor also with the inhabitants of Taiwan, Vietnam, or Thailand.” Cannot really comment on that, except to say that in social interaction it is not always either possible or desirable to make intelligence estimates. More relevant is to look at technical innovation rates, patents, science publications and the like. However, it would be a valid point if there were no differences in the achievements of those countries and the functioning of their societies. If there were no differences on the above measures, then the associations between mental ability and social outcomes would be weakened, and eventually disconfirmed. However, the general link between national IQs and economic outcomes holds up pretty well.

What mean IQ is thought necessary to run the infrastructure of modernity?

This interesting question has been much discussed. Smart fraction research suggests that the impact of the brightest persons in a national economy has a disproportionately positive effect on GDP. Rindermann and I have argued, following others, that the brightest 5% of every country make the greatest contribution by far, though of course many others of lower ability are required to implement the discoveries and strategies of the brightest. There have been two supportive replications.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/is-smart-fraction-as-valuable-as

On this basis you might say that countries depend on those with IQs of 120 and above. These are the people who can follow “college format” education in which they read provided references and work out the implications for themselves, guided by tutor and test feedback. The USA can rely on 8% of their people to do such work, Mexico 2%. If countries can find such people, retain them, and deploy them properly, with a good pyramid of helpers below, then the country concerned has a good prospect of doing well. However, given global competition, countries need many people of IQ 130+ to really prosper, and such people tend to emigrate to the strongest economies, where they will earn most, so less able countries are often denuded of their brightest citizens. The USA can rely on 2% of their population to do such work, Mexico 0.3%.

However, a rule of thumb would be helpful in answering this, and the initial guesstimate was that a national IQ of 93 was required for a reasonable standard of living. I certainly agree that if the overall country data set shows no difference between countries of different intelligence levels, then the intelligence levels are called into question.

As economies globalize, the figure required for innovation and flourishing economies is probably being pushed upwards. At the same time, products are coming out which do many necessary things without requiring much intelligence from users. Mobile phones can perform functions which previously required high ability programing skills. Now, all users have to be able to do is point with their finger. Cars used to be complicated, and require careful maintenance. Now they are more reliable (though harder to service without computer guidance). Cash registers do everything based on pictograms, so a society can function to some extent on the problem solving of others. Good news all round.

Globalization may result in innovative countries being far richer than the countries which don’t innovate but just use the inventions, in the way that most of the world flies on wide body jets made in the USA and Europe. Skyscrapers were an innovation once, and are now commonplace. Nonetheless, the innovators will be the first to get the benefits of modernity, and are likely to retain most of the profits.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: IQ, Smart Fraction 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Of Related Interest
Smart groups are (simply) groups of smart people.
Add fertilizer and yields are boosted, up to a plateau; ignore the quality of the seed and yields slowly decline.
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. perhaps many of the smartest of India’s citizens have emigrated, & therefore results from India are a slight underestimate?

    btw, superb example: “Think of Flynn as the soil fertilizer effect and Woodley as the plant genetics effect.”

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Doubt it is a sufficient number to have an impact on the group averages.
    , @Joe Wong
    "IQ tests good at predicting life success," that's why India has Caste System and the Occidental societies have glass ceilings to make sure the status quote social order and the privileged are well protected and will not be declined, decayed or degraded through the natural selection process due to their undesirable IQ quality.
    , @pyrrhus
    India's population is extremely bi-modal, with the top two castes of Hindus (roughly speaking, the rulers and the priests) having high IQ's that have been maintained by assertive mating, and the religious subgroup the Jains, who have an even higher proportion of doctors and other professionals in the US. The remaining population of India seems to have an average IQ of about 80. The truth of this is reinforced by the success of these 3 groups in the US, with Hindus having even higher average income than Jews, and Jains being prominent in all professions.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/county-iqs-and-their-consequences/#comment-1749803
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    A test of intelligence which is an excellent predictor of later success in life

    This is a very… one-sided, stereotypic definition of success.
    Of course, someone with a very high IQ can not, maybe, have a non-biased perspective on the totality of what can make life good (and it will be similar to what they and alike people have got in their own lives: this bias is evolutionary).

    I have been in contact with people of all trades, and have no doubt that the most relaxed and carefree are in the 80-95 IQ range.
    Provided their economic status is at subsistence level or slightly above that, they enjoy a life of the mind comparable to children’s, for all life; they also enjoy more leisure time, and family time.
    Their minds self-feed with all kinds of tale-like illusions: for them, everything good and great can come into their life, tomorrow or an hour after now, or next years: and this stands true hour after hour, day after day, year by year.

    They can “fall in love” for the 5th, 10th, 15th time, with the same hopes that it will be great & forever as the first time, in the face of whatever age they are by now.

    They are never alone: be it on the train, at the hospital, wherever, they’ll find conversation with people there interesting.
    Same goes for ordinary radio and tv programs, newspapers and all commercial media.
    The movie at the theater (and Netflix channels) is made for them, not for me or you.

    High IQ is not the only mental attribute capable of rendering life burdensome: high ability to undergo emotion, introspectiveness, neuroticism, all are big wrenches in the works of one’s life, bigger than high IQ.
    But without an high IQ, the rest of the company is left rather powerless.

    I think you should have included a link to your excellent one on the seven tribes of intellect (all the more given the abundance of links you embedded in the piece).

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Thanks. Yes, I considered putting in The 7 Tribes of Intellect, but then felt there were too many links.
    I know it is not much of an answer to your observations to respond with a list of correlations, but Doug Detterman's summary of the positive and negative correlations with intelligence shows that for most low ability people life is pretty hard.
    , @annamaria
    To address your concern of a stressful life: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/02/02/how-stress-influences-heart-attack-stroke-risk.aspx
    Though it seems that the highly intelligent people put considerable efforts to alleviate the stress (that also includes a higher degree of negativity bias for the brightest)
    , @Daniel Chieh
    People who have suffered brain damage that that they are without long-term memories are reported to be extraordinarily happy, but I'm not sure that its a good measure for success or any degree of meaningful living.
  3. “County IQs and Their Consequences” should read “Country IQs and Their Consequences”.

    Stimulating post. Thanks!

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    My error. Thanks for pointing it out. Editor caught and corrected it.
  4. @Egregious Philbin
    perhaps many of the smartest of India's citizens have emigrated, & therefore results from India are a slight underestimate?

    btw, superb example: "Think of Flynn as the soil fertilizer effect and Woodley as the plant genetics effect."

    Doubt it is a sufficient number to have an impact on the group averages.

  5. @godfree roberts
    "County IQs and Their Consequences" should read "Country IQs and Their Consequences".

    Stimulating post. Thanks!

    My error. Thanks for pointing it out. Editor caught and corrected it.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    I am surprised some enterprising researcher hasn't already studied county by county IQs as an explanatory variable for the election of Trump. There has to be some really good research money opportunities in that.
  6. @Anonymous

    A test of intelligence which is an excellent predictor of later success in life
     
    This is a very... one-sided, stereotypic definition of success.
    Of course, someone with a very high IQ can not, maybe, have a non-biased perspective on the totality of what can make life good (and it will be similar to what they and alike people have got in their own lives: this bias is evolutionary).

    I have been in contact with people of all trades, and have no doubt that the most relaxed and carefree are in the 80-95 IQ range.
    Provided their economic status is at subsistence level or slightly above that, they enjoy a life of the mind comparable to children's, for all life; they also enjoy more leisure time, and family time.
    Their minds self-feed with all kinds of tale-like illusions: for them, everything good and great can come into their life, tomorrow or an hour after now, or next years: and this stands true hour after hour, day after day, year by year.

    They can "fall in love" for the 5th, 10th, 15th time, with the same hopes that it will be great & forever as the first time, in the face of whatever age they are by now.

    They are never alone: be it on the train, at the hospital, wherever, they'll find conversation with people there interesting.
    Same goes for ordinary radio and tv programs, newspapers and all commercial media.
    The movie at the theater (and Netflix channels) is made for them, not for me or you.

    High IQ is not the only mental attribute capable of rendering life burdensome: high ability to undergo emotion, introspectiveness, neuroticism, all are big wrenches in the works of one's life, bigger than high IQ.
    But without an high IQ, the rest of the company is left rather powerless.

    I think you should have included a link to your excellent one on the seven tribes of intellect (all the more given the abundance of links you embedded in the piece).

    Thanks. Yes, I considered putting in The 7 Tribes of Intellect, but then felt there were too many links.
    I know it is not much of an answer to your observations to respond with a list of correlations, but Doug Detterman’s summary of the positive and negative correlations with intelligence shows that for most low ability people life is pretty hard.

  7. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    IQ seems to lead to soulless modernity, materialism, atomization, and ideological lunacy. Some of the craziest nations are high-IQ.

    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it’s committing demographic suicide.
    So is EU though at slower rate, but in some ways worse cuz of invasion by Muslims and Africans.

    IQ is like drugs. In wrong doses or used wrongly, and it leads to sterility and death of civilization.

    In the end, it is the culture of emotions that is the key to healthy civilization.
    The emotional culture in the advanced world is decadent, trivial, and gutless.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    We had one of the most insanely stable and psychologically healthy systems with Confucianism before, one which basically had maximized the notion of a "social grammar" where everyone could find their role and everything was consistent.

    You blew it up. You guys blew it all up.

    Welcome to the ashes of human civilization and the relics of tradition.
    , @MarkinLA
    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it’s committing demographic suicide.


    ???? This reminds me of the fools who want Japan to start taking in immigrants talking about Japan's death spiral. They are losing 250,000 people a year. In a country of 110 million this means in about 400 years Japan will have 10 million at that rate. I think there is plenty of time to fix the problem - if it is a problem.

    Some depopulation may be just what these countries need.
    , @Biff

    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it’s committing demographic suicide.
     
    How?
  8. What l find fascinating is that there is a direct correlation between high IQ and substance abuse; which bolsters my premis that life-time achievements are also attained by single-mindedness (ambition), HABITS, and cunning.

  9. One of your Unz colleagues had a recent post about intellectual decline with age. It would seem a lot of that could be ameliorated by technology, if the elderly were comfortable using it. Smart phones or other devices reminding them when to take medicine, etc.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    One of your Unz colleagues had a recent post about intellectual decline with age. It would seem a lot of that could be ameliorated by technology
     
    Absolutely. As memory fades, Google fills the breech!
  10. With respect you are missing the main point.

    Yes IQ is important. In the real world Forest Gump will not be a brain surgeon. But as for mean IQ and entire nations…

    Probably asian IQ’s are – on average – a bit higher than european. But in the 19th and 20th centuries, genetically smarter Chinese lived in filth and misery and Americans progressed and became prosperous and strong. Because hundreds of millions of people mean IQ of 102 having seven kids each and starving to death in the mud do less well than a more modest number of people mean IQ of 100 with abundant food and resources. Duh.

    Einstein was way smarter than I am. If he was naked and starving in the middle of a desert, I dare say he would be less productive than I would be fat and happy and with lots of tools and materials.

    Yes IQ matters. But as for entire societies, there are other factors that can dwarf the effects of a few points average more or less…

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Chinese was only one of the victims in the hands of the Occidental people barbarism, Romans, Indian, Muslim, indigenous people of Americas, Australia, Africa, South East Asia, Islands of Pacific Ocean, etc. are all victims of the Occidental people barbarism, most of them are still suffering from the Occidental people barbarism and never have a chance to get out of the sufferings imposed on them thru organized barbaric violence by the psychopathic aliens from faraway Occidental land uninvited, unwanted and unwarranted.

    The Occidental people are not only war criminals, criminals of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, they are also hypocrites trying to white wash and gloss over their crimes on the moral high ground and by not mentioning their ugly past, they thrive on sucking other people's blood and suffocate other higher IQ people from progress.
  11. The Woodley effect is weaker, at very roughly 1 point per decade.

    Assuming we are only talking about white Western populations, I find a decline of 1IQ per decade since the 1880′s to be an absurdly high estimate.

    I don’t doubt there has been a decline, primarily from the very low and delayed fertility of the top 10% or so of females, but you really think it passes the smell test that between 1880 and 2017 it has been nearly one SD, nearly equal to the white-black gap?

    Is there any evidence that, for example, white children begin speaking and reading at later ages? You could say this is counteracted by the Flynn effect, but one of the causes of the Flynn effect is children are schooled and put in a stimulating environment compared to the past. This would be much less significant for very young children.

    I’m not sure even Woodley would agree with -1 per decade. You’d know better than me.

    Woodley’s 2012 paper noted that Vining (1995) estimated dysgenic fertility decreased genotypic IQ by about 0.5 points per generation. That sounds a lot more reasonable. Several other sources are in that 0.3 to 1 per generation ballpark, and very far from ~3 per generation.

    With great respect for Galton, I have some doubt his measures using the following device are truly comparable to other reaction time experiments.

    http://galton.org/essays/1880-1889/galton-1889-rba-reaction-time.pdf

    Woodley also concedes:

    Galton’s data reported by Johnson et al. (1985), i.e .21 for people tested within a year (N = 421) and .17 for people retested over any time interval (N = 1069), and the equivalent suggested coefficient of the Hick -style device employed in our reference study (.85; Deary et al., 2001).

    That is a very large difference between Galton’s method and modern methods that calls into doubt the quality of the data.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    The estimates are variable, so I went for a median round figure.
    Simple reaction times 1884- 2004 range from 0.57–1.21 drops per decade, other measures mostly higher. Sorry, cannot paste up the relevant table in this comments box, so it has come out in a jumble.


    Table 1
    Secular trends in various indicators that are consistent with declining g (Woodley effects) – all discovered or more precisely estimated after Woodley and Figueredo (2013).
    Paper(s) finding secular declines in g
    Trait(s) indicating a
    Woodley effect
    Estimated decline in g
    per decade scaled in IQ
    points Countries from which data were collected
    Time period to
    which data
    pertain
    Woodley, te Nijenhuis and Murphy (2013,
    2014a), Woodley of Menie, te Nijenhuis and
    Murphy (2015b)
    Simple visual and
    auditory reaction time
    (increasing)
    0.57–1.21 Canada, Finland, UK, USA, and Australia (different
    permutations of countries were used in different
    studies)
    1884–2004
    Woodley, Madison and Charlton (2014c) 1.8 (females)
    0 (males)
    UK 1930–1970
    Madison et al. (2016) Not estimated Sweden 1959–1985
    Pietschnig and Gittler (2015) Three-dimensional
    rotation ability
    (decreasing)
    4.8 Austria and Germany 1977–2014
    Woodley of Menie and Fernandes (2015) Working memory
    capacity (decreasing)
    0.16 USA 1923–2008
    Woodley of Menie and Fernandes (2016a) Color acuity (decreasing) 3.5 (full sample) 5.8
    (subset aged in their
    20s)
    Belgium, Finland, UK, USA 1982–2002
    Woodley of Menie, Fernandes, Figueredo and
    Meisenberg (2015)
    g-loaded vocabulary
    usage (decreasing)
    Not estimated N/A (English-language texts from Google Ngram
    Viewer)
    1850–2005
    Woodley of Menie and Fernandes (2016b) Fluctuating asymmetry
    (increasing)
    0.16 USA 1824–1984
    , @Michael A. Woodley of Menie
    A decline in heritable g of approximately one IQ point per decade would seem to be realistic. Don’t forget, we now have direct estimates of the strength of genetic selection on cognitive ability, and more recently we now have the first indication that modern genomes are less enriched for cognitive genetic variants than those from several decades ago (Kong et al., 2017). The Kong et al. paper actually attempts to estimate the degree to which IQ should decline based on the strength of genetic selection in the population of Iceland:

    However, under the assumptions that POLYFULL accounts for 30% of the variance of EDU, and the part of POLYFULL that is not captured by POLYEDU behaves in a similar fashion in its impact on both reproduction and IQ, by extrapolation, the decline of POLYFULL would lead to a decline of 0.038 x (30/3.74) = 0.30 IQ points per decade.” (p.4).

    Their choice of additive heritability estimate (what they call POLYFULL) for the target phenotype is too low however (30%). The additive heritability of IQ is actually around 80% in adults (Bouchard Jr., 2004), and when g (which is the variance component of IQ on which selection operates; Woodley & Meisenberg, 2013) is modeled as a latent variable, its additive heritability is higher still (86%; Pannizon et al., 2014). Replacing 30% with 86% in Kong et al.’s equation therefore yields a 'genetic g' decline of 0.87 IQ points per decade.

    Beauchamp (2016) has also estimated the decline that would be expected on the basis of selection against cognitive genetic variants in the US. He scales his decline estimate in terms of ‘lost’ time spent in education, yielding -1.5 months per generation. To recover the decline in g (again assuming that g is the target of selection) we simply divide 1.5 by the standard deviation in educational attainment, which according to the OECD is 36.6 months. This must then be divided by the (linkage pruned) shared genetic variance between g and educational attainment, which according to Okbay et al. (2016) is approximately 0.6. This is then multiplied by 15 (the standard deviation of IQ), yielding a decline of 1.02 points per generation, or 0.37 points per decade, assuming a (standard) generation length of 2.8 decades. Beauchamp’s estimate suffers from precisely the same problem as Kong et al’s however, namely a low-ball estimate of the heritability of the target phenotype (Beauchamp uses a value of 40%). We can correct the decadal decline estimate for this low-ball estimate by simply computing a disattenuation coefficient (u), which is the quotient of 0.40 and 0.86, or 0.47. By dividing 0.37 by the u-value we get a decadal ‘genetic g’ decline of 0.79 IQ points per decade.

    So ‘genetic g’ is declining by approximately 0.8 to 0.9 points per decade in two Western countries. The phenotypic indicators that may be tracking this decline in g (these being the so-called “Woodley Effects”) paint a somewhat different picture however. A review of these was conducted recently by Sarraf (2017, Table 1, p.3), who lists g decline estimates from various cross-temporal meta-analytic studies employing a range of indicators. The unweighted average of decline estimates across indicators is 1.65 IQ points per decade (after excluding repeated measures). The ‘genetic g’ decline is therefore only 50.3% of the apparent phenotypic g decline. There exists considerable heterogeneity among the decline estimates however, with the g decline associated with slowing simple visual reaction time averaging out at 0.97 IQ points per decade across four studies, the decline estimated using working memory being considerably smaller (0.16 IQ points per decade) and the decline estimated using perceptual acuity and 3D rotation ability being considerably larger (3.5 and 4.8 IQ points per decade respectively). Some phenotypic measures may therefore be better at picking up the ‘true’ genetic trend than others (such as reaction times). Working memory on the other hand appears to be relatively insensitive to the 'genetic g' decline, whereas the visual processing measures seem to be picking up the effects of some additional suppressing factor beyond declining 'genetic g'.

    References

    Beauchamp, J.P. (2016). Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 113, 7774–7779.

    Bouchard Jr, T.J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits – a survey.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 148-151.

    Kong, A., Frigge, M.L., Thorleifsson, G., et al. (2017). Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1612113114

    Okbay, A., Beauchamp, J.P., Fontana, M.A., et al. (2016). Genomewide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature, 533, 539–542.

    Panizzon, M. S., Vuoksimaa, E., Spoon, K. M., et al. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on general cognitive ability: Is g a valid latent construct? Intelligence, 43, 65–76.

    Sarraf, M. (2017). Review of historical variability in heritable general intelligence: Its evolutionary origins and socio-cultural consequences. Personality and Individual Differences. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.028

    Woodley, M.A., & Meisenberg, G. (2013). A Jensen effect on dysgenic fertility: An
    analysis involving the national longitudinal survey of youth. Personality and
    Individual Differences, 55
    , 279–282.
  12. you have not addressed the Irish IQ discrepancy.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    True. It thought it would be too long for the brief replies I intended, so it fell by the wayside. It was the finding of low Irish IQ which launched Richard Lynn onto the study of intelligence, particularly country intelligence.
    9 studies in the database, mostly children (with some big samples) and one on adults. IQ 93 for mean and median, range 88 to 97.
  13. countries depend on those with IQs of 120 and above. These are the people who can follow “college format” education in which they read provided references and work out the implications for themselves, guided by tutor and test feedback. The USA can rely on 8% of their people to do such work

    If 8% of the total population of the United States are able to perform this college-level work, then why are only 4% of the whites in the country capable of figuring out the “carpet” problem you mention in your Intelligent Brains article?

    OK, I admit that I am still shocked by this number, this 4%, ONLY FOUR PERCENT!!!, of whites who are capable of figuring out the price of carpeting for a room. So you’re telling me 96% of whites can’t do this simple problem, which is described like this: “only 4% of the white population is in the top category and can complete tasks like using a calculator to figure out the cost of carpeting a room. This requires determining the area, converting to square yards, and multiplying by the price.” (The Neuroscience of Intelligence, by Richard J. Haier, p. 24; and maybe ADULT LITERACY in America is the study Haier is referencing.)

    This is not rocket science, people.

    So here is another problem that I see right away: intelligent people (those who can figure out the carpet problem) cannot fathom what it is like to have such low intelligence. We cannot put ourselves in their “frame of mind”, let’s call it, and simply NOT SEE something that to us is evident, blatant, something that is just staring us right in the face and should be just as evident to “them”. So maybe this is one of the reasons it has been so easy to manipulate the masses…

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Perhaps a clever man with the flu might understand the perpetually muddled better.

    There's a topic for a research grant: IQ-testing of flu victims.
    , @Santoculto

    So maybe this is one of the reasons it has been so easy to manipulate the masses…
     
    It's easy manipulate ''the masses'' not because their cognitive intelligence but because the flaws of their psychological intelligence (intrapersonal, interpersonal). Because it most human societies are populated by quasi-natural social problems:

    people who have little self-knowledge to know their own limits and this deficit is even troublesome when cognitive ''intelligence'' is higher because the reaching/impact of, vaguely speaking, smart people, have in human societies.

    People with little interpersonal/emotional ''intelligence'' [sub-system] can't understand other minds if not those who are similar to them. Most people because their superficial skills on their own self and other-self understanding just can't understand one of the most influential human sub-groups: psychopaths. They can't anticipate to the psychopath movements, they are just like trained dogs to the human owners, the relationship is strongly assymetric and unfavorable for them.
    , @James Thompson
    8% is an overall figure for what is roughly encompassed by those able to benefit from college type education. 4% is the result of a specific mathematical problem.
    , @KingPablo
    I was also in disbelief of the 4% carpet problem. I'm always able to fall back on the flip side hypothesis of the Dunning-Kruger effect in that something I perceive as easy is obviously easy for everyone else. It isn't, as all these tests and measurements suggest. It's simply a case of cognitive bias.

    I also self select into groups where I'm challenged intellectually and not spoon fed baloney. Hence being here and not watching TV.

  14. “Fred Reed’s post…”

    There should be a link to that post. I don’t know who Fred Reed is, or what/where he posted.

    • Replies: @utu
    "There should be a link to that post. I don’t know who Fred Reed is, or what/where he posted."

    Good point. It looks like Thompson doesn't want you to read Fred Reed's article. He just wants you to know that it was wrong. The Soviet Pravda used to review foreign books or movies that were forbidden for people to read or see.
    , @James Thompson
    Sorry. Assumed from the many comments that unz.com readers would know about his post.
    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/
  15. @James Thompson
    My error. Thanks for pointing it out. Editor caught and corrected it.

    I am surprised some enterprising researcher hasn’t already studied county by county IQs as an explanatory variable for the election of Trump. There has to be some really good research money opportunities in that.

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    Well because it would involve pointing out that many democrat strongholds - minority places - are really dumb. This would fly in the face of leftist idealism about their superior IQ. Perhaps more smart whites are liberal, perhaps not. But we can probably assert than more dumb whites are conservative than liberal. Leftists believe that most conservatives are dumb but would have a great deal of difficulty understanding that their NAMs are a grade dumber than the dumbest whites.
    , @James Thompson
    Many State level analyses have been done, including on political preferences.
    , @dux.ie
    Re: IQs as an explanatory variable for the election of Trump

    Talking about IQ can upset some people. It is more acceptable to talk about
    the percentage of people with university degrees. With respect to the US
    presidentail election many of the MSM still talked about reactions to the
    top 1% high income earners, diversity, inequality, unemployment, shrinking
    job market, etc.

    Instead, on Novermber 13 I showed statistically that using the
    regression p value (or the Rsq value) as the criterion, among the various
    factors, the most significat factor influencing the electrion result was the
    percentage of people with university degrees, the lower the PctDeg the higher
    the Rep margin.

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/11/coalition-diversity-whose-diversity-diversity-just-win.html#comments

    Using the Republican margin RepMargin=RepPct-DemPct as the variable,

    RepMargin = -3.46*PctDeg +99.53; n=51; Rsq=0.66; p=5.269e-13
    RepMargin = -3.40*PCIncK +102.02; n=51; Rsq=0.48; p=1.752e-08
    RepMargin = -541.79*Gini10 +249.61; n=50; Rsq=0.23; p=0.0004493
    RepMargin = +0.090*SAT14 -90.64; n=50; Rsq=0.17; p=0.002817
    RepMargin = -35.00*Div15 +21.59; n=51; Rsq=0.048; p=0.1213
    RepMargin = -2.12*Unemp16 +13.75; n=48; Rsq=0.0079; p=0.5473

    where PCIncK = per capital income ('000)
    Gini10 = economic inequality Gini Coeff
    SAT14 = average SAT score
    Div15 = diversity index
    Unemp16 = unemployment rate

    With more data at the county levels more complex models were also developed
    but I wont elaborate here.

    Nate Silver is a noted political analyst and forcaster and he came to the
    same conclusion on November 22. I scooped him with the results by 9 days.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

    Later, the MSM switched to talking about the less educated Republican voters.
    This again was not strictly correct. The result above actually showed that
    the Rep margin was significantly positively correlated with the average SAT
    score.

    There is a disconnect that SAT score tends to be where the person
    was from and PctDeg tends to be associated to where the person goes to
    university or work. The slope of the equation turns out to be the reverse
    and the data points are a bit more scattered (Rsq is low), though still
    significant at p=0.002817. Thus I concluded that there would be population
    movements draining away the potential Dem voters from the rural areas.

    These three opposing trends might be setting up an interesting weak population
    circulation pattern, i.e. Republican states tend to have less degree holders
    (less knowledge based jobs) which might (weakly) incentivize a few of the
    students to study harder and to achieve better SAT scores and they tend to
    move to universities in the Democrat states (e.g. California, Massachusetts
    and NewYork) and work there (in the more knowledge based jobs), and the
    too liberal high schools there might not equip some of the students to work
    in the knowledge based jobs there and they might end up in the Republican
    states. Concentration of degree holders in the Dem states gives less electoral
    votes.

    This was confirmed by the Bloomberg report on 14 Dec 2016,

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-14/in-trump-country-the-brain-drain-takes-a-toll-bloomberg-index

    """Brain Drain Takes a Toll in Trump Country"""
  16. Do you think being able to consider lots of alternatives** quickly is one of the usuaal advantages of having a high IQ. In practical terms it might mean that someone who is a bit lazy and disorganised can nonetheless protect the family fortune and generally get by and avoid serious trouble (if only just).

    That makes me wonder too whether a lot of creativity isn’t the result of being able to flip through lots of possibilities quickly. Of course there would be more to flip through usually in a high IQ mind and even perhaps more of a chance that systematic lateral thinking locates the pissibilities.

    ** forgive the solecism if you would object that there can be only two alternatives….[cf. Fowler]

    • Replies: @res

    That makes me wonder too whether a lot of creativity isn’t the result of being able to flip through lots of possibilities quickly. Of course there would be more to flip through usually in a high IQ mind and even perhaps more of a chance that systematic lateral thinking locates the pissibilities.
     
    Agreed about this. I think of it as two necessary components (which I think map pretty directly into what you said):
    - Idea generation ability. Especially an ability to generate ideas that are both novel and practical (in my experiences with group brainstorming sessions there seems to be a strong trade-off between those).
    - Idea evaluation and pruning ability.

    I think for a skilled creative artist these might very well happen transparently and great creative ideas just pop out from intuition. It would be interesting to hear what accomplished creative artists think (there must be a literature on this). Most of my creativity literature exposure has come from Dean Simonton and Hans Eysenck, so other pointers welcomed.

    P.S. Thanks for the **. Just picked up my copy of Fowler to find that was yet another word I've been using in a sloppy fashion.
    , @James Thompson
    cf Fowler: Lots of options, only one alternative. However, usage has changed, so Fowler is no longer in charge.
    , @James Thompson
    Yes. Might be speed of cycling as alternative options are considered and rejected until one is a good fit. One aspect of the processing speed argument for general intelligence.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/10-fast-questions-about-processing
    , @CanSpeccy
    Creativity has virtually nothing to do with IQ. Probably not even dependent on the same part of the brain or even the same side of the brain. Haven't you noticed when doing a crossword puzzle that thinking hard about the clues achieves nothing, whereas glancing over them while eating a jam waffle or some such thing can yield instant solutions. Best of all, I find, is to doze off, then solve the damn thing in the minute or two during which full consciousness returns. Obviously there is something unrelated to IQ-test-intelligence involved here and its probably involves the same faculty that yields, for the most creative, new theories about falling apples or curved space.
  17. Much food for thought again, Prof. Thompson, and thanks to you and Ron Unz for publishing at UR.

    I may be in something of a minority here, but I believe intelligence is conceptually severable from its applications in the world, and its manifestation as wisdom or unwisdom, good governance or misgovernance, character or its lack, etc. Thanks again.

  18. @Anonymous

    A test of intelligence which is an excellent predictor of later success in life
     
    This is a very... one-sided, stereotypic definition of success.
    Of course, someone with a very high IQ can not, maybe, have a non-biased perspective on the totality of what can make life good (and it will be similar to what they and alike people have got in their own lives: this bias is evolutionary).

    I have been in contact with people of all trades, and have no doubt that the most relaxed and carefree are in the 80-95 IQ range.
    Provided their economic status is at subsistence level or slightly above that, they enjoy a life of the mind comparable to children's, for all life; they also enjoy more leisure time, and family time.
    Their minds self-feed with all kinds of tale-like illusions: for them, everything good and great can come into their life, tomorrow or an hour after now, or next years: and this stands true hour after hour, day after day, year by year.

    They can "fall in love" for the 5th, 10th, 15th time, with the same hopes that it will be great & forever as the first time, in the face of whatever age they are by now.

    They are never alone: be it on the train, at the hospital, wherever, they'll find conversation with people there interesting.
    Same goes for ordinary radio and tv programs, newspapers and all commercial media.
    The movie at the theater (and Netflix channels) is made for them, not for me or you.

    High IQ is not the only mental attribute capable of rendering life burdensome: high ability to undergo emotion, introspectiveness, neuroticism, all are big wrenches in the works of one's life, bigger than high IQ.
    But without an high IQ, the rest of the company is left rather powerless.

    I think you should have included a link to your excellent one on the seven tribes of intellect (all the more given the abundance of links you embedded in the piece).

    To address your concern of a stressful life: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/02/02/how-stress-influences-heart-attack-stroke-risk.aspx
    Though it seems that the highly intelligent people put considerable efforts to alleviate the stress (that also includes a higher degree of negativity bias for the brightest)

  19. I have really enjoyed reading ol’ cantankerous Fred Reed these last several years, but his barking at IQ was sure to get him run over by the tandem axles of logic and hard facts. Reminds me of an old song sung by comedian Ray Stevens, “Fred, You Were a Good Dog.”

    ♫ Fred, you were a good dog,
    But you never knew when to chase ‘em or when to turn around and run,
    Yeah Fred, you were a good dog,
    But now you’re flat out on the freeway and drying in the sun. ♪

    :-)

  20. meanwhile at UC Berkeley, the freedom-lovers (encouraged by the faculty) demonstrate for freedom: “Riot breaks out at UC Berkeley amid protest of Breitbart editor’s speech” (see vandalism and physical abuse) https://www.rt.com/usa/376001-milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-riot-protest/

    Take notice that the freedom-loving faculty and students at UC Berkeley are totally quiet about John Yoo, the violator of the human rights and of the US Constitution: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/our-faculty/faculty-profiles/john-yoo/
    “Berkeley administrators have spoken publicly and repeatedly about the importance of Professor Yoo’s academic freedom and First Amendment rights.” Christopher Edley, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law

    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    Yeah, funny that, eh? Maybe this is because Yoo is credentialed, and therefore he gets a pass on being judged despite the horrible real-world results of his soulless intellectualizing, or should we say, his rationalization and normalization of the indefensible impulses and actions of the powerful? Yes, credentialed, and therefore one of those entitled to exemption from moral censure.
  21. My summary of Reed’s post is:…

    My summary of Reed’s post(s) is…Bla bla bla.

    This has to be satire.

    Fred Reed’s views on intelligence are mostly unintelligent. as well as ignorant. Fred is an authority on nothing and I suspect that a huge part of the reason is that to be an authority takes discipline and I detect little to none in any of his views.

    By even mentioning his name in association with your subject, you discredit yourself and it’s not even funny or good satire.

    Have a nice day.

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    You know...

    There ought to be a registration system for this site. To post.

    But the registration process requires an IQ test, and the results will be posted with your handle. Yeah, requiring age data means someone can game the system, so don't even ask for that. Just assume everyone is 30 or something.

    Heck I'd like to see it done for the bloggers as well. Be kind of interesting to see Fred and James Thompson's IQ side by side. We'd also have to live with the fact that some of the authors' initial language wasn't English. Maybe that doesn't matter if you are a strong "Jayman."

    Of course most of us kind of read between the lines as it were, based on the content posted.

    But I have a need to know. IQ it all that matters right? Kinda need to know who to filter out and who to pay attention to.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I do think that Fred has high verbal intelligence: his work is usually cogent, entertaining and well presented. I don't agree with either his premises or his conclusion, but its a fun journey getting to and fro.
  22. 1. Given global competition, a country *doesn’t* need 120+ IQ people. It can import them, or they can stay in their home country and give orders to the IQ80 people. Either way, the country with IA80 will benefit (both will), because its people will be more productive and various 120+countries will compete to provide IQ services to them.

    2. India is a very big country. There will be lots of geniuses there even if average IQ is low.
    Quaere: What about Nigeria? It is not big on the same scale, but it must have a lot of very smart people. Are they all engaged in con games, at home and abroad? The culture routes very few to research and academia, unlike India.

    3. One might compare temperature records and IQ records. They are very good at comparing places or people at a single point in time. They are not designed for comparing places and people over a 50-year period, and are not so good at that. IQ, of course, is constantly renormed, so the basic scores always average 100— probably normed in every country too— and you have to go back to raw scores to find the Flynn Effect.

    4. There is no reason whatsoever to think the Flynn Effect is eternal.

    • Replies: @res

    1. Given global competition, a country *doesn’t* need 120+ IQ people. It can import them, or they can stay in their home country and give orders to the IQ80 people.
     
    Because importing or outsourcing a ruling (even if only from behind the curtain) class has worked out so well throughout history for the natives. Perhaps you could offer your thoughts on colonialism?

    I tend to agree with your other points.
    , @CanSpeccy

    India is a very big country. There will be lots of geniuses there even if average IQ is low.
     
    Exactly. Most people in most countries spend most of their time doing dumb work that requires an IQ of, optimally, around 90 to 110, which is presumably why the average intelligence of most populations is within that range. Elites account for a negligible fraction of one percent of the population, so every population, whatever its mean IQ, can have an elite of high IQ. More important than the intelligence of the elite are the institutions and ideologies which provide the framework for elite action.

    And at 92. above, it should be "breach" not "breech!"

  23. @Fin of a Cobra

    countries depend on those with IQs of 120 and above. These are the people who can follow “college format” education in which they read provided references and work out the implications for themselves, guided by tutor and test feedback. The USA can rely on 8% of their people to do such work
     
    If 8% of the total population of the United States are able to perform this college-level work, then why are only 4% of the whites in the country capable of figuring out the “carpet” problem you mention in your Intelligent Brains article?

    OK, I admit that I am still shocked by this number, this 4%, ONLY FOUR PERCENT!!!, of whites who are capable of figuring out the price of carpeting for a room. So you’re telling me 96% of whites can’t do this simple problem, which is described like this: "only 4% of the white population is in the top category and can complete tasks like using a calculator to figure out the cost of carpeting a room. This requires determining the area, converting to square yards, and multiplying by the price." (The Neuroscience of Intelligence, by Richard J. Haier, p. 24; and maybe ADULT LITERACY in America is the study Haier is referencing.)

    This is not rocket science, people.

    So here is another problem that I see right away: intelligent people (those who can figure out the carpet problem) cannot fathom what it is like to have such low intelligence. We cannot put ourselves in their “frame of mind”, let’s call it, and simply NOT SEE something that to us is evident, blatant, something that is just staring us right in the face and should be just as evident to “them”. So maybe this is one of the reasons it has been so easy to manipulate the masses…

    Perhaps a clever man with the flu might understand the perpetually muddled better.

    There’s a topic for a research grant: IQ-testing of flu victims.

    • Replies: @res

    There’s a topic for a research grant: IQ-testing of flu victims.
     
    I don't know if it is possible to get enough resolution from the tests, but I think it would be interesting to better characterize IQ variation on small time scales (hour, day, week, month) to assess short term environmental impacts and their causes. I see substantial variability in my own thinking (e.g. sickness, fasting vs post-prandial, time of day, current level of fitness, tiredness, etc.) but don't really know how typical this is.
  24. Does the Flynn effect apply to individual people over time? Would someone who tested, say, IQ 100 in their twenties be ~115 in their seventies?

    Also why are there so seemingly few IQ tests for some countries? Are the tests that are carried out done by foreign (read Western) researchers or by native ones?

  25. @jacques sheete

    My summary of Reed’s post is:...
     
    My summary of Reed's post(s) is...Bla bla bla.

    This has to be satire.

    Fred Reed's views on intelligence are mostly unintelligent. as well as ignorant. Fred is an authority on nothing and I suspect that a huge part of the reason is that to be an authority takes discipline and I detect little to none in any of his views.

    By even mentioning his name in association with your subject, you discredit yourself and it's not even funny or good satire.

    Have a nice day.

    You know…

    There ought to be a registration system for this site. To post.

    But the registration process requires an IQ test, and the results will be posted with your handle. Yeah, requiring age data means someone can game the system, so don’t even ask for that. Just assume everyone is 30 or something.

    Heck I’d like to see it done for the bloggers as well. Be kind of interesting to see Fred and James Thompson’s IQ side by side. We’d also have to live with the fact that some of the authors’ initial language wasn’t English. Maybe that doesn’t matter if you are a strong “Jayman.”

    Of course most of us kind of read between the lines as it were, based on the content posted.

    But I have a need to know. IQ it all that matters right? Kinda need to know who to filter out and who to pay attention to.

  26. Most northern-western european countries have less ”smart fraction” than east asian countries but they have better quality of life and standard living, little doubt about creativity.

    Japan have better quality of life than Hong Kong.

    What matter, firstly, is not have that ”higher IQ ones” but a good proportion of

    - more rational

    - avg IQ people.

    THE SAME thing all the time

    IQ-echoes…

    This post seems little excessive because more than one commenter, myself included, already refuted the poorly understood points made by Freed.

    Mister Thompson prove my points about IQ-researchers….

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Most northern-western european countries have less ”smart fraction” than east asian countries but they have better quality of life and standard living, little doubt about creativity. "

    I see creativity continually brought up when discussing Asians. What exactly is the basis for this? They seem plenty creative to me.

    There are a long list of firsts that were done in China (and you can find lists with a casual google).

    Quite often now when I see some news article about technology or an invention I see an Asian name.

    Personally, for a number of reasons, I'd make it a whole hell of a lot harder for Chinese to immigrate to or enter this country.

    But not creative? What does that even mean, they don't become interior decorators at the rate other ethnicities do?

    Will say they seem to suck at music (despite all those classical musicians). Maybe a matter of taste but K-Pop and the Japanese pop acts just don't have the "It" factor of some of the big Western European acts of days gone by (Fleetwood Mac, Beatles, heck even Abba).

    From what I hear though, K-Pop is bigger in places like Latin America now than American music, so what do I know maybe.
  27. @Chet Flaker
    "Fred Reed’s post..."

    There should be a link to that post. I don't know who Fred Reed is, or what/where he posted.

    “There should be a link to that post. I don’t know who Fred Reed is, or what/where he posted.”

    Good point. It looks like Thompson doesn’t want you to read Fred Reed’s article. He just wants you to know that it was wrong. The Soviet Pravda used to review foreign books or movies that were forbidden for people to read or see.

  28. @The Alarmist
    I am surprised some enterprising researcher hasn't already studied county by county IQs as an explanatory variable for the election of Trump. There has to be some really good research money opportunities in that.

    Well because it would involve pointing out that many democrat strongholds – minority places – are really dumb. This would fly in the face of leftist idealism about their superior IQ. Perhaps more smart whites are liberal, perhaps not. But we can probably assert than more dumb whites are conservative than liberal. Leftists believe that most conservatives are dumb but would have a great deal of difficulty understanding that their NAMs are a grade dumber than the dumbest whites.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    IQ don't analyse instintive skills, in this terms, conservatives are usually smarter than [white] libs and/or [white] libs are, disproportionately, hopeless ''men without nature''.

    Libs, on avg, are like trained and domesticated dogs, they can learn new tricks, better than cons, because cons are more instinctive, and more instinctive species usually have less mental plasticity to learn other things than what already is biologically programmed for them.

    Libs are more superficially empathetic but also more prone to be obedient to the[ir] authority, as well cons.

    Pretend to be dead to win the biscuit = dog tricks

    Literacy, numeracy === to work [for someone become rich] ... and psychological conditioning/ ideological indoctrination = human tricks*

    Libs are like poodles/ house dog and cons are like ''dog-hunters''.

    Libs are, on avg, smarter than cons, because they can have a better vocabulary... cognitively smart...

    but they can't understand what's going on in their own sorround, instinctively dumb.

    , @Daniel Chieh
    They are pretty aware, they just are good at practicing mindkilling, as AK notes.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/berkeleys-anti-free-speech-movement/#comment-1750583

    The human mind uses mostly heuristic analysis, so the very same data can provide vastly different results viewed from an ideological lens. For liberals, the exceptions - which exist - prove that all rules are invalid. For conservatives, the exceptions - which exist - prove that the rule is indeed generally valid.

    We seem really bad at integrating reality, which is something like: norms exist with some room for exceptions. But I'm biased toward the Right, so what do I know.
  29. @Fin of a Cobra

    countries depend on those with IQs of 120 and above. These are the people who can follow “college format” education in which they read provided references and work out the implications for themselves, guided by tutor and test feedback. The USA can rely on 8% of their people to do such work
     
    If 8% of the total population of the United States are able to perform this college-level work, then why are only 4% of the whites in the country capable of figuring out the “carpet” problem you mention in your Intelligent Brains article?

    OK, I admit that I am still shocked by this number, this 4%, ONLY FOUR PERCENT!!!, of whites who are capable of figuring out the price of carpeting for a room. So you’re telling me 96% of whites can’t do this simple problem, which is described like this: "only 4% of the white population is in the top category and can complete tasks like using a calculator to figure out the cost of carpeting a room. This requires determining the area, converting to square yards, and multiplying by the price." (The Neuroscience of Intelligence, by Richard J. Haier, p. 24; and maybe ADULT LITERACY in America is the study Haier is referencing.)

    This is not rocket science, people.

    So here is another problem that I see right away: intelligent people (those who can figure out the carpet problem) cannot fathom what it is like to have such low intelligence. We cannot put ourselves in their “frame of mind”, let’s call it, and simply NOT SEE something that to us is evident, blatant, something that is just staring us right in the face and should be just as evident to “them”. So maybe this is one of the reasons it has been so easy to manipulate the masses…

    So maybe this is one of the reasons it has been so easy to manipulate the masses…

    It’s easy manipulate ”the masses” not because their cognitive intelligence but because the flaws of their psychological intelligence (intrapersonal, interpersonal). Because it most human societies are populated by quasi-natural social problems:

    people who have little self-knowledge to know their own limits and this deficit is even troublesome when cognitive ”intelligence” is higher because the reaching/impact of, vaguely speaking, smart people, have in human societies.

    People with little interpersonal/emotional ”intelligence” [sub-system] can’t understand other minds if not those who are similar to them. Most people because their superficial skills on their own self and other-self understanding just can’t understand one of the most influential human sub-groups: psychopaths. They can’t anticipate to the psychopath movements, they are just like trained dogs to the human owners, the relationship is strongly assymetric and unfavorable for them.

  30. @Yak-15
    Well because it would involve pointing out that many democrat strongholds - minority places - are really dumb. This would fly in the face of leftist idealism about their superior IQ. Perhaps more smart whites are liberal, perhaps not. But we can probably assert than more dumb whites are conservative than liberal. Leftists believe that most conservatives are dumb but would have a great deal of difficulty understanding that their NAMs are a grade dumber than the dumbest whites.

    IQ don’t analyse instintive skills, in this terms, conservatives are usually smarter than [white] libs and/or [white] libs are, disproportionately, hopeless ”men without nature”.

    Libs, on avg, are like trained and domesticated dogs, they can learn new tricks, better than cons, because cons are more instinctive, and more instinctive species usually have less mental plasticity to learn other things than what already is biologically programmed for them.

    Libs are more superficially empathetic but also more prone to be obedient to the[ir] authority, as well cons.

    Pretend to be dead to win the biscuit = dog tricks

    Literacy, numeracy === to work [for someone become rich] … and psychological conditioning/ ideological indoctrination = human tricks*

    Libs are like poodles/ house dog and cons are like ”dog-hunters”.

    Libs are, on avg, smarter than cons, because they can have a better vocabulary… cognitively smart…

    but they can’t understand what’s going on in their own sorround, instinctively dumb.

  31. @Chet Flaker
    "Fred Reed’s post..."

    There should be a link to that post. I don't know who Fred Reed is, or what/where he posted.

    Sorry. Assumed from the many comments that unz.com readers would know about his post.

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

  32. @Anonymous

    A test of intelligence which is an excellent predictor of later success in life
     
    This is a very... one-sided, stereotypic definition of success.
    Of course, someone with a very high IQ can not, maybe, have a non-biased perspective on the totality of what can make life good (and it will be similar to what they and alike people have got in their own lives: this bias is evolutionary).

    I have been in contact with people of all trades, and have no doubt that the most relaxed and carefree are in the 80-95 IQ range.
    Provided their economic status is at subsistence level or slightly above that, they enjoy a life of the mind comparable to children's, for all life; they also enjoy more leisure time, and family time.
    Their minds self-feed with all kinds of tale-like illusions: for them, everything good and great can come into their life, tomorrow or an hour after now, or next years: and this stands true hour after hour, day after day, year by year.

    They can "fall in love" for the 5th, 10th, 15th time, with the same hopes that it will be great & forever as the first time, in the face of whatever age they are by now.

    They are never alone: be it on the train, at the hospital, wherever, they'll find conversation with people there interesting.
    Same goes for ordinary radio and tv programs, newspapers and all commercial media.
    The movie at the theater (and Netflix channels) is made for them, not for me or you.

    High IQ is not the only mental attribute capable of rendering life burdensome: high ability to undergo emotion, introspectiveness, neuroticism, all are big wrenches in the works of one's life, bigger than high IQ.
    But without an high IQ, the rest of the company is left rather powerless.

    I think you should have included a link to your excellent one on the seven tribes of intellect (all the more given the abundance of links you embedded in the piece).

    People who have suffered brain damage that that they are without long-term memories are reported to be extraordinarily happy, but I’m not sure that its a good measure for success or any degree of meaningful living.

  33. @Anon
    IQ seems to lead to soulless modernity, materialism, atomization, and ideological lunacy. Some of the craziest nations are high-IQ.

    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it's committing demographic suicide.
    So is EU though at slower rate, but in some ways worse cuz of invasion by Muslims and Africans.

    IQ is like drugs. In wrong doses or used wrongly, and it leads to sterility and death of civilization.

    In the end, it is the culture of emotions that is the key to healthy civilization.
    The emotional culture in the advanced world is decadent, trivial, and gutless.

    We had one of the most insanely stable and psychologically healthy systems with Confucianism before, one which basically had maximized the notion of a “social grammar” where everyone could find their role and everything was consistent.

    You blew it up. You guys blew it all up.

    Welcome to the ashes of human civilization and the relics of tradition.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    If you allowed yourselves to be blown up, it doesn't say much for your race and culture. There is a solution. Start "Easternizing." No more Western technology, industry and you can have your low IQ, backwards rice paddy country back. Always complaining about the West - that brought the world true civilization. Do something about it. And get out of our countries. And change your name, Daniel is not Asian.
  34. @Lot

    The Woodley effect is weaker, at very roughly 1 point per decade.
     
    Assuming we are only talking about white Western populations, I find a decline of 1IQ per decade since the 1880's to be an absurdly high estimate.

    I don't doubt there has been a decline, primarily from the very low and delayed fertility of the top 10% or so of females, but you really think it passes the smell test that between 1880 and 2017 it has been nearly one SD, nearly equal to the white-black gap?

    Is there any evidence that, for example, white children begin speaking and reading at later ages? You could say this is counteracted by the Flynn effect, but one of the causes of the Flynn effect is children are schooled and put in a stimulating environment compared to the past. This would be much less significant for very young children.

    I'm not sure even Woodley would agree with -1 per decade. You'd know better than me.

    Woodley's 2012 paper noted that Vining (1995) estimated dysgenic fertility decreased genotypic IQ by about 0.5 points per generation. That sounds a lot more reasonable. Several other sources are in that 0.3 to 1 per generation ballpark, and very far from ~3 per generation.

    With great respect for Galton, I have some doubt his measures using the following device are truly comparable to other reaction time experiments.

    http://galton.org/essays/1880-1889/galton-1889-rba-reaction-time.pdf

    Woodley also concedes:


    Galton's data reported by Johnson et al. (1985), i.e .21 for people tested within a year (N = 421) and .17 for people retested over any time interval (N = 1069), and the equivalent suggested coefficient of the Hick -style device employed in our reference study (.85; Deary et al., 2001).
     
    That is a very large difference between Galton's method and modern methods that calls into doubt the quality of the data.

    The estimates are variable, so I went for a median round figure.
    Simple reaction times 1884- 2004 range from 0.57–1.21 drops per decade, other measures mostly higher. Sorry, cannot paste up the relevant table in this comments box, so it has come out in a jumble.

    Table 1
    Secular trends in various indicators that are consistent with declining g (Woodley effects) – all discovered or more precisely estimated after Woodley and Figueredo (2013).
    Paper(s) finding secular declines in g
    Trait(s) indicating a
    Woodley effect
    Estimated decline in g
    per decade scaled in IQ
    points Countries from which data were collected
    Time period to
    which data
    pertain
    Woodley, te Nijenhuis and Murphy (2013,
    2014a), Woodley of Menie, te Nijenhuis and
    Murphy (2015b)
    Simple visual and
    auditory reaction time
    (increasing)
    0.57–1.21 Canada, Finland, UK, USA, and Australia (different
    permutations of countries were used in different
    studies)
    1884–2004
    Woodley, Madison and Charlton (2014c) 1.8 (females)
    0 (males)
    UK 1930–1970
    Madison et al. (2016) Not estimated Sweden 1959–1985
    Pietschnig and Gittler (2015) Three-dimensional
    rotation ability
    (decreasing)
    4.8 Austria and Germany 1977–2014
    Woodley of Menie and Fernandes (2015) Working memory
    capacity (decreasing)
    0.16 USA 1923–2008
    Woodley of Menie and Fernandes (2016a) Color acuity (decreasing) 3.5 (full sample) 5.8
    (subset aged in their
    20s)
    Belgium, Finland, UK, USA 1982–2002
    Woodley of Menie, Fernandes, Figueredo and
    Meisenberg (2015)
    g-loaded vocabulary
    usage (decreasing)
    Not estimated N/A (English-language texts from Google Ngram
    Viewer)
    1850–2005
    Woodley of Menie and Fernandes (2016b) Fluctuating asymmetry
    (increasing)
    0.16 USA 1824–1984

  35. @jacques sheete

    My summary of Reed’s post is:...
     
    My summary of Reed's post(s) is...Bla bla bla.

    This has to be satire.

    Fred Reed's views on intelligence are mostly unintelligent. as well as ignorant. Fred is an authority on nothing and I suspect that a huge part of the reason is that to be an authority takes discipline and I detect little to none in any of his views.

    By even mentioning his name in association with your subject, you discredit yourself and it's not even funny or good satire.

    Have a nice day.

    I do think that Fred has high verbal intelligence: his work is usually cogent, entertaining and well presented. I don’t agree with either his premises or his conclusion, but its a fun journey getting to and fro.

  36. @Yak-15
    Well because it would involve pointing out that many democrat strongholds - minority places - are really dumb. This would fly in the face of leftist idealism about their superior IQ. Perhaps more smart whites are liberal, perhaps not. But we can probably assert than more dumb whites are conservative than liberal. Leftists believe that most conservatives are dumb but would have a great deal of difficulty understanding that their NAMs are a grade dumber than the dumbest whites.

    They are pretty aware, they just are good at practicing mindkilling, as AK notes.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/berkeleys-anti-free-speech-movement/#comment-1750583

    The human mind uses mostly heuristic analysis, so the very same data can provide vastly different results viewed from an ideological lens. For liberals, the exceptions – which exist – prove that all rules are invalid. For conservatives, the exceptions – which exist – prove that the rule is indeed generally valid.

    We seem really bad at integrating reality, which is something like: norms exist with some room for exceptions. But I’m biased toward the Right, so what do I know.

  37. @Egregious Philbin
    perhaps many of the smartest of India's citizens have emigrated, & therefore results from India are a slight underestimate?

    btw, superb example: "Think of Flynn as the soil fertilizer effect and Woodley as the plant genetics effect."

    “IQ tests good at predicting life success,” that’s why India has Caste System and the Occidental societies have glass ceilings to make sure the status quote social order and the privileged are well protected and will not be declined, decayed or degraded through the natural selection process due to their undesirable IQ quality.

  38. @Santoculto
    Most northern-western european countries have less ''smart fraction'' than east asian countries but they have better quality of life and standard living, little doubt about creativity.

    Japan have better quality of life than Hong Kong.

    What matter, firstly, is not have that ''higher IQ ones'' but a good proportion of

    - more rational

    - avg IQ people.



    THE SAME thing all the time

    IQ-echoes...

    This post seems little excessive because more than one commenter, myself included, already refuted the poorly understood points made by Freed.

    Mister Thompson prove my points about IQ-researchers....

    “Most northern-western european countries have less ”smart fraction” than east asian countries but they have better quality of life and standard living, little doubt about creativity. ”

    I see creativity continually brought up when discussing Asians. What exactly is the basis for this? They seem plenty creative to me.

    There are a long list of firsts that were done in China (and you can find lists with a casual google).

    Quite often now when I see some news article about technology or an invention I see an Asian name.

    Personally, for a number of reasons, I’d make it a whole hell of a lot harder for Chinese to immigrate to or enter this country.

    But not creative? What does that even mean, they don’t become interior decorators at the rate other ethnicities do?

    Will say they seem to suck at music (despite all those classical musicians). Maybe a matter of taste but K-Pop and the Japanese pop acts just don’t have the “It” factor of some of the big Western European acts of days gone by (Fleetwood Mac, Beatles, heck even Abba).

    From what I hear though, K-Pop is bigger in places like Latin America now than American music, so what do I know maybe.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    All the time the crucial difference between western and eastern in this aspect is BIG versus LITTLE C's.

    Greater innovators has been disproportionately of european extraction, those ''with' BIG C.

    Yes, i believe japaneses, on avg, for example, seems very creative but we are talking about outliers.

    About pop culture in East Asia.

    First, this culture mimic western pop culture;

    Second, seems there are less diversity of musical styles among east asian artists (i can be wrong);

    Third, what Thompson said. Mayan''s'' were very creative, were... and now*

    Fourth, it's not just lack of diversity of styles and originality (invent new styles) but also lack of greater quality, i mean, even the best of pop-artists has been on the european or african extraction.

    This days japanese people are the most inovative in the east asia while many times chinese were more inovative.

    What differentiate older China than current China**

    Seems, little. So environmental differences cannot explain totally why we are not seeing a plenty of BIG-C'hinese inovators than in the past. In the true we have a even favorable environment in China to capture potential geniuses.


    From what I hear though, K-Pop is bigger in places like Latin America
     
    I no have notice about it here in Brazil, maybe in andinian or more-amerindian nations.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I think there are some studies that show that we are just generally less curious. Historically too, it should be notable that most of our inventions were always executed for a pragmatic and practical purpose, with relatively few contributions for purely abstract or ideological ends.

    Has its upsides and downsides. Clearly more downsides, because as mentioned above, they blew us all up.
    , @Lucius Somesuch

    Will say they seem to suck at music (despite all those classical musicians). Maybe a matter of taste but K-Pop and the Japanese pop acts just don’t have the “It” factor of some of the big Western European acts of days gone by (Fleetwood Mac, Beatles, heck even Abba).

    From what I hear though, K-Pop is bigger in places like Latin America now than American music, so what do I know maybe.
     
    The Beatles would be comparing apples (!) to oranges, and Fleetwood Mac (if I may gently rib) I might even raise a supercilious brow at; but a good amount of K-pop can proudly hold its own with the illustrious pop stylings of Abba.

    Part of its popularity in the Global South stems, no doubt, from the relative absence of ill*m*n*t* trashiness, but apart from the moral aspect there is an unquestionable and vast aesthetic superiority in the melodicism and grace of many K-pop producers and acts over the sterile four-to-the-floor techno beats and snarl-whisper verses/snarl-scream choruses of American "pop radio" or whatever we should call it nowadays. A minority cohort of entertainment agencies prefer Swedish producers over native Koreans, but their output is still musically preferable to the Judeo-"Western" mainstream.

    With regard to Fred, we shouldn't be snobs. He has his known tender spots he likes to gadfly about, and while I find his zealotry on behalf of his neighbors in retirement a little grating at times, it's not unuseful to have these questions aired. He is, at his best, a terrific writer and a not unjust defender of certain points of contention with his opposites like Derbyshire.

    And speaking of certain attenuated forms of g-factor fetishism: it must be said that, polymath that our friend the Derb is, he is capable of quite a bit of aspie silliness, like his dropping the word count of A Midsummer Night's Dream and suggesting (challenging?) his readers to go through it in an hour.

    Read A Midsummer Night's Dream in one hour!? Good God man, it's poetry, not The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Banish the theatrical run time inside your head, and banish all the world!
  39. lets talk about stupidity. Any low average bell curve has a right tail of a few smarties. As long as an authoritarian regime can control the dummies, the few smart ones can build a building, a pyramid, etc.

    Thus, the argument advanced in the article right at its git-go is wrong.

    the rest of it I did not bother to read cuz it got off so stupidly.

    JW

    • Replies: @res

    Any low average bell curve has a right tail of a few smarties. As long as an authoritarian regime can control the dummies, the few smart ones can build a building, a pyramid, etc.
     
    Any modern society requires a substantial body of competent people to maintain it. Yes, the smart fraction can design and build things (or hire even smarter people from elsewhere to do so). But what happens when the 70-85 IQ core is unable to maintain the transportation infrastructure, water and sanitation systems, and power grid? Or even worse, decides the best use for a power grid is as a source of copper to steal.
    , @EH
    The normal distibution drops off to either side super-exponentially. Slight differences in means yield order of magnitude differences in the tails. Also the size of the standard deviation differs by up to 20% between populations. Comparing a 100IQ, 15 s.d. US White population with an 85 IQ 13.8 s.d US Black population, and assuming conservatively that those personally advancing science with their insights rarely have IQs of less than 130:
    * 1 in 44 Whites will have the needed intelligence
    * 1 in 1800 Blacks will have the needed intelligence
    which is a ratio of 41, that is, per capita Whites are 4000% more likely than Blacks to score over 130. The White population in the US is about five times the size of the Black population, so the so for every Black with an IQ over 130 there are over 200 Whites.

    Now 85 IQ isn't all that low, several countries in Asia have similar scores. African countries are typically in the upper 60s to low 70s. Nigeria with an IQ of 69 according to Lynn (2010), and a population of about 180 million can be expected to have only about 4300 people above IQ 130, assuming a 15 point standard deviation. If it is 13.8 as for US Blacks, the number above 130 IQ is fewer than 1000. A US city with an effective White population of 50-250k (any town with a large university) has more intellectual potential than Nigeria. (There are a couple of smallish but powerful tribes in Nigeria that have much higher average IQs than their neighbors that have virtually all the 130+ Nigerians, which complicates the reckoning, balanced somewhat by their high emigration rate, but they aren't the same people as most of their fellow Nigerians, as they will be the first to tell you.)

    Even to run a shop (do taxes, make schedules, buy stock, set prices etc.) requires an IQ of at least 105. Fewer than 1 in 120 Nigerians can meet that bar. No matter how you set things up, there just isn't enough brainpower in Black Africa to sustain a civilization with retail shops, let alone modern utilities and transportation.
  40. @Sunbeam
    "Most northern-western european countries have less ”smart fraction” than east asian countries but they have better quality of life and standard living, little doubt about creativity. "

    I see creativity continually brought up when discussing Asians. What exactly is the basis for this? They seem plenty creative to me.

    There are a long list of firsts that were done in China (and you can find lists with a casual google).

    Quite often now when I see some news article about technology or an invention I see an Asian name.

    Personally, for a number of reasons, I'd make it a whole hell of a lot harder for Chinese to immigrate to or enter this country.

    But not creative? What does that even mean, they don't become interior decorators at the rate other ethnicities do?

    Will say they seem to suck at music (despite all those classical musicians). Maybe a matter of taste but K-Pop and the Japanese pop acts just don't have the "It" factor of some of the big Western European acts of days gone by (Fleetwood Mac, Beatles, heck even Abba).

    From what I hear though, K-Pop is bigger in places like Latin America now than American music, so what do I know maybe.

    All the time the crucial difference between western and eastern in this aspect is BIG versus LITTLE C’s.

    Greater innovators has been disproportionately of european extraction, those ”with’ BIG C.

    Yes, i believe japaneses, on avg, for example, seems very creative but we are talking about outliers.

    About pop culture in East Asia.

    First, this culture mimic western pop culture;

    Second, seems there are less diversity of musical styles among east asian artists (i can be wrong);

    Third, what Thompson said. Mayan”s” were very creative, were… and now*

    Fourth, it’s not just lack of diversity of styles and originality (invent new styles) but also lack of greater quality, i mean, even the best of pop-artists has been on the european or african extraction.

    This days japanese people are the most inovative in the east asia while many times chinese were more inovative.

    What differentiate older China than current China**

    Seems, little. So environmental differences cannot explain totally why we are not seeing a plenty of BIG-C’hinese inovators than in the past. In the true we have a even favorable environment in China to capture potential geniuses.

    From what I hear though, K-Pop is bigger in places like Latin America

    I no have notice about it here in Brazil, maybe in andinian or more-amerindian nations.

  41. @Wizard of Oz
    Do you think being able to consider lots of alternatives** quickly is one of the usuaal advantages of having a high IQ. In practical terms it might mean that someone who is a bit lazy and disorganised can nonetheless protect the family fortune and generally get by and avoid serious trouble (if only just).

    That makes me wonder too whether a lot of creativity isn't the result of being able to flip through lots of possibilities quickly. Of course there would be more to flip through usually in a high IQ mind and even perhaps more of a chance that systematic lateral thinking locates the pissibilities.

    ** forgive the solecism if you would object that there can be only two alternatives....[cf. Fowler]

    That makes me wonder too whether a lot of creativity isn’t the result of being able to flip through lots of possibilities quickly. Of course there would be more to flip through usually in a high IQ mind and even perhaps more of a chance that systematic lateral thinking locates the pissibilities.

    Agreed about this. I think of it as two necessary components (which I think map pretty directly into what you said):
    - Idea generation ability. Especially an ability to generate ideas that are both novel and practical (in my experiences with group brainstorming sessions there seems to be a strong trade-off between those).
    - Idea evaluation and pruning ability.

    I think for a skilled creative artist these might very well happen transparently and great creative ideas just pop out from intuition. It would be interesting to hear what accomplished creative artists think (there must be a literature on this). Most of my creativity literature exposure has come from Dean Simonton and Hans Eysenck, so other pointers welcomed.

    P.S. Thanks for the **. Just picked up my copy of Fowler to find that was yet another word I’ve been using in a sloppy fashion.

  42. @Eric Rasmusen
    1. Given global competition, a country *doesn't* need 120+ IQ people. It can import them, or they can stay in their home country and give orders to the IQ80 people. Either way, the country with IA80 will benefit (both will), because its people will be more productive and various 120+countries will compete to provide IQ services to them.

    2. India is a very big country. There will be lots of geniuses there even if average IQ is low.
    Quaere: What about Nigeria? It is not big on the same scale, but it must have a lot of very smart people. Are they all engaged in con games, at home and abroad? The culture routes very few to research and academia, unlike India.

    3. One might compare temperature records and IQ records. They are very good at comparing places or people at a single point in time. They are not designed for comparing places and people over a 50-year period, and are not so good at that. IQ, of course, is constantly renormed, so the basic scores always average 100--- probably normed in every country too--- and you have to go back to raw scores to find the Flynn Effect.

    4. There is no reason whatsoever to think the Flynn Effect is eternal.

    1. Given global competition, a country *doesn’t* need 120+ IQ people. It can import them, or they can stay in their home country and give orders to the IQ80 people.

    Because importing or outsourcing a ruling (even if only from behind the curtain) class has worked out so well throughout history for the natives. Perhaps you could offer your thoughts on colonialism?

    I tend to agree with your other points.

    • Replies: @gda
    I’m reminded of the skit from “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”:
    “..All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?”

    Perhaps we might add to that list, peace (pax Brittanica), trade, the English language, a middle class, technology, sport, and last (but by no means least) the Abolition of Slavery.

    But seriously, growing up in the West Indies, I would generally have to say that overall, and based on the English system, which is the only one I have actual first-hand knowledge of, colonialism there was a very much a net positive. And having met many who were peripherally involved in the English colonial experience in Africa, it was the same there.

    As Niall Ferguson observes:
    “Nobody, least of all me, claims that British imperial rule was perfect....... But most sub-Saharan governments since independence have managed to treat their populations significantly worse than the British did. For all its imperfections, the Colonial Civil Service was not corrupt. When money was sent to build railways or schools, British officials did not simply pocket it.”
    , @Saldim
    Go take a look at South Africa after Apartheid ended and come back to us.
  43. @dearieme
    Perhaps a clever man with the flu might understand the perpetually muddled better.

    There's a topic for a research grant: IQ-testing of flu victims.

    There’s a topic for a research grant: IQ-testing of flu victims.

    I don’t know if it is possible to get enough resolution from the tests, but I think it would be interesting to better characterize IQ variation on small time scales (hour, day, week, month) to assess short term environmental impacts and their causes. I see substantial variability in my own thinking (e.g. sickness, fasting vs post-prandial, time of day, current level of fitness, tiredness, etc.) but don’t really know how typical this is.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Not feasible with most intelligence tests of reasoning or vocubulary, but easy with processing speed tasks, reaction times, and some memory tests, cf Ebbinghaus.
  44. @TG
    With respect you are missing the main point.

    Yes IQ is important. In the real world Forest Gump will not be a brain surgeon. But as for mean IQ and entire nations...

    Probably asian IQ's are - on average - a bit higher than european. But in the 19th and 20th centuries, genetically smarter Chinese lived in filth and misery and Americans progressed and became prosperous and strong. Because hundreds of millions of people mean IQ of 102 having seven kids each and starving to death in the mud do less well than a more modest number of people mean IQ of 100 with abundant food and resources. Duh.

    Einstein was way smarter than I am. If he was naked and starving in the middle of a desert, I dare say he would be less productive than I would be fat and happy and with lots of tools and materials.

    Yes IQ matters. But as for entire societies, there are other factors that can dwarf the effects of a few points average more or less...

    Chinese was only one of the victims in the hands of the Occidental people barbarism, Romans, Indian, Muslim, indigenous people of Americas, Australia, Africa, South East Asia, Islands of Pacific Ocean, etc. are all victims of the Occidental people barbarism, most of them are still suffering from the Occidental people barbarism and never have a chance to get out of the sufferings imposed on them thru organized barbaric violence by the psychopathic aliens from faraway Occidental land uninvited, unwanted and unwarranted.

    The Occidental people are not only war criminals, criminals of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, they are also hypocrites trying to white wash and gloss over their crimes on the moral high ground and by not mentioning their ugly past, they thrive on sucking other people’s blood and suffocate other higher IQ people from progress.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I think I could probably code a forum bot to spam exactly like you do. Bot Wong?
    , @Santoculto
    I'm"western" individual and I'm not barbaric or guilty by anything I don't participate directly.

    Western, do you are including Jews or they are other holly victim group??
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You are trolling of course so there's mo need for precision or completeness but you have forgotten to mention that the most destructive criminals in terms of numbers of victims and destruction of inherited culture were the victims of Occidental ideas. Mao's Cultural Revolution was a nice segue to his Great Leap Forward and Ho Chi Minh was only less destructive to Vietnamese culture and religion than Pol Pot would have been if destroying Cambodia hadn't preoccupied him. Oh the power of those Occidental ideas in the wrong hands even many years after Marx and Lenin died. If only they hadn't chasedthe Dalai Llama out of his country. What a pity the culture wasn't capable of learning from others' mistakes.
  45. @Sunbeam
    "Most northern-western european countries have less ”smart fraction” than east asian countries but they have better quality of life and standard living, little doubt about creativity. "

    I see creativity continually brought up when discussing Asians. What exactly is the basis for this? They seem plenty creative to me.

    There are a long list of firsts that were done in China (and you can find lists with a casual google).

    Quite often now when I see some news article about technology or an invention I see an Asian name.

    Personally, for a number of reasons, I'd make it a whole hell of a lot harder for Chinese to immigrate to or enter this country.

    But not creative? What does that even mean, they don't become interior decorators at the rate other ethnicities do?

    Will say they seem to suck at music (despite all those classical musicians). Maybe a matter of taste but K-Pop and the Japanese pop acts just don't have the "It" factor of some of the big Western European acts of days gone by (Fleetwood Mac, Beatles, heck even Abba).

    From what I hear though, K-Pop is bigger in places like Latin America now than American music, so what do I know maybe.

    I think there are some studies that show that we are just generally less curious. Historically too, it should be notable that most of our inventions were always executed for a pragmatic and practical purpose, with relatively few contributions for purely abstract or ideological ends.

    Has its upsides and downsides. Clearly more downsides, because as mentioned above, they blew us all up.

    • Replies: @res

    I think there are some studies that show that we are just generally less curious.
     
    I've always associated that with "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down" (but don't really know how much that extends beyond Japan). I don't have any idea about the direction of causality though.

    The Confucian desire for a stable society also seems relevant.

    What do you think about these observations?

    P.S. Sunbeam does make an excellent point about Chinese firsts. Some of those counter your pragmatic point IMHO (e.g. gunpowder discovered but not used pragmatically) so whatever is going on seems complicated to me.
  46. @joe webb
    lets talk about stupidity. Any low average bell curve has a right tail of a few smarties. As long as an authoritarian regime can control the dummies, the few smart ones can build a building, a pyramid, etc.

    Thus, the argument advanced in the article right at its git-go is wrong.

    the rest of it I did not bother to read cuz it got off so stupidly.

    JW

    Any low average bell curve has a right tail of a few smarties. As long as an authoritarian regime can control the dummies, the few smart ones can build a building, a pyramid, etc.

    Any modern society requires a substantial body of competent people to maintain it. Yes, the smart fraction can design and build things (or hire even smarter people from elsewhere to do so). But what happens when the 70-85 IQ core is unable to maintain the transportation infrastructure, water and sanitation systems, and power grid? Or even worse, decides the best use for a power grid is as a source of copper to steal.

  47. Dr. Thompson, one topic that came up in comments to Fred Reed’s post was whether or not the composition and size of g might vary depending on the reference population used. My thinking was that differing verbal/spatial/math splits (e.g. between Jews, Asians, and Whites) might result in differences in the factors found both in composition and in importance (I would expect g to remain, but would it remain the exact same thing with the exact same explanatory power?). Has anyone taken a test like the WAIS and done a complete renorming (including a new factor analysis) with a different population? (this sounds like something the Chinese might do)

    A related question is I was wondering if g might similarly differ between more diverse and more homogeneous reference populations? My speculation would be that the other factors would become more important as the population became more diverse genetically (but the opposite appears to be the case if we segment by something like educational achievement, right?).

    If you have any thoughts or pointers I would appreciate hearing about them.

    P.S. I think Table 8.3 here offers a hint this might be true:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=1RXSBwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA184&ots=GJZ_w2y6T0&pg=PA184#v=onepage

    I was amazed that g accounted for 70% of the variance explained in one of the subgroups.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    There are two minimal requirements for g calculations: that there be a very broad range of people, and a broad range of tasks.
    Samples which are restricted in range (university students for example) will appear to have less g. Such samples are often used when the researcher would like to show that something other than general intelligence is an important factor.
    The need for a range of tasks is perhaps less crucial, but it helps extract a general factor.
    By the way, there are ways of apparently getting rid of the general factor by forcing the smaller factors into a more prominent position. If in doubt, to counter these approaches, look at Principal Compenents analysis for a simple general factor.
    A more demanding criterion is that the test items should behave in the same way with different samples and different historical cohorts. Confirmatory factor analyses are required.
    Factor structures do alter somewhat in different populations, but give large sample sizes these effects are generally small.
    General factors can also be found in some animals. Rosalind Arden covers this work.
  48. @trilobite
    you have not addressed the Irish IQ discrepancy.

    True. It thought it would be too long for the brief replies I intended, so it fell by the wayside. It was the finding of low Irish IQ which launched Richard Lynn onto the study of intelligence, particularly country intelligence.
    9 studies in the database, mostly children (with some big samples) and one on adults. IQ 93 for mean and median, range 88 to 97.

    • Replies: @Rudolph
    Isn't the Irish avg IQ obviously ~100 ?

    Sure, just saying "obviously" is not remotely scientific, but hey.
  49. @Fin of a Cobra

    countries depend on those with IQs of 120 and above. These are the people who can follow “college format” education in which they read provided references and work out the implications for themselves, guided by tutor and test feedback. The USA can rely on 8% of their people to do such work
     
    If 8% of the total population of the United States are able to perform this college-level work, then why are only 4% of the whites in the country capable of figuring out the “carpet” problem you mention in your Intelligent Brains article?

    OK, I admit that I am still shocked by this number, this 4%, ONLY FOUR PERCENT!!!, of whites who are capable of figuring out the price of carpeting for a room. So you’re telling me 96% of whites can’t do this simple problem, which is described like this: "only 4% of the white population is in the top category and can complete tasks like using a calculator to figure out the cost of carpeting a room. This requires determining the area, converting to square yards, and multiplying by the price." (The Neuroscience of Intelligence, by Richard J. Haier, p. 24; and maybe ADULT LITERACY in America is the study Haier is referencing.)

    This is not rocket science, people.

    So here is another problem that I see right away: intelligent people (those who can figure out the carpet problem) cannot fathom what it is like to have such low intelligence. We cannot put ourselves in their “frame of mind”, let’s call it, and simply NOT SEE something that to us is evident, blatant, something that is just staring us right in the face and should be just as evident to “them”. So maybe this is one of the reasons it has been so easy to manipulate the masses…

    8% is an overall figure for what is roughly encompassed by those able to benefit from college type education. 4% is the result of a specific mathematical problem.

  50. @The Alarmist
    I am surprised some enterprising researcher hasn't already studied county by county IQs as an explanatory variable for the election of Trump. There has to be some really good research money opportunities in that.

    Many State level analyses have been done, including on political preferences.

  51. @Daniel Chieh
    I think there are some studies that show that we are just generally less curious. Historically too, it should be notable that most of our inventions were always executed for a pragmatic and practical purpose, with relatively few contributions for purely abstract or ideological ends.

    Has its upsides and downsides. Clearly more downsides, because as mentioned above, they blew us all up.

    I think there are some studies that show that we are just generally less curious.

    I’ve always associated that with “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down” (but don’t really know how much that extends beyond Japan). I don’t have any idea about the direction of causality though.

    The Confucian desire for a stable society also seems relevant.

    What do you think about these observations?

    P.S. Sunbeam does make an excellent point about Chinese firsts. Some of those counter your pragmatic point IMHO (e.g. gunpowder discovered but not used pragmatically) so whatever is going on seems complicated to me.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Well, in the case of gunpowder, I believe it was kind of a historical fluke that did us in. Until the advent of the multi-shot rifle, bow-armed horsemen - even Native American plains warriors - were able to compete successfully against firearms. In China's case, Ming musketeers ultimately proved incapable of defeating a much more organized, larger Manchu force armed with compound bows.

    When the Manchu took over and became the Qing Dynasty, they seem to have mostly ended any interest in improving firearms. Understandable in a way; they were horsemen, they had a tradition of horsemen, and firearms spooked horses and basically weren't very compatible with their combat doctrine.

    Had the Ming avoided institutional collapse, China would have most likely done much better at firearms and probably would have at least remained competitive rather than be surpassed by European adoption. It wasn't like the Ming were unaware of worldwide developments, they wrote about them and expressed concern, and even developed the infantry drill independently of Prussia.

  52. @Wizard of Oz
    Do you think being able to consider lots of alternatives** quickly is one of the usuaal advantages of having a high IQ. In practical terms it might mean that someone who is a bit lazy and disorganised can nonetheless protect the family fortune and generally get by and avoid serious trouble (if only just).

    That makes me wonder too whether a lot of creativity isn't the result of being able to flip through lots of possibilities quickly. Of course there would be more to flip through usually in a high IQ mind and even perhaps more of a chance that systematic lateral thinking locates the pissibilities.

    ** forgive the solecism if you would object that there can be only two alternatives....[cf. Fowler]

    cf Fowler: Lots of options, only one alternative. However, usage has changed, so Fowler is no longer in charge.

  53. @Wizard of Oz
    Do you think being able to consider lots of alternatives** quickly is one of the usuaal advantages of having a high IQ. In practical terms it might mean that someone who is a bit lazy and disorganised can nonetheless protect the family fortune and generally get by and avoid serious trouble (if only just).

    That makes me wonder too whether a lot of creativity isn't the result of being able to flip through lots of possibilities quickly. Of course there would be more to flip through usually in a high IQ mind and even perhaps more of a chance that systematic lateral thinking locates the pissibilities.

    ** forgive the solecism if you would object that there can be only two alternatives....[cf. Fowler]

    Yes. Might be speed of cycling as alternative options are considered and rejected until one is a good fit. One aspect of the processing speed argument for general intelligence.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/10-fast-questions-about-processing

    • Replies: @res
    Agreed about the importance of processing speed. Do you think working memory ties in here as well? It seems to me that both the number of options one can consider simultaneously and the number of criteria that one can use to evaluate options are relevant.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Since it was clearly an example of what can happen on a relaxed early morning walk when high processing speed fires up the perhaps all-too-active "divergent" aspect of my mind I make that my excuse for using this thread to pose a question the answer to which might interest many.

    It occurred to me that the "Unsubcribe" link to be found on many dubious marketing emails ("You have $500 credit at Woolworths" or whatever, with the presumably merely optimistic or opportunistic ones, as distinct from the malicious, mentioning an address in Spain or Germany or Florida) could well be one of those links which plants a Trojan or other malware on one's computer or phone..... How can one tell? How can one safely deal with those, or any other, suspect links?

    Presumably using an option to look at "Source" could help - but what expertise is needed if that is to provide the answer?
  54. @Joe Wong
    Chinese was only one of the victims in the hands of the Occidental people barbarism, Romans, Indian, Muslim, indigenous people of Americas, Australia, Africa, South East Asia, Islands of Pacific Ocean, etc. are all victims of the Occidental people barbarism, most of them are still suffering from the Occidental people barbarism and never have a chance to get out of the sufferings imposed on them thru organized barbaric violence by the psychopathic aliens from faraway Occidental land uninvited, unwanted and unwarranted.

    The Occidental people are not only war criminals, criminals of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, they are also hypocrites trying to white wash and gloss over their crimes on the moral high ground and by not mentioning their ugly past, they thrive on sucking other people's blood and suffocate other higher IQ people from progress.

    I think I could probably code a forum bot to spam exactly like you do. Bot Wong?

  55. @James Thompson
    Yes. Might be speed of cycling as alternative options are considered and rejected until one is a good fit. One aspect of the processing speed argument for general intelligence.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/10-fast-questions-about-processing

    Agreed about the importance of processing speed. Do you think working memory ties in here as well? It seems to me that both the number of options one can consider simultaneously and the number of criteria that one can use to evaluate options are relevant.

    • Replies: @iffen
    It seems to me that both the number of options

    It seems that it would be of importance to be able to quickly recognize non-viable options. I read something recently about the importance of the ability to quickly disregard non-causal factors.
  56. @Joe Wong
    Chinese was only one of the victims in the hands of the Occidental people barbarism, Romans, Indian, Muslim, indigenous people of Americas, Australia, Africa, South East Asia, Islands of Pacific Ocean, etc. are all victims of the Occidental people barbarism, most of them are still suffering from the Occidental people barbarism and never have a chance to get out of the sufferings imposed on them thru organized barbaric violence by the psychopathic aliens from faraway Occidental land uninvited, unwanted and unwarranted.

    The Occidental people are not only war criminals, criminals of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, they are also hypocrites trying to white wash and gloss over their crimes on the moral high ground and by not mentioning their ugly past, they thrive on sucking other people's blood and suffocate other higher IQ people from progress.

    I’m”western” individual and I’m not barbaric or guilty by anything I don’t participate directly.

    Western, do you are including Jews or they are other holly victim group??

  57. @Joe Wong
    "IQ tests good at predicting life success," that's why India has Caste System and the Occidental societies have glass ceilings to make sure the status quote social order and the privileged are well protected and will not be declined, decayed or degraded through the natural selection process due to their undesirable IQ quality.

    The best guinea pigs are winners ^_~

  58. @res

    I think there are some studies that show that we are just generally less curious.
     
    I've always associated that with "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down" (but don't really know how much that extends beyond Japan). I don't have any idea about the direction of causality though.

    The Confucian desire for a stable society also seems relevant.

    What do you think about these observations?

    P.S. Sunbeam does make an excellent point about Chinese firsts. Some of those counter your pragmatic point IMHO (e.g. gunpowder discovered but not used pragmatically) so whatever is going on seems complicated to me.

    Well, in the case of gunpowder, I believe it was kind of a historical fluke that did us in. Until the advent of the multi-shot rifle, bow-armed horsemen – even Native American plains warriors – were able to compete successfully against firearms. In China’s case, Ming musketeers ultimately proved incapable of defeating a much more organized, larger Manchu force armed with compound bows.

    When the Manchu took over and became the Qing Dynasty, they seem to have mostly ended any interest in improving firearms. Understandable in a way; they were horsemen, they had a tradition of horsemen, and firearms spooked horses and basically weren’t very compatible with their combat doctrine.

    Had the Ming avoided institutional collapse, China would have most likely done much better at firearms and probably would have at least remained competitive rather than be surpassed by European adoption. It wasn’t like the Ming were unaware of worldwide developments, they wrote about them and expressed concern, and even developed the infantry drill independently of Prussia.

    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for the interesting and educational response.

    Two further thoughts. What about cannons? In the west cannons revolutionized the role of fortifications in warfare. Similarly, did the Chinese have effective armor? My impression was a big driver of firearm uptake in the west was its effectiveness against heavy armor.

    P.S. I wonder if Twinkie is reading this. He would probably have a lot to say here.
  59. @res
    Dr. Thompson, one topic that came up in comments to Fred Reed's post was whether or not the composition and size of g might vary depending on the reference population used. My thinking was that differing verbal/spatial/math splits (e.g. between Jews, Asians, and Whites) might result in differences in the factors found both in composition and in importance (I would expect g to remain, but would it remain the exact same thing with the exact same explanatory power?). Has anyone taken a test like the WAIS and done a complete renorming (including a new factor analysis) with a different population? (this sounds like something the Chinese might do)

    A related question is I was wondering if g might similarly differ between more diverse and more homogeneous reference populations? My speculation would be that the other factors would become more important as the population became more diverse genetically (but the opposite appears to be the case if we segment by something like educational achievement, right?).

    If you have any thoughts or pointers I would appreciate hearing about them.

    P.S. I think Table 8.3 here offers a hint this might be true:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=1RXSBwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA184&ots=GJZ_w2y6T0&pg=PA184#v=onepage
    I was amazed that g accounted for 70% of the variance explained in one of the subgroups.

    There are two minimal requirements for g calculations: that there be a very broad range of people, and a broad range of tasks.
    Samples which are restricted in range (university students for example) will appear to have less g. Such samples are often used when the researcher would like to show that something other than general intelligence is an important factor.
    The need for a range of tasks is perhaps less crucial, but it helps extract a general factor.
    By the way, there are ways of apparently getting rid of the general factor by forcing the smaller factors into a more prominent position. If in doubt, to counter these approaches, look at Principal Compenents analysis for a simple general factor.
    A more demanding criterion is that the test items should behave in the same way with different samples and different historical cohorts. Confirmatory factor analyses are required.
    Factor structures do alter somewhat in different populations, but give large sample sizes these effects are generally small.
    General factors can also be found in some animals. Rosalind Arden covers this work.

    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for your response! The PCA comment succinctly captures thousands of words of comments in the Fred Reed post. My big takeaway from that was (emphasis mine):

    Because the rotations are always performed in a subspace (the so-called factor space), the new axes will always explain less variance than the original factors (which are computed to be optimal), but obviously the part of variance explained by the total subspace after rotation is the same as it was before rotation (only the partition of the variance has changed).

     

    From https://www.utdallas.edu/~herve/Abdi-rotations-pretty.pdf which utu kindly referenced.

    Expressed in other words, rotations let you underestimate g (the first factor), but never overestimate it.


    A more demanding criterion is that the test items should behave in the same way with different samples and different historical cohorts.
     
    Can you recommend any papers which cover this and give results for a variety of samples?

    Factor structures do alter somewhat in different populations, but give large sample sizes these effects are generally small.
     
    Good to know this has been tested. Can you recommend any papers exploring this? Or suggest search terms etc.? I apologize if I am being overly demanding of your time and expertise.

    Thanks also for the Rosalind Arden pointer. This paper (focused on dogs) looks like a good introduction to her work for anyone else who want to look: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721416667718

    P.S. Here are some recent papers discussing Chinese intelligence test standardization, but I did not see anything comparing the resulting factors to those from other groups:
    http://www.sciencedomain.org/download/NDAzMUBAcGY.pdf
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000901

    This book looks like it discusses somewhat related issues.

  60. @Daniel Chieh
    We had one of the most insanely stable and psychologically healthy systems with Confucianism before, one which basically had maximized the notion of a "social grammar" where everyone could find their role and everything was consistent.

    You blew it up. You guys blew it all up.

    Welcome to the ashes of human civilization and the relics of tradition.

    If you allowed yourselves to be blown up, it doesn’t say much for your race and culture. There is a solution. Start “Easternizing.” No more Western technology, industry and you can have your low IQ, backwards rice paddy country back. Always complaining about the West – that brought the world true civilization. Do something about it. And get out of our countries. And change your name, Daniel is not Asian.

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    Geez.

    I'm not here to make some kind of histrionic defense of Asians.

    But come on. They don't really need us for squat anymore. If aliens beamed the population of the US and Europe away to Alpha Centauri the Asian countries would still continue developing. Regardless of whether our markets are there or not. Really doesn't matter anymore. Sure there would be a blip on the economic graphs, but ten years later no one would remember the short downturn.

    Unless you are saying they need to roll back to how things were done circa 1950 or so. Just cause.

    What I'm saying is that the West doesn't own "technology." Asia is doing just fine on its own from that standpoint.

    , @Daniel Chieh
    I think you missed the reference to Planet of the Apes.

    The point is simply that while some systems maximize certain parameters of humanity, they are still vulnerable in other ways. I'm not particularly trying to praise anything, and indeed, I noted that the "blowing up" is part of the fact that it had weaknesses.

    I do have some belief that if the rate of scientific innovation is indeed slackening, then Eastern systems may need become more effective again. I believe its basically stable and provides for more human satisfaction, but less capable of handling disruption. If disruptions are minimized, then its qualities can show itself again.
  61. @Egregious Philbin
    perhaps many of the smartest of India's citizens have emigrated, & therefore results from India are a slight underestimate?

    btw, superb example: "Think of Flynn as the soil fertilizer effect and Woodley as the plant genetics effect."

    India’s population is extremely bi-modal, with the top two castes of Hindus (roughly speaking, the rulers and the priests) having high IQ’s that have been maintained by assertive mating, and the religious subgroup the Jains, who have an even higher proportion of doctors and other professionals in the US. The remaining population of India seems to have an average IQ of about 80. The truth of this is reinforced by the success of these 3 groups in the US, with Hindus having even higher average income than Jews, and Jains being prominent in all professions.

  62. @Daniel Chieh
    Well, in the case of gunpowder, I believe it was kind of a historical fluke that did us in. Until the advent of the multi-shot rifle, bow-armed horsemen - even Native American plains warriors - were able to compete successfully against firearms. In China's case, Ming musketeers ultimately proved incapable of defeating a much more organized, larger Manchu force armed with compound bows.

    When the Manchu took over and became the Qing Dynasty, they seem to have mostly ended any interest in improving firearms. Understandable in a way; they were horsemen, they had a tradition of horsemen, and firearms spooked horses and basically weren't very compatible with their combat doctrine.

    Had the Ming avoided institutional collapse, China would have most likely done much better at firearms and probably would have at least remained competitive rather than be surpassed by European adoption. It wasn't like the Ming were unaware of worldwide developments, they wrote about them and expressed concern, and even developed the infantry drill independently of Prussia.

    Thanks for the interesting and educational response.

    Two further thoughts. What about cannons? In the west cannons revolutionized the role of fortifications in warfare. Similarly, did the Chinese have effective armor? My impression was a big driver of firearm uptake in the west was its effectiveness against heavy armor.

    P.S. I wonder if Twinkie is reading this. He would probably have a lot to say here.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Chinese fortifications were of a level beyond anything in Europe and are largely credited for the slow development of cannons - late 19th century European cannons had difficulty penetrating Chinese city walls; essentially Chinese walls were built a bit like how modern body armor is, with a hard exterior encasing a softer clay interior that would distribute force. Its been typified that it might be an example of Chinese siege mentality, and were praised by some European observers, who might have been bewildered by the insanity of building walls within walls, such as around the market district.

    As such, Chinese cannons effectively treated walls as largely invincible and development carried along lines of "shotgun" or "shrapnel" to cause harm to soft elements of an army, aka troop-killing.

    That was actually pretty effective though ultimately bombarding huge tracts of land with endless barrages of artillery to drive away horsemen appears to have been more expensive than we thought. WW1 comparisons are appropriate, artillery is largely cost-ineffective despite impressive appearance. I suspect part of the failure of the Ming was the high cost of endless defensive war, as there are receipts showing something like a hundred cannons being delivered to the Great Wall annually.

    As for armor, the Chinese were fighting against nomads without armor, so armor penetration was not a particular concern. Due to early adoption of crossbows, armor had already often become more of a hindrance and mobility coupled with light bear weights was emphasized, and I don't believe we ever really built much more than chainmail on a field level.

  63. @Anon
    IQ seems to lead to soulless modernity, materialism, atomization, and ideological lunacy. Some of the craziest nations are high-IQ.

    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it's committing demographic suicide.
    So is EU though at slower rate, but in some ways worse cuz of invasion by Muslims and Africans.

    IQ is like drugs. In wrong doses or used wrongly, and it leads to sterility and death of civilization.

    In the end, it is the culture of emotions that is the key to healthy civilization.
    The emotional culture in the advanced world is decadent, trivial, and gutless.

    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it’s committing demographic suicide.

    ???? This reminds me of the fools who want Japan to start taking in immigrants talking about Japan’s death spiral. They are losing 250,000 people a year. In a country of 110 million this means in about 400 years Japan will have 10 million at that rate. I think there is plenty of time to fix the problem – if it is a problem.

    Some depopulation may be just what these countries need.

    • Replies: @Malla
    Exactly, with continuous improvements in robotic and automation, one wonders what is the need of big populations anymore. The big issue should not be Japan and Germany having a falling population but who is going to give jobs to the fast growing Africans, Arabs and Pakistanis in the near future.
  64. @James Thompson
    There are two minimal requirements for g calculations: that there be a very broad range of people, and a broad range of tasks.
    Samples which are restricted in range (university students for example) will appear to have less g. Such samples are often used when the researcher would like to show that something other than general intelligence is an important factor.
    The need for a range of tasks is perhaps less crucial, but it helps extract a general factor.
    By the way, there are ways of apparently getting rid of the general factor by forcing the smaller factors into a more prominent position. If in doubt, to counter these approaches, look at Principal Compenents analysis for a simple general factor.
    A more demanding criterion is that the test items should behave in the same way with different samples and different historical cohorts. Confirmatory factor analyses are required.
    Factor structures do alter somewhat in different populations, but give large sample sizes these effects are generally small.
    General factors can also be found in some animals. Rosalind Arden covers this work.

    Thanks for your response! The PCA comment succinctly captures thousands of words of comments in the Fred Reed post. My big takeaway from that was (emphasis mine):

    Because the rotations are always performed in a subspace (the so-called factor space), the new axes will always explain less variance than the original factors (which are computed to be optimal), but obviously the part of variance explained by the total subspace after rotation is the same as it was before rotation (only the partition of the variance has changed).

    From https://www.utdallas.edu/~herve/Abdi-rotations-pretty.pdf which utu kindly referenced.

    Expressed in other words, rotations let you underestimate g (the first factor), but never overestimate it.

    A more demanding criterion is that the test items should behave in the same way with different samples and different historical cohorts.

    Can you recommend any papers which cover this and give results for a variety of samples?

    Factor structures do alter somewhat in different populations, but give large sample sizes these effects are generally small.

    Good to know this has been tested. Can you recommend any papers exploring this? Or suggest search terms etc.? I apologize if I am being overly demanding of your time and expertise.

    Thanks also for the Rosalind Arden pointer. This paper (focused on dogs) looks like a good introduction to her work for anyone else who want to look: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721416667718

    P.S. Here are some recent papers discussing Chinese intelligence test standardization, but I did not see anything comparing the resulting factors to those from other groups:

    http://www.sciencedomain.org/download/NDAzMUBAcGY.pdf

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000901

    This book looks like it discusses somewhat related issues.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Here is my take on the over-factoring of the Wechsler tests
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-wechsler-factor-factory

    Jelte Wicherts has majored on confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/correlated-vectors This an example, no more, but search for his work generally.

    I sit through the factor analysis symposia at ISIR meetings, but rarely post about these papers, because they are generally very technical, and in my view don't change the general picture very much.
  65. @attilathehen
    If you allowed yourselves to be blown up, it doesn't say much for your race and culture. There is a solution. Start "Easternizing." No more Western technology, industry and you can have your low IQ, backwards rice paddy country back. Always complaining about the West - that brought the world true civilization. Do something about it. And get out of our countries. And change your name, Daniel is not Asian.

    Geez.

    I’m not here to make some kind of histrionic defense of Asians.

    But come on. They don’t really need us for squat anymore. If aliens beamed the population of the US and Europe away to Alpha Centauri the Asian countries would still continue developing. Regardless of whether our markets are there or not. Really doesn’t matter anymore. Sure there would be a blip on the economic graphs, but ten years later no one would remember the short downturn.

    Unless you are saying they need to roll back to how things were done circa 1950 or so. Just cause.

    What I’m saying is that the West doesn’t own “technology.” Asia is doing just fine on its own from that standpoint.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Asians can only copy, they do not invent. Without Asians, the West is fine. Without the West, Asia is gone. There are 3 races: Caucasian, Asian, black. The bottom 2 don't count.
  66. @attilathehen
    If you allowed yourselves to be blown up, it doesn't say much for your race and culture. There is a solution. Start "Easternizing." No more Western technology, industry and you can have your low IQ, backwards rice paddy country back. Always complaining about the West - that brought the world true civilization. Do something about it. And get out of our countries. And change your name, Daniel is not Asian.

    I think you missed the reference to Planet of the Apes.

    The point is simply that while some systems maximize certain parameters of humanity, they are still vulnerable in other ways. I’m not particularly trying to praise anything, and indeed, I noted that the “blowing up” is part of the fact that it had weaknesses.

    I do have some belief that if the rate of scientific innovation is indeed slackening, then Eastern systems may need become more effective again. I believe its basically stable and provides for more human satisfaction, but less capable of handling disruption. If disruptions are minimized, then its qualities can show itself again.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Asians can only copy. And only the Japanese have been able to copy themselves into a modern, democratic country. But again, THEY COPIED!!! We do not need or want Asians in the West. Without us, you are gone. Without you, we are fine.
  67. @res
    Agreed about the importance of processing speed. Do you think working memory ties in here as well? It seems to me that both the number of options one can consider simultaneously and the number of criteria that one can use to evaluate options are relevant.

    It seems to me that both the number of options

    It seems that it would be of importance to be able to quickly recognize non-viable options. I read something recently about the importance of the ability to quickly disregard non-causal factors.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You bring to mind the decisive leaders who cut off actually viable options too quickly and fail to allow subtle exploration of nuance and complexity. Sometimes that would be caused more by ego than IQ (anyone reminded of the Donald?).
  68. @res
    Thanks for the interesting and educational response.

    Two further thoughts. What about cannons? In the west cannons revolutionized the role of fortifications in warfare. Similarly, did the Chinese have effective armor? My impression was a big driver of firearm uptake in the west was its effectiveness against heavy armor.

    P.S. I wonder if Twinkie is reading this. He would probably have a lot to say here.

    Chinese fortifications were of a level beyond anything in Europe and are largely credited for the slow development of cannons – late 19th century European cannons had difficulty penetrating Chinese city walls; essentially Chinese walls were built a bit like how modern body armor is, with a hard exterior encasing a softer clay interior that would distribute force. Its been typified that it might be an example of Chinese siege mentality, and were praised by some European observers, who might have been bewildered by the insanity of building walls within walls, such as around the market district.

    As such, Chinese cannons effectively treated walls as largely invincible and development carried along lines of “shotgun” or “shrapnel” to cause harm to soft elements of an army, aka troop-killing.

    That was actually pretty effective though ultimately bombarding huge tracts of land with endless barrages of artillery to drive away horsemen appears to have been more expensive than we thought. WW1 comparisons are appropriate, artillery is largely cost-ineffective despite impressive appearance. I suspect part of the failure of the Ming was the high cost of endless defensive war, as there are receipts showing something like a hundred cannons being delivered to the Great Wall annually.

    As for armor, the Chinese were fighting against nomads without armor, so armor penetration was not a particular concern. Due to early adoption of crossbows, armor had already often become more of a hindrance and mobility coupled with light bear weights was emphasized, and I don’t believe we ever really built much more than chainmail on a field level.

  69. @res
    Thanks for your response! The PCA comment succinctly captures thousands of words of comments in the Fred Reed post. My big takeaway from that was (emphasis mine):

    Because the rotations are always performed in a subspace (the so-called factor space), the new axes will always explain less variance than the original factors (which are computed to be optimal), but obviously the part of variance explained by the total subspace after rotation is the same as it was before rotation (only the partition of the variance has changed).

     

    From https://www.utdallas.edu/~herve/Abdi-rotations-pretty.pdf which utu kindly referenced.

    Expressed in other words, rotations let you underestimate g (the first factor), but never overestimate it.


    A more demanding criterion is that the test items should behave in the same way with different samples and different historical cohorts.
     
    Can you recommend any papers which cover this and give results for a variety of samples?

    Factor structures do alter somewhat in different populations, but give large sample sizes these effects are generally small.
     
    Good to know this has been tested. Can you recommend any papers exploring this? Or suggest search terms etc.? I apologize if I am being overly demanding of your time and expertise.

    Thanks also for the Rosalind Arden pointer. This paper (focused on dogs) looks like a good introduction to her work for anyone else who want to look: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721416667718

    P.S. Here are some recent papers discussing Chinese intelligence test standardization, but I did not see anything comparing the resulting factors to those from other groups:
    http://www.sciencedomain.org/download/NDAzMUBAcGY.pdf
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000901

    This book looks like it discusses somewhat related issues.

    Here is my take on the over-factoring of the Wechsler tests

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-wechsler-factor-factory

    Jelte Wicherts has majored on confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/correlated-vectors This an example, no more, but search for his work generally.

    I sit through the factor analysis symposia at ISIR meetings, but rarely post about these papers, because they are generally very technical, and in my view don’t change the general picture very much.

  70. @Fin of a Cobra

    countries depend on those with IQs of 120 and above. These are the people who can follow “college format” education in which they read provided references and work out the implications for themselves, guided by tutor and test feedback. The USA can rely on 8% of their people to do such work
     
    If 8% of the total population of the United States are able to perform this college-level work, then why are only 4% of the whites in the country capable of figuring out the “carpet” problem you mention in your Intelligent Brains article?

    OK, I admit that I am still shocked by this number, this 4%, ONLY FOUR PERCENT!!!, of whites who are capable of figuring out the price of carpeting for a room. So you’re telling me 96% of whites can’t do this simple problem, which is described like this: "only 4% of the white population is in the top category and can complete tasks like using a calculator to figure out the cost of carpeting a room. This requires determining the area, converting to square yards, and multiplying by the price." (The Neuroscience of Intelligence, by Richard J. Haier, p. 24; and maybe ADULT LITERACY in America is the study Haier is referencing.)

    This is not rocket science, people.

    So here is another problem that I see right away: intelligent people (those who can figure out the carpet problem) cannot fathom what it is like to have such low intelligence. We cannot put ourselves in their “frame of mind”, let’s call it, and simply NOT SEE something that to us is evident, blatant, something that is just staring us right in the face and should be just as evident to “them”. So maybe this is one of the reasons it has been so easy to manipulate the masses…

    I was also in disbelief of the 4% carpet problem. I’m always able to fall back on the flip side hypothesis of the Dunning-Kruger effect in that something I perceive as easy is obviously easy for everyone else. It isn’t, as all these tests and measurements suggest. It’s simply a case of cognitive bias.

    I also self select into groups where I’m challenged intellectually and not spoon fed baloney. Hence being here and not watching TV.

  71. @Daniel Chieh
    I think you missed the reference to Planet of the Apes.

    The point is simply that while some systems maximize certain parameters of humanity, they are still vulnerable in other ways. I'm not particularly trying to praise anything, and indeed, I noted that the "blowing up" is part of the fact that it had weaknesses.

    I do have some belief that if the rate of scientific innovation is indeed slackening, then Eastern systems may need become more effective again. I believe its basically stable and provides for more human satisfaction, but less capable of handling disruption. If disruptions are minimized, then its qualities can show itself again.

    Asians can only copy. And only the Japanese have been able to copy themselves into a modern, democratic country. But again, THEY COPIED!!! We do not need or want Asians in the West. Without us, you are gone. Without you, we are fine.

    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    You, sir, are proof that denial of reality is not something that is merely exclusive to the Left. It is unfortunate that we have not yet been able to copy a perfect model of SJWtopia has the West has managed. Truly, I weep about it every day as I mourn the lack of feminist snowplowing in the street.

    Have a nice life. Stay frantic.

  72. @Sunbeam
    Geez.

    I'm not here to make some kind of histrionic defense of Asians.

    But come on. They don't really need us for squat anymore. If aliens beamed the population of the US and Europe away to Alpha Centauri the Asian countries would still continue developing. Regardless of whether our markets are there or not. Really doesn't matter anymore. Sure there would be a blip on the economic graphs, but ten years later no one would remember the short downturn.

    Unless you are saying they need to roll back to how things were done circa 1950 or so. Just cause.

    What I'm saying is that the West doesn't own "technology." Asia is doing just fine on its own from that standpoint.

    Asians can only copy, they do not invent. Without Asians, the West is fine. Without the West, Asia is gone. There are 3 races: Caucasian, Asian, black. The bottom 2 don’t count.

    • Replies: @Santoculto

    There are 3 races: Caucasian, Asian, black. The bottom 2 don’t count.
     
    Higher levels of deplorability!!

    So jews and ''arabs'' is ok for you...
    , @Saldim
    There are least 6 races of man (Caucasoids, Negroids, Capoids, Australoids, Mongoloids, American Mongoloids).
  73. @attilathehen
    Asians can only copy. And only the Japanese have been able to copy themselves into a modern, democratic country. But again, THEY COPIED!!! We do not need or want Asians in the West. Without us, you are gone. Without you, we are fine.

    You, sir, are proof that denial of reality is not something that is merely exclusive to the Left. It is unfortunate that we have not yet been able to copy a perfect model of SJWtopia has the West has managed. Truly, I weep about it every day as I mourn the lack of feminist snowplowing in the street.

    Have a nice life. Stay frantic.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    谢先生,

    I am continually amazed at the persistence of that claim. It can only be said by someone who has no knowledge of the Hong Kong movie industry, or has had no close experience with Asians.

    However, I will not appeal to claims of Chinese priority in the discovery of Gunpowder, because I consider that claim highly suspect.
    , @attilathehen
    I, attilathehen, am a Caucasian Christian woman who belongs in the West. Just go back to China and we will take care of snow plowing problems in Sweden. These are not your problems.
  74. @attilathehen
    Asians can only copy, they do not invent. Without Asians, the West is fine. Without the West, Asia is gone. There are 3 races: Caucasian, Asian, black. The bottom 2 don't count.

    There are 3 races: Caucasian, Asian, black. The bottom 2 don’t count.

    Higher levels of deplorability!!

    So jews and ”arabs” is ok for you…

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    No, Jews and "Arabs" except for Lebanese, Syrian , Iraqi Christians are too mixed and do not qualify as Caucasians. Jews have high intermarriage rates with Asians/blacks. Here is a youtube that shows this. Ignore the title. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0FOPa-j-E And Jews are anti-European, anti-Christian. I look at Jews from 2 perspectives: religious and evolutionary. If I look at them from a Christian perspective they are under a Deicidal curse. From an evolutionary, they are biologically degenerate because of their miscegenation. Arabs before Islam were a Caucasian race. Northern Africa before Islam was Caucasian. St. Augustine of Hippo, Hannibal are examples of these peoples. When Islam conquered Northern Africa and instituted polygamy and the slave trade, these peoples were miscegenated and destroyed. North African IQ is about 85 today. World history can be summed up in 2 words: IQ. Only Caucasians have the IQs needed to produce functioning civilizations.
  75. @Lot

    The Woodley effect is weaker, at very roughly 1 point per decade.
     
    Assuming we are only talking about white Western populations, I find a decline of 1IQ per decade since the 1880's to be an absurdly high estimate.

    I don't doubt there has been a decline, primarily from the very low and delayed fertility of the top 10% or so of females, but you really think it passes the smell test that between 1880 and 2017 it has been nearly one SD, nearly equal to the white-black gap?

    Is there any evidence that, for example, white children begin speaking and reading at later ages? You could say this is counteracted by the Flynn effect, but one of the causes of the Flynn effect is children are schooled and put in a stimulating environment compared to the past. This would be much less significant for very young children.

    I'm not sure even Woodley would agree with -1 per decade. You'd know better than me.

    Woodley's 2012 paper noted that Vining (1995) estimated dysgenic fertility decreased genotypic IQ by about 0.5 points per generation. That sounds a lot more reasonable. Several other sources are in that 0.3 to 1 per generation ballpark, and very far from ~3 per generation.

    With great respect for Galton, I have some doubt his measures using the following device are truly comparable to other reaction time experiments.

    http://galton.org/essays/1880-1889/galton-1889-rba-reaction-time.pdf

    Woodley also concedes:


    Galton's data reported by Johnson et al. (1985), i.e .21 for people tested within a year (N = 421) and .17 for people retested over any time interval (N = 1069), and the equivalent suggested coefficient of the Hick -style device employed in our reference study (.85; Deary et al., 2001).
     
    That is a very large difference between Galton's method and modern methods that calls into doubt the quality of the data.

    A decline in heritable g of approximately one IQ point per decade would seem to be realistic. Don’t forget, we now have direct estimates of the strength of genetic selection on cognitive ability, and more recently we now have the first indication that modern genomes are less enriched for cognitive genetic variants than those from several decades ago (Kong et al., 2017). The Kong et al. paper actually attempts to estimate the degree to which IQ should decline based on the strength of genetic selection in the population of Iceland:

    However, under the assumptions that POLYFULL accounts for 30% of the variance of EDU, and the part of POLYFULL that is not captured by POLYEDU behaves in a similar fashion in its impact on both reproduction and IQ, by extrapolation, the decline of POLYFULL would lead to a decline of 0.038 x (30/3.74) = 0.30 IQ points per decade.” (p.4).

    Their choice of additive heritability estimate (what they call POLYFULL) for the target phenotype is too low however (30%). The additive heritability of IQ is actually around 80% in adults (Bouchard Jr., 2004), and when g (which is the variance component of IQ on which selection operates; Woodley & Meisenberg, 2013) is modeled as a latent variable, its additive heritability is higher still (86%; Pannizon et al., 2014). Replacing 30% with 86% in Kong et al.’s equation therefore yields a ‘genetic g‘ decline of 0.87 IQ points per decade.

    Beauchamp (2016) has also estimated the decline that would be expected on the basis of selection against cognitive genetic variants in the US. He scales his decline estimate in terms of ‘lost’ time spent in education, yielding -1.5 months per generation. To recover the decline in g (again assuming that g is the target of selection) we simply divide 1.5 by the standard deviation in educational attainment, which according to the OECD is 36.6 months. This must then be divided by the (linkage pruned) shared genetic variance between g and educational attainment, which according to Okbay et al. (2016) is approximately 0.6. This is then multiplied by 15 (the standard deviation of IQ), yielding a decline of 1.02 points per generation, or 0.37 points per decade, assuming a (standard) generation length of 2.8 decades. Beauchamp’s estimate suffers from precisely the same problem as Kong et al’s however, namely a low-ball estimate of the heritability of the target phenotype (Beauchamp uses a value of 40%). We can correct the decadal decline estimate for this low-ball estimate by simply computing a disattenuation coefficient (u), which is the quotient of 0.40 and 0.86, or 0.47. By dividing 0.37 by the u-value we get a decadal ‘genetic g’ decline of 0.79 IQ points per decade.

    So ‘genetic g’ is declining by approximately 0.8 to 0.9 points per decade in two Western countries. The phenotypic indicators that may be tracking this decline in g (these being the so-called “Woodley Effects”) paint a somewhat different picture however. A review of these was conducted recently by Sarraf (2017, Table 1, p.3), who lists g decline estimates from various cross-temporal meta-analytic studies employing a range of indicators. The unweighted average of decline estimates across indicators is 1.65 IQ points per decade (after excluding repeated measures). The ‘genetic g’ decline is therefore only 50.3% of the apparent phenotypic g decline. There exists considerable heterogeneity among the decline estimates however, with the g decline associated with slowing simple visual reaction time averaging out at 0.97 IQ points per decade across four studies, the decline estimated using working memory being considerably smaller (0.16 IQ points per decade) and the decline estimated using perceptual acuity and 3D rotation ability being considerably larger (3.5 and 4.8 IQ points per decade respectively). Some phenotypic measures may therefore be better at picking up the ‘true’ genetic trend than others (such as reaction times). Working memory on the other hand appears to be relatively insensitive to the ‘genetic g‘ decline, whereas the visual processing measures seem to be picking up the effects of some additional suppressing factor beyond declining ‘genetic g‘.

    References

    Beauchamp, J.P. (2016). Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 113, 7774–7779.

    Bouchard Jr, T.J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits – a survey.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 148-151.

    Kong, A., Frigge, M.L., Thorleifsson, G., et al. (2017). Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1612113114

    Okbay, A., Beauchamp, J.P., Fontana, M.A., et al. (2016). Genomewide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature, 533, 539–542.

    Panizzon, M. S., Vuoksimaa, E., Spoon, K. M., et al. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on general cognitive ability: Is g a valid latent construct? Intelligence, 43, 65–76.

    Sarraf, M. (2017). Review of historical variability in heritable general intelligence: Its evolutionary origins and socio-cultural consequences. Personality and Individual Differences. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.028

    Woodley, M.A., & Meisenberg, G. (2013). A Jensen effect on dysgenic fertility: An
    analysis involving the national longitudinal survey of youth. Personality and
    Individual Differences, 55
    , 279–282.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Many thanks for these explanations and references. I had copied Sharraf's table, and assume I can now post it up as published.
    , @Anonymous
    Sir, I saw your video interview with Molyneaux on YouTube and you really are that kind of enthusiastic scholar that has been remarkably lacking as atheism advances (like you said in the video) and the goal of scholarship no longer is transcendental, above the scholar's life interests.

    Things like that video are important contributions, as well as more technical dissertation as your comment here.
    , @Lot
    Thank you for the detailed response. I just read a few of your articles on this topic (not all are available online). I remain unconvinced the magnitude of the decline in genetype IQ is as large as your estimate however. Part of the reason is the "common sense" cross check I mentioned in the prior post.

    It also looks like "educational attainment" is much more negatively selected against than IQ itself.

    Table 1 in your 2015 Personality and Individual Difference article shows Ability–fertility correlations are for both sexes strongest for Educational Level, -.17 and -.12 for the two sexes, while digit span backwards is only -.06 and -0.01.

    This suggests that the genome studies, which look at education level because that is simply that data that exists given the lack of controlled same-age IQ tests for large populations that have been sequenced, would overestimate the decline in genotype IQ.

    I noticed that your 2015 article suggests the selection effect for IQ causing a decline −.262 points per decade, but "increasing to −1.072 points when the additive effect of mutation accumulation is considered."

    I read the Arslan article you cited for mutational accumulation/parental age effect, which is responsible for the bulk of the decline in genotype IQ, here
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090097

    The conclusion of it is "Controlling for parental trait level, we were unable to show significant effects of paternal age, a proxy for new genetic mutations, on offspring IQ, head circumference, or personality traits."

    I think you are correct that increasing parental age in the West is leading to a higher mutational load and decreasing genotype IQ, however I did not see any basis for the large estimate in your article.
    , @utu
    "Their choice of additive heritability estimate (what they call POLYFULL) for the target phenotype is too low however (30%). The additive heritability of IQ is actually around 80% in adults (Bouchard Jr., 2004)"

    Isn't it something that the science that seems to speak with great confidence about, say "decadal ‘genetic g’ decline of 0.79 IQ" (NOTE TWO SIGNIFICANT DIGITS) can diverge by factor of almost three on the estimate of heritability?
    , @RW
    Dr. Woodley, I read "Some phenotypic measures may therefore be better at picking up the ‘true’ genetic trend than others (such as reaction times). Working memory on the other hand appears to be relatively insensitive to the 'genetic g' decline, whereas the visual processing measures seem to be picking up the effects of some additional suppressing factor beyond declining 'genetic g'. "

    It seems possible that reaction times are negatively correlated with higher fat to muscle ratio as populations become more sedentary.
  76. @James Thompson
    True. It thought it would be too long for the brief replies I intended, so it fell by the wayside. It was the finding of low Irish IQ which launched Richard Lynn onto the study of intelligence, particularly country intelligence.
    9 studies in the database, mostly children (with some big samples) and one on adults. IQ 93 for mean and median, range 88 to 97.

    Isn’t the Irish avg IQ obviously ~100 ?

    Sure, just saying “obviously” is not remotely scientific, but hey.

  77. Individuals with high IQ’s do NOT always excel or succeed in life. Ask 200 IQ Chris Langan. Nor does high intelligence indicate superior genetics. Nikola Tesla, Isaac Newton types were celebates who never succeeded in passing on their genes thus providing evidence against the notion of only the strong (or superior) endure. There is a concomitant relationship between IQ and intellect. I think practical intellect is more relevant to success than raw IQ.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    An IQ of 90+ is needed to maintain a civilization and produce greatness. The West is the only one with this criteria.
  78. @Daniel Chieh
    You, sir, are proof that denial of reality is not something that is merely exclusive to the Left. It is unfortunate that we have not yet been able to copy a perfect model of SJWtopia has the West has managed. Truly, I weep about it every day as I mourn the lack of feminist snowplowing in the street.

    Have a nice life. Stay frantic.

    谢先生,

    I am continually amazed at the persistence of that claim. It can only be said by someone who has no knowledge of the Hong Kong movie industry, or has had no close experience with Asians.

    However, I will not appeal to claims of Chinese priority in the discovery of Gunpowder, because I consider that claim highly suspect.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Are you Asian? Are you married to an Asian? Are you Jewish?
    , @Daniel Chieh
    谢谢.

    Interesting - what is the other source of gunpowder discovery that you would propose? Arabic?

    The Hen should also ask if you are gay, pagan, or black, sir.

  79. @Santoculto

    There are 3 races: Caucasian, Asian, black. The bottom 2 don’t count.
     
    Higher levels of deplorability!!

    So jews and ''arabs'' is ok for you...

    No, Jews and “Arabs” except for Lebanese, Syrian , Iraqi Christians are too mixed and do not qualify as Caucasians. Jews have high intermarriage rates with Asians/blacks. Here is a youtube that shows this. Ignore the title. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0FOPa-j-E And Jews are anti-European, anti-Christian. I look at Jews from 2 perspectives: religious and evolutionary. If I look at them from a Christian perspective they are under a Deicidal curse. From an evolutionary, they are biologically degenerate because of their miscegenation. Arabs before Islam were a Caucasian race. Northern Africa before Islam was Caucasian. St. Augustine of Hippo, Hannibal are examples of these peoples. When Islam conquered Northern Africa and instituted polygamy and the slave trade, these peoples were miscegenated and destroyed. North African IQ is about 85 today. World history can be summed up in 2 words: IQ. Only Caucasians have the IQs needed to produce functioning civilizations.

  80. @Peripatetic commenter
    谢先生,

    I am continually amazed at the persistence of that claim. It can only be said by someone who has no knowledge of the Hong Kong movie industry, or has had no close experience with Asians.

    However, I will not appeal to claims of Chinese priority in the discovery of Gunpowder, because I consider that claim highly suspect.

    Are you Asian? Are you married to an Asian? Are you Jewish?

  81. @Intellect not IQ
    Individuals with high IQ's do NOT always excel or succeed in life. Ask 200 IQ Chris Langan. Nor does high intelligence indicate superior genetics. Nikola Tesla, Isaac Newton types were celebates who never succeeded in passing on their genes thus providing evidence against the notion of only the strong (or superior) endure. There is a concomitant relationship between IQ and intellect. I think practical intellect is more relevant to success than raw IQ.

    An IQ of 90+ is needed to maintain a civilization and produce greatness. The West is the only one with this criteria.

  82. @Peripatetic commenter
    谢先生,

    I am continually amazed at the persistence of that claim. It can only be said by someone who has no knowledge of the Hong Kong movie industry, or has had no close experience with Asians.

    However, I will not appeal to claims of Chinese priority in the discovery of Gunpowder, because I consider that claim highly suspect.

    谢谢.

    Interesting – what is the other source of gunpowder discovery that you would propose? Arabic?

    The Hen should also ask if you are gay, pagan, or black, sir.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    I tried to reply yesterday but it seems my reply got lost.

    Interesting – what is the other source of gunpowder discovery that you would propose? Arabic?
     
    David Ayelon give the boot to the Arabic proposal. The introduction of gunpowder in the Muslim areas are all too late (and the word 'naft' which is a clear cognate of naptha, has changed its meaning over time ...):

    https://www.amazon.com/Gunpowder-Firearms-Mamluk-Kingdom-Challenge/dp/B001IVR5YE

    I have also read parts of the 武經總要 (http://www.cos.url.tw/book/4/O-1-040.htm) but that has issues:

    1. Provenance and what happened to it. It is not clear that it was actually written when it is claimed to have been written and we do not know, AFAIK, who worked on the versions we have today,

    2. It is interesting for what it does not say and the names of the 'recipes'

    3. Gunpowder was a transformative technology. Any state that had it would not have fallen to the Mongols.

    4. Incendiaries are not gunpowder in the same way that the cute little steam toy the Greeks played with was not a steam engine.

    I come down on the side of Roger Bacon as does this guy:

    http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/cannon.htm

    There is much more than could be written ... eg, about those who claim that fire pots in the hands of demons are canon (based on their similarity to the depiction of cannon in the Milemete guns: http://www.academia.edu/12138631/The_Milemete_Guns)
  83. @Michael A. Woodley of Menie
    A decline in heritable g of approximately one IQ point per decade would seem to be realistic. Don’t forget, we now have direct estimates of the strength of genetic selection on cognitive ability, and more recently we now have the first indication that modern genomes are less enriched for cognitive genetic variants than those from several decades ago (Kong et al., 2017). The Kong et al. paper actually attempts to estimate the degree to which IQ should decline based on the strength of genetic selection in the population of Iceland:

    However, under the assumptions that POLYFULL accounts for 30% of the variance of EDU, and the part of POLYFULL that is not captured by POLYEDU behaves in a similar fashion in its impact on both reproduction and IQ, by extrapolation, the decline of POLYFULL would lead to a decline of 0.038 x (30/3.74) = 0.30 IQ points per decade.” (p.4).

    Their choice of additive heritability estimate (what they call POLYFULL) for the target phenotype is too low however (30%). The additive heritability of IQ is actually around 80% in adults (Bouchard Jr., 2004), and when g (which is the variance component of IQ on which selection operates; Woodley & Meisenberg, 2013) is modeled as a latent variable, its additive heritability is higher still (86%; Pannizon et al., 2014). Replacing 30% with 86% in Kong et al.’s equation therefore yields a 'genetic g' decline of 0.87 IQ points per decade.

    Beauchamp (2016) has also estimated the decline that would be expected on the basis of selection against cognitive genetic variants in the US. He scales his decline estimate in terms of ‘lost’ time spent in education, yielding -1.5 months per generation. To recover the decline in g (again assuming that g is the target of selection) we simply divide 1.5 by the standard deviation in educational attainment, which according to the OECD is 36.6 months. This must then be divided by the (linkage pruned) shared genetic variance between g and educational attainment, which according to Okbay et al. (2016) is approximately 0.6. This is then multiplied by 15 (the standard deviation of IQ), yielding a decline of 1.02 points per generation, or 0.37 points per decade, assuming a (standard) generation length of 2.8 decades. Beauchamp’s estimate suffers from precisely the same problem as Kong et al’s however, namely a low-ball estimate of the heritability of the target phenotype (Beauchamp uses a value of 40%). We can correct the decadal decline estimate for this low-ball estimate by simply computing a disattenuation coefficient (u), which is the quotient of 0.40 and 0.86, or 0.47. By dividing 0.37 by the u-value we get a decadal ‘genetic g’ decline of 0.79 IQ points per decade.

    So ‘genetic g’ is declining by approximately 0.8 to 0.9 points per decade in two Western countries. The phenotypic indicators that may be tracking this decline in g (these being the so-called “Woodley Effects”) paint a somewhat different picture however. A review of these was conducted recently by Sarraf (2017, Table 1, p.3), who lists g decline estimates from various cross-temporal meta-analytic studies employing a range of indicators. The unweighted average of decline estimates across indicators is 1.65 IQ points per decade (after excluding repeated measures). The ‘genetic g’ decline is therefore only 50.3% of the apparent phenotypic g decline. There exists considerable heterogeneity among the decline estimates however, with the g decline associated with slowing simple visual reaction time averaging out at 0.97 IQ points per decade across four studies, the decline estimated using working memory being considerably smaller (0.16 IQ points per decade) and the decline estimated using perceptual acuity and 3D rotation ability being considerably larger (3.5 and 4.8 IQ points per decade respectively). Some phenotypic measures may therefore be better at picking up the ‘true’ genetic trend than others (such as reaction times). Working memory on the other hand appears to be relatively insensitive to the 'genetic g' decline, whereas the visual processing measures seem to be picking up the effects of some additional suppressing factor beyond declining 'genetic g'.

    References

    Beauchamp, J.P. (2016). Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 113, 7774–7779.

    Bouchard Jr, T.J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits – a survey.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 148-151.

    Kong, A., Frigge, M.L., Thorleifsson, G., et al. (2017). Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1612113114

    Okbay, A., Beauchamp, J.P., Fontana, M.A., et al. (2016). Genomewide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature, 533, 539–542.

    Panizzon, M. S., Vuoksimaa, E., Spoon, K. M., et al. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on general cognitive ability: Is g a valid latent construct? Intelligence, 43, 65–76.

    Sarraf, M. (2017). Review of historical variability in heritable general intelligence: Its evolutionary origins and socio-cultural consequences. Personality and Individual Differences. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.028

    Woodley, M.A., & Meisenberg, G. (2013). A Jensen effect on dysgenic fertility: An
    analysis involving the national longitudinal survey of youth. Personality and
    Individual Differences, 55
    , 279–282.

    Many thanks for these explanations and references. I had copied Sharraf’s table, and assume I can now post it up as published.

  84. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Michael A. Woodley of Menie
    A decline in heritable g of approximately one IQ point per decade would seem to be realistic. Don’t forget, we now have direct estimates of the strength of genetic selection on cognitive ability, and more recently we now have the first indication that modern genomes are less enriched for cognitive genetic variants than those from several decades ago (Kong et al., 2017). The Kong et al. paper actually attempts to estimate the degree to which IQ should decline based on the strength of genetic selection in the population of Iceland:

    However, under the assumptions that POLYFULL accounts for 30% of the variance of EDU, and the part of POLYFULL that is not captured by POLYEDU behaves in a similar fashion in its impact on both reproduction and IQ, by extrapolation, the decline of POLYFULL would lead to a decline of 0.038 x (30/3.74) = 0.30 IQ points per decade.” (p.4).

    Their choice of additive heritability estimate (what they call POLYFULL) for the target phenotype is too low however (30%). The additive heritability of IQ is actually around 80% in adults (Bouchard Jr., 2004), and when g (which is the variance component of IQ on which selection operates; Woodley & Meisenberg, 2013) is modeled as a latent variable, its additive heritability is higher still (86%; Pannizon et al., 2014). Replacing 30% with 86% in Kong et al.’s equation therefore yields a 'genetic g' decline of 0.87 IQ points per decade.

    Beauchamp (2016) has also estimated the decline that would be expected on the basis of selection against cognitive genetic variants in the US. He scales his decline estimate in terms of ‘lost’ time spent in education, yielding -1.5 months per generation. To recover the decline in g (again assuming that g is the target of selection) we simply divide 1.5 by the standard deviation in educational attainment, which according to the OECD is 36.6 months. This must then be divided by the (linkage pruned) shared genetic variance between g and educational attainment, which according to Okbay et al. (2016) is approximately 0.6. This is then multiplied by 15 (the standard deviation of IQ), yielding a decline of 1.02 points per generation, or 0.37 points per decade, assuming a (standard) generation length of 2.8 decades. Beauchamp’s estimate suffers from precisely the same problem as Kong et al’s however, namely a low-ball estimate of the heritability of the target phenotype (Beauchamp uses a value of 40%). We can correct the decadal decline estimate for this low-ball estimate by simply computing a disattenuation coefficient (u), which is the quotient of 0.40 and 0.86, or 0.47. By dividing 0.37 by the u-value we get a decadal ‘genetic g’ decline of 0.79 IQ points per decade.

    So ‘genetic g’ is declining by approximately 0.8 to 0.9 points per decade in two Western countries. The phenotypic indicators that may be tracking this decline in g (these being the so-called “Woodley Effects”) paint a somewhat different picture however. A review of these was conducted recently by Sarraf (2017, Table 1, p.3), who lists g decline estimates from various cross-temporal meta-analytic studies employing a range of indicators. The unweighted average of decline estimates across indicators is 1.65 IQ points per decade (after excluding repeated measures). The ‘genetic g’ decline is therefore only 50.3% of the apparent phenotypic g decline. There exists considerable heterogeneity among the decline estimates however, with the g decline associated with slowing simple visual reaction time averaging out at 0.97 IQ points per decade across four studies, the decline estimated using working memory being considerably smaller (0.16 IQ points per decade) and the decline estimated using perceptual acuity and 3D rotation ability being considerably larger (3.5 and 4.8 IQ points per decade respectively). Some phenotypic measures may therefore be better at picking up the ‘true’ genetic trend than others (such as reaction times). Working memory on the other hand appears to be relatively insensitive to the 'genetic g' decline, whereas the visual processing measures seem to be picking up the effects of some additional suppressing factor beyond declining 'genetic g'.

    References

    Beauchamp, J.P. (2016). Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 113, 7774–7779.

    Bouchard Jr, T.J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits – a survey.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 148-151.

    Kong, A., Frigge, M.L., Thorleifsson, G., et al. (2017). Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1612113114

    Okbay, A., Beauchamp, J.P., Fontana, M.A., et al. (2016). Genomewide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature, 533, 539–542.

    Panizzon, M. S., Vuoksimaa, E., Spoon, K. M., et al. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on general cognitive ability: Is g a valid latent construct? Intelligence, 43, 65–76.

    Sarraf, M. (2017). Review of historical variability in heritable general intelligence: Its evolutionary origins and socio-cultural consequences. Personality and Individual Differences. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.028

    Woodley, M.A., & Meisenberg, G. (2013). A Jensen effect on dysgenic fertility: An
    analysis involving the national longitudinal survey of youth. Personality and
    Individual Differences, 55
    , 279–282.

    Sir, I saw your video interview with Molyneaux on YouTube and you really are that kind of enthusiastic scholar that has been remarkably lacking as atheism advances (like you said in the video) and the goal of scholarship no longer is transcendental, above the scholar’s life interests.

    Things like that video are important contributions, as well as more technical dissertation as your comment here.

  85. @annamaria
    meanwhile at UC Berkeley, the freedom-lovers (encouraged by the faculty) demonstrate for freedom: "Riot breaks out at UC Berkeley amid protest of Breitbart editor's speech" (see vandalism and physical abuse) https://www.rt.com/usa/376001-milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-riot-protest/

    Take notice that the freedom-loving faculty and students at UC Berkeley are totally quiet about John Yoo, the violator of the human rights and of the US Constitution: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/our-faculty/faculty-profiles/john-yoo/
    "Berkeley administrators have spoken publicly and repeatedly about the importance of Professor Yoo’s academic freedom and First Amendment rights." Christopher Edley, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law

    Yeah, funny that, eh? Maybe this is because Yoo is credentialed, and therefore he gets a pass on being judged despite the horrible real-world results of his soulless intellectualizing, or should we say, his rationalization and normalization of the indefensible impulses and actions of the powerful? Yes, credentialed, and therefore one of those entitled to exemption from moral censure.

  86. @Joe Wong
    Chinese was only one of the victims in the hands of the Occidental people barbarism, Romans, Indian, Muslim, indigenous people of Americas, Australia, Africa, South East Asia, Islands of Pacific Ocean, etc. are all victims of the Occidental people barbarism, most of them are still suffering from the Occidental people barbarism and never have a chance to get out of the sufferings imposed on them thru organized barbaric violence by the psychopathic aliens from faraway Occidental land uninvited, unwanted and unwarranted.

    The Occidental people are not only war criminals, criminals of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, they are also hypocrites trying to white wash and gloss over their crimes on the moral high ground and by not mentioning their ugly past, they thrive on sucking other people's blood and suffocate other higher IQ people from progress.

    You are trolling of course so there’s mo need for precision or completeness but you have forgotten to mention that the most destructive criminals in terms of numbers of victims and destruction of inherited culture were the victims of Occidental ideas. Mao’s Cultural Revolution was a nice segue to his Great Leap Forward and Ho Chi Minh was only less destructive to Vietnamese culture and religion than Pol Pot would have been if destroying Cambodia hadn’t preoccupied him. Oh the power of those Occidental ideas in the wrong hands even many years after Marx and Lenin died. If only they hadn’t chasedthe Dalai Llama out of his country. What a pity the culture wasn’t capable of learning from others’ mistakes.

  87. @Anon
    IQ seems to lead to soulless modernity, materialism, atomization, and ideological lunacy. Some of the craziest nations are high-IQ.

    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it's committing demographic suicide.
    So is EU though at slower rate, but in some ways worse cuz of invasion by Muslims and Africans.

    IQ is like drugs. In wrong doses or used wrongly, and it leads to sterility and death of civilization.

    In the end, it is the culture of emotions that is the key to healthy civilization.
    The emotional culture in the advanced world is decadent, trivial, and gutless.

    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it’s committing demographic suicide.

    How?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I am sure he is referring to fertility rates and the one child policy's impact with emphasis also on the way East Asians, like Europeans, will reproduce earlier - and therefore more often in the long term - amongst the relatively dim.

    As an Australian who sees clever women having no children, or few, as they seek to break glass ceilings I am pleased at the quality of our migrant intake, with qualifications about what all the hairdressing students will do for us when they find that there is not enough hair to go round. (It seems that the list of occupations where there is scarcity in Australia gets updated very incompetently and tardily so Indian and other students wanting a quick path to a visa - so they can drive cabs? - were quick to sign up for short courses; similarly for chefs I believe).

    I guess our average IQ is being maintained by the East Asians (mostly Han) and Indians. But the one child policy in China had its greatest impact on the urban middle classes (prosperous businessmen in Shenzhen would easily pay the fine but still usually didn't have more than two children I believe). Watch Japan to see how it copes with an ageing population which also is, to some extent, dumbing down. I doubt that multicultural societies will be able to emulate it comfortably.
    , @Anon
    Read Peter Frost's comments here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/gangnam-and-minjok/
  88. @Daniel Chieh
    You, sir, are proof that denial of reality is not something that is merely exclusive to the Left. It is unfortunate that we have not yet been able to copy a perfect model of SJWtopia has the West has managed. Truly, I weep about it every day as I mourn the lack of feminist snowplowing in the street.

    Have a nice life. Stay frantic.

    I, attilathehen, am a Caucasian Christian woman who belongs in the West. Just go back to China and we will take care of snow plowing problems in Sweden. These are not your problems.

  89. @iffen
    It seems to me that both the number of options

    It seems that it would be of importance to be able to quickly recognize non-viable options. I read something recently about the importance of the ability to quickly disregard non-causal factors.

    You bring to mind the decisive leaders who cut off actually viable options too quickly and fail to allow subtle exploration of nuance and complexity. Sometimes that would be caused more by ego than IQ (anyone reminded of the Donald?).

    • Replies: @iffen
    I can see how both the fight genes and the flight genes survive. I can't see how the "what to do, what to do? can't decide!" ones would make it through.
  90. @Michael A. Woodley of Menie
    A decline in heritable g of approximately one IQ point per decade would seem to be realistic. Don’t forget, we now have direct estimates of the strength of genetic selection on cognitive ability, and more recently we now have the first indication that modern genomes are less enriched for cognitive genetic variants than those from several decades ago (Kong et al., 2017). The Kong et al. paper actually attempts to estimate the degree to which IQ should decline based on the strength of genetic selection in the population of Iceland:

    However, under the assumptions that POLYFULL accounts for 30% of the variance of EDU, and the part of POLYFULL that is not captured by POLYEDU behaves in a similar fashion in its impact on both reproduction and IQ, by extrapolation, the decline of POLYFULL would lead to a decline of 0.038 x (30/3.74) = 0.30 IQ points per decade.” (p.4).

    Their choice of additive heritability estimate (what they call POLYFULL) for the target phenotype is too low however (30%). The additive heritability of IQ is actually around 80% in adults (Bouchard Jr., 2004), and when g (which is the variance component of IQ on which selection operates; Woodley & Meisenberg, 2013) is modeled as a latent variable, its additive heritability is higher still (86%; Pannizon et al., 2014). Replacing 30% with 86% in Kong et al.’s equation therefore yields a 'genetic g' decline of 0.87 IQ points per decade.

    Beauchamp (2016) has also estimated the decline that would be expected on the basis of selection against cognitive genetic variants in the US. He scales his decline estimate in terms of ‘lost’ time spent in education, yielding -1.5 months per generation. To recover the decline in g (again assuming that g is the target of selection) we simply divide 1.5 by the standard deviation in educational attainment, which according to the OECD is 36.6 months. This must then be divided by the (linkage pruned) shared genetic variance between g and educational attainment, which according to Okbay et al. (2016) is approximately 0.6. This is then multiplied by 15 (the standard deviation of IQ), yielding a decline of 1.02 points per generation, or 0.37 points per decade, assuming a (standard) generation length of 2.8 decades. Beauchamp’s estimate suffers from precisely the same problem as Kong et al’s however, namely a low-ball estimate of the heritability of the target phenotype (Beauchamp uses a value of 40%). We can correct the decadal decline estimate for this low-ball estimate by simply computing a disattenuation coefficient (u), which is the quotient of 0.40 and 0.86, or 0.47. By dividing 0.37 by the u-value we get a decadal ‘genetic g’ decline of 0.79 IQ points per decade.

    So ‘genetic g’ is declining by approximately 0.8 to 0.9 points per decade in two Western countries. The phenotypic indicators that may be tracking this decline in g (these being the so-called “Woodley Effects”) paint a somewhat different picture however. A review of these was conducted recently by Sarraf (2017, Table 1, p.3), who lists g decline estimates from various cross-temporal meta-analytic studies employing a range of indicators. The unweighted average of decline estimates across indicators is 1.65 IQ points per decade (after excluding repeated measures). The ‘genetic g’ decline is therefore only 50.3% of the apparent phenotypic g decline. There exists considerable heterogeneity among the decline estimates however, with the g decline associated with slowing simple visual reaction time averaging out at 0.97 IQ points per decade across four studies, the decline estimated using working memory being considerably smaller (0.16 IQ points per decade) and the decline estimated using perceptual acuity and 3D rotation ability being considerably larger (3.5 and 4.8 IQ points per decade respectively). Some phenotypic measures may therefore be better at picking up the ‘true’ genetic trend than others (such as reaction times). Working memory on the other hand appears to be relatively insensitive to the 'genetic g' decline, whereas the visual processing measures seem to be picking up the effects of some additional suppressing factor beyond declining 'genetic g'.

    References

    Beauchamp, J.P. (2016). Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 113, 7774–7779.

    Bouchard Jr, T.J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits – a survey.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 148-151.

    Kong, A., Frigge, M.L., Thorleifsson, G., et al. (2017). Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1612113114

    Okbay, A., Beauchamp, J.P., Fontana, M.A., et al. (2016). Genomewide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature, 533, 539–542.

    Panizzon, M. S., Vuoksimaa, E., Spoon, K. M., et al. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on general cognitive ability: Is g a valid latent construct? Intelligence, 43, 65–76.

    Sarraf, M. (2017). Review of historical variability in heritable general intelligence: Its evolutionary origins and socio-cultural consequences. Personality and Individual Differences. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.028

    Woodley, M.A., & Meisenberg, G. (2013). A Jensen effect on dysgenic fertility: An
    analysis involving the national longitudinal survey of youth. Personality and
    Individual Differences, 55
    , 279–282.

    Thank you for the detailed response. I just read a few of your articles on this topic (not all are available online). I remain unconvinced the magnitude of the decline in genetype IQ is as large as your estimate however. Part of the reason is the “common sense” cross check I mentioned in the prior post.

    It also looks like “educational attainment” is much more negatively selected against than IQ itself.

    Table 1 in your 2015 Personality and Individual Difference article shows Ability–fertility correlations are for both sexes strongest for Educational Level, -.17 and -.12 for the two sexes, while digit span backwards is only -.06 and -0.01.

    This suggests that the genome studies, which look at education level because that is simply that data that exists given the lack of controlled same-age IQ tests for large populations that have been sequenced, would overestimate the decline in genotype IQ.

    I noticed that your 2015 article suggests the selection effect for IQ causing a decline −.262 points per decade, but “increasing to −1.072 points when the additive effect of mutation accumulation is considered.”

    I read the Arslan article you cited for mutational accumulation/parental age effect, which is responsible for the bulk of the decline in genotype IQ, here

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090097

    The conclusion of it is “Controlling for parental trait level, we were unable to show significant effects of paternal age, a proxy for new genetic mutations, on offspring IQ, head circumference, or personality traits.”

    I think you are correct that increasing parental age in the West is leading to a higher mutational load and decreasing genotype IQ, however I did not see any basis for the large estimate in your article.

    • Replies: @Michael A. Woodley of Menie
    My responses (italics) are posted below your comments.

    Thank you for the detailed response. I just read a few of your articles on this topic (not all are available online). I remain unconvinced the magnitude of the decline in genetype IQ is as large as your estimate however. Part of the reason is the “common sense” cross check I mentioned in the prior post.

    Response: Yet the genetic data are fairly unequivocal as to the magnitude of the decline. As I mentioned, the authors of these studies would have found bigger declines than they reported had they used realistic estimates of the additive heritability of general intelligence. Declines in g of a point or so a decade are also not so surprising when you consider the role of age at first birth as a source of dysgenic selection, on top of differential fertility. Don’t forget that low-ability individuals are not just more fertile: they procreate earlier, which means that their generation times are shorter. Heiner Rindermann has produced some simple simulations that will be published in a forthcoming monograph, showing that generational compression among those with low g may actually be a larger source of dysgenic selection than differential fertility. Rindermann’s model is consistent with Kong et al., who found that age at first birth was the principal driver of the dysgenic trend in Iceland.

    It also looks like “educational attainment” is much more negatively selected against than IQ itself.

    Table 1 in your 2015 Personality and Individual Difference article shows Ability–fertility correlations are for both sexes strongest for Educational Level, -.17 and -.12 for the two sexes, while digit span backwards is only -.06 and -0.01.

    This suggests that the genome studies, which look at education level because that is simply that data that exists given the lack of controlled same-age IQ tests for large populations that have been sequenced, would overestimate the decline in genotype IQ.

    Response: Educational attainment should not be thought of as a phenotype, or as a target of selection. It is an outcome of facultative calibration caused by the action of heritable sources of phenotypic variance, chief among which is g with which it shares about 60% of its genetic variance. The measures of g that best correlate with educational attainment are those associated with the ability to acquire and utilize knowledge in solving problems – so-called crystallized abilities, which are also most central to the construct of educational attainment. These measures (such as vocabulary) happen to be among the most heritable measures of g also (Kan et al., 2013); therefore, in as much as educational attainment is a strong proxy for these particular indicators of g it would be expected to correlate strongly with fertility relative to something like backwards digit span, which is relatively less g-loaded (0.6 vs. 0.8 for Vocabulary, for example).

    It is important to note also that educational attainment requires the presence of a very specific kind of environment in order to manifest (i.e. an educational system). Thus, another way of looking at educational attainment is as a source of selection on g. People will forgo opportunities, e.g. for procreation, in order to acquire more educational capital as this boosts economic competitiveness, thus there are tradeoffs. Using cognitive polygenic score (PGS) data from the Add Health sample, Kevin Beaver, Joe Schwartz and I were able to test this model directly via path analysis (Woodley of Menie et al., 2016). We found, as expected, that the main effect of the PGS on fertility was mediated by IQ and educational attainment, via the indirect path: PGS -> IQ -> Educational attainment -> Fertility, with educational attainment depressing fertility. The direct effect of PGS on fertility was small and non-significant in our model, however our power to detect this effect was limited as our sample size was modest (around 1,800). Much bigger studies (such as Kong et al.) have found that cognitive variants are directly negative linked with fertility outcomes net of educational attainment – which is what you would expect from 200 years of dysgenic fertility on g.

    I noticed that your 2015 article suggests the selection effect for IQ causing a decline −.262 points per decade, but “increasing to −1.072 points when the additive effect of mutation accumulation is considered.”

    I read the Arslan article you cited for mutational accumulation/parental age effect, which is responsible for the bulk of the decline in genotype IQ, here
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090097

    The conclusion of it is “Controlling for parental trait level, we were unable to show significant effects of paternal age, a proxy for new genetic mutations, on offspring IQ, head circumference, or personality traits.”

    I think you are correct that increasing parental age in the West is leading to a higher mutational load and decreasing genotype IQ, however I did not see any basis for the large estimate in your article.

    Response: In a 2015 article I derived an estimate of the impact of mutation accumulation on g using the study that you mention (Woodley, 2015). You are right that the study in question concludes that there was no effect of paternal age on g; however, there was an apparent effect prior to controlling for birth order. As birth order and paternal age are typically highly collinear, I concluded that this control may have spuriously suppressed the effect of interest, but as it happens I was wrong about this. What convinced me of my error was the study of D’Onoffrio et al. (2014), which found no paternal age effect on g after controlling for birth order using a sibling comparison design and a sample size north of 500K. Subsequent mutation calling work has confirmed the observation that g is apparently robustly canalized in development against common mutations, as it has been found that only rare protein coding mutations have an effect on the trait, and even then this effect is only visible when the extreme low or high end of the distribution is compared against the mean (Spain et al., 2015).

    I have devised an alternative estimate of the g lost due to mutation accumulation via reanalysis of secular trend data indicating increasing cranial fluctuating asymmetry in the White population of the US over the last 130 years (Woodley of Menie & Fernandes, 2016). Fluctuating asymmetry is a measure of developmental stability and correlates weakly with g. Mutations that disturb developmental stability may therefore antagonise the canalization of g, exerting an indirect (developmentally mediated) effect on the trait. The resultant g decline is very small however (0.16 points per decade), suggesting that mutations and other system integrity threats have not contributed substantially to the overall decline in g. The old estimate of the effect of mutation accumulation that I derived in the paper that you discuss can therefore be discarded.

    Refs.

    D’Onofrio, B. M., Rickert, M. E., Frans, E., et al. (2014). Paternal age at childbearing and offspring psychiatric and academic morbidity. JAMA Psychiatry, 71, 432–438.

    Kan, K.-J., Wicherts, J. M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2013). On the nature and nurture of intelligence and specific cognitive abilities: The more heritable,
    the more culture dependent. Psychological Science, 24, 2420–2428.

    Spain, S. L., Pedroso, N., Kadeva, N., et al. (2015). A genome-wide analysis of putative functional
    and exonic variation associated with extremely high intelligence. Molecular
    Psychiatry
    . http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.108.

    Woodley of Menie, M.A. (2015). How fragile is our intellect? Estimating losses in
    general intelligence due to both selection and mutation accumulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 80-84.

    Woodley of Menie, M.A., & Fernandes, H.B.F. (2016). The secular decline in general intelligence from decreasing developmental stability: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 194-199.
  91. @res

    1. Given global competition, a country *doesn’t* need 120+ IQ people. It can import them, or they can stay in their home country and give orders to the IQ80 people.
     
    Because importing or outsourcing a ruling (even if only from behind the curtain) class has worked out so well throughout history for the natives. Perhaps you could offer your thoughts on colonialism?

    I tend to agree with your other points.

    I’m reminded of the skit from “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”:
    “..All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?”

    Perhaps we might add to that list, peace (pax Brittanica), trade, the English language, a middle class, technology, sport, and last (but by no means least) the Abolition of Slavery.

    But seriously, growing up in the West Indies, I would generally have to say that overall, and based on the English system, which is the only one I have actual first-hand knowledge of, colonialism there was a very much a net positive. And having met many who were peripherally involved in the English colonial experience in Africa, it was the same there.

    As Niall Ferguson observes:
    “Nobody, least of all me, claims that British imperial rule was perfect……. But most sub-Saharan governments since independence have managed to treat their populations significantly worse than the British did. For all its imperfections, the Colonial Civil Service was not corrupt. When money was sent to build railways or schools, British officials did not simply pocket it.”

  92. @Dave Pinsen
    One of your Unz colleagues had a recent post about intellectual decline with age. It would seem a lot of that could be ameliorated by technology, if the elderly were comfortable using it. Smart phones or other devices reminding them when to take medicine, etc.

    One of your Unz colleagues had a recent post about intellectual decline with age. It would seem a lot of that could be ameliorated by technology

    Absolutely. As memory fades, Google fills the breech!

  93. @Michael A. Woodley of Menie
    A decline in heritable g of approximately one IQ point per decade would seem to be realistic. Don’t forget, we now have direct estimates of the strength of genetic selection on cognitive ability, and more recently we now have the first indication that modern genomes are less enriched for cognitive genetic variants than those from several decades ago (Kong et al., 2017). The Kong et al. paper actually attempts to estimate the degree to which IQ should decline based on the strength of genetic selection in the population of Iceland:

    However, under the assumptions that POLYFULL accounts for 30% of the variance of EDU, and the part of POLYFULL that is not captured by POLYEDU behaves in a similar fashion in its impact on both reproduction and IQ, by extrapolation, the decline of POLYFULL would lead to a decline of 0.038 x (30/3.74) = 0.30 IQ points per decade.” (p.4).

    Their choice of additive heritability estimate (what they call POLYFULL) for the target phenotype is too low however (30%). The additive heritability of IQ is actually around 80% in adults (Bouchard Jr., 2004), and when g (which is the variance component of IQ on which selection operates; Woodley & Meisenberg, 2013) is modeled as a latent variable, its additive heritability is higher still (86%; Pannizon et al., 2014). Replacing 30% with 86% in Kong et al.’s equation therefore yields a 'genetic g' decline of 0.87 IQ points per decade.

    Beauchamp (2016) has also estimated the decline that would be expected on the basis of selection against cognitive genetic variants in the US. He scales his decline estimate in terms of ‘lost’ time spent in education, yielding -1.5 months per generation. To recover the decline in g (again assuming that g is the target of selection) we simply divide 1.5 by the standard deviation in educational attainment, which according to the OECD is 36.6 months. This must then be divided by the (linkage pruned) shared genetic variance between g and educational attainment, which according to Okbay et al. (2016) is approximately 0.6. This is then multiplied by 15 (the standard deviation of IQ), yielding a decline of 1.02 points per generation, or 0.37 points per decade, assuming a (standard) generation length of 2.8 decades. Beauchamp’s estimate suffers from precisely the same problem as Kong et al’s however, namely a low-ball estimate of the heritability of the target phenotype (Beauchamp uses a value of 40%). We can correct the decadal decline estimate for this low-ball estimate by simply computing a disattenuation coefficient (u), which is the quotient of 0.40 and 0.86, or 0.47. By dividing 0.37 by the u-value we get a decadal ‘genetic g’ decline of 0.79 IQ points per decade.

    So ‘genetic g’ is declining by approximately 0.8 to 0.9 points per decade in two Western countries. The phenotypic indicators that may be tracking this decline in g (these being the so-called “Woodley Effects”) paint a somewhat different picture however. A review of these was conducted recently by Sarraf (2017, Table 1, p.3), who lists g decline estimates from various cross-temporal meta-analytic studies employing a range of indicators. The unweighted average of decline estimates across indicators is 1.65 IQ points per decade (after excluding repeated measures). The ‘genetic g’ decline is therefore only 50.3% of the apparent phenotypic g decline. There exists considerable heterogeneity among the decline estimates however, with the g decline associated with slowing simple visual reaction time averaging out at 0.97 IQ points per decade across four studies, the decline estimated using working memory being considerably smaller (0.16 IQ points per decade) and the decline estimated using perceptual acuity and 3D rotation ability being considerably larger (3.5 and 4.8 IQ points per decade respectively). Some phenotypic measures may therefore be better at picking up the ‘true’ genetic trend than others (such as reaction times). Working memory on the other hand appears to be relatively insensitive to the 'genetic g' decline, whereas the visual processing measures seem to be picking up the effects of some additional suppressing factor beyond declining 'genetic g'.

    References

    Beauchamp, J.P. (2016). Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 113, 7774–7779.

    Bouchard Jr, T.J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits – a survey.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 148-151.

    Kong, A., Frigge, M.L., Thorleifsson, G., et al. (2017). Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1612113114

    Okbay, A., Beauchamp, J.P., Fontana, M.A., et al. (2016). Genomewide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature, 533, 539–542.

    Panizzon, M. S., Vuoksimaa, E., Spoon, K. M., et al. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on general cognitive ability: Is g a valid latent construct? Intelligence, 43, 65–76.

    Sarraf, M. (2017). Review of historical variability in heritable general intelligence: Its evolutionary origins and socio-cultural consequences. Personality and Individual Differences. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.028

    Woodley, M.A., & Meisenberg, G. (2013). A Jensen effect on dysgenic fertility: An
    analysis involving the national longitudinal survey of youth. Personality and
    Individual Differences, 55
    , 279–282.

    “Their choice of additive heritability estimate (what they call POLYFULL) for the target phenotype is too low however (30%). The additive heritability of IQ is actually around 80% in adults (Bouchard Jr., 2004)”

    Isn’t it something that the science that seems to speak with great confidence about, say “decadal ‘genetic g’ decline of 0.79 IQ” (NOTE TWO SIGNIFICANT DIGITS) can diverge by factor of almost three on the estimate of heritability?

    • Replies: @Christof Friedrich
    In fact, behavioral genetic studies on the adult heritability of IQ virtually always arrive at an estimate around 0.77-0.85. The Kong group doesn't reach the 0.30 estimate via any substantive analysis. They simply pick a conservative figure, perhaps to avoid the hysterical reactions that typically greet discussions of dysgenics. Why do I sense that you voted for Clinton?
  94. @Wizard of Oz
    Do you think being able to consider lots of alternatives** quickly is one of the usuaal advantages of having a high IQ. In practical terms it might mean that someone who is a bit lazy and disorganised can nonetheless protect the family fortune and generally get by and avoid serious trouble (if only just).

    That makes me wonder too whether a lot of creativity isn't the result of being able to flip through lots of possibilities quickly. Of course there would be more to flip through usually in a high IQ mind and even perhaps more of a chance that systematic lateral thinking locates the pissibilities.

    ** forgive the solecism if you would object that there can be only two alternatives....[cf. Fowler]

    Creativity has virtually nothing to do with IQ. Probably not even dependent on the same part of the brain or even the same side of the brain. Haven’t you noticed when doing a crossword puzzle that thinking hard about the clues achieves nothing, whereas glancing over them while eating a jam waffle or some such thing can yield instant solutions. Best of all, I find, is to doze off, then solve the damn thing in the minute or two during which full consciousness returns. Obviously there is something unrelated to IQ-test-intelligence involved here and its probably involves the same faculty that yields, for the most creative, new theories about falling apples or curved space.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yes.... but.... The higher processing speed of the higher IQ person is, prima facie, going to help produce ideas that others see as creative because novel. That would be true on average even if there are different neurological ways for processing speed to be affected.

    And is putatively measurable creativity actually the same thing as performed by a potter with IQ of 90 and a tax lawyer with IQ of 140?
    , @Santoculto

    Creativity has virtually nothing to do with IQ. Probably not even dependent on the same part of the brain or even the same side of the brain.
     
    I agree, i think if IQ measure the cognitive boundaries or extension of our intelligences, creativity still correlates only because this broad factor, because presumably, bigger intelligences tend to mean bigger potential/resources. Critical-analytical and speculative thinking is characteristically opposite to the convergent thinking, what IQ tend to capture.

    Convergent thinking quickly capture and accept ''correct' answers while divergent/ critical thinking look laterally to the flaws and possibilities of ''correct' answers.

    Some people are directly connected to this speculative thinking, so for this people is even more difficult to converge to the ''correct' answers without think in other possibilities firstly.

    Basically what we understand as [general] intelligence is, memorize/internalize, learn convergent tasks and replicate them, but most of human knowledge is basically old creativity that become ''common knowledge''.

    BUT creativity is ''within' the intelligence entity/organism or system -- domain.

    What we understand, mistankely, as intelligence, indeed is in true, cognition.

    What really is intelligence is also what creativity is. Just like a system with different sub-systems and with specific functions. Creativity is about think in different possibilities to solve novel or not-so-novel 'problems'', what intelligence also is in the same way Nervous system is for the human organism.

    Summarizing this bulls...tz: creativity is in the domain of intelligence, even we can agree that both is not exactly the same thing.
  95. @Eric Rasmusen
    1. Given global competition, a country *doesn't* need 120+ IQ people. It can import them, or they can stay in their home country and give orders to the IQ80 people. Either way, the country with IA80 will benefit (both will), because its people will be more productive and various 120+countries will compete to provide IQ services to them.

    2. India is a very big country. There will be lots of geniuses there even if average IQ is low.
    Quaere: What about Nigeria? It is not big on the same scale, but it must have a lot of very smart people. Are they all engaged in con games, at home and abroad? The culture routes very few to research and academia, unlike India.

    3. One might compare temperature records and IQ records. They are very good at comparing places or people at a single point in time. They are not designed for comparing places and people over a 50-year period, and are not so good at that. IQ, of course, is constantly renormed, so the basic scores always average 100--- probably normed in every country too--- and you have to go back to raw scores to find the Flynn Effect.

    4. There is no reason whatsoever to think the Flynn Effect is eternal.

    India is a very big country. There will be lots of geniuses there even if average IQ is low.

    Exactly. Most people in most countries spend most of their time doing dumb work that requires an IQ of, optimally, around 90 to 110, which is presumably why the average intelligence of most populations is within that range. Elites account for a negligible fraction of one percent of the population, so every population, whatever its mean IQ, can have an elite of high IQ. More important than the intelligence of the elite are the institutions and ideologies which provide the framework for elite action.

    And at 92. above, it should be “breach” not “breech!”

  96. The normal Bushman’s IQ is 60. He does not appear retarded because he is not retarded. A Caucasian with an IQ of 60 is not only severely retarded, he appears severely retarded. IQ measures many important things very well, but normal is not generally one of them. A normal African cannot keep a high functioning civilization. A normal Caucasian might do so, and sometimes does.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The normal Bushman’s IQ is 60.
     
    LOL. How was that precise number determined? I'd be much more inclined to believe the inferiority of the !Kung San intellect if the assessment were based on test clearly free of cultural bias, for example, as a reaction speed test. Anyone got the data? I doubt it. In the meantime, I trust to the speedy reflexes of a people who live by hunting elephants.

    Anyway, Nobel Prize winner, J.D. Watson, said that the !Kung San people were "some of the smartest individuals" he had met.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    That 60, together with similar figures for Aborigines, was what put me off taking Lynn and Vanhenen very seriously even before I became conscious of the Flynn effect and long before Ron's devastating takedown of left and right and stupid. That's not to say that such figures aren"t faintly predictive because the circumstances which cause what might be a brain neurologically capable of IQ 100 performance to score 60 aren't likely to be conducive to building great civilisations.
  97. if selection on a settled population is hard enough then intellectual levels can rise in 8 to 16 generations

    Eight to 16 generations? That is a bizarre statement. Kill everyone with an IQ below, or above, say, 100 and you’d have an effect on mean IQ immediately that will be manifest in the next generation as well. The effect of selection is incremental with every single generation.

    In the past, intellectual degeneration was prevented by the fact that mortality was higher among the poor than the rich, the latter being, on the whole, smarter than the former. Thus the reproductive deficit of the poorer and dumber was made up for (in a static population) by the reproductive excess of the richer and (generally) brighter. Thus there was continuous positive selection for economic success and, hence, intelligence.

    Now we have reversed the effect of selection by (among other idiotic mechanisms) paying feckless people to raise kids on welfare while promoting girls’ education, i.e., while reducing the effective reproductive life of intelligent females. In other words, liberalism and feminism are self-limiting social diseases that will end with the demise of the West as it declines into idiocratic feebleness, and is taken over by Muslims from the middle east and fundamentalist Christians from Africa who understand what a woman’s role in life is a lot better than most Americans.

  98. @Biff

    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it’s committing demographic suicide.
     
    How?

    I am sure he is referring to fertility rates and the one child policy’s impact with emphasis also on the way East Asians, like Europeans, will reproduce earlier – and therefore more often in the long term – amongst the relatively dim.

    As an Australian who sees clever women having no children, or few, as they seek to break glass ceilings I am pleased at the quality of our migrant intake, with qualifications about what all the hairdressing students will do for us when they find that there is not enough hair to go round. (It seems that the list of occupations where there is scarcity in Australia gets updated very incompetently and tardily so Indian and other students wanting a quick path to a visa – so they can drive cabs? – were quick to sign up for short courses; similarly for chefs I believe).

    I guess our average IQ is being maintained by the East Asians (mostly Han) and Indians. But the one child policy in China had its greatest impact on the urban middle classes (prosperous businessmen in Shenzhen would easily pay the fine but still usually didn’t have more than two children I believe). Watch Japan to see how it copes with an ageing population which also is, to some extent, dumbing down. I doubt that multicultural societies will be able to emulate it comfortably.

    • Replies: @Saldim

    I am sure he is referring to fertility rates and the one child policy’s impact with emphasis also on the way East Asians, like Europeans, will reproduce earlier – and therefore more often in the long term – amongst the relatively dim.
     
    I don't know if you noticed but East Asian countries don't have the seriously dysfunctional immigration of White countries.
  99. Observed changes in population mean IQ over time are related only in part to cultural changes. Significant genetic changes are are also responsible. As countries modernize, country folk raised in inbred communities migrate to the cities and breed with people from different inbred communities. The result is hybrid vigor or heterosis (combined with an increased genetic load), which in the first generation or two will be manifest in greater vigor, higher intelligence and a lower frequency of genetic disease (Donald Trump’s mother was a purebred Scot, and probably, therefore, highly inbred).

    The effect is greatest in the first generation and then dissipates over subsequent generations. Thus the rise and fall of civilizations. The British who got the industrial revolution first are now in decay, the Americans and Germans followed the Brits, who were followed by the Japanese, who are now fading as the Chinese surge.

    Sadly, the Western national elites are too dumb to devise a sensible population policy. Or they don’t care. Probably the latter, since they’re all globalist bastards or in the pay of globalist bastards who are probably happy to see the masses degenerate, and hopefully, just die as advocated by the National Review.

  100. @Sunbeam
    "Most northern-western european countries have less ”smart fraction” than east asian countries but they have better quality of life and standard living, little doubt about creativity. "

    I see creativity continually brought up when discussing Asians. What exactly is the basis for this? They seem plenty creative to me.

    There are a long list of firsts that were done in China (and you can find lists with a casual google).

    Quite often now when I see some news article about technology or an invention I see an Asian name.

    Personally, for a number of reasons, I'd make it a whole hell of a lot harder for Chinese to immigrate to or enter this country.

    But not creative? What does that even mean, they don't become interior decorators at the rate other ethnicities do?

    Will say they seem to suck at music (despite all those classical musicians). Maybe a matter of taste but K-Pop and the Japanese pop acts just don't have the "It" factor of some of the big Western European acts of days gone by (Fleetwood Mac, Beatles, heck even Abba).

    From what I hear though, K-Pop is bigger in places like Latin America now than American music, so what do I know maybe.

    Will say they seem to suck at music (despite all those classical musicians). Maybe a matter of taste but K-Pop and the Japanese pop acts just don’t have the “It” factor of some of the big Western European acts of days gone by (Fleetwood Mac, Beatles, heck even Abba).

    From what I hear though, K-Pop is bigger in places like Latin America now than American music, so what do I know maybe.

    The Beatles would be comparing apples (!) to oranges, and Fleetwood Mac (if I may gently rib) I might even raise a supercilious brow at; but a good amount of K-pop can proudly hold its own with the illustrious pop stylings of Abba.

    Part of its popularity in the Global South stems, no doubt, from the relative absence of ill*m*n*t* trashiness, but apart from the moral aspect there is an unquestionable and vast aesthetic superiority in the melodicism and grace of many K-pop producers and acts over the sterile four-to-the-floor techno beats and snarl-whisper verses/snarl-scream choruses of American “pop radio” or whatever we should call it nowadays. A minority cohort of entertainment agencies prefer Swedish producers over native Koreans, but their output is still musically preferable to the Judeo-”Western” mainstream.

    With regard to Fred, we shouldn’t be snobs. He has his known tender spots he likes to gadfly about, and while I find his zealotry on behalf of his neighbors in retirement a little grating at times, it’s not unuseful to have these questions aired. He is, at his best, a terrific writer and a not unjust defender of certain points of contention with his opposites like Derbyshire.

    And speaking of certain attenuated forms of g-factor fetishism: it must be said that, polymath that our friend the Derb is, he is capable of quite a bit of aspie silliness, like his dropping the word count of A Midsummer Night’s Dream and suggesting (challenging?) his readers to go through it in an hour.

    Read A Midsummer Night’s Dream in one hour!? Good God man, it’s poetry, not The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Banish the theatrical run time inside your head, and banish all the world!

  101. @CanSpeccy
    Creativity has virtually nothing to do with IQ. Probably not even dependent on the same part of the brain or even the same side of the brain. Haven't you noticed when doing a crossword puzzle that thinking hard about the clues achieves nothing, whereas glancing over them while eating a jam waffle or some such thing can yield instant solutions. Best of all, I find, is to doze off, then solve the damn thing in the minute or two during which full consciousness returns. Obviously there is something unrelated to IQ-test-intelligence involved here and its probably involves the same faculty that yields, for the most creative, new theories about falling apples or curved space.

    Yes…. but…. The higher processing speed of the higher IQ person is, prima facie, going to help produce ideas that others see as creative because novel. That would be true on average even if there are different neurological ways for processing speed to be affected.

    And is putatively measurable creativity actually the same thing as performed by a potter with IQ of 90 and a tax lawyer with IQ of 140?

  102. And is putatively measurable creativity actually the same thing as performed by a potter with IQ of 90 and a tax lawyer with IQ of 140?

    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.

    So to be a creative mathematician, you probably need an IQ close to 140, but there are lots of mathematicians with an IQ of 140 who never did anything creative, and there’s not much reason to believe that the most creative people have particularly high IQs relative to those in their field of endeavor: Richard Feynman, for example, a math wizz and creative genius in quantum physics of the highest order had, so it has been said, an IQ of only 123, which is consistent with his poor grades on everything but math and physics when he entered grad school at Princeton.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    "so it has been said". Could be true, but the discrepancy with his performance is such that I'd like to see evidence.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    That 123 figure for Feynman's IQ is obvious rubbish though no doubt it tickled his well developed sense of humour to have the rumour spread. Someone who could teach himself Japanese so he could lecture in Japan or simply give his lucid (published) lectures on physics clearly had a very superior IQ.
    , @res
    Hmmm. I followed that link of yours and here is their concluding paragraph (emphasis mine):

    Summarizing, intelligence is highly relevant for creativity, but the kind of relationship depends on the level of intelligence as well as on the actual indicator of creativity. In line with early assumptions, intelligence may increase creative potential up to a certain degree where it loses impact and other factors come into play. At this, it possibly applies that the more complex the measure of creativity that is considered, the higher the threshold up to which intelligence may exert its influence. For the most advanced indicator of creativity, namely creative achievement, intelligence remains relevant even at the highest ability range.
     
    That seems rather different from your statement (which linked the paper as support?!): "Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity"

    One of my biggest red flags for taking a person or paper seriously is when their references fail to substantiate their claims.
  103. @Lot
    Thank you for the detailed response. I just read a few of your articles on this topic (not all are available online). I remain unconvinced the magnitude of the decline in genetype IQ is as large as your estimate however. Part of the reason is the "common sense" cross check I mentioned in the prior post.

    It also looks like "educational attainment" is much more negatively selected against than IQ itself.

    Table 1 in your 2015 Personality and Individual Difference article shows Ability–fertility correlations are for both sexes strongest for Educational Level, -.17 and -.12 for the two sexes, while digit span backwards is only -.06 and -0.01.

    This suggests that the genome studies, which look at education level because that is simply that data that exists given the lack of controlled same-age IQ tests for large populations that have been sequenced, would overestimate the decline in genotype IQ.

    I noticed that your 2015 article suggests the selection effect for IQ causing a decline −.262 points per decade, but "increasing to −1.072 points when the additive effect of mutation accumulation is considered."

    I read the Arslan article you cited for mutational accumulation/parental age effect, which is responsible for the bulk of the decline in genotype IQ, here
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090097

    The conclusion of it is "Controlling for parental trait level, we were unable to show significant effects of paternal age, a proxy for new genetic mutations, on offspring IQ, head circumference, or personality traits."

    I think you are correct that increasing parental age in the West is leading to a higher mutational load and decreasing genotype IQ, however I did not see any basis for the large estimate in your article.

    My responses (italics) are posted below your comments.

    Thank you for the detailed response. I just read a few of your articles on this topic (not all are available online). I remain unconvinced the magnitude of the decline in genetype IQ is as large as your estimate however. Part of the reason is the “common sense” cross check I mentioned in the prior post.

    Response: Yet the genetic data are fairly unequivocal as to the magnitude of the decline. As I mentioned, the authors of these studies would have found bigger declines than they reported had they used realistic estimates of the additive heritability of general intelligence. Declines in g of a point or so a decade are also not so surprising when you consider the role of age at first birth as a source of dysgenic selection, on top of differential fertility. Don’t forget that low-ability individuals are not just more fertile: they procreate earlier, which means that their generation times are shorter. Heiner Rindermann has produced some simple simulations that will be published in a forthcoming monograph, showing that generational compression among those with low g may actually be a larger source of dysgenic selection than differential fertility. Rindermann’s model is consistent with Kong et al., who found that age at first birth was the principal driver of the dysgenic trend in Iceland.

    It also looks like “educational attainment” is much more negatively selected against than IQ itself.

    Table 1 in your 2015 Personality and Individual Difference article shows Ability–fertility correlations are for both sexes strongest for Educational Level, -.17 and -.12 for the two sexes, while digit span backwards is only -.06 and -0.01.

    This suggests that the genome studies, which look at education level because that is simply that data that exists given the lack of controlled same-age IQ tests for large populations that have been sequenced, would overestimate the decline in genotype IQ.

    Response: Educational attainment should not be thought of as a phenotype, or as a target of selection. It is an outcome of facultative calibration caused by the action of heritable sources of phenotypic variance, chief among which is g with which it shares about 60% of its genetic variance. The measures of g that best correlate with educational attainment are those associated with the ability to acquire and utilize knowledge in solving problems – so-called crystallized abilities, which are also most central to the construct of educational attainment. These measures (such as vocabulary) happen to be among the most heritable measures of g also (Kan et al., 2013); therefore, in as much as educational attainment is a strong proxy for these particular indicators of g it would be expected to correlate strongly with fertility relative to something like backwards digit span, which is relatively less g-loaded (0.6 vs. 0.8 for Vocabulary, for example).

    It is important to note also that educational attainment requires the presence of a very specific kind of environment in order to manifest (i.e. an educational system). Thus, another way of looking at educational attainment is as a source of selection on g. People will forgo opportunities, e.g. for procreation, in order to acquire more educational capital as this boosts economic competitiveness, thus there are tradeoffs. Using cognitive polygenic score (PGS) data from the Add Health sample, Kevin Beaver, Joe Schwartz and I were able to test this model directly via path analysis (Woodley of Menie et al., 2016). We found, as expected, that the main effect of the PGS on fertility was mediated by IQ and educational attainment, via the indirect path: PGS -> IQ -> Educational attainment -> Fertility, with educational attainment depressing fertility. The direct effect of PGS on fertility was small and non-significant in our model, however our power to detect this effect was limited as our sample size was modest (around 1,800). Much bigger studies (such as Kong et al.) have found that cognitive variants are directly negative linked with fertility outcomes net of educational attainment – which is what you would expect from 200 years of dysgenic fertility on g.

    I noticed that your 2015 article suggests the selection effect for IQ causing a decline −.262 points per decade, but “increasing to −1.072 points when the additive effect of mutation accumulation is considered.”

    I read the Arslan article you cited for mutational accumulation/parental age effect, which is responsible for the bulk of the decline in genotype IQ, here

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090097

    The conclusion of it is “Controlling for parental trait level, we were unable to show significant effects of paternal age, a proxy for new genetic mutations, on offspring IQ, head circumference, or personality traits.”

    I think you are correct that increasing parental age in the West is leading to a higher mutational load and decreasing genotype IQ, however I did not see any basis for the large estimate in your article.

    Response: In a 2015 article I derived an estimate of the impact of mutation accumulation on g using the study that you mention (Woodley, 2015). You are right that the study in question concludes that there was no effect of paternal age on g; however, there was an apparent effect prior to controlling for birth order. As birth order and paternal age are typically highly collinear, I concluded that this control may have spuriously suppressed the effect of interest, but as it happens I was wrong about this. What convinced me of my error was the study of D’Onoffrio et al. (2014), which found no paternal age effect on g after controlling for birth order using a sibling comparison design and a sample size north of 500K. Subsequent mutation calling work has confirmed the observation that g is apparently robustly canalized in development against common mutations, as it has been found that only rare protein coding mutations have an effect on the trait, and even then this effect is only visible when the extreme low or high end of the distribution is compared against the mean (Spain et al., 2015).

    I have devised an alternative estimate of the g lost due to mutation accumulation via reanalysis of secular trend data indicating increasing cranial fluctuating asymmetry in the White population of the US over the last 130 years (Woodley of Menie & Fernandes, 2016). Fluctuating asymmetry is a measure of developmental stability and correlates weakly with g. Mutations that disturb developmental stability may therefore antagonise the canalization of g, exerting an indirect (developmentally mediated) effect on the trait. The resultant g decline is very small however (0.16 points per decade), suggesting that mutations and other system integrity threats have not contributed substantially to the overall decline in g. The old estimate of the effect of mutation accumulation that I derived in the paper that you discuss can therefore be discarded.

    Refs.

    D’Onofrio, B. M., Rickert, M. E., Frans, E., et al. (2014). Paternal age at childbearing and offspring psychiatric and academic morbidity. JAMA Psychiatry, 71, 432–438.

    Kan, K.-J., Wicherts, J. M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2013). On the nature and nurture of intelligence and specific cognitive abilities: The more heritable,
    the more culture dependent. Psychological Science, 24, 2420–2428.

    Spain, S. L., Pedroso, N., Kadeva, N., et al. (2015). A genome-wide analysis of putative functional
    and exonic variation associated with extremely high intelligence. Molecular
    Psychiatry
    . http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.108.

    Woodley of Menie, M.A. (2015). How fragile is our intellect? Estimating losses in
    general intelligence due to both selection and mutation accumulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 80-84.

    Woodley of Menie, M.A., & Fernandes, H.B.F. (2016). The secular decline in general intelligence from decreasing developmental stability: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 194-199.

    • Replies: @utu
    "−.262 points per decade, but “increasing to −1.072" - Wow, four or even five digit precision? I wonder if people who come up with these numbers ever did any calculations that were meant to be applied to real things. Only in academia! Grow up.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Would you please enlighten this layman about two matters.

    1. Is there any probability that the mutations with age are likely to occur somewhere that matters. That is to say, if there are 100 age related mutations in the old codger's 30,000 genes what is the likelihood that one mutation will matter at all for the health of the species?

    2. Are methods of embryo selection for implantation already well enough advanced to allow the dangers of mutations in older fathers' germ cells to be avoided? If not when? (I am an investor in a small Australian listed company called Reproductive Health Services which I understand to be doing something like that).

  104. @james wilson
    The normal Bushman's IQ is 60. He does not appear retarded because he is not retarded. A Caucasian with an IQ of 60 is not only severely retarded, he appears severely retarded. IQ measures many important things very well, but normal is not generally one of them. A normal African cannot keep a high functioning civilization. A normal Caucasian might do so, and sometimes does.

    The normal Bushman’s IQ is 60.

    LOL. How was that precise number determined? I’d be much more inclined to believe the inferiority of the !Kung San intellect if the assessment were based on test clearly free of cultural bias, for example, as a reaction speed test. Anyone got the data? I doubt it. In the meantime, I trust to the speedy reflexes of a people who live by hunting elephants.

    Anyway, Nobel Prize winner, J.D. Watson, said that the !Kung San people were “some of the smartest individuals” he had met.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    No way! Jared Diamond says that the Papuans are the smartest people on the earth, and he is a better authority than some Nobel Prize winner.
    , @Saldim
    > cultural bias

    Found the Leftist. Do you deny that Negroid women are significantly less attractive than European women too?
  105. @CanSpeccy

    India is a very big country. There will be lots of geniuses there even if average IQ is low.
     
    Exactly. Most people in most countries spend most of their time doing dumb work that requires an IQ of, optimally, around 90 to 110, which is presumably why the average intelligence of most populations is within that range. Elites account for a negligible fraction of one percent of the population, so every population, whatever its mean IQ, can have an elite of high IQ. More important than the intelligence of the elite are the institutions and ideologies which provide the framework for elite action.

    And at 92. above, it should be "breach" not "breech!"

    Actually breech is not too bad for 92 :-)

  106. @james wilson
    The normal Bushman's IQ is 60. He does not appear retarded because he is not retarded. A Caucasian with an IQ of 60 is not only severely retarded, he appears severely retarded. IQ measures many important things very well, but normal is not generally one of them. A normal African cannot keep a high functioning civilization. A normal Caucasian might do so, and sometimes does.

    That 60, together with similar figures for Aborigines, was what put me off taking Lynn and Vanhenen very seriously even before I became conscious of the Flynn effect and long before Ron’s devastating takedown of left and right and stupid. That’s not to say that such figures aren”t faintly predictive because the circumstances which cause what might be a brain neurologically capable of IQ 100 performance to score 60 aren’t likely to be conducive to building great civilisations.

  107. @Michael A. Woodley of Menie
    My responses (italics) are posted below your comments.

    Thank you for the detailed response. I just read a few of your articles on this topic (not all are available online). I remain unconvinced the magnitude of the decline in genetype IQ is as large as your estimate however. Part of the reason is the “common sense” cross check I mentioned in the prior post.

    Response: Yet the genetic data are fairly unequivocal as to the magnitude of the decline. As I mentioned, the authors of these studies would have found bigger declines than they reported had they used realistic estimates of the additive heritability of general intelligence. Declines in g of a point or so a decade are also not so surprising when you consider the role of age at first birth as a source of dysgenic selection, on top of differential fertility. Don’t forget that low-ability individuals are not just more fertile: they procreate earlier, which means that their generation times are shorter. Heiner Rindermann has produced some simple simulations that will be published in a forthcoming monograph, showing that generational compression among those with low g may actually be a larger source of dysgenic selection than differential fertility. Rindermann’s model is consistent with Kong et al., who found that age at first birth was the principal driver of the dysgenic trend in Iceland.

    It also looks like “educational attainment” is much more negatively selected against than IQ itself.

    Table 1 in your 2015 Personality and Individual Difference article shows Ability–fertility correlations are for both sexes strongest for Educational Level, -.17 and -.12 for the two sexes, while digit span backwards is only -.06 and -0.01.

    This suggests that the genome studies, which look at education level because that is simply that data that exists given the lack of controlled same-age IQ tests for large populations that have been sequenced, would overestimate the decline in genotype IQ.

    Response: Educational attainment should not be thought of as a phenotype, or as a target of selection. It is an outcome of facultative calibration caused by the action of heritable sources of phenotypic variance, chief among which is g with which it shares about 60% of its genetic variance. The measures of g that best correlate with educational attainment are those associated with the ability to acquire and utilize knowledge in solving problems – so-called crystallized abilities, which are also most central to the construct of educational attainment. These measures (such as vocabulary) happen to be among the most heritable measures of g also (Kan et al., 2013); therefore, in as much as educational attainment is a strong proxy for these particular indicators of g it would be expected to correlate strongly with fertility relative to something like backwards digit span, which is relatively less g-loaded (0.6 vs. 0.8 for Vocabulary, for example).

    It is important to note also that educational attainment requires the presence of a very specific kind of environment in order to manifest (i.e. an educational system). Thus, another way of looking at educational attainment is as a source of selection on g. People will forgo opportunities, e.g. for procreation, in order to acquire more educational capital as this boosts economic competitiveness, thus there are tradeoffs. Using cognitive polygenic score (PGS) data from the Add Health sample, Kevin Beaver, Joe Schwartz and I were able to test this model directly via path analysis (Woodley of Menie et al., 2016). We found, as expected, that the main effect of the PGS on fertility was mediated by IQ and educational attainment, via the indirect path: PGS -> IQ -> Educational attainment -> Fertility, with educational attainment depressing fertility. The direct effect of PGS on fertility was small and non-significant in our model, however our power to detect this effect was limited as our sample size was modest (around 1,800). Much bigger studies (such as Kong et al.) have found that cognitive variants are directly negative linked with fertility outcomes net of educational attainment – which is what you would expect from 200 years of dysgenic fertility on g.

    I noticed that your 2015 article suggests the selection effect for IQ causing a decline −.262 points per decade, but “increasing to −1.072 points when the additive effect of mutation accumulation is considered.”

    I read the Arslan article you cited for mutational accumulation/parental age effect, which is responsible for the bulk of the decline in genotype IQ, here
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090097

    The conclusion of it is “Controlling for parental trait level, we were unable to show significant effects of paternal age, a proxy for new genetic mutations, on offspring IQ, head circumference, or personality traits.”

    I think you are correct that increasing parental age in the West is leading to a higher mutational load and decreasing genotype IQ, however I did not see any basis for the large estimate in your article.

    Response: In a 2015 article I derived an estimate of the impact of mutation accumulation on g using the study that you mention (Woodley, 2015). You are right that the study in question concludes that there was no effect of paternal age on g; however, there was an apparent effect prior to controlling for birth order. As birth order and paternal age are typically highly collinear, I concluded that this control may have spuriously suppressed the effect of interest, but as it happens I was wrong about this. What convinced me of my error was the study of D’Onoffrio et al. (2014), which found no paternal age effect on g after controlling for birth order using a sibling comparison design and a sample size north of 500K. Subsequent mutation calling work has confirmed the observation that g is apparently robustly canalized in development against common mutations, as it has been found that only rare protein coding mutations have an effect on the trait, and even then this effect is only visible when the extreme low or high end of the distribution is compared against the mean (Spain et al., 2015).

    I have devised an alternative estimate of the g lost due to mutation accumulation via reanalysis of secular trend data indicating increasing cranial fluctuating asymmetry in the White population of the US over the last 130 years (Woodley of Menie & Fernandes, 2016). Fluctuating asymmetry is a measure of developmental stability and correlates weakly with g. Mutations that disturb developmental stability may therefore antagonise the canalization of g, exerting an indirect (developmentally mediated) effect on the trait. The resultant g decline is very small however (0.16 points per decade), suggesting that mutations and other system integrity threats have not contributed substantially to the overall decline in g. The old estimate of the effect of mutation accumulation that I derived in the paper that you discuss can therefore be discarded.

    Refs.

    D’Onofrio, B. M., Rickert, M. E., Frans, E., et al. (2014). Paternal age at childbearing and offspring psychiatric and academic morbidity. JAMA Psychiatry, 71, 432–438.

    Kan, K.-J., Wicherts, J. M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2013). On the nature and nurture of intelligence and specific cognitive abilities: The more heritable,
    the more culture dependent. Psychological Science, 24, 2420–2428.

    Spain, S. L., Pedroso, N., Kadeva, N., et al. (2015). A genome-wide analysis of putative functional
    and exonic variation associated with extremely high intelligence. Molecular
    Psychiatry
    . http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.108.

    Woodley of Menie, M.A. (2015). How fragile is our intellect? Estimating losses in
    general intelligence due to both selection and mutation accumulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 80-84.

    Woodley of Menie, M.A., & Fernandes, H.B.F. (2016). The secular decline in general intelligence from decreasing developmental stability: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 194-199.

    “−.262 points per decade, but “increasing to −1.072″ – Wow, four or even five digit precision? I wonder if people who come up with these numbers ever did any calculations that were meant to be applied to real things. Only in academia! Grow up.

  108. @utu
    "Their choice of additive heritability estimate (what they call POLYFULL) for the target phenotype is too low however (30%). The additive heritability of IQ is actually around 80% in adults (Bouchard Jr., 2004)"

    Isn't it something that the science that seems to speak with great confidence about, say "decadal ‘genetic g’ decline of 0.79 IQ" (NOTE TWO SIGNIFICANT DIGITS) can diverge by factor of almost three on the estimate of heritability?

    In fact, behavioral genetic studies on the adult heritability of IQ virtually always arrive at an estimate around 0.77-0.85. The Kong group doesn’t reach the 0.30 estimate via any substantive analysis. They simply pick a conservative figure, perhaps to avoid the hysterical reactions that typically greet discussions of dysgenics. Why do I sense that you voted for Clinton?

  109. @Michael A. Woodley of Menie
    My responses (italics) are posted below your comments.

    Thank you for the detailed response. I just read a few of your articles on this topic (not all are available online). I remain unconvinced the magnitude of the decline in genetype IQ is as large as your estimate however. Part of the reason is the “common sense” cross check I mentioned in the prior post.

    Response: Yet the genetic data are fairly unequivocal as to the magnitude of the decline. As I mentioned, the authors of these studies would have found bigger declines than they reported had they used realistic estimates of the additive heritability of general intelligence. Declines in g of a point or so a decade are also not so surprising when you consider the role of age at first birth as a source of dysgenic selection, on top of differential fertility. Don’t forget that low-ability individuals are not just more fertile: they procreate earlier, which means that their generation times are shorter. Heiner Rindermann has produced some simple simulations that will be published in a forthcoming monograph, showing that generational compression among those with low g may actually be a larger source of dysgenic selection than differential fertility. Rindermann’s model is consistent with Kong et al., who found that age at first birth was the principal driver of the dysgenic trend in Iceland.

    It also looks like “educational attainment” is much more negatively selected against than IQ itself.

    Table 1 in your 2015 Personality and Individual Difference article shows Ability–fertility correlations are for both sexes strongest for Educational Level, -.17 and -.12 for the two sexes, while digit span backwards is only -.06 and -0.01.

    This suggests that the genome studies, which look at education level because that is simply that data that exists given the lack of controlled same-age IQ tests for large populations that have been sequenced, would overestimate the decline in genotype IQ.

    Response: Educational attainment should not be thought of as a phenotype, or as a target of selection. It is an outcome of facultative calibration caused by the action of heritable sources of phenotypic variance, chief among which is g with which it shares about 60% of its genetic variance. The measures of g that best correlate with educational attainment are those associated with the ability to acquire and utilize knowledge in solving problems – so-called crystallized abilities, which are also most central to the construct of educational attainment. These measures (such as vocabulary) happen to be among the most heritable measures of g also (Kan et al., 2013); therefore, in as much as educational attainment is a strong proxy for these particular indicators of g it would be expected to correlate strongly with fertility relative to something like backwards digit span, which is relatively less g-loaded (0.6 vs. 0.8 for Vocabulary, for example).

    It is important to note also that educational attainment requires the presence of a very specific kind of environment in order to manifest (i.e. an educational system). Thus, another way of looking at educational attainment is as a source of selection on g. People will forgo opportunities, e.g. for procreation, in order to acquire more educational capital as this boosts economic competitiveness, thus there are tradeoffs. Using cognitive polygenic score (PGS) data from the Add Health sample, Kevin Beaver, Joe Schwartz and I were able to test this model directly via path analysis (Woodley of Menie et al., 2016). We found, as expected, that the main effect of the PGS on fertility was mediated by IQ and educational attainment, via the indirect path: PGS -> IQ -> Educational attainment -> Fertility, with educational attainment depressing fertility. The direct effect of PGS on fertility was small and non-significant in our model, however our power to detect this effect was limited as our sample size was modest (around 1,800). Much bigger studies (such as Kong et al.) have found that cognitive variants are directly negative linked with fertility outcomes net of educational attainment – which is what you would expect from 200 years of dysgenic fertility on g.

    I noticed that your 2015 article suggests the selection effect for IQ causing a decline −.262 points per decade, but “increasing to −1.072 points when the additive effect of mutation accumulation is considered.”

    I read the Arslan article you cited for mutational accumulation/parental age effect, which is responsible for the bulk of the decline in genotype IQ, here
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090097

    The conclusion of it is “Controlling for parental trait level, we were unable to show significant effects of paternal age, a proxy for new genetic mutations, on offspring IQ, head circumference, or personality traits.”

    I think you are correct that increasing parental age in the West is leading to a higher mutational load and decreasing genotype IQ, however I did not see any basis for the large estimate in your article.

    Response: In a 2015 article I derived an estimate of the impact of mutation accumulation on g using the study that you mention (Woodley, 2015). You are right that the study in question concludes that there was no effect of paternal age on g; however, there was an apparent effect prior to controlling for birth order. As birth order and paternal age are typically highly collinear, I concluded that this control may have spuriously suppressed the effect of interest, but as it happens I was wrong about this. What convinced me of my error was the study of D’Onoffrio et al. (2014), which found no paternal age effect on g after controlling for birth order using a sibling comparison design and a sample size north of 500K. Subsequent mutation calling work has confirmed the observation that g is apparently robustly canalized in development against common mutations, as it has been found that only rare protein coding mutations have an effect on the trait, and even then this effect is only visible when the extreme low or high end of the distribution is compared against the mean (Spain et al., 2015).

    I have devised an alternative estimate of the g lost due to mutation accumulation via reanalysis of secular trend data indicating increasing cranial fluctuating asymmetry in the White population of the US over the last 130 years (Woodley of Menie & Fernandes, 2016). Fluctuating asymmetry is a measure of developmental stability and correlates weakly with g. Mutations that disturb developmental stability may therefore antagonise the canalization of g, exerting an indirect (developmentally mediated) effect on the trait. The resultant g decline is very small however (0.16 points per decade), suggesting that mutations and other system integrity threats have not contributed substantially to the overall decline in g. The old estimate of the effect of mutation accumulation that I derived in the paper that you discuss can therefore be discarded.

    Refs.

    D’Onofrio, B. M., Rickert, M. E., Frans, E., et al. (2014). Paternal age at childbearing and offspring psychiatric and academic morbidity. JAMA Psychiatry, 71, 432–438.

    Kan, K.-J., Wicherts, J. M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2013). On the nature and nurture of intelligence and specific cognitive abilities: The more heritable,
    the more culture dependent. Psychological Science, 24, 2420–2428.

    Spain, S. L., Pedroso, N., Kadeva, N., et al. (2015). A genome-wide analysis of putative functional
    and exonic variation associated with extremely high intelligence. Molecular
    Psychiatry
    . http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.108.

    Woodley of Menie, M.A. (2015). How fragile is our intellect? Estimating losses in
    general intelligence due to both selection and mutation accumulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 80-84.

    Woodley of Menie, M.A., & Fernandes, H.B.F. (2016). The secular decline in general intelligence from decreasing developmental stability: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 194-199.

    Would you please enlighten this layman about two matters.

    1. Is there any probability that the mutations with age are likely to occur somewhere that matters. That is to say, if there are 100 age related mutations in the old codger’s 30,000 genes what is the likelihood that one mutation will matter at all for the health of the species?

    2. Are methods of embryo selection for implantation already well enough advanced to allow the dangers of mutations in older fathers’ germ cells to be avoided? If not when? (I am an investor in a small Australian listed company called Reproductive Health Services which I understand to be doing something like that).

  110. @CanSpeccy

    And is putatively measurable creativity actually the same thing as performed by a potter with IQ of 90 and a tax lawyer with IQ of 140?
     
    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.

    So to be a creative mathematician, you probably need an IQ close to 140, but there are lots of mathematicians with an IQ of 140 who never did anything creative, and there's not much reason to believe that the most creative people have particularly high IQs relative to those in their field of endeavor: Richard Feynman, for example, a math wizz and creative genius in quantum physics of the highest order had, so it has been said, an IQ of only 123, which is consistent with his poor grades on everything but math and physics when he entered grad school at Princeton.

    “so it has been said”. Could be true, but the discrepancy with his performance is such that I’d like to see evidence.

  111. @CanSpeccy
    Creativity has virtually nothing to do with IQ. Probably not even dependent on the same part of the brain or even the same side of the brain. Haven't you noticed when doing a crossword puzzle that thinking hard about the clues achieves nothing, whereas glancing over them while eating a jam waffle or some such thing can yield instant solutions. Best of all, I find, is to doze off, then solve the damn thing in the minute or two during which full consciousness returns. Obviously there is something unrelated to IQ-test-intelligence involved here and its probably involves the same faculty that yields, for the most creative, new theories about falling apples or curved space.

    Creativity has virtually nothing to do with IQ. Probably not even dependent on the same part of the brain or even the same side of the brain.

    I agree, i think if IQ measure the cognitive boundaries or extension of our intelligences, creativity still correlates only because this broad factor, because presumably, bigger intelligences tend to mean bigger potential/resources. Critical-analytical and speculative thinking is characteristically opposite to the convergent thinking, what IQ tend to capture.

    Convergent thinking quickly capture and accept ”correct’ answers while divergent/ critical thinking look laterally to the flaws and possibilities of ”correct’ answers.

    Some people are directly connected to this speculative thinking, so for this people is even more difficult to converge to the ”correct’ answers without think in other possibilities firstly.

    Basically what we understand as [general] intelligence is, memorize/internalize, learn convergent tasks and replicate them, but most of human knowledge is basically old creativity that become ”common knowledge”.

    BUT creativity is ”within’ the intelligence entity/organism or system — domain.

    What we understand, mistankely, as intelligence, indeed is in true, cognition.

    What really is intelligence is also what creativity is. Just like a system with different sub-systems and with specific functions. Creativity is about think in different possibilities to solve novel or not-so-novel ‘problems”, what intelligence also is in the same way Nervous system is for the human organism.

    Summarizing this bulls…tz: creativity is in the domain of intelligence, even we can agree that both is not exactly the same thing.

  112. @Wizard of Oz
    You bring to mind the decisive leaders who cut off actually viable options too quickly and fail to allow subtle exploration of nuance and complexity. Sometimes that would be caused more by ego than IQ (anyone reminded of the Donald?).

    I can see how both the fight genes and the flight genes survive. I can’t see how the “what to do, what to do? can’t decide!” ones would make it through.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yes, but the "no need to rush: let's take our time and get it right" genes could be useful.
  113. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    About 6% of the Indian population is high caste Hindu or smart religious groups (Jains and Parsees). Assuming this body of people have an IQ of 100, how does that change the numbers of the smart fraction (let’s say the smart fraction threshold is 120)?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    My understanding is that the "smart fraction" was the concept of the pseudonymous La Griffe du Lion and that he calculated it to be those above about 107 IQ.
    , @rec1man
    About 20% of the Indian population is high caste
    5% Brahmins
    5% Merchants ( Jains are part of Merchants 0.5% )
    5% Forward Caste Dravidians ( South Indian Landlords )
    5% Scribes, Nobles etc

    If you look at 2017 California National Merit, 140 IQ cut off

    850 Chinese
    100 Koreans
    75 Vietnamese
    25 Japanese

    55 Muslims

    125 Jews

    275 Indians
    of which

    125 Brahmins ( 90 Southern, 35 Northern )
    65 Merchants ( 15 Jains )
    55 Dravidian Landlords

    whereas among mid-level peasant castes

    4 Patels
    3 Jat Sikh
  114. @CanSpeccy

    And is putatively measurable creativity actually the same thing as performed by a potter with IQ of 90 and a tax lawyer with IQ of 140?
     
    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.

    So to be a creative mathematician, you probably need an IQ close to 140, but there are lots of mathematicians with an IQ of 140 who never did anything creative, and there's not much reason to believe that the most creative people have particularly high IQs relative to those in their field of endeavor: Richard Feynman, for example, a math wizz and creative genius in quantum physics of the highest order had, so it has been said, an IQ of only 123, which is consistent with his poor grades on everything but math and physics when he entered grad school at Princeton.

    That 123 figure for Feynman’s IQ is obvious rubbish though no doubt it tickled his well developed sense of humour to have the rumour spread. Someone who could teach himself Japanese so he could lecture in Japan or simply give his lucid (published) lectures on physics clearly had a very superior IQ.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Very likely
    , @AaronB
    Maybe he was one of those "unbalanced" types whose g was less important than his special factor (against the general population trend, of course), and he scored dismal on some IQ sub-tests, bringing his score down.

    I've read some of his books and he didn't seem very verbally gifted.
    , @CanSpeccy

    or simply give his lucid (published) lectures on physics clearly
     
    Actually, his lectures on physics weren't that clear to most of the undergraduates for whom they were intended. Mostly they gave up attending, although their numbers were made up for by graduate students and faculty who attended in their place. Furthermore, the lectures were not published verbatim or anything like, but were the result of intensive editing by physicists Matthew Sands and Robert Leighton. The lectures provided what is widely held to be a brilliant outline of physics, but they were not great in any literary sense.

    To get an idea of Feynman's actual literary gifts one can read The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist, which is neither very interesting nor well written.
    , @CanSpeccy
    Actually, the source of the 123 figure for Feynman's IQ was Feyneman's wife, Gweneth. The teacher of their son, Richard Jr., phoned home one evening to ask if young Richard had been unwell that day. Feynman's wife replied "no, why?" to which the teacher responded, his class did an IQ test today and Richard scored only 124. "Oh," said young Richard's mum, "a chip off the old block. His father scored only 123."

    Probably a joke, but it's amusing how exercised the IQists become when it is pointed out that IQ has little if any demonstrated connection with creativity, the essence of what we consider to be genius.

  115. @Wizard of Oz
    That 123 figure for Feynman's IQ is obvious rubbish though no doubt it tickled his well developed sense of humour to have the rumour spread. Someone who could teach himself Japanese so he could lecture in Japan or simply give his lucid (published) lectures on physics clearly had a very superior IQ.

    Very likely

  116. Well, whatever you want to say about IQ, his conclusion is definitely correct. Higher IQ countries will be wealthier and more developed.

    They will also be more dull, joyless, materialistic, with life centered on hard work for material gain, and technology – i.e mere convenience – being the highest aspiration. Knowledge will be simpler, impoverished, one-dimensional, focused on control rather than a rich and complex understanding of the world, and intangible pleasures that have no practical utility – i.e do not conduct to physical convenience – will gradually fade away, and people will feel guilty for feeling such things.

    People will feel vaguely restless and miserable without knowing why, but they will have no insight into their condition, because “insight” will be seen as a superstitious relic from a bygone era, since it isn’t precise and cannot be expressed mathematically. Transfixed by the glitter of technology, and the impoverished thinking needed to develop it, they will be trapped with no way out.

    As disgust with life and boredom mount, people will start having less children, and will become self-hating and culturally suicidal, never understanding what calamity has befallen them.

    If this is what you want, I say you should have it. It would be cruel to deny people who can see no higher vision than this the tiny bit of pleasure they are able to get out of life, such as it is.

    But there must remain a space for human beings capable of flourishing and thriving, some sort of “parallel society”, where other values obtain. Increasingly I find the dominant paradigm is trying to extend itself over everyone, to make escape impossible. Unhappy people tend to wish to impose their unhappiness on others. Happy people are tolerant.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Who are you replying to?
    , @CanSpeccy

    whatever you want to say about IQ, his conclusion is definitely correct. Higher IQ countries will be wealthier and more developed.
     
    Not really. The Chinese are supposed, I believe, to have slightly higher IQ's than Europeans, yet for most of the last four hundred years the Chinese were dirt poor, as many still are today, while the Europeans became the wealthiest and most powerful people on the face of the Earth.

    And if you consider the time before the industrial revolution, were the Europeans in their squalid plague-ridden towns really more prosperous than Africans of supposedly inferior IQ, with their herds of cattle and vast open spaces?

    Prosperity has nothing to do with the IQ of a population. Prosperity is a function of the social system and its institutions of education, defense, government, and religion. The US population governed by a globalist elite since Clinton signed the 1994 Gatt agreement has experienced over the last several decades a decline in prosperity. The Chinese, under an oligarchy committed to national economic development have undergone an astonishing rise in prosperity.

  117. Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.

    Before that, Europeans never had the impression that Asians were particularly smarter than them. Bertrand Russell, who thought China was the greatest civilization the world had ever seen and taught there for a year, said he did not think the Chinese were more intelligent than Europeans.

    I wonder what Chinese IQ was back then? I’m betting their IQ rose in direct proportion as they became ambitious and began to exert effort to catch up with the West in a serious way.

    The relationship between wealth and technology and IQ is indeed a very close one in modern times, but a subtle thinker might have some doubts about which way the arrow of causality points.

    • Replies: @utu
    "a subtle thinker might have some doubts about which way the arrow of causality points" - You want subtlety? Not at this address.
    , @dearieme
    The early Portuguese and Dutch explorers and traders were agreed that the most impressive people they'd met on their voyages were the Japanese. It might be worth finding out if they reckoned them cleverer than Europeans.
    , @Santoculto

    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.
     
    Thank you HBD!!1! lol
    , @Daniel Chieh

    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.
     
    Marco Polo described China as beyond more advanced than Europe for what it is was worth, and was pretty glowing in his praise of some of the people. At the time, though, China was definitely still leading in GDP and possibly technology.
    , @anon

    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.
     
    first contact was 1543

    Bertrand Russell, who thought China was the greatest civilization the world had ever seen and taught there for a year, said he did not think the Chinese were more intelligent than Europeans.
     
    maybe Euro IQ declined in the interim

    for example maybe

    1) industrialization and the demand for mass factory labor led to a disproportionate increase in the left side of the bell curve for a hundred years or so

    2) dietary changes
  118. @attilathehen
    Asians can only copy, they do not invent. Without Asians, the West is fine. Without the West, Asia is gone. There are 3 races: Caucasian, Asian, black. The bottom 2 don't count.

    There are least 6 races of man (Caucasoids, Negroids, Capoids, Australoids, Mongoloids, American Mongoloids).

  119. @Wizard of Oz
    That 123 figure for Feynman's IQ is obvious rubbish though no doubt it tickled his well developed sense of humour to have the rumour spread. Someone who could teach himself Japanese so he could lecture in Japan or simply give his lucid (published) lectures on physics clearly had a very superior IQ.

    Maybe he was one of those “unbalanced” types whose g was less important than his special factor (against the general population trend, of course), and he scored dismal on some IQ sub-tests, bringing his score down.

    I’ve read some of his books and he didn’t seem very verbally gifted.

    • Replies: @res
    I think that is part of it. I'm guessing the test he took was biased towards verbal and away from math as well (IMHO there was a similar problem with the Terman test which missed Alvarez and Shockley). And no doubt he reveled in the story.

    I wonder if he took the SAT (introduced in 1926)? Reputedly he scored outstandingly well on the Princeton graduate admission exams. His Putnam score in 1939 has been variously cited as best in the country, second best, and "top five" here: https://mks.mff.cuni.cz/kalva/putnam/putn39.html
  120. @Wizard of Oz
    You are trolling of course so there's mo need for precision or completeness but you have forgotten to mention that the most destructive criminals in terms of numbers of victims and destruction of inherited culture were the victims of Occidental ideas. Mao's Cultural Revolution was a nice segue to his Great Leap Forward and Ho Chi Minh was only less destructive to Vietnamese culture and religion than Pol Pot would have been if destroying Cambodia hadn't preoccupied him. Oh the power of those Occidental ideas in the wrong hands even many years after Marx and Lenin died. If only they hadn't chasedthe Dalai Llama out of his country. What a pity the culture wasn't capable of learning from others' mistakes.

    Don’t forget all the killing done by Mongols.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    And of course the Rape of Nanjing/Nanking was just the Japanese trying to go one up on Occidentals.
  121. @CanSpeccy

    And is putatively measurable creativity actually the same thing as performed by a potter with IQ of 90 and a tax lawyer with IQ of 140?
     
    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.

    So to be a creative mathematician, you probably need an IQ close to 140, but there are lots of mathematicians with an IQ of 140 who never did anything creative, and there's not much reason to believe that the most creative people have particularly high IQs relative to those in their field of endeavor: Richard Feynman, for example, a math wizz and creative genius in quantum physics of the highest order had, so it has been said, an IQ of only 123, which is consistent with his poor grades on everything but math and physics when he entered grad school at Princeton.

    Hmmm. I followed that link of yours and here is their concluding paragraph (emphasis mine):

    Summarizing, intelligence is highly relevant for creativity, but the kind of relationship depends on the level of intelligence as well as on the actual indicator of creativity. In line with early assumptions, intelligence may increase creative potential up to a certain degree where it loses impact and other factors come into play. At this, it possibly applies that the more complex the measure of creativity that is considered, the higher the threshold up to which intelligence may exert its influence. For the most advanced indicator of creativity, namely creative achievement, intelligence remains relevant even at the highest ability range.

    That seems rather different from your statement (which linked the paper as support?!): “Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity”

    One of my biggest red flags for taking a person or paper seriously is when their references fail to substantiate their claims.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    One of my biggest red flags for taking a person or paper seriously is when their references fail to substantiate their claims.
     
    Well despite your snotty remark, my reference fully supports my claim that there is "little ... connection between IQ and creativity” except inasmuch as sufficient intelligence is required to grasp whatever it is one is to be creative about. That's what the article I referred to is about: the threshold effect of intelligence on creativity. And I even acknowledged that to be creative in something like mathematics one would necessarily require a relatively high IQ. Do try to apply a little intelligence to what other people have to say.
  122. @Wizard of Oz
    I am sure he is referring to fertility rates and the one child policy's impact with emphasis also on the way East Asians, like Europeans, will reproduce earlier - and therefore more often in the long term - amongst the relatively dim.

    As an Australian who sees clever women having no children, or few, as they seek to break glass ceilings I am pleased at the quality of our migrant intake, with qualifications about what all the hairdressing students will do for us when they find that there is not enough hair to go round. (It seems that the list of occupations where there is scarcity in Australia gets updated very incompetently and tardily so Indian and other students wanting a quick path to a visa - so they can drive cabs? - were quick to sign up for short courses; similarly for chefs I believe).

    I guess our average IQ is being maintained by the East Asians (mostly Han) and Indians. But the one child policy in China had its greatest impact on the urban middle classes (prosperous businessmen in Shenzhen would easily pay the fine but still usually didn't have more than two children I believe). Watch Japan to see how it copes with an ageing population which also is, to some extent, dumbing down. I doubt that multicultural societies will be able to emulate it comfortably.

    I am sure he is referring to fertility rates and the one child policy’s impact with emphasis also on the way East Asians, like Europeans, will reproduce earlier – and therefore more often in the long term – amongst the relatively dim.

    I don’t know if you noticed but East Asian countries don’t have the seriously dysfunctional immigration of White countries.

  123. @res

    1. Given global competition, a country *doesn’t* need 120+ IQ people. It can import them, or they can stay in their home country and give orders to the IQ80 people.
     
    Because importing or outsourcing a ruling (even if only from behind the curtain) class has worked out so well throughout history for the natives. Perhaps you could offer your thoughts on colonialism?

    I tend to agree with your other points.

    Go take a look at South Africa after Apartheid ended and come back to us.

    • Replies: @res
    I'm actually more receptive to the colonialism can be beneficial argument than you might think from my comment. But although I agree South Africa was more functional as a country then, I still think the "natives" (meaning the black Africans, though I know there is some dispute about who has rights to that term given settlement patterns there) prefer things the way it is now. Though that might be lessening as the industrial and human capital left from the colonial era is depleted and the "big man" dysfunctionality reasserts itself.

    My original comment addressed the wisdom of importing a ruling class as shown throughout history. I stand by that statement.
  124. @AaronB
    Maybe he was one of those "unbalanced" types whose g was less important than his special factor (against the general population trend, of course), and he scored dismal on some IQ sub-tests, bringing his score down.

    I've read some of his books and he didn't seem very verbally gifted.

    I think that is part of it. I’m guessing the test he took was biased towards verbal and away from math as well (IMHO there was a similar problem with the Terman test which missed Alvarez and Shockley). And no doubt he reveled in the story.

    I wonder if he took the SAT (introduced in 1926)? Reputedly he scored outstandingly well on the Princeton graduate admission exams. His Putnam score in 1939 has been variously cited as best in the country, second best, and “top five” here: https://mks.mff.cuni.cz/kalva/putnam/putn39.html

  125. @Saldim
    Go take a look at South Africa after Apartheid ended and come back to us.

    I’m actually more receptive to the colonialism can be beneficial argument than you might think from my comment. But although I agree South Africa was more functional as a country then, I still think the “natives” (meaning the black Africans, though I know there is some dispute about who has rights to that term given settlement patterns there) prefer things the way it is now. Though that might be lessening as the industrial and human capital left from the colonial era is depleted and the “big man” dysfunctionality reasserts itself.

    My original comment addressed the wisdom of importing a ruling class as shown throughout history. I stand by that statement.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What do you count as imported ruling classes? The Normans in Normandie then England presumably? Mongols and later Manchus in China? ZMuslims in India?
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I think that colonialism usually has perverse incentives in that the governor of the colony has only five or ten years where he has to live in the colony, and therefore benefits from maximizing profit and status within the period rather than establishing a legacy.

    I believe the Romans avoided this to an extent by actually setting up roots post-conquest.

  126. @AaronB
    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.

    Before that, Europeans never had the impression that Asians were particularly smarter than them. Bertrand Russell, who thought China was the greatest civilization the world had ever seen and taught there for a year, said he did not think the Chinese were more intelligent than Europeans.

    I wonder what Chinese IQ was back then? I'm betting their IQ rose in direct proportion as they became ambitious and began to exert effort to catch up with the West in a serious way.

    The relationship between wealth and technology and IQ is indeed a very close one in modern times, but a subtle thinker might have some doubts about which way the arrow of causality points.

    “a subtle thinker might have some doubts about which way the arrow of causality points” – You want subtlety? Not at this address.

  127. @res
    I'm actually more receptive to the colonialism can be beneficial argument than you might think from my comment. But although I agree South Africa was more functional as a country then, I still think the "natives" (meaning the black Africans, though I know there is some dispute about who has rights to that term given settlement patterns there) prefer things the way it is now. Though that might be lessening as the industrial and human capital left from the colonial era is depleted and the "big man" dysfunctionality reasserts itself.

    My original comment addressed the wisdom of importing a ruling class as shown throughout history. I stand by that statement.

    What do you count as imported ruling classes? The Normans in Normandie then England presumably? Mongols and later Manchus in China? ZMuslims in India?

    • Replies: @res
    I was thinking mostly of colonial examples, the Normans, and some modern examples like the Tutsi, Igbo, and Sunni in Iraq. Interested in your take on the other examples (especially those you gave) and overall thoughts. I tend to think humans prefer self(group)-rule even if their objective situation is worse.
  128. @iffen
    I can see how both the fight genes and the flight genes survive. I can't see how the "what to do, what to do? can't decide!" ones would make it through.

    Yes, but the “no need to rush: let’s take our time and get it right” genes could be useful.

    • Replies: @iffen
    no need to rush

    Only works if not rushing does not result in getting your neck chomped by a saber-toothed tiger.
  129. @Wizard of Oz
    That 123 figure for Feynman's IQ is obvious rubbish though no doubt it tickled his well developed sense of humour to have the rumour spread. Someone who could teach himself Japanese so he could lecture in Japan or simply give his lucid (published) lectures on physics clearly had a very superior IQ.

    or simply give his lucid (published) lectures on physics clearly

    Actually, his lectures on physics weren’t that clear to most of the undergraduates for whom they were intended. Mostly they gave up attending, although their numbers were made up for by graduate students and faculty who attended in their place. Furthermore, the lectures were not published verbatim or anything like, but were the result of intensive editing by physicists Matthew Sands and Robert Leighton. The lectures provided what is widely held to be a brilliant outline of physics, but they were not great in any literary sense.

    To get an idea of Feynman’s actual literary gifts one can read The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist, which is neither very interesting nor well written.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for the suggested reading. It made me atruggle to remember what I have read of Feynman and realised that it was his transcribed words in "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman" that are just about all (not having read much of the physics lectures) and that was several years ago.
  130. Fred Reed is a SJW.

    >American blacks, the Irish, and Mexicans have similar IQs but different outcomes

    “American Blacks” and Mestizos both have IQs in the 80s with the associated dysfunction (see crime stats, welfare usage, etc.). The Irish IQ is certainly into the 90s.

    >IQ scores for some countries have been revised considerably, suggesting that intelligence measures are unreliable;

    Not really.

    >Maya Indians had cultural achievements out of all proportion to the low IQs of the current inhabitants

    Name all those achievements and tell us what puts them above Crete or Ancient Egypt (which was a land of East Africans with Levantines).

    >the ancient Greek thinkers were very bright, and not dull as the Flynn Effect might imply;

    Richard Lynn is certainly off if he’s saying Southern Europeans are way below the British or French in IQ.

    >the IQ of India cannot be 81 because of India’s cultural achievements

    The Indian Subcontinent has long not been racially or ethnically homogeneous. Even then, the Indian Subcontinent got loads of massacres from Islamic foreigners:

    https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/islamic-india-the-biggest-holocaust-in-world-history-whitewashed-from-history/

    >there is no visible difference in intelligence between Mexicans and Americans

    And yet there’s crime levels, performance in education…

    >nor also with the inhabitants of Taiwan, Vietnam, or Thailand

    Same as above.

    >and what mean IQ is thought necessary to run the infrastructure of modernity?

    https://staffanspersonalityblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/the-iq-breaking-point-how-civilized-society-is-maintained-or-lost/

    The cutoff point is apparently 96.

  131. @Anonymous
    About 6% of the Indian population is high caste Hindu or smart religious groups (Jains and Parsees). Assuming this body of people have an IQ of 100, how does that change the numbers of the smart fraction (let's say the smart fraction threshold is 120)?

    My understanding is that the “smart fraction” was the concept of the pseudonymous La Griffe du Lion and that he calculated it to be those above about 107 IQ.

  132. @res
    Hmmm. I followed that link of yours and here is their concluding paragraph (emphasis mine):

    Summarizing, intelligence is highly relevant for creativity, but the kind of relationship depends on the level of intelligence as well as on the actual indicator of creativity. In line with early assumptions, intelligence may increase creative potential up to a certain degree where it loses impact and other factors come into play. At this, it possibly applies that the more complex the measure of creativity that is considered, the higher the threshold up to which intelligence may exert its influence. For the most advanced indicator of creativity, namely creative achievement, intelligence remains relevant even at the highest ability range.
     
    That seems rather different from your statement (which linked the paper as support?!): "Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity"

    One of my biggest red flags for taking a person or paper seriously is when their references fail to substantiate their claims.

    One of my biggest red flags for taking a person or paper seriously is when their references fail to substantiate their claims.

    Well despite your snotty remark, my reference fully supports my claim that there is “little … connection between IQ and creativity” except inasmuch as sufficient intelligence is required to grasp whatever it is one is to be creative about. That’s what the article I referred to is about: the threshold effect of intelligence on creativity. And I even acknowledged that to be creative in something like mathematics one would necessarily require a relatively high IQ. Do try to apply a little intelligence to what other people have to say.

    • Replies: @res

    Well despite your snotty remark, my reference fully supports my claim
     
    If so it is notable that the authors of the paper concluded the opposite.

    And the rest of your comment is rather different from your statement that I criticized: "Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity"

    Do you stand by that statement as being consistent with the rest of what you wrote and the conclusion given by the paper authors?
  133. @Wizard of Oz
    What do you count as imported ruling classes? The Normans in Normandie then England presumably? Mongols and later Manchus in China? ZMuslims in India?

    I was thinking mostly of colonial examples, the Normans, and some modern examples like the Tutsi, Igbo, and Sunni in Iraq. Interested in your take on the other examples (especially those you gave) and overall thoughts. I tend to think humans prefer self(group)-rule even if their objective situation is worse.

  134. @AaronB
    Well, whatever you want to say about IQ, his conclusion is definitely correct. Higher IQ countries will be wealthier and more developed.

    They will also be more dull, joyless, materialistic, with life centered on hard work for material gain, and technology - i.e mere convenience - being the highest aspiration. Knowledge will be simpler, impoverished, one-dimensional, focused on control rather than a rich and complex understanding of the world, and intangible pleasures that have no practical utility - i.e do not conduct to physical convenience - will gradually fade away, and people will feel guilty for feeling such things.

    People will feel vaguely restless and miserable without knowing why, but they will have no insight into their condition, because "insight" will be seen as a superstitious relic from a bygone era, since it isn't precise and cannot be expressed mathematically. Transfixed by the glitter of technology, and the impoverished thinking needed to develop it, they will be trapped with no way out.

    As disgust with life and boredom mount, people will start having less children, and will become self-hating and culturally suicidal, never understanding what calamity has befallen them.

    If this is what you want, I say you should have it. It would be cruel to deny people who can see no higher vision than this the tiny bit of pleasure they are able to get out of life, such as it is.

    But there must remain a space for human beings capable of flourishing and thriving, some sort of "parallel society", where other values obtain. Increasingly I find the dominant paradigm is trying to extend itself over everyone, to make escape impossible. Unhappy people tend to wish to impose their unhappiness on others. Happy people are tolerant.

    Who are you replying to?

  135. @CanSpeccy

    The normal Bushman’s IQ is 60.
     
    LOL. How was that precise number determined? I'd be much more inclined to believe the inferiority of the !Kung San intellect if the assessment were based on test clearly free of cultural bias, for example, as a reaction speed test. Anyone got the data? I doubt it. In the meantime, I trust to the speedy reflexes of a people who live by hunting elephants.

    Anyway, Nobel Prize winner, J.D. Watson, said that the !Kung San people were "some of the smartest individuals" he had met.

    No way! Jared Diamond says that the Papuans are the smartest people on the earth, and he is a better authority than some Nobel Prize winner.

  136. @Saldim
    Don't forget all the killing done by Mongols.

    And of course the Rape of Nanjing/Nanking was just the Japanese trying to go one up on Occidentals.

  137. @CanSpeccy

    The normal Bushman’s IQ is 60.
     
    LOL. How was that precise number determined? I'd be much more inclined to believe the inferiority of the !Kung San intellect if the assessment were based on test clearly free of cultural bias, for example, as a reaction speed test. Anyone got the data? I doubt it. In the meantime, I trust to the speedy reflexes of a people who live by hunting elephants.

    Anyway, Nobel Prize winner, J.D. Watson, said that the !Kung San people were "some of the smartest individuals" he had met.

    > cultural bias

    Found the Leftist. Do you deny that Negroid women are significantly less attractive than European women too?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Do you deny that Negroid women are significantly less attractive than European women too?
     
    Did you know that the people of Africa, those your refer to as "negroid," encompass greater genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined? No, probably not or you'd have been more specific as to who in particular among "Negroid" women you were referring to.

    But I love this girl: beautiful, tough, and intelligent just like my own blue-eyed blonde, Norman/Scotch-descended granddaughter.

  138. @res
    I'm actually more receptive to the colonialism can be beneficial argument than you might think from my comment. But although I agree South Africa was more functional as a country then, I still think the "natives" (meaning the black Africans, though I know there is some dispute about who has rights to that term given settlement patterns there) prefer things the way it is now. Though that might be lessening as the industrial and human capital left from the colonial era is depleted and the "big man" dysfunctionality reasserts itself.

    My original comment addressed the wisdom of importing a ruling class as shown throughout history. I stand by that statement.

    I think that colonialism usually has perverse incentives in that the governor of the colony has only five or ten years where he has to live in the colony, and therefore benefits from maximizing profit and status within the period rather than establishing a legacy.

    I believe the Romans avoided this to an extent by actually setting up roots post-conquest.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @dearieme
    There are counterexamples by the dozen.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You might care to consider the importance of very different traditions and conditions. Begin perhaps with Claudio Véliz's "The Centralist Tradition of Latin America" to start seeing the huge importance of the contrasting tradition in North America. But America is of course the continent of real colonialism where immigrant colonists came to form much or most of the population. You really need to temper your generalisations by recognition that India would never have been regarded as a colony, run at the top as it was by a tiny handful of Brits though long term inhabitants of the British, French and Portuguese trading posts might appropriately have been called colonists in the original Greek sense. At some stage Hong Kong, Singapore and even African countries like Nigeria seem to have joined the category of "colonies" (as in the "Commonwealth and Colonial Office" after true traditional colonies like those in Australia, NZ and Canada - after America's 13 - had become independent countries). But India surely deserves its separate character and I don't think your reasoning about governors appointed for 5 to 10 years has much explanatory power. Late Viceroys like Curzon and Reading (Rufua Iaaacs) were not long term residents of India but a very high proportion of the Brits who governed India were, sometimes several generations born in India, and, after the impeachment of Warren Hastings in the 1780s ruling India was not a path to gross enrichment.
  139. @CanSpeccy

    One of my biggest red flags for taking a person or paper seriously is when their references fail to substantiate their claims.
     
    Well despite your snotty remark, my reference fully supports my claim that there is "little ... connection between IQ and creativity” except inasmuch as sufficient intelligence is required to grasp whatever it is one is to be creative about. That's what the article I referred to is about: the threshold effect of intelligence on creativity. And I even acknowledged that to be creative in something like mathematics one would necessarily require a relatively high IQ. Do try to apply a little intelligence to what other people have to say.

    Well despite your snotty remark, my reference fully supports my claim

    If so it is notable that the authors of the paper concluded the opposite.

    And the rest of your comment is rather different from your statement that I criticized: “Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity”

    Do you stand by that statement as being consistent with the rest of what you wrote and the conclusion given by the paper authors?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    it is notable that the authors of the paper concluded the opposite.
     
    A claim made without any reference to what the authors say.

    Here's what they say:


    When investigating a liberal criterion of ideational originality (i.e., two original ideas), a threshold was detected at around 100 IQ points. In contrast, a threshold of 120 IQ points emerged when the criterion was more demanding (i.e., many original ideas). Moreover, an IQ of around 85 IQ points was found to form the threshold for a purely quantitative measure of creative potential (i.e., ideational fluency). These results confirm the threshold hypothesis for qualitative indicators of creative potential and may explain some of the observed discrepancies in previous research. In addition, we obtained evidence that once the intelligence threshold is met, personality factors become more predictive for creativity.
     
    which is entirely consistent with my statement:

    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.
     
  140. Jan 23, 2017 A Libertarian Builds Low-Cost Private Schools for the Masses

    Bob Luddy was tired of trying to convince North Carolina educrats to improve the state’s public schools, so he built his own network of low-cost private schools that the government can’t meddle with.

  141. @Wizard of Oz
    Yes, but the "no need to rush: let's take our time and get it right" genes could be useful.

    no need to rush

    Only works if not rushing does not result in getting your neck chomped by a saber-toothed tiger.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I think there must be some Godwinesque rule against introducing sabre tooth tigers...
  142. @res

    Well despite your snotty remark, my reference fully supports my claim
     
    If so it is notable that the authors of the paper concluded the opposite.

    And the rest of your comment is rather different from your statement that I criticized: "Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity"

    Do you stand by that statement as being consistent with the rest of what you wrote and the conclusion given by the paper authors?

    it is notable that the authors of the paper concluded the opposite.

    A claim made without any reference to what the authors say.

    Here’s what they say:

    When investigating a liberal criterion of ideational originality (i.e., two original ideas), a threshold was detected at around 100 IQ points. In contrast, a threshold of 120 IQ points emerged when the criterion was more demanding (i.e., many original ideas). Moreover, an IQ of around 85 IQ points was found to form the threshold for a purely quantitative measure of creative potential (i.e., ideational fluency). These results confirm the threshold hypothesis for qualitative indicators of creative potential and may explain some of the observed discrepancies in previous research. In addition, we obtained evidence that once the intelligence threshold is met, personality factors become more predictive for creativity.

    which is entirely consistent with my statement:

    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Threshold IQ theory for creativity seems Don't specify if is IQ performance or subtests that are more important. Because IQ is strongly correlated with mathematics it's likely threshold hypothesis don't work for mathematical creativity even the conceptual basis for mathematics has been philosophical and verbally charged.

    Or ... Or not
    , @res

    A claim made without any reference to what the authors say.
     
    Fascinating that you try to get that argument to fly (you must be digging deep). From my comment 121 (would you like me to repeat the quote in EVERY comment I make?):

    Hmmm. I followed that link of yours and here is their concluding paragraph (emphasis mine):

    Summarizing, intelligence is highly relevant for creativity, but the kind of relationship depends on the level of intelligence as well as on the actual indicator of creativity. In line with early assumptions, intelligence may increase creative potential up to a certain degree where it loses impact and other factors come into play. At this, it possibly applies that the more complex the measure of creativity that is considered, the higher the threshold up to which intelligence may exert its influence. For the most advanced indicator of creativity, namely creative achievement, intelligence remains relevant even at the highest ability range.
     

     
    Which is dramatically different from the first part of your full statement:

    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.
     
    From my point of view adding the qualifier is akin to saying "Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although here is an example where a certain level of IQ is necessary for creativity." There is a difference between a qualifier and a rebuttal, and I think you gave an example of a self rebutting statement.

    I'm not sure it's possible to get more opposite of " little if any connection" than "highly relevant."

    That you are even trying to defend that comment says volumes. We all overstep sometimes in our rhetoric.
  143. @CanSpeccy

    or simply give his lucid (published) lectures on physics clearly
     
    Actually, his lectures on physics weren't that clear to most of the undergraduates for whom they were intended. Mostly they gave up attending, although their numbers were made up for by graduate students and faculty who attended in their place. Furthermore, the lectures were not published verbatim or anything like, but were the result of intensive editing by physicists Matthew Sands and Robert Leighton. The lectures provided what is widely held to be a brilliant outline of physics, but they were not great in any literary sense.

    To get an idea of Feynman's actual literary gifts one can read The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist, which is neither very interesting nor well written.

    Thanks for the suggested reading. It made me atruggle to remember what I have read of Feynman and realised that it was his transcribed words in “Surely you’re joking Mr. Feynman” that are just about all (not having read much of the physics lectures) and that was several years ago.

  144. @AaronB
    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.

    Before that, Europeans never had the impression that Asians were particularly smarter than them. Bertrand Russell, who thought China was the greatest civilization the world had ever seen and taught there for a year, said he did not think the Chinese were more intelligent than Europeans.

    I wonder what Chinese IQ was back then? I'm betting their IQ rose in direct proportion as they became ambitious and began to exert effort to catch up with the West in a serious way.

    The relationship between wealth and technology and IQ is indeed a very close one in modern times, but a subtle thinker might have some doubts about which way the arrow of causality points.

    The early Portuguese and Dutch explorers and traders were agreed that the most impressive people they’d met on their voyages were the Japanese. It might be worth finding out if they reckoned them cleverer than Europeans.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    The Japanese are not cleverer than the Europeans. They are inferiors. Why didn't the Japanese sail ships to Europe to discover Europeans? Why did the Japanese copy Western ways, technology, to modernize? Japanese belong to Asians, the race below the Caucasians. They are the smartest of the Asians, but they are no where near the Europeans/Caucasians.
  145. @Daniel Chieh
    I think that colonialism usually has perverse incentives in that the governor of the colony has only five or ten years where he has to live in the colony, and therefore benefits from maximizing profit and status within the period rather than establishing a legacy.

    I believe the Romans avoided this to an extent by actually setting up roots post-conquest.

    There are counterexamples by the dozen.

    • Replies: @res
    You are probably correct, but providing at least one would greatly strengthen your argument.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Oh, I won't deny that there are a number of examples but basic reality of the perverse incentives remain - and there are quite a few examples of abuses caused by that kind of short-termism. But yes, I do think that often colonial governments can bring a form of structure and rule of law that greatly surpasses what was locally available, and actually provide a functional structure where none was found.

    Congo is a great example, where you have people wishing for Belgium to return. Heck, most of Africa is a great example, where even the infrastructure isn't maintained, let alone expanded.
  146. @Wizard of Oz
    That 123 figure for Feynman's IQ is obvious rubbish though no doubt it tickled his well developed sense of humour to have the rumour spread. Someone who could teach himself Japanese so he could lecture in Japan or simply give his lucid (published) lectures on physics clearly had a very superior IQ.

    Actually, the source of the 123 figure for Feynman’s IQ was Feyneman’s wife, Gweneth. The teacher of their son, Richard Jr., phoned home one evening to ask if young Richard had been unwell that day. Feynman’s wife replied “no, why?” to which the teacher responded, his class did an IQ test today and Richard scored only 124. “Oh,” said young Richard’s mum, “a chip off the old block. His father scored only 123.”

    Probably a joke, but it’s amusing how exercised the IQists become when it is pointed out that IQ has little if any demonstrated connection with creativity, the essence of what we consider to be genius.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    Probably a joke, but it’s amusing how exercised the IQists become when it is pointed out that IQ has little if any demonstrated connection with creativity, the essence of what we consider to be genius.
     
    110, and little evidence of creativity either.
  147. My apologies if somebody else has already made this point, but I don’t see how you can have a meaningful discussion of average IQ versus group achievement without taking into account the social organization.

    I would think that a country/society/tribe/group/whatever could have a fairly low average IQ and yet still accomplish great things as long as the high-IQ people are firmly in charge, and are making the important decisions.

    In Fred Reed’s original post, he showed a photo of a skyscraper as proof of Latin American achievement, and my first reaction was: “So what? It may have taken one guy with an IQ of 120 to design the skyscraper, and 1000 guys with IQs of 80 to haul around rebar & concrete in wheelbarrows to do the actual construction.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I would think that a country/society/tribe/group/whatever could have a fairly low average IQ and yet still accomplish great things as long as the high-IQ people are firmly in charge, and are making the important decisions.
     
    It's not having intelligent people in charge that matters. All societies are run by smart people. If the people who appear to be at the top are not smart, they are either disposed of in one way or another, or they become the puppets of smart people — Think George Bush, Dick Cheney and the oil industry.

    What determines the success and prosperity of a society are its institutions and traditions, and blind chance.
  148. @Daniel Chieh
    谢谢.

    Interesting - what is the other source of gunpowder discovery that you would propose? Arabic?

    The Hen should also ask if you are gay, pagan, or black, sir.

    I tried to reply yesterday but it seems my reply got lost.

    Interesting – what is the other source of gunpowder discovery that you would propose? Arabic?

    David Ayelon give the boot to the Arabic proposal. The introduction of gunpowder in the Muslim areas are all too late (and the word ‘naft’ which is a clear cognate of naptha, has changed its meaning over time …):

    https://www.amazon.com/Gunpowder-Firearms-Mamluk-Kingdom-Challenge/dp/B001IVR5YE

    I have also read parts of the 武經總要 (http://www.cos.url.tw/book/4/O-1-040.htm) but that has issues:

    1. Provenance and what happened to it. It is not clear that it was actually written when it is claimed to have been written and we do not know, AFAIK, who worked on the versions we have today,

    2. It is interesting for what it does not say and the names of the ‘recipes’

    3. Gunpowder was a transformative technology. Any state that had it would not have fallen to the Mongols.

    4. Incendiaries are not gunpowder in the same way that the cute little steam toy the Greeks played with was not a steam engine.

    I come down on the side of Roger Bacon as does this guy:

    http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/cannon.htm

    There is much more than could be written … eg, about those who claim that fire pots in the hands of demons are canon (based on their similarity to the depiction of cannon in the Milemete guns: http://www.academia.edu/12138631/The_Milemete_Guns)

  149. @AaronB
    Well, whatever you want to say about IQ, his conclusion is definitely correct. Higher IQ countries will be wealthier and more developed.

    They will also be more dull, joyless, materialistic, with life centered on hard work for material gain, and technology - i.e mere convenience - being the highest aspiration. Knowledge will be simpler, impoverished, one-dimensional, focused on control rather than a rich and complex understanding of the world, and intangible pleasures that have no practical utility - i.e do not conduct to physical convenience - will gradually fade away, and people will feel guilty for feeling such things.

    People will feel vaguely restless and miserable without knowing why, but they will have no insight into their condition, because "insight" will be seen as a superstitious relic from a bygone era, since it isn't precise and cannot be expressed mathematically. Transfixed by the glitter of technology, and the impoverished thinking needed to develop it, they will be trapped with no way out.

    As disgust with life and boredom mount, people will start having less children, and will become self-hating and culturally suicidal, never understanding what calamity has befallen them.

    If this is what you want, I say you should have it. It would be cruel to deny people who can see no higher vision than this the tiny bit of pleasure they are able to get out of life, such as it is.

    But there must remain a space for human beings capable of flourishing and thriving, some sort of "parallel society", where other values obtain. Increasingly I find the dominant paradigm is trying to extend itself over everyone, to make escape impossible. Unhappy people tend to wish to impose their unhappiness on others. Happy people are tolerant.

    whatever you want to say about IQ, his conclusion is definitely correct. Higher IQ countries will be wealthier and more developed.

    Not really. The Chinese are supposed, I believe, to have slightly higher IQ’s than Europeans, yet for most of the last four hundred years the Chinese were dirt poor, as many still are today, while the Europeans became the wealthiest and most powerful people on the face of the Earth.

    And if you consider the time before the industrial revolution, were the Europeans in their squalid plague-ridden towns really more prosperous than Africans of supposedly inferior IQ, with their herds of cattle and vast open spaces?

    Prosperity has nothing to do with the IQ of a population. Prosperity is a function of the social system and its institutions of education, defense, government, and religion. The US population governed by a globalist elite since Clinton signed the 1994 Gatt agreement has experienced over the last several decades a decline in prosperity. The Chinese, under an oligarchy committed to national economic development have undergone an astonishing rise in prosperity.

    • Replies: @Saldim
    > Not really. The Chinese are supposed, I believe, to have slightly higher IQ’s than Europeans, yet for most of the last four hundred years the Chinese were dirt poor, as many still are today, while the Europeans became the wealthiest and most powerful people on the face of the Earth.

    Twaddle. Nothing reliably points to China having a significantly lower income for its citizenry than Europe as a whole.

    >And if you consider the time before the industrial revolution, were the Europeans in their squalid plague-ridden towns really more prosperous than Africans of supposedly inferior IQ, with their herds of cattle and vast open spaces?

    Stop watching Braveheart and Montry Python.

    By the way, there have never been any remakrbale civilizations. Even if Afrocentrists pretend otherwise out of narcissism and Whitey Leftys pander to them.

    >Prosperity has nothing to do with the IQ of a population.

    Sure. Which is how so many African countries are garbage pits.

    >Prosperity is a function of the social system and its institutions of education, defense, government, and religion.

    Muh Magic Dirt.

    >The US population governed by a globalist elite since Clinton signed the 1994 Gatt agreement has experienced over the last several decades a decline in prosperity.

    Sure, Bernie Sanders.

    >The Chinese, under an oligarchy committed to national economic development have undergone an astonishing rise in prosperity.

    More like they've been rejecting Maoism even if they won't admit it.
    , @AaronB
    Excellent point, and one I often bring up myself when discussing the anomalies and simplistic thinking that cluster around discussions about IQ.

    Today, several Asian countries have higher IQ yet are less wealthy than European countries.

    It seems that IQ only has explanatory power up to a rather modest point. It breaks down at the upper levels across the board, where micro trends begin to develop against the macro trends, etc.

  150. @jay-w
    My apologies if somebody else has already made this point, but I don't see how you can have a meaningful discussion of average IQ versus group achievement without taking into account the social organization.

    I would think that a country/society/tribe/group/whatever could have a fairly low average IQ and yet still accomplish great things as long as the high-IQ people are firmly in charge, and are making the important decisions.

    In Fred Reed's original post, he showed a photo of a skyscraper as proof of Latin American achievement, and my first reaction was: "So what? It may have taken one guy with an IQ of 120 to design the skyscraper, and 1000 guys with IQs of 80 to haul around rebar & concrete in wheelbarrows to do the actual construction."

    I would think that a country/society/tribe/group/whatever could have a fairly low average IQ and yet still accomplish great things as long as the high-IQ people are firmly in charge, and are making the important decisions.

    It’s not having intelligent people in charge that matters. All societies are run by smart people. If the people who appear to be at the top are not smart, they are either disposed of in one way or another, or they become the puppets of smart people — Think George Bush, Dick Cheney and the oil industry.

    What determines the success and prosperity of a society are its institutions and traditions, and blind chance.

    • Replies: @anon

    What determines the success and prosperity of a society are its institutions and traditions, and blind chance.
     
    institutions are partly a function of average IQ

    low average IQ requires rigid authoritarian organizing principles - clever ones give the orders, rest obey

    high average IQ can be much looser and more flexible as can rely on individual initiative throughout the structure

    lots of examples: military, construction, Trump's team
  151. @CanSpeccy

    it is notable that the authors of the paper concluded the opposite.
     
    A claim made without any reference to what the authors say.

    Here's what they say:


    When investigating a liberal criterion of ideational originality (i.e., two original ideas), a threshold was detected at around 100 IQ points. In contrast, a threshold of 120 IQ points emerged when the criterion was more demanding (i.e., many original ideas). Moreover, an IQ of around 85 IQ points was found to form the threshold for a purely quantitative measure of creative potential (i.e., ideational fluency). These results confirm the threshold hypothesis for qualitative indicators of creative potential and may explain some of the observed discrepancies in previous research. In addition, we obtained evidence that once the intelligence threshold is met, personality factors become more predictive for creativity.
     
    which is entirely consistent with my statement:

    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.
     

    Threshold IQ theory for creativity seems Don’t specify if is IQ performance or subtests that are more important. Because IQ is strongly correlated with mathematics it’s likely threshold hypothesis don’t work for mathematical creativity even the conceptual basis for mathematics has been philosophical and verbally charged.

    Or … Or not

  152. @Saldim
    > cultural bias

    Found the Leftist. Do you deny that Negroid women are significantly less attractive than European women too?

    Do you deny that Negroid women are significantly less attractive than European women too?

    Did you know that the people of Africa, those your refer to as “negroid,” encompass greater genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined? No, probably not or you’d have been more specific as to who in particular among “Negroid” women you were referring to.

    But I love this girl: beautiful, tough, and intelligent just like my own blue-eyed blonde, Norman/Scotch-descended granddaughter.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    Did you know that the people of Africa, those your refer to as “negroid,” encompass greater genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined? No, probably not or you’d have been more specific as to who in particular among “Negroid” women you were referring to.
     
    Ahhh, diversity is strength, eh?

    Chimps have more genetic diversity than humans as well. Just saying!
    , @Saldim
    >Did you know that the people of Africa, those your refer to as “negroid,” encompass greater genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined?

    There are loads of non-Negroids in Africa (see Egypt).

    >No, probably not or you’d have been more specific as to who in particular among “Negroid” women you were referring to.

    Quit being obtuse.

    >But I love this girl: beautiful, tough, and intelligent just like my own blue-eyed blonde, Norman/Scotch-descended granddaughter.

    That's dandy. Meanwhile Negroid women don't do hot in cross-racial listings by sex appeal to men. Obviously discounting mulattoes like Halle Barry or otherwise admixtured with non-Negroids.

  153. @CanSpeccy
    Actually, the source of the 123 figure for Feynman's IQ was Feyneman's wife, Gweneth. The teacher of their son, Richard Jr., phoned home one evening to ask if young Richard had been unwell that day. Feynman's wife replied "no, why?" to which the teacher responded, his class did an IQ test today and Richard scored only 124. "Oh," said young Richard's mum, "a chip off the old block. His father scored only 123."

    Probably a joke, but it's amusing how exercised the IQists become when it is pointed out that IQ has little if any demonstrated connection with creativity, the essence of what we consider to be genius.

    Probably a joke, but it’s amusing how exercised the IQists become when it is pointed out that IQ has little if any demonstrated connection with creativity, the essence of what we consider to be genius.

    110, and little evidence of creativity either.

  154. @dearieme
    There are counterexamples by the dozen.

    You are probably correct, but providing at least one would greatly strengthen your argument.

  155. @CanSpeccy

    it is notable that the authors of the paper concluded the opposite.
     
    A claim made without any reference to what the authors say.

    Here's what they say:


    When investigating a liberal criterion of ideational originality (i.e., two original ideas), a threshold was detected at around 100 IQ points. In contrast, a threshold of 120 IQ points emerged when the criterion was more demanding (i.e., many original ideas). Moreover, an IQ of around 85 IQ points was found to form the threshold for a purely quantitative measure of creative potential (i.e., ideational fluency). These results confirm the threshold hypothesis for qualitative indicators of creative potential and may explain some of the observed discrepancies in previous research. In addition, we obtained evidence that once the intelligence threshold is met, personality factors become more predictive for creativity.
     
    which is entirely consistent with my statement:

    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.
     

    A claim made without any reference to what the authors say.

    Fascinating that you try to get that argument to fly (you must be digging deep). From my comment 121 (would you like me to repeat the quote in EVERY comment I make?):

    Hmmm. I followed that link of yours and here is their concluding paragraph (emphasis mine):

    Summarizing, intelligence is highly relevant for creativity, but the kind of relationship depends on the level of intelligence as well as on the actual indicator of creativity. In line with early assumptions, intelligence may increase creative potential up to a certain degree where it loses impact and other factors come into play. At this, it possibly applies that the more complex the measure of creativity that is considered, the higher the threshold up to which intelligence may exert its influence. For the most advanced indicator of creativity, namely creative achievement, intelligence remains relevant even at the highest ability range.

    Which is dramatically different from the first part of your full statement:

    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.

    From my point of view adding the qualifier is akin to saying “Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although here is an example where a certain level of IQ is necessary for creativity.” There is a difference between a qualifier and a rebuttal, and I think you gave an example of a self rebutting statement.

    I’m not sure it’s possible to get more opposite of ” little if any connection” than “highly relevant.”

    That you are even trying to defend that comment says volumes. We all overstep sometimes in our rhetoric.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    From my point of view ...
     
    Yes we understand your point of view, which is contradicted by the research I quoted.

    Creativity has no direct relation to IQ, although to be creative in any field it is necessary to have a sufficiently high IQ to understand the subject, hence the IQ threshold effect for creativity. It is in that sense, and probably in that sense only, that IQ is "relevant" to creativity.

  156. @CanSpeccy

    Do you deny that Negroid women are significantly less attractive than European women too?
     
    Did you know that the people of Africa, those your refer to as "negroid," encompass greater genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined? No, probably not or you'd have been more specific as to who in particular among "Negroid" women you were referring to.

    But I love this girl: beautiful, tough, and intelligent just like my own blue-eyed blonde, Norman/Scotch-descended granddaughter.

    Did you know that the people of Africa, those your refer to as “negroid,” encompass greater genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined? No, probably not or you’d have been more specific as to who in particular among “Negroid” women you were referring to.

    Ahhh, diversity is strength, eh?

    Chimps have more genetic diversity than humans as well. Just saying!

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Just saying!
     
    Exactly. Why not try thinking in future.
  157. @CanSpeccy

    whatever you want to say about IQ, his conclusion is definitely correct. Higher IQ countries will be wealthier and more developed.
     
    Not really. The Chinese are supposed, I believe, to have slightly higher IQ's than Europeans, yet for most of the last four hundred years the Chinese were dirt poor, as many still are today, while the Europeans became the wealthiest and most powerful people on the face of the Earth.

    And if you consider the time before the industrial revolution, were the Europeans in their squalid plague-ridden towns really more prosperous than Africans of supposedly inferior IQ, with their herds of cattle and vast open spaces?

    Prosperity has nothing to do with the IQ of a population. Prosperity is a function of the social system and its institutions of education, defense, government, and religion. The US population governed by a globalist elite since Clinton signed the 1994 Gatt agreement has experienced over the last several decades a decline in prosperity. The Chinese, under an oligarchy committed to national economic development have undergone an astonishing rise in prosperity.

    > Not really. The Chinese are supposed, I believe, to have slightly higher IQ’s than Europeans, yet for most of the last four hundred years the Chinese were dirt poor, as many still are today, while the Europeans became the wealthiest and most powerful people on the face of the Earth.

    Twaddle. Nothing reliably points to China having a significantly lower income for its citizenry than Europe as a whole.

    >And if you consider the time before the industrial revolution, were the Europeans in their squalid plague-ridden towns really more prosperous than Africans of supposedly inferior IQ, with their herds of cattle and vast open spaces?

    Stop watching Braveheart and Montry Python.

    By the way, there have never been any remakrbale civilizations. Even if Afrocentrists pretend otherwise out of narcissism and Whitey Leftys pander to them.

    >Prosperity has nothing to do with the IQ of a population.

    Sure. Which is how so many African countries are garbage pits.

    >Prosperity is a function of the social system and its institutions of education, defense, government, and religion.

    Muh Magic Dirt.

    >The US population governed by a globalist elite since Clinton signed the 1994 Gatt agreement has experienced over the last several decades a decline in prosperity.

    Sure, Bernie Sanders.

    >The Chinese, under an oligarchy committed to national economic development have undergone an astonishing rise in prosperity.

    More like they’ve been rejecting Maoism even if they won’t admit it.

    • Replies: @Saldim
    > By the way, there have never been any remakrbale civilizations

    I meant there have never been any remarkable Negroids civilizations.
  158. @CanSpeccy

    Do you deny that Negroid women are significantly less attractive than European women too?
     
    Did you know that the people of Africa, those your refer to as "negroid," encompass greater genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined? No, probably not or you'd have been more specific as to who in particular among "Negroid" women you were referring to.

    But I love this girl: beautiful, tough, and intelligent just like my own blue-eyed blonde, Norman/Scotch-descended granddaughter.

    >Did you know that the people of Africa, those your refer to as “negroid,” encompass greater genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined?

    There are loads of non-Negroids in Africa (see Egypt).

    >No, probably not or you’d have been more specific as to who in particular among “Negroid” women you were referring to.

    Quit being obtuse.

    >But I love this girl: beautiful, tough, and intelligent just like my own blue-eyed blonde, Norman/Scotch-descended granddaughter.

    That’s dandy. Meanwhile Negroid women don’t do hot in cross-racial listings by sex appeal to men. Obviously discounting mulattoes like Halle Barry or otherwise admixtured with non-Negroids.

    • Replies: @Saldim
    For more info on the attractiveness of different groups of man:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060501000000*/http://thegrio.com/specials/life-and-style/study-reveals-racial-segregation-in-online-dating.php

    http://time.com/3302251/9-ugly-truths-big-data-ok-cupid-book/

    http://www.thegrio.com/specials/life-and-style/study-reveals-racial-segregation-in-online-dating.php

    http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/racialPreferences.pdf

    http://paa2008.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=80046

    http://qz.com/149342/the-uncomfortable-racial-preferences-revealed-by-online-dating/

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/07/why-does-race-matter-for-women/

    http://www.as.miami.edu/personal/cklofstad/15_mate_choice_PB.pdf

    https://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/07/white-skin-privilege.html
  159. @Peripatetic commenter

    Did you know that the people of Africa, those your refer to as “negroid,” encompass greater genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined? No, probably not or you’d have been more specific as to who in particular among “Negroid” women you were referring to.
     
    Ahhh, diversity is strength, eh?

    Chimps have more genetic diversity than humans as well. Just saying!

    Just saying!

    Exactly. Why not try thinking in future.

  160. @res

    A claim made without any reference to what the authors say.
     
    Fascinating that you try to get that argument to fly (you must be digging deep). From my comment 121 (would you like me to repeat the quote in EVERY comment I make?):

    Hmmm. I followed that link of yours and here is their concluding paragraph (emphasis mine):

    Summarizing, intelligence is highly relevant for creativity, but the kind of relationship depends on the level of intelligence as well as on the actual indicator of creativity. In line with early assumptions, intelligence may increase creative potential up to a certain degree where it loses impact and other factors come into play. At this, it possibly applies that the more complex the measure of creativity that is considered, the higher the threshold up to which intelligence may exert its influence. For the most advanced indicator of creativity, namely creative achievement, intelligence remains relevant even at the highest ability range.
     

     
    Which is dramatically different from the first part of your full statement:

    Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although to be a creative in a particular field you need to have the IQ to master that field of knowledge, obviously.
     
    From my point of view adding the qualifier is akin to saying "Empirical research suggests there is little if any connection between IQ and creativity, although here is an example where a certain level of IQ is necessary for creativity." There is a difference between a qualifier and a rebuttal, and I think you gave an example of a self rebutting statement.

    I'm not sure it's possible to get more opposite of " little if any connection" than "highly relevant."

    That you are even trying to defend that comment says volumes. We all overstep sometimes in our rhetoric.

    From my point of view …

    Yes we understand your point of view, which is contradicted by the research I quoted.

    Creativity has no direct relation to IQ, although to be creative in any field it is necessary to have a sufficiently high IQ to understand the subject, hence the IQ threshold effect for creativity. It is in that sense, and probably in that sense only, that IQ is “relevant” to creativity.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    "IQ is relevant to creativity"

    You mean intelligence...
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I think res ends up with the prize on the final subtest worth 1 per cent of the total marks because you got off on the wrong foot with appearing to deny relevance and causation when you effectually contradict that by admitting that whatever (or some one or more of the whatevers that) cause[s] high IQs is/are causally necessary for some creativity.

    And now that I have I trust given a demonstration of my "never-be-outpedanted" technique allow me to note that James Thompson seems to agree with me that the processing speed that contributes to high g is likely to contribute to the less precisely defined characteristic of creativity.
    , @anon

    Creativity has no direct relation to IQ, although to be creative in any field it is necessary to have a sufficiently high IQ to understand the subject, hence the IQ threshold effect for creativity. It is in that sense, and probably in that sense only, that IQ is “relevant” to creativity.
     
    so IQ is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creativity

    i.e. fundamentally relevant
  161. I wonder when the Left’s worship of Negroids and other muds will end. When will they accept Rousseau was full of it?

  162. @Saldim
    > Not really. The Chinese are supposed, I believe, to have slightly higher IQ’s than Europeans, yet for most of the last four hundred years the Chinese were dirt poor, as many still are today, while the Europeans became the wealthiest and most powerful people on the face of the Earth.

    Twaddle. Nothing reliably points to China having a significantly lower income for its citizenry than Europe as a whole.

    >And if you consider the time before the industrial revolution, were the Europeans in their squalid plague-ridden towns really more prosperous than Africans of supposedly inferior IQ, with their herds of cattle and vast open spaces?

    Stop watching Braveheart and Montry Python.

    By the way, there have never been any remakrbale civilizations. Even if Afrocentrists pretend otherwise out of narcissism and Whitey Leftys pander to them.

    >Prosperity has nothing to do with the IQ of a population.

    Sure. Which is how so many African countries are garbage pits.

    >Prosperity is a function of the social system and its institutions of education, defense, government, and religion.

    Muh Magic Dirt.

    >The US population governed by a globalist elite since Clinton signed the 1994 Gatt agreement has experienced over the last several decades a decline in prosperity.

    Sure, Bernie Sanders.

    >The Chinese, under an oligarchy committed to national economic development have undergone an astonishing rise in prosperity.

    More like they've been rejecting Maoism even if they won't admit it.

    > By the way, there have never been any remakrbale civilizations

    I meant there have never been any remarkable Negroids civilizations.

  163. @dearieme
    The early Portuguese and Dutch explorers and traders were agreed that the most impressive people they'd met on their voyages were the Japanese. It might be worth finding out if they reckoned them cleverer than Europeans.

    The Japanese are not cleverer than the Europeans. They are inferiors. Why didn’t the Japanese sail ships to Europe to discover Europeans? Why did the Japanese copy Western ways, technology, to modernize? Japanese belong to Asians, the race below the Caucasians. They are the smartest of the Asians, but they are no where near the Europeans/Caucasians.

    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @anon
    Maybe Europeans used to be smarter but then stopped eating their seaweed so Japanese are smarter now.
    , @Santoculto
    "Europeans/caucasians" ON AVG are superior than "east Asians" namely in qualitative aspect of intelligence BUT this difference is not gigantic.
    , @thecock
    Dont know about thehen, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#Appearance_and_character

    "Some modern scholars have suggested that this description is typically East Asian, because it has all the combined features that fit the physical type of people from Eastern Asia, and Attila's ancestors may have come from there.[5][7]:202"
  164. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Biff

    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it’s committing demographic suicide.
     
    How?

    Read Peter Frost’s comments here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/gangnam-and-minjok/

    • Replies: @Biff
    From your link:

    An uninformed traveler would think that English is the second language of Korea, but very few people on the street can actually speak it, despite familiarity with the alphabet. In my experience, the average Korean’s grasp of the English language is much below that of even Eastern Europeans.

    But despite the overwhelming influence of Western business and the English language, I saw little evidence that the multicultural ideology of the state has become anything close to the massive destructive force that it is in the West. Watching TV for a week, I did not see a single foreign character in commercials or dramas. This is nothing like the United States, where every time we see a doctor or engineer, Main Stream Media SJWs take the opportunity to show us how smart minorities are.
     
    To which I agree. I've been to Korea/Seoul and outside of Itiwan the Koreans have no use for English, or anyone else who isn't Korean.
    Nevertheless, the Korean government is still a client state of Washington, and it no doubt gets some SJW influence there.
    On balance, as your link even suggests, East Asia is not on die hard path to cultural destruction as some other parts of the world are.
  165. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    However, given global competition, countries need many people of IQ 130+ to really prosper

    that depends on whether they use their high IQ to become free riders

    over the last 30-40 years we’ve seen the financial sector suck in a large percentage of high IQ individuals and use those brains for parasitism

    a ruling class made up of high IQ parasites is the worst possible outcome – any country which finds itself in that situation will be destroyed from within very rapidly

  166. @CanSpeccy

    From my point of view ...
     
    Yes we understand your point of view, which is contradicted by the research I quoted.

    Creativity has no direct relation to IQ, although to be creative in any field it is necessary to have a sufficiently high IQ to understand the subject, hence the IQ threshold effect for creativity. It is in that sense, and probably in that sense only, that IQ is "relevant" to creativity.

    “IQ is relevant to creativity”

    You mean intelligence…

  167. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @attilathehen
    The Japanese are not cleverer than the Europeans. They are inferiors. Why didn't the Japanese sail ships to Europe to discover Europeans? Why did the Japanese copy Western ways, technology, to modernize? Japanese belong to Asians, the race below the Caucasians. They are the smartest of the Asians, but they are no where near the Europeans/Caucasians.

    Maybe Europeans used to be smarter but then stopped eating their seaweed so Japanese are smarter now.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    If you are European, you are a perfect example of this non-seaweed eating low IQ European.
  168. @attilathehen
    The Japanese are not cleverer than the Europeans. They are inferiors. Why didn't the Japanese sail ships to Europe to discover Europeans? Why did the Japanese copy Western ways, technology, to modernize? Japanese belong to Asians, the race below the Caucasians. They are the smartest of the Asians, but they are no where near the Europeans/Caucasians.

    “Europeans/caucasians” ON AVG are superior than “east Asians” namely in qualitative aspect of intelligence BUT this difference is not gigantic.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    It's big - the world "Westernizes.' It never "Easternizes."
  169. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @CanSpeccy

    I would think that a country/society/tribe/group/whatever could have a fairly low average IQ and yet still accomplish great things as long as the high-IQ people are firmly in charge, and are making the important decisions.
     
    It's not having intelligent people in charge that matters. All societies are run by smart people. If the people who appear to be at the top are not smart, they are either disposed of in one way or another, or they become the puppets of smart people — Think George Bush, Dick Cheney and the oil industry.

    What determines the success and prosperity of a society are its institutions and traditions, and blind chance.

    What determines the success and prosperity of a society are its institutions and traditions, and blind chance.

    institutions are partly a function of average IQ

    low average IQ requires rigid authoritarian organizing principles – clever ones give the orders, rest obey

    high average IQ can be much looser and more flexible as can rely on individual initiative throughout the structure

    lots of examples: military, construction, Trump’s team

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    low average IQ requires rigid authoritarian organizing principles – clever ones give the orders, rest obey
     
    Got any actual evidence that differences in IQ account for the differences in social structure between the highly authoritarian Communist Chinese and the liberal-lefty pot-smoking, porn-wallowing, queer-loving, diversity-is-our-strength, let's-commit-national-suicide-by-replacing-ourselves-with-people-from-elsewhere Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Germans, Canadians, etc.?
  170. @Anon
    Read Peter Frost's comments here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/gangnam-and-minjok/

    From your link:

    An uninformed traveler would think that English is the second language of Korea, but very few people on the street can actually speak it, despite familiarity with the alphabet. In my experience, the average Korean’s grasp of the English language is much below that of even Eastern Europeans.

    But despite the overwhelming influence of Western business and the English language, I saw little evidence that the multicultural ideology of the state has become anything close to the massive destructive force that it is in the West. Watching TV for a week, I did not see a single foreign character in commercials or dramas. This is nothing like the United States, where every time we see a doctor or engineer, Main Stream Media SJWs take the opportunity to show us how smart minorities are.

    To which I agree. I’ve been to Korea/Seoul and outside of Itiwan the Koreans have no use for English, or anyone else who isn’t Korean.
    Nevertheless, the Korean government is still a client state of Washington, and it no doubt gets some SJW influence there.
    On balance, as your link even suggests, East Asia is not on die hard path to cultural destruction as some other parts of the world are.

  171. @dearieme
    There are counterexamples by the dozen.

    Oh, I won’t deny that there are a number of examples but basic reality of the perverse incentives remain – and there are quite a few examples of abuses caused by that kind of short-termism. But yes, I do think that often colonial governments can bring a form of structure and rule of law that greatly surpasses what was locally available, and actually provide a functional structure where none was found.

    Congo is a great example, where you have people wishing for Belgium to return. Heck, most of Africa is a great example, where even the infrastructure isn’t maintained, let alone expanded.

    • Replies: @anon

    basic reality of the perverse incentives remain
     
    colonialists want to extract value from their colonies so the default case should be that colonialism is bad for the colonized

    i think the logical exceptions to that would be

    1) where the local elite was worse i.e. they extracted 60% and the colonial elite extracted 40% (this would still be bad for the local elite but not the rest)

    2) the colonists imported tech that increased productivity enough such that even after colonial extraction the locals were better off - this would decline as the locals figured out the tech itself
  172. @anon

    What determines the success and prosperity of a society are its institutions and traditions, and blind chance.
     
    institutions are partly a function of average IQ

    low average IQ requires rigid authoritarian organizing principles - clever ones give the orders, rest obey

    high average IQ can be much looser and more flexible as can rely on individual initiative throughout the structure

    lots of examples: military, construction, Trump's team

    low average IQ requires rigid authoritarian organizing principles – clever ones give the orders, rest obey

    Got any actual evidence that differences in IQ account for the differences in social structure between the highly authoritarian Communist Chinese and the liberal-lefty pot-smoking, porn-wallowing, queer-loving, diversity-is-our-strength, let’s-commit-national-suicide-by-replacing-ourselves-with-people-from-elsewhere Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Germans, Canadians, etc.?

    • Replies: @anon
    examples:
    - regular infantry platoon vs special forces
    - software development vs factory production line
    etc

    the higher the average IQ i.e. the more people with 100+ IQ, the more initiative based vs authoritarian any organisation involving those people can potentially be

    (obviously)

    IQ isn't the only factor of course - for example if a minority want to impose their will against the wishes of the a majority (like communists) they have to be authoritarian regardless of average IQ
  173. @AaronB
    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.

    Before that, Europeans never had the impression that Asians were particularly smarter than them. Bertrand Russell, who thought China was the greatest civilization the world had ever seen and taught there for a year, said he did not think the Chinese were more intelligent than Europeans.

    I wonder what Chinese IQ was back then? I'm betting their IQ rose in direct proportion as they became ambitious and began to exert effort to catch up with the West in a serious way.

    The relationship between wealth and technology and IQ is indeed a very close one in modern times, but a subtle thinker might have some doubts about which way the arrow of causality points.

    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.

    Thank you HBD!!1! lol

  174. @AaronB
    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.

    Before that, Europeans never had the impression that Asians were particularly smarter than them. Bertrand Russell, who thought China was the greatest civilization the world had ever seen and taught there for a year, said he did not think the Chinese were more intelligent than Europeans.

    I wonder what Chinese IQ was back then? I'm betting their IQ rose in direct proportion as they became ambitious and began to exert effort to catch up with the West in a serious way.

    The relationship between wealth and technology and IQ is indeed a very close one in modern times, but a subtle thinker might have some doubts about which way the arrow of causality points.

    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.

    Marco Polo described China as beyond more advanced than Europe for what it is was worth, and was pretty glowing in his praise of some of the people. At the time, though, China was definitely still leading in GDP and possibly technology.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Yes, and it is an enduring question as to what, exactly, caused the acceleration of Western economic and other activity.

    Nick Szabo has some comments on this: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2013/11/european-asian-divergence-predates.html

    I speculate that the Imperial system in China worked against people who would improve things because those higher up the chain could simply take everything you created ... but who knows.

    On a related topic, Peter Turchin has good ideas about what forced the Chinese state to come about.
    , @AaronB
    That's true. I wonder if European IQ rose only after the Renaissance, in line with their new culture of materialistic ambition, and is now midly deflating again. Perhaps it'll rise again as ambition returns, in response to the new feeling of insecurity among whites.

    On the other hand, Europeans were reporting that Ayutthaya in Thailand vastly exceeded anything seen in Europe, and the Spanish thought Aztec cities did as well. So Europeans had similar responses to countries not thought today to be high IQ. It wasn't just China.

    IQ, it seems to me, as a very recent invention, measures aspects of cognitive function related to modern economies, and is bound up with the ambition to create and succeed in such economies. I'm not sure how valid it is to apply it to pre-modern conditions.
  175. @iffen
    no need to rush

    Only works if not rushing does not result in getting your neck chomped by a saber-toothed tiger.

    I think there must be some Godwinesque rule against introducing sabre tooth tigers…

  176. @CanSpeccy

    From my point of view ...
     
    Yes we understand your point of view, which is contradicted by the research I quoted.

    Creativity has no direct relation to IQ, although to be creative in any field it is necessary to have a sufficiently high IQ to understand the subject, hence the IQ threshold effect for creativity. It is in that sense, and probably in that sense only, that IQ is "relevant" to creativity.

    I think res ends up with the prize on the final subtest worth 1 per cent of the total marks because you got off on the wrong foot with appearing to deny relevance and causation when you effectually contradict that by admitting that whatever (or some one or more of the whatevers that) cause[s] high IQs is/are causally necessary for some creativity.

    And now that I have I trust given a demonstration of my “never-be-outpedanted” technique allow me to note that James Thompson seems to agree with me that the processing speed that contributes to high g is likely to contribute to the less precisely defined characteristic of creativity.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Yes, thanks for clearing up all possible misunderstanding.
  177. @Daniel Chieh
    I think that colonialism usually has perverse incentives in that the governor of the colony has only five or ten years where he has to live in the colony, and therefore benefits from maximizing profit and status within the period rather than establishing a legacy.

    I believe the Romans avoided this to an extent by actually setting up roots post-conquest.

    You might care to consider the importance of very different traditions and conditions. Begin perhaps with Claudio Véliz’s “The Centralist Tradition of Latin America” to start seeing the huge importance of the contrasting tradition in North America. But America is of course the continent of real colonialism where immigrant colonists came to form much or most of the population. You really need to temper your generalisations by recognition that India would never have been regarded as a colony, run at the top as it was by a tiny handful of Brits though long term inhabitants of the British, French and Portuguese trading posts might appropriately have been called colonists in the original Greek sense. At some stage Hong Kong, Singapore and even African countries like Nigeria seem to have joined the category of “colonies” (as in the “Commonwealth and Colonial Office” after true traditional colonies like those in Australia, NZ and Canada – after America’s 13 – had become independent countries). But India surely deserves its separate character and I don’t think your reasoning about governors appointed for 5 to 10 years has much explanatory power. Late Viceroys like Curzon and Reading (Rufua Iaaacs) were not long term residents of India but a very high proportion of the Brits who governed India were, sometimes several generations born in India, and, after the impeachment of Warren Hastings in the 1780s ruling India was not a path to gross enrichment.

  178. @Wizard of Oz
    I think res ends up with the prize on the final subtest worth 1 per cent of the total marks because you got off on the wrong foot with appearing to deny relevance and causation when you effectually contradict that by admitting that whatever (or some one or more of the whatevers that) cause[s] high IQs is/are causally necessary for some creativity.

    And now that I have I trust given a demonstration of my "never-be-outpedanted" technique allow me to note that James Thompson seems to agree with me that the processing speed that contributes to high g is likely to contribute to the less precisely defined characteristic of creativity.

    Yes, thanks for clearing up all possible misunderstanding.

  179. @attilathehen
    The Japanese are not cleverer than the Europeans. They are inferiors. Why didn't the Japanese sail ships to Europe to discover Europeans? Why did the Japanese copy Western ways, technology, to modernize? Japanese belong to Asians, the race below the Caucasians. They are the smartest of the Asians, but they are no where near the Europeans/Caucasians.

    Dont know about thehen, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#Appearance_and_character

    “Some modern scholars have suggested that this description is typically East Asian, because it has all the combined features that fit the physical type of people from Eastern Asia, and Attila’s ancestors may have come from there.[5][7]:202″

  180. @Daniel Chieh

    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.
     
    Marco Polo described China as beyond more advanced than Europe for what it is was worth, and was pretty glowing in his praise of some of the people. At the time, though, China was definitely still leading in GDP and possibly technology.

    Yes, and it is an enduring question as to what, exactly, caused the acceleration of Western economic and other activity.

    Nick Szabo has some comments on this: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2013/11/european-asian-divergence-predates.html

    I speculate that the Imperial system in China worked against people who would improve things because those higher up the chain could simply take everything you created … but who knows.

    On a related topic, Peter Turchin has good ideas about what forced the Chinese state to come about.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Thank you, I will read and consider them. Should be interesting.
  181. @Daniel Chieh

    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.
     
    Marco Polo described China as beyond more advanced than Europe for what it is was worth, and was pretty glowing in his praise of some of the people. At the time, though, China was definitely still leading in GDP and possibly technology.

    That’s true. I wonder if European IQ rose only after the Renaissance, in line with their new culture of materialistic ambition, and is now midly deflating again. Perhaps it’ll rise again as ambition returns, in response to the new feeling of insecurity among whites.

    On the other hand, Europeans were reporting that Ayutthaya in Thailand vastly exceeded anything seen in Europe, and the Spanish thought Aztec cities did as well. So Europeans had similar responses to countries not thought today to be high IQ. It wasn’t just China.

    IQ, it seems to me, as a very recent invention, measures aspects of cognitive function related to modern economies, and is bound up with the ambition to create and succeed in such economies. I’m not sure how valid it is to apply it to pre-modern conditions.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I think bourgeoisie demographic expansion is correlated with increase in cognitive skills levels among Europeans if in the medieval past we had only and or basically two social classes: Governors and governed. Governors usually are smarter but also sociopathic while serfs are usually less ambitious and less smart. Bourgeoisie is the intermediary socio-economic class between serfdom and "noblesse". Bourgeoisie or middle classes even this days most of upper elites are or have bourgeois origin.
    , @Santoculto
    I think since humans invented numeracy and literacy systems IQ might be viable. Modern societies are not so different than other past societies what differentiate them maybe is the percent of people with enough hardware cognitive levels to provide "decent" numeracy and literacy as well universalization of both, radically different than in the past when in most societies illiteracy was exceptionally common.
  182. @CanSpeccy

    whatever you want to say about IQ, his conclusion is definitely correct. Higher IQ countries will be wealthier and more developed.
     
    Not really. The Chinese are supposed, I believe, to have slightly higher IQ's than Europeans, yet for most of the last four hundred years the Chinese were dirt poor, as many still are today, while the Europeans became the wealthiest and most powerful people on the face of the Earth.

    And if you consider the time before the industrial revolution, were the Europeans in their squalid plague-ridden towns really more prosperous than Africans of supposedly inferior IQ, with their herds of cattle and vast open spaces?

    Prosperity has nothing to do with the IQ of a population. Prosperity is a function of the social system and its institutions of education, defense, government, and religion. The US population governed by a globalist elite since Clinton signed the 1994 Gatt agreement has experienced over the last several decades a decline in prosperity. The Chinese, under an oligarchy committed to national economic development have undergone an astonishing rise in prosperity.

    Excellent point, and one I often bring up myself when discussing the anomalies and simplistic thinking that cluster around discussions about IQ.

    Today, several Asian countries have higher IQ yet are less wealthy than European countries.

    It seems that IQ only has explanatory power up to a rather modest point. It breaks down at the upper levels across the board, where micro trends begin to develop against the macro trends, etc.

    • Replies: @res

    It seems that IQ only has explanatory power up to a rather modest point. It breaks down at the upper levels across the board, where micro trends begin to develop against the macro trends, etc.
     
    So modest that national average IQ only correlates 0.82 with GDP and 0.64 with rate of economic growth from 1950–1990.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Outline
  183. @AaronB
    Excellent point, and one I often bring up myself when discussing the anomalies and simplistic thinking that cluster around discussions about IQ.

    Today, several Asian countries have higher IQ yet are less wealthy than European countries.

    It seems that IQ only has explanatory power up to a rather modest point. It breaks down at the upper levels across the board, where micro trends begin to develop against the macro trends, etc.

    It seems that IQ only has explanatory power up to a rather modest point. It breaks down at the upper levels across the board, where micro trends begin to develop against the macro trends, etc.

    So modest that national average IQ only correlates 0.82 with GDP and 0.64 with rate of economic growth from 1950–1990.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Outline

    • Replies: @AaronB
    .64 I consider rather modest, but I'd agree with you that .84 is pretty good.

    Still, even .84 would only give us broad generalizations and considerable room for all sorts of interesting micro-trends that go against the grain to develop.

    I find the point about Asian economies to be a fascinating anamoly, not easily explained by any numerical metric, and likely only explainable by "intangible" factors, although I have no idea what they may be.

    It's the same reason why China can't seem to develop viable jet engines despite having over a billion people with an IQ higher than Europeans (an astonishing failure of IQ theory, if you really, really are honest with yourself), and why Japan vastly outperforms higher IQ Korea and roughly same IQ Taiwan in cutting edge technology and engineering, or why similar IQ countries in Europe display vastly different intellectual outcomes.

    Fascinating stuff, if you ask me, not to be swept under the rug so easily - so much richer and more complex than facts like .84 corellation, etc.
    , @CanSpeccy

    national average IQ only correlates 0.82 with GDP and 0.64 with rate of economic growth from 1950–1990.
     
    What kind of analysis is that?

    Why not 1939–1945, over which period the economic data would prove that German and Japanese IQs shrank.

    The whole approach is idiotic.

    What if you extend the analysis from 1800 to 2017? Then you find, at the outset, that Brits were the most intelligent people in the world. But in the 19th Century it was the Germans and the Americans, although they were eclipsed by the beginning of the 20th Century by the Japs whose rate of economic growth exceeded that of all previous champions, only themselves to be outdone in the post-WW2 era by the people of S. Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, they in their turn soon to be overtaken by the Chinese who, since 1990, have been doubling the size of their economy every ten years.

    Explain all that on the basis of trivial differences in population mean score on some paper and pencil brain-teasing test of dubious significance? LOL.

    It's institutions and political arrangements, military conquest or defeat, imperial expansion or decay that determine rates of economic growth. IQ tests explain nothing except the mania of some people to prove that black people are mentally inferior to whites, a futile obsession since we can see at a glance that black people are like white people very dumb to quite smart, in the latter case especially when they are properly educated.

  184. @Santoculto
    "Europeans/caucasians" ON AVG are superior than "east Asians" namely in qualitative aspect of intelligence BUT this difference is not gigantic.

    It’s big – the world “Westernizes.’ It never “Easternizes.”

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Except in spiritual things - all religions come from the East. The West has always been second rate in things of the spirit.

    Material advances have lately been coming from the West, as you'd expect from a basically materialist culture, but probably not for much longer.
  185. @anon
    Maybe Europeans used to be smarter but then stopped eating their seaweed so Japanese are smarter now.

    If you are European, you are a perfect example of this non-seaweed eating low IQ European.

  186. @Anonymous
    About 6% of the Indian population is high caste Hindu or smart religious groups (Jains and Parsees). Assuming this body of people have an IQ of 100, how does that change the numbers of the smart fraction (let's say the smart fraction threshold is 120)?

    About 20% of the Indian population is high caste
    5% Brahmins
    5% Merchants ( Jains are part of Merchants 0.5% )
    5% Forward Caste Dravidians ( South Indian Landlords )
    5% Scribes, Nobles etc

    If you look at 2017 California National Merit, 140 IQ cut off

    850 Chinese
    100 Koreans
    75 Vietnamese
    25 Japanese

    55 Muslims

    125 Jews

    275 Indians
    of which

    125 Brahmins ( 90 Southern, 35 Northern )
    65 Merchants ( 15 Jains )
    55 Dravidian Landlords

    whereas among mid-level peasant castes

    4 Patels
    3 Jat Sikh

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    1. What's the source for 10% of overall Indian population being merchant or brahmin?
    2. There are only 250 million people in South India. How could 70 million be the descendants of landlords?
    3. Why are scribes not represented among the merit scholars?
  187. @res

    It seems that IQ only has explanatory power up to a rather modest point. It breaks down at the upper levels across the board, where micro trends begin to develop against the macro trends, etc.
     
    So modest that national average IQ only correlates 0.82 with GDP and 0.64 with rate of economic growth from 1950–1990.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Outline

    .64 I consider rather modest, but I’d agree with you that .84 is pretty good.

    Still, even .84 would only give us broad generalizations and considerable room for all sorts of interesting micro-trends that go against the grain to develop.

    I find the point about Asian economies to be a fascinating anamoly, not easily explained by any numerical metric, and likely only explainable by “intangible” factors, although I have no idea what they may be.

    It’s the same reason why China can’t seem to develop viable jet engines despite having over a billion people with an IQ higher than Europeans (an astonishing failure of IQ theory, if you really, really are honest with yourself), and why Japan vastly outperforms higher IQ Korea and roughly same IQ Taiwan in cutting edge technology and engineering, or why similar IQ countries in Europe display vastly different intellectual outcomes.

    Fascinating stuff, if you ask me, not to be swept under the rug so easily – so much richer and more complex than facts like .84 corellation, etc.

    • Replies: @res

    .64 I consider rather modest
     
    Do any of the things you advocate over IQ in other threads (e.g. ambition) come anywhere close to having this kind of explanatory power?

    Social scientists seem to disagree with you. For example, http://condor.depaul.edu/sjost/it223/documents/correlation.htm
    gives 0.6 as a threshold for a correlation to be meaningful in the social sciences.


    Fascinating stuff, if you ask me, not to be swept under the rug so easily – so much richer and more complex than facts like .84 corellation, etc.
     
    "so much richer and more complex than facts"-- that explains a lot. You must really dislike understanding the world if you turn your nose up at a single variable which correlates so well with a country's GDP.

    For those with more interest in such a descriptive variable, here is an article with plots of an older version of the data and some further discussion which fits in with Dr. Thompson's post: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

    And this PDF finds that fitting log(GDP) works even better: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2006-dickerson.pdf
    Taking the logarithm of variables like income or GDP frequently gives better results than the raw numbers.

    , @utu
    If we remove all countries with the lowest GDP from the graphs the correlation will be significantly lower than the number the IQ fetishists makes a great deal of.

    Conversely Lynn could have made his point even stronger and get much higher correlation if he added to his graph few countries that have zero GDP and zero IQ like the Republic of Bonobo.
    , @anon

    .64 I consider rather modest, but I’d agree with you that .84 is pretty good.

    Still, even .84 would only give us broad generalizations and considerable room for all sorts of interesting micro-trends that go against the grain to develop.
     
    So you agree that IQ is obviously of critical importance - 0.84 - but doesn't explain everything - 0.16 - so there are additional questions to be answered

    or

    you're trying to obfuscate the clearly critical importance of IQ (0.84) by focusing on the unexplained fraction (0.16)
  188. @attilathehen
    It's big - the world "Westernizes.' It never "Easternizes."

    Except in spiritual things – all religions come from the East. The West has always been second rate in things of the spirit.

    Material advances have lately been coming from the West, as you’d expect from a basically materialist culture, but probably not for much longer.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Spirituality is tied to IQ/race. Asians being inferior also have inferior beliefs. Christianity is unique in that it received it's greatness from Caucasian/Europeans.

    Judaism, Buddhism, Islam have nothing to offer the West. The West has religion: the paganism of the European and Christianity.

    Eastern faiths know nothing about the person and human rights.
  189. @AaronB
    .64 I consider rather modest, but I'd agree with you that .84 is pretty good.

    Still, even .84 would only give us broad generalizations and considerable room for all sorts of interesting micro-trends that go against the grain to develop.

    I find the point about Asian economies to be a fascinating anamoly, not easily explained by any numerical metric, and likely only explainable by "intangible" factors, although I have no idea what they may be.

    It's the same reason why China can't seem to develop viable jet engines despite having over a billion people with an IQ higher than Europeans (an astonishing failure of IQ theory, if you really, really are honest with yourself), and why Japan vastly outperforms higher IQ Korea and roughly same IQ Taiwan in cutting edge technology and engineering, or why similar IQ countries in Europe display vastly different intellectual outcomes.

    Fascinating stuff, if you ask me, not to be swept under the rug so easily - so much richer and more complex than facts like .84 corellation, etc.

    .64 I consider rather modest

    Do any of the things you advocate over IQ in other threads (e.g. ambition) come anywhere close to having this kind of explanatory power?

    Social scientists seem to disagree with you. For example, http://condor.depaul.edu/sjost/it223/documents/correlation.htm
    gives 0.6 as a threshold for a correlation to be meaningful in the social sciences.

    Fascinating stuff, if you ask me, not to be swept under the rug so easily – so much richer and more complex than facts like .84 corellation, etc.

    “so much richer and more complex than facts”– that explains a lot. You must really dislike understanding the world if you turn your nose up at a single variable which correlates so well with a country’s GDP.

    For those with more interest in such a descriptive variable, here is an article with plots of an older version of the data and some further discussion which fits in with Dr. Thompson’s post: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

    And this PDF finds that fitting log(GDP) works even better: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2006-dickerson.pdf
    Taking the logarithm of variables like income or GDP frequently gives better results than the raw numbers.

  190. @Saldim
    >Did you know that the people of Africa, those your refer to as “negroid,” encompass greater genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined?

    There are loads of non-Negroids in Africa (see Egypt).

    >No, probably not or you’d have been more specific as to who in particular among “Negroid” women you were referring to.

    Quit being obtuse.

    >But I love this girl: beautiful, tough, and intelligent just like my own blue-eyed blonde, Norman/Scotch-descended granddaughter.

    That's dandy. Meanwhile Negroid women don't do hot in cross-racial listings by sex appeal to men. Obviously discounting mulattoes like Halle Barry or otherwise admixtured with non-Negroids.

    For more info on the attractiveness of different groups of man:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060501000000*/http://thegrio.com/specials/life-and-style/study-reveals-racial-segregation-in-online-dating.php

    http://time.com/3302251/9-ugly-truths-big-data-ok-cupid-book/

    http://www.thegrio.com/specials/life-and-style/study-reveals-racial-segregation-in-online-dating.php

    http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/racialPreferences.pdf

    http://paa2008.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=80046

    http://qz.com/149342/the-uncomfortable-racial-preferences-revealed-by-online-dating/

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/07/why-does-race-matter-for-women/

    http://www.as.miami.edu/personal/cklofstad/15_mate_choice_PB.pdf

    https://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/07/white-skin-privilege.html

  191. @The Alarmist
    I am surprised some enterprising researcher hasn't already studied county by county IQs as an explanatory variable for the election of Trump. There has to be some really good research money opportunities in that.

    Re: IQs as an explanatory variable for the election of Trump

    Talking about IQ can upset some people. It is more acceptable to talk about
    the percentage of people with university degrees. With respect to the US
    presidentail election many of the MSM still talked about reactions to the
    top 1% high income earners, diversity, inequality, unemployment, shrinking
    job market, etc.

    Instead, on Novermber 13 I showed statistically that using the
    regression p value (or the Rsq value) as the criterion, among the various
    factors, the most significat factor influencing the electrion result was the
    percentage of people with university degrees, the lower the PctDeg the higher
    the Rep margin.

    [MORE]

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/11/coalition-diversity-whose-diversity-diversity-just-win.html#comments

    Using the Republican margin RepMargin=RepPct-DemPct as the variable,

    RepMargin = -3.46*PctDeg +99.53; n=51; Rsq=0.66; p=5.269e-13
    RepMargin = -3.40*PCIncK +102.02; n=51; Rsq=0.48; p=1.752e-08
    RepMargin = -541.79*Gini10 +249.61; n=50; Rsq=0.23; p=0.0004493
    RepMargin = +0.090*SAT14 -90.64; n=50; Rsq=0.17; p=0.002817
    RepMargin = -35.00*Div15 +21.59; n=51; Rsq=0.048; p=0.1213
    RepMargin = -2.12*Unemp16 +13.75; n=48; Rsq=0.0079; p=0.5473

    where PCIncK = per capital income (’000)
    Gini10 = economic inequality Gini Coeff
    SAT14 = average SAT score
    Div15 = diversity index
    Unemp16 = unemployment rate

    With more data at the county levels more complex models were also developed
    but I wont elaborate here.

    Nate Silver is a noted political analyst and forcaster and he came to the
    same conclusion on November 22. I scooped him with the results by 9 days.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

    Later, the MSM switched to talking about the less educated Republican voters.
    This again was not strictly correct. The result above actually showed that
    the Rep margin was significantly positively correlated with the average SAT
    score.

    There is a disconnect that SAT score tends to be where the person
    was from and PctDeg tends to be associated to where the person goes to
    university or work. The slope of the equation turns out to be the reverse
    and the data points are a bit more scattered (Rsq is low), though still
    significant at p=0.002817. Thus I concluded that there would be population
    movements draining away the potential Dem voters from the rural areas.

    These three opposing trends might be setting up an interesting weak population
    circulation pattern, i.e. Republican states tend to have less degree holders
    (less knowledge based jobs) which might (weakly) incentivize a few of the
    students to study harder and to achieve better SAT scores and they tend to
    move to universities in the Democrat states (e.g. California, Massachusetts
    and NewYork) and work there (in the more knowledge based jobs), and the
    too liberal high schools there might not equip some of the students to work
    in the knowledge based jobs there and they might end up in the Republican
    states. Concentration of degree holders in the Dem states gives less electoral
    votes.

    This was confirmed by the Bloomberg report on 14 Dec 2016,

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-14/in-trump-country-the-brain-drain-takes-a-toll-bloomberg-index

    “””Brain Drain Takes a Toll in Trump Country”””

    • Replies: @res
    Interesting results. It looks like those are all single variable regressions. What did the multiple regression results look like?

    If I read correctly your analysis was at the state level. What were your data sources?
    How about for your county analysis? Did you have all of the same variables for counties? How similar were the results?

    Some interesting observations about the meanings of SAT and PctDeg in your data.
    , @The Alarmist

    "Thus I concluded that there would be population movements draining away the potential Dem voters from the rural areas."
     
    I could have told you that by observation as a Closeted Conservative living in Manhattan in 1992 ... it was a lonely place to be if you decided to come out. The first observation was the only thing that made New York city work was the very sizeable number of midwestern and southern people at all strata of the workforce of the major businesses that were the lifeblood of the city. The second observation was that the vast majority ... almost a collective like the Borg ... were Democrats. If you wanted to have a polite discussion of Conservative or even Republican ideas or values, you had to seek out a local, like someone from Staten Island.

    The Dems are onto the same phenomena you have observed and are adjusting to it by moving as many lower class, solid bloc voting groups away from the cities they have gentrified and assured they will dominate, and moving them via programmes like Section 8 to more rural areas presently dominated by Republicans and controlling the majority of Electoral College votes.

    Despite all the gains Republicans have made at the local and national levels in the last decade of elections, we are perhaps one generation away from total Democrat domination via resettlement of inner city poor and new arrival poor. They are pissing and moaning so fiercely because Trump, unlike the Vichy Republican elite, might actually put an end to their longer-term strategy.

  192. @AaronB
    .64 I consider rather modest, but I'd agree with you that .84 is pretty good.

    Still, even .84 would only give us broad generalizations and considerable room for all sorts of interesting micro-trends that go against the grain to develop.

    I find the point about Asian economies to be a fascinating anamoly, not easily explained by any numerical metric, and likely only explainable by "intangible" factors, although I have no idea what they may be.

    It's the same reason why China can't seem to develop viable jet engines despite having over a billion people with an IQ higher than Europeans (an astonishing failure of IQ theory, if you really, really are honest with yourself), and why Japan vastly outperforms higher IQ Korea and roughly same IQ Taiwan in cutting edge technology and engineering, or why similar IQ countries in Europe display vastly different intellectual outcomes.

    Fascinating stuff, if you ask me, not to be swept under the rug so easily - so much richer and more complex than facts like .84 corellation, etc.

    If we remove all countries with the lowest GDP from the graphs the correlation will be significantly lower than the number the IQ fetishists makes a great deal of.

    Conversely Lynn could have made his point even stronger and get much higher correlation if he added to his graph few countries that have zero GDP and zero IQ like the Republic of Bonobo.

  193. @MarkinLA
    They say East Asia has high IQ, but it’s committing demographic suicide.


    ???? This reminds me of the fools who want Japan to start taking in immigrants talking about Japan's death spiral. They are losing 250,000 people a year. In a country of 110 million this means in about 400 years Japan will have 10 million at that rate. I think there is plenty of time to fix the problem - if it is a problem.

    Some depopulation may be just what these countries need.

    Exactly, with continuous improvements in robotic and automation, one wonders what is the need of big populations anymore. The big issue should not be Japan and Germany having a falling population but who is going to give jobs to the fast growing Africans, Arabs and Pakistanis in the near future.

  194. In the pre industrial agriculture age, the most important driver of your economy was how much grain you could grow. Northern Europe and Japan/ Korea/ Mongolia had limitations in growing enormous quantity of grains due to climatic conditions unlike places like Egypt, Iraq, the Indian subcontinent etc… Thus in the medieval era they were poorer. Even with Europe Germany/ Scandinavia though ample in water could not compete with say Italy in food production due to climatic restrictions. A similar case can be made for Japan vs China/ Indonesia etc… There was no way England could compete with the Ganges of India in food production even though England had good soil quality. Similarly Scotland could not compete with England because of the topography of the land (more mountains). That explains why England has about 10 times the population as Scotland and was more wealthier. Take this difference and multiply it many times to get the difference between Northern Europe/ Japan Korea on one hand and the Middle zone (India, Middle East etc..) Besides Northern Europeans and North East Asian were located at the edge of Eurasia unlike people in the middle zone and thus could not gain wealth from trade passing through their territories. So even if these populations of the North had higher IQs and other favourable traits they were poorer and more backward than the middle IQ populations in the middle zone.
    The Industrial revolution changed all that. Now wealth creation was moving from Agriculture to industry and wealth creation was no longer tied to the amount of grain they could grow in their lands. And it was now the high IQ cold climate populations of Europe and North East Asia finally got their advantage over the Middle Zoners. Also thanks to innovations made in transportation technology in Britain (steam ships), moving resources from the tropics to the temperate zone for manufacturing was easy and cheap. This is what explains why India or the Middle East were so advanced in the agricultural age but now are failures compared to Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc… and the Northern European settled places like North America, Australia, New Zealand in this technological age.

    In short in the pre-industrial revolution agriculture era, land and location mattered more for a nation. Post Industrial revolution era what matters more is IQ and productivity of your working and middle classes. So comparing today’s India to India 500 years ago is ridiculous. Just because your civilization rocked in the pre industrial era is not guarantee you will rock now or even in the future ever. After the Industrial revolution, we are in a different game.

  195. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @rec1man
    About 20% of the Indian population is high caste
    5% Brahmins
    5% Merchants ( Jains are part of Merchants 0.5% )
    5% Forward Caste Dravidians ( South Indian Landlords )
    5% Scribes, Nobles etc

    If you look at 2017 California National Merit, 140 IQ cut off

    850 Chinese
    100 Koreans
    75 Vietnamese
    25 Japanese

    55 Muslims

    125 Jews

    275 Indians
    of which

    125 Brahmins ( 90 Southern, 35 Northern )
    65 Merchants ( 15 Jains )
    55 Dravidian Landlords

    whereas among mid-level peasant castes

    4 Patels
    3 Jat Sikh

    1. What’s the source for 10% of overall Indian population being merchant or brahmin?
    2. There are only 250 million people in South India. How could 70 million be the descendants of landlords?
    3. Why are scribes not represented among the merit scholars?

    • Replies: @rec1man
    1. Per 1931, Indian census, they had caste data, 5% Brahmin, 5% Merchant

    2. Forward Caste Dravidians / Upper Caste Dravidians, such as Kamma, Reddy, Nair, are the group I am talking about and they are predominantly Landlords / Kulak / Dominant Peasant caste

    3. In the 2017 California National Merit list there are about 15 Kayasth ( scribe ) and 10 Rajputs ( Nobles ) - in most parts of India, the scribe function was done by brahmins, but in the Hindi-Bengali regions, that function was done by a specific caste ( Kayasth ) - vs 125 Brahmins on the Merit list
  196. @AaronB
    That's true. I wonder if European IQ rose only after the Renaissance, in line with their new culture of materialistic ambition, and is now midly deflating again. Perhaps it'll rise again as ambition returns, in response to the new feeling of insecurity among whites.

    On the other hand, Europeans were reporting that Ayutthaya in Thailand vastly exceeded anything seen in Europe, and the Spanish thought Aztec cities did as well. So Europeans had similar responses to countries not thought today to be high IQ. It wasn't just China.

    IQ, it seems to me, as a very recent invention, measures aspects of cognitive function related to modern economies, and is bound up with the ambition to create and succeed in such economies. I'm not sure how valid it is to apply it to pre-modern conditions.

    I think bourgeoisie demographic expansion is correlated with increase in cognitive skills levels among Europeans if in the medieval past we had only and or basically two social classes: Governors and governed. Governors usually are smarter but also sociopathic while serfs are usually less ambitious and less smart. Bourgeoisie is the intermediary socio-economic class between serfdom and “noblesse”. Bourgeoisie or middle classes even this days most of upper elites are or have bourgeois origin.

    • Replies: @AP

    Governors usually are smarter but also sociopathic
     
    Why do you think so? This sounds like 18th century revolutionary propaganda, justifying theft from the nobility by the emergent bourgeoisie.

    In societies that did not undergo such changes (such as in pre-Commie central and eastern Europe) the nobility were a hardworking service class, albeit one with many perks. Franz Josef worked over 60 hours a week well into his 80s. Various dukes, counts, princes worked as mayors, governors, generals, etc...all the way down to lesser nobles who served as junior officers, worked as professors, and managers. One of the hardest working mayors of Moscow was Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich.

    Democracy, which requires the ability to manipulate the masses in order to gain power, probably selects for more psychopathic traits among elected leaders than were common among the old aristocrats who had once ruled.
  197. @AaronB
    That's true. I wonder if European IQ rose only after the Renaissance, in line with their new culture of materialistic ambition, and is now midly deflating again. Perhaps it'll rise again as ambition returns, in response to the new feeling of insecurity among whites.

    On the other hand, Europeans were reporting that Ayutthaya in Thailand vastly exceeded anything seen in Europe, and the Spanish thought Aztec cities did as well. So Europeans had similar responses to countries not thought today to be high IQ. It wasn't just China.

    IQ, it seems to me, as a very recent invention, measures aspects of cognitive function related to modern economies, and is bound up with the ambition to create and succeed in such economies. I'm not sure how valid it is to apply it to pre-modern conditions.

    I think since humans invented numeracy and literacy systems IQ might be viable. Modern societies are not so different than other past societies what differentiate them maybe is the percent of people with enough hardware cognitive levels to provide “decent” numeracy and literacy as well universalization of both, radically different than in the past when in most societies illiteracy was exceptionally common.

  198. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @CanSpeccy

    low average IQ requires rigid authoritarian organizing principles – clever ones give the orders, rest obey
     
    Got any actual evidence that differences in IQ account for the differences in social structure between the highly authoritarian Communist Chinese and the liberal-lefty pot-smoking, porn-wallowing, queer-loving, diversity-is-our-strength, let's-commit-national-suicide-by-replacing-ourselves-with-people-from-elsewhere Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Germans, Canadians, etc.?

    examples:
    - regular infantry platoon vs special forces
    - software development vs factory production line
    etc

    the higher the average IQ i.e. the more people with 100+ IQ, the more initiative based vs authoritarian any organisation involving those people can potentially be

    (obviously)

    IQ isn’t the only factor of course – for example if a minority want to impose their will against the wishes of the a majority (like communists) they have to be authoritarian regardless of average IQ

  199. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @AaronB
    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.

    Before that, Europeans never had the impression that Asians were particularly smarter than them. Bertrand Russell, who thought China was the greatest civilization the world had ever seen and taught there for a year, said he did not think the Chinese were more intelligent than Europeans.

    I wonder what Chinese IQ was back then? I'm betting their IQ rose in direct proportion as they became ambitious and began to exert effort to catch up with the West in a serious way.

    The relationship between wealth and technology and IQ is indeed a very close one in modern times, but a subtle thinker might have some doubts about which way the arrow of causality points.

    Interestingly, the stereotype of clever Asians is fairly recent, no sooner than the early 20th century.

    first contact was 1543

    Bertrand Russell, who thought China was the greatest civilization the world had ever seen and taught there for a year, said he did not think the Chinese were more intelligent than Europeans.

    maybe Euro IQ declined in the interim

    for example maybe

    1) industrialization and the demand for mass factory labor led to a disproportionate increase in the left side of the bell curve for a hundred years or so

    2) dietary changes

  200. @res

    There’s a topic for a research grant: IQ-testing of flu victims.
     
    I don't know if it is possible to get enough resolution from the tests, but I think it would be interesting to better characterize IQ variation on small time scales (hour, day, week, month) to assess short term environmental impacts and their causes. I see substantial variability in my own thinking (e.g. sickness, fasting vs post-prandial, time of day, current level of fitness, tiredness, etc.) but don't really know how typical this is.

    Not feasible with most intelligence tests of reasoning or vocubulary, but easy with processing speed tasks, reaction times, and some memory tests, cf Ebbinghaus.

    • Replies: @res
    Thanks. Has anyone taken a detailed look at analytic variation academically? Gwern (and I think some other Less Wrong folk) uses dual N back tests to do N=1 studies of various things. Not as rigorous as a large sample paper by any means, but Gwern seems like a smart and thorough guy who makes an effort to use sound methodology within the limits of N=1. IIRC he was a fairly frequent commenter on your blog though I haven't seen signs of him recently.

    For myself, I find ability to do Sudoku or Freecell varies in interesting ways though I have not done rigorous tests.

    P.S. Gwern has many results at https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics
    I think think melatonin makes a good inexpensive, safe, and easily available example: https://www.gwern.net/Melatonin

    P.P.S. Thanks for the Ebbinghaus pointer. He was new to me, but I took a quick look at his Wikipedia page and he sounds like an interesting researcher. My bias is analytic so his work sounds congenial to me. Interesting to see he focused on N=1 given commentary above.

    Am I right to summarize that most of his work was in the behavior over time of memory? Fascinating and important work, but my interest in this thread is more with the variation in analytic ability. With a side question about microscale variation of memory (i.e. I don't think the memory curve is monotonically decreasing, I think it also varies as I describe above with things like blood sugar and fed state).
  201. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Daniel Chieh
    Oh, I won't deny that there are a number of examples but basic reality of the perverse incentives remain - and there are quite a few examples of abuses caused by that kind of short-termism. But yes, I do think that often colonial governments can bring a form of structure and rule of law that greatly surpasses what was locally available, and actually provide a functional structure where none was found.

    Congo is a great example, where you have people wishing for Belgium to return. Heck, most of Africa is a great example, where even the infrastructure isn't maintained, let alone expanded.

    basic reality of the perverse incentives remain

    colonialists want to extract value from their colonies so the default case should be that colonialism is bad for the colonized

    i think the logical exceptions to that would be

    1) where the local elite was worse i.e. they extracted 60% and the colonial elite extracted 40% (this would still be bad for the local elite but not the rest)

    2) the colonists imported tech that increased productivity enough such that even after colonial extraction the locals were better off – this would decline as the locals figured out the tech itself

    • Replies: @res

    colonialists want to extract value from their colonies so the default case should be that colonialism is bad for the colonized
     
    Perhaps a fair default position, but I think the obvious question we are discussing is whether the colonizers add more value than they extract (i.e. it is not a zero sum game). Investing in infrastructure is a good example of this. Often ROI is good on those investments, but the locals just can't/don't do it for various reasons.

    You make good additional points. I especially find dividing locals into non/elite is thought provoking in this context.
  202. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @CanSpeccy

    From my point of view ...
     
    Yes we understand your point of view, which is contradicted by the research I quoted.

    Creativity has no direct relation to IQ, although to be creative in any field it is necessary to have a sufficiently high IQ to understand the subject, hence the IQ threshold effect for creativity. It is in that sense, and probably in that sense only, that IQ is "relevant" to creativity.

    Creativity has no direct relation to IQ, although to be creative in any field it is necessary to have a sufficiently high IQ to understand the subject, hence the IQ threshold effect for creativity. It is in that sense, and probably in that sense only, that IQ is “relevant” to creativity.

    so IQ is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creativity

    i.e. fundamentally relevant

  203. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @attilathehen
    If you are European, you are a perfect example of this non-seaweed eating low IQ European.

    “let’s you and him fight”

  204. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @AaronB
    .64 I consider rather modest, but I'd agree with you that .84 is pretty good.

    Still, even .84 would only give us broad generalizations and considerable room for all sorts of interesting micro-trends that go against the grain to develop.

    I find the point about Asian economies to be a fascinating anamoly, not easily explained by any numerical metric, and likely only explainable by "intangible" factors, although I have no idea what they may be.

    It's the same reason why China can't seem to develop viable jet engines despite having over a billion people with an IQ higher than Europeans (an astonishing failure of IQ theory, if you really, really are honest with yourself), and why Japan vastly outperforms higher IQ Korea and roughly same IQ Taiwan in cutting edge technology and engineering, or why similar IQ countries in Europe display vastly different intellectual outcomes.

    Fascinating stuff, if you ask me, not to be swept under the rug so easily - so much richer and more complex than facts like .84 corellation, etc.

    .64 I consider rather modest, but I’d agree with you that .84 is pretty good.

    Still, even .84 would only give us broad generalizations and considerable room for all sorts of interesting micro-trends that go against the grain to develop.

    So you agree that IQ is obviously of critical importance – 0.84 – but doesn’t explain everything – 0.16 – so there are additional questions to be answered

    or

    you’re trying to obfuscate the clearly critical importance of IQ (0.84) by focusing on the unexplained fraction (0.16)

  205. @Anonymous
    1. What's the source for 10% of overall Indian population being merchant or brahmin?
    2. There are only 250 million people in South India. How could 70 million be the descendants of landlords?
    3. Why are scribes not represented among the merit scholars?

    1. Per 1931, Indian census, they had caste data, 5% Brahmin, 5% Merchant

    2. Forward Caste Dravidians / Upper Caste Dravidians, such as Kamma, Reddy, Nair, are the group I am talking about and they are predominantly Landlords / Kulak / Dominant Peasant caste

    3. In the 2017 California National Merit list there are about 15 Kayasth ( scribe ) and 10 Rajputs ( Nobles ) – in most parts of India, the scribe function was done by brahmins, but in the Hindi-Bengali regions, that function was done by a specific caste ( Kayasth ) – vs 125 Brahmins on the Merit list

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Very helpful, thanks.

    1. While the figure of 5% for Brahmins appears well established, I can't find verification for your figure for merchant. Does the merchant caste correspond to the category of Bania? According to Joshua project figures, Bania including Jains number 30 million and so are 2% of India. https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/16318

    2. Since Northern Brahmins outnumber Southern Brahmins by perhaps 4 times while while being represented among merit finalists by 1/3 of Southern Brahmins, does it appear to be the case that Northern Brahmins are only modestly smarter than the Indian average and way below the Southern Brahmins?

    3. It appears Tamil Brahmins are much smarter than these are other Brahmins. But why is a place like Nagercoil (where 10% of the population is Tamil Brahmin) not more developed than the rest of the state?

    4. Given that 30% of the population of South India belongs to a smart group and North India's Brahmin 5% could barely even be called a smart group, isn't it obvious that South India should split from the union?

    5. What is the breakdown of groups by smartness in Western India? In Bengal?
  206. @res

    It seems that IQ only has explanatory power up to a rather modest point. It breaks down at the upper levels across the board, where micro trends begin to develop against the macro trends, etc.
     
    So modest that national average IQ only correlates 0.82 with GDP and 0.64 with rate of economic growth from 1950–1990.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Outline

    national average IQ only correlates 0.82 with GDP and 0.64 with rate of economic growth from 1950–1990.

    What kind of analysis is that?

    Why not 1939–1945, over which period the economic data would prove that German and Japanese IQs shrank.

    The whole approach is idiotic.

    What if you extend the analysis from 1800 to 2017? Then you find, at the outset, that Brits were the most intelligent people in the world. But in the 19th Century it was the Germans and the Americans, although they were eclipsed by the beginning of the 20th Century by the Japs whose rate of economic growth exceeded that of all previous champions, only themselves to be outdone in the post-WW2 era by the people of S. Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, they in their turn soon to be overtaken by the Chinese who, since 1990, have been doubling the size of their economy every ten years.

    Explain all that on the basis of trivial differences in population mean score on some paper and pencil brain-teasing test of dubious significance? LOL.

    It’s institutions and political arrangements, military conquest or defeat, imperial expansion or decay that determine rates of economic growth. IQ tests explain nothing except the mania of some people to prove that black people are mentally inferior to whites, a futile obsession since we can see at a glance that black people are like white people very dumb to quite smart, in the latter case especially when they are properly educated.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @res

    The whole approach is idiotic.
     
    Now there is a cogent, thoughtful and well argued rebuttal.

    You do make some interesting points after that. Please feel free to do any or all of those analyses. I would be interested in seeing the results. Don't be so quick to assume IQ would not matter though.

    One could make an argument that an interesting characteristic of our current world is that the effects you mention seem (much?) less important now than they were historically. The why and how of that might make for an interesting conversation. Do we see a similar pattern with other periods of relative in/stability?
    , @anon
    Once you note the ~ 0.8 correlation the rest of the analysis is very clear.

    The ~ 0.2 left over shows there are other factors as well, so variation in those other factors over time can explain anomalies.

    Personally I think IQ people (imo) should focus on the factors which cause the 0.2 because for every factor they find they will improve the base correlation.

    So instead of

    ~0.8 correlation with IQ

    it becomes

    ~0.9 correlation with IQ + other known factors.

    It won't help against people who dispute it for political reasons but might swing it for neutrals.

    #

    (For example has anyone checked if the Flynn effect correlates with the greatly increased fish consumption in the developing world?)
    , @JackOH
    FWIW-I'm trying to imagine an "IQ-centric" single issue political party or advocacy group, or an "IQ-phile" faction within a mainstream party, or an "IQ-ist" political ideology. That's because I think some of the commenters wish there were such a party or faction divvying up goodies according to IQ scores. I could be misreading things of course. In other words, I share your skepticism about the more grasping claims made about the connections between IQ and, well, a whole lot of other stuff.
  207. @dux.ie
    Re: IQs as an explanatory variable for the election of Trump

    Talking about IQ can upset some people. It is more acceptable to talk about
    the percentage of people with university degrees. With respect to the US
    presidentail election many of the MSM still talked about reactions to the
    top 1% high income earners, diversity, inequality, unemployment, shrinking
    job market, etc.

    Instead, on Novermber 13 I showed statistically that using the
    regression p value (or the Rsq value) as the criterion, among the various
    factors, the most significat factor influencing the electrion result was the
    percentage of people with university degrees, the lower the PctDeg the higher
    the Rep margin.

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/11/coalition-diversity-whose-diversity-diversity-just-win.html#comments

    Using the Republican margin RepMargin=RepPct-DemPct as the variable,

    RepMargin = -3.46*PctDeg +99.53; n=51; Rsq=0.66; p=5.269e-13
    RepMargin = -3.40*PCIncK +102.02; n=51; Rsq=0.48; p=1.752e-08
    RepMargin = -541.79*Gini10 +249.61; n=50; Rsq=0.23; p=0.0004493
    RepMargin = +0.090*SAT14 -90.64; n=50; Rsq=0.17; p=0.002817
    RepMargin = -35.00*Div15 +21.59; n=51; Rsq=0.048; p=0.1213
    RepMargin = -2.12*Unemp16 +13.75; n=48; Rsq=0.0079; p=0.5473

    where PCIncK = per capital income ('000)
    Gini10 = economic inequality Gini Coeff
    SAT14 = average SAT score
    Div15 = diversity index
    Unemp16 = unemployment rate

    With more data at the county levels more complex models were also developed
    but I wont elaborate here.

    Nate Silver is a noted political analyst and forcaster and he came to the
    same conclusion on November 22. I scooped him with the results by 9 days.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

    Later, the MSM switched to talking about the less educated Republican voters.
    This again was not strictly correct. The result above actually showed that
    the Rep margin was significantly positively correlated with the average SAT
    score.

    There is a disconnect that SAT score tends to be where the person
    was from and PctDeg tends to be associated to where the person goes to
    university or work. The slope of the equation turns out to be the reverse
    and the data points are a bit more scattered (Rsq is low), though still
    significant at p=0.002817. Thus I concluded that there would be population
    movements draining away the potential Dem voters from the rural areas.

    These three opposing trends might be setting up an interesting weak population
    circulation pattern, i.e. Republican states tend to have less degree holders
    (less knowledge based jobs) which might (weakly) incentivize a few of the
    students to study harder and to achieve better SAT scores and they tend to
    move to universities in the Democrat states (e.g. California, Massachusetts
    and NewYork) and work there (in the more knowledge based jobs), and the
    too liberal high schools there might not equip some of the students to work
    in the knowledge based jobs there and they might end up in the Republican
    states. Concentration of degree holders in the Dem states gives less electoral
    votes.

    This was confirmed by the Bloomberg report on 14 Dec 2016,

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-14/in-trump-country-the-brain-drain-takes-a-toll-bloomberg-index

    """Brain Drain Takes a Toll in Trump Country"""

    Interesting results. It looks like those are all single variable regressions. What did the multiple regression results look like?

    If I read correctly your analysis was at the state level. What were your data sources?
    How about for your county analysis? Did you have all of the same variables for counties? How similar were the results?

    Some interesting observations about the meanings of SAT and PctDeg in your data.

    • Replies: @dux.ie
    The presidency was decided at the state electoral college levels and some
    of the extreme sentiments were averaged out at the state levels and might not
    be significant at this level, e.g. diversity. To avoid over fitting the
    regression equation only single variable at a time was tested. Deeper
    levels of sentiments can be determined at the county levels.

    Because of the correlations among the variables, the respective effects were
    shared among the related varaibles, e.g. EduDeg with White, Asian, OccMgt,
    etc. So they might not stand out. The coeffs for Diversity and Gini looked
    large because of relative scaling. The overall result for RepMarg when
    non-significant variables were removed,

    Coefficients:
    Estimate Std. Error t value Pr( gt |t|)
    (Intercept) -81.853481 12.749067 -6.420 2.07e-10 ***
    White 1.215639 0.053574 22.691 lt 2e-16 ***
    Uninsured 1.784194 0.134345 13.281 lt 2e-16 ***
    Unempl -1.807456 0.223368 -8.092 1.65e-15 ***
    OccServ -1.438411 0.188706 -7.623 5.64e-14 ***
    Diversity 34.799267 5.365481 6.486 1.37e-10 ***
    EduDeg -1.249949 0.197802 -6.319 3.91e-10 ***
    OccConstr 1.367461 0.235825 5.799 8.89e-09 ***
    EduPGrad -1.859734 0.371189 -5.010 6.40e-07 ***
    Homicide -0.551607 0.151224 -3.648 0.000278 ***
    OccMgt 0.807101 0.222531 3.627 0.000301 ***
    Violent -0.008718 0.002549 -3.419 0.000652 ***
    Gini 39.002043 18.574785 2.100 0.035996 *
    ---
    Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

    Residual standard error: 14.41 on 1027 degrees of freedom
    Multiple R-squared: 0.7979, Adjusted R-squared: 0.7955
    F-statistic: 337.8 on 12 and 1027 DF, p-value: lt 2.2e-16

    Positive coeff means positive correlations with RepMarg. Both
    EduDeg and EduPGrad appeared in the model and pro-Dem. Note the
    coeff for Diversity is positive, i.e. pro-Rep. If the Dem had done
    a proper focus group study they should realize that they were
    pushing something that now favoured Rep. This together with the coeff
    for White might be considered as the so called 'whitelash' at the
    county levels, though not at the state levels. Interestingly the
    counties in the Rep states on average there was only the 'lash' without
    the White (the variation % across counties might be small) while other
    ethnic groups were on average pro Dem.

    Trump's talk of building infrastructure resonated with the OccConstr
    but bringing the jobs back did not seem to resonate with OccServ and
    OccMgt and no traction with OccProd, OccSales and OccFarm.
  208. @James Thompson
    Not feasible with most intelligence tests of reasoning or vocubulary, but easy with processing speed tasks, reaction times, and some memory tests, cf Ebbinghaus.

    Thanks. Has anyone taken a detailed look at analytic variation academically? Gwern (and I think some other Less Wrong folk) uses dual N back tests to do N=1 studies of various things. Not as rigorous as a large sample paper by any means, but Gwern seems like a smart and thorough guy who makes an effort to use sound methodology within the limits of N=1. IIRC he was a fairly frequent commenter on your blog though I haven’t seen signs of him recently.

    For myself, I find ability to do Sudoku or Freecell varies in interesting ways though I have not done rigorous tests.

    P.S. Gwern has many results at https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics
    I think think melatonin makes a good inexpensive, safe, and easily available example: https://www.gwern.net/Melatonin

    P.P.S. Thanks for the Ebbinghaus pointer. He was new to me, but I took a quick look at his Wikipedia page and he sounds like an interesting researcher. My bias is analytic so his work sounds congenial to me. Interesting to see he focused on N=1 given commentary above.

    Am I right to summarize that most of his work was in the behavior over time of memory? Fascinating and important work, but my interest in this thread is more with the variation in analytic ability. With a side question about microscale variation of memory (i.e. I don’t think the memory curve is monotonically decreasing, I think it also varies as I describe above with things like blood sugar and fed state).

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    N=1 studies can show normal variation, particularly diurnal variation. They are also good "upper limit" training studies. For example, can you boost reaction times or digit span with repeated practice? The latter apparently so, in some cases.
  209. @anon

    basic reality of the perverse incentives remain
     
    colonialists want to extract value from their colonies so the default case should be that colonialism is bad for the colonized

    i think the logical exceptions to that would be

    1) where the local elite was worse i.e. they extracted 60% and the colonial elite extracted 40% (this would still be bad for the local elite but not the rest)

    2) the colonists imported tech that increased productivity enough such that even after colonial extraction the locals were better off - this would decline as the locals figured out the tech itself

    colonialists want to extract value from their colonies so the default case should be that colonialism is bad for the colonized

    Perhaps a fair default position, but I think the obvious question we are discussing is whether the colonizers add more value than they extract (i.e. it is not a zero sum game). Investing in infrastructure is a good example of this. Often ROI is good on those investments, but the locals just can’t/don’t do it for various reasons.

    You make good additional points. I especially find dividing locals into non/elite is thought provoking in this context.

    • Replies: @anon
    yes - i'd think as a basic default that colonialism *ought* to be negative because the colonialists want to extract value - and there's plenty of historical examples of that - but there's also plenty of evidence of benefit.

    the square is circled (at least in the short term) by technology transfer - especially as colonialism will often result from technological superiority.
  210. @CanSpeccy

    national average IQ only correlates 0.82 with GDP and 0.64 with rate of economic growth from 1950–1990.
     
    What kind of analysis is that?

    Why not 1939–1945, over which period the economic data would prove that German and Japanese IQs shrank.

    The whole approach is idiotic.

    What if you extend the analysis from 1800 to 2017? Then you find, at the outset, that Brits were the most intelligent people in the world. But in the 19th Century it was the Germans and the Americans, although they were eclipsed by the beginning of the 20th Century by the Japs whose rate of economic growth exceeded that of all previous champions, only themselves to be outdone in the post-WW2 era by the people of S. Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, they in their turn soon to be overtaken by the Chinese who, since 1990, have been doubling the size of their economy every ten years.

    Explain all that on the basis of trivial differences in population mean score on some paper and pencil brain-teasing test of dubious significance? LOL.

    It's institutions and political arrangements, military conquest or defeat, imperial expansion or decay that determine rates of economic growth. IQ tests explain nothing except the mania of some people to prove that black people are mentally inferior to whites, a futile obsession since we can see at a glance that black people are like white people very dumb to quite smart, in the latter case especially when they are properly educated.

    The whole approach is idiotic.

    Now there is a cogent, thoughtful and well argued rebuttal.

    You do make some interesting points after that. Please feel free to do any or all of those analyses. I would be interested in seeing the results. Don’t be so quick to assume IQ would not matter though.

    One could make an argument that an interesting characteristic of our current world is that the effects you mention seem (much?) less important now than they were historically. The why and how of that might make for an interesting conversation. Do we see a similar pattern with other periods of relative in/stability?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Thank you for the soft answer.

    But I still see the idea of linking national mean IQ to economic development a, um, meritless, approach.

    If you look at the entire sweep of history, economic success has always been about institutions, the outcome of wars, and blind chance.

    You should read Carroll Quigley`s account (in Tragedy and Hope) of the industrial revolution in Britain, the result of sheer chance, specifically, the existence of the English Channel.

    The Channel meant that England needed no standing army, which meant that the tyrannical Stewart monarchs were defeated in their contest with the forces of Parliament, which meant that the landed aristocracy and the country squires who controlled the two Houses of Parliament were able to legislate the enclosure, i.e., privatization, of common land, which made investment in agriculture worthwhile, which stimulated agricultural innovation, and generated surpluses of income, food and labor, all of which were invested in transportation infrastructure (canals and later railways), mines and factories.

    There is more of course to the story of England's rise to become the greatest imperial power the world has ever seen, the wealthiest country in the world and the world's leading center of industrial innovation and scientific discovery. A key factor was the defeat of France in the Napoleonic wars, which in turn was dependent on the merger of England and Holland, leading to the creation of the London bond market, which enabled the British Government to raise more funds for war than France, a country with twice Britain's population and natural wealth.

    The defeat of France meant that Britain got the best colonies, which in turn, meant huge profits from sugar, tobacco, rum and cotton, these to be invested throughout the world in factories, railways, and much else beside, thereby generating huge capital account surpluses, which funded Britain's rule of the world's oceans and protection of the world's trade conducted mainly in British-built, British-owned and British-insured ships.

    But it all started with the English Channel, the existence of which had nothing whatever to do with the average IQ of an Englishman. The rest of the story had nothing to do with the average IQ of an Englishman, either.

  211. @AaronB
    Except in spiritual things - all religions come from the East. The West has always been second rate in things of the spirit.

    Material advances have lately been coming from the West, as you'd expect from a basically materialist culture, but probably not for much longer.

    Spirituality is tied to IQ/race. Asians being inferior also have inferior beliefs. Christianity is unique in that it received it’s greatness from Caucasian/Europeans.

    Judaism, Buddhism, Islam have nothing to offer the West. The West has religion: the paganism of the European and Christianity.

    Eastern faiths know nothing about the person and human rights.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The right of open borders and free immigration is a human right. I, too, praise the West.
    , @Anonymous
    Go back home to Europe.
    ,