More Responses to Vox Attack on Charles Murray
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Houston Euler has lots of up to date graphs.
James Lee reviews Nisbett’s 2009 book.
Keep in mind that the Vox article is largely agreeing with Murray about IQ and race, just not about racial differences in IQ likely being partially genetic. It’s an example of a common tactic that I call Siberian-sleigh-pursued-by-wolves. The idea is you throw one person in your sleigh out for the wolves to eat so the rest of you IQ researchers can get away.
Follow @steve_sailer
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Here’s what Ron Unz said about Charles Murray.
Can you provide the reference to the article(s), where Mr. Unz has made those statements about Ch. Murray ?Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
He could not provide the reference to Unz, where according to 123, Unz wrote that.
I know three people killed by illegal aliens. Murdered. One has attacked my daughter. Two of those four illegals are now back in the states or walking free somewhere.
There are a metric ass load of reasons to figure that illegals might not have the impulse control, investment in community, and ties to keep them on the straight and narrow that native born folks do but hey, lets model the heck out of the data until it kind of, sort of, looks like what we want.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @cynthia curran
And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etcReplies: @gcochran, @syonredux, @Jack D, @anonymous
Mr. Unz, has your opinion changed?
Here’s an alternative perspective on IQ.
Asians academically&economically exceed whites not because of higher IQs, but despite slightly lower IQs. That was the finding of Professor Flynn.
Here are Flynn’s thoughts on Chinese-Americans.
So Chinese parenting gives a 9 point IQ advantage. That’s massive.
Hello, JohnnyWalker123.
Can you provide the reference to the article(s), where Mr. Unz has made those statements about Ch. Murray ?
Asians academically&economically exceed whites not because of higher IQs, but despite slightly lower IQs. That was the finding of Professor Flynn.Here are Flynn's thoughts on Chinese-Americans.So Chinese parenting gives a 9 point IQ advantage. That's massive.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
Flynn also had an interesting debate with Charles Murray.
According to Flynn, black IQ drops from 95 (age 4) to 83 (age 24). That’s not a “pattern of genetic influence.” That’s a product of “disparate cognitive environments.”
Children with a white mother/black father have an 8-pt IQ edge over children with a black mother/white father. Which suggests environment has a huge impact.
Ron Unz came to similar conclusions about the malleability of IQ and importance of environment.
He's wrong.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
Therefore, this rather significantly throws the entire assumptions he made off course.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_studyReplies: @JohnnyWalker123, @JohnnyWalker123
"[A]dmittedly crude" is an understatement. For infants, we don't have IQ tests; we have "liveliness" tests.....And East Asian infants perform rather poorly on them:
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/
And comparing infant IQ is like testing infant prowess at the 100 meter dash. I'm pretty sure that Black and White six-month old babies are pretty much equal at that one.....but differences do develop later in life.....I suppose that that's due to disparate environments...Genetic differences trump environment as we age....Replies: @DRA
Notice figure 2 and other tables in
http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf .
The correlation was 91 percent between national IQ score and a simple genetic predictor: select several of the most easily found intelligence genes (big GWAS hits on IQ or education), and ask how many of those a person has. The average value of this number for individuals in a population is the quantity that Piffer found to correlate very well with average IQ in that population.
This doesn’t mean that personal IQ can be genetically predicted to that accuracy, but it does support the Watson-esque idea that national or continental-scale population differences can be understood easily using genetics. Also the Steve-ish idea that group stereotypes can be very accurate and have a straightforward basis in physical reality (such as genes, hormone levels, or climate differences) independent of whether the stereotype is super-accurate for predictions about individuals from the group.
How many IQ researchers do you have to throw to the wolves before ‘the gap’ disappears?
https://twitter.com/PlugsBiden14/status/865597308284657664
“Ron Unz came to similar conclusions”
He’s wrong.
American Jews saw their mean IQ rise from 101.5 (1920-1937) to 107 (1944-1960) to 111 (1970-2008). So 10 points.
Didn't Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?
Also, if IQ points are rising by 3 points per decade, doesn't that suggest that there's a strong non-genetic component to IQ? If there is, then differences in cognitive environment matter a lot. Especially when comparing two populations in very dissimilar circumstances.Replies: @syonredux, @gcochran
Or – white female – black male couplings are drawn from the bottom of the pool, while white male – black female ones are drawn from much higher up in both pools; thus, the difference is indeed mostly or purely genetic.
"For reasons that are not yet understood, there is an excess proportion of genes on the X-chromosome that are associated with the development of intelligence, with no obvious links to other significant biological functions."
If there's truth to this, then you would expect the mixed-race children of white mothers to be brighter, since all of them carry a "white" X, whereas male children with a white father can get their X only from their mother.Replies: @Autochthon
I think they’re both anti-Trump now, aren’t they?
No, not really. I believe this being one of the first things I read and studied about IQ, back when I was basically a liberal and how completely this was refuted. Black American GIs were IQ tested and were at least 100 IQ, or else they wouldn’t be allowed to be GIs.
Therefore, this rather significantly throws the entire assumptions he made off course.
Can you provide the reference to the article(s), where Mr. Unz has made those statements about Ch. Murray ?Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/02/ross-douthat-gets-charles-murray-books.html
or "Steve Sailer", to that matter,
is written as "Ron Unz" ?Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
I'm concerned because the quotes you give in your original post do not sound like the kind of thing Ron Unz would write.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
The white mother/black father couples have higher IQs.
Therefore, this rather significantly throws the entire assumptions he made off course.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
Back during WWII, the U.S. military was taking almost everyone. So it’s unlikely the fathered children had particularly high-IQ fathers.
Also, even if black GIs had higher-IQ, their children should partly regress to the lower black mean (weighted by ancestry).
He's wrong.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
How do you explain the rise in Jewish-American IQ?
American Jews saw their mean IQ rise from 101.5 (1920-1937) to 107 (1944-1960) to 111 (1970-2008). So 10 points.
Didn’t Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?
Also, if IQ points are rising by 3 points per decade, doesn’t that suggest that there’s a strong non-genetic component to IQ? If there is, then differences in cognitive environment matter a lot. Especially when comparing two populations in very dissimilar circumstances.
If you have references, I'll look at them, but I've never seen any results like those you cite. And I've looked hard. I don't believe them.
Nor do I believe that was much real increase in IQ over the 20th century. Math subscores hardly budged. In terms of real-world accomplishment, math rules OK.
It looks as if there are strong genetic influences and random, non-social non-genetic influences. Developmental noise, maybe. Between cohorts, differences in test familiarity.
For new immigrants, language problems affect test results in the first generation - afterwards, depends on the flavor of immigrant.Replies: @syonredux, @JohnnyWalker123
These articles “debunking” Murray will ultimately vindicate him and promote HDB more than anything.
Your average prog (and this means nearly everyone) doesn’t even understand that there are historic groups differences in tested IQ.
They think this is an *argument* that The Bell Curve advances, not a simple observed fact about test results.
IF they do understand the above they assume the differences disappear when you simply control for poverty.
Once that bubble is burst* the world starts to become a little more predictable and you are more or less in the HBD camp.
I can’t speak for all y’all but I’ve understood group differences and the likelyhood of a genetic component for a decade now and it has engendered zero animosity for outgroups and it’s made no difference in the courtesy and respect I extend to anyone.
In 25 years it’s all gonna be drones, mass unemployment, designer drugs and sex robots anyway let’s just get on with it.
—-
*a sizeable percentage of the population simply isn’t smart enough to understand group averages, and no matter what will think that because Neil de grass Tyson is smarter than the duck dynasty dudes IQ tests must be “pseudoscience”.
I had a (well-educated, talented, white, lesbian) friend who attended John Derbyshire's 2010 talk at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on group differences in IQ. (Recounted at the link below.) Even several days later when she told me about the experience, my friend was still outraged at Derbyshire's simply mentioning the fact that the black-white gap exists. She couldn't believe that he had even been invited to speak and (although she didn't use the term) felt that at a minimum a trigger warning should have been given to attendees.
http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/upennlaw.htmlReplies: @Pericles, @b.t.o
Actually in the study, they did show -very slightly- lower performance later so, so that might be a hint of regression(95 IQ vs 97 IQ for white GI children). But yes, the US Army was still filtering for IQ in WW2 and had been doing so since WW1.
It effectively filtered out the lowest IQ blacks and at any rate, would obviously no longer be simply a demographic representation of the black population. I personally don’t doubt that environment can make some difference in IQ(and with a ball-peen hammer to the head, you can do a lot..negatively), but its probably not that drastic.
http://www.official-asvab.com/history_res.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_armed_forces_during_World_War_II
So it doesn't seem that IQ tests disqualified a hugely disproportionate number of black soldiers.Replies: @syonredux
Of course, one must always bear in mind Ron Unz’ s theory that “Super-Flynn” is going to raise Hispanic Amerind and Mestizo IQ to the White American mean real soon now….
American Jews saw their mean IQ rise from 101.5 (1920-1937) to 107 (1944-1960) to 111 (1970-2008). So 10 points.
Didn't Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?
Also, if IQ points are rising by 3 points per decade, doesn't that suggest that there's a strong non-genetic component to IQ? If there is, then differences in cognitive environment matter a lot. Especially when comparing two populations in very dissimilar circumstances.Replies: @syonredux, @gcochran
Hey, you’ve found the solution to low Black and Mestizo-Amerind Hispanic IQ! We just need to have Chinese families adopt all the Black and Mestizo-Amerind Hispanic children in the USA!
They would kill us, or themselves. 50/50.
That actually does remind me of an amusing story though – there was this relatively intelligent black woman I know, who, of course, had a child without a father. She proceeded to do everything she could to try to mimic Jewish culture, hopeful that it might at least keep her boy out of crime or something.
Hope for the best and all, I suppose. I’ve actually known a very few blacks who tried to mimic what they thought was Chinese culture in the same way, but there’s an overall lack of understanding.
Still, there’s the Confucian Institutes for all who wish to try, I’m sure.
Is this a reference to the never replicated Eyferth study? Let’s just say that it has problems……
<blockquote>Rushton and Jensen have further pointed out that 20–25% of the fathers in the study were not African Americans but rather French North Africans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study
American Jews saw their mean IQ rise from 101.5 (1920-1937) to 107 (1944-1960) to 111 (1970-2008). So 10 points.
Didn't Flynn find that Chinese-American parenting raises mean IQ by 9 points?
Also, if IQ points are rising by 3 points per decade, doesn't that suggest that there's a strong non-genetic component to IQ? If there is, then differences in cognitive environment matter a lot. Especially when comparing two populations in very dissimilar circumstances.Replies: @syonredux, @gcochran
There was no such rise in Jewish IQ. It was already high in 1920: that’s why Harvard ( and the rest of the Ivy league) was inventing strategies[‘well-rounded’ students] for keeping them out in the 1920s. And it’s not as if there wasn’t plenty of real-world evidence of higher-than-average Jewish IQ by 1920: read the math and physics journals. Read Annalen der Physik for 1905 !
If you have references, I’ll look at them, but I’ve never seen any results like those you cite. And I’ve looked hard. I don’t believe them.
Nor do I believe that was much real increase in IQ over the 20th century. Math subscores hardly budged. In terms of real-world accomplishment, math rules OK.
It looks as if there are strong genetic influences and random, non-social non-genetic influences. Developmental noise, maybe. Between cohorts, differences in test familiarity.
For new immigrants, language problems affect test results in the first generation – afterwards, depends on the flavor of immigrant.
The study was published in 1959, with the children ranging in age between 5 and 13 (mean age: 10). That means that a rather large percentage of the children were fathered by Black men who were inducted after 1950…..
In what alphabet “Ross Douthat” ,
or “Steve Sailer“, to that matter,
is written as “Ron Unz” ?
This cite cannot be correct. I went to your cite, did a search for the final comment in your original quote, “I consider Murray a shill and a fool”, and could not find it.
I’m concerned because the quotes you give in your original post do not sound like the kind of thing Ron Unz would write.
Comment made on the following date.
1/31/12, 7:34 PM
He's discussed Murray multiple times.
.
“[A]dmittedly crude” is an understatement. For infants, we don’t have IQ tests; we have “liveliness” tests…..And East Asian infants perform rather poorly on them:
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/
And comparing infant IQ is like testing infant prowess at the 100 meter dash. I’m pretty sure that Black and White six-month old babies are pretty much equal at that one…..but differences do develop later in life…..I suppose that that’s due to disparate environments…
Genetic differences trump environment as we age….
Related, I remember it seemed that many "big-men-on campus" in high school turned out to be more average in adult life. Perhaps for the same reason of differing maturation rates, even within a population. Never read it anywhere, just personal perception.Replies: @Steve Sailer
If you have references, I'll look at them, but I've never seen any results like those you cite. And I've looked hard. I don't believe them.
Nor do I believe that was much real increase in IQ over the 20th century. Math subscores hardly budged. In terms of real-world accomplishment, math rules OK.
It looks as if there are strong genetic influences and random, non-social non-genetic influences. Developmental noise, maybe. Between cohorts, differences in test familiarity.
For new immigrants, language problems affect test results in the first generation - afterwards, depends on the flavor of immigrant.Replies: @syonredux, @JohnnyWalker123
The Terman study of high-IQ children in the 1920s found that 10.5 percent of California children with IQs of 135+ were Jewish (Murray, Human Accomplishment, 291). And that’s during an era when most Jews in the USA were first and second generation Americans.
FWIW, I found this statement in the wikipedia article for X_chromosome:
“For reasons that are not yet understood, there is an excess proportion of genes on the X-chromosome that are associated with the development of intelligence, with no obvious links to other significant biological functions.”
If there’s truth to this, then you would expect the mixed-race children of white mothers to be brighter, since all of them carry a “white” X, whereas male children with a white father can get their X only from their mother.
Your average prog (and this means nearly everyone) doesn't even understand that there are historic groups differences in tested IQ.
They think this is an *argument* that The Bell Curve advances, not a simple observed fact about test results.
IF they do understand the above they assume the differences disappear when you simply control for poverty.
Once that bubble is burst* the world starts to become a little more predictable and you are more or less in the HBD camp.
I can't speak for all y'all but I've understood group differences and the likelyhood of a genetic component for a decade now and it has engendered zero animosity for outgroups and it's made no difference in the courtesy and respect I extend to anyone.
In 25 years it's all gonna be drones, mass unemployment, designer drugs and sex robots anyway let's just get on with it.
----
*a sizeable percentage of the population simply isn't smart enough to understand group averages, and no matter what will think that because Neil de grass Tyson is smarter than the duck dynasty dudes IQ tests must be "pseudoscience".Replies: @Clark Westwood
I think this is a very important point that we iSteve readers and the like tend to forget.
I had a (well-educated, talented, white, lesbian) friend who attended John Derbyshire’s 2010 talk at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on group differences in IQ. (Recounted at the link below.) Even several days later when she told me about the experience, my friend was still outraged at Derbyshire’s simply mentioning the fact that the black-white gap exists. She couldn’t believe that he had even been invited to speak and (although she didn’t use the term) felt that at a minimum a trigger warning should have been given to attendees.
http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/upennlaw.html
Imagine being an american in the current climate trying to make sense of the zeitgeist while concurrently believing there is no difference between blacks and whites in standardize testing achievement, graduation rates, years of schooling etc.Replies: @res
JohnnyWalker123 generates lie.
He could not provide the reference to Unz, where according to 123, Unz wrote that.
So what? Our host, God bless him, is known to be delusional on some topics some times. We all are for as long as we are human. In the end, Murray, Unz and Sailer are still right much more frequently than they are wrong. Which is exactly opposite to the prevailing PC wisdom on just about any subject. Which is what makes reading these authors interesting.
If Unz isn’t the most dishonest and deliberately obtuse person who writes here it’s only because Truth does it for free as well. He can’t even admit that Hispanics commit crimes at a rate greater than the white average. Or illegal aliens represent any kind of danger at all.
I know three people killed by illegal aliens. Murdered. One has attacked my daughter. Two of those four illegals are now back in the states or walking free somewhere.
There are a metric ass load of reasons to figure that illegals might not have the impulse control, investment in community, and ties to keep them on the straight and narrow that native born folks do but hey, lets model the heck out of the data until it kind of, sort of, looks like what we want.
He did a regression of violent urban crime and ethnicity.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htmHispanics are only slightly than whites in violent urban crime.
Once you adjust for age and gender, perhaps that'd decrease Hispanic crime rates.
Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.Replies: @syonredux, @TWS, @MarkinLA
Disregard – completely misread that.
I think your observation is actually on the mark, but I think it serves to confirm the point you were opposing.
I think it is actually a very good point... in support of nurture.Replies: @mobi
or "Steve Sailer", to that matter,
is written as "Ron Unz" ?Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
Um, read the comment section.
I'm concerned because the quotes you give in your original post do not sound like the kind of thing Ron Unz would write.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/01/charles-murrays-coming-apart-state-of.html
Comment made on the following date.
1/31/12, 7:34 PM
He’s discussed Murray multiple times.
The problem there is that Murray believes that the ancient Israelites possessed an usually high mean IQ. On this point, he is quite wrong. None of the neighbors of the Israelites thought that they were smarter than average, and none of their surviving writings suggest uncommon cleverness.
And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc
And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc
According to this source, blacks were 11% of the military-eligible population of the U.S. (during WWII) and 10.7% of the soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_armed_forces_during_World_War_II
So it doesn’t seem that IQ tests disqualified a hugely disproportionate number of black soldiers.
That’s rather funny, seeing as how Ron has expended a lot of energy in defense of his theory that environment determines IQ……
How did books like The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment aid in that endeavor? Seems to me that tomes like those aren’t exactly going to win accolades from the PC elite……
I'd like to see a debate between these two so Ron Unz could air his specific criticisms and let Murray reply.Replies: @syonredux
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_armed_forces_during_World_War_II
So it doesn't seem that IQ tests disqualified a hugely disproportionate number of black soldiers.Replies: @syonredux
Check the dates on the Eyferth study; the overwhelming majority of the children were born after 1945……
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_studyReplies: @JohnnyWalker123, @JohnnyWalker123
Is this true or is Jensen fabricating this? According to the statistics, blacks were 11% of the population and 10.7% of WWII soldiers.
Also, even if these were high-IQ black soldiers, wouldn’t their children regress to the mean?
North African migrants in Europe score in the low 80s. So their mean IQ seems similar to that of Africans.
These were the children of WWII soldiers stationed in Germany. Many of those soldiers never left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_studyReplies: @JohnnyWalker123, @JohnnyWalker123
Blacks were 9% of the soldiers in Korea during the 1950s.
So we can assume that the percentage of black soldiers in the post-WWWII era is in the range of roughly 9-11%. At a time when blacks were 11% of the military-age population.
I know three people killed by illegal aliens. Murdered. One has attacked my daughter. Two of those four illegals are now back in the states or walking free somewhere.
There are a metric ass load of reasons to figure that illegals might not have the impulse control, investment in community, and ties to keep them on the straight and narrow that native born folks do but hey, lets model the heck out of the data until it kind of, sort of, looks like what we want.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @cynthia curran
Here were the finding of statistician La Griffe Du Lion.
He did a regression of violent urban crime and ethnicity.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htm
Hispanics are only slightly than whites in violent urban crime.
Once you adjust for age and gender, perhaps that’d decrease Hispanic crime rates.
Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.
Interesting how Ron goes all "genetic determinism" where Blacks are concerned.....
It's not 'Rotherham' levels but it's getting there. The first murder in my town in twenty or so years was a friend, I heard him shot from my front porch, the city declined to file charges. The county forced the city's hand and after investigation lo and behold the guy had murdered someone else. The second one the city learned their lesson, no they didn't charge our investigate, they released the guy fast as they could because they could not find an interpreter. Never mind the interpreter came to town twice a week. With the third murder a girl I watched grow up her boy friend left her preschool daughter standing in a puddle of her mother's blood and guts. This guy despite being a known illegal alien gang member was listed as white.
And the guy who assaulted my pregnant daughter? He was trying too grab a child as a hostage . He was never charged with anything not even criminal trespass. He's walking the streets of our town.
I've seen it as a police officer, probation, and working as a bailiff and in prisons. I've seen it as a victim and witness. Deliberate, systematic, and systemic under reporting and prosecution and mislabling ethnicity.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
Another problem is criminal gang activity and how a series of crimes end up being charged to one person. Recently we had an 18 year old murder a 20 year old (assumed) gang member who was discharged from the army (given his early discharge it was likely general and not honorable). How does an 18 year old in California get a handgun or decide to kill a guy who joined the army when the killer was still in high school. It has ordered hit from a senior gang member all over it but the stupid kid will serve life in prison because he won't snitch on the leadership that gave him the gun or ordered the hit. Multiple crimes, multiple criminals, criminal conspiracy and one guy pleading it all away as a lone murderer.
If you have references, I'll look at them, but I've never seen any results like those you cite. And I've looked hard. I don't believe them.
Nor do I believe that was much real increase in IQ over the 20th century. Math subscores hardly budged. In terms of real-world accomplishment, math rules OK.
It looks as if there are strong genetic influences and random, non-social non-genetic influences. Developmental noise, maybe. Between cohorts, differences in test familiarity.
For new immigrants, language problems affect test results in the first generation - afterwards, depends on the flavor of immigrant.Replies: @syonredux, @JohnnyWalker123
https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/
A lot of Ron's IQ malleability argument boils down to first-generation-types not knowing English while the later generations do. That's a stereotype that always show up about first-generation immigrants: dumb Swedes, for example. But that one went away, because Swedes aren't dumb. That was obvious from considering the accomplishments of Swedes in Sweden. I doubt if that stereotype will go away in the same way with second-generation Somalis, when you consider the accomplishments of Somalis in Somalia. .
People do better on most IQ tests if they are fluent in the language it is written in. This improves in the second generation. does mean that the population in question actually got smarter? No.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @JohnnyWalker123
Dunno. Feel free to do the research.I will point out, however, that Arthur Jensen is listed as the paper’s co-author, and he has a very high reputation in the field.
The test largely involved children born after 1945.
Which mean? The Black American? Or the German? Remember, we are talking about mixed-race offspring. Also, isn’t the first generation a bit early for regression to the mean?
Different population, though, with different genetics.
Were they all the children of WW2 vets? The WIKIPEDIA article simply says that the children are the offspring of “US occupation forces stationed in Germany.”
Blacks were roughly 9-11% of the military during the time in question. They were also 11% of the national population.
North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
about 90.5 in IQ.Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux
Charles Murray gave bad advice to high school graduates.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/09/college-is-still-best-pay-off.php
He reccomended that lower-IQ graduates pursue vocational training instead of college. It turns out this was not good advice.
He did a regression of violent urban crime and ethnicity.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htmHispanics are only slightly than whites in violent urban crime.
Once you adjust for age and gender, perhaps that'd decrease Hispanic crime rates.
Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.Replies: @syonredux, @TWS, @MarkinLA
Sub-Saharan African admixture. Blacks have high rates of violent crime.
Interesting how Ron goes all “genetic determinism” where Blacks are concerned…..
If 30% of blacks were disqualified from the military, how’d they form 10.7% of WWII soldiers (and 11% of the population)? It sounds like he misinterpreted, fabricated, or distorted the information.
Blacks were roughly 9-11% of the military during the time in question. They were also 11% of the national population.
North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
about 90.5 in IQ.
As I mentioned above, the WIKIPEDIA article doesn't say that the fathers were all WW2 vets.Do you have data on the mean IQs of North African troops serving in the US armed forces in the 1940s-50s? It might have been higher than the NA mean.
Which means that American Jews during the period 1920-1937 had mean IQs that were slightly higher than the White American mean, and this was during a period when most American Jews were first and second generation Americans…..
Blacks were roughly 9-11% of the military during the time in question. They were also 11% of the national population.
North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
about 90.5 in IQ.Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux
Depends on what cohort formed the bulk of the soldiers. Post-WW2, the military raised standards and banned people with IQs below 80. McNamara overturned that policy in the mid-’60s (“The Moron Corps”).
As I mentioned above, the WIKIPEDIA article doesn’t say that the fathers were all WW2 vets.
Do you have data on the mean IQs of North African troops serving in the US armed forces in the 1940s-50s? It might have been higher than the NA mean.
His paymaster is AEI, isn’t it?
I’d like to see a debate between these two so Ron Unz could air his specific criticisms and let Murray reply.
Blacks were roughly 9-11% of the military during the time in question. They were also 11% of the national population.
North Africans have a low-80s mean. A mixed-race child would be predicted to score (81+100)/2
about 90.5 in IQ.Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux
And we don’t know if any of the North Africans were Jews…..
I'd like to see a debate between these two so Ron Unz could air his specific criticisms and let Murray reply.Replies: @syonredux
Yeah, but I tend to doubt that writing The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment made AEI happy….
I’d be up for that.
He did a regression of violent urban crime and ethnicity.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htmHispanics are only slightly than whites in violent urban crime.
Once you adjust for age and gender, perhaps that'd decrease Hispanic crime rates.
Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.Replies: @syonredux, @TWS, @MarkinLA
Here’s the problem with that. I know they lie, I know how they lie. I know they under-report, I know how they do that too. I know they refuse to charge, again I know how, why, and how they hide it.
It’s not ‘Rotherham’ levels but it’s getting there. The first murder in my town in twenty or so years was a friend, I heard him shot from my front porch, the city declined to file charges. The county forced the city’s hand and after investigation lo and behold the guy had murdered someone else. The second one the city learned their lesson, no they didn’t charge our investigate, they released the guy fast as they could because they could not find an interpreter. Never mind the interpreter came to town twice a week. With the third murder a girl I watched grow up her boy friend left her preschool daughter standing in a puddle of her mother’s blood and guts. This guy despite being a known illegal alien gang member was listed as white.
And the guy who assaulted my pregnant daughter? He was trying too grab a child as a hostage . He was never charged with anything not even criminal trespass. He’s walking the streets of our town.
I’ve seen it as a police officer, probation, and working as a bailiff and in prisons. I’ve seen it as a victim and witness. Deliberate, systematic, and systemic under reporting and prosecution and mislabling ethnicity.
La Griffe did estimate that blacks have 4x the violent crime rate of Hispanics. If we assume that underreporting is no more an issue for Hispanics than blacks, then I suppose we can conclude Hispanics (on average) are 1/4th as violent as blacks.
However, the question is this. How violent are blacks?
According to La Griffe's analysis of urban violent crime, blacks are about 4.5x as violent as whites. Recorded incarceration rates are about 6-7x as high. However, if we assume there's a high rate of underreported violent crime in black (as well as Hispanic) areas, then that multiple could be MUCH higher.
This is an interesting issue, but I'd like to see more than anecdotes. Not that anecdotes don't matter (they do), but some data would help us to make a forceful case.
If blacks and Hispanics commit a lot of violent crime that's unrecorded, then that'd be interesting to know.Replies: @TWS
And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etcReplies: @gcochran, @syonredux, @Jack D, @anonymous
And since modern Jews [ Ashkenazi Jews] do not derive most of their ancestry from ancient Israelites, yet score higher than those with a higher fraction of ancient-Israelite ancestry, there is no way that their high scores are caused by that ancient Israelite ancestry. Except as part of a long, meandering causal chain.
Regression to the mean happens immediately.
And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etcReplies: @gcochran, @syonredux, @Jack D, @anonymous
Corrected a typo
The problem there is that Murray believes that the ancient Israelites possessed an unusually high mean IQ. On this point, he is quite wrong. None of the neighbors of the Israelites thought that they were smarter than average, and none of their surviving writings suggest uncommon cleverness.
And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etc
Pulling the book off the shelf, Lynn thinks that Jewish scores, especially verbal, were depressed by being Yiddish speakers in the first half of the 209th century. They scored a lot higher than other non-native-English speaking groups in the same town and same schools.
A lot of Ron’s IQ malleability argument boils down to first-generation-types not knowing English while the later generations do. That’s a stereotype that always show up about first-generation immigrants: dumb Swedes, for example. But that one went away, because Swedes aren’t dumb. That was obvious from considering the accomplishments of Swedes in Sweden. I doubt if that stereotype will go away in the same way with second-generation Somalis, when you consider the accomplishments of Somalis in Somalia. .
People do better on most IQ tests if they are fluent in the language it is written in. This improves in the second generation. does mean that the population in question actually got smarter? No.
Verbal comprehension factor—107.8
English language—99.5
Mathematics—109.7
Visual reasoning —91.3
Perceptual speed and accuracy—102.2
Memory —95.1
Given the immigration cut off in 1924, I'd assume almost all the Jewish students were 2nd generation native-born in the Project Talent sample. Language shouldn't have been an issue.
In more recent years, Jewish-American Verbal IQ has been estimated in the 117-125 range. Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.
Based on the Project Talent data, I'd conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era. So that'd suggest that Ron Unz's malleable IQ hypothesis is correct. If he's wrong, why did Jewish IQ continue to rise even after 1960?
I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn't that true of almost all current immigrants? Also, from what I gather, English was the first language for Jews (especially Jewish youths) even back in the 1960s.Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux, @gcochran
https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/ Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux
Goums. Jews? unlikely.
You had me puzzled for a few minutes…
I think your observation is actually on the mark, but I think it serves to confirm the point you were opposing.
I think it is actually a very good point… in support of nurture.
If you accept that HBD is true then you have to accept the need for a welfare state. You also have to accept the need for large-scale government intervention in the economy. In fact you have to accept the need for a fairly high degree of socialism. HBD is the strongest of all arguments in favour of socialism.
HBD also completely blows libertarianism out of the water.
Maybe I’m wrong about this. If I am would anyone care to point why I’m wrong?
The Left’s pushback on race and IQ is strange given the ample scientific evidence that human evolution is real and is associated with varying physical environments. Hence, given the evidence, it is not a stretch to assume that natural selection also affects such things as IQ and human reproductive strategies. (Translation: The practical need for varying degrees of intelligence to survive radically different environmental conditions in the Tropical, Temperate, and Arctic Biozones just happens to map to the common classification of racial genotypes. Indeed, the challenge would be to explain why radically different environmental conditions would not impact IQ, given that the different conditions affect so much else in the human genome.)
Below is a short list of human evolutionary adaptations from the April issue of National Geographic. If different environmental conditions can impact the human genome in such minor ways in different environmental conditions, would it not also make sense that the aggregate genetic variations could create racial genotypes associated with those environments?
1. Thrifty Genes. Some genes found in tropical islanders aid survival on limited food resources but could lead to obesity in a high-calorie environment.
2. Thick Hair. East Indians evolved thick hair shafts 35,000 years ago, perhaps through sexual selection or as an aid in regulating heat.
3. Digesting Seaweed. In Japan, where the coastal diet dominates, genes in human gut bacteria help the local population extract nutrition from seaweed.
4. Fat Metabolism. Inuit populations have a genetic variant that allows them to digest the fatty foods of their regional diet, like whales and seals.
5. Arsenic Tolerance. Some Argentine populations have adapted to tolerate high levels of arsenic commonly found in the groundwater where they live.
6. Urban Resistance. As humans settled in more densely packed communities, they evolved a stronger natural resistance to infectious diseases.
7. Lactose Tolerators. Early groups that domesticated animals, like herders in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, evolved the ability to digest milk beyond infancy.
8. Skin Color. Light skin (higher latitudes) increases absorption of ultraviolet light and the production of vitamin D. Dark skin (lower latitudes) offers UV protection.
9. Blood Mutations. Different populations exhibit various blood mutations; in a tropical climate, sickle-shaped cells can bestow resistance to malaria.
I think your observation is actually on the mark, but I think it serves to confirm the point you were opposing.
I think it is actually a very good point... in support of nurture.Replies: @mobi
In my defence, I think my general point remains valid – that the stated result isn’t ‘proof of environment’ if the pairings studied were drawn from different parts of their respective pools.
I erred on the specifics of who was probably drawn from where.
My anecdotal impression is that white male/black female pairs tend to be less ghetto than the reverse.
But that’s a modern day impression. The result showing an 8-points higher IQ for offspring of white female/black male vs the opposite appears to trace back to a single study – very small (120 or so kids) – in the early 1970s. And a study of 4 year olds, to boot.
It’s mostly behind a paywall, but discussion of it elsewhere concedes that the black males involved were unusually well-educated for their group. I would also assume white females in 1974 were under considerably more pressure to avoid pairing with black males unless they were fairly high-status, than is the case today.
I don’t know how valid the finding is still considered (beyond simply how valid it’s assumed to be by those who want it be valid).
I wasn't aware of the results mentioned above.... but I think some reflection is warranted.
And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etcReplies: @gcochran, @syonredux, @Jack D, @anonymous
Many factors point to Ashkenazi Jewish brilliance emerging only later. First you have a big infusion of Euro genes and not just any but (ancient) Roman and Greek who as you say were the heavy hitters of the ancient world. And then you have a eugenic breeding program where survival depends on living by your wits rather than the strength of your back and scholarly prowess is more prestigious than fighting skill. Even so, Jews make very little mark on Western scholarship until the 19th century when they emerge from the ghettos.
Let others better mold the running mass
Of metals, and inform the breathing brass,
And soften into flesh a marble face;
Plead better at the bar; describe the skies,
And when the stars descend, and when they rise.
But, Rome, ‘t is thine alone, with awful sway,
To rule mankind, and make the world obey,
Disposing peace and war by thy own majestic way;
To tame the proud, the fetter’d slave to free:
These are imperial arts, and worthy thee.”
Aeneid, Dryden’s translation
Quick question:
Is the oft-cited exceptionally high average IQ of jews – namely, nearly a full standard deviation above Caucasians – usually referring to specifically Ashkenazi jews, or to jews overall (in which case, the Ashkanazi are even smarter than this, on average)?
Ashkenizi Jews. Sometime back, Greg Cochran (gcochran) presented evidence on this point at his blog West Hunter.
Regression to the mean happens immediately.
What do you mean by this? If your children are smarter than you then your IQ must be below 100? Does it mean that parents with IQ>100 never (statistically never, i.e., on average) have smarter then them children?
I suspect there is a great misunderstanding of the breeder’s equation and its range of validity.
I understand it, you don't. You have a lot of company.
If the parental average IQ is 140, while the population average is 100 and the narrow-sense heritability of IQ in that environment is 0.7, the average value of the kid's IQ is 128. That is, the expectation value of the kids IQ is 128. Look up "expectation value".Replies: @Glaivester
I would call Murray a diplomat, not a shill, and probably not a fool. He’s useful, if not perfect. Kinda like Mr Unz himself!
https://twitter.com/PlugsBiden14/status/865597308284657664Replies: @eah
https://twitter.com/occdissent/status/865983327114674176
https://twitter.com/vdare/status/866384815771320321
Is the oft-cited exceptionally high average IQ of jews - namely, nearly a full standard deviation above Caucasians - usually referring to specifically Ashkenazi jews, or to jews overall (in which case, the Ashkanazi are even smarter than this, on average)?Replies: @ic1000
> Is the oft-cited exceptionally high average IQ of jews… usually referring to specifically Ashkenazi jews, or to jews overall?
Ashkenizi Jews. Sometime back, Greg Cochran (gcochran) presented evidence on this point at his blog West Hunter.
Immediately means the first generation
I understand it, you don’t. You have a lot of company.
If the parental average IQ is 140, while the population average is 100 and the narrow-sense heritability of IQ in that environment is 0.7, the average value of the kid’s IQ is 128. That is, the expectation value of the kids IQ is 128. Look up “expectation value”.
He did a regression of violent urban crime and ethnicity.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htmHispanics are only slightly than whites in violent urban crime.
Once you adjust for age and gender, perhaps that'd decrease Hispanic crime rates.
Also, Ron Unz claims Hispanic crime rates are inflated slightly by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, which seems plausible.Replies: @syonredux, @TWS, @MarkinLA
One has to live in Hispanic neighborhoods to see the difference. See the difference in breaking and entering, running red lights, hit and run, graffiti, drug sales, and gang activity. Then realize that for political reasons many of these crimes are ignored or never charged if nobody is seriously hurt.
Another problem is criminal gang activity and how a series of crimes end up being charged to one person. Recently we had an 18 year old murder a 20 year old (assumed) gang member who was discharged from the army (given his early discharge it was likely general and not honorable). How does an 18 year old in California get a handgun or decide to kill a guy who joined the army when the killer was still in high school. It has ordered hit from a senior gang member all over it but the stupid kid will serve life in prison because he won’t snitch on the leadership that gave him the gun or ordered the hit. Multiple crimes, multiple criminals, criminal conspiracy and one guy pleading it all away as a lone murderer.
Greeks, not Romans. The Romans were well aware that they were inferior to the Greeks in the smarts department. Of course, the Romans felt that they had compensating virtues:
Let others better mold the running mass
Of metals, and inform the breathing brass,
And soften into flesh a marble face;
Plead better at the bar; describe the skies,
And when the stars descend, and when they rise.
But, Rome, ‘t is thine alone, with awful sway,
To rule mankind, and make the world obey,
Disposing peace and war by thy own majestic way;
To tame the proud, the fetter’d slave to free:
These are imperial arts, and worthy thee.”
Aeneid, Dryden’s translation
I should have phrased that a bit better. I meant to say that regression doesn’t go all the way to the mean in the first generation. I.e, if two people with 130 IQs from a population with a mean of 100 have kids, their kids probably are not going to have 100 IQs.
You would have created a new ethnic group, smarter than any other on Earth.Replies: @syonredux
Take a population of such kids with IQ 130 parents, with lets say an average IQ of 120: drop them on a distant island so they eventually marry each other, and IQ drops no further.
You would have created a new ethnic group, smarter than any other on Earth.
You would have created a new ethnic group, smarter than any other on Earth.Replies: @syonredux
Wonder if there’s a billionaire somewhere who would be willing to bankroll something like that….
As I understand it, this is something that billionaires are not meant to know.
I understand it, you don't. You have a lot of company.
If the parental average IQ is 140, while the population average is 100 and the narrow-sense heritability of IQ in that environment is 0.7, the average value of the kid's IQ is 128. That is, the expectation value of the kids IQ is 128. Look up "expectation value".Replies: @Glaivester
This brings up a question – regression to the mean would decrease drastically in the second generation, would it not? That is, if there were two sets of parents both sets with a parental average of 140, and one of each of their children married with their average IQ being 128, the expected IQ of any offspring produced would be higher than that of randomly picked people with IQs of 128, correct?
Al the regression is in the first generation.
It's not 'Rotherham' levels but it's getting there. The first murder in my town in twenty or so years was a friend, I heard him shot from my front porch, the city declined to file charges. The county forced the city's hand and after investigation lo and behold the guy had murdered someone else. The second one the city learned their lesson, no they didn't charge our investigate, they released the guy fast as they could because they could not find an interpreter. Never mind the interpreter came to town twice a week. With the third murder a girl I watched grow up her boy friend left her preschool daughter standing in a puddle of her mother's blood and guts. This guy despite being a known illegal alien gang member was listed as white.
And the guy who assaulted my pregnant daughter? He was trying too grab a child as a hostage . He was never charged with anything not even criminal trespass. He's walking the streets of our town.
I've seen it as a police officer, probation, and working as a bailiff and in prisons. I've seen it as a victim and witness. Deliberate, systematic, and systemic under reporting and prosecution and mislabling ethnicity.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
I’ve often wondered how much underreporting results in racial crime multiples being underestimated.
La Griffe did estimate that blacks have 4x the violent crime rate of Hispanics. If we assume that underreporting is no more an issue for Hispanics than blacks, then I suppose we can conclude Hispanics (on average) are 1/4th as violent as blacks.
However, the question is this. How violent are blacks?
According to La Griffe’s analysis of urban violent crime, blacks are about 4.5x as violent as whites. Recorded incarceration rates are about 6-7x as high. However, if we assume there’s a high rate of underreported violent crime in black (as well as Hispanic) areas, then that multiple could be MUCH higher.
This is an interesting issue, but I’d like to see more than anecdotes. Not that anecdotes don’t matter (they do), but some data would help us to make a forceful case.
If blacks and Hispanics commit a lot of violent crime that’s unrecorded, then that’d be interesting to know.
Michael Brown was a 'gentle giant' even after we saw him commit felony assault on cctv. He's not the exception that's the rule. Why do we have so many drug convictions? Because everything gets pled down to the easiest and least penalty. And dirt bags always have drugs. You go to a domestic and the wife is beating her husband and kids with a bong. Some strong arm guy decides to show his ass to cops and he's got a bindle fold of coke in his pocket.
I guarantee you if Brown had been arrested he would probably been pled down to his drug possession and received treatment.
A lot of Ron's IQ malleability argument boils down to first-generation-types not knowing English while the later generations do. That's a stereotype that always show up about first-generation immigrants: dumb Swedes, for example. But that one went away, because Swedes aren't dumb. That was obvious from considering the accomplishments of Swedes in Sweden. I doubt if that stereotype will go away in the same way with second-generation Somalis, when you consider the accomplishments of Somalis in Somalia. .
People do better on most IQ tests if they are fluent in the language it is written in. This improves in the second generation. does mean that the population in question actually got smarter? No.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @JohnnyWalker123
Here are Jewish IQ scores from Project Talent (1960). N = 1236. The sample were high school students.
Verbal comprehension factor—107.8
English language—99.5
Mathematics—109.7
Visual reasoning —91.3
Perceptual speed and accuracy—102.2
Memory —95.1
Given the immigration cut off in 1924, I’d assume almost all the Jewish students were 2nd generation native-born in the Project Talent sample. Language shouldn’t have been an issue.
In more recent years, Jewish-American Verbal IQ has been estimated in the 117-125 range. Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.
Based on the Project Talent data, I’d conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era. So that’d suggest that Ron Unz’s malleable IQ hypothesis is correct. If he’s wrong, why did Jewish IQ continue to rise even after 1960?
I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn’t that true of almost all current immigrants? Also, from what I gather, English was the first language for Jews (especially Jewish youths) even back in the 1960s.
As for Yiddish being the first language of Jewish youth in the 1960s: no sir. Totally false. Very rare by that time.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
A lot of Ron's IQ malleability argument boils down to first-generation-types not knowing English while the later generations do. That's a stereotype that always show up about first-generation immigrants: dumb Swedes, for example. But that one went away, because Swedes aren't dumb. That was obvious from considering the accomplishments of Swedes in Sweden. I doubt if that stereotype will go away in the same way with second-generation Somalis, when you consider the accomplishments of Somalis in Somalia. .
People do better on most IQ tests if they are fluent in the language it is written in. This improves in the second generation. does mean that the population in question actually got smarter? No.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @JohnnyWalker123
There also seems to have been a very significant rise in Irish IQ from 87 (1972) to 100 (2009).
https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/
Verbal comprehension factor—107.8
English language—99.5
Mathematics—109.7
Visual reasoning —91.3
Perceptual speed and accuracy—102.2
Memory —95.1
Given the immigration cut off in 1924, I'd assume almost all the Jewish students were 2nd generation native-born in the Project Talent sample. Language shouldn't have been an issue.
In more recent years, Jewish-American Verbal IQ has been estimated in the 117-125 range. Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.
Based on the Project Talent data, I'd conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era. So that'd suggest that Ron Unz's malleable IQ hypothesis is correct. If he's wrong, why did Jewish IQ continue to rise even after 1960?
I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn't that true of almost all current immigrants? Also, from what I gather, English was the first language for Jews (especially Jewish youths) even back in the 1960s.Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux, @gcochran
117 is something of a high-end estimate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
Has there?
Murray, Charles,Human Accomplishment
Verbal comprehension factor—107.8
English language—99.5
Mathematics—109.7
Visual reasoning —91.3
Perceptual speed and accuracy—102.2
Memory —95.1
Given the immigration cut off in 1924, I'd assume almost all the Jewish students were 2nd generation native-born in the Project Talent sample. Language shouldn't have been an issue.
In more recent years, Jewish-American Verbal IQ has been estimated in the 117-125 range. Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.
Based on the Project Talent data, I'd conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era. So that'd suggest that Ron Unz's malleable IQ hypothesis is correct. If he's wrong, why did Jewish IQ continue to rise even after 1960?
I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn't that true of almost all current immigrants? Also, from what I gather, English was the first language for Jews (especially Jewish youths) even back in the 1960s.Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux, @gcochran
So when should we expect to see Mestizo Hispanics reaching Ashkenazi levels of achievement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux
https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/ Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux
Maybe we should convince American Blacks to move to Ireland? You know, let them experience all that Emerald Isle IQ voodoo…..
https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/ Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux
How exactly do they determine Irish ancestry on those surveys? Is it self-reported?Because just about all the self-proclaimed (Catholic) Irish-Americans that I know are not completely Irish in terms of ancestry…..
Decline of Jewish achievement.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux
So, if we raise a bunch of Hispanic Mestizos according to the Ashkenazi Jewish cultural norms that prevailed during the period, say, 1920-1960, they’re going to equal the achievements that Jews made during that period? And we’ll start seeing Hispanic Mestizo versions of Richard Feynman? I’m sold! When can we start?
I had a (well-educated, talented, white, lesbian) friend who attended John Derbyshire's 2010 talk at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on group differences in IQ. (Recounted at the link below.) Even several days later when she told me about the experience, my friend was still outraged at Derbyshire's simply mentioning the fact that the black-white gap exists. She couldn't believe that he had even been invited to speak and (although she didn't use the term) felt that at a minimum a trigger warning should have been given to attendees.
http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/upennlaw.htmlReplies: @Pericles, @b.t.o
Poor old girl, her post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a mention of the black-white gap. Foaming on the floor, screaming and searching for the door out while appalled academics look on, sweating bullets, huddled in pain with chattering teeth, mindlessly cutting herself in the lecture hall, once again fleeing back into the fentanyl haze she brought in her tote bag. What happened to you, ole lez? Whatever in the world happened to you? Was it patriarchy.
The Vox authors did deviate from the usual strategy, the usual being cursory dismissal, ad hominem attacks, distractions about Pioneer Fund, etc. Based on the title (“junk science”), that’s what I expected. I was surprised to see them actually engage, and I was further surprised to see them casually cede some much ground. They essentially redeployed all the troops to defend the “racial gap isn’t genetic” position, abandoning most everything else.
Here’s why they don’t make a very compelling case: They lazily note something like the Flynn effect and act like this, in and of itself, is some sort of kill shot. (They also seemed to think their line about there being no single intelligence gene was a kill shot). These arguments come down to some variant of “it’s possible it’s not genetic” or “it’s possible the gap will close someday.”
So you’re telling me there’s a chance!
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/Which indicates a very strong cultural component to academic success.Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux
When will the Ashkenazi success rate drop to the Black American level?
This is actually a tricky issue, and I think it deserves more attention.
I wasn’t aware of the results mentioned above…. but I think some reflection is warranted.
But there is a similar effect with each new first generation.
If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.
If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.
The key difference is that if the parents are selected by performance on some measurement, then they are going to be, on average, luckier than most on those components of that measurement that are based on luck. If they are selected for other reasons, there will be no expectation that they will be luckier than most.Replies: @candid_observer, @utu
Razib’s response to the Vox piece is depressing (also see his comments there): https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/18/the-misrepresentation-of-genetic-science-in-the-vox-piece-on-race-and-iq/
It looks like the PC Komissars are really getting to him. It must be brutal to be a geneticist inclined towards truth telling right now.
Here's a lesson for all Asians: the Asian card won't save you from being called a racist hbd'er...Replies: @res
La Griffe did estimate that blacks have 4x the violent crime rate of Hispanics. If we assume that underreporting is no more an issue for Hispanics than blacks, then I suppose we can conclude Hispanics (on average) are 1/4th as violent as blacks.
However, the question is this. How violent are blacks?
According to La Griffe's analysis of urban violent crime, blacks are about 4.5x as violent as whites. Recorded incarceration rates are about 6-7x as high. However, if we assume there's a high rate of underreported violent crime in black (as well as Hispanic) areas, then that multiple could be MUCH higher.
This is an interesting issue, but I'd like to see more than anecdotes. Not that anecdotes don't matter (they do), but some data would help us to make a forceful case.
If blacks and Hispanics commit a lot of violent crime that's unrecorded, then that'd be interesting to know.Replies: @TWS
Incarceration under counts crime. For instance, it takes eight or so convictions for auto theft before you get prison time. Now you are not arrested every time you commit a crime. Murder rates in Chicago are in single digits. Imagine how many murders are running free in Chicago. Trayvon Martin was a known burglar with burglary tools and stolen property and the authorities did everything to keep him from facing the consequences.
Michael Brown was a ‘gentle giant’ even after we saw him commit felony assault on cctv. He’s not the exception that’s the rule. Why do we have so many drug convictions? Because everything gets pled down to the easiest and least penalty. And dirt bags always have drugs. You go to a domestic and the wife is beating her husband and kids with a bong. Some strong arm guy decides to show his ass to cops and he’s got a bindle fold of coke in his pocket.
I guarantee you if Brown had been arrested he would probably been pled down to his drug possession and received treatment.
Verbal comprehension factor—107.8
English language—99.5
Mathematics—109.7
Visual reasoning —91.3
Perceptual speed and accuracy—102.2
Memory —95.1
Given the immigration cut off in 1924, I'd assume almost all the Jewish students were 2nd generation native-born in the Project Talent sample. Language shouldn't have been an issue.
In more recent years, Jewish-American Verbal IQ has been estimated in the 117-125 range. Professor Kevin MacDonald claims 125 Verbal IQ and 117 overall average IQ.
Based on the Project Talent data, I'd conclude there appears to have been a considerable rise from in Jewish IQ from 1960 to the current era. So that'd suggest that Ron Unz's malleable IQ hypothesis is correct. If he's wrong, why did Jewish IQ continue to rise even after 1960?
I suppose you could argue that 1960s Jewish-Americans grew up in Yiddish-speaking homes, but isn't that true of almost all current immigrants? Also, from what I gather, English was the first language for Jews (especially Jewish youths) even back in the 1960s.Replies: @syonredux, @syonredux, @gcochran
MacDonald’s numbers are based on bupkus.
As for Yiddish being the first language of Jewish youth in the 1960s: no sir. Totally false. Very rare by that time.
The answer to the exact question you asked is, yes, the expected IQ of the progeny of randomly selected parents of IQ 128 would be less than 128 (as according to the breeder’s equation) but the expected IQ of the progeny of the progeny of parents of 140 IQ would be 128 — the same as that of the progeny of the parents of 140 IQ themselves.
A lot of how these questions get answered depends on the exact method of picking out the class of interest — pretty typical of questions in probability and statistics.
All of which reminds me of one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever encountered regarding the question of race vs. IQ. It was generated by a famous philosopher of mind, and “philosopher of science”, Ned Block, along with a fellow philosopher Gerald Dworkin. They argued that the one SD difference between blacks and whites was, in effect, really only half a standard deviation, because the principle of regression to the mean implied that (roughly) half of it would go away were they to repeat the test. They seemed not to grasp that picking out a reference class using as criterion their performance on a given IQ test is not the same as picking them out by means of something like racial group. (Nor did basic sanity checks on an inference like theirs seem to occur to them, such as, what is, on average, the repeat performance of the same individual black student on various IQ tests?)
I’m not sure that Block and Dworkin continue to peddle this impressively stupid argument, but they certainly had done so for several decades.
It all depends on how the parents of the “first generation” have been picked out.
If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.
If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.
The key difference is that if the parents are selected by performance on some measurement, then they are going to be, on average, luckier than most on those components of that measurement that are based on luck. If they are selected for other reasons, there will be no expectation that they will be luckier than most.
How the breeder's equation is supposed to know when to work and when it not to supposed to work? How is this extra information carried?If breeder's equation would work in general then the variance of parent generation would be larger than the variance of children generation. But we do no see it, right? IQ's do not converge to 100, right? Since we do not see the reduction of variance then the regression to the mean effect implied by the breeder's equation must be counteracted statistically by an opposite effect.
Thus it is not correct to say that if parents have IQ=140 then children IQ will be, say, 128 as a general statistical rule. There must be parents of IQ<140 who will produce children with IQ=140 to replace the parents of the children with IQ=128 in order to keep the variance unchanged.Replies: @candid_observer
If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.
If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.
The key difference is that if the parents are selected by performance on some measurement, then they are going to be, on average, luckier than most on those components of that measurement that are based on luck. If they are selected for other reasons, there will be no expectation that they will be luckier than most.Replies: @candid_observer, @utu
As I think about it, if parents are selected for economic class, there will of course be some regression to the mean in their kids. But this is again a case in which the measurement of economic class is based on metrics that involve a certain amount of luck. Therefore their children won’t do on average as well as they, enjoying only average luck.
Unreal.
If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.
If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.
The key difference is that if the parents are selected by performance on some measurement, then they are going to be, on average, luckier than most on those components of that measurement that are based on luck. If they are selected for other reasons, there will be no expectation that they will be luckier than most.Replies: @candid_observer, @utu
It all depends on how the parents of the “first generation” have been picked out.
If the exact criterion has been their performance on a test, such as an IQ test, or their measurement on some less than 100% heritable trait, then there will be regression to the mean.
If the parents are picked out by some other means, such as race, or economic class, or hair color, then one would not expect to see regression to the mean in their children.
How the breeder’s equation is supposed to know when to work and when it not to supposed to work? How is this extra information carried?
If breeder’s equation would work in general then the variance of parent generation would be larger than the variance of children generation. But we do no see it, right? IQ’s do not converge to 100, right? Since we do not see the reduction of variance then the regression to the mean effect implied by the breeder’s equation must be counteracted statistically by an opposite effect.
Thus it is not correct to say that if parents have IQ=140 then children IQ will be, say, 128 as a general statistical rule. There must be parents of IQ<140 who will produce children with IQ=140 to replace the parents of the children with IQ=128 in order to keep the variance unchanged.
So it's not "what the breeder equation knows." It's what we know when we make our predictions. Sometimes the breeder equation applies; sometimes it does not.
As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).
If the breeder's equation predicts an IQ of 128 for a set of parents of IQ 140, then that's an expected, average, value. Some children will indeed score 140 (or above) -- as will a certain number whose parents are less than 140, and a number whose parents are more than 140. The way it works is that, across the full population of parents, enough of their children will score 140 that the same number of children will have 140 IQ as did the parents.Replies: @candid_observer, @utu
As for Yiddish being the first language of Jewish youth in the 1960s: no sir. Totally false. Very rare by that time.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
So if Project Talent estimated Jewish verbal IQ to be 107.8 in 1960 and Jewish verbal IQ is now estimated at 117, then what explains the rise?
"[A]dmittedly crude" is an understatement. For infants, we don't have IQ tests; we have "liveliness" tests.....And East Asian infants perform rather poorly on them:
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/
And comparing infant IQ is like testing infant prowess at the 100 meter dash. I'm pretty sure that Black and White six-month old babies are pretty much equal at that one.....but differences do develop later in life.....I suppose that that's due to disparate environments...Genetic differences trump environment as we age....Replies: @DRA
Seems that I read somewhere that different populations mature at different rates. As IQ is a ratio of intellectual age to chronological age, that may square the circle.
Related, I remember it seemed that many “big-men-on campus” in high school turned out to be more average in adult life. Perhaps for the same reason of differing maturation rates, even within a population. Never read it anywhere, just personal perception.
Related, I remember it seemed that many "big-men-on campus" in high school turned out to be more average in adult life. Perhaps for the same reason of differing maturation rates, even within a population. Never read it anywhere, just personal perception.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Springsteen has a song about peaking in high school: Glory Days.
How the breeder's equation is supposed to know when to work and when it not to supposed to work? How is this extra information carried?If breeder's equation would work in general then the variance of parent generation would be larger than the variance of children generation. But we do no see it, right? IQ's do not converge to 100, right? Since we do not see the reduction of variance then the regression to the mean effect implied by the breeder's equation must be counteracted statistically by an opposite effect.
Thus it is not correct to say that if parents have IQ=140 then children IQ will be, say, 128 as a general statistical rule. There must be parents of IQ<140 who will produce children with IQ=140 to replace the parents of the children with IQ=128 in order to keep the variance unchanged.Replies: @candid_observer
At base, the breeder’s equation is a statistical statement. It produces a prediction of a trait measurement in progeny based purely on a measurement of that trait in the parents, and knowing nothing more. Insofar as one knows further information about a class in that population the predictions might well be different. If we know a set of parents were the children of a randomly selected parents from the pool of 140 IQ individuals, then we know something more, and will make different predictions.
So it’s not “what the breeder equation knows.” It’s what we know when we make our predictions. Sometimes the breeder equation applies; sometimes it does not.
As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).
If the breeder’s equation predicts an IQ of 128 for a set of parents of IQ 140, then that’s an expected, average, value. Some children will indeed score 140 (or above) — as will a certain number whose parents are less than 140, and a number whose parents are more than 140. The way it works is that, across the full population of parents, enough of their children will score 140 that the same number of children will have 140 IQ as did the parents.
The issue isn't so much what we know, but whether the model assumptions apply. Thus, for example, we might stumble upon a set of individuals whose average IQ is 128, but (unbeknownst to us) all of whom happen to be children of parents of 140 IQ. Using the breeder's equation, we might predict that their children's IQ would be 119.6. But that would be an incorrect prediction because the assumptions of the model weren't satisfied.
As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).
I begin to see that the breeder's equation does not need to contradict the observation that the variance of population is constant. For IQ_parent the breeder's equation predicts the expected value of children IQ_childwhere h^2≤1 is heritability which probably is not constant across the population but depends on IQ_parent. IQ_child is a random variable with mean E(IQ_child) and some variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) that probably must be dependent on IQ_parent. Say, this variable IQ_child has a normal distribution. The question is what constraints must be imposed on the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) to assure than variance of population V(IQ) remains unchanged. Knowing the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) we will be able to answer the question what is a the probability of having offspring of equal or higher IQ than your IQ if your IQ is (IQ -Mean) points off of the Mean?
So when we talk about the breeder's equation and the implied regression to the mean we do not need to sound alarmist. The "smart fraction" will not be lost. Equally smart children will be born. So if your children are not as smart as you do not despair. Somebody will produce children that are as smart as you. Population's statistics will remain unchanged.
___________
(i) I have an impression that the regression to the mean is way too often invoked in an alarmist way.
(ii) It would be interesting to find out who has a higher probability of having children smarter than them: parents with IQ=120 or parents with IQ=140? To answer this, as I said above I think we need to know V(IQ_child|IQ_parent). There should be some empirical data that V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) could be estimated.
(iii) The breeder's equation does not tell us what happens to the Mean when the actual mean of population is changing as the result e.g. that smarter people have less children than others. The Mean in the equation is not the actual mean but it will not remain unchanged.
So it's not "what the breeder equation knows." It's what we know when we make our predictions. Sometimes the breeder equation applies; sometimes it does not.
As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).
If the breeder's equation predicts an IQ of 128 for a set of parents of IQ 140, then that's an expected, average, value. Some children will indeed score 140 (or above) -- as will a certain number whose parents are less than 140, and a number whose parents are more than 140. The way it works is that, across the full population of parents, enough of their children will score 140 that the same number of children will have 140 IQ as did the parents.Replies: @candid_observer, @utu
As I think about it, probably a better way to think about when the breeder’s equation applies is consider whether the model assumptions are satisfied in a particular case: e.g., it is applying to a full population, from which parents are randomly selected, and predictions made about the (expected) trait value of their children are based solely on the trait measurement of the parents.
The issue isn’t so much what we know, but whether the model assumptions apply. Thus, for example, we might stumble upon a set of individuals whose average IQ is 128, but (unbeknownst to us) all of whom happen to be children of parents of 140 IQ. Using the breeder’s equation, we might predict that their children’s IQ would be 119.6. But that would be an incorrect prediction because the assumptions of the model weren’t satisfied.
So it's not "what the breeder equation knows." It's what we know when we make our predictions. Sometimes the breeder equation applies; sometimes it does not.
As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).
If the breeder's equation predicts an IQ of 128 for a set of parents of IQ 140, then that's an expected, average, value. Some children will indeed score 140 (or above) -- as will a certain number whose parents are less than 140, and a number whose parents are more than 140. The way it works is that, across the full population of parents, enough of their children will score 140 that the same number of children will have 140 IQ as did the parents.Replies: @candid_observer, @utu
Thank you for your explanations.
As far as the issue with whether variance remains the same, the answer is, of course, yes (under usual assumptions).
I begin to see that the breeder’s equation does not need to contradict the observation that the variance of population is constant. For IQ_parent the breeder’s equation predicts the expected value of children IQ_child
where h^2≤1 is heritability which probably is not constant across the population but depends on IQ_parent. IQ_child is a random variable with mean E(IQ_child) and some variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) that probably must be dependent on IQ_parent. Say, this variable IQ_child has a normal distribution. The question is what constraints must be imposed on the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) to assure than variance of population V(IQ) remains unchanged. Knowing the variance V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) we will be able to answer the question what is a the probability of having offspring of equal or higher IQ than your IQ if your IQ is (IQ -Mean) points off of the Mean?
So when we talk about the breeder’s equation and the implied regression to the mean we do not need to sound alarmist. The “smart fraction” will not be lost. Equally smart children will be born. So if your children are not as smart as you do not despair. Somebody will produce children that are as smart as you. Population’s statistics will remain unchanged.
___________
(i) I have an impression that the regression to the mean is way too often invoked in an alarmist way.
(ii) It would be interesting to find out who has a higher probability of having children smarter than them: parents with IQ=120 or parents with IQ=140? To answer this, as I said above I think we need to know V(IQ_child|IQ_parent). There should be some empirical data that V(IQ_child|IQ_parent) could be estimated.
(iii) The breeder’s equation does not tell us what happens to the Mean when the actual mean of population is changing as the result e.g. that smarter people have less children than others. The Mean in the equation is not the actual mean but it will not remain unchanged.
I had a (well-educated, talented, white, lesbian) friend who attended John Derbyshire's 2010 talk at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on group differences in IQ. (Recounted at the link below.) Even several days later when she told me about the experience, my friend was still outraged at Derbyshire's simply mentioning the fact that the black-white gap exists. She couldn't believe that he had even been invited to speak and (although she didn't use the term) felt that at a minimum a trigger warning should have been given to attendees.
http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/upennlaw.htmlReplies: @Pericles, @b.t.o
And right on cue Brookings just noted research showing that 50% of voters don’t even know the racial achievement gap exists.
Imagine being an american in the current climate trying to make sense of the zeitgeist while concurrently believing there is no difference between blacks and whites in standardize testing achievement, graduation rates, years of schooling etc.
which discusses how people feel about class and race based achievement gaps, but as far as I can tell just assumed people knew the gaps existed. Their main point was that people thought it was more important to attempt closing the class gaps. It also had this interesting tidbit:Holy crimethink, Batman. But see PS below and Table A4, not really crimethink IMHO, just spun that way (which is in itself interesting).
Underlying paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X16658447
P.S. Looking closer, perhaps you are referring to Table A4 which shows 69% think there is no genetic contribution to the black-white gap. That table is very interesting. It looks at the three gaps (poor-wealthy, black-white, hispanic-white) and breaks survey responses for the importance of discrimination/injustice, student motivation, parenting, and genetic differences down into four categories (none, a little, some, a great deal) by race and separately by income ($100k, unfortunately not controlled by race).
Looking at that table for the black-white gap is illuminating in a very iSteveish sense. Whites and high earners are most skeptical of genetic differences. Blacks are most skeptical (by a large margin) of parenting as a contributor. More whites thought genetic differences explained part of the poor-wealthy test gap than for the B-W gap.
Direct link to Table A4
Worth noting that (Table 1) the overall unweighted sample was 8/6/78/7% black/hispanic/white/other and they weighted it to 11/12/70/7% so whites tend to dominate the average values.
It looks like the PC Komissars are really getting to him. It must be brutal to be a geneticist inclined towards truth telling right now.Replies: @BB753
No wonder! After seeing Murray thrown under the bus, what is a lowly postgraduate like Razib Khan supposed to expect from the usual suspects? After all, he’s got two small children to feed. Sad. Razib shouldn’t have come out of the hbd closet until tenure. Well, he still could have pursued a career of some kind in his native Bangladesh if he hadn’t committed apostasy.
Here’s a lesson for all Asians: the Asian card won’t save you from being called a racist hbd’er…
FWIW tenure (and being a white woman) aren't completely protective either. Look up Linda Gottfredson.
Imagine being an american in the current climate trying to make sense of the zeitgeist while concurrently believing there is no difference between blacks and whites in standardize testing achievement, graduation rates, years of schooling etc.Replies: @res
Can you point me to that research? I searched and the closest I saw was https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/01/16/race-class-and-americans-perspectives-of-achievement-gaps/
which discusses how people feel about class and race based achievement gaps, but as far as I can tell just assumed people knew the gaps existed. Their main point was that people thought it was more important to attempt closing the class gaps. It also had this interesting tidbit:
Holy crimethink, Batman. But see PS below and Table A4, not really crimethink IMHO, just spun that way (which is in itself interesting).
Underlying paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X16658447
P.S. Looking closer, perhaps you are referring to Table A4 which shows 69% think there is no genetic contribution to the black-white gap. That table is very interesting. It looks at the three gaps (poor-wealthy, black-white, hispanic-white) and breaks survey responses for the importance of discrimination/injustice, student motivation, parenting, and genetic differences down into four categories (none, a little, some, a great deal) by race and separately by income ($100k, unfortunately not controlled by race).
Looking at that table for the black-white gap is illuminating in a very iSteveish sense. Whites and high earners are most skeptical of genetic differences. Blacks are most skeptical (by a large margin) of parenting as a contributor. More whites thought genetic differences explained part of the poor-wealthy test gap than for the B-W gap.
Direct link to Table A4
Worth noting that (Table 1) the overall unweighted sample was 8/6/78/7% black/hispanic/white/other and they weighted it to 11/12/70/7% so whites tend to dominate the average values.
Here's a lesson for all Asians: the Asian card won't save you from being called a racist hbd'er...Replies: @res
Agreed. And Razib has made similar comments in the past, but that was the most defeatist sounding I have ever heard him.
FWIW tenure (and being a white woman) aren’t completely protective either. Look up Linda Gottfredson.
And this is in direct contrast to the classical Greeks, who were commonly regarded by their neighbors (Romans, Israelites, etc) as being very intelligent indeed. And, of course, the ancient Greeks left ample surviving evidence of their brilliance: Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Hipparchus, Euclid , etcReplies: @gcochran, @syonredux, @Jack D, @anonymous
So then. What happened to the Greeks that they have failed to produce one thinker of note for the past 1000+ years and has become known more for souvlaki than Socrates. Seriously.
"For reasons that are not yet understood, there is an excess proportion of genes on the X-chromosome that are associated with the development of intelligence, with no obvious links to other significant biological functions."
If there's truth to this, then you would expect the mixed-race children of white mothers to be brighter, since all of them carry a "white" X, whereas male children with a white father can get their X only from their mother.Replies: @Autochthon
This is news to me, and fascinating. If true, it further explains women’s attraction to troglodytes and rejection of decent, intelligent men: they only need the troglodytes musculuture and aggression foe their children if they themselves are (disproportionately) determining the children’s intelligence….
I know three people killed by illegal aliens. Murdered. One has attacked my daughter. Two of those four illegals are now back in the states or walking free somewhere.
There are a metric ass load of reasons to figure that illegals might not have the impulse control, investment in community, and ties to keep them on the straight and narrow that native born folks do but hey, lets model the heck out of the data until it kind of, sort of, looks like what we want.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @cynthia curran
Actually, Heather MacDonald did studies on crime and illegal immigrants commit less crime than blacks or their offspring. The best argument against illegal immigrants is not crime since they are less likely to belong to MS-13 or the Latin Kings than their kids but that they have offspring that have higher crime rates than whites.
As much as 52%, instead of a mere 50% influence.
Selection for intelligence relaxed. In the diaspora, Greeks remained prominent in business but not intellectual endeavors.
Low IQ individuals develop faster and their brains stop growing earlier.