The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
Race/IQ: A Coda on Mexican-American IQ
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

TAC-RaceIQ Although the claims regarding Irish IQ had unexpectedly attracted so many of the angry attacks on my recent Race/IQ series, it seemed quite obvious to me that this represented merely a stalking-horse for the related question of Mexican IQ.

In my original article, I had pointed out that up to the early 1970s, both Mexicans and Ireland Irish had identically low IQs, and perhaps coincidentally both were impoverished, heavily rural populations. However, in the decades which followed, Ireland had grown more affluent and urbanized, and Irish IQ had rapidly risen, eventually reaching a value almost identical to that of the neighboring British. I then noted the bits of evidence that the IQ of American-born Mexican-Americans had also apparently been rising at a similarly rapid pace, perhaps propelled by similar gains in socio-economic and urbanization factors. Since massive recent immigration has rendered the data on the Mexican-American portion of this analogy somewhat fragmentary and inconclusive, my critics naturally focused their most intensive fire on the Irish side, denying any large change in the local IQ; but an exceptionally strong correlation of 0.86 seems now to have decisively resolved this dispute in my favor.

In the most recent iteration of this debate, I mentioned that Hans Eysenck, one of the leading psychometricians of the 20th century, had apparently discussed the well-known facts of low Irish IQ in his 1971 book Race, Intelligence, and Education. Although the quotes I found seemed quite reliable, I decided to confirm them for myself, and for $6.40 (plus $3.99 shipping and handling) ordered his book from Amazon. When the copy arrived, I was disappointed to discover it contained no index, so I just began browsing through the contents to find the Irish references.

These were indeed exactly as had been claimed. Citing older research studies not mentioned in more recent texts, Eysenck described the Irish/British IQ gap as being almost identical in size to the black/white IQ gap in America, and provided several half-plausible explanations of why the Irish might have become an innately low intelligence population (pp. 127-128). The entire discussion ran merely a page or two, but given Eysenck’s stature in the field it undoubtedly represented the conventional academic wisdom of his day.


However, in skimming the book in search of those references, I discovered several far more interesting and surprising items.

First, Eysenck casually mentioned the fact that Americans of Greek, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese ancestry had very low IQs compared to their separated European cousins, and suggested that this was because the least intelligent members of those ethnic groups had immigrated to America (p. 47-48). Yet just forty years later, that pattern has completely reversed itself, with the children or grandchildren of those same American ethnicities now having far higher IQs than their stay-at-home European relatives. So these days, the explanatory “Just So Story” has switched polarity, and we are asked to assume that it was only the brightest Greeks and South Italians who took ship for the New World. Explanatory arguments which reverse themselves every generation or two hardly acquire great credibility in the process.

But even more remarkable was Eysenck’s long and detailed discussion of Mexican-American IQ (pp. 120-127). Although he mentioned that the scores themselves were well below those of white schoolchildren, he explained that a close examination of the pattern of the results across different types of tests and circumstances indicated that this particular gap was very likely due to factors of socio-economic or cultural deprivation, perhaps magnified by language problems, and that the underlying intelligence of Mexicans was probably pretty close to that of whites. Therefore, he predicted that the Mexican IQ would converge to the white value as social conditions improved, which was exactly what my fragmentary evidence seemed to indicate.

Worse still for my critics, Eysenck’s discussion had been drawn directly from the work of Arthur Jensen, who had conducted detailed research studies on the question of Mexican-American intelligence and had similarly concluded that the IQ gap with whites was overwhelmingly “environmental” in origin. Now I claim no great expertise in IQ matters, but those who do seem to regard Jensen as one of the most towering figures in the history of their academic discipline.

Presumably, this might place my numerous and noisy IQ-activist critics in a bit of a quandary. My strong impression is that Jensen and Eysenck rank as perhaps the Marx and Engels of their movement, and suddenly purging them both on charges of Gouldist-deviationism would surely constitute an ideological earthquake, vastly greater in magnitude than that of the Moscow Purge Trials or Khrushchev’s 1956 “Secret Speech” on Stalin. Yet for my critics to admit they’d never bothered consulting the past pronouncements of their intellectual idols might also be quite embarrassing.

Naturally, such difficulties are non-existent for those individuals whose overweening self-confidence leads them to lob endless casual insults all across the Internet while regarding the evidence of their anecdotal personal experiences in New Mexico as vastly superior to my quantitative analysis or perhaps even the detailed IQ research of Prof. Arthur Jensen.

Lastly, this once again demonstrates the enormous potential value of occasionally examining the contents of old books and articles, as opposed to simply relying upon the echo-chamber effect of reading columns produced by ideological websites or bloggers, most of which tend to quote each other back and forth, often with diminishing reference to external reality.


And on a totally unrelated matter, the Wall Street Journal just ran a major article on the difficulties of teaching students from a non-English speaking family background, and the various suggestions of educational experts for improving this process. Although the article was quite detailed, I noticed the total absence of a certain two word phrase, which surely would have been central to any such discussion just a dozen or more years ago. Ironically enough, I suspect that the younger readers of this column don’t have the faintest idea of what I mean.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: IQ, Race/IQ 
The Race/IQ Series
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. cecelia says:

    I, not disputing the findings – just wondering – yeah and so what? So – rural poorer people have lower IQ’s than more affluent urban dwellers. What does this tell us about what is being measured by an IQ test? Does this mean those smarter urban types would be better farmers than the rural types? Or does it mean that people in agricultural societies need different kinds of knowledge than people in urban societies and that the IQ test is looking at those things that are more necessary in the urban environment? There is nothing new about recognizing that there are different kinds of intelligence and that people also learn and express what they learn using different sensory modalities. So I ask again – so what if there is an IQ difference? What are the policy implications – do we want to make everyone an affluent urban dweller so they can have nicer IQ scores? Maybe the robots will do the farm work?

    People with a lower IQ are no less human, no less worthy of respect, do not have less dignity. There is nothing about an IQ score that makes you a better or superior person.

    So exactly why are we re-visiting Eysenck’s work in these long posts?

  2. I know you ought not to argue from ridicule, but I can’t help it – the purveyors of racial IQ rankings are, as Einstein once patiently explained in an article for the NAACP, which earned him an attempt by the FBI’s Hoover to have him deported, not engaged in science. You could say, not only is it not rocket science, it’s racket science. It’s basically trying to put one over on someone, as Charles Murray’s own drunken bar ramblings revealed.

  3. B. Fife says:

    We must be careful when the discussion veers off into personal attacks, as that is the exact opposite of unbiased science. First, the science must be established, then, if you wish, venture on into the political. Charles Murray expressly made political statements in “The Bell Curve.” The one I found most noteworthy was when he and co-author Hernstein spoke of blacks lower socio-economic status as being the result of racial discrimination, or a lower IQ. Whether or not an individuals IQ is the result of nature/nurture matters little, as their IQ is generally unchanging throughout their life. That’s what science strongly suggests. Point? The political statements are risky, the science must still be the focal point. Unz pointed out population groups evolve. That flies in the face of “nature” proponents. Problem? No psycholmetrician ever said nature accounted for 100% of IQ differences. Unz set up a straw man.

  4. KateLE says:

    Let’s assume for a moment that you are correct (although personally I think Cecilia above reaches the more logical conclusion). What is it that you DO with those findings? Ignore individual ability and dedicate extra resources based on race? Exclude certain races as not being ‘worth’ the effort? I can’t figure out where you’re going with this, unless it’s to create yet another group to lump people into and treat accordingly. A hint about your direction would be helpful.

  5. cka2nd says:

    Bilingual education, Ron.

    Judging from the sample of your work on the subject that I just checked out, I’d say you’ve come a long way from some of the cheap anecdotal shots and hyperbole (millions of lives “ruined” by bilingual education!) you used to employ.

  6. “What is it that you DO with those findings? Ignore individual ability and dedicate extra resources based on race? Exclude certain races as not being ‘worth’ the effort?”

    It’s called pattern recognition, and humans have used it effectively for millenia.

    Here’s what I would do: Stop spending millions of dollars creating public school Taj Mahals in Harlem and LA and just offer 3 square meals and a multi-vitamin and rely on aptitude testing.

    Also, I’d take out more of a mortgage to make sure I have plenty of white neighbors, but everybody already does that.

    Unz is engaged in his usual cherry-picking, and he’s using tweezers by this point.

  7. B. Fife says:

    Read Flynn’s book where he discusses the Flynn (misnomer BTW says Flynn) effect. Flynn is not a psychometrician, but he gives the subject a fair shake. He explains the rise in IQ scores from 1972 -2002. The scores indeed went up (on the subtests of similarities greatly, arithmetic and vocabulary very slightly). Though g did not increase. Long story short, mental abilities can be improved. He addresses the paradox (his word) as to why scores of subtests can improve independently of g. The book is called “What is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect”

    What are we to do with the information? Murray touched on black anger in “The Bell Curve.” He asked (my words) “is it better to tell the black that his low SES (socio-economic status) is due to racial discrimination, or hint at the truth that the median black IQ is over one standard deviation lower than whites? I think we know what the “I can’t believe it’s true” liberals have been selling. Political correctness gone amuck. No one tells short white guys they aren’t centers in the NBA due to black racism do they?

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 Ron Unz Comments via RSS