The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Thompson ArchiveBlogview
What IQ Researchers Really Think About Race and Intelligence
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_537571162
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

I am still settling in at unz.com so please forgive me if I forget my lines and bump into the furniture, because the stage is much larger than my former small theatre. Not only that, but the cast is enormous, and the commentating audience ten times larger than usual, and rowdier. No country for an old man.

I have compared my blogging role to being a filter paper between a sack of coffee beans and a small cup of espresso. I am supposed to read a whole lot of stuff, and then distill it into a quickly consumed essence, a mere gulp of information. Whether this provokes a high in the reader remains to be seen.

Reading academic papers is a tedious business. The prose style has been refined so as to banish both excitement and understanding. Ditch-water is entertaining by comparison. No wonder the modal readership for an academic publication is said to be 6 readers, a figure which probably includes the co-authors, close family, and the more diligent or gullible of their lovers.

To turgidity we have to add the downer of time-delay. Years ago colleagues consulted me about a questionnaire they were intending to send to intelligence researchers. I suggested they make it shorter, if I recall rightly, because that is what I always say. A long time after that the questionnaire came out, and eventually in December 2013 the preliminary results were presented at an International Society for Intelligence Research conference in Australia.

The first publication on the work came out in March of this year. Why was there two year’s delay? Peer review is intended to be a guarantee of quality, subjecting the proffered paper to the scrutiny of other scholars before it is allowed into the academic canon. A presentation deemed perfectly adequate for presenting to a conference full of scholars has to go through a tedious procedure of vetting. Authors, quite understandably, intend to write it up immediately, but by the time they get back, jet-lagged, from the conference, a whole lot of tedious but pressing matters have accumulated back at the office. Getting the paper into the constrained form required by academic convention takes months, and then the problems begin. The paper is sent out to two or three referees who have also been away at other conferences, and have come back to piles of work, and refereeing another scholar’s work is not a priority. The whole process takes ages, until a battered, hacked and much altered version of the work is eventually, grudgingly, accepted for publication. Then there is a year’s delay while the production team find a place for it among papers which have been waiting even longer.

So, what do intelligence researchers think about racial differences in intelligence?

Invitations were emailed to 1237 persons and at the end only 228 (18 %) participants completed the process (70 fully and 158 partially). As far as the authors could make it out, “lefties” and “righties” turned down the offer in equal numbers, complaining that the questions were not good enough, the selection of experts would not be good or that they did not want to participate in a process which suggested that the truth could be found by majority decisions. In fact, the authors just wanted to find out what expert opinion was, in all its variety, and were not intending to come to any conclusions of a majority sort. (Perhaps climate research has poisoned the academic atmosphere, and no-one wants to be involved with anything which smacks of consensus science). As many pointed out, one good study can smash down an old consensus.

Asked: What are the sources of U.S. black-white differences in IQ?

0% of differences due to genes: (17% of our experts)
0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of our experts
50% of differences due to genes: 18% of our experts
60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of our experts
100% of differences due to genes: (5% of our experts)
M=47% of differences due to genes (SD=31%)

As far as I can see, there are two extreme positions, the 17% who think that the difference is none of it due to genes, and the 5% who think it is all due to genes. The rest are in the middle, and the “consensus” is that 47% of the difference is due to genes. (See above why one should not get too excited about consensus results). All this is obviously very different from the public narrative, which is that 0% of the difference is due to genes. Such a view is rejected by the majority of experts, but there is still a sizable minority of experts who hold that view. In sum, there are a variety of opinions.

So, we can now write the headlines. For popular newspapers the headline might be: IQ experts split.

For more refined publications it could be: Intelligence experts almost normally distributed.

Establishing the truth of a matter by consulting all the experts is a useful heuristic, but no more than that. It is useful when you are in a hurry. The experts will differ in the quality of their arguments. Academia gives them scope to differ, and tests their quality only very slowly. They are protected from the consequences of being wrong, unlike in the business world. It might be better to rate the experts in some way, by publication numbers, impact indices and so on. Indeed, one could send them a questionnaire to ask them who the real experts are. (In 2013 experts rated Die Zeit, Steve Sailer and Anatoly Karlin very highly as media sources on intelligence)

Or, one could dig deeper and search for a balance sheet of the most compelling evidence: the meta-analytic overview of the relevant literature, as Jensen and Rushton attempted, by way of challenging their critics.

It is rare for one paper to change everyone’s opinion, but one day a single publication on the genetic comparison of very large samples of different racial groups might do so. A null result would certainly have an impact.

That’s the coffee. A little more detail about the beans here:

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-intelligence-researchers-think/

 
• Category: Science • Tags: IQ, Race/IQ 
The Race/IQ Series
    []
  1. If intelligence doesn’t have some genetic component, then why do infertile couples pay money to acquire sperm from Ivy League men for artificial insemination? Why don’t women with infertile husbands just have sex with any willing local bum at no charge?

    Also, why are sperm banks paying Ivy League men for donations? Why don’t they just go to Skid Row or group homes for the mentally challenged and get the sperm there?

    The same goes for donating eggs — for which college women get big bucks. Here is an article from Slate titled “Couples want donors to be smart, athletic, and good-looking.” Notice the first word in that headline.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/egg_donation_study_couples_want_donors_to_be_smart_athletic_good_looking.html

    And yet I’ll bet if you asked any of these couples (or any Slate reader) about IQ and genetics when they were among friends at a party, they’d deny any connection. Finally, nice to see a new columnist at Unz. This is a subject I’m glad is being addressed.

    Read More
    • Agree: eah
    • Replies: @Triumph104
    Agree.

    There is a married adjunct math professor that is running around impregnating women on purpose. He has 22 children and most of the women are low-income black homosexuals. It would be interesting to see how the children turn out, test scores for example.

    The women act like the guy is an answer to their prayers when they could have easily gotten sperm from the neighborhood lothario. Anecdotally, I have noticed a pattern of black homosexual women using white sperm donors.

    http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/professor-who-donates-sperm-in-city-bathrooms-has-sired-22-kids/
    http://nypost.com/2016/06/19/sperm-donor-that-sired-22-kids-has-a-wife-and-shes-not-happy/
    , @Ramona
    It's done with crops and animals. Selective breeding can modify, perhaps for the better, specific features. There is no mystery to it.

    The question is if IQ is indeed being targeted. Accomplished people are generally speaking hardworking and not particularly intelligent. I have spent my entire life in the academia and it still breaks my heart to see how little the collective acumen of faculty amounts to the world over.

    And, let us not fooled ourselves here, there are plenty of intelligent people that amount to nothing at all.
    , @jacques sheete

    If intelligence doesn’t have some genetic component,
     
    Define intelligence.

    then why do infertile couples pay money to acquire sperm from Ivy League men for artificial insemination?
     
    Because they've been duped to think Ivy League men are something special. How would you like it if one of yours got sperm from, say, George Bush?

    Why don’t women with infertile husbands just have sex with any willing local bum at no charge?
     
    Have you noticed what women are often attracted to?
    , @Steve84
    The question wasn't does intelligence have anything to do with genes- it is known that IQ is highly heritable, as heritable as height.

    The question was whether racial differences in intelligence are due to genetic differences or environmental differences. That's a different question. For example, North and South Koreans differ in height by a significant amount due to environmental differences (they are basically the same group genetically split by a political divide), but height is still highly heritable- most of the variation in height in both North and South Korea is due to genetic variation.
    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
    /jthompson/what-iq-researchers-really-think-about-race-and-intelligence/#comment-1696358
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    Unfortunately, sample not quite convincingly large. But it’s the first explicit study as far as I know.

    https://osf.io/z8dy5/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok
    Understandably. Were the names of respondents published, and their individual views?
    , @James Thompson
    It has to be expert, so it cannot be large. It was confined to those who had published papers on intelligence in some key peer reviewed journals in 2010 and later.
    , @Anonymous
    You are confused. I was talking about the study in the link, the sample of the children (about 1100), not the sample of experts. The linked study found that racial ancestry did relate to cognitive differences holding self-reported race/ethnicity constant. The same was true for parental social status. I.e., holding it constant whether a person reported as being White/African American/Hispanic etc., the persons with more European ancestry measured using SNP data had higher cognitive ability/IQ and parents with higher social status than those with less European ancestry. The reverse was true for African ancestry.

    The effects were very unlikely to be due to chance, but more detailed analyses were not possible because of the smallish sample size.

    A study with n=10,000 would decisively settle this issue.

    The sample of experts is more than sufficient.

    It won't allow me to use my real name, but I am Emil if anyone was uncertain and it is my study in the link.
  3. Sean says:

    What IQ Researchers Really Think About Race and Intelligence is that they know to be chary of publicly revealing what they really think. And that will never change.

    Read More
    • Agree: JayMan
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed, all those jobs in Marxist 'academia' and those sweet government / taxpayer grants might just dry up.

    Truth is hate to those who hate the truth."
    - Germar Rudolf
     
    , @boogerbently
    Minimally OT:

    "JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A Mississippi man with a prior criminal record was arrested Wednesday in the burning of an African-American church that was spray-painted with the words "Vote Trump," and the church's bishop said the man is a member of the congregation.

    The state fire marshal said investigators do not believe the fire was politically motivated."
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Speaking of IQ, even just IQ (without the nexus with race) is, socially, like wandering about nakes on the streets.

    If we don’t notice it much it’s because we stick around a limited circle of sites/blogs. Everywhere else, it’s exactly like that. Like if you undress yourself completely, go on the streets, and try to approach people saying “hello, how are you?”.

    The results is at least 40% of people are now unable to see what they see, i.e.: have been successfully hypnotized.

    Read More
    • Replies: @macilrae

    The results is at least 40% of people are now unable to see what they see, i.e.: have been successfully hypnotized.
     
    Yes, you do meet such hypnotized subjects stumbling about - but I fancy most respondents are just being cagey - this is one of a number of fields of academic study which you must avoid if you want to make a career in science.

    My suspicion is that the majority who declined to respond at all accept the reality.

    Extremely interesting article Dr Thompson - nobody can accuse you of stumbling - or 'bumping into the furniture'.

  5. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The prose style has been refined so as to banish both excitement and understanding.

    It just bespeaks of how soulless culture and the pursuit of knowledge have become.
    People author papers like video gamer “collect achievements”: it’s a routine.

    There’s no passion. No wide-scope ambition. It’s jobs, not works, let alone enterprise.
    Intelligence is meant to be shown by, as you say, making understanding a tougher process.
    Nothingness is dressed in intellispeak.

    And many books than it should be are becoming enlarged papers, or collections of the thereof.

    Pettiness is the imperative. Dealing with petty matters, looking for petty answers. The atomization of knowledge.
    It’s ugly.

    But I think it couldn’t be different, once all ethos and pathos have been vanished.

    Culture and knowledge (comprised of sciences) are under the tyranny of reason.
    100 years ago you ordinarily had scientists speaking of “spiritual” aims and elements, of “soul”.
    See the reasoning of, for one, Max Planck on the issue of God.

    Today they are like… machines. They don’t even realize their idolatry of reason is a cult, which blindfolds like all cults, or that reason represents a part of what was a complete human mind.

    They look like babies, and the sight is all the more odd as they believe their predecessors to be like children — those old people, with their irrational beliefs!

    So you read a paper, or go on Quora, and see these baby grown-ups mocking creationists: evolution is so obvious, they say.
    As if we could knew how what later evolved came into existence.

    Their theory of the Big Bang: there was Nothing, then it exploded.

    Papers reflect all of this.

    Read More
  6. jb says:

    A question: To the best of your knowledge, is there any dispute among people who study intelligence over the existence of the black-white IQ gap? Forget about the cause — genetics, culture, oppression, whatever — I’m just talking about the existence of a significant gap.

    To put it another way, would I be misleading anyone if I were to make the following statement:

    While there is dispute over the cause, there is near universal agreement among researchers who study intelligence that, to the best of our ability to measure intelligence, American blacks are less intelligent than American whites.

    To put it yet another way, is the gap universally accepted as a fact on the ground that needs to be explained? Or are there researchers who accept that intelligence exists and can to some degree be measured, yet who deny the existence of the gap?

    The reason I’m asking is that facts on the ground have consequences no matter how they got there. And it is always going to be easier to convince skeptics that the gap exists and has consequences, than that it exists, is genetic, and has consequences. I think for many purposes the easier argument is more than sufficient, and that there is little to be gained by championing the genetic explanation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    It's misleading as it stands. It should end "American blacks are on average less intelligent than American whites".
    , @Siberian Fox
    There's no serious scientific disagreement about the existence of the gap. There's less consensus about it being due to test bias, but nevertheless the fact that it is NOT due to test bias as psychometricians define it is still accepted in a way widespread enough for it to be in mainstream books for the amateurs such as http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/50-Great-Myths-of-Popular-Psychology.pdf (myth 15). Googling the authors (for example, Lilienfeld) should convince anyone but the most sectarian that they are not fringe or have any political axe to grind here.
    , @James Thompson
    Group differences are accepted by all those who have read the relevant literature. They differ somewhat in their opinions as to whether those differences have reduced in recent years. The general view is that they may have narrowed somewhat, but still remain substantial. It is slightly more complicated than that, because gap-narrowing at age 9 or 11 does not usually carry through to age 17. Some apparent gap-closing may be due to the re-norming of tests to reduce racial differences, so that is another complication.
    The big difference is how people attribute causes to group differences.
  7. Title: What IQ Researchers Really Think About Race and Intelligence

    [80 words of intro]

    “I am supposed to read a whole lot of stuff, and then distill it into a quickly consumed essence, a mere gulp of information”

    [another 350 words of intro]
    [now 450 words into a 1000 word piece]

    “So, what do intelligence researchers think about racial differences in intelligence?”

    I suggest you make it shorter :p

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Fair comment. Still shorter than reading the published papers though.
  8. dearieme says:
    @jb
    A question: To the best of your knowledge, is there any dispute among people who study intelligence over the existence of the black-white IQ gap? Forget about the cause -- genetics, culture, oppression, whatever -- I'm just talking about the existence of a significant gap.

    To put it another way, would I be misleading anyone if I were to make the following statement:


    While there is dispute over the cause, there is near universal agreement among researchers who study intelligence that, to the best of our ability to measure intelligence, American blacks are less intelligent than American whites.
     
    To put it yet another way, is the gap universally accepted as a fact on the ground that needs to be explained? Or are there researchers who accept that intelligence exists and can to some degree be measured, yet who deny the existence of the gap?

    The reason I'm asking is that facts on the ground have consequences no matter how they got there. And it is always going to be easier to convince skeptics that the gap exists and has consequences, than that it exists, is genetic, and has consequences. I think for many purposes the easier argument is more than sufficient, and that there is little to be gained by championing the genetic explanation.

    It’s misleading as it stands. It should end “American blacks are on average less intelligent than American whites”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jb
    <sigh> Yes, you're right. I keep forgetting that you can't count on people to implicitly understand when we are talking about averages. However I'm sure Dr.Thompson knows what I meant, and I'm hoping he'll chime in.

    Also, a link to a hyper-respectable mainstream review article that supported my assertion would be so nice. (The 50 Great Myths link is useful -- thanks Siberian Fox! -- but the formatting makes it look like it was illegally ripped off from somewhere, which undermines it). One problem is that I can't really point anyone to unz.com; the risk is that they'll start looking at the other articles (OMG!), which will, in their eyes at least, discredit both my claim and me personally.

  9. @jb
    A question: To the best of your knowledge, is there any dispute among people who study intelligence over the existence of the black-white IQ gap? Forget about the cause -- genetics, culture, oppression, whatever -- I'm just talking about the existence of a significant gap.

    To put it another way, would I be misleading anyone if I were to make the following statement:


    While there is dispute over the cause, there is near universal agreement among researchers who study intelligence that, to the best of our ability to measure intelligence, American blacks are less intelligent than American whites.
     
    To put it yet another way, is the gap universally accepted as a fact on the ground that needs to be explained? Or are there researchers who accept that intelligence exists and can to some degree be measured, yet who deny the existence of the gap?

    The reason I'm asking is that facts on the ground have consequences no matter how they got there. And it is always going to be easier to convince skeptics that the gap exists and has consequences, than that it exists, is genetic, and has consequences. I think for many purposes the easier argument is more than sufficient, and that there is little to be gained by championing the genetic explanation.

    There’s no serious scientific disagreement about the existence of the gap. There’s less consensus about it being due to test bias, but nevertheless the fact that it is NOT due to test bias as psychometricians define it is still accepted in a way widespread enough for it to be in mainstream books for the amateurs such as http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/50-Great-Myths-of-Popular-Psychology.pdf (myth 15). Googling the authors (for example, Lilienfeld) should convince anyone but the most sectarian that they are not fringe or have any political axe to grind here.

    Read More
  10. phil says:

    1. Asked to recite a series of digits in reverse order, blacks are not, on average, able to recite as long a series as whites.
    2. On average, blacks have smaller brains than whites.
    3. On average, blacks react more slowly to mental stimuli than whites.
    4. IQ is just as heritable among blacks as it is among whites.
    5. The black-white difference is greater for more g-loaded test questions, the responses to which are especially influenced by a person’s genes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    2. On average, blacks have smaller brains than whites.
     
    How great is this differences*

    I, if i remember, already read that white women tend to have similar brain size than black men..

    of course, white women or black men of what ethno-geographical procedence*
  11. Your weight in numbers IS NOT exactly what your weight is in the concrete/analytical reality, what it really is.

    Quantification, sometimes, can be understood as a ”summarize of the analysis”.

    Analysis (just the factual description of the perceived reality) trumps over mensurement or quantification.

    So, your IQ, or your intelligence in numbers, IS NOT exactly what your intelligence really is. Your IQ still is, in the not-so-same way, your weight still is or can reflect, in number/abstractions/symbols, your weight or intelligence SIZE.

    The size of your weight or of your intelligence is not the whole reality of both if both are not only their size.

    It’s like to reduce a entire human being/entity to their height size.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Mike Johnson
    Excellent analysis. unfortunately, we live in the age of quantity. Science decided a few centuries ago that only what we can measure exists and we ignore the rest. So we say that we know what a flower is because we know its weight and what its made of and that is all a flower is, the qualitative aspects are irrelevant because we can not measure it, this has created the reductionist perspective that has wreaked havoc on our natural environment in these last few centuries.

    "Modern persons in general cannot conceive of any other science than that of things that can be measured, counted, and weighed, in other words material things, since it is to these alone that the quantitative point of view can be applied; the claim to reduce quality to quantity is very typical of modern science. This tendency has reached the point of supposing that there can be no science, in the real meaning of the word, except where it is possible to introduce measurement, and that there can be no scientific laws except those that express quantitative relations. It is a tendency that arose with the mechanism of Descartes; since then it has become more and more pronounced, notwithstanding the rejection of Cartesian physics, for it is not bound up with any particular physical theory, but with a general conception of scientific knowledge. Today, attempts are made to apply measurement even in the psychological field, the very nature of which excludes such a method. The point has been reached of no longer understanding that the possibility of measurement derives from a quality inherent in matter, that is to say from its indefinite divisibility; or else it is thought that this quality is to be found in all that exists, which comes to the same as materializing everything. "

    "Under such conditions, industry is no longer merely an application of science, an application from which science should, in itself, remain completely independent; it has become the reason for, and justification of, science to such an extent that here too the normal relations between things have been reversed. What the modern world has striven after with all its strength, even when it has claimed in its own way to pursue science, is really nothing other than the development of industry and machinery; and in thus seeking to dominate matter and bend it to their service, men have only succeeded, as we said at the beginning of this book, in becoming its slaves. Not only have they limited their intellectual ambition-if such a term can still be used in the present state of things-to inventing and constructing machines, but they have ended by becoming in fact machines themselves. Indeed, it is not only scholars but also technicians and even workers who have to undergo the specialization that certain sociologists praise so highly under the name of 'division of labor'; and for the 'workers', it makes intelligent work quite impossible. Very different from the craftsmen of former times, they have become mere slaves of machines with which they may be said to form part of a single body. In a purely mechanical way they have constantly to repeat certain specific movements, which are always the same and always performed in the same way, so as to avoid the slightest loss of time; such at least is required by the most modern methods which are supposed to represent the most advanced stage of 'progress'. Indeed, the object is merely to produce as much as possible; quality matters little, it is quantity alone that is of importance, which brings us back once more to the remark we have already made in other contexts, namely, that modern civilization may truly be called a quantitative civilization, and this is merely another way of saying it is a material civilization."

    - Rene Guenon


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPArAiRp62k

    , @RaceRealist88
    "Your weight in numbers IS NOT exactly what your weight is in the concrete/analytical reality, what it really is."

    Do tell, what is then?
  12. @phil
    1. Asked to recite a series of digits in reverse order, blacks are not, on average, able to recite as long a series as whites.
    2. On average, blacks have smaller brains than whites.
    3. On average, blacks react more slowly to mental stimuli than whites.
    4. IQ is just as heritable among blacks as it is among whites.
    5. The black-white difference is greater for more g-loaded test questions, the responses to which are especially influenced by a person's genes.

    2. On average, blacks have smaller brains than whites.

    How great is this differences*

    I, if i remember, already read that white women tend to have similar brain size than black men..

    of course, white women or black men of what ethno-geographical procedence*

    Read More
    • Replies: @Siberian Fox
    " In studies by Rushton the difference between White adults and Black adults in cranial capacity is 43 cm^3, which corresponds to a d for cranial capacity of .46."

    From Human Intelligence, Earl Hunt's textbook. Given r with IQ is in the vicinity of .25, very little of the gap is explained by this, and the heritability of brain size, while high, is not 1.
    , @phil
    In the commonly used Smith-Beals data set of 20,000 skulls worldwide, East Asians averaged 1415 cubic centimeters of brain volume. Ethnic Europeans averaged 1362 cubic centimeters, and sub-Saharan Africans averaged 1268 cubic centimeters.
  13. @Anonymous
    Unfortunately, sample not quite convincingly large. But it's the first explicit study as far as I know.

    https://osf.io/z8dy5/

    Understandably. Were the names of respondents published, and their individual views?

    Read More
  14. jb says:
    @dearieme
    It's misleading as it stands. It should end "American blacks are on average less intelligent than American whites".

    <sigh> Yes, you’re right. I keep forgetting that you can’t count on people to implicitly understand when we are talking about averages. However I’m sure Dr.Thompson knows what I meant, and I’m hoping he’ll chime in.

    Also, a link to a hyper-respectable mainstream review article that supported my assertion would be so nice. (The 50 Great Myths link is useful — thanks Siberian Fox! — but the formatting makes it look like it was illegally ripped off from somewhere, which undermines it). One problem is that I can’t really point anyone to unz.com; the risk is that they’ll start looking at the other articles (OMG!), which will, in their eyes at least, discredit both my claim and me personally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Siberian Fox
    You can download a better formatted version here: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F45BD37E1B3C7C2E7B68B1F4EBD41F61

    Not sure if the mainstream statements after the Bell Curve serve your purposes
    http://www.intelligence.martinsewell.com/Gottfredson1997.pdf
    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/PP279_Neisser1.pdf

    ctrl+f 'bias' 'group differences' and 'African Americans' if you can't be bothered to check all. First has the problem that some googling will give you links outraged at how some of the authors had Pioneer Fund grants, but it is that better than isn't a hundreds pages tome by the sadly infamous Arthur Jensen on test bias.
    , @JackOH
    "One problem is that I can’t really point anyone to unz.com; the risk is that they’ll start looking at the other articles (OMG!), which will, in their eyes at least, discredit both my claim and me personally."

    jb, you're right that successfully introducing people to UR can be a challenge. I did it in a university newspaper, but it took some thought. A light touch, a bit of finesse, both suited to your personal circumstances, may do the trick.

    Thanks, Prof. Thompson, and welcome aboard.

  15. @Days of Broken Arrows
    If intelligence doesn't have some genetic component, then why do infertile couples pay money to acquire sperm from Ivy League men for artificial insemination? Why don't women with infertile husbands just have sex with any willing local bum at no charge?

    Also, why are sperm banks paying Ivy League men for donations? Why don't they just go to Skid Row or group homes for the mentally challenged and get the sperm there?

    The same goes for donating eggs -- for which college women get big bucks. Here is an article from Slate titled "Couples want donors to be smart, athletic, and good-looking." Notice the first word in that headline.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/egg_donation_study_couples_want_donors_to_be_smart_athletic_good_looking.html

    And yet I'll bet if you asked any of these couples (or any Slate reader) about IQ and genetics when they were among friends at a party, they'd deny any connection. Finally, nice to see a new columnist at Unz. This is a subject I'm glad is being addressed.

    Agree.

    There is a married adjunct math professor that is running around impregnating women on purpose. He has 22 children and most of the women are low-income black homosexuals. It would be interesting to see how the children turn out, test scores for example.

    The women act like the guy is an answer to their prayers when they could have easily gotten sperm from the neighborhood lothario. Anecdotally, I have noticed a pattern of black homosexual women using white sperm donors.

    http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/professor-who-donates-sperm-in-city-bathrooms-has-sired-22-kids/

    http://nypost.com/2016/06/19/sperm-donor-that-sired-22-kids-has-a-wife-and-shes-not-happy/

    Read More
  16. @jb
    <sigh> Yes, you're right. I keep forgetting that you can't count on people to implicitly understand when we are talking about averages. However I'm sure Dr.Thompson knows what I meant, and I'm hoping he'll chime in.

    Also, a link to a hyper-respectable mainstream review article that supported my assertion would be so nice. (The 50 Great Myths link is useful -- thanks Siberian Fox! -- but the formatting makes it look like it was illegally ripped off from somewhere, which undermines it). One problem is that I can't really point anyone to unz.com; the risk is that they'll start looking at the other articles (OMG!), which will, in their eyes at least, discredit both my claim and me personally.

    You can download a better formatted version here: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F45BD37E1B3C7C2E7B68B1F4EBD41F61

    Not sure if the mainstream statements after the Bell Curve serve your purposes

    http://www.intelligence.martinsewell.com/Gottfredson1997.pdf

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/PP279_Neisser1.pdf

    ctrl+f ‘bias’ ‘group differences’ and ‘African Americans’ if you can’t be bothered to check all. First has the problem that some googling will give you links outraged at how some of the authors had Pioneer Fund grants, but it is that better than isn’t a hundreds pages tome by the sadly infamous Arthur Jensen on test bias.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jb
    Thanks! I've seen both those links, but they both have the problem of being associated with people who hold a hereditarian position, and thus will be suspect in the minds of naive followers of the conventional wisdom. I had in mind something more like this NYT op-ed by Richard Nisbett, who denies that the gap is genetic (well it is the New York Times!), but acknowledges that a gap exists!

    What would be perfect would be an accessible multi-author paper in a reputable journal that explicitly states that the existence and approximate size of the black/white IQ gap are not in dispute, not even by those who reject a genetic explanation for the gap. If you can demonstrate that even the "good guys" agree that there is a gap, then you can move on to talking about the consequences of the gap for public policy and so on. Sometimes (many times actually!) that is all you really want to do.

  17. @Santoculto

    2. On average, blacks have smaller brains than whites.
     
    How great is this differences*

    I, if i remember, already read that white women tend to have similar brain size than black men..

    of course, white women or black men of what ethno-geographical procedence*

    ” In studies by Rushton the difference between White adults and Black adults in cranial capacity is 43 cm^3, which corresponds to a d for cranial capacity of .46.”

    From Human Intelligence, Earl Hunt’s textbook. Given r with IQ is in the vicinity of .25, very little of the gap is explained by this, and the heritability of brain size, while high, is not 1.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I think personality types and specially more- ethnically-specific personality types contribute to explain a lot about cognitive differences instead I know there are that cognitive differences too. Ethnically specific personality types increase this differences. This ethnically specific personality types may explain in parts why blacks and whites with same IQ range tend to have relatively different socio-behavioral trends.
  18. jb says:
    @Siberian Fox
    You can download a better formatted version here: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F45BD37E1B3C7C2E7B68B1F4EBD41F61

    Not sure if the mainstream statements after the Bell Curve serve your purposes
    http://www.intelligence.martinsewell.com/Gottfredson1997.pdf
    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/PP279_Neisser1.pdf

    ctrl+f 'bias' 'group differences' and 'African Americans' if you can't be bothered to check all. First has the problem that some googling will give you links outraged at how some of the authors had Pioneer Fund grants, but it is that better than isn't a hundreds pages tome by the sadly infamous Arthur Jensen on test bias.

    Thanks! I’ve seen both those links, but they both have the problem of being associated with people who hold a hereditarian position, and thus will be suspect in the minds of naive followers of the conventional wisdom. I had in mind something more like this NYT op-ed by Richard Nisbett, who denies that the gap is genetic (well it is the New York Times!), but acknowledges that a gap exists!

    What would be perfect would be an accessible multi-author paper in a reputable journal that explicitly states that the existence and approximate size of the black/white IQ gap are not in dispute, not even by those who reject a genetic explanation for the gap. If you can demonstrate that even the “good guys” agree that there is a gap, then you can move on to talking about the consequences of the gap for public policy and so on. Sometimes (many times actually!) that is all you really want to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "I had in mind something more like this NYT op-ed by Richard Nisbett, who denies that the gap is genetic (well it is the New York Times!), but acknowledges that a gap exists!"

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/21/refuting-richard-nisbett/
    , @Tom Cobley-Hobbes
    You could cite James R. Flynn. He has impeccable Lefty credentials (hard Left, he describes himself as a Marxist), and has spent 40+ years devising arguments that emphasize environment over genes in IQ. He admits the gap exists, and attempts to ascribe it to culture, parenting, etc., rather than genes. He's published data to argue that the black-white IQ gap is narrowing: http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/dickens2006a.pdf

    Even in the above-linked article, designed to show the gap shrinking, the gap after the shrinkage remains pretty large, and projecting forward, it seems the gap's going to be around for many years yet.

    Over the years, Flynn's study of the environmental factors affecting IQ has led to the conclusion that most of the usual suspects matter very little. This has left him with parenting as the last environmental factor of potentially big effect that hasn't been ruled out. So, he's forced to hail Chinese and Jewish parents as being very good at nurturing their children's academic potential, and damning African-American parents as being poor at that task: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/27/james-flynn-race-iq-myths-does-your-family-make-you-smarter
  19. Allusions to the problems generated in “climate science” are the tip of the iceberg.

    Fads and fashions are obviously expressions of the human propensity to herd or flock. Fads in scientific inquiry are every bit the same as popular political policies.

    In the 1970′s we were treated to pervasive Malthusian concepts (the Club of Rome stuff and the Paul Erlich-Julian Simon debate were great examples) and under socionomic theory this is exactly what you’d expect when social mood, measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average, was well into a bearish phase.

    Interest in eugenics undoubtedly experienced a surge during the 1970′s, too, notwithstanding the echoes of good-feels from the Civil Rights Era (which took place at the end of a massive upswing in social mood.)

    Today’s resurgence of interest in innate biological differences (including intelligence and its heritability) coincides with a period of mixed social mood. While barometers of social mood like the stock market are at all time highs, other “sociometers” are clearly in bear market territory. Under these conditions we’d expect lots of controversy, and we have it.

    Since social mood exhibits a clear pattern of ups and downs, and we’ve been in a massive “up” for a very long time (since around 1980), the embrace of “we can do anything” is vast, reflected by vehement social rejection of limits such as templates like IQ and its relationship to things we can’t change.

    Unless nature has been repealed, stocks will eventually experience a bear market commensurate with the bull market that preceded it. This will coincide with an equally large bear market in social mood, which will be characterized by the same kinds of thinking that was popular in the 1970′s (and the 1930′s.)

    Today’s popular rejection of the heritability of socially challenging attributes will be overturned, and a resurgence of belief in the relative immutability of people as they are will in all likelihood become very entrenched.

    HBD, the heritability of intelligence and such are slated to be very, very popular again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @boogerbently
    "HBD, the heritability of intelligence and such are slated to be very, very popular again."

    After how many more low IQ immigrants are imported ?
    Lower IQ, higher crime, more govt dependence.

    We have enough of them in our native population, already.
  20. Numinous says:

    Why does a genetic basis for intelligence necessarily imply that there must be a racial basis for intelligence, as many commenters here state?

    When I look at people with dark skin, it is easy to believe that there is a “dark skin gene”. When I look at people who have epicanthic folds, it is easy to believe that there is an “epicanthic fold gene”. When I observe lactose tolerance in people, it is easy to believe that there is a “lactose tolerance gene”. And when I observe certain people easily breathing in rarefied high altitudes, it is easy to believe there is a “high altitude adaptation gene”. And genetic research seems to bear these observations out.

    But “intelligent” people occur in all racial groups, all ethicities, and all regions. (It is not possible to look at a person and determine if he is smart or dumb.) Sure, the percentages may vary. But plain observation, and Occam’s razor, would lead me to conclude that if there is an “intelligence gene”, it has to be cross-racial (or orthogonal to race), rather than race-specific. So it is perfectly fair to assume that an Ivy League grad’s children will turn out to be smart without concluding that anyone (or most people) sharing that grad’s racial phenotype will also be smart.

    Without more solid biological evidence, what is the value in a survey of the kind reported in this blog post? As genetics researchers, the survey respondents are coming at the topic with a view that intelligence has a genetic basis. Their tests may convince them one way or the other, but they are predisposed to assuming that anything and everything may have a genetic basis. Just as a psychoanalyst would assume that any and every behavior mush have a Freudian basis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Is everybody with black skin color the same shade of black? Does everybody with lactose intolerance have the exact same symptoms for the exact same intake of milk?

    These things take the form a distribution that is still noticeable. For whatever reason, some societies needed and developed a more (what we would call) IQ intensive way of living. However it is still a distribution and intelligence isn't just one simple trait so it's distribution is more complex and shows more overlap. Intelligence isn't race specific. It is just that certain races developed in places where intelligence counted for more so those groups tend to have higher averages.
    , @Siberian Fox
    Replace your examples of monogenic traits like lactose tolerance or traits regulated by few genes such as skin color by a vastly polygenic trait such as height and you might think more clearly about this. We know intelligence and heigh are vastly polygenic, and some differences between populations in height are genetic. Doesn't change Yao Ming comes from a population of low average height or anything else. Just no a priori reason intelligence is different from other polygenic traits in this regard.
    , @D. K.
    Where may I talk to this strawman of yours who contends that there is "an 'intelligence gene'" that determines an individual's intelligence, for which individual trait his properly determined IQ score would be a valid and reliable psychometric measure?
    , @res

    Why does a genetic basis for intelligence necessarily imply that there must be a racial basis for intelligence, as many commenters here state?
     
    I don't know about "must" (using words like that tends to result in a strawman argument, not sure if that was your intent), but I see some good reasons to believe the combination of intelligence being highly heritable within races and the presence of persistent average IQ gaps between some races implies there is likely to be a genetic component to the average IQ differences between races.

    First, we know with confidence:
    - Average IQ differs between some races (e.g. Asians, Blacks, Whites).
    - SNP frequencies differ between these races.
    - IQ is highly heritable within races.
    - Some SNPs related it IQ have been identified and explain a small portion of the heritability.
    Given those, it seems unlikely that average IQ based on genetics is unlikely to be exactly equal between all races (keep in mind it is possible to get similar results with different genes, for example the differing Tibetan and Andean high altitude traits).

    The persistence of the racial gaps in average IQ are suggestive. For example, these gaps appear across many cultures and environments in a (mostly?) consistent fashion. Another example is the observation that highest SES US blacks have SAT scores comparable to lowest SES US Whites. When we see results like this appear so consistently it suggests an underlying common cause and genetics is a parsimonious explanation.

    One difficulty (see Chanda Chisala's work here at the Unz Review) is there appear to be more high performing Blacks than would be expected by a naive extrapolation from group IQ averages and standard deviations. I tend to attribute this to three causes (Chanda has a very different conclusion though):
    - Selection effects. Given that there are a billion Africans it is reasonable to suspect a selection effect for IQ in African immigrants to the West. Another example of this is studying Blacks in the US military who have been screened for AFQT scores and other characteristics. I believe it is necessary to test for this empirically, but taboos make it hard to do this.
    - High performing subgroups (e.g. the Igbo). I have yet to see a good fine grained study looking at average IQs of the different African tribes, but this seems a parsimonious explanation for much of what we see. To understand this it helps to be aware that relatively small differences in average IQ can have a large effect on the proportion of high IQ individuals (because the slope of the normal curve is very steep out past 3 SD).
    - Genetic admixture with higher performing groups. This is not relevant in Chanda's work AFAICT, but appears in other contexts.
    So, if these possible causes are correct, the second and third, actually support rather than refute a genetic contribution. The first is simply orthogonal to the question, but serves as an alternative explanation for Chanda's observations.

    And lastly (and in great flux with new research):
    If you look at the known SNPs related to IQ you will generally observe that there are different distributions within the races. When I have done this the ordering is usually (but not always) consistent with an Asian, White, Black ordering for higher average IQ. Anyone interested in this might want to take a look at Dr. Thompson's earlier post: http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2016/04/genetics-of-racial-differences-in.html

    But despite the suggestive data, I think from the scientific point of point of view we can't consider things to be conclusive yet. But I also think the interesting question is not yes/no, rather "how much" as in Dr. Thompson's survey question.
    , @Max Blancke
    Any genetic issue is complicated, and this one doubly so. Even the concept of intelligence itself is not easily defined. The most sensible explanation for the achievement gap is that it is about a number of factors that influence learning and behavior, especially impulse control. But even that, while a heritable trait, can be overcome culturally. Almost any person can achieve what others do, although it may come with more effort.
    As to your last point, I see all this through the lens of an Industrial Archaeologist. I see the world in terms of technologies shared or developed over time, and people's ability to develop available resources. Some groups of people live in hostile environments with few resources and consistently thrive, while others starve in areas with abundant resources and agreeable weather. Exactly why those in the second group consistently fail becomes the big question.
  21. MarkinLA says:
    @Numinous
    Why does a genetic basis for intelligence necessarily imply that there must be a racial basis for intelligence, as many commenters here state?

    When I look at people with dark skin, it is easy to believe that there is a "dark skin gene". When I look at people who have epicanthic folds, it is easy to believe that there is an "epicanthic fold gene". When I observe lactose tolerance in people, it is easy to believe that there is a "lactose tolerance gene". And when I observe certain people easily breathing in rarefied high altitudes, it is easy to believe there is a "high altitude adaptation gene". And genetic research seems to bear these observations out.

    But "intelligent" people occur in all racial groups, all ethicities, and all regions. (It is not possible to look at a person and determine if he is smart or dumb.) Sure, the percentages may vary. But plain observation, and Occam's razor, would lead me to conclude that if there is an "intelligence gene", it has to be cross-racial (or orthogonal to race), rather than race-specific. So it is perfectly fair to assume that an Ivy League grad's children will turn out to be smart without concluding that anyone (or most people) sharing that grad's racial phenotype will also be smart.

    Without more solid biological evidence, what is the value in a survey of the kind reported in this blog post? As genetics researchers, the survey respondents are coming at the topic with a view that intelligence has a genetic basis. Their tests may convince them one way or the other, but they are predisposed to assuming that anything and everything may have a genetic basis. Just as a psychoanalyst would assume that any and every behavior mush have a Freudian basis.

    Is everybody with black skin color the same shade of black? Does everybody with lactose intolerance have the exact same symptoms for the exact same intake of milk?

    These things take the form a distribution that is still noticeable. For whatever reason, some societies needed and developed a more (what we would call) IQ intensive way of living. However it is still a distribution and intelligence isn’t just one simple trait so it’s distribution is more complex and shows more overlap. Intelligence isn’t race specific. It is just that certain races developed in places where intelligence counted for more so those groups tend to have higher averages.

    Read More
  22. @Siberian Fox
    " In studies by Rushton the difference between White adults and Black adults in cranial capacity is 43 cm^3, which corresponds to a d for cranial capacity of .46."

    From Human Intelligence, Earl Hunt's textbook. Given r with IQ is in the vicinity of .25, very little of the gap is explained by this, and the heritability of brain size, while high, is not 1.

    I think personality types and specially more- ethnically-specific personality types contribute to explain a lot about cognitive differences instead I know there are that cognitive differences too. Ethnically specific personality types increase this differences. This ethnically specific personality types may explain in parts why blacks and whites with same IQ range tend to have relatively different socio-behavioral trends.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Siberian Fox
    Well, that and hereditarianism would match the finding of culturally loaded tests being more heritable, should that finding ever be replicated. Implies a good part of the differential is active rGE with a lot of complexity around how much can be realistically changed.
  23. @Santoculto
    I think personality types and specially more- ethnically-specific personality types contribute to explain a lot about cognitive differences instead I know there are that cognitive differences too. Ethnically specific personality types increase this differences. This ethnically specific personality types may explain in parts why blacks and whites with same IQ range tend to have relatively different socio-behavioral trends.

    Well, that and hereditarianism would match the finding of culturally loaded tests being more heritable, should that finding ever be replicated. Implies a good part of the differential is active rGE with a lot of complexity around how much can be realistically changed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Error, i don't think ethnic-personality types explain COGNITIVE differences, specially the least culturally loaded TESTS, but no doubt explain this differences in the same IQ range as well ''functionality'' in human societies.
  24. @Numinous
    Why does a genetic basis for intelligence necessarily imply that there must be a racial basis for intelligence, as many commenters here state?

    When I look at people with dark skin, it is easy to believe that there is a "dark skin gene". When I look at people who have epicanthic folds, it is easy to believe that there is an "epicanthic fold gene". When I observe lactose tolerance in people, it is easy to believe that there is a "lactose tolerance gene". And when I observe certain people easily breathing in rarefied high altitudes, it is easy to believe there is a "high altitude adaptation gene". And genetic research seems to bear these observations out.

    But "intelligent" people occur in all racial groups, all ethicities, and all regions. (It is not possible to look at a person and determine if he is smart or dumb.) Sure, the percentages may vary. But plain observation, and Occam's razor, would lead me to conclude that if there is an "intelligence gene", it has to be cross-racial (or orthogonal to race), rather than race-specific. So it is perfectly fair to assume that an Ivy League grad's children will turn out to be smart without concluding that anyone (or most people) sharing that grad's racial phenotype will also be smart.

    Without more solid biological evidence, what is the value in a survey of the kind reported in this blog post? As genetics researchers, the survey respondents are coming at the topic with a view that intelligence has a genetic basis. Their tests may convince them one way or the other, but they are predisposed to assuming that anything and everything may have a genetic basis. Just as a psychoanalyst would assume that any and every behavior mush have a Freudian basis.

    Replace your examples of monogenic traits like lactose tolerance or traits regulated by few genes such as skin color by a vastly polygenic trait such as height and you might think more clearly about this. We know intelligence and heigh are vastly polygenic, and some differences between populations in height are genetic. Doesn’t change Yao Ming comes from a population of low average height or anything else. Just no a priori reason intelligence is different from other polygenic traits in this regard.

    Read More
  25. D. K. says:
    @Numinous
    Why does a genetic basis for intelligence necessarily imply that there must be a racial basis for intelligence, as many commenters here state?

    When I look at people with dark skin, it is easy to believe that there is a "dark skin gene". When I look at people who have epicanthic folds, it is easy to believe that there is an "epicanthic fold gene". When I observe lactose tolerance in people, it is easy to believe that there is a "lactose tolerance gene". And when I observe certain people easily breathing in rarefied high altitudes, it is easy to believe there is a "high altitude adaptation gene". And genetic research seems to bear these observations out.

    But "intelligent" people occur in all racial groups, all ethicities, and all regions. (It is not possible to look at a person and determine if he is smart or dumb.) Sure, the percentages may vary. But plain observation, and Occam's razor, would lead me to conclude that if there is an "intelligence gene", it has to be cross-racial (or orthogonal to race), rather than race-specific. So it is perfectly fair to assume that an Ivy League grad's children will turn out to be smart without concluding that anyone (or most people) sharing that grad's racial phenotype will also be smart.

    Without more solid biological evidence, what is the value in a survey of the kind reported in this blog post? As genetics researchers, the survey respondents are coming at the topic with a view that intelligence has a genetic basis. Their tests may convince them one way or the other, but they are predisposed to assuming that anything and everything may have a genetic basis. Just as a psychoanalyst would assume that any and every behavior mush have a Freudian basis.

    Where may I talk to this strawman of yours who contends that there is “an ‘intelligence gene’” that determines an individual’s intelligence, for which individual trait his properly determined IQ score would be a valid and reliable psychometric measure?

    Read More
  26. @Siberian Fox
    Well, that and hereditarianism would match the finding of culturally loaded tests being more heritable, should that finding ever be replicated. Implies a good part of the differential is active rGE with a lot of complexity around how much can be realistically changed.

    Error, i don’t think ethnic-personality types explain COGNITIVE differences, specially the least culturally loaded TESTS, but no doubt explain this differences in the same IQ range as well ”functionality” in human societies.

    Read More
  27. zyezek says:

    There are a couple serious issues with this:

    1) American “black” people are not a monolithic group. Recent legal immigrants from Nigeria are as different (culturally AND likely genetically) from direct slave descendants in the USA as Englishmen & Italians are.

    2) Things like IQ tests can tell you if there is, empirically, a measurement “gap” between subsets of the population (and not just ones selected by racial criteria). However, the measurements themselves are dubious, and so any science you do with many of them will suffer from “garbage in, garbage out”.

    Now, we can probably agree that intelligence is a trait with a significant genetic component. But a core premise of this whole arena of thinking appears to be that raw brainpower is central to human affairs. I find that premise itself to be defective. The core problem isn’t that people are different, that brainpower is at least partially inherited, or that racial gaps on such things are real & should not be taboo to speak of. No, it is the underlying notion that intelligence has some inherent moral dimension, that ‘smarter’ people are entitled to more power & influence in society than everybody else, that one race being overall ‘smarter’ than another makes them superior. BOTH extremes in this space share that poisonous root premise, without which research along this lines would be no more ideologically fraught than that into height & weight variation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    If IQ tests are merely psychometric "garbage," why do their results correlate so highly with each other, as well as with real-life outcomes, like academic success, occupational success and income?
    , @Santoculto
    Civilization is the progressive process of cognitification of human mind than psychologicalization.

    More "smarter" would be more interest in non-"people" things. More cognitive in their thinking processes than psychological/intuitive.

    And the process of cognitification, changing a full human/being into a domesticated organic robot-worker also tend to result in the evolutionary atomization, when highly abstract intelligent minds start to despise "common" sense or concrete and obvious facts about interpersonal reality.

    Too much cognitification result into a sophisticated techno-slave/house-serv. Too much psychologicalization result into a irrational clever, drained by their instinctive/emotional responses, smart to act, dumb to think. Or a emotional beast or a unemotional robot. Or wisdom.
    , @lavoisier
    Being of higher intelligence does not necessarily make you better than someone of lower intelligence. But higher intelligence does give you certain advantages in being able to master cognitively demanding subjects. This ability is likely critical to being able to achieve a measure of power and influence in an advanced civilization. The right to that power comes from this ability. Without this ability, you are unlikely to gain much power or influence in that society.
    , @res

    that one race being overall ‘smarter’ than another makes them superior
     
    I believe this is the crux of most of the controversy.

    First response, it does (in one trait). It makes them have superior average IQ. This has important societal implications both in terms of average abilities and likely abilities of the best. Now on to the other million relevant aspects of being human. Being 'smarter' does not make someone a superior human being. I think we all have our own different mental scorecards for that. Also important to note that group average IQ differences do not imply that all members of one group have an IQ superior to that of all members of another group. If that is your instinctive reaction then please take a statistics class and learn about probability distributions and what "average" means (please excuse the pun).

    Second response, just as having more fast twitch muscles on average makes a population superior at average (and likely top) sprinting ability. Or being taller on average makes a population have superior height. Or ...
    One of my least favorite things about these "superiority" conversations is often the most vehement opponents of group differences in IQ are quick to trumpet their group's superiority in other things (e.g. sports, music). It's just more Who, Whom? (if you don't get this, read Steve Sailer).

    I always find it interesting that some people actually consider noting that IQ is not everything is a rebuttal of the existence of group differences in average IQ.

    But a core premise of this whole arena of thinking appears to be that raw brainpower is central to human affairs. I find that premise itself to be defective.
     
    I guess that depends on your definition of central. Would you disagree that it is important? What are your candidates for things that are more important? One of mine would be language. Being able to communicate effectively, for example speak, read, and write well, is critical to human affairs (but is this unrelated to IQ?). Another would be the ability to cooperate (but is this unrelated to language?).

    BOTH extremes in this space share that poisonous root premise
     
    Really. Nice to see that you can read all of our minds. Now that would be a valuable skill to have. Does that make you superior?
    , @europeasant
    You are right. It is the fertility rate that ultimately triumphs.
  28. EH says:

    Nice to see you here, Dr. Thompson.

    I don’t get the unquestioned presumption that the Western environment would depress Black scores below what they otherwise would be, obviously the Western environment is quite a bit better than what Blacks manage in Africa, so if environment has any effect it should be to increase Black scores. Some have pointed out that just because adult intelligence is over 70% heritable, it doesn’t mean that the origins of group differences are genetic, and while this is technically true, it’s overwhelmingly likely that the differences between groups are also genetic to at least a similar degree, with individuals you get a lot more noise from chance developmental occurrences than you do with two groups of tens or hundreds of millions of people, and given that the two groups are defined by not being related to each other in any way for about 200,000 years while they lived in and adapted to very different environments, it would not be surprising if the group differences were entirely genetic while any pair of individuals from the two groups would often differ to a considerable extent for random / non-shared environmental reasons.

    It is possible that the differences between groups are almost entirely genetic, the White and Black environments in the West not being much different, but that Blacks in their native environment do worse than they do in the West, and in such an instance the amount of difference accounted for by genetics is lower.

    But what no one has pointed out is that it’s even possible that more than all the gap is due to genetics, with the better Western environment counteracting the worse African genetics to a degree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    it’s overwhelmingly likely that the differences between groups are also genetic to at least a similar degree, with individuals you get a lot more noise from chance developmental occurrences than you do with two groups of tens or hundreds of millions of people, and given that the two groups are defined by not being related to each other in any way for about 200,000 years while they lived in and adapted to very different environments, it would not be surprising if the group differences were entirely genetic while any pair of individuals from the two groups would often differ to a considerable extent for random / non-shared environmental reasons.
     
    This is an interesting argument I had not seen before. I tend to view the 70% heritability number as a likely upper bound for the genetic contribution to group differences (reasoning being that environmental differences are probably larger between groups than within groups, similar to your "and in such an instance the amount of difference accounted for by genetics is lower."), but find your argument compelling and need to think about it some more. There is definitely something to be said for aggregation smoothing out noise.
  29. JackOH says:
    @jb
    <sigh> Yes, you're right. I keep forgetting that you can't count on people to implicitly understand when we are talking about averages. However I'm sure Dr.Thompson knows what I meant, and I'm hoping he'll chime in.

    Also, a link to a hyper-respectable mainstream review article that supported my assertion would be so nice. (The 50 Great Myths link is useful -- thanks Siberian Fox! -- but the formatting makes it look like it was illegally ripped off from somewhere, which undermines it). One problem is that I can't really point anyone to unz.com; the risk is that they'll start looking at the other articles (OMG!), which will, in their eyes at least, discredit both my claim and me personally.

    “One problem is that I can’t really point anyone to unz.com; the risk is that they’ll start looking at the other articles (OMG!), which will, in their eyes at least, discredit both my claim and me personally.”

    jb, you’re right that successfully introducing people to UR can be a challenge. I did it in a university newspaper, but it took some thought. A light touch, a bit of finesse, both suited to your personal circumstances, may do the trick.

    Thanks, Prof. Thompson, and welcome aboard.

    Read More
  30. D. K. says:
    @zyezek
    There are a couple serious issues with this:

    1) American "black" people are not a monolithic group. Recent legal immigrants from Nigeria are as different (culturally AND likely genetically) from direct slave descendants in the USA as Englishmen & Italians are.

    2) Things like IQ tests can tell you if there is, empirically, a measurement "gap" between subsets of the population (and not just ones selected by racial criteria). However, the measurements themselves are dubious, and so any science you do with many of them will suffer from "garbage in, garbage out".

    Now, we can probably agree that intelligence is a trait with a significant genetic component. But a core premise of this whole arena of thinking appears to be that raw brainpower is central to human affairs. I find that premise itself to be defective. The core problem isn't that people are different, that brainpower is at least partially inherited, or that racial gaps on such things are real & should not be taboo to speak of. No, it is the underlying notion that intelligence has some inherent moral dimension, that 'smarter' people are entitled to more power & influence in society than everybody else, that one race being overall 'smarter' than another makes them superior. BOTH extremes in this space share that poisonous root premise, without which research along this lines would be no more ideologically fraught than that into height & weight variation.

    If IQ tests are merely psychometric “garbage,” why do their results correlate so highly with each other, as well as with real-life outcomes, like academic success, occupational success and income?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Because IQ measure cognitive skills, partially but efficient way... and cognitive skills are fundamental to the replicational occupations, i mean, ''learn'' the technique and apply it correctly.

    And as cognition is one of the basis of the intelligence, so IQ tend to correlates a lot with many things, because it's the best mental game of all, still a mental game.

    IQ = intelligence theory is for dummies, people who avoid the complexity of this subject and like to use the excuse ''Occam razor'', ;)
  31. @zyezek
    There are a couple serious issues with this:

    1) American "black" people are not a monolithic group. Recent legal immigrants from Nigeria are as different (culturally AND likely genetically) from direct slave descendants in the USA as Englishmen & Italians are.

    2) Things like IQ tests can tell you if there is, empirically, a measurement "gap" between subsets of the population (and not just ones selected by racial criteria). However, the measurements themselves are dubious, and so any science you do with many of them will suffer from "garbage in, garbage out".

    Now, we can probably agree that intelligence is a trait with a significant genetic component. But a core premise of this whole arena of thinking appears to be that raw brainpower is central to human affairs. I find that premise itself to be defective. The core problem isn't that people are different, that brainpower is at least partially inherited, or that racial gaps on such things are real & should not be taboo to speak of. No, it is the underlying notion that intelligence has some inherent moral dimension, that 'smarter' people are entitled to more power & influence in society than everybody else, that one race being overall 'smarter' than another makes them superior. BOTH extremes in this space share that poisonous root premise, without which research along this lines would be no more ideologically fraught than that into height & weight variation.

    Civilization is the progressive process of cognitification of human mind than psychologicalization.

    More “smarter” would be more interest in non-”people” things. More cognitive in their thinking processes than psychological/intuitive.

    And the process of cognitification, changing a full human/being into a domesticated organic robot-worker also tend to result in the evolutionary atomization, when highly abstract intelligent minds start to despise “common” sense or concrete and obvious facts about interpersonal reality.

    Too much cognitification result into a sophisticated techno-slave/house-serv. Too much psychologicalization result into a irrational clever, drained by their instinctive/emotional responses, smart to act, dumb to think. Or a emotional beast or a unemotional robot. Or wisdom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    Civilization is the progressive process of cognitification of human mind than psychologicalization.
     
    That was gibberish.
  32. phil says:
    @Santoculto

    2. On average, blacks have smaller brains than whites.
     
    How great is this differences*

    I, if i remember, already read that white women tend to have similar brain size than black men..

    of course, white women or black men of what ethno-geographical procedence*

    In the commonly used Smith-Beals data set of 20,000 skulls worldwide, East Asians averaged 1415 cubic centimeters of brain volume. Ethnic Europeans averaged 1362 cubic centimeters, and sub-Saharan Africans averaged 1268 cubic centimeters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Ok, This comparative measurement seems varies a lot.
  33. lavoisier says: • Website
    @zyezek
    There are a couple serious issues with this:

    1) American "black" people are not a monolithic group. Recent legal immigrants from Nigeria are as different (culturally AND likely genetically) from direct slave descendants in the USA as Englishmen & Italians are.

    2) Things like IQ tests can tell you if there is, empirically, a measurement "gap" between subsets of the population (and not just ones selected by racial criteria). However, the measurements themselves are dubious, and so any science you do with many of them will suffer from "garbage in, garbage out".

    Now, we can probably agree that intelligence is a trait with a significant genetic component. But a core premise of this whole arena of thinking appears to be that raw brainpower is central to human affairs. I find that premise itself to be defective. The core problem isn't that people are different, that brainpower is at least partially inherited, or that racial gaps on such things are real & should not be taboo to speak of. No, it is the underlying notion that intelligence has some inherent moral dimension, that 'smarter' people are entitled to more power & influence in society than everybody else, that one race being overall 'smarter' than another makes them superior. BOTH extremes in this space share that poisonous root premise, without which research along this lines would be no more ideologically fraught than that into height & weight variation.

    Being of higher intelligence does not necessarily make you better than someone of lower intelligence. But higher intelligence does give you certain advantages in being able to master cognitively demanding subjects. This ability is likely critical to being able to achieve a measure of power and influence in an advanced civilization. The right to that power comes from this ability. Without this ability, you are unlikely to gain much power or influence in that society.

    Read More
  34. Ramona says:
    @Days of Broken Arrows
    If intelligence doesn't have some genetic component, then why do infertile couples pay money to acquire sperm from Ivy League men for artificial insemination? Why don't women with infertile husbands just have sex with any willing local bum at no charge?

    Also, why are sperm banks paying Ivy League men for donations? Why don't they just go to Skid Row or group homes for the mentally challenged and get the sperm there?

    The same goes for donating eggs -- for which college women get big bucks. Here is an article from Slate titled "Couples want donors to be smart, athletic, and good-looking." Notice the first word in that headline.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/egg_donation_study_couples_want_donors_to_be_smart_athletic_good_looking.html

    And yet I'll bet if you asked any of these couples (or any Slate reader) about IQ and genetics when they were among friends at a party, they'd deny any connection. Finally, nice to see a new columnist at Unz. This is a subject I'm glad is being addressed.

    It’s done with crops and animals. Selective breeding can modify, perhaps for the better, specific features. There is no mystery to it.

    The question is if IQ is indeed being targeted. Accomplished people are generally speaking hardworking and not particularly intelligent. I have spent my entire life in the academia and it still breaks my heart to see how little the collective acumen of faculty amounts to the world over.

    And, let us not fooled ourselves here, there are plenty of intelligent people that amount to nothing at all.

    Read More
  35. @Days of Broken Arrows
    If intelligence doesn't have some genetic component, then why do infertile couples pay money to acquire sperm from Ivy League men for artificial insemination? Why don't women with infertile husbands just have sex with any willing local bum at no charge?

    Also, why are sperm banks paying Ivy League men for donations? Why don't they just go to Skid Row or group homes for the mentally challenged and get the sperm there?

    The same goes for donating eggs -- for which college women get big bucks. Here is an article from Slate titled "Couples want donors to be smart, athletic, and good-looking." Notice the first word in that headline.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/egg_donation_study_couples_want_donors_to_be_smart_athletic_good_looking.html

    And yet I'll bet if you asked any of these couples (or any Slate reader) about IQ and genetics when they were among friends at a party, they'd deny any connection. Finally, nice to see a new columnist at Unz. This is a subject I'm glad is being addressed.

    If intelligence doesn’t have some genetic component,

    Define intelligence.

    then why do infertile couples pay money to acquire sperm from Ivy League men for artificial insemination?

    Because they’ve been duped to think Ivy League men are something special. How would you like it if one of yours got sperm from, say, George Bush?

    Why don’t women with infertile husbands just have sex with any willing local bum at no charge?

    Have you noticed what women are often attracted to?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    FYI according to those military tests he took while in the national guard, George Bush has an IQ of 125, which is classified as very bright. It's only 5 points below 130 which is gifted.

    Plus he has Regular, well proportioned handsome features and is neither bald not fat at his age.

    Given his looks and PROVEN IQ, he is excellent breeding stock, whether you like him or not.

  36. For once, a decent article about “IQ.”

    First off, I notice that a good definition of “intelligence” is sorely lacking all around.

    Second, this smells of the old nature-nurture debate which should have been settled decades ago.

    Third, too many people think that something labelled IQ actually measures general intelligence. Hint: Sometimes labels are misleading.

    Fourth, most here seem to think higher is better, and that better means more entitled.

    Fifth, there happen to be a lot of quacks in “academia.” It doesn’t appear that too many commenters here are very particular about which quack’s opinion (not even a theory) they subscribe to.

    Sixth, almost a century ago, people understood that extrapolating concepts from “IQ” tests to general statements is highly error prone. Some even wrote about it. Here’s one, and he warn’t no dummy.:

    “One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.

    - Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov15-00297

    “And in the meantime the psychologists will save themselves from the reproach of having opened up a new chance for quackery in a field where quacks breed like rabbits, and they will save themselves from the humiliation of having furnished doped evidence to the exponents of the New Snobbery.

    Walter Lippmann, A Future for the Tests, The New Republic
    , November 29, 1922, pp. 9-10

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov29-00009

    “3. This benefit [of the tests] is in great danger of being offset by dangerous abuse if the claims of the intelligence testers are not purged of certain fundamental assumptions.

    4. The most important of these fundamental assumptions are: (a) that the intelligence test measures “intelligence,” (b) that “intelligence” is fixed by heredity, and that the intelligence test reveals and measures hereditary intelligence.

    Walter Lippmann, A Future for the Tests, The New Republic
    , November 29, 1922, p. 10

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov29-00009

    Here’s my unsolicited advice.:

    Forget obsessing about “IQ” and do something useful with whatever “intelligence” you think you have. Forget about trying to prove how superior you are, because you ain’t and if you were, so what? You still ain’t nuttin special, no matter what mommy always thought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing and obfuscate legitimate research findings are disappointing. I speak as an intelligence researcher. Whereas other fields of psychology have experienced a replication crisis, the major findings of intelligence researchers have been replicated many times.

    The main problem is that the climate of opinion among Western intellectuals is extremely hostile to the message of the research: people differ in intelligence, and there are important consequences stemming from those differences.

    The findings of behavioral geneticists are, in fact, the best-replicated in the history of psychology. So much so that Eric Turkheimer -- at heart, a nurturist -- declared the nature-nurture debate to be over in the 1990s. All human traits are heritable to one degree or another. Intelligence happens to be highly heritable. Identical twins separated near the time of birth nevertheless end up with similar intelligence levels. Biologically-unrelated adoptees raised in the same family and community do not show a clear tendency to end up with intelligence levels that are similar to one another.

    As in other fields of study, people can argue about definitions, but -- to be brief -- intelligence refers to a general ability to reason and to learn. In an American context, the correlation between scores on standard intelligence tests and general intelligence -- referring to the concept of 'g,' which is widely accepted among intelligence researchers -- is about 0.90.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness -- other factors come into play as well -- but it matters very much for individual outcomes and the fate of nations. As James Heckman, formerly an adviser to Barack Obama, has put it, the importance of intelligence is intuitively obvious, and while again, many factors are involved, differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.
    , @Robbie B.
    Walter Lippman?

    I don't want to lower the bar here on this site, but the most fitting response to this is a now fairly popular one heard out on the street:

    Nigger, please!
  37. HBD Guy says:

    http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/yale-neuroscientists-can-now-determine-human-intelligence-through-brain-scans

    Do you feel like you were born to do something? There is just a certain skill like playing an instrument or sport, or a certain subject, like math, which you naturally excel in? It might have to do with the way your brain is wired. Different people have different aptitudes. The repositories for these lie in different parts of the brain and, as scientists are learning more and more, in the connectome or the connections between regions.

    Today, neuroscientists can determine one’s intelligence through a brain scan, as sci-fi as that sounds. Not only that, it’s only a matter of time before they are able to tell each individual’s set of aptitudes and shortcomings, simply from scanning their brain. Researchers at Yale led the study. They interpreted intelligence in this case as abstract reasoning, also known as fluid intelligence. This is the ability to recognize patterns, solve problems, and identify relationships. Fluid intelligence is known to be a consistent predictor of academic performance. Yet, abstract reasoning is difficult to teach, and standardized tests often miss it

    Read More
  38. Jason Liu says:

    Welcome.

    How much research regarding racial intelligence actually goes on, though? It seems like all the stuff is a rehash of Rushton, Murray etc, and any recent studies are usually done with an equalist/activist bent, as though the purpose of the study was to disprove racial differences, not investigate them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Small number of people working in the field, because it is difficult to get funding. However, many studies looking at scholastic ability in different groups are available, so researchers often use those as a proxy for direct intelligence measures. Genetic studies of intelligence have had to use weak proxies, namely years of schooling. The net result is that differences may be somewhat under-reported and under-estimated.

    Despite these difficulties, there are sufficient data sets for interesting studies to be carried out.
  39. @Anonymous

    The prose style has been refined so as to banish both excitement and understanding.
     
    It just bespeaks of how soulless culture and the pursuit of knowledge have become.
    People author papers like video gamer "collect achievements": it's a routine.

    There's no passion. No wide-scope ambition. It's jobs, not works, let alone enterprise.
    Intelligence is meant to be shown by, as you say, making understanding a tougher process.
    Nothingness is dressed in intellispeak.

    And many books than it should be are becoming enlarged papers, or collections of the thereof.

    Pettiness is the imperative. Dealing with petty matters, looking for petty answers. The atomization of knowledge.
    It's ugly.

    But I think it couldn't be different, once all ethos and pathos have been vanished.

    Culture and knowledge (comprised of sciences) are under the tyranny of reason.
    100 years ago you ordinarily had scientists speaking of "spiritual" aims and elements, of "soul".
    See the reasoning of, for one, Max Planck on the issue of God.

    Today they are like... machines. They don't even realize their idolatry of reason is a cult, which blindfolds like all cults, or that reason represents a part of what was a complete human mind.

    They look like babies, and the sight is all the more odd as they believe their predecessors to be like children -- those old people, with their irrational beliefs!

    So you read a paper, or go on Quora, and see these baby grown-ups mocking creationists: evolution is so obvious, they say.
    As if we could knew how what later evolved came into existence.

    Their theory of the Big Bang: there was Nothing, then it exploded.

    Papers reflect all of this.

    The mindless pursuit of knowledge.

    Read More
  40. macilrae says:
    @Anonymous
    Speaking of IQ, even just IQ (without the nexus with race) is, socially, like wandering about nakes on the streets.

    If we don't notice it much it's because we stick around a limited circle of sites/blogs. Everywhere else, it's exactly like that. Like if you undress yourself completely, go on the streets, and try to approach people saying "hello, how are you?".

    The results is at least 40% of people are now unable to see what they see, i.e.: have been successfully hypnotized.

    The results is at least 40% of people are now unable to see what they see, i.e.: have been successfully hypnotized.

    Yes, you do meet such hypnotized subjects stumbling about – but I fancy most respondents are just being cagey – this is one of a number of fields of academic study which you must avoid if you want to make a career in science.

    My suspicion is that the majority who declined to respond at all accept the reality.

    Extremely interesting article Dr Thompson – nobody can accuse you of stumbling – or ‘bumping into the furniture’.

    Read More
  41. @phil
    In the commonly used Smith-Beals data set of 20,000 skulls worldwide, East Asians averaged 1415 cubic centimeters of brain volume. Ethnic Europeans averaged 1362 cubic centimeters, and sub-Saharan Africans averaged 1268 cubic centimeters.

    Ok, This comparative measurement seems varies a lot.

    Read More
  42. @D. K.
    If IQ tests are merely psychometric "garbage," why do their results correlate so highly with each other, as well as with real-life outcomes, like academic success, occupational success and income?

    Because IQ measure cognitive skills, partially but efficient way… and cognitive skills are fundamental to the replicational occupations, i mean, ”learn” the technique and apply it correctly.

    And as cognition is one of the basis of the intelligence, so IQ tend to correlates a lot with many things, because it’s the best mental game of all, still a mental game.

    IQ = intelligence theory is for dummies, people who avoid the complexity of this subject and like to use the excuse ”Occam razor”, ;)

    Read More
  43. Race and ‘Intelligence’: two topics that when mixed are like 20-20-20 fertilizer for certain individuals’ bloated egos and greed. Self-referential bullshit grows like kudzu in the field of ‘intelligence’, and I have more respect for the innate intelligence of the little sparrows that flit around outside my window than I do for the bloated slimy filth that crawls out of Yale and Harvard, heaving itself onto the world stage purporting to be my better.

    These ‘researchers’ should get a couple of dogs, and get to know them, live with them. Pitbulls and Rottweilers are slow, but they are fighters, and their ‘intelligence’ lies in acute situational awareness, body awareness, keen study of other dogs and people, looking for weakness….

    Border Collies, on the other hand, are about awareness in motion. Which way is the herd moving? What is that squirrel’s next move?

    Not better, not worse. Different. Adapted for survival in different environments. Perfected differently.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @another fred

    Not better, not worse. Different. Adapted for survival in different environments. Perfected differently.
     
    Do you think shepherds would be happy if the government insisted they use pitbulls to herd their sheep?
    , @James Thompson
    Agree about border collies.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/dognitive-ability-in-university-level
  44. Accomplished people are generally speaking hardworking and not particularly intelligent.

    I’ve noticed that too. Persistence seems to be a huge key.

    I have spent my entire life in the academia and it still breaks my heart to see how little the collective acumen of faculty amounts to the world over.

    I’ve spent my life amongst “professionals” and similar things can be said for them. While they may be brilliant and skilled in a very narrow field, they can be very “unintelligent” in countless other ways. It’s positively fascinating.

    And, let us not fooled ourselves here, there are plenty of intelligent people that amount to nothing at all.

    Or worse…!

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    The balance between ability and practice is discussed here:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/practice-makes-one-third-perfect-other
  45. It would be interesting if we could travel back in time to the late 16th century and do a similar survey among the most learned scholars of that day. The question: “Does the sun revolve around the earth, or does the earth revolve around the sun?” I’m guessing the results would be about the same as the ones our author discusses in this piece. But reality is out there.

    Read More
  46. phil says:
    @jacques sheete
    For once, a decent article about "IQ."

    First off, I notice that a good definition of "intelligence" is sorely lacking all around.

    Second, this smells of the old nature-nurture debate which should have been settled decades ago.

    Third, too many people think that something labelled IQ actually measures general intelligence. Hint: Sometimes labels are misleading.

    Fourth, most here seem to think higher is better, and that better means more entitled.

    Fifth, there happen to be a lot of quacks in "academia." It doesn't appear that too many commenters here are very particular about which quack's opinion (not even a theory) they subscribe to.

    Sixth, almost a century ago, people understood that extrapolating concepts from "IQ" tests to general statements is highly error prone. Some even wrote about it. Here's one, and he warn't no dummy.:

    “One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.


    - Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –
    http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov15-00297

    “And in the meantime the psychologists will save themselves from the reproach of having opened up a new chance for quackery in a field where quacks breed like rabbits, and they will save themselves from the humiliation of having furnished doped evidence to the exponents of the New Snobbery.


    Walter Lippmann, A Future for the Tests, The New Republic
    , November 29, 1922, pp. 9-10

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov29-00009

    “3. This benefit [of the tests] is in great danger of being offset by dangerous abuse if the claims of the intelligence testers are not purged of certain fundamental assumptions.

    4. The most important of these fundamental assumptions are: (a) that the intelligence test measures “intelligence,” (b) that “intelligence” is fixed by heredity, and that the intelligence test reveals and measures hereditary intelligence.

    Walter Lippmann, A Future for the Tests, The New Republic
    , November 29, 1922, p. 10

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov29-00009

     

    Here's my unsolicited advice.:

    Forget obsessing about "IQ" and do something useful with whatever "intelligence" you think you have. Forget about trying to prove how superior you are, because you ain't and if you were, so what? You still ain't nuttin special, no matter what mommy always thought.

    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing and obfuscate legitimate research findings are disappointing. I speak as an intelligence researcher. Whereas other fields of psychology have experienced a replication crisis, the major findings of intelligence researchers have been replicated many times.

    The main problem is that the climate of opinion among Western intellectuals is extremely hostile to the message of the research: people differ in intelligence, and there are important consequences stemming from those differences.

    The findings of behavioral geneticists are, in fact, the best-replicated in the history of psychology. So much so that Eric Turkheimer — at heart, a nurturist — declared the nature-nurture debate to be over in the 1990s. All human traits are heritable to one degree or another. Intelligence happens to be highly heritable. Identical twins separated near the time of birth nevertheless end up with similar intelligence levels. Biologically-unrelated adoptees raised in the same family and community do not show a clear tendency to end up with intelligence levels that are similar to one another.

    As in other fields of study, people can argue about definitions, but — to be brief — intelligence refers to a general ability to reason and to learn. In an American context, the correlation between scores on standard intelligence tests and general intelligence — referring to the concept of ‘g,’ which is widely accepted among intelligence researchers — is about 0.90.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness — other factors come into play as well — but it matters very much for individual outcomes and the fate of nations. As James Heckman, formerly an adviser to Barack Obama, has put it, the importance of intelligence is intuitively obvious, and while again, many factors are involved, differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen, res, James Thompson
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing ...are disappointing.

     

    You know what's disappointing? You failed to define "intelligence" in a meaningful way. A “general ability to reason and to learn?” To learn what? Do you really believe that there is a test for a “general ability to reason and to learn?” You do realize, do you not, that “IQ” tests may have some value in predicting certain specific abilities, but as for “general intelligence,” are you kidding me?

    I speak as an intelligence researcher.
     
    You know what else is disappointing? Your reliance on the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. I’d like to see proof that today’s “modern” researchers have motivations beyond the oracles and priests of old. Or garden variety con artists.

    …and obfuscate legitimate research findings…
     
    Something else that's disappointing is that you failed to use the word, "obfuscate" in an intelligent way. Legitimate research findings? Gimmee a break; I'd have to see it to believe it. Based on what I've experienced with "authorities" of all sorts, I'm calling quackery. Most of it is something to be laughed about while simultaneously despising it.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness — other factors come into play as well —

     

    Well, duh! If so, then why do people keep harping about it? And worse yet, why does the sap contingent keep extrapolating the "findings" to stroke themselves? I still think Lippman's comments are correct and they are intuitively apparent as well. It's just that he sez it better than I could, and I see no need to rewrite ideas. A large part of the “ability to reason and learn” is curiosity, I think. The intelligent person should be curious enough to read what's at the links I've posted.

    ...differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.
     
    Hooboy. For starters, who you calling black in that statement? And why is earnings a measure? Where's the proof for the claim?

    The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of "intelligence" is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, "general" intelligence. A fine example in case anyone's interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable "general ability to reason and to learn."

    No doubt both nature and nurture are involved, but still,


    Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.

    -Thomas Edison.Spoken statement (c. 1903); published in Harper's Monthly (September 1932).
     
    The "perspiration" is no doubt largely due to both nature and nurture as well.
  47. res says:
    @Numinous
    Why does a genetic basis for intelligence necessarily imply that there must be a racial basis for intelligence, as many commenters here state?

    When I look at people with dark skin, it is easy to believe that there is a "dark skin gene". When I look at people who have epicanthic folds, it is easy to believe that there is an "epicanthic fold gene". When I observe lactose tolerance in people, it is easy to believe that there is a "lactose tolerance gene". And when I observe certain people easily breathing in rarefied high altitudes, it is easy to believe there is a "high altitude adaptation gene". And genetic research seems to bear these observations out.

    But "intelligent" people occur in all racial groups, all ethicities, and all regions. (It is not possible to look at a person and determine if he is smart or dumb.) Sure, the percentages may vary. But plain observation, and Occam's razor, would lead me to conclude that if there is an "intelligence gene", it has to be cross-racial (or orthogonal to race), rather than race-specific. So it is perfectly fair to assume that an Ivy League grad's children will turn out to be smart without concluding that anyone (or most people) sharing that grad's racial phenotype will also be smart.

    Without more solid biological evidence, what is the value in a survey of the kind reported in this blog post? As genetics researchers, the survey respondents are coming at the topic with a view that intelligence has a genetic basis. Their tests may convince them one way or the other, but they are predisposed to assuming that anything and everything may have a genetic basis. Just as a psychoanalyst would assume that any and every behavior mush have a Freudian basis.

    Why does a genetic basis for intelligence necessarily imply that there must be a racial basis for intelligence, as many commenters here state?

    I don’t know about “must” (using words like that tends to result in a strawman argument, not sure if that was your intent), but I see some good reasons to believe the combination of intelligence being highly heritable within races and the presence of persistent average IQ gaps between some races implies there is likely to be a genetic component to the average IQ differences between races.

    First, we know with confidence:
    - Average IQ differs between some races (e.g. Asians, Blacks, Whites).
    - SNP frequencies differ between these races.
    - IQ is highly heritable within races.
    - Some SNPs related it IQ have been identified and explain a small portion of the heritability.
    Given those, it seems unlikely that average IQ based on genetics is unlikely to be exactly equal between all races (keep in mind it is possible to get similar results with different genes, for example the differing Tibetan and Andean high altitude traits).

    The persistence of the racial gaps in average IQ are suggestive. For example, these gaps appear across many cultures and environments in a (mostly?) consistent fashion. Another example is the observation that highest SES US blacks have SAT scores comparable to lowest SES US Whites. When we see results like this appear so consistently it suggests an underlying common cause and genetics is a parsimonious explanation.

    One difficulty (see Chanda Chisala’s work here at the Unz Review) is there appear to be more high performing Blacks than would be expected by a naive extrapolation from group IQ averages and standard deviations. I tend to attribute this to three causes (Chanda has a very different conclusion though):
    - Selection effects. Given that there are a billion Africans it is reasonable to suspect a selection effect for IQ in African immigrants to the West. Another example of this is studying Blacks in the US military who have been screened for AFQT scores and other characteristics. I believe it is necessary to test for this empirically, but taboos make it hard to do this.
    - High performing subgroups (e.g. the Igbo). I have yet to see a good fine grained study looking at average IQs of the different African tribes, but this seems a parsimonious explanation for much of what we see. To understand this it helps to be aware that relatively small differences in average IQ can have a large effect on the proportion of high IQ individuals (because the slope of the normal curve is very steep out past 3 SD).
    - Genetic admixture with higher performing groups. This is not relevant in Chanda’s work AFAICT, but appears in other contexts.
    So, if these possible causes are correct, the second and third, actually support rather than refute a genetic contribution. The first is simply orthogonal to the question, but serves as an alternative explanation for Chanda’s observations.

    And lastly (and in great flux with new research):
    If you look at the known SNPs related to IQ you will generally observe that there are different distributions within the races. When I have done this the ordering is usually (but not always) consistent with an Asian, White, Black ordering for higher average IQ. Anyone interested in this might want to take a look at Dr. Thompson’s earlier post: http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2016/04/genetics-of-racial-differences-in.html

    But despite the suggestive data, I think from the scientific point of point of view we can’t consider things to be conclusive yet. But I also think the interesting question is not yes/no, rather “how much” as in Dr. Thompson’s survey question.

    Read More
  48. res says:
    @zyezek
    There are a couple serious issues with this:

    1) American "black" people are not a monolithic group. Recent legal immigrants from Nigeria are as different (culturally AND likely genetically) from direct slave descendants in the USA as Englishmen & Italians are.

    2) Things like IQ tests can tell you if there is, empirically, a measurement "gap" between subsets of the population (and not just ones selected by racial criteria). However, the measurements themselves are dubious, and so any science you do with many of them will suffer from "garbage in, garbage out".

    Now, we can probably agree that intelligence is a trait with a significant genetic component. But a core premise of this whole arena of thinking appears to be that raw brainpower is central to human affairs. I find that premise itself to be defective. The core problem isn't that people are different, that brainpower is at least partially inherited, or that racial gaps on such things are real & should not be taboo to speak of. No, it is the underlying notion that intelligence has some inherent moral dimension, that 'smarter' people are entitled to more power & influence in society than everybody else, that one race being overall 'smarter' than another makes them superior. BOTH extremes in this space share that poisonous root premise, without which research along this lines would be no more ideologically fraught than that into height & weight variation.

    that one race being overall ‘smarter’ than another makes them superior

    I believe this is the crux of most of the controversy.

    First response, it does (in one trait). It makes them have superior average IQ. This has important societal implications both in terms of average abilities and likely abilities of the best. Now on to the other million relevant aspects of being human. Being ‘smarter’ does not make someone a superior human being. I think we all have our own different mental scorecards for that. Also important to note that group average IQ differences do not imply that all members of one group have an IQ superior to that of all members of another group. If that is your instinctive reaction then please take a statistics class and learn about probability distributions and what “average” means (please excuse the pun).

    Second response, just as having more fast twitch muscles on average makes a population superior at average (and likely top) sprinting ability. Or being taller on average makes a population have superior height. Or …
    One of my least favorite things about these “superiority” conversations is often the most vehement opponents of group differences in IQ are quick to trumpet their group’s superiority in other things (e.g. sports, music). It’s just more Who, Whom? (if you don’t get this, read Steve Sailer).

    I always find it interesting that some people actually consider noting that IQ is not everything is a rebuttal of the existence of group differences in average IQ.

    But a core premise of this whole arena of thinking appears to be that raw brainpower is central to human affairs. I find that premise itself to be defective.

    I guess that depends on your definition of central. Would you disagree that it is important? What are your candidates for things that are more important? One of mine would be language. Being able to communicate effectively, for example speak, read, and write well, is critical to human affairs (but is this unrelated to IQ?). Another would be the ability to cooperate (but is this unrelated to language?).

    BOTH extremes in this space share that poisonous root premise

    Really. Nice to see that you can read all of our minds. Now that would be a valuable skill to have. Does that make you superior?

    Read More
  49. Alden says:
    @jacques sheete

    If intelligence doesn’t have some genetic component,
     
    Define intelligence.

    then why do infertile couples pay money to acquire sperm from Ivy League men for artificial insemination?
     
    Because they've been duped to think Ivy League men are something special. How would you like it if one of yours got sperm from, say, George Bush?

    Why don’t women with infertile husbands just have sex with any willing local bum at no charge?
     
    Have you noticed what women are often attracted to?

    FYI according to those military tests he took while in the national guard, George Bush has an IQ of 125, which is classified as very bright. It’s only 5 points below 130 which is gifted.

    Plus he has Regular, well proportioned handsome features and is neither bald not fat at his age.

    Given his looks and PROVEN IQ, he is excellent breeding stock, whether you like him or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Given [George Bush's]looks and PROVEN IQ, he is excellent breeding stock, whether you like him or not.
     
    You just made me hurl.

    As they say, there's no accounting for taste.

    PS: Do you really believe its IQ was measured at 125? If so, it shows how dumb the damned tests are.

    Let's have a go at Obama. Columbia & Hawvawd. Tall, dark, smart, and handsome, eh? Is that what we call good breeding stock too? If so, all I can say is "eeerrrrp!" Have you seen what's chosen to breed with it?

    Excuse me while I go relieve myself.

  50. @Santoculto
    Your weight in numbers IS NOT exactly what your weight is in the concrete/analytical reality, what it really is.

    Quantification, sometimes, can be understood as a ''summarize of the analysis''.

    Analysis (just the factual description of the perceived reality) trumps over mensurement or quantification.

    So, your IQ, or your intelligence in numbers, IS NOT exactly what your intelligence really is. Your IQ still is, in the not-so-same way, your weight still is or can reflect, in number/abstractions/symbols, your weight or intelligence SIZE.

    The size of your weight or of your intelligence is not the whole reality of both if both are not only their size.

    It's like to reduce a entire human being/entity to their height size.

    Excellent analysis. unfortunately, we live in the age of quantity. Science decided a few centuries ago that only what we can measure exists and we ignore the rest. So we say that we know what a flower is because we know its weight and what its made of and that is all a flower is, the qualitative aspects are irrelevant because we can not measure it, this has created the reductionist perspective that has wreaked havoc on our natural environment in these last few centuries.

    “Modern persons in general cannot conceive of any other science than that of things that can be measured, counted, and weighed, in other words material things, since it is to these alone that the quantitative point of view can be applied; the claim to reduce quality to quantity is very typical of modern science. This tendency has reached the point of supposing that there can be no science, in the real meaning of the word, except where it is possible to introduce measurement, and that there can be no scientific laws except those that express quantitative relations. It is a tendency that arose with the mechanism of Descartes; since then it has become more and more pronounced, notwithstanding the rejection of Cartesian physics, for it is not bound up with any particular physical theory, but with a general conception of scientific knowledge. Today, attempts are made to apply measurement even in the psychological field, the very nature of which excludes such a method. The point has been reached of no longer understanding that the possibility of measurement derives from a quality inherent in matter, that is to say from its indefinite divisibility; or else it is thought that this quality is to be found in all that exists, which comes to the same as materializing everything. ”

    “Under such conditions, industry is no longer merely an application of science, an application from which science should, in itself, remain completely independent; it has become the reason for, and justification of, science to such an extent that here too the normal relations between things have been reversed. What the modern world has striven after with all its strength, even when it has claimed in its own way to pursue science, is really nothing other than the development of industry and machinery; and in thus seeking to dominate matter and bend it to their service, men have only succeeded, as we said at the beginning of this book, in becoming its slaves. Not only have they limited their intellectual ambition-if such a term can still be used in the present state of things-to inventing and constructing machines, but they have ended by becoming in fact machines themselves. Indeed, it is not only scholars but also technicians and even workers who have to undergo the specialization that certain sociologists praise so highly under the name of ‘division of labor’; and for the ‘workers’, it makes intelligent work quite impossible. Very different from the craftsmen of former times, they have become mere slaves of machines with which they may be said to form part of a single body. In a purely mechanical way they have constantly to repeat certain specific movements, which are always the same and always performed in the same way, so as to avoid the slightest loss of time; such at least is required by the most modern methods which are supposed to represent the most advanced stage of ‘progress’. Indeed, the object is merely to produce as much as possible; quality matters little, it is quantity alone that is of importance, which brings us back once more to the remark we have already made in other contexts, namely, that modern civilization may truly be called a quantitative civilization, and this is merely another way of saying it is a material civilization.”

    - Rene Guenon

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Thank you!! I believe size of intelligence is something IQ tests measure partially and efficiently well. Final point.

    Evidently it's not enough. It's something but something is something. Period.

    The problem is that many people and specially those I call "IQtards" or "IQdiots" really believe that IQ scores IS intelligence. And they start to literalize it in wrong way as good dumb people tend to be highly skilled.

    I ask for myself how this people lived in the pre-IQ era. B--IQ. Maybe they lived in intense existential uncertainty. Be smart or not...without a "prove", that's the question!!

    Intelligence while a set of behavior is not even what we ARE but what we DO. What genetics can quantify is the POTENTIAL to be smart, or to born organically smart, but if the behavior is the reflection of the organism, so even this potential via vague but-something valid IQ still isn't BE (organically) smart.
    , @Santoculto
    Thank you again but because this piece, indeed this ''data-driven'' or ''scientific-prove--driven'' obsessed people even for obvious things, and worst, also about more nuanced things (well, almost things) make me mad.

    Perception is the soul of intelligence. Scientific method is a well-succesful way to organize what we do naturally, perceive, understand and apply patterns.

    IQ is not the fundamental/critical-analytical way to understand intelligence but to compare and organize hierarchically the people. No doubt IQ research has been well succesfull but fundamentaly to their real function, as a mean to understand intelligence via one of its many facets.

    IQ no doubt can't/don't conceptualize and qualify intelligence in the same way a weight size don't conceptualize and don't qualify weight.

    I believe ''IQ'' will become very accurate, more than actually is, if it also start to predict creative and rational potential.

    And maybe kindness, within the rationality domain.
  51. @phil
    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing and obfuscate legitimate research findings are disappointing. I speak as an intelligence researcher. Whereas other fields of psychology have experienced a replication crisis, the major findings of intelligence researchers have been replicated many times.

    The main problem is that the climate of opinion among Western intellectuals is extremely hostile to the message of the research: people differ in intelligence, and there are important consequences stemming from those differences.

    The findings of behavioral geneticists are, in fact, the best-replicated in the history of psychology. So much so that Eric Turkheimer -- at heart, a nurturist -- declared the nature-nurture debate to be over in the 1990s. All human traits are heritable to one degree or another. Intelligence happens to be highly heritable. Identical twins separated near the time of birth nevertheless end up with similar intelligence levels. Biologically-unrelated adoptees raised in the same family and community do not show a clear tendency to end up with intelligence levels that are similar to one another.

    As in other fields of study, people can argue about definitions, but -- to be brief -- intelligence refers to a general ability to reason and to learn. In an American context, the correlation between scores on standard intelligence tests and general intelligence -- referring to the concept of 'g,' which is widely accepted among intelligence researchers -- is about 0.90.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness -- other factors come into play as well -- but it matters very much for individual outcomes and the fate of nations. As James Heckman, formerly an adviser to Barack Obama, has put it, the importance of intelligence is intuitively obvious, and while again, many factors are involved, differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.

    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing …are disappointing.

    You know what’s disappointing? You failed to define “intelligence” in a meaningful way. A “general ability to reason and to learn?” To learn what? Do you really believe that there is a test for a “general ability to reason and to learn?” You do realize, do you not, that “IQ” tests may have some value in predicting certain specific abilities, but as for “general intelligence,” are you kidding me?

    I speak as an intelligence researcher.

    You know what else is disappointing? Your reliance on the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. I’d like to see proof that today’s “modern” researchers have motivations beyond the oracles and priests of old. Or garden variety con artists.

    …and obfuscate legitimate research findings…

    Something else that’s disappointing is that you failed to use the word, “obfuscate” in an intelligent way. Legitimate research findings? Gimmee a break; I’d have to see it to believe it. Based on what I’ve experienced with “authorities” of all sorts, I’m calling quackery. Most of it is something to be laughed about while simultaneously despising it.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness — other factors come into play as well —

    Well, duh! If so, then why do people keep harping about it? And worse yet, why does the sap contingent keep extrapolating the “findings” to stroke themselves? I still think Lippman’s comments are correct and they are intuitively apparent as well. It’s just that he sez it better than I could, and I see no need to rewrite ideas. A large part of the “ability to reason and learn” is curiosity, I think. The intelligent person should be curious enough to read what’s at the links I’ve posted.

    …differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.

    Hooboy. For starters, who you calling black in that statement? And why is earnings a measure? Where’s the proof for the claim?

    The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of “intelligence” is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, “general” intelligence. A fine example in case anyone’s interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable “general ability to reason and to learn.”

    No doubt both nature and nurture are involved, but still,

    Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.

    -Thomas Edison.Spoken statement (c. 1903); published in Harper’s Monthly (September 1932).

    The “perspiration” is no doubt largely due to both nature and nurture as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike Johnson
    IQ scores and penis sizes are what so many while males obsess about lol. Intelligence is much more than what a score reflects just as being a good lover and satisfying a woman is so much than what size your dick is lol.
    , @Sam Shama
    With a measure of trepidation given our recent exchanges, I agree with most of your arguments, particularly that remark about people conjugating narrow tests and race as a means to pat themselves on the back.

    I used to know a chap who a decade or so back, could merely look at long sequences of rather complicated patterns and correctly identify the next ten. Or more. Linguistics were also his forte. He went on to achieve a few things, some of them deemed exceptional, some not. Yet all of it involved a great deal of toil; persistence, as you mentioned, was not to be ignored. [It's worth mentioning that his abilities have declined over the years]

    As someone said Ces trois choses, la volonte, le travail, le succes, se partagent toute l'existence humaine. But even a lifetime of le travail a Turing will not make.

    Beyond that, I'll speculate without evidence that human groups independent of "race", all other things such as nutrition, viral load and education being equal, are capable of cognitive products, all that is good and bad, similarly well.
    , @Santoculto
    Now you need quoted Malcolm Gladwell to finish with golden key.

    I'm trying to understand. You don't believe in racial differences in intelligence? General and/or specific?!

    Elaborate your point of views about this stuff.
    , @Mike Johnson
    "The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of “intelligence” is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, “general” intelligence. A fine example in case anyone’s interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable “general ability to reason and to learn.”

    This is spot on, in our society today, cleverness has become more important than wisdom. Cleverness can teach you to profit and benefit on the backs of others but being wise is knowing that this will eventually catch up with you.

    The premium that has been placed on cleverness in our society coincides with the increase in power of a certain ethnic group that I will not name. This groups loves to remind us of the saying "we will never forget" while I say to them "you never learn".
    , @James Thompson
    I agree that the definition of intelligence is a taxing matter. I have tried to provide the best explanations that I can, but I am sure that more and better explanations are required, particularly when people feel they are being fooled or belittled.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-in-2000-words
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-7-tribes-of-intellect

    The best introductory book is described here:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-all-that-matters-stuart
    , @JackOH
    "The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of “intelligence” is the talent to screw them over", and following.

    Agree, LOL:) Anyone who doubts how middling IQ folks can take advantage of presumptively higher IQ folks needs to spend a morning in the waiting room of a high-end car dealership's service department.

    I'm very okay with studies of intelligence, but there's a whole lot more going on in the world than IQ, SAT scores, and the like.
  52. res says:
    @EH
    Nice to see you here, Dr. Thompson.

    I don't get the unquestioned presumption that the Western environment would depress Black scores below what they otherwise would be, obviously the Western environment is quite a bit better than what Blacks manage in Africa, so if environment has any effect it should be to increase Black scores. Some have pointed out that just because adult intelligence is over 70% heritable, it doesn't mean that the origins of group differences are genetic, and while this is technically true, it's overwhelmingly likely that the differences between groups are also genetic to at least a similar degree, with individuals you get a lot more noise from chance developmental occurrences than you do with two groups of tens or hundreds of millions of people, and given that the two groups are defined by not being related to each other in any way for about 200,000 years while they lived in and adapted to very different environments, it would not be surprising if the group differences were entirely genetic while any pair of individuals from the two groups would often differ to a considerable extent for random / non-shared environmental reasons.

    It is possible that the differences between groups are almost entirely genetic, the White and Black environments in the West not being much different, but that Blacks in their native environment do worse than they do in the West, and in such an instance the amount of difference accounted for by genetics is lower.

    But what no one has pointed out is that it's even possible that more than all the gap is due to genetics, with the better Western environment counteracting the worse African genetics to a degree.

    it’s overwhelmingly likely that the differences between groups are also genetic to at least a similar degree, with individuals you get a lot more noise from chance developmental occurrences than you do with two groups of tens or hundreds of millions of people, and given that the two groups are defined by not being related to each other in any way for about 200,000 years while they lived in and adapted to very different environments, it would not be surprising if the group differences were entirely genetic while any pair of individuals from the two groups would often differ to a considerable extent for random / non-shared environmental reasons.

    This is an interesting argument I had not seen before. I tend to view the 70% heritability number as a likely upper bound for the genetic contribution to group differences (reasoning being that environmental differences are probably larger between groups than within groups, similar to your “and in such an instance the amount of difference accounted for by genetics is lower.”), but find your argument compelling and need to think about it some more. There is definitely something to be said for aggregation smoothing out noise.

    Read More
  53. I have always believed that the environment in which a child grows up in have a huge, huge impact, but I also believe that good genes matter.

    IQ tests still need knowledge to do well. it works when you are testing people with similar education/knowledge levels. alot of variables, too many imo. it is one of the heuristics. wish we have more.

    I personally use my own IQ score to give my self an ego boost whenever I need to. it really helps when life throws you a hurdle or too. so there is that. I can’t speak for others.

    Read More
  54. @jacques sheete

    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing ...are disappointing.

     

    You know what's disappointing? You failed to define "intelligence" in a meaningful way. A “general ability to reason and to learn?” To learn what? Do you really believe that there is a test for a “general ability to reason and to learn?” You do realize, do you not, that “IQ” tests may have some value in predicting certain specific abilities, but as for “general intelligence,” are you kidding me?

    I speak as an intelligence researcher.
     
    You know what else is disappointing? Your reliance on the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. I’d like to see proof that today’s “modern” researchers have motivations beyond the oracles and priests of old. Or garden variety con artists.

    …and obfuscate legitimate research findings…
     
    Something else that's disappointing is that you failed to use the word, "obfuscate" in an intelligent way. Legitimate research findings? Gimmee a break; I'd have to see it to believe it. Based on what I've experienced with "authorities" of all sorts, I'm calling quackery. Most of it is something to be laughed about while simultaneously despising it.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness — other factors come into play as well —

     

    Well, duh! If so, then why do people keep harping about it? And worse yet, why does the sap contingent keep extrapolating the "findings" to stroke themselves? I still think Lippman's comments are correct and they are intuitively apparent as well. It's just that he sez it better than I could, and I see no need to rewrite ideas. A large part of the “ability to reason and learn” is curiosity, I think. The intelligent person should be curious enough to read what's at the links I've posted.

    ...differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.
     
    Hooboy. For starters, who you calling black in that statement? And why is earnings a measure? Where's the proof for the claim?

    The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of "intelligence" is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, "general" intelligence. A fine example in case anyone's interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable "general ability to reason and to learn."

    No doubt both nature and nurture are involved, but still,


    Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.

    -Thomas Edison.Spoken statement (c. 1903); published in Harper's Monthly (September 1932).
     
    The "perspiration" is no doubt largely due to both nature and nurture as well.

    IQ scores and penis sizes are what so many while males obsess about lol. Intelligence is much more than what a score reflects just as being a good lover and satisfying a woman is so much than what size your dick is lol.

    Read More
  55. Sam Shama says:
    @jacques sheete

    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing ...are disappointing.

     

    You know what's disappointing? You failed to define "intelligence" in a meaningful way. A “general ability to reason and to learn?” To learn what? Do you really believe that there is a test for a “general ability to reason and to learn?” You do realize, do you not, that “IQ” tests may have some value in predicting certain specific abilities, but as for “general intelligence,” are you kidding me?

    I speak as an intelligence researcher.
     
    You know what else is disappointing? Your reliance on the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. I’d like to see proof that today’s “modern” researchers have motivations beyond the oracles and priests of old. Or garden variety con artists.

    …and obfuscate legitimate research findings…
     
    Something else that's disappointing is that you failed to use the word, "obfuscate" in an intelligent way. Legitimate research findings? Gimmee a break; I'd have to see it to believe it. Based on what I've experienced with "authorities" of all sorts, I'm calling quackery. Most of it is something to be laughed about while simultaneously despising it.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness — other factors come into play as well —

     

    Well, duh! If so, then why do people keep harping about it? And worse yet, why does the sap contingent keep extrapolating the "findings" to stroke themselves? I still think Lippman's comments are correct and they are intuitively apparent as well. It's just that he sez it better than I could, and I see no need to rewrite ideas. A large part of the “ability to reason and learn” is curiosity, I think. The intelligent person should be curious enough to read what's at the links I've posted.

    ...differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.
     
    Hooboy. For starters, who you calling black in that statement? And why is earnings a measure? Where's the proof for the claim?

    The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of "intelligence" is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, "general" intelligence. A fine example in case anyone's interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable "general ability to reason and to learn."

    No doubt both nature and nurture are involved, but still,


    Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.

    -Thomas Edison.Spoken statement (c. 1903); published in Harper's Monthly (September 1932).
     
    The "perspiration" is no doubt largely due to both nature and nurture as well.

    With a measure of trepidation given our recent exchanges, I agree with most of your arguments, particularly that remark about people conjugating narrow tests and race as a means to pat themselves on the back.

    I used to know a chap who a decade or so back, could merely look at long sequences of rather complicated patterns and correctly identify the next ten. Or more. Linguistics were also his forte. He went on to achieve a few things, some of them deemed exceptional, some not. Yet all of it involved a great deal of toil; persistence, as you mentioned, was not to be ignored. [It's worth mentioning that his abilities have declined over the years]

    As someone said Ces trois choses, la volonte, le travail, le succes, se partagent toute l’existence humaine. But even a lifetime of le travail a Turing will not make.

    Beyond that, I’ll speculate without evidence that human groups independent of “race”, all other things such as nutrition, viral load and education being equal, are capable of cognitive products, all that is good and bad, similarly well.

    Read More
  56. @jacques sheete

    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing ...are disappointing.

     

    You know what's disappointing? You failed to define "intelligence" in a meaningful way. A “general ability to reason and to learn?” To learn what? Do you really believe that there is a test for a “general ability to reason and to learn?” You do realize, do you not, that “IQ” tests may have some value in predicting certain specific abilities, but as for “general intelligence,” are you kidding me?

    I speak as an intelligence researcher.
     
    You know what else is disappointing? Your reliance on the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. I’d like to see proof that today’s “modern” researchers have motivations beyond the oracles and priests of old. Or garden variety con artists.

    …and obfuscate legitimate research findings…
     
    Something else that's disappointing is that you failed to use the word, "obfuscate" in an intelligent way. Legitimate research findings? Gimmee a break; I'd have to see it to believe it. Based on what I've experienced with "authorities" of all sorts, I'm calling quackery. Most of it is something to be laughed about while simultaneously despising it.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness — other factors come into play as well —

     

    Well, duh! If so, then why do people keep harping about it? And worse yet, why does the sap contingent keep extrapolating the "findings" to stroke themselves? I still think Lippman's comments are correct and they are intuitively apparent as well. It's just that he sez it better than I could, and I see no need to rewrite ideas. A large part of the “ability to reason and learn” is curiosity, I think. The intelligent person should be curious enough to read what's at the links I've posted.

    ...differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.
     
    Hooboy. For starters, who you calling black in that statement? And why is earnings a measure? Where's the proof for the claim?

    The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of "intelligence" is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, "general" intelligence. A fine example in case anyone's interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable "general ability to reason and to learn."

    No doubt both nature and nurture are involved, but still,


    Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.

    -Thomas Edison.Spoken statement (c. 1903); published in Harper's Monthly (September 1932).
     
    The "perspiration" is no doubt largely due to both nature and nurture as well.

    Now you need quoted Malcolm Gladwell to finish with golden key.

    I’m trying to understand. You don’t believe in racial differences in intelligence? General and/or specific?!

    Elaborate your point of views about this stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    You don’t believe in racial differences in intelligence? General and/or specific?!
     
    What's a "race," anyway? We're all mutts to one degree or another, so how ya gonna separate out the "races?"

    All this obsessing and blathering about races and IQ and what not reminds me of nothing so much as the fact that once upon a time kings, (many of whom were also regarded as gods, both by themselves and others) used to seek out oracles and look for useful information in the flights of birds and exams of entrails. It's all pretty much mumbo-jumbo.

    All one has to do to convince people of the purported validity of some silliness is to slap the appellation "science" on it and the true believers suck it up like pigs in a slop trough. There are people even today who still think Marx and Freud were "scientists," yet even I, with an IQ of about my shoe size, am able to perceive a fraud.

    It also strikes me as so much penis comparison as someone else commented.

    PS: Who the bleep is Malcolm Gladwell? Thank goodness for Google! :)

  57. @Mike Johnson
    Excellent analysis. unfortunately, we live in the age of quantity. Science decided a few centuries ago that only what we can measure exists and we ignore the rest. So we say that we know what a flower is because we know its weight and what its made of and that is all a flower is, the qualitative aspects are irrelevant because we can not measure it, this has created the reductionist perspective that has wreaked havoc on our natural environment in these last few centuries.

    "Modern persons in general cannot conceive of any other science than that of things that can be measured, counted, and weighed, in other words material things, since it is to these alone that the quantitative point of view can be applied; the claim to reduce quality to quantity is very typical of modern science. This tendency has reached the point of supposing that there can be no science, in the real meaning of the word, except where it is possible to introduce measurement, and that there can be no scientific laws except those that express quantitative relations. It is a tendency that arose with the mechanism of Descartes; since then it has become more and more pronounced, notwithstanding the rejection of Cartesian physics, for it is not bound up with any particular physical theory, but with a general conception of scientific knowledge. Today, attempts are made to apply measurement even in the psychological field, the very nature of which excludes such a method. The point has been reached of no longer understanding that the possibility of measurement derives from a quality inherent in matter, that is to say from its indefinite divisibility; or else it is thought that this quality is to be found in all that exists, which comes to the same as materializing everything. "

    "Under such conditions, industry is no longer merely an application of science, an application from which science should, in itself, remain completely independent; it has become the reason for, and justification of, science to such an extent that here too the normal relations between things have been reversed. What the modern world has striven after with all its strength, even when it has claimed in its own way to pursue science, is really nothing other than the development of industry and machinery; and in thus seeking to dominate matter and bend it to their service, men have only succeeded, as we said at the beginning of this book, in becoming its slaves. Not only have they limited their intellectual ambition-if such a term can still be used in the present state of things-to inventing and constructing machines, but they have ended by becoming in fact machines themselves. Indeed, it is not only scholars but also technicians and even workers who have to undergo the specialization that certain sociologists praise so highly under the name of 'division of labor'; and for the 'workers', it makes intelligent work quite impossible. Very different from the craftsmen of former times, they have become mere slaves of machines with which they may be said to form part of a single body. In a purely mechanical way they have constantly to repeat certain specific movements, which are always the same and always performed in the same way, so as to avoid the slightest loss of time; such at least is required by the most modern methods which are supposed to represent the most advanced stage of 'progress'. Indeed, the object is merely to produce as much as possible; quality matters little, it is quantity alone that is of importance, which brings us back once more to the remark we have already made in other contexts, namely, that modern civilization may truly be called a quantitative civilization, and this is merely another way of saying it is a material civilization."

    - Rene Guenon


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPArAiRp62k

    Thank you!! I believe size of intelligence is something IQ tests measure partially and efficiently well. Final point.

    Evidently it’s not enough. It’s something but something is something. Period.

    The problem is that many people and specially those I call “IQtards” or “IQdiots” really believe that IQ scores IS intelligence. And they start to literalize it in wrong way as good dumb people tend to be highly skilled.

    I ask for myself how this people lived in the pre-IQ era. B–IQ. Maybe they lived in intense existential uncertainty. Be smart or not…without a “prove”, that’s the question!!

    Intelligence while a set of behavior is not even what we ARE but what we DO. What genetics can quantify is the POTENTIAL to be smart, or to born organically smart, but if the behavior is the reflection of the organism, so even this potential via vague but-something valid IQ still isn’t BE (organically) smart.

    Read More
  58. @wealthy farmer
    Race and 'Intelligence': two topics that when mixed are like 20-20-20 fertilizer for certain individuals' bloated egos and greed. Self-referential bullshit grows like kudzu in the field of 'intelligence', and I have more respect for the innate intelligence of the little sparrows that flit around outside my window than I do for the bloated slimy filth that crawls out of Yale and Harvard, heaving itself onto the world stage purporting to be my better.

    These 'researchers' should get a couple of dogs, and get to know them, live with them. Pitbulls and Rottweilers are slow, but they are fighters, and their 'intelligence' lies in acute situational awareness, body awareness, keen study of other dogs and people, looking for weakness....

    Border Collies, on the other hand, are about awareness in motion. Which way is the herd moving? What is that squirrel's next move?

    Not better, not worse. Different. Adapted for survival in different environments. Perfected differently.

    Not better, not worse. Different. Adapted for survival in different environments. Perfected differently.

    Do you think shepherds would be happy if the government insisted they use pitbulls to herd their sheep?

    Read More
    • Replies: @wealthy farmer
    Do you think that the "brilliant" Harvard grandee Larry Summers could survive 15 minutes in the Cabrini housing projects? Yet there are people of 'lower'IQ who survive in that environment, some even thrive.
  59. woodNfish says:

    Peer review is intended to be a guarantee of quality, subjecting the proffered paper to the scrutiny of other scholars before it is allowed into the academic canon.

    Yes, but unfortunately, peer review is broken and does not guarantee quality. A study of academic research papers found something like 60% of the are just plain wrong, 20% are garbage, a small number are fraudulent and it gets better from there, but only about 8% of them are good.

    (Perhaps climate research has poisoned the academic atmosphere, and no-one wants to be involved with anything which smacks of consensus science).

    Yes, climate junk-science has been poison, but it is more correctly called what it is – fraudulent research and not “consensus science”.

    Read More
  60. @jacques sheete

    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing ...are disappointing.

     

    You know what's disappointing? You failed to define "intelligence" in a meaningful way. A “general ability to reason and to learn?” To learn what? Do you really believe that there is a test for a “general ability to reason and to learn?” You do realize, do you not, that “IQ” tests may have some value in predicting certain specific abilities, but as for “general intelligence,” are you kidding me?

    I speak as an intelligence researcher.
     
    You know what else is disappointing? Your reliance on the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. I’d like to see proof that today’s “modern” researchers have motivations beyond the oracles and priests of old. Or garden variety con artists.

    …and obfuscate legitimate research findings…
     
    Something else that's disappointing is that you failed to use the word, "obfuscate" in an intelligent way. Legitimate research findings? Gimmee a break; I'd have to see it to believe it. Based on what I've experienced with "authorities" of all sorts, I'm calling quackery. Most of it is something to be laughed about while simultaneously despising it.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness — other factors come into play as well —

     

    Well, duh! If so, then why do people keep harping about it? And worse yet, why does the sap contingent keep extrapolating the "findings" to stroke themselves? I still think Lippman's comments are correct and they are intuitively apparent as well. It's just that he sez it better than I could, and I see no need to rewrite ideas. A large part of the “ability to reason and learn” is curiosity, I think. The intelligent person should be curious enough to read what's at the links I've posted.

    ...differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.
     
    Hooboy. For starters, who you calling black in that statement? And why is earnings a measure? Where's the proof for the claim?

    The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of "intelligence" is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, "general" intelligence. A fine example in case anyone's interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable "general ability to reason and to learn."

    No doubt both nature and nurture are involved, but still,


    Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.

    -Thomas Edison.Spoken statement (c. 1903); published in Harper's Monthly (September 1932).
     
    The "perspiration" is no doubt largely due to both nature and nurture as well.

    “The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of “intelligence” is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, “general” intelligence. A fine example in case anyone’s interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable “general ability to reason and to learn.”

    This is spot on, in our society today, cleverness has become more important than wisdom. Cleverness can teach you to profit and benefit on the backs of others but being wise is knowing that this will eventually catch up with you.

    The premium that has been placed on cleverness in our society coincides with the increase in power of a certain ethnic group that I will not name. This groups loves to remind us of the saying “we will never forget” while I say to them “you never learn”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Well said. Sometimes folks are a little to clever for their own good...
  61. @Anonymous
    Unfortunately, sample not quite convincingly large. But it's the first explicit study as far as I know.

    https://osf.io/z8dy5/

    It has to be expert, so it cannot be large. It was confined to those who had published papers on intelligence in some key peer reviewed journals in 2010 and later.

    Read More
  62. nsa says:

    Hominids are getting dumber en masse, regardless of racial differences. Average brain size has been shrinking of late…..no surprise to anyone visiting a walmart or baseball stadium. This effect has been masked because: 1) knowledge is cumulative, and 2) a hominid population in the billions can always come up with a few bright specimens to do most the thinking. Facts: at one time millions of years ago, hominids and chimps had the same brain volume, about 400 cc. As hominids evolved, so did brain volume (hence intelligence)…..reaching a peak of 1500 cc around 10,000 years ago. Since the peak, average brain size has shrunk to 1350cc. Brain size and intelligence are related. And despite popular belief, neanderthal and cro-magnon hominids were extremely intelligent, capable of surviving and reproducing in an environment so hostile not one modern human in 50 could make it a week before entering the food chain. What happened 10,000 years ago to effect the change? Probably the nomadic hunter-gatherers mostly converted to farming and herding, requiring less brain power to survive…..an idea any mid west implement salesman dealing with one crop farmers could verify.

    Read More
  63. @jb
    A question: To the best of your knowledge, is there any dispute among people who study intelligence over the existence of the black-white IQ gap? Forget about the cause -- genetics, culture, oppression, whatever -- I'm just talking about the existence of a significant gap.

    To put it another way, would I be misleading anyone if I were to make the following statement:


    While there is dispute over the cause, there is near universal agreement among researchers who study intelligence that, to the best of our ability to measure intelligence, American blacks are less intelligent than American whites.
     
    To put it yet another way, is the gap universally accepted as a fact on the ground that needs to be explained? Or are there researchers who accept that intelligence exists and can to some degree be measured, yet who deny the existence of the gap?

    The reason I'm asking is that facts on the ground have consequences no matter how they got there. And it is always going to be easier to convince skeptics that the gap exists and has consequences, than that it exists, is genetic, and has consequences. I think for many purposes the easier argument is more than sufficient, and that there is little to be gained by championing the genetic explanation.

    Group differences are accepted by all those who have read the relevant literature. They differ somewhat in their opinions as to whether those differences have reduced in recent years. The general view is that they may have narrowed somewhat, but still remain substantial. It is slightly more complicated than that, because gap-narrowing at age 9 or 11 does not usually carry through to age 17. Some apparent gap-closing may be due to the re-norming of tests to reduce racial differences, so that is another complication.
    The big difference is how people attribute causes to group differences.

    Read More
  64. @Another Rob
    Title: What IQ Researchers Really Think About Race and Intelligence

    [80 words of intro]

    "I am supposed to read a whole lot of stuff, and then distill it into a quickly consumed essence, a mere gulp of information"

    [another 350 words of intro]
    [now 450 words into a 1000 word piece]

    "So, what do intelligence researchers think about racial differences in intelligence?"


    I suggest you make it shorter :p

    Fair comment. Still shorter than reading the published papers though.

    Read More
  65. @dc.sunsets
    Allusions to the problems generated in "climate science" are the tip of the iceberg.

    Fads and fashions are obviously expressions of the human propensity to herd or flock. Fads in scientific inquiry are every bit the same as popular political policies.

    In the 1970's we were treated to pervasive Malthusian concepts (the Club of Rome stuff and the Paul Erlich-Julian Simon debate were great examples) and under socionomic theory this is exactly what you'd expect when social mood, measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average, was well into a bearish phase.

    Interest in eugenics undoubtedly experienced a surge during the 1970's, too, notwithstanding the echoes of good-feels from the Civil Rights Era (which took place at the end of a massive upswing in social mood.)

    Today's resurgence of interest in innate biological differences (including intelligence and its heritability) coincides with a period of mixed social mood. While barometers of social mood like the stock market are at all time highs, other "sociometers" are clearly in bear market territory. Under these conditions we'd expect lots of controversy, and we have it.

    Since social mood exhibits a clear pattern of ups and downs, and we've been in a massive "up" for a very long time (since around 1980), the embrace of "we can do anything" is vast, reflected by vehement social rejection of limits such as templates like IQ and its relationship to things we can't change.

    Unless nature has been repealed, stocks will eventually experience a bear market commensurate with the bull market that preceded it. This will coincide with an equally large bear market in social mood, which will be characterized by the same kinds of thinking that was popular in the 1970's (and the 1930's.)

    Today's popular rejection of the heritability of socially challenging attributes will be overturned, and a resurgence of belief in the relative immutability of people as they are will in all likelihood become very entrenched.

    HBD, the heritability of intelligence and such are slated to be very, very popular again.

    “HBD, the heritability of intelligence and such are slated to be very, very popular again.”

    After how many more low IQ immigrants are imported ?
    Lower IQ, higher crime, more govt dependence.

    We have enough of them in our native population, already.

    Read More
  66. @Mike Johnson
    Excellent analysis. unfortunately, we live in the age of quantity. Science decided a few centuries ago that only what we can measure exists and we ignore the rest. So we say that we know what a flower is because we know its weight and what its made of and that is all a flower is, the qualitative aspects are irrelevant because we can not measure it, this has created the reductionist perspective that has wreaked havoc on our natural environment in these last few centuries.

    "Modern persons in general cannot conceive of any other science than that of things that can be measured, counted, and weighed, in other words material things, since it is to these alone that the quantitative point of view can be applied; the claim to reduce quality to quantity is very typical of modern science. This tendency has reached the point of supposing that there can be no science, in the real meaning of the word, except where it is possible to introduce measurement, and that there can be no scientific laws except those that express quantitative relations. It is a tendency that arose with the mechanism of Descartes; since then it has become more and more pronounced, notwithstanding the rejection of Cartesian physics, for it is not bound up with any particular physical theory, but with a general conception of scientific knowledge. Today, attempts are made to apply measurement even in the psychological field, the very nature of which excludes such a method. The point has been reached of no longer understanding that the possibility of measurement derives from a quality inherent in matter, that is to say from its indefinite divisibility; or else it is thought that this quality is to be found in all that exists, which comes to the same as materializing everything. "

    "Under such conditions, industry is no longer merely an application of science, an application from which science should, in itself, remain completely independent; it has become the reason for, and justification of, science to such an extent that here too the normal relations between things have been reversed. What the modern world has striven after with all its strength, even when it has claimed in its own way to pursue science, is really nothing other than the development of industry and machinery; and in thus seeking to dominate matter and bend it to their service, men have only succeeded, as we said at the beginning of this book, in becoming its slaves. Not only have they limited their intellectual ambition-if such a term can still be used in the present state of things-to inventing and constructing machines, but they have ended by becoming in fact machines themselves. Indeed, it is not only scholars but also technicians and even workers who have to undergo the specialization that certain sociologists praise so highly under the name of 'division of labor'; and for the 'workers', it makes intelligent work quite impossible. Very different from the craftsmen of former times, they have become mere slaves of machines with which they may be said to form part of a single body. In a purely mechanical way they have constantly to repeat certain specific movements, which are always the same and always performed in the same way, so as to avoid the slightest loss of time; such at least is required by the most modern methods which are supposed to represent the most advanced stage of 'progress'. Indeed, the object is merely to produce as much as possible; quality matters little, it is quantity alone that is of importance, which brings us back once more to the remark we have already made in other contexts, namely, that modern civilization may truly be called a quantitative civilization, and this is merely another way of saying it is a material civilization."

    - Rene Guenon


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPArAiRp62k

    Thank you again but because this piece, indeed this ”data-driven” or ”scientific-prove–driven” obsessed people even for obvious things, and worst, also about more nuanced things (well, almost things) make me mad.

    Perception is the soul of intelligence. Scientific method is a well-succesful way to organize what we do naturally, perceive, understand and apply patterns.

    IQ is not the fundamental/critical-analytical way to understand intelligence but to compare and organize hierarchically the people. No doubt IQ research has been well succesfull but fundamentaly to their real function, as a mean to understand intelligence via one of its many facets.

    IQ no doubt can’t/don’t conceptualize and qualify intelligence in the same way a weight size don’t conceptualize and don’t qualify weight.

    I believe ”IQ” will become very accurate, more than actually is, if it also start to predict creative and rational potential.

    And maybe kindness, within the rationality domain.

    Read More
  67. @jacques sheete

    Accomplished people are generally speaking hardworking and not particularly intelligent.
     
    I've noticed that too. Persistence seems to be a huge key.

    I have spent my entire life in the academia and it still breaks my heart to see how little the collective acumen of faculty amounts to the world over.
     
    I've spent my life amongst "professionals" and similar things can be said for them. While they may be brilliant and skilled in a very narrow field, they can be very "unintelligent" in countless other ways. It's positively fascinating.

    And, let us not fooled ourselves here, there are plenty of intelligent people that amount to nothing at all.
     
    Or worse...!

    The balance between ability and practice is discussed here:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/practice-makes-one-third-perfect-other

    Read More
  68. @Nikolai Vladivostok
    Understandably. Were the names of respondents published, and their individual views?

    The survey was anonymous.

    Read More
  69. @Jason Liu
    Welcome.

    How much research regarding racial intelligence actually goes on, though? It seems like all the stuff is a rehash of Rushton, Murray etc, and any recent studies are usually done with an equalist/activist bent, as though the purpose of the study was to disprove racial differences, not investigate them.

    Small number of people working in the field, because it is difficult to get funding. However, many studies looking at scholastic ability in different groups are available, so researchers often use those as a proxy for direct intelligence measures. Genetic studies of intelligence have had to use weak proxies, namely years of schooling. The net result is that differences may be somewhat under-reported and under-estimated.

    Despite these difficulties, there are sufficient data sets for interesting studies to be carried out.

    Read More
  70. @wealthy farmer
    Race and 'Intelligence': two topics that when mixed are like 20-20-20 fertilizer for certain individuals' bloated egos and greed. Self-referential bullshit grows like kudzu in the field of 'intelligence', and I have more respect for the innate intelligence of the little sparrows that flit around outside my window than I do for the bloated slimy filth that crawls out of Yale and Harvard, heaving itself onto the world stage purporting to be my better.

    These 'researchers' should get a couple of dogs, and get to know them, live with them. Pitbulls and Rottweilers are slow, but they are fighters, and their 'intelligence' lies in acute situational awareness, body awareness, keen study of other dogs and people, looking for weakness....

    Border Collies, on the other hand, are about awareness in motion. Which way is the herd moving? What is that squirrel's next move?

    Not better, not worse. Different. Adapted for survival in different environments. Perfected differently.
    Read More
  71. Wally says:
    @Sean
    What IQ Researchers Really Think About Race and Intelligence is that they know to be chary of publicly revealing what they really think. And that will never change.

    Indeed, all those jobs in Marxist ‘academia’ and those sweet government / taxpayer grants might just dry up.

    Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.”
    - Germar Rudolf

    Read More
  72. @Sam Shama
    With a measure of trepidation given our recent exchanges, I agree with most of your arguments, particularly that remark about people conjugating narrow tests and race as a means to pat themselves on the back.

    I used to know a chap who a decade or so back, could merely look at long sequences of rather complicated patterns and correctly identify the next ten. Or more. Linguistics were also his forte. He went on to achieve a few things, some of them deemed exceptional, some not. Yet all of it involved a great deal of toil; persistence, as you mentioned, was not to be ignored. [It's worth mentioning that his abilities have declined over the years]

    As someone said Ces trois choses, la volonte, le travail, le succes, se partagent toute l'existence humaine. But even a lifetime of le travail a Turing will not make.

    Beyond that, I'll speculate without evidence that human groups independent of "race", all other things such as nutrition, viral load and education being equal, are capable of cognitive products, all that is good and bad, similarly well.

    No trepidation needed, good Sir.

    You done good! ;)

    Read More
  73. @jacques sheete

    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing ...are disappointing.

     

    You know what's disappointing? You failed to define "intelligence" in a meaningful way. A “general ability to reason and to learn?” To learn what? Do you really believe that there is a test for a “general ability to reason and to learn?” You do realize, do you not, that “IQ” tests may have some value in predicting certain specific abilities, but as for “general intelligence,” are you kidding me?

    I speak as an intelligence researcher.
     
    You know what else is disappointing? Your reliance on the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. I’d like to see proof that today’s “modern” researchers have motivations beyond the oracles and priests of old. Or garden variety con artists.

    …and obfuscate legitimate research findings…
     
    Something else that's disappointing is that you failed to use the word, "obfuscate" in an intelligent way. Legitimate research findings? Gimmee a break; I'd have to see it to believe it. Based on what I've experienced with "authorities" of all sorts, I'm calling quackery. Most of it is something to be laughed about while simultaneously despising it.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness — other factors come into play as well —

     

    Well, duh! If so, then why do people keep harping about it? And worse yet, why does the sap contingent keep extrapolating the "findings" to stroke themselves? I still think Lippman's comments are correct and they are intuitively apparent as well. It's just that he sez it better than I could, and I see no need to rewrite ideas. A large part of the “ability to reason and learn” is curiosity, I think. The intelligent person should be curious enough to read what's at the links I've posted.

    ...differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.
     
    Hooboy. For starters, who you calling black in that statement? And why is earnings a measure? Where's the proof for the claim?

    The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of "intelligence" is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, "general" intelligence. A fine example in case anyone's interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable "general ability to reason and to learn."

    No doubt both nature and nurture are involved, but still,


    Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.

    -Thomas Edison.Spoken statement (c. 1903); published in Harper's Monthly (September 1932).
     
    The "perspiration" is no doubt largely due to both nature and nurture as well.

    I agree that the definition of intelligence is a taxing matter. I have tried to provide the best explanations that I can, but I am sure that more and better explanations are required, particularly when people feel they are being fooled or belittled.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-in-2000-words

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-7-tribes-of-intellect

    The best introductory book is described here:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-all-that-matters-stuart

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Thank you!

    I bet, however, that every "scientist" has his own definition of "intelligence," (just as every "Christian" has its own concept of what he calls Christianity), and I'd bet further that it just happens to be a definition that makes him or his group look "superior." It's just human nature and I'm too old and too dim to believe much of what comes out of people's lips.

    Oh, you mentioned turgidity. In collitch we used to say, "if ya can't bedazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with booshit." I never knew how close that was to the truth.
  74. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It’s interesting to see the breakdown of what they think, some contradicting others. However, the operative word in all this is the word ‘think’. They don’t really know then, do they, or at least a majority don’t since they can’t all be right. In this context the word ‘think’ is equivalent to the word ‘opinion’.

    Read More
  75. @Santoculto
    Now you need quoted Malcolm Gladwell to finish with golden key.

    I'm trying to understand. You don't believe in racial differences in intelligence? General and/or specific?!

    Elaborate your point of views about this stuff.

    You don’t believe in racial differences in intelligence? General and/or specific?!

    What’s a “race,” anyway? We’re all mutts to one degree or another, so how ya gonna separate out the “races?”

    All this obsessing and blathering about races and IQ and what not reminds me of nothing so much as the fact that once upon a time kings, (many of whom were also regarded as gods, both by themselves and others) used to seek out oracles and look for useful information in the flights of birds and exams of entrails. It’s all pretty much mumbo-jumbo.

    All one has to do to convince people of the purported validity of some silliness is to slap the appellation “science” on it and the true believers suck it up like pigs in a slop trough. There are people even today who still think Marx and Freud were “scientists,” yet even I, with an IQ of about my shoe size, am able to perceive a fraud.

    It also strikes me as so much penis comparison as someone else commented.

    PS: Who the bleep is Malcolm Gladwell? Thank goodness for Google! :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    What’s a “race,” anyway? We’re all mutts to one degree or another, so how ya gonna separate out the “races?”
     
    Sub-species.

    Yes, because we are of the same species but this fact don't mean that races or sub-species don't exist.

    All this obsessing and blathering about races and IQ and what not reminds me of nothing so much as the fact that once upon a time kings, (many of whom were also regarded as gods, both by themselves and others) used to seek out oracles and look for useful information in the flights of birds and exams of entrails. It’s all pretty much mumbo-jumbo.

     

    Your personal opinion.

    Most people are not ''obsessed'' with this stuff, at least by now.

    Well, not exactly ''IQ x human races'' but ''Intelligence x human races''.

    It is a extremely relevant matter because this racial differences are

    factual,

    considerably influent,

    has been denied by psychopaths in the power,

    it's extremely important to help ''us'' to provide justice and real equality in this world, starting with the truth,

    lies about it (blank slate and ''races don't exist'') has been used to push en masse immigration, mixing race and white/european guilt complex,


    intelligence is one of the most important factor that preserve the life/to their survive and to the well-being.

    All one has to do to convince people of the purported validity of some silliness is to slap the appellation “science” on it and the true believers suck it up like pigs in a slop trough. There are people even today who still think Marx and Freud were “scientists,” yet even I, with an IQ of about my shoe size, am able to perceive a fraud.
     
    Yes, the fact we have followers in everywhere ''even'' here don't invalidate the existence of this patterns.

    It also strikes me as so much penis comparison as someone else commented.
     
    Yes, this tend to be a male-thing, BUT when we are talking about extremely relevant stuff this particular and factually correct assumption be submerged by this huge relevance.

    I always want to know what cause poverty... Do you not*

    Racial facet simply complete the puzzle and still is a great piece, ;)


    I did a direct question, please give to me a direct answer, i will repeat it.

    You don’t believe in racial differences in intelligence? General and/or specific?!

    You believe blacks and whites have the same intelligence levels but social discrepancies make them different?
  76. @James Thompson
    I agree that the definition of intelligence is a taxing matter. I have tried to provide the best explanations that I can, but I am sure that more and better explanations are required, particularly when people feel they are being fooled or belittled.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-in-2000-words
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-7-tribes-of-intellect

    The best introductory book is described here:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-all-that-matters-stuart

    Thank you!

    I bet, however, that every “scientist” has his own definition of “intelligence,” (just as every “Christian” has its own concept of what he calls Christianity), and I’d bet further that it just happens to be a definition that makes him or his group look “superior.” It’s just human nature and I’m too old and too dim to believe much of what comes out of people’s lips.

    Oh, you mentioned turgidity. In collitch we used to say, “if ya can’t bedazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with booshit.” I never knew how close that was to the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I have noticed that here at unz for some aficionados of IQ tests and theories the ultimate argument for the validity of their theories is the fact that Blacks score lower than Whites. It seems that this is all that is required. So, as long as you come up with new science of intelligence which ascertains that Blacks are necessarily less intelligent and to some that Jews are more intelligent, regardless of the definition, you can't go wrong with them.
  77. @Alden
    FYI according to those military tests he took while in the national guard, George Bush has an IQ of 125, which is classified as very bright. It's only 5 points below 130 which is gifted.

    Plus he has Regular, well proportioned handsome features and is neither bald not fat at his age.

    Given his looks and PROVEN IQ, he is excellent breeding stock, whether you like him or not.

    Given [George Bush's]looks and PROVEN IQ, he is excellent breeding stock, whether you like him or not.

    You just made me hurl.

    As they say, there’s no accounting for taste.

    PS: Do you really believe its IQ was measured at 125? If so, it shows how dumb the damned tests are.

    Let’s have a go at Obama. Columbia & Hawvawd. Tall, dark, smart, and handsome, eh? Is that what we call good breeding stock too? If so, all I can say is “eeerrrrp!” Have you seen what’s chosen to breed with it?

    Excuse me while I go relieve myself.

    Read More
  78. @jacques sheete

    You don’t believe in racial differences in intelligence? General and/or specific?!
     
    What's a "race," anyway? We're all mutts to one degree or another, so how ya gonna separate out the "races?"

    All this obsessing and blathering about races and IQ and what not reminds me of nothing so much as the fact that once upon a time kings, (many of whom were also regarded as gods, both by themselves and others) used to seek out oracles and look for useful information in the flights of birds and exams of entrails. It's all pretty much mumbo-jumbo.

    All one has to do to convince people of the purported validity of some silliness is to slap the appellation "science" on it and the true believers suck it up like pigs in a slop trough. There are people even today who still think Marx and Freud were "scientists," yet even I, with an IQ of about my shoe size, am able to perceive a fraud.

    It also strikes me as so much penis comparison as someone else commented.

    PS: Who the bleep is Malcolm Gladwell? Thank goodness for Google! :)

    What’s a “race,” anyway? We’re all mutts to one degree or another, so how ya gonna separate out the “races?”

    Sub-species.

    Yes, because we are of the same species but this fact don’t mean that races or sub-species don’t exist.

    All this obsessing and blathering about races and IQ and what not reminds me of nothing so much as the fact that once upon a time kings, (many of whom were also regarded as gods, both by themselves and others) used to seek out oracles and look for useful information in the flights of birds and exams of entrails. It’s all pretty much mumbo-jumbo.

    Your personal opinion.

    Most people are not ”obsessed” with this stuff, at least by now.

    Well, not exactly ”IQ x human races” but ”Intelligence x human races”.

    It is a extremely relevant matter because this racial differences are

    factual,

    considerably influent,

    has been denied by psychopaths in the power,

    it’s extremely important to help ”us” to provide justice and real equality in this world, starting with the truth,

    lies about it (blank slate and ”races don’t exist”) has been used to push en masse immigration, mixing race and white/european guilt complex,

    intelligence is one of the most important factor that preserve the life/to their survive and to the well-being.

    All one has to do to convince people of the purported validity of some silliness is to slap the appellation “science” on it and the true believers suck it up like pigs in a slop trough. There are people even today who still think Marx and Freud were “scientists,” yet even I, with an IQ of about my shoe size, am able to perceive a fraud.

    Yes, the fact we have followers in everywhere ”even” here don’t invalidate the existence of this patterns.

    It also strikes me as so much penis comparison as someone else commented.

    Yes, this tend to be a male-thing, BUT when we are talking about extremely relevant stuff this particular and factually correct assumption be submerged by this huge relevance.

    I always want to know what cause poverty… Do you not*

    Racial facet simply complete the puzzle and still is a great piece, ;)

    I did a direct question, please give to me a direct answer, i will repeat it.

    You don’t believe in racial differences in intelligence? General and/or specific?!

    You believe blacks and whites have the same intelligence levels but social discrepancies make them different?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Define sub-species.

    I did a direct question, please give to me a direct answer, I will repeat it.

     

    Tell me how yer gonna separate out sub-species.
  79. @Sean
    What IQ Researchers Really Think About Race and Intelligence is that they know to be chary of publicly revealing what they really think. And that will never change.

    Minimally OT:

    “JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A Mississippi man with a prior criminal record was arrested Wednesday in the burning of an African-American church that was spray-painted with the words “Vote Trump,” and the church’s bishop said the man is a member of the congregation.

    The state fire marshal said investigators do not believe the fire was politically motivated.”

    Read More
  80. JackOH says:
    @jacques sheete

    Your efforts to denigrate IQ testing ...are disappointing.

     

    You know what's disappointing? You failed to define "intelligence" in a meaningful way. A “general ability to reason and to learn?” To learn what? Do you really believe that there is a test for a “general ability to reason and to learn?” You do realize, do you not, that “IQ” tests may have some value in predicting certain specific abilities, but as for “general intelligence,” are you kidding me?

    I speak as an intelligence researcher.
     
    You know what else is disappointing? Your reliance on the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. I’d like to see proof that today’s “modern” researchers have motivations beyond the oracles and priests of old. Or garden variety con artists.

    …and obfuscate legitimate research findings…
     
    Something else that's disappointing is that you failed to use the word, "obfuscate" in an intelligent way. Legitimate research findings? Gimmee a break; I'd have to see it to believe it. Based on what I've experienced with "authorities" of all sorts, I'm calling quackery. Most of it is something to be laughed about while simultaneously despising it.

    Intelligence does not guarantee achievement or happiness — other factors come into play as well —

     

    Well, duh! If so, then why do people keep harping about it? And worse yet, why does the sap contingent keep extrapolating the "findings" to stroke themselves? I still think Lippman's comments are correct and they are intuitively apparent as well. It's just that he sez it better than I could, and I see no need to rewrite ideas. A large part of the “ability to reason and learn” is curiosity, I think. The intelligent person should be curious enough to read what's at the links I've posted.

    ...differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.
     
    Hooboy. For starters, who you calling black in that statement? And why is earnings a measure? Where's the proof for the claim?

    The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of "intelligence" is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, "general" intelligence. A fine example in case anyone's interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable "general ability to reason and to learn."

    No doubt both nature and nurture are involved, but still,


    Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.

    -Thomas Edison.Spoken statement (c. 1903); published in Harper's Monthly (September 1932).
     
    The "perspiration" is no doubt largely due to both nature and nurture as well.

    “The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of “intelligence” is the talent to screw them over”, and following.

    Agree, LOL:) Anyone who doubts how middling IQ folks can take advantage of presumptively higher IQ folks needs to spend a morning in the waiting room of a high-end car dealership’s service department.

    I’m very okay with studies of intelligence, but there’s a whole lot more going on in the world than IQ, SAT scores, and the like.

    Read More
  81. kiismerh says:

    Let’s say it is 50% nature 50% nurture. But better nurture is the consequence of better nature, so ultimately 100% of the differences is due to genes.

    Read More
  82. utu says:
    @jacques sheete
    Thank you!

    I bet, however, that every "scientist" has his own definition of "intelligence," (just as every "Christian" has its own concept of what he calls Christianity), and I'd bet further that it just happens to be a definition that makes him or his group look "superior." It's just human nature and I'm too old and too dim to believe much of what comes out of people's lips.

    Oh, you mentioned turgidity. In collitch we used to say, "if ya can't bedazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with booshit." I never knew how close that was to the truth.

    I have noticed that here at unz for some aficionados of IQ tests and theories the ultimate argument for the validity of their theories is the fact that Blacks score lower than Whites. It seems that this is all that is required. So, as long as you come up with new science of intelligence which ascertains that Blacks are necessarily less intelligent and to some that Jews are more intelligent, regardless of the definition, you can’t go wrong with them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @europeasant
    Let's just let the results speak for themselves.
    , @phil
    Intelligence tests are said by researchers to be valid insofar as they are are predictive of socially-valued outcomes. They are. For example, in Heckman's work (Journal of Labor Economics, 1986), the author reluctantly concluded that the poor relative performance of African-Americans on the (g-loaded) Armed Forces Qualifying Test was a key factor (along with dysfunctional character traits) helping to explain their low average earnings. He also agreed that a alck of cognitive ability could be traced back to at least ages 3-4 (if nor earlier).

    Intelligence tests are said by researchers to be reliable insofar as the results from a test administration are well correlated with the results obtained from other test administrations (for the same or similar set of test-takers). They are. The correlations typically range from 0.8 - 0.9.

    , @Santoculto
    Blacks have under"scored" in most of cognitive and psychological aspects since a very long time, in comparative/relative and absolute terms. IQ tests just "proved" superficially well what has been observable at naked eyes, a gigantic historical/geographical pattern noticed by people of different backgrounds, different civilizations and so on.

    I'm that people and many others too.
  83. @utu
    I have noticed that here at unz for some aficionados of IQ tests and theories the ultimate argument for the validity of their theories is the fact that Blacks score lower than Whites. It seems that this is all that is required. So, as long as you come up with new science of intelligence which ascertains that Blacks are necessarily less intelligent and to some that Jews are more intelligent, regardless of the definition, you can't go wrong with them.

    Let’s just let the results speak for themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Let’s just let the results speak for themselves.

     

    Let's just assume the tests have much meaning, eh?

    I could just as easily devise a "test" that "proves" all humans are dumb shitz.
  84. @zyezek
    There are a couple serious issues with this:

    1) American "black" people are not a monolithic group. Recent legal immigrants from Nigeria are as different (culturally AND likely genetically) from direct slave descendants in the USA as Englishmen & Italians are.

    2) Things like IQ tests can tell you if there is, empirically, a measurement "gap" between subsets of the population (and not just ones selected by racial criteria). However, the measurements themselves are dubious, and so any science you do with many of them will suffer from "garbage in, garbage out".

    Now, we can probably agree that intelligence is a trait with a significant genetic component. But a core premise of this whole arena of thinking appears to be that raw brainpower is central to human affairs. I find that premise itself to be defective. The core problem isn't that people are different, that brainpower is at least partially inherited, or that racial gaps on such things are real & should not be taboo to speak of. No, it is the underlying notion that intelligence has some inherent moral dimension, that 'smarter' people are entitled to more power & influence in society than everybody else, that one race being overall 'smarter' than another makes them superior. BOTH extremes in this space share that poisonous root premise, without which research along this lines would be no more ideologically fraught than that into height & weight variation.

    You are right. It is the fertility rate that ultimately triumphs.

    Read More
  85. phil says:
    @utu
    I have noticed that here at unz for some aficionados of IQ tests and theories the ultimate argument for the validity of their theories is the fact that Blacks score lower than Whites. It seems that this is all that is required. So, as long as you come up with new science of intelligence which ascertains that Blacks are necessarily less intelligent and to some that Jews are more intelligent, regardless of the definition, you can't go wrong with them.

    Intelligence tests are said by researchers to be valid insofar as they are are predictive of socially-valued outcomes. They are. For example, in Heckman’s work (Journal of Labor Economics, 1986), the author reluctantly concluded that the poor relative performance of African-Americans on the (g-loaded) Armed Forces Qualifying Test was a key factor (along with dysfunctional character traits) helping to explain their low average earnings. He also agreed that a alck of cognitive ability could be traced back to at least ages 3-4 (if nor earlier).

    Intelligence tests are said by researchers to be reliable insofar as the results from a test administration are well correlated with the results obtained from other test administrations (for the same or similar set of test-takers). They are. The correlations typically range from 0.8 – 0.9.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ...performance of African-Americans on the (g-loaded) Armed Forces Qualifying Test was a key factor (along with dysfunctional character traits) helping to explain their low average earnings.
     
    You changed it to "African-American." That's far different from

    differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.
     
    Can you explain how the leap from one specific group, "African-Americans" can, in a valid way, be generalized to all blacks?

    Probably no one disagrees that "African-Americans" probably are less intelligent, as a group, than many other groups AND that it may have significant roots in genetics, however, probably no one can say there hasn't been negative selection involved, either.

    It would be interesting to know how the testers determined who was African-American and who was not.

    However, to go from that to "ALL blacks are inferior" is wide of the mark. Besides, who cares about the intelligence of groups anyway? If one is a member of a "sub-intelligent" group is he or she somehow less worthy? Should they then be subject to some sort of special treatment? (Take that any way you want to.)

    Since this all supposedly has to do with concern about poverty, I can tell you that it doesn't take a genius or a study to understand that poverty needn't have a basis in genetics or even a lack of intelligence, nor are riches generally a result of superior intelligence or superior genetics. (Aren't we supposed to believe that we're all descendants of Noah, anyway?)

    The whole thing smacks of pseudoscience to me. In other words, there appear to be some who feel the need to feel superior for whatever reason and ,by gawd, they'll "prove" it one way or another.

    Why don't we just go back to physiognomy and phrenology instead?

    Or maybe all we need to do is circumcise 'em and make sure they're not wankers :)

    One of the leading advocates of circumcision was John Harvey Kellogg. He also advocated the consumption of Kellogg's corn flakes to prevent masturbation, which he said caused weak mindedness.

    Do Kellogg’s Corn Flakes Help Control Masturbation?

    By MICHAEL ASHWORTH, PH.D.
    In the early part of this century, John Harvey Kellogg gained a reputation both as a nutritionist and a sexual adviser. The foods that Kellogg created (including the now-famous corn flakes) were designed to promote health and decrease interest in sex.
    Mr. Kellogg thought sex was the ultimate abomination and remained celibate even in marriage. Masturbation was the worst sin imaginable to him. He believed it led to leprosy, tuberculosis, heart disease, epilepsy, dimness of vision, insanity, idiocy, and death. He also preached that masturbation led to bashfulness in some people, unnatural boldness in others, a fondness for spicy foods, round shoulders, and acne. That’s quite a list!

    http://psychcentral.com/lib/do-kelloggs-corn-flakes-help-control-masturbation/

     

    Did any of the worthy "testers" check 'em to see whether they were circumcised, or not?? Hmmmm?
  86. @Santoculto

    What’s a “race,” anyway? We’re all mutts to one degree or another, so how ya gonna separate out the “races?”
     
    Sub-species.

    Yes, because we are of the same species but this fact don't mean that races or sub-species don't exist.

    All this obsessing and blathering about races and IQ and what not reminds me of nothing so much as the fact that once upon a time kings, (many of whom were also regarded as gods, both by themselves and others) used to seek out oracles and look for useful information in the flights of birds and exams of entrails. It’s all pretty much mumbo-jumbo.

     

    Your personal opinion.

    Most people are not ''obsessed'' with this stuff, at least by now.

    Well, not exactly ''IQ x human races'' but ''Intelligence x human races''.

    It is a extremely relevant matter because this racial differences are

    factual,

    considerably influent,

    has been denied by psychopaths in the power,

    it's extremely important to help ''us'' to provide justice and real equality in this world, starting with the truth,

    lies about it (blank slate and ''races don't exist'') has been used to push en masse immigration, mixing race and white/european guilt complex,


    intelligence is one of the most important factor that preserve the life/to their survive and to the well-being.

    All one has to do to convince people of the purported validity of some silliness is to slap the appellation “science” on it and the true believers suck it up like pigs in a slop trough. There are people even today who still think Marx and Freud were “scientists,” yet even I, with an IQ of about my shoe size, am able to perceive a fraud.
     
    Yes, the fact we have followers in everywhere ''even'' here don't invalidate the existence of this patterns.

    It also strikes me as so much penis comparison as someone else commented.
     
    Yes, this tend to be a male-thing, BUT when we are talking about extremely relevant stuff this particular and factually correct assumption be submerged by this huge relevance.

    I always want to know what cause poverty... Do you not*

    Racial facet simply complete the puzzle and still is a great piece, ;)


    I did a direct question, please give to me a direct answer, i will repeat it.

    You don’t believe in racial differences in intelligence? General and/or specific?!

    You believe blacks and whites have the same intelligence levels but social discrepancies make them different?

    Define sub-species.

    I did a direct question, please give to me a direct answer, I will repeat it.

    Tell me how yer gonna separate out sub-species.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    First answer my questions directly.

    Do you can do it??
  87. @europeasant
    Let's just let the results speak for themselves.

    Let’s just let the results speak for themselves.

    Let’s just assume the tests have much meaning, eh?

    I could just as easily devise a “test” that “proves” all humans are dumb shitz.

    Read More
  88. @another fred

    Not better, not worse. Different. Adapted for survival in different environments. Perfected differently.
     
    Do you think shepherds would be happy if the government insisted they use pitbulls to herd their sheep?

    Do you think that the “brilliant” Harvard grandee Larry Summers could survive 15 minutes in the Cabrini housing projects? Yet there are people of ‘lower’IQ who survive in that environment, some even thrive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Do you believe ghetto dwellers would survive for long without government handouts and free housing?
    Those people survive because they're supported by a first world society.
    BTW, Cabrini Greens no longer exists.
  89. utu says:

    “Intelligence tests are said by researchers to be valid insofar as they are are predictive of socially-valued outcomes.”

    Valid in what sense? The bottom line is that we do no have an independent definition of intelligence. What you are stating is good from empirical point of view. But if you use this to build a definition of intelligence you are in tautology territory. Furthermore the definition of intelligence cannot depend on what we decide are “socially-valued outcomes”. You must decide whether you want to build a solid science or just looking for methods of people sorting for some social engineering project. In the latter case there is a risk of running into the self-fulfilling prophesy region.

    Read More
  90. @phil
    Intelligence tests are said by researchers to be valid insofar as they are are predictive of socially-valued outcomes. They are. For example, in Heckman's work (Journal of Labor Economics, 1986), the author reluctantly concluded that the poor relative performance of African-Americans on the (g-loaded) Armed Forces Qualifying Test was a key factor (along with dysfunctional character traits) helping to explain their low average earnings. He also agreed that a alck of cognitive ability could be traced back to at least ages 3-4 (if nor earlier).

    Intelligence tests are said by researchers to be reliable insofar as the results from a test administration are well correlated with the results obtained from other test administrations (for the same or similar set of test-takers). They are. The correlations typically range from 0.8 - 0.9.

    …performance of African-Americans on the (g-loaded) Armed Forces Qualifying Test was a key factor (along with dysfunctional character traits) helping to explain their low average earnings.

    You changed it to “African-American.” That’s far different from

    differences in intelligence are the #1 factor explaining differences in earnings between blacks and whites.

    Can you explain how the leap from one specific group, “African-Americans” can, in a valid way, be generalized to all blacks?

    Probably no one disagrees that “African-Americans” probably are less intelligent, as a group, than many other groups AND that it may have significant roots in genetics, however, probably no one can say there hasn’t been negative selection involved, either.

    It would be interesting to know how the testers determined who was African-American and who was not.

    However, to go from that to “ALL blacks are inferior” is wide of the mark. Besides, who cares about the intelligence of groups anyway? If one is a member of a “sub-intelligent” group is he or she somehow less worthy? Should they then be subject to some sort of special treatment? (Take that any way you want to.)

    Since this all supposedly has to do with concern about poverty, I can tell you that it doesn’t take a genius or a study to understand that poverty needn’t have a basis in genetics or even a lack of intelligence, nor are riches generally a result of superior intelligence or superior genetics. (Aren’t we supposed to believe that we’re all descendants of Noah, anyway?)

    The whole thing smacks of pseudoscience to me. In other words, there appear to be some who feel the need to feel superior for whatever reason and ,by gawd, they’ll “prove” it one way or another.

    Why don’t we just go back to physiognomy and phrenology instead?

    Or maybe all we need to do is circumcise ‘em and make sure they’re not wankers :)

    One of the leading advocates of circumcision was John Harvey Kellogg. He also advocated the consumption of Kellogg’s corn flakes to prevent masturbation, which he said caused weak mindedness.

    Do Kellogg’s Corn Flakes Help Control Masturbation?

    By MICHAEL ASHWORTH, PH.D.
    In the early part of this century, John Harvey Kellogg gained a reputation both as a nutritionist and a sexual adviser. The foods that Kellogg created (including the now-famous corn flakes) were designed to promote health and decrease interest in sex.
    Mr. Kellogg thought sex was the ultimate abomination and remained celibate even in marriage. Masturbation was the worst sin imaginable to him. He believed it led to leprosy, tuberculosis, heart disease, epilepsy, dimness of vision, insanity, idiocy, and death. He also preached that masturbation led to bashfulness in some people, unnatural boldness in others, a fondness for spicy foods, round shoulders, and acne. That’s quite a list!

    http://psychcentral.com/lib/do-kelloggs-corn-flakes-help-control-masturbation/

    Did any of the worthy “testers” check ‘em to see whether they were circumcised, or not?? Hmmmm?

    Read More
  91. @Mike Johnson
    "The world has seen many a genius taken to the cleaners by those whose main form of “intelligence” is the talent to screw them over. More often the difference in earnings is due more to the genius of rascality than raw, “general” intelligence. A fine example in case anyone’s interested, would be the saga of the inventor of frequency modulation and the superheterodyne circuit Edwin Armstrong and how he was screwed over despite his rather remarkable “general ability to reason and to learn.”

    This is spot on, in our society today, cleverness has become more important than wisdom. Cleverness can teach you to profit and benefit on the backs of others but being wise is knowing that this will eventually catch up with you.

    The premium that has been placed on cleverness in our society coincides with the increase in power of a certain ethnic group that I will not name. This groups loves to remind us of the saying "we will never forget" while I say to them "you never learn".

    Well said. Sometimes folks are a little to clever for their own good…

    Read More
  92. Thirdeye says:

    The article is a step removed from race and intelligence. It provides an estimate of the portion of intelligence that is genetic, but racial subgroups exhibit wide variability in intelligence. That variability is masked when mean IQs are reported for varied groups that fall under one general race. To truly validate race as a predictor of IQ would require an ANOVA test based on the subgroups within races.

    Read More
  93. @utu
    I have noticed that here at unz for some aficionados of IQ tests and theories the ultimate argument for the validity of their theories is the fact that Blacks score lower than Whites. It seems that this is all that is required. So, as long as you come up with new science of intelligence which ascertains that Blacks are necessarily less intelligent and to some that Jews are more intelligent, regardless of the definition, you can't go wrong with them.

    Blacks have under”scored” in most of cognitive and psychological aspects since a very long time, in comparative/relative and absolute terms. IQ tests just “proved” superficially well what has been observable at naked eyes, a gigantic historical/geographical pattern noticed by people of different backgrounds, different civilizations and so on.

    I’m that people and many others too.

    Read More
  94. @jacques sheete
    Define sub-species.

    I did a direct question, please give to me a direct answer, I will repeat it.

     

    Tell me how yer gonna separate out sub-species.

    First answer my questions directly.

    Do you can do it??

    Read More
  95. Steve84 says:
    @Days of Broken Arrows
    If intelligence doesn't have some genetic component, then why do infertile couples pay money to acquire sperm from Ivy League men for artificial insemination? Why don't women with infertile husbands just have sex with any willing local bum at no charge?

    Also, why are sperm banks paying Ivy League men for donations? Why don't they just go to Skid Row or group homes for the mentally challenged and get the sperm there?

    The same goes for donating eggs -- for which college women get big bucks. Here is an article from Slate titled "Couples want donors to be smart, athletic, and good-looking." Notice the first word in that headline.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/egg_donation_study_couples_want_donors_to_be_smart_athletic_good_looking.html

    And yet I'll bet if you asked any of these couples (or any Slate reader) about IQ and genetics when they were among friends at a party, they'd deny any connection. Finally, nice to see a new columnist at Unz. This is a subject I'm glad is being addressed.

    The question wasn’t does intelligence have anything to do with genes- it is known that IQ is highly heritable, as heritable as height.

    The question was whether racial differences in intelligence are due to genetic differences or environmental differences. That’s a different question. For example, North and South Koreans differ in height by a significant amount due to environmental differences (they are basically the same group genetically split by a political divide), but height is still highly heritable- most of the variation in height in both North and South Korea is due to genetic variation.

    Read More
  96. East Germans are on avg shorter than west Germans?? (I thought are catholic Bavarians who tend to have the shorter average height in Germany).

    Seems communism have little effect in the avg height of eastern Europeans, ^_~

    Read More
  97. Seems communism tend to have the magical skill to retain nations static in the time, as if the chronos god had in vacations of undetermined time…

    Even the poorest of ex communist countries in this region still have at least today greater avg height, Moldova, Bulgaria, ex Yugoslavian nations.

    Also the tallest Ethiopian types… Despite poverty and hungry crisis.

    Read More
  98. @Santoculto
    Your weight in numbers IS NOT exactly what your weight is in the concrete/analytical reality, what it really is.

    Quantification, sometimes, can be understood as a ''summarize of the analysis''.

    Analysis (just the factual description of the perceived reality) trumps over mensurement or quantification.

    So, your IQ, or your intelligence in numbers, IS NOT exactly what your intelligence really is. Your IQ still is, in the not-so-same way, your weight still is or can reflect, in number/abstractions/symbols, your weight or intelligence SIZE.

    The size of your weight or of your intelligence is not the whole reality of both if both are not only their size.

    It's like to reduce a entire human being/entity to their height size.

    “Your weight in numbers IS NOT exactly what your weight is in the concrete/analytical reality, what it really is.”

    Do tell, what is then?

    Read More
  99. @jb
    Thanks! I've seen both those links, but they both have the problem of being associated with people who hold a hereditarian position, and thus will be suspect in the minds of naive followers of the conventional wisdom. I had in mind something more like this NYT op-ed by Richard Nisbett, who denies that the gap is genetic (well it is the New York Times!), but acknowledges that a gap exists!

    What would be perfect would be an accessible multi-author paper in a reputable journal that explicitly states that the existence and approximate size of the black/white IQ gap are not in dispute, not even by those who reject a genetic explanation for the gap. If you can demonstrate that even the "good guys" agree that there is a gap, then you can move on to talking about the consequences of the gap for public policy and so on. Sometimes (many times actually!) that is all you really want to do.

    “I had in mind something more like this NYT op-ed by Richard Nisbett, who denies that the gap is genetic (well it is the New York Times!), but acknowledges that a gap exists!”

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/21/refuting-richard-nisbett/

    Read More
  100. Robbie B. says:
    @jacques sheete
    For once, a decent article about "IQ."

    First off, I notice that a good definition of "intelligence" is sorely lacking all around.

    Second, this smells of the old nature-nurture debate which should have been settled decades ago.

    Third, too many people think that something labelled IQ actually measures general intelligence. Hint: Sometimes labels are misleading.

    Fourth, most here seem to think higher is better, and that better means more entitled.

    Fifth, there happen to be a lot of quacks in "academia." It doesn't appear that too many commenters here are very particular about which quack's opinion (not even a theory) they subscribe to.

    Sixth, almost a century ago, people understood that extrapolating concepts from "IQ" tests to general statements is highly error prone. Some even wrote about it. Here's one, and he warn't no dummy.:

    “One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.


    - Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –
    http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov15-00297

    “And in the meantime the psychologists will save themselves from the reproach of having opened up a new chance for quackery in a field where quacks breed like rabbits, and they will save themselves from the humiliation of having furnished doped evidence to the exponents of the New Snobbery.


    Walter Lippmann, A Future for the Tests, The New Republic
    , November 29, 1922, pp. 9-10

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov29-00009

    “3. This benefit [of the tests] is in great danger of being offset by dangerous abuse if the claims of the intelligence testers are not purged of certain fundamental assumptions.

    4. The most important of these fundamental assumptions are: (a) that the intelligence test measures “intelligence,” (b) that “intelligence” is fixed by heredity, and that the intelligence test reveals and measures hereditary intelligence.

    Walter Lippmann, A Future for the Tests, The New Republic
    , November 29, 1922, p. 10

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov29-00009

     

    Here's my unsolicited advice.:

    Forget obsessing about "IQ" and do something useful with whatever "intelligence" you think you have. Forget about trying to prove how superior you are, because you ain't and if you were, so what? You still ain't nuttin special, no matter what mommy always thought.

    Walter Lippman?

    I don’t want to lower the bar here on this site, but the most fitting response to this is a now fairly popular one heard out on the street:

    Nigger, please!

    Read More
  101. @jb
    Thanks! I've seen both those links, but they both have the problem of being associated with people who hold a hereditarian position, and thus will be suspect in the minds of naive followers of the conventional wisdom. I had in mind something more like this NYT op-ed by Richard Nisbett, who denies that the gap is genetic (well it is the New York Times!), but acknowledges that a gap exists!

    What would be perfect would be an accessible multi-author paper in a reputable journal that explicitly states that the existence and approximate size of the black/white IQ gap are not in dispute, not even by those who reject a genetic explanation for the gap. If you can demonstrate that even the "good guys" agree that there is a gap, then you can move on to talking about the consequences of the gap for public policy and so on. Sometimes (many times actually!) that is all you really want to do.

    You could cite James R. Flynn. He has impeccable Lefty credentials (hard Left, he describes himself as a Marxist), and has spent 40+ years devising arguments that emphasize environment over genes in IQ. He admits the gap exists, and attempts to ascribe it to culture, parenting, etc., rather than genes. He’s published data to argue that the black-white IQ gap is narrowing: http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/dickens2006a.pdf

    Even in the above-linked article, designed to show the gap shrinking, the gap after the shrinkage remains pretty large, and projecting forward, it seems the gap’s going to be around for many years yet.

    Over the years, Flynn’s study of the environmental factors affecting IQ has led to the conclusion that most of the usual suspects matter very little. This has left him with parenting as the last environmental factor of potentially big effect that hasn’t been ruled out. So, he’s forced to hail Chinese and Jewish parents as being very good at nurturing their children’s academic potential, and damning African-American parents as being poor at that task: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/27/james-flynn-race-iq-myths-does-your-family-make-you-smarter

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    Any impact from parenting fades during adolescence and is not statistically detectable in adulthood. This finding has been replicated many times in the field of behavioral genetics.

    The reason why there are ever-more shrill cries of racism is that the gap still exists after more than 100 years of testing and hundreds of programs to try to make it go away.

    , @utu
    Thanks for the links to articles on Flynn.
  102. Perhaps climate research has poisoned the academic atmosphere, and no-one wants to be involved with anything which smacks of consensus science

    Very Glad to hear that!

    In 2013 experts rated Die Zeit, Steve Sailer and Anatoly Karlin very highly as media sources on intelligence

    Very glad to hear that as well. I guess my bubble is not as limited as I thought.

    Read More
  103. I ask to myself how demographic transition might be relatively or significatively correlated with Flynn Effect.

    I mean, first born tend to score higher in IQ tests [ namely in performance or 'general intelligence'**]. Reduction of family size also mean reduction of variation of intelligence within families and generally this variation tend to mean ”greater % of less smart people”. Poor and middle class people also have reduced their family size/fertility rates a lot, namely among people of non-color. So this effect of reduction of intra-familial variation may be more significatively among this groups. People are living more time, higher expectancy. Some them are having child later and we know there are SOME correlation between higher IQ and pregnancy age, some… All this happened during the penultimate period of demographic transition when the fertility rates start to reduce. ”Usually” relative reduction of testosterone tend to mean increase of general intelligence. Also maybe selective events in XIX (period of intense social darwinism, or not) just started to manifest throughout XX century.

    But of course increase of quality in the psychometric works if compared with first ones, i believe, have a considerable impact to the Flynn Effect.

    Or i’m simply, completely wrong about everything.

    But even Flynn Effect is completely right, at least I know ”intelligence is not IQ”.

    Read More
  104. phil says:
    @Tom Cobley-Hobbes
    You could cite James R. Flynn. He has impeccable Lefty credentials (hard Left, he describes himself as a Marxist), and has spent 40+ years devising arguments that emphasize environment over genes in IQ. He admits the gap exists, and attempts to ascribe it to culture, parenting, etc., rather than genes. He's published data to argue that the black-white IQ gap is narrowing: http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/dickens2006a.pdf

    Even in the above-linked article, designed to show the gap shrinking, the gap after the shrinkage remains pretty large, and projecting forward, it seems the gap's going to be around for many years yet.

    Over the years, Flynn's study of the environmental factors affecting IQ has led to the conclusion that most of the usual suspects matter very little. This has left him with parenting as the last environmental factor of potentially big effect that hasn't been ruled out. So, he's forced to hail Chinese and Jewish parents as being very good at nurturing their children's academic potential, and damning African-American parents as being poor at that task: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/27/james-flynn-race-iq-myths-does-your-family-make-you-smarter

    Any impact from parenting fades during adolescence and is not statistically detectable in adulthood. This finding has been replicated many times in the field of behavioral genetics.

    The reason why there are ever-more shrill cries of racism is that the gap still exists after more than 100 years of testing and hundreds of programs to try to make it go away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    " . . . [G]ap still exists after more than 100 years of testing and hundreds of programs to try to make it go away"[emphasis mine].

    phil, yours seems to me an observation with probably immediate political usefulness for the right people. We have an educational "remediation" program, mostly for inner-city Blacks, at the Podunk Tech where I'm an insider-observer. The program is known as a fraud, a political sop to Blacks. Everyone involved has to play ball, though. The program costs only about 1%-2% of total revenues, but its budget is untouchable, and my feeling is it's a drain on institutional energy and focus. The "irremediable gap" may be an additional argument to deploy those moneys elsewhere. (BTW-I'm OK with aggressive college recruitment of talented Blacks and Hispanics in the 'hood and barrio.)

  105. JackOH says:
    @phil
    Any impact from parenting fades during adolescence and is not statistically detectable in adulthood. This finding has been replicated many times in the field of behavioral genetics.

    The reason why there are ever-more shrill cries of racism is that the gap still exists after more than 100 years of testing and hundreds of programs to try to make it go away.

    ” . . . [G]ap still exists after more than 100 years of testing and hundreds of programs to try to make it go away“[emphasis mine].

    phil, yours seems to me an observation with probably immediate political usefulness for the right people. We have an educational “remediation” program, mostly for inner-city Blacks, at the Podunk Tech where I’m an insider-observer. The program is known as a fraud, a political sop to Blacks. Everyone involved has to play ball, though. The program costs only about 1%-2% of total revenues, but its budget is untouchable, and my feeling is it’s a drain on institutional energy and focus. The “irremediable gap” may be an additional argument to deploy those moneys elsewhere. (BTW-I’m OK with aggressive college recruitment of talented Blacks and Hispanics in the ‘hood and barrio.)

    Read More
  106. utu says:
    @Tom Cobley-Hobbes
    You could cite James R. Flynn. He has impeccable Lefty credentials (hard Left, he describes himself as a Marxist), and has spent 40+ years devising arguments that emphasize environment over genes in IQ. He admits the gap exists, and attempts to ascribe it to culture, parenting, etc., rather than genes. He's published data to argue that the black-white IQ gap is narrowing: http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/dickens2006a.pdf

    Even in the above-linked article, designed to show the gap shrinking, the gap after the shrinkage remains pretty large, and projecting forward, it seems the gap's going to be around for many years yet.

    Over the years, Flynn's study of the environmental factors affecting IQ has led to the conclusion that most of the usual suspects matter very little. This has left him with parenting as the last environmental factor of potentially big effect that hasn't been ruled out. So, he's forced to hail Chinese and Jewish parents as being very good at nurturing their children's academic potential, and damning African-American parents as being poor at that task: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/27/james-flynn-race-iq-myths-does-your-family-make-you-smarter

    Thanks for the links to articles on Flynn.

    Read More
  107. BB753 says:
    @wealthy farmer
    Do you think that the "brilliant" Harvard grandee Larry Summers could survive 15 minutes in the Cabrini housing projects? Yet there are people of 'lower'IQ who survive in that environment, some even thrive.

    Do you believe ghetto dwellers would survive for long without government handouts and free housing?
    Those people survive because they’re supported by a first world society.
    BTW, Cabrini Greens no longer exists.

    Read More
  108. @Numinous
    Why does a genetic basis for intelligence necessarily imply that there must be a racial basis for intelligence, as many commenters here state?

    When I look at people with dark skin, it is easy to believe that there is a "dark skin gene". When I look at people who have epicanthic folds, it is easy to believe that there is an "epicanthic fold gene". When I observe lactose tolerance in people, it is easy to believe that there is a "lactose tolerance gene". And when I observe certain people easily breathing in rarefied high altitudes, it is easy to believe there is a "high altitude adaptation gene". And genetic research seems to bear these observations out.

    But "intelligent" people occur in all racial groups, all ethicities, and all regions. (It is not possible to look at a person and determine if he is smart or dumb.) Sure, the percentages may vary. But plain observation, and Occam's razor, would lead me to conclude that if there is an "intelligence gene", it has to be cross-racial (or orthogonal to race), rather than race-specific. So it is perfectly fair to assume that an Ivy League grad's children will turn out to be smart without concluding that anyone (or most people) sharing that grad's racial phenotype will also be smart.

    Without more solid biological evidence, what is the value in a survey of the kind reported in this blog post? As genetics researchers, the survey respondents are coming at the topic with a view that intelligence has a genetic basis. Their tests may convince them one way or the other, but they are predisposed to assuming that anything and everything may have a genetic basis. Just as a psychoanalyst would assume that any and every behavior mush have a Freudian basis.

    Any genetic issue is complicated, and this one doubly so. Even the concept of intelligence itself is not easily defined. The most sensible explanation for the achievement gap is that it is about a number of factors that influence learning and behavior, especially impulse control. But even that, while a heritable trait, can be overcome culturally. Almost any person can achieve what others do, although it may come with more effort.
    As to your last point, I see all this through the lens of an Industrial Archaeologist. I see the world in terms of technologies shared or developed over time, and people’s ability to develop available resources. Some groups of people live in hostile environments with few resources and consistently thrive, while others starve in areas with abundant resources and agreeable weather. Exactly why those in the second group consistently fail becomes the big question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    All different types of culture black diaspora is inserted is unlikely to explain lower achievements of them, with exceptions.
  109. @Max Blancke
    Any genetic issue is complicated, and this one doubly so. Even the concept of intelligence itself is not easily defined. The most sensible explanation for the achievement gap is that it is about a number of factors that influence learning and behavior, especially impulse control. But even that, while a heritable trait, can be overcome culturally. Almost any person can achieve what others do, although it may come with more effort.
    As to your last point, I see all this through the lens of an Industrial Archaeologist. I see the world in terms of technologies shared or developed over time, and people's ability to develop available resources. Some groups of people live in hostile environments with few resources and consistently thrive, while others starve in areas with abundant resources and agreeable weather. Exactly why those in the second group consistently fail becomes the big question.

    All different types of culture black diaspora is inserted is unlikely to explain lower achievements of them, with exceptions.

    Read More
  110. @Santoculto
    Civilization is the progressive process of cognitification of human mind than psychologicalization.

    More "smarter" would be more interest in non-"people" things. More cognitive in their thinking processes than psychological/intuitive.

    And the process of cognitification, changing a full human/being into a domesticated organic robot-worker also tend to result in the evolutionary atomization, when highly abstract intelligent minds start to despise "common" sense or concrete and obvious facts about interpersonal reality.

    Too much cognitification result into a sophisticated techno-slave/house-serv. Too much psychologicalization result into a irrational clever, drained by their instinctive/emotional responses, smart to act, dumb to think. Or a emotional beast or a unemotional robot. Or wisdom.

    Civilization is the progressive process of cognitification of human mind than psychologicalization.

    That was gibberish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I believe that 'Santoculto' is not a native speaker of English-- a Brazilian, perhaps?-- and should be cut slack, accordingly.
    , @Santoculto
    Personal opinion, by now.

    Man becoming robotized.

    Cold, pragmatic, materialistic...
  111. A lot of people who downplay the genetic component of IQ seem to not be bothered with thinking about the costs and benefits of high IQ too much.

    It should be pointed out that brains are very costly organs. Scientific American claim that the consume some 20%, on average, of our resting metabolic rate: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calories/

    That being the case, any group that can get through life with less costly (and smaller) brains are at an advantage unless the smaller brains bring with them a disadvantage.

    Looking at Aboriginal Australian, who until around 250 years ago were pretty much completely isolated from other humans for some 40 or so thousand years, and who had to deal with much less complex social environments than modern Chinese or Europeans, managed to get by with smaller brains and lower IQs than almost any other group. There was no selective advantage for Aboriginal Australians with larger brains so the greater energetic cost of a larger brain meant that the genes for larger brains were continually being weeded out and removed from their gene pool. However, Aboriginal Australians have better visual acuity than any other humans on the planet today, and that is genetically mediated via a larger striate cortex than other humans. It was selected for because tracking animals in their environment was very important.

    If, as a newborn Aboriginal Australian before about 250 years ago, you had defective genes in that area you were unlikely to survive to pass on your genes. Selection is a bitch.

    However, in complex societies, such as started to arise in China some 3-4,000 years ago and in Mesopotamia at similar times, and then in Europe later, a larger brain is required to survive among more sophisticated humans, so the energetic costs become necessary. Moreover, those selection pressures have been stronger in some places than others.

    We can probably rank the intelligence of each group by the complexity of the social environments they must survive in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    A lot of people who downplay the genetic component of IQ seem to not be bothered with thinking about the costs and benefits of high IQ too much.
     
    I find the selection aspect of IQ a fascinating topic. That's one of the reasons I so dislike the dismissal of the genetic aspect of IQ. If one can't admit the genetic aspect, how can one talk about selection for IQ?

    Brain size is obviously important for selection, but I'm not sure whether metabolic cost or birth canal size issues are more important. Has anyone investigated this?

    Another aspect of IQ genetics and metabolic cost is whether there are genes that can improve both performance and efficiency (call them the brain's version of Dennard scaling?). One example might be improvements to the myelin sheath, but that has an initial metabolic/nutritional requirement to form it.

    Another aspect is the interplay of selection with environmental conditions. Say an enhanced myelin sheath requires high omega 3 fatty acid intake and causes problems if that is not available. I think a good analogy for this is the loss of vitamin C production in primates. This is almost unique among mammals and I think says a great deal about the early primate environment.

    Still another aspect is social. Either high IQ related dysfunction (e.g. autism?) or simply being a social misfit through being too different.

    Dr. Thompson, can you recommend any resources regarding genetic selection for IQ? I have trouble searching your blog because you are so prolific (a good thing!) and I have been unable to formulate precise enough searches (e.g. another search missed the Woodley post you provided in a later post here).

    P.S. Happy New Year to all!
  112. D. K. says:
    @Peripatetic commenter

    Civilization is the progressive process of cognitification of human mind than psychologicalization.
     
    That was gibberish.

    I believe that ‘Santoculto’ is not a native speaker of English– a Brazilian, perhaps?– and should be cut slack, accordingly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    What's the point of him commenting here is we cannot understand more than half of what he writes?
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    What's the point of him commenting here is we cannot understand more than half of what he writes?
  113. @D. K.
    I believe that 'Santoculto' is not a native speaker of English-- a Brazilian, perhaps?-- and should be cut slack, accordingly.

    What’s the point of him commenting here is we cannot understand more than half of what he writes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I ''invent'' two words: cognitization and psychologization, it's not about how i write but what i write.

    Be honest next time, i know when my writing is unexcusable and when it's not.

    But i always forget that ''the smart'' dislike play with novel ideas...

  114. @D. K.
    I believe that 'Santoculto' is not a native speaker of English-- a Brazilian, perhaps?-- and should be cut slack, accordingly.

    What’s the point of him commenting here is we cannot understand more than half of what he writes?

    Read More
  115. D. K. says:

    What is the point of your posting the same illiterate question twice? If his foreign-sounding posts bother you so much, Mr. Unz has provided you with both the means and the opportunity to block them from your view, so that you can concentrate on only the comments of your fellow geniuses– who perhaps can decipher even more of the contents of the comments of which you so presumptuously claim that “we cannot understand more than half.”

    Read More
  116. @Peripatetic commenter

    Civilization is the progressive process of cognitification of human mind than psychologicalization.
     
    That was gibberish.

    Personal opinion, by now.

    Man becoming robotized.

    Cold, pragmatic, materialistic…

    Read More
  117. @Peripatetic commenter
    What's the point of him commenting here is we cannot understand more than half of what he writes?

    I ”invent” two words: cognitization and psychologization, it’s not about how i write but what i write.

    Be honest next time, i know when my writing is unexcusable and when it’s not.

    But i always forget that ”the smart” dislike play with novel ideas…

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    it’s not about how i write but what i write.
     
    Please consider the possibility that both are a factor.

    i always forget that ”the smart” dislike play with novel ideas…
     
    My experience has been the opposite, but perhaps we differ on who we consider to be "the smart" or in the people around us. Or in the novel ideas in question--speculating about teleportation can be fun, but it's probably not constructive in a serious conversation about transportation alternatives.

    I appreciate some of the perspectives you offer and realize your English is far better than my non-existent Portuguese, but please realize it's hard enough to talk about novel ideas without having to try to parse occasional incoherence. I sometimes get an obscure and oracular vibe from your posts that puts me off as a technical type (I experience the same sensation with some alternative health advocates). That might be part of the reaction you are getting. Accidental incoherence because of language issues is understandable, but IMHO intentional obscurity becomes tiresome quickly.

    Next we can talk about my occasionally overly stilted/formal writing style and obliviousness to relevant non-technical issues ; ) Not to mention all of my other flaws. Please take the above comments as intended--a respectful attempt to explain what I think I see.
  118. res says:
    @Peripatetic commenter
    A lot of people who downplay the genetic component of IQ seem to not be bothered with thinking about the costs and benefits of high IQ too much.

    It should be pointed out that brains are very costly organs. Scientific American claim that the consume some 20%, on average, of our resting metabolic rate: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calories/

    That being the case, any group that can get through life with less costly (and smaller) brains are at an advantage unless the smaller brains bring with them a disadvantage.

    Looking at Aboriginal Australian, who until around 250 years ago were pretty much completely isolated from other humans for some 40 or so thousand years, and who had to deal with much less complex social environments than modern Chinese or Europeans, managed to get by with smaller brains and lower IQs than almost any other group. There was no selective advantage for Aboriginal Australians with larger brains so the greater energetic cost of a larger brain meant that the genes for larger brains were continually being weeded out and removed from their gene pool. However, Aboriginal Australians have better visual acuity than any other humans on the planet today, and that is genetically mediated via a larger striate cortex than other humans. It was selected for because tracking animals in their environment was very important.

    If, as a newborn Aboriginal Australian before about 250 years ago, you had defective genes in that area you were unlikely to survive to pass on your genes. Selection is a bitch.

    However, in complex societies, such as started to arise in China some 3-4,000 years ago and in Mesopotamia at similar times, and then in Europe later, a larger brain is required to survive among more sophisticated humans, so the energetic costs become necessary. Moreover, those selection pressures have been stronger in some places than others.

    We can probably rank the intelligence of each group by the complexity of the social environments they must survive in.

    A lot of people who downplay the genetic component of IQ seem to not be bothered with thinking about the costs and benefits of high IQ too much.

    I find the selection aspect of IQ a fascinating topic. That’s one of the reasons I so dislike the dismissal of the genetic aspect of IQ. If one can’t admit the genetic aspect, how can one talk about selection for IQ?

    Brain size is obviously important for selection, but I’m not sure whether metabolic cost or birth canal size issues are more important. Has anyone investigated this?

    Another aspect of IQ genetics and metabolic cost is whether there are genes that can improve both performance and efficiency (call them the brain’s version of Dennard scaling?). One example might be improvements to the myelin sheath, but that has an initial metabolic/nutritional requirement to form it.

    Another aspect is the interplay of selection with environmental conditions. Say an enhanced myelin sheath requires high omega 3 fatty acid intake and causes problems if that is not available. I think a good analogy for this is the loss of vitamin C production in primates. This is almost unique among mammals and I think says a great deal about the early primate environment.

    Still another aspect is social. Either high IQ related dysfunction (e.g. autism?) or simply being a social misfit through being too different.

    Dr. Thompson, can you recommend any resources regarding genetic selection for IQ? I have trouble searching your blog because you are so prolific (a good thing!) and I have been unable to formulate precise enough searches (e.g. another search missed the Woodley post you provided in a later post here).

    P.S. Happy New Year to all!

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Search for Plomin. Robert Plomin is a world authority on the genetics of intelligence. Also search for Sariaslan and Stuart Ritchie
  119. Art says:

    Two points on blacks and intelligence.

    Growing up black in America is a traumatic affair for their children – poverty and mental family trauma truly hurts children. Being hated and being looked down by the majority culture, stymie’s intellectual growth. There can be no honest question of this. There are test that show that blacks in Africa and the Caribbean score better than blacks in America.

    One of black people’s great strengths is their ability to talk. This ability is not measured in IQ tests. Talking on one’s feet is a fluid ability of consequence. It requires mental intelligence to do it well.

    Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Judging the likelihood of the US being a special case in diminishing African ability should also take into account African ability in Africa, which is lower than in the US., The case of Brazil is particularly informative, because like in the US the Brazilian African population came there as the result of slavery, but post-emancipation entered a liberal society, with less of a colour bar than the US, and much more racial intermarriage. Nonetheless, the intelligence results seem to be the same, though there have been far fewer studies in Brazil. I am trying to encourage more research there, because it throw light on the far too US centric discussion of black/white intellectual differences
    This post will give you some background:
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/admixture-in-americas-european/
  120. res says:
    @Santoculto
    I ''invent'' two words: cognitization and psychologization, it's not about how i write but what i write.

    Be honest next time, i know when my writing is unexcusable and when it's not.

    But i always forget that ''the smart'' dislike play with novel ideas...

    it’s not about how i write but what i write.

    Please consider the possibility that both are a factor.

    i always forget that ”the smart” dislike play with novel ideas…

    My experience has been the opposite, but perhaps we differ on who we consider to be “the smart” or in the people around us. Or in the novel ideas in question–speculating about teleportation can be fun, but it’s probably not constructive in a serious conversation about transportation alternatives.

    I appreciate some of the perspectives you offer and realize your English is far better than my non-existent Portuguese, but please realize it’s hard enough to talk about novel ideas without having to try to parse occasional incoherence. I sometimes get an obscure and oracular vibe from your posts that puts me off as a technical type (I experience the same sensation with some alternative health advocates). That might be part of the reaction you are getting. Accidental incoherence because of language issues is understandable, but IMHO intentional obscurity becomes tiresome quickly.

    Next we can talk about my occasionally overly stilted/formal writing style and obliviousness to relevant non-technical issues ; ) Not to mention all of my other flaws. Please take the above comments as intended–a respectful attempt to explain what I think I see.

    Read More
  121. @res

    A lot of people who downplay the genetic component of IQ seem to not be bothered with thinking about the costs and benefits of high IQ too much.
     
    I find the selection aspect of IQ a fascinating topic. That's one of the reasons I so dislike the dismissal of the genetic aspect of IQ. If one can't admit the genetic aspect, how can one talk about selection for IQ?

    Brain size is obviously important for selection, but I'm not sure whether metabolic cost or birth canal size issues are more important. Has anyone investigated this?

    Another aspect of IQ genetics and metabolic cost is whether there are genes that can improve both performance and efficiency (call them the brain's version of Dennard scaling?). One example might be improvements to the myelin sheath, but that has an initial metabolic/nutritional requirement to form it.

    Another aspect is the interplay of selection with environmental conditions. Say an enhanced myelin sheath requires high omega 3 fatty acid intake and causes problems if that is not available. I think a good analogy for this is the loss of vitamin C production in primates. This is almost unique among mammals and I think says a great deal about the early primate environment.

    Still another aspect is social. Either high IQ related dysfunction (e.g. autism?) or simply being a social misfit through being too different.

    Dr. Thompson, can you recommend any resources regarding genetic selection for IQ? I have trouble searching your blog because you are so prolific (a good thing!) and I have been unable to formulate precise enough searches (e.g. another search missed the Woodley post you provided in a later post here).

    P.S. Happy New Year to all!

    Search for Plomin. Robert Plomin is a world authority on the genetics of intelligence. Also search for Sariaslan and Stuart Ritchie

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks! My initial searches did not pan out, but I'll try more later. Ran across this paper which looks like an interesting take on the evolution of intelligence in humans:
    Extraordinary intelligence and the care of infants
    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6874.full

    One mystery of human evolution is why our cognition differs qualitatively from our closest evolutionary relatives. Here we show how natural selection for large brains may lead to premature newborns, which themselves require more intelligence to raise, and thus may select for even larger brains. As we show, these dynamics can be self-reinforcing and lead to runaway selection for extremely high intelligence and helpless newborns. We test a prediction of this account: the helplessness of a primate’s newborns should strongly predict their intelligence. We show that this is so and relate our account to theories of human uniqueness and the question of why human-level intelligence took so long to evolve in the history of life.
     
  122. @Art
    Two points on blacks and intelligence.

    Growing up black in America is a traumatic affair for their children – poverty and mental family trauma truly hurts children. Being hated and being looked down by the majority culture, stymie’s intellectual growth. There can be no honest question of this. There are test that show that blacks in Africa and the Caribbean score better than blacks in America.

    One of black people's great strengths is their ability to talk. This ability is not measured in IQ tests. Talking on one’s feet is a fluid ability of consequence. It requires mental intelligence to do it well.

    Art

    Judging the likelihood of the US being a special case in diminishing African ability should also take into account African ability in Africa, which is lower than in the US., The case of Brazil is particularly informative, because like in the US the Brazilian African population came there as the result of slavery, but post-emancipation entered a liberal society, with less of a colour bar than the US, and much more racial intermarriage. Nonetheless, the intelligence results seem to be the same, though there have been far fewer studies in Brazil. I am trying to encourage more research there, because it throw light on the far too US centric discussion of black/white intellectual differences
    This post will give you some background:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/admixture-in-americas-european/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Mr. Thompson,

    There is an article somewhere on the Unz Review that states American blacks score lower then other blacks in the world.

    Do not know how to find it. Sorry --- Art
  123. Art says:
    @James Thompson
    Judging the likelihood of the US being a special case in diminishing African ability should also take into account African ability in Africa, which is lower than in the US., The case of Brazil is particularly informative, because like in the US the Brazilian African population came there as the result of slavery, but post-emancipation entered a liberal society, with less of a colour bar than the US, and much more racial intermarriage. Nonetheless, the intelligence results seem to be the same, though there have been far fewer studies in Brazil. I am trying to encourage more research there, because it throw light on the far too US centric discussion of black/white intellectual differences
    This post will give you some background:
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/admixture-in-americas-european/

    Mr. Thompson,

    There is an article somewhere on the Unz Review that states American blacks score lower then other blacks in the world.

    Do not know how to find it. Sorry — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    The usual finding is that African Americans score at IQ 85 or higher, Africans in Africa at IQ 75. If you look at immigrant groups in US picture is more complicated, mostly because of selective immigration. Nationally based samples are usually more reliable.
  124. @Art
    Mr. Thompson,

    There is an article somewhere on the Unz Review that states American blacks score lower then other blacks in the world.

    Do not know how to find it. Sorry --- Art

    The usual finding is that African Americans score at IQ 85 or higher, Africans in Africa at IQ 75. If you look at immigrant groups in US picture is more complicated, mostly because of selective immigration. Nationally based samples are usually more reliable.

    Read More
  125. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Search for Plomin. Robert Plomin is a world authority on the genetics of intelligence. Also search for Sariaslan and Stuart Ritchie

    Thanks! My initial searches did not pan out, but I’ll try more later. Ran across this paper which looks like an interesting take on the evolution of intelligence in humans:
    Extraordinary intelligence and the care of infants

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6874.full

    One mystery of human evolution is why our cognition differs qualitatively from our closest evolutionary relatives. Here we show how natural selection for large brains may lead to premature newborns, which themselves require more intelligence to raise, and thus may select for even larger brains. As we show, these dynamics can be self-reinforcing and lead to runaway selection for extremely high intelligence and helpless newborns. We test a prediction of this account: the helplessness of a primate’s newborns should strongly predict their intelligence. We show that this is so and relate our account to theories of human uniqueness and the question of why human-level intelligence took so long to evolve in the history of life.

    Read More
  126. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Unfortunately, sample not quite convincingly large. But it's the first explicit study as far as I know.

    https://osf.io/z8dy5/

    You are confused. I was talking about the study in the link, the sample of the children (about 1100), not the sample of experts. The linked study found that racial ancestry did relate to cognitive differences holding self-reported race/ethnicity constant. The same was true for parental social status. I.e., holding it constant whether a person reported as being White/African American/Hispanic etc., the persons with more European ancestry measured using SNP data had higher cognitive ability/IQ and parents with higher social status than those with less European ancestry. The reverse was true for African ancestry.

    The effects were very unlikely to be due to chance, but more detailed analyses were not possible because of the smallish sample size.

    A study with n=10,000 would decisively settle this issue.

    The sample of experts is more than sufficient.

    It won’t allow me to use my real name, but I am Emil if anyone was uncertain and it is my study in the link.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS