The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Richard Lynn At 80: the Festschrift
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Does the relatively muted reaction to Nicholas Wade’s recent A Troublesome Inheritance mean that the Political Correctness Ice Age is receding—and that we might even have another interglacial, like the brief period in the 1990s which saw the publication of books like Jared Taylor’s Paved With Good Intentions, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve and even Editor Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation?

Can Richard Lynn come in from the cold?

If you know Lynn’s name, it’s probably from reading, or reading about, the book he wrote in collaboration with political scientist Tatu Vanhanen twelve years ago: IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

Lynn has also made occasional appearances as a guest writer here on He wrote here in 2009 on the dysgenic consequences of mass immigration into Britain; in 2012 on race and equality; in August that year responding to some points Ron Unz had made about IQ and the Wealth of Nations; and last year on the centenary of IQ.

At Lynn’s 80th birthday in 2010 the scholarly journal Personality and Individual Differences, to which he has contributed regularly since its founding 34 years ago, published a collection of papers honoring his contributions to social psychology—what is known in the academic world as a Festchrift.

The Ulster Institute of Social Research has now gathered those commemorative papers together and published them as a book, Race and Sex Differences in Intelligence and Personality, which can be purchased from the Institute’s website.

The book is edited by Helmuth Nyborg, retired Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. Nyborg supplies a brief preface and two other contributions.

The first of those contributions, and the first chapter in the book, is a 20-page Q&A with Lynn himself, covering Lynn’s life and career. Peter Brimelow tells me that he will be publishing this chapter in its entirety here on at some date soon, so I shall say no more about it.

Nyborg’s second major contribution is his 2011 paper “The decay of Western civilization: Double Relaxed Darwinian Selection,” which brought him a formal censure from the Danish Council for Scientific Misconduct. Wikipedia has (as of today) a brief account of the controversy that is surprisingly sympathetic to Nyborg—surprisingly, I mean, in that the Wikipedia “line” is mostly straight Cultural-Marxist.

The Double Relaxed Darwinian Selection Nyborg refers to in the title of his paper is the combination of two hypothesized effects:

Both effects are described with reference to work Lynn has done on dysgenics.

Nyborg’s paper is grouped with four others under the heading “National Differences.” The book’s other groupings are:

  • The evolution of differences in intelligence and personality (3 papers).
  • Sex differences (2 papers; and I’d like to register a personal thanks to the editor for writing “sex” instead of the current faddish mis-usage “gender.”)
  • Intelligence and dysgenic fertility (1 paper).
  • The Lynn-Flynn effect (2 papers).

The last of those group headings refers to what is more commonly called “the Flynn Effect” after New Zealand psychometrician James Flynn.

Between about 1930 and 1990, scores on broad-spectrum IQ tests increased steadily in industrialized Western countries at a rate of about three points per decade. Flynn identified the phenomenon for the U.S.A. in 1984; Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray attached Flynn’s name to it ten years later.

Lynn, however, had written up the effect as it applied to Japan in a 1982 paper in Nature. In fairness, therefore, the Flynn Effect should more properly be called the Lynn-Flynn effect.

As the authors of one of these papers point out, the Lynn-Flynn effect might even more properly be called the Tuddenham Effect, since R.D. Tuddenham had observed it in American military conscripts as far back as 1948. [PDF]

The causes of the Tuddenham-Lynn-Flynn Effect are not dispositively known. Tuddenham thought it was better education. Lynn himself thinks that improvements in nutrition have been the major factor. Flynn favors the more cognitively stimulating “background” of later 20th-century society (movies, TV, the Internet). Smaller families, more outbreeding, and reduced “pathogen stress” freeing up bioenergetic resources for brain development, have all been mooted.

In one of the papers here British researcher Michael Woodley offers a more general theory of adaptation to modernity via “slower” i.e. less stressed life histories, resulting in more cognitive diversity and specialization.

One prediction of this theory would be that the Lynn-Flynn effect would have a natural upper bound, like height. Indeed, there is evidence from some Western nations that the effect may have ceased or even gone into reverse. Lynn argued this for the case of Britain in his last paper on the subject, in 2009.

(The dysgenesis that Nyborg writes about is not, as one might think, a confusing factor here, as Lynn-Flynn and dysgenesis work on different components of intelligence.)

It is possible that the Lynn-Flynn Effect acts differently on males and females, at least in respect to test scores on scientific knowledge. This is one of the curiosities turned up by three Estonian researchers mellifluously named Mikk, Täht, and Must in their paper “Sex differences in educational attainment.”

To judge from the two papers on sex differences published here, this is one of the iffiest areas in psychometric studies. Conventional wisdom is that adult males and females have the same mean IQ but with greater variance among males—more of us out at the extremes, while females bunch closer around the mean.

Lynn has challenged both these notions. He has argued in the first place that while mean IQ is indeed the same up to age 15, males thereafter pull away, ending up in adulthood with an advantage over women of 3 to 5 IQ points.

He has also cast doubt on the view that there is greater male variability in intelligence. A paper by Paul Irwing of the University of Manchester supplies data supporting Lynn’s arguments.

Iffier still, in fact out at the furthest frontier of psychometric research, are race and sex differences in personality. Lynn was a pioneer here with a 1971 monograph titled “Personality and national character,”inspired by a spell of work for the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin.

The Irish, he noticed, had high levels of psychosis, and correspondingly low levels of anxiety. (The two things are inversely correlated.)

This led to a comparative study of 18 economically developed nations, from which it emerged that the southern European nations and Japan had the highest levels of anxiety. Ireland’s level was the lowest.

Comparative studies of personality have advanced somewhat since 1971, but it’s uphill work. Researchers have to rely to some degree on self-reports; and these get confused by the very traits we are trying to measure, trapping analysis in vicious circles.


Conscientiousness, for example, is generally agreed to be a key dimension of personality; but if, in order to quantify it, you have your test subjects working through lengthy self-report questionnaires (“Do you often leave tasks unfinished?” etc., etc.) then you are depending to some degree on your subjects’ conscientiousness …

Another Estonian, Jüri Allik of the University of Tartu, covers this territory in a paper titled “National differences in personality.” On the self-report problem he tells us:

People everywhere see themselves as more neurotic and open to experience compared to how they are seen by other people. External observers, on the other hand, generally hold a higher opinion of an individual’s conscientiousness than he or she does about him or herself.

Conscientiousness is a bit of a conundrum altogether, delivering counterintuitive results when measured.

Aggregate national scores of self-reported conscientiousness were … negatively correlated with various country-level behavioral and demographic indicators of conscientiousness, such as postal workers’ speed, accuracy of clocks in public banks, accumulated economic wealth, and life expectancy at birth … Nations with high self-reported conscientiousness were not less but more corrupt.

Paradoxes abound in this field.

In countries where more people are generally happy and satisfied with their lives, the suicide rate is higher than in those countries where people tend to feel more miserable.

As I said, this is a real scientific frontier. We don’t even have good metrics for personality traits. There is no Conscientiousness Quotient. Where I see these traits quantified it is mostly as high, medium, or low.

The book is rounded off with a crisp epilogue by psychologist James Thompson of University College, London, whose review of Nicholas Wade’s recent book A Troublesome Inheritance I noted on a few days ago as “judicious and mostly positive.”

Thompson gives a summary of Lynn’s work in all the various topics to which he has turned his attention:

I need hardly say that all these topics are scandalous to the guardians of ideological orthodoxy in the Western world (perhaps excluding Russia).

So what? Let them sputter and squeal. Those of us who believe in an external reality outside the bounds of ideological control should firmly, calmly, patiently insist on the primacy of scientific curiosity.

Richard Lynn has always done so. It is plain from the tenor of his work, and from his exchanges with Helmuth Nyborg in the first chapter of this book, that Lynn has pursued his researches in these ideologically fraught areas for no other reason than that he finds them intellectually fascinating. “A methodical and tenacious assembler of facts and figures,” Donald Templer calls him in Chapter 4 (“Richard Lynn and the evolution of conscientiousness.”)

To carry out such research through a career spanning almost sixty years, pushing forward steadily against fierce ideological headwinds, bespeaks great fortitude. Or as Helmuth Nyborg observes in his preface: “The work he has undertaken demands remarkable personal stamina.” It surely does.

All credit and honor then to Richard Lynn, and to those he has travelled with—and often argued with—in his quest for understanding: Cyril Burt, Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, Phil Rushton, Tatu Vanhanen, Satoshi Kanazawa, Linda Gottfredson, …

These are the Galileos, Brahes, and Keplers of human nature studies, struggling to make sense of facts about the world with instruments that often deliver only poor resolution and ambiguous images.

They get little respect in the Western world today, where ignorance is bliss and also the gateway to a successful Main Stream Media career.

But if our civilization survives, our descendants will honor their names.


John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimismand several other books. His most recent book, published by com is FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle).His writings are archived at

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity, Science • Tags: IQ, Richard Lynn 
Hide 15 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Lots of name-dropping, anyhow. Whatever the merits of the arguments of those cited, the gist of this column represents arguing from authority.

  2. Fran Macadam: “Whatever the merits of the arguments of those cited, the gist of this column represents arguing from authority.”

    Derbyshire is just speculating hopefully about the prospect of a relaxation, however slight, in the strictures of political correctness upon research into genetics and race. There is no argument being made really, beyond pointing out that the response to Nicholas Wade’s book has been ‘relatively muted’, which it has been. Especially considering what a bombshell the book is to the “Race-Does-Not-Exist” industrial edifice.

    How about showing us why, from your own understanding and arguments, why the arguments of Lynn and company are rubbish? I’ll be very curious to see why you object to anything Lynn has argued about race.

  3. Fran’s response provides the other liberal bookend to contain an argument they cannot bear. If you don’t cite any references, they dismiss your position as being unsupported “pseudo-science”. If you provide citations, you’re “name-dropping” and arguing from authority. Very tidy.

    Either that or they just scream at you and call you names.

  4. I don’t get this preoccupation here with IQ issues. Is it because Unz has this as one of his manias?

    It is clear that not all races and groups are equally intelligent.

  5. The only way to truly understand these things is through designer children. These claims need to be tested. Who knows it might lead to controlled reproduction. Can we someday make everyone equally intelligent? A truly standardized citizenry. I wonder have the bodies of non-Western immigrants been exposed to the level of chemicals and processed food that Westerners have been exposed to? Africans have nice white teeth compared to Westerners and diet is supposedly why that is.

  6. Africans only have white teeth because the contrast with their black skin is striking.

  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “the gist of this column represents arguing from authority.”

    The point of the article was to praise Lynn. It was not meant as a lecture.

  8. I don’t get this preoccupation here with IQ issues. Is it because Unz has this as one of his manias?

    It is clear that not all races and groups are equally intelligent.

    Of the most influential 1000 people in America, how many would posit something like that last sentence, under their own byline, in a NYT op ed?

    I’m quite sure that number is 0, therefore it is an important message to repeat.

  9. People whose main concern is race and intelligence and all that need to rethink things. This is not the cutting edge of world concern or American concern.

  10. Hey Everybody, Norman Ravitch says you should focus on the things that he feels are important. You’re giving him the vapors with all your talk of human differences.

  11. Hey, right away the name calling (liberal! poltroon! Bashi bazouk!) and wanting to have a fight. I’m no liberal, although I have to admit I don’t see how an obsession with trying to quantify I.Q. among groups tells me anything useful to me, or even accurate, about any individual I am likely to relate to. Unless I were to make the error of moving from an ephemeral general to a impossible to predict specific.

  12. rod1963 says:

    Race and intelligence are very important issues for those concerned about the future of the U.S. and West in light of the elites agenda of importing millions upon millions of 3rd world peoples who lack the brains and culture to run their own countries and and certainly can’t contribute anything to a 1st world state except that of mooching off the public dole and churning out more low IQ children that will in turn make up a permanent and hostile underclass.

    In short these immigrants aren’t a plus for the West and it’s people but a serious corrosive element.

    As it is, the inclusion of the 3rd world immigrant’s children in our public schools has already made a negative impact. Mostly in the form of a degraded environment, lowered standards and course content to the point that it’s unwise to allow a above average white or Asian student to attend most public schools.

    Sadly this plague has reached higher education and now our colleges are full of remedial and nonsense courses for these minorities since the vast majority lack the brain power for traditional coursework not mention quotas and social promotion for them as well.

    Now to the article, the mere mention mention of race and intelligence by whites is still very dangerous – witness the firestorm over Donald Sterling’s and Cliven Bundy’s remarks or what happened to Wade – who just lost his job after 30 years at the NYT. It’s clear the Left does not tolerate people talking about race and won’t hesitate to destroy if possible should they decide to speak out.

  13. Donald Sterling! Great “fiestorm” company. The guy’s I.Q. – Inanity Quotient – is impeccably high, not affected at all by his age or Viagra use. He may have been trying for some genetic engineering himself, relying upon the strengths of mongrelization. At his age, give him credit – competing with Magic involves jumping through hoops. Maybe he’s the Great White Hoop?

  14. I don’t see how an obsession with trying to quantify I.Q. among groups tells me anything useful to me, or even accurate, about any individual I am likely to relate to.

    Those who believe in human neurological diversity are not the one’s “obsessing.” We simply accept that there are demonstrably different means between groups in a number of areas, including intelligence. Markets and human preference will take care of things. It’s become an issue because the government spends billions in taxpayer dollars on the premise that equality of inputs yields equality of outcomes.

    The persistent IQ gap is more important in what it tells you NOT to do: don’t waste billions of taxpayer dollars on the premise that all children can be educated to the same level of intelligence; don’t engineer fiscal and social policy so that “every American goes to college;” don’t lower established standards to achieve politically correct outcomes; don’t import millions of Mexican peasants on the assumption that their offspring will grow up to find the cure for cancer and pay high taxes–because they didn’t do it where they came from.

  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Some of those people deserve honoring, but Lynn isn’t one of them. The guy is really largely a charlatan, and in ways not entirely right in the head, having spoken to him before and his praise of an intellectual abomination “Erectus Walks Amongst Us.” You know, that extreme piece of multiregionalism that openly argues blacks and similar populations aren’t human, but essentially bipedal apes, and also unironically cites March of the Titans. He’s pulled so much BS and conducted so much sloppy, shoddy work over the years, the bad really outweights the good. Among the most heinous would be his equatorial guinea score, which wasn’t even based on africans. This is hardly to say all of his work and figures are without merit or haven’t been replicated by other researchers, but he is not even remotely an admirable researcher. Jason Malloy over at human varieties has done far better work in recent times and has uncovered plenty more failings on Lynn’s part, despite how much he used to gleefully praise him. Much the same could be said for Rushton- they really haven’t done much good for “HBD” when you get down to it. They’re probably some of the biggest promulgators of the asiaphilia we’ve all come to know and love, and the retarded “ice age climactic differences are the sole detriments of racial differences in intelligence and behavior, which have remained 100% unchanged since then and have determined every single historical variable.”, which is thankfully on the wane, but still features prominently in Lynn’s central reasoning. And while Jensen is a much better researcher than either, he, for whatever reason, accepted the bulk of their work. Even collaborated with Rushton on some his last big papers.

    To think Derbyshire wants to consider these two as “Galileos, Brahes, and Keplers of the human nature studies” is hardly endearing, but either says that a) this field needs some major improvement or b) Derbyshire needs to raise his standards (especially when he considers a total buffoon like Kanazawa as worthy of this moniker), and hopefully, his understanding of this field, but these kinds of moronic comparisons are hardly uncommon.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS