« The sneaky cookbook author | Main | Who plays video games? »

October 20, 2007

Comments

According to the Freakonomics blog, there's now an intelligence test that can be given to one-year-olds, and it shows no racial gap. If indeed this test really measures intelligence, tough to tell given the very young ages of its subjects, it's strong evidence for nuture over nature.

Like HS already said, intelligence must be measured at adulthood, because girls and I also suspect blacks earlier mature than say white boys, but reach their potential earlier.

"it's strong evidence for nuture over nature"

Does not follow.

That's like saying that we know the unequal distribution of facial hair on men and women is largely a matter of nurture because baby boys and baby girls do not shave at age one.

This essay is a decent introduction to the subject, but it addresses only half of the great debate -- whether IQ is genetic or not. The other half, which is still under serious discussion, is what exactly IQ means. (I don't think I'll disagree with you on it, but it's too huge a part of the debate to leave out of the discussion.)

Peter:
According to the paper, linked to on the Freakonomics page, the correlation between an infant's score on this test at the age of 12 months and IQ at 5 years is only .3, compared with a correlation of .7 between IQs at age 4 and at age 17, so it's not at all clear that what this is measuring is potential for adult intelligence (of course, it doesn't prove otherwise, either, since this can easily be explained by differential environments).

There's a plausible model that explains this is purely genetic terms: Genes for intelligence aren't expressed phenotypically until some time after birth. Young boys and girls have similar amounts of muscle mass, but this doesn't prove that the fact that men have more muscle mass than women is the result of nurture and not nature.

Also, I'm not sure that the question of the relative contributions of genes and environment to adult IQ is even all that important. That IQ is at least broadly heritable, if not narrowly heritable, is a settled question. And as far as I know, there's no known intervention short of adoption that can produce substantial increases in IQ that persist into adulthood.

So suppose we determine beyond all doubt that the racial IQ gap is entirely environmental. What can we do about it? Take babies from mothers in the bottom decile of IQ and give them to better parents? Ethics aside, it's utterly impractical. For all practical purposes, it might as well be genetic.

We should also be reminded that not all whites have the same IQ and not all nations of whites do either

Therefore the conclusion of any "genetic IQ test" will reveal to 50% of white America they are below average IQ and are genetically inferior cognitively to the average East Asian. The average WASP is inferior genetically on a cognitive level to a Ashkenazi Jew. Somehow I think that won't go over to well.

Speaking of white IQ variation by country, Lynn found:

"He concludes that in Europe, adults in Germany and the Netherlands have the

highest average IQ at 107, compared with 100 across Britain. The UK is also beaten by Poland (106), Sweden (104), Italy (102), Austria (101) and Switzerland (101).

But Britons are brighter than people in Belgium (99), Spain (98), Hungary (98), Russia (96), Greece (95), France (94), Romania (94), Turkey (90) and Serbia, which finishes bottom with 89. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=381057&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=Talking%20point&ct=5


Now it says Romanians and French have an IQ of 94 and Serbians 90, right?


Now according to the Brookings Insitutte black American IQ increased from 85 to 89-92 since 1972. (Flynn, 2006) Now blacks did not "evolve" that quick and there has not been enough interracial marriage so it is obviously environmental.

If black IQ is up to 92, assuming similar standard deviation, blacks could be equal in intelligence to some European populations like France or Romanian, both EU countries?

That would be high enough to have a industrialized Western society.

And blacks could be more intelligent than people in Serbia who are very white.

The other half, which is still under serious discussion, is what exactly IQ means.

As usual, I second Jewish Atheist.

I haven't had time to read all the links yet. But it seems to me from what I have read that IQ is very important in regard to who causes societal ills such as crime. It's a lot less important (above a certain minimal threshhold) in determining who gets the goodies important to middle-class people.

Re the No Child Left Behind post where "Rob", David A., and others were discussing the child welfare system: It occurs to me that depending on how important IQ is to crime and child abuse, it might not be as risky as we were thinking to have the parents of the abusers raising their grandchildren. Maybe the troubled parents aren't that way because they were raised poorly, but because they drew the short end of the intelligence stick in the family. (There is screening done before a child is placed with a relative, and any child abuse history will prevent or delay placement.)

I will include the link to Flynn's results as reported by the Brooking Institute.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf

I fully expect a brilliant display of mental gymnastics to explain things to follow. LOL

A more recent study at Ohio State showed IQ did not closely correlate with income...although anyone knows that there is a floor, below which, one can not earn a good living. It is obvious some of the wealthiest people might make a mint in sales whereas there intellectual superiors could become professors. I'm pretty sure most people do not think Donald Trump has a higher IQ than the top astrophysicist at NASA.

"In the study, published in the journal Intelligence, Dr Zagorsky examined detailed data from 7,403 Americans who had been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. IQ scores were compared with income and overall wealth, and participants were asked whether they had ever reached their limit on a credit card, been declared bankrupt or missed paying bills for financial reasons.

It found that IQ was strongly linked to income, with each extra point of IQ worth between $202 (£101) and $616 (£308) a year. The average annual income difference between a person with a normal IQ, of 100, and a person in the top 2 per cent, with an IQ of 130, was between $6,000 (£3,000) and $18,500 (£9,250).

Overall wealth, however, was not correlated strongly with IQ, and there were mixed results regarding financial problems. While people with low IQs were the most likely to have reached their limit on credit cards, those with very high IQs were more likely to have had financial difficulties than those with slightly above-average intelligence. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1701377.ece

"A more recent study at Ohio State showed IQ did not closely correlate with income."

Actually, the Ohio State study confirmed the finding that IQ and income are positively related, as the article you quote reports. Along with that, the Ohio State study found that IQ did not closely correlate with wealth (i.e. net worth).

Dragon Horse,

I haven't read the article you linked to but it's easy to imagine why overall wealth wouldn't correlate as strongly as income: inheriting and regression to the mean.

As for Serbia, I come from a country with the same average IQ score. We certainly have an industrialized society here, so I can confirm it is doable with an average IQ of one standard deviation below, say, Germans.

On the Freakonomics blog:
Brain development continues beyond the first year of life. So the genes that account for IQ differences may be appearing later than one. This fact makes Levitt's argument a pretty weak considering how much of the brain is still under development after the first year of life.

Levitt displayed dishonest thinking in his blog post. First he called the correlation between intelligence at 12 months and later in life high, then he claimed that there are no differences in IQ at 12 months but significant differences later. Obviously, both can't hold. If you actually read his paper, correlation seems to be .3, certainly not high.

"The other half, which is still under serious discussion, is what exactly IQ means.

IQ means a greater or lesser likelihood of certain outcomes on a variety of other metrics (such as adult literacy, enrollment in tertiary education, life expectancy, adult earnings, and so on and so forth).

Asking for a definition of 'IQ' is about as useful as asking for a definition of 'temperature', an other concept that is often defined in terms of its measurement.

The rest is semantics, and often used as a debate tactic to hamstring discussion.

If you want a working definition, try this:

"'IQ' is the ability to do well on IQ tests, which suggests a general problem solving ability."

And a general comment for Half Sigma. Though I agree with you much, I don't consider that one study conclusive. It's a small sample, for one. Small samples are the bane of these "natural experiments". If you recall, there is also a study about children fathered by black US soldiers in Germany, who seem to have tested identical to their white comrades. That "natural experiment" is also plagued with a small sample and questionable data, if I recall correctly.

I think that eventually the public is going to accept the current consensus of experts, that intelligence is at least 2/3ds nature. But let's not hang the entire argument on one small study.

Just one nitpick: you can only make the 16% claim if the distributions are Gaussian (the 'bell curve'). IQ does show a Gaussian distribution, but you can't look at, say, income and say things like that.

IQ means a greater or lesser likelihood of certain outcomes on a variety of other metrics (such as adult literacy, enrollment in tertiary education, life expectancy, adult earnings, and so on and so forth).

It doesn't "mean" those things. There may be a correlation, but even that wouldn't show causation. For example, you might need a high IQ to get into tertiary education by fiat of the admissions committee, which may in turn influence the other things.

Asking for a definition of 'IQ' is about as useful as asking for a definition of 'temperature', an other concept that is often defined in terms of its measurement.

Except that temperature actually has a meaning.

"'IQ' is the ability to do well on IQ tests, which suggests a general problem solving ability."

It's that "suggestion" which I am suggesting we talk about.

M:IQ means a greater or lesser likelihood of certain outcomes on a variety of other metrics (such as adult literacy, enrollment in tertiary education, life expectancy, adult earnings, and so on and so forth).

JA: It doesn't "mean" those things.

I guess I don't understand the question.

Define "meaning". :-)

I'm pretty disappointed in this post.

One big thing that bothers me this is that it seems to be saying "I've always felt like blacks were dumber than whites, and here's 1 lame study that supports this view". It doesn't have the scrutiny for instance that the author would give to a study showing that his race was inferior in IQ.

Another issue is: why post this at all? Is it scientifically interesting? Mildly, although one could find many scientific flaws with it and the underlying study.

If I were to believe the "facts" in this post, what should I do? Should I advocate discrimination against blacks because they are less smart? Should I not hire them to my company because odds are I could find a smarter white person? Should I try and drive them from society?

Ok, now I'll break out the big guns. Isn't this the same sort of thing Hitler did? Don't you think he showed evidence that Jews were less smart, bad for society,etc. Didn't he advocate his genetic heritage as superior? I bet he had some scientific studies to show it too.

Stop trying to prove that one group of people are genetically inferior to your group. Just stop. It makes you sound like a Nazi. Its bad for society. Its bad for all involved. And I'd bet its scientifically flawed as well. Frankly I don't care if its true or not, our society is not ready to handle it, and doesn't know how to respond. Frankly we, as a human race, do not have the IQ to know what do do with this information.

You will probably say I am naive, Tech Lead, but I think good things could be done with the information. For instance, children from disadvantaged groups who do have high IQs could be targeted for aid. Schools could more easily target students of particular abilities for particular education or training.

I'd rather see young people deliberately segregated on the basis of IQ than on the basis of income and/or race.

A lot of people who say they don't believe IQ is the deciding factor in achievement and outcomes instead harbor the view that effort, morals, and diligence are the deciding factors. This still results in prejudicial views toward lower-achieving groups. I think it's even more harmful than believing in innate differences, because it allows people to paint the lower achievers as immoral, rather than genetically disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

I wonder why nobody ponders the fact that France is close to a standard deviation below Hong Kong and Taiwan in intelligence but is a country know for great philosophers and is considered "1st world" but have the lowest IQs in Western Europe, lower than even Spain. LOL

That should be enough to keep Half Sigma up at night.

Then again proving French people "dull" does not boost anyone's self esteem or make them feel superior based around race...is this just an issue of cheer leading to make one feel good about their "home team"?

Here's a page that debunks the statement: "Some ethnic groups have genetically inferior IQ's."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-inferiorIQ.htm

Basically it shows that "There are countless examples around the world where the dominant ethnic group scores higher on IQ tests than the discriminated minority"

I am a scientifically minded person, I love science. But I don't think studies that try to asses the IQ of people based on race or genetics are good. I think they will be misused, misunderstood,etc. I think most of them are in fact scientifically flawed.


Basically it shows that "There are countless examples around the world where the dominant ethnic group scores higher on IQ tests than the discriminated minority"

But how does the fact that they're persecuted prove that they're not genetically less intelligent?

I agree it's cause for suspicion, but I don't think it disproves the contention.

In Malaysia, the Chinese minority outperforms the Malaysian majority, and there is affirmative action there to help the majority Malaysians, because employers hire too many minority Chinese.

And then, in every country where Ashkenazi Jews live, they outperform everyone else. And this is also true in Israel where Ashkenazi European Jews do better than the Sephardic Middle-Eastern Jews, even though the Ashkenazim are a slight minority compared to the Sephardim.

But it either case, HS, is the minority a persecuted minority? Or is it an economically advantaged minority?

Do the Sephardim also come from Spain?

"And then, in every country where Ashkenazi Jews live, they outperform everyone else. "

Ha, ha I'm smarter than you are, nah nah na nah nah.

Tech Lead, please refrain from ad hominem arguments. If you think it's immoral or silly to even discuss this issue, there are plenty of people, and bloggers, who agree with you that you can go visit. You're not a "discriminated minority."

"But it either case, HS, is the minority a persecuted minority?"

The Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia are intermittent objects of pogroms, which counts as a disadvantage in my book.

"Do the Sephardim also come from Spain?"

Iberian Jews, yes -- often ending up in a present location by way of North Africa.

>>And then, in every country where Ashkenazi Jews live, they outperform everyone else.

>Ha, ha I'm smarter than you are, nah nah na nah nah.

Wow, what a surprise. I didn't see that one coming, haha.

For instance, children from disadvantaged groups who do have high IQs could be targeted for aid. Schools could more easily target students of particular abilities for particular education or training.

I'd rather see young people deliberately segregated on the basis of IQ than on the basis of income and/or race.

That still doesn't diminish the emotional effects of knowing that you're a freak in a race filled with idiots and retards who are unable to compete or even exist in the civilized world.

Filtering by IQ has the same effects that filtering by race and income has. You'll end up with a class filled with poor black students who perform poorly, except that maybe a few of the black students get filtered off into the mainstream classes for white students. Yes, there are white people with low IQs, but they'll move out to some rural area to assure that their children do not attend classes with blacks.

As far as I'm concerned, even if we all agreed that IQ is genetic, the fact that the lower IQs are pooled in one easily discernible segment of the population means that it's just as easy to point out the low IQ and discriminate against them. We've swapped the reason to hate blacks from "they're lazy and criminally inclined" into "they're genetically inferior to whites and Asians". For me, it really doesn't change anything, except move from us from "savable" to "hopeless".

The least of the problems with the concept of IQ is "what it means." IQ is a measurement of general problem-solving ability.[1]

You ask, "how does IQ measure that?"

Here's how: you give a lot of people a battery of mental tests which attempt to measure problem-solving ability (solving visual puzzles, matching words like synonyms and antonyms, solving analogies, solving arithmetic problems, on- and- on). You analyze their scores. You discover[2] that people who do well on any of these tests tend to do well on most or all of them (it is actually difficult to come up with any mental test that seems to require problem-solving which is not highly correlated with other such tests).

You figure out, for each type of test, how well it predicts overall performance. You choose some tests which seem to predict overall performance well, and you validate this by giving tests to more people-- if you can predict their performance on the whole battery just from their performance on a few tests, then you have correctly identified some key tests.

(Of course you adjust and "standardize" your key tests on a large sample of people, including people of different races, sexes, etc. to make sure that you're measuring everyone fairly.)

You use a mathematical method called "factor analysis" to extract the "principal component" of performance on your tests. Perhaps you call that 'g'. That component will represent the most general factor in the brain that your tests measure. You will test even more people to confirm that your principal component does, by itself, largely predict performance on the whole test battery.

You express that factor as a numerical "IQ" score. Knowing the IQ score for anyone allows you to predict his or her performance on a great variety of tests of mental problem-solving.

And, it turns out, problem-solving ability, summarized as IQ, predicts job performance and health and various life outcomes reliably and repeatedly for most people.

So anyway, if you bother to read up on it, you will find that there are in fact no serious questions or doubts that IQ measures what most people call "intelligence." You may safely ignore obfuscation and propaganda to the contrary from folks who simply do not wish the general public to understand that there is such a thing as intelligence and it is not distributed equally to everyone (any more than height, shoe size, sprinting-ability, or musical talent, to name a few).

[1] This is a big subject and I'm trying to summarize it in a few lines, so please don't take me to task for leaving out nuances or using certain technical terms rather loosely.

[2] The fact that performance on nearly all mental tests is highly correlated was one of the most surprising and intriguing discoveries of early psychological research. People have been investigating this for about a century now and this phenomenon has been demonstrated beyond any doubt by very many experiments. So-called "multiple intelligence" theories are not scientific since they lack support from experimental evidence.

He concludes that in Europe, adults in Germany and the Netherlands have the highest average IQ at 107, compared with 100 across Britain. The UK is also beaten by Poland (106), Sweden (104), Italy (102), Austria (101) and Switzerland (101).

But Britons are brighter than people in Belgium (99), Spain (98), Hungary (98), Russia (96), Greece (95), France (94), Romania (94), Turkey (90) and Serbia, which finishes bottom with 89. "


A lot of these values are from a single, outdated study and do not reflect the current estimates, which are averaged from multiple studies in each country and corrected for the Flynn Effect:

Germany 99
Netherlands 100
Poland 99
France 98

You are correct that scores are progressively lower into Southeastern Europe, which is a transition zone to the scores you see in the Middle East. So some European countries do come closer to African-Americans, but it's not clear that Af-Ams would perform the same if raised in that environment. Blacks in lesser environments, like Latin America, tend to do much worse.

The MTRAS is by no means the only transracial adoption study by the way, only the most popular one. I start researching this issue a couple years ago and have collected a lot more data on black (and Asian) adoptees. The findings are pretty consistent. I hope to share it soon if I can.

"There are countless examples around the world where the dominant ethnic group scores higher on IQ tests than the discriminated minority"

That link is by no means trustworthy. Some of those references, such as the supposed 1 SD difference between Irish Catholics or Protestants, are just completely made up. No such study exists, and no researcher has ever been able to find it. Similarly I only hit a dead end trying to find the one that supposedly looks at Burakumin IQ in America. It is likely apocryphal as well.

And of, of course, there are just as many, if not more examples of persecuted minority groups outcompeting and outscoring the majority all over the world: Chinese all over Asia and in the Caribbean, Jews all over Europe, Indians in Asia, Africa and the South Pacific, Armenians in Turkey, Middle Easterners and Asians in Africa, and on and on.

"Don't you think [that big bad leftist bogeyman Hitler] showed evidence that Jews were less smart, bad for society,etc."

This may very well be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in my entire life; it's a pity that the fabled Ashkenazi intelligence apparently passed you by. Hitler may have said many things about the Jews but one thing he never said was that the Jews were stupider than Germans. If your demonization/dehumanization strategy heavily relies upon portraying your intended victim as a horde of scheming, conniving manipulators the last characteristic you would want to attribute to them is stupidity - it directly conflicts with the rest of the narrative.

One big thing that bothers me this is that it seems to be saying "I've always felt like blacks were dumber than whites, and here's 1 lame study that supports this view". It doesn't have the scrutiny for instance that the author would give to a study showing that his race was inferior in IQ.

Really, it might help to get acquainted with the literature. If you honestly think there has been only a single study on this matter then I suggest Hernstein and Murray's "The Bell Curve," Jensen's "The g Factor," and Lynn and Vanhanen's "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" for starters.

Another issue is: why post this at all? Is it scientifically interesting? Mildly, although one could find many scientific flaws with it and the underlying study.

Again, it might help to get acquainted with the literature. Many of the so-called "flaws" skeptics claim they can point out turn out to have been addressed previously. Fortunately for defenders of the PC status quo, ignorance about the subject ensures we get plenty of uniformed responses like those that littered the New York Times blog a few days ago.

If I were to believe the "facts" in this post, what should I do? Should I advocate discrimination against blacks because they are less smart? Should I not hire them to my company because odds are I could find a smarter white person? Should I try and drive them from society?

You should hire the smartest employee you can find. You have the opportunity to judge a job applicant on their individual merits rather than their race and you should do so. But you should also oppose the immigration of groups that are likely to drag the mean IQ of society down.

Stop trying to prove that one group of people are genetically inferior to your group. Just stop. It makes you sound like a Nazi. Its bad for society. Its bad for all involved. And I'd bet its scientifically flawed as well.

Godwin's law strikes again! You did mention you were Jewish so I can't say I'm too surprised by this little bit of reductio ad Hitlerum.

My challenge to those who deny the importance of IQ or believe in multiple intelligences still stands: do you honestly think you can you find a single Fortune 500 CEO, hedge fund manager, physicist, chemist, mathematician, biochemist, or even an English Lit professor with an IQ of 85?

"Stop trying to prove that one group of people are genetically inferior to your group. Just stop. It makes you sound like a Nazi."

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Nazi Party, Senator McCarthy.

The term Sephardim is often used to refer to Jews with origins anywhere in the Mediterranean or the Middle East. This usage is rather imprecise and a bit confusing. More recently, people have distinguished the Mizrahim - Jews from the Mideast, North Africa, Iran, as well as other eastern communities such as the Bukharic Jews and Indian Jews - from the Sephardim - a Jewish population that originated on the Iberian peninsula but following expulsions and forced conversions in Spain and Portugal found in several other locations such as Greece and the Netherlands.

I'm sure whether any of the literature concerning Sephardic IQ distinguished Sephardim from Mizrahim. The term "Mizharim" itself seems to be conglomeration of several distinct groups of Jews without much shared history.

If the average black IQ (according to Flynn's latest study) is between 89-92 and the average white IQ is 100, that means there are millions of blacks above the average white IQ.

This being said, If any of you really believe that proving blacks genetically cognitively inferior is going to help blacks you are kidding yourself and are clearly ignorant of human nature and American history.

The average person in this country will not discriminate, as in, oh well that individual black person might be as intelligent as me. Also we already know 50% of whites are below average in intelligence. They will say...that's a black person and they are stupid until proven otherwise.

Some say it will help white and Asian students get into choice schools as minorities (mostly black and Hispanic) will not get affirmative action as it is "not helpful".

That selective outrage is always interesting to me as:

www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/ articles/2007/09/28/ at_the_elite_colleges___dim_white_kids/

"What they almost never say is that many of the applicants who were rejected were far more qualified than those accepted. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, it was not the black and Hispanic beneficiaries of affirmative action, but the rich white kids with cash and connections who elbowed most of the worthier applicants aside.

Researchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America's highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards."

No one gets outraged over that...well at least not white people who are so for "merit" when a black or Hispanic person is involved when reality is America has never been and is no a meritocracy. It might be the closest we have in the world, but that is not saying much. Anyone who has been truly exposed to the power elite in this country know better.

That still doesn't diminish the emotional effects of knowing that you're a freak in a race filled with idiots and retards who are unable to compete or even exist in the civilized world.

David, even white people with an IQ of over 125 are only 5 percent of the population (per earlier commenter). So everyone smart is a freak, statistically speaking. The world is a rainbow of violent, grunting cavemen.

Once you get a better job, you'll meet some other smart, high-functioning black people. You'll feel more normal.

Another great HS post! It is a bit tiring with the regular "What is IQ anyway? It is useless!" and "You just want to have an excuse to fire up the gas chambers, that's all!" comments, but these concerns have already been thoughtfully addressed.

As far as statistical mental/personality differences between groups being valid research, I think it is absolutely essential in a time where any observation of the kind "Group A constitutes x% of the overall population, but represents y% of the population having outcome B." where x<>y ALWAYS seem to lead to the conclusion "Group A is discriminated and actions have to be taken until x=y.". If that should be the starting point, it has to be legitimate for those who doubt to carry out research to investigate if a deviation from population matching is legitimate.

David, even white people with an IQ of over 125 are only 5 percent of the population (per earlier commenter)

There's no way it can be that low. Something has to explain all the college students who graduate and all those people with various professional degrees. For 5% of the population to only have 125%, that implies that the rest of this country lives in poverty, has criminal tendencies, and lives off welfare. It just doesn't make sense to me for the intelligent segment of the population to be so low.

Once you get a better job, you'll meet some other smart, high-functioning black people. You'll feel more normal.

Not really. For every smart high-functioning black person that I meet, there's at least 50 other low-functioning black people. Even the fact that it's taking so long for me to finish implies that I'm low functioning as well.

David:

No, it is true. Only 5% of the population have IQs over 125. For IQ the standard deviation is about 15 points and 100 is the average. You can use that data to compute the probability if you know statistics. It's about 5%.

Most people with IQs under 125 are not capable of taking on positions like doctor, lawyer, executive, scientist. Most people between 115-125 are able to take positions like teacher, manager, accountant. Below 115 are positions like police officer, factory worker etc...

Here, read this if you don't believe me...

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/
1998generalintelligencefactor.pdf

S: David, even white people with an IQ of over 125 are only 5 percent of the population (per earlier commenter)

DA: There's no way it can be that low

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

Check the "US Population Distribution" field in the "Economic and social correlates of IQ" table. Only 5% of the population is above 125.

There's no way it can be that low. Something has to explain all the college students who graduate and all those people with various professional degrees. For 5% of the population to only have 125%, that implies that the rest of this country lives in poverty, has criminal tendencies, and lives off welfare. It just doesn't make sense to me for the intelligent segment of the population to be so low.

Dude. The average cop's IQ is about 95 (don't make me look up my source, and I could be off by a couple points). Jokes and cop-bashing aside, most of the cops I know are at least reasonably functional and many are even clever.

The average college graduate's IQ is nowhere near 125. Again, don't make me look it up. And most people in America do not graduate from college. Cameron, I'm surprised and skeptical that lawyers have that high an average IQ; I'd bet it's closer to 115.

You don't have to hang out with all the black people, David. Just a few. :)

Wow, after a quick skim, it's rather depressing to see that the bottom 25% of the population is unemployable or only capable of work that pays very little, and those around the "average" can be outsourced for pennies on the dollar. It's almost as if we might as well raise the definition of mentally handicapped from 75 or to 100, and just pay everybody not to work and bother and burden the smarter segments of the population. It's too scary to even contemplate the idea that most of society is composed of idiots who barely function. I am now amazed that civilization has managed to hold itself together for so long without collapse.

Whenever someone uses the term "standard deviation" without adequately explaining it, as H.S. did in the first post of the thread, I tune out. I figure they're just being pretentious.

Yeah, H.S. equated "one standard deviation" with 16%, but without any kind of explanation as to how he got that number, it seems random and meaningless -- kind of like those colored graphs he keeps putting out that I ignore.

I'd appreciate a better explanation of the term. I'm stupid,you know...

Again, don't make me look it up. And most people in America do not graduate from college.

It seems like everybody I graduated high school with graduated, including the students who did poorly grade wise. All of my neighbours' children are attending college. Given that a college degree is the on means of becoming acceptable middle class, where the hell are these other people who are not living in poverty starving making their money with out a college degree? Are they selling drugs or engaged in some other illicit activity? Factory work has dried up, and most people have no interest in doing nigger work like plumbing, and Mexicans have swallowed up construction...

You don't have to hang out with all the black people, David. Just a few. :)

Not funny at all.

Traditionally the average college graduate had an IQ of about 115. But colleges have increasingly accommodated much more of the population (gotta make that $$$), so Charles Murray estimates that number has dropped to about 106.

Basically it shows that "There are countless examples around the world where the dominant ethnic group scores higher on IQ tests than the discriminated minority"

On http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-inferiorIQ.htm:
This may be true, but why are these ethnic groups persecuted in the first place? Many groups who have struggled from the beginning travel from place to place and then finally settle down in another civilization. Natives often abhor newcomers when the have little to contribute. Also, it could be true that other races find them inferior because they are not as intelligent, and therefore not as advanced or adept as their persecutors, thus low IQ would be the factor causing the persecution in the first place.

Many minority groups have come to the United States and have met little persecution/hate while others have withstood a tremendous amount. Indian's, for example, have met little (still some, but this is a very small amount) resistance in comparison to other minority groups because they are able to fit in, maintain respectable careers, and are capable of rising to higher socioeconomic classes.

According to Census figures, about 28% of whites aged 25-29 have a bachelor's degree or higher. If we assume that the vast majority of these are in the top third of the IQ distribution, that would make 105 or so a good lower limit, with an average of around 115.

What's interesting is that adopted children who were half white/half black were much closer to the white IQ level (109 versus 112) than to the black IQ level (97). This reminded me of the theory that intelligence is passed on the X chromosome.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/genderdiff.htm

This would mean half of the biracial daughters and all of the biracial sons inherit their mother's intelligence. We know 75% or more of black/white couples are black father, white mother (per the 2000 Census, 73% of married couples, 80% of cohabiting couples).
http://www.isteve.com/2003_Census_Interracial_Marriage_Gender_Gap.htm

Quickly multiplying .75 x .75 of the white mothers' offspring, and .25 x .25 of the white fathers and then adding-- at least 62.5% of biracial children have white X chromosomes (actually a higher percentage because of the indeterminate number of self-identified black parents who are themselves biracial). It suggests the race of the X chromosome accounts for the high IQ of biracial children (109, instead of merely the average of black and white IQ, 104.5).

I don't know if the study breaks out gender of the children or race of the parents, but it'd be interesting to sort the IQs of sons (who always inherit the maternal X chromosome) by parent groups-- both black, both white, biracial black mother and biracial white mother.

My mistake, Murray only estimates those "trying to" go to college, not those that actually graduate. And the number was 104.
There is no magic point at which a genuine college-level education becomes an option, but anything below an IQ of 110 is problematic. If you want to do well, you should have an IQ of 115 or higher. Put another way, it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education. And yet more than 45% of recent high school graduates enroll in four-year colleges. Adjust that percentage to account for high-school dropouts, and more than 40% of all persons in their late teens are trying to go to a four-year college--enough people to absorb everyone down through an IQ of 104.

"Wow, after a quick skim, it's rather depressing to see that the bottom 25% of the population is unemployable"

The unemployment rate among the lowest 25% is around 10% to 12% with a labor force participation rate of around 80%. Not exactly a numbers that scream "unemployable".

"and those around the "average" can be outsourced for pennies on the dollar"

Food service, nurse's aide, beautician, police officer, plumber, sales clerk and so on and so forth are not the sorts of jobs you can outsource. When was the last time you were served food at a local restaurant by someone in India? (From India, perhaps, but never in India). Most jobs in America are not outsourcable for the same sort of reason.

"I'm surprised and skeptical that lawyers have that high an average IQ; I'd bet it's closer to 115."

I am a bit skeptical myself. The ranks of the law have become flooded lately. The number cited by Gottfredson may come from a prior era.

What's interesting is that adopted children who were half white/half black were much closer to the white IQ level (109 versus 112) than to the black IQ level (97).

These numbers are incorrect, look at the final adult scores: 106, 99, 89.

In fact these Wikipedia numbers are incorrect as well. (surprise, surprise... and don't try to correct these articles, you're outnumbered by the race activists just like Watson) The numbers from this study were later Flynn corrected by behavior geneticist John Loehlin in the Handbook of Human Intelligence. Here are his numbers:

Age 7

W-W 111.5
W-B 105.4
B-B 91.4

Age 17

W-W 101.5
W-B 93.2
B-B 83.7

The W-W/W-B difference is 8.3. The B-W/B-B difference is 9.5. And the W-W/B-B difference is 17.8.

So the IQ difference between whites and blacks raised side by side in the same high income households in mostly homogeneous Northern upper class US neighborhoods is 18 IQ points. The difference in IQ scores between 2 black biological parent adoptees and 1 black biological parent adoptees is nearly 10 IQ points despite the fact that both share the exact same social identity.

Similarly a dozen mixed race children that were raised under some mistaken information that they were not mixed race children nevertheless had IQ scores like the other mixed race children.

There is simply no plausible environmental theory that can account for that.

In my research I also uncovered the unpublished adult crime data from the MTRAS, anybody want to guess what it shows?

I should also point out that many of the psychology textbooks that even bother reporting on this enormous and important American sociology study, have a peculiar tendency of only reporting the numbers from the first measurement session at age 7. I'm talking about ones that have been printed long past the published MTRAS follow up data in 1994. (A similar expose showed how stereotype threat is misrepresented in college textbooks to show that the B-W IQ gap is "explained by" ST)

This is done because the 97 IQ for the B-B children and 106 IQ of the B-W children "proves" that environment can boost black IQ up to the white average. Even though the white children under the same condition score even higher; this is pretty much what Dragon Horse does when he uses the highest black score in 620 studies to juxtapose it with the lowest white score in a completely different environment.

But as we see from the more recent corrected data, not even this is the case. Even at age 7 the IQs of both groups of black adoptees were below the national white average.

In my research I also uncovered the unpublished adult crime data from the MTRAS, anybody want to guess what it shows?

B-B > B-W > W-W ?

Sorry I meant "both groups" age 7 and 17 the B-B group is below the white average.

Sailer has a satirical rant on the Levit-Fryer paper:

I just did a study of lactose tolerance among one-year-olds, and guess what? I didn't find any racial differences! They were all lactose tolerant. So all those stories you hear about how East Asians don't have a gene for lactose tolerance are just racist myths! I proved it with science!

I also did a study of one-year-olds' ability to slam dunk on a ten foot basket. Once again, there were no racial differences. None of them could dunk. I even lowered the basket to six feet and still there were no racial differences in dunking. So, when you watch the NBA and there are all these blacks guys slam dunking, that's just racism. Who are you gonna believe, science or your lying eyes?

Then, I got a bunch of Kenyan and Ethiopian highlander one-year-old babies together with some other babies and timed them in the marathon. As always, there were no racial differences. Not a single baby of any origin finished the 26.2 mile run. So, the next time the top ten finishers at a big marathon are eight Kenyans and two Ethiopians, don't believe it!

"I will include the link to Flynn's results as reported by the Brooking Institute."

Charles Murray has a published paper that addresses the claims put forward by Dickens and Flynn using a more robust data set.

Here is the abstract:

Data for three Peabody achievement tests and for the Peabody picture vocabulary test administered to children of women in the 1979 cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth show that the black–white difference did not diminish for this sample of children born from the mid 1970s through the mid 1990s. This finding persists after entering covariates for the child's age and family background variables. It is robust across alternative samples and specifications of the model. The analysis supplements other evidence that shows no narrowing of the black–white difference in academic achievement tests since the late 1980s and is inconsistent with recent evidence that narrowing occurred in IQ standardizations during the same period. A hypothesis for reconciling this inconsistency is proposed.

Here is a post at Gene Expression on the Murray paper.

Here is an other post at Gene Expression on the Dickens and Flynn paper.

Natives often abhor newcomers when the have little to contribute. Also, it could be true that other races find them inferior because they are not as intelligent, and therefore not as advanced or adept as their persecutors, thus low IQ would be the factor causing the persecution in the first place.
Actually, it's the more successful races that tend to get persecuted more. To take a familiar example, Southerners enslaved blacks but Germans exterminated Jews. Amy Chua has a book on this ('World on Fire'); her grandma was an overseas Chinese who had to flee after much the same sort of thing.

Proposition #1 is correlated at .3, and within blacks themselves, it drops to .1. The correlation, although loosely true, is minor. The beginning of the fallacy of the meritocracy...

As for #2, MZA studies show the correlation with heredity is .7, while environment correlates at .5. This assumes the middle though, so genes are more highly correlated for the affluent, and less so for the poor. Poor environments dictate outcomes for the poor, while genes dictate outcomes for the rich.

DA:

I think you need to get out and join organizations/associations with different types of black people. I don't know any "low functioning" black people, although I see them. Possibly moving to another area of the country. I live in Washington, D.C., some of the wealthiest and most educated black people in the country live in the DC-VA-MD area. Maybe they will talk to you if you don't come off so self hating and white girl worshiping. That tends to annoy black people, FYI.


The fact that 5% of whites have IQ's higher than 125 is reasonable. That is still 10 million people. As someone pointed out you don't need an IQ of 125 to get a BA/BS. You don't even need an IQ of 125 to get a MA at most second tier schools in a social science.

If you look at black IQ level:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retar0%7Bimage0%7D.gif

(based on the outdated 85, that Flynn has said has increased 4-7 points since 1970) you will see that there are about 5 million or so blacks who have higher than average white IQ levels. That means 6 million blacks are more intelligent than (300*.66/2)99 million whites. R

Reality is if you work at a IT Help Desk and rest passwords you have and reset system passwords you have a white collar middle class job. It does not take much intelligence to do something like that. Most Middle class people don't even have college degrees in America. About (from my memory of the census) 17% of blacks have BA/BS and almost 30% of whites, however 7% of whites live in poverty. That means 63% of whites are doing a job that is keeping them out of poverty although they do not have a 4 year college education.

At the same time blacks education levels are increasing, it is definitely not stagnating, contrary to popular belief it has been increasing every year since 1965.

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/50_black_doctoraldegrees.html

Doctoral Degree Awards to African Americans Reach Another All-Time High

In 2004 African Americans earned 1,869 doctoral degrees. This number has increased more than 9 percent from a year ago. Black doctorates now stand at the highest level in history.

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/56_enrollments_climb.html

Black Enrollments in Higher Education Continue to Climb

African Americans continue to post impressive gains in higher education enrollments. The most important progress has been in graduate education.

The latest data from the U.S. Department of Education reveals that in the fall of 2005 there were nearly 2.1 million African Amer-icans enrolled in higher education in the United States. There were nearly 45,000 more African Americans en-rolled in higher education in 2005 than was the case the previous year. This is an in-crease of 2.2 percent. Blacks were 11.7 percent of the nearly 18 million students enrolled in higher education nationwide. This is nearly equivalent to the percentage of blacks in the college-age population. A decade earlier, in 1995, blacks were 10.3 percent of all enrollments in higher education.

Elitist like Sigma will mock anything other than a Phd, Law Degree, Medical Doctor, etc.

Reality is for most people that is not necessary to live a middle class life in the United States. Obviously, most whites are not college educated and never have been, not even half, but they are mostly middle class.


Not really. For every smart high-functioning black person that I meet, there's at least 50 other low-functioning black people. Even the fact that it's taking so long for me to finish implies that I'm low functioning as well.

Buck up there, David! I don't know you from Adam but you seem like a fairly intelligent guy. Ever occur to you that you're just a late bloomer? I know one person in my close circle who has an IQ of 127 and it took him 5 and one half years to graduate college.

David,

Get over it, I am so sick of your whining. You being a loser has nothing to do with you being Black. You have a loser personality. Get off this site and start reading some self help books. Your IQ is not the problem.

You live in NYC, this has to be the city with one of the highest concentration of high IQ blacks in America. I don't get why you never meet them. Oh I know you are always on the computer whining about your problems instead of going out and doing something about them and meeting smart people to network with so you can get a better job.

I will go out on a limb (a short limb here) and say that I think HS's three points are true. Blacks in high latitudes are also more likely to get rickets than whites. What was society's response to some fraction of white kids getting rickets and a larger fraction of black kids getting rickets? Did we call institutional racism? Did every researcher who looked into it get branded a Nazi or some other kind of monster? No. We identified a problem, and solved it by adding vitamin D to foods.

There is some evidence that for gene-environment interaction in IQ (eg. diet- people who are nontasters for PTC have higher IQ and eat more vegetables than nontasters) 97% of West Africans are tasters. 70% of whites are tasters. (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v63n5/980775/980775.html?erFrom=5156955807120467378Guest)

Intelligence and personality related to tasting
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n411121322hj361l/

Nontasters have higher visuospatial ability. If I remember correctly, micronutrient supplementation disproportionately raises performance IQ.

Tasting and vegetable consumption
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/1/245

Vegetable consumption and IQ
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/119/1/e38

Granted, these aren't the last word on the relationship. The last one in particular can not provide a chain of causation. But it is an interesting possibility.

Supplementing the diet of pregnant and nursing women with cod liver oil increases the child's and IQ at age 4. This difference may not last until adulthood.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/1/e39

I don't have access to most articles, but from google scholar, I think whites consume more fish than blacks. If anyone can get the whole article, I'd appreciate knowing the difference.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/10/1372

Creatine supplementation, at least for vegetarians for short periods of time, increases intelligence significantly. About one SD on Ravens and Backwards Digit Span. This is young adults.
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/995yme1nnn6qvya1/

Low iodine causes lower IQ even in non-cretinous children.. http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/995yme1nnn6qvya1/

Even a low dose multivitamin improved IQ scores in a study on hispanic children.
http://www.baldwins.co.uk/perl/go.pl/healthnotes.html?org=baldwin&page=newswire/hnwire_2000-04-13_2.cfm

I'm sure there are far more studies, and I remember The Bell Curve citing at least one study that showed a multivitamin supplement increasing fluid intelligence in children. I don't have the book anymore, but someone could look it up.

In summary, while gene frequencies likely account for at least a fraction of racial IQ gaps, nutritional supplementation can likely 1) Reduce the size of the gap. 2) Make large fractions of all populations smarter. Because increasing intelligence is not a zero-sum game, either 1) or 2) would make everyone better off.

In the near future, if we investigate the genetic differences that lead to the genetic gap between populations, at least some of these are going to be amenable to intervention. For example, high levels of IGF-1 likely increase intelligence. I don't have access to the whole paper, but from google, "100-ng increase in IGF-1, IQ increased by 3.2 in verbal performance"
jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/294/11/1373.pdf
Because myopia varies by population, and is related to IGF-1, it is likely that IGF-1 levels vary by race, even controlling for diet.

If we disbelieve IQ, or refuse to research differences in IQ between races, we may be stuck with how things are now. And how is that working for us? How is it working for Africans?

I always look at the question of IQ as really a question about learning quantum mechanics.

The left side of the political spectrum publicly argues that everyone is capable of learning quantum mechanics if given the proper home life, education, and environment. On face value, this type of argue is false based upon the number of rich white prep school graduates who cannot succeed at it.

The middle of the political spectrum will argue that intelligence varies among individual but that the variation is the same for all ethnic groups and races. This allows them to concede that not everyone has the same inate ability but does not make them sound racist.

The right side would argue that intellgience not only varies among individuals but that the percentage of people capable of learning quantum mechanics varies among ethnic and racial groups. Anyone who has actually taught or studied quantum mechanics in a formla setting probably agress with this argument. Even Larry Summers was making this argument (in an ackward way).

Even a low dose multivitamin improved IQ scores in a study on Hispanic children.

Hmmm, do you think some Flintstones chewables will help my LL.M. grades?

Rob, how can vitamin or diet differences account for the fact that the IQ difference is as large for blacks and whites raised in the same household as it is in the general population?

HS, it can't hurt, and they are pretty tasty. But you aren't hispanic, and check the RDAs. One can do more harm than good with fat-soluble vitamins. I started taking creatine while I was studying for the MCAT. I am not sure if it made me smarter, but I did notice within a day or so that my brain didn't get fatigued as quickly, which matters alot for a timed test. I rocked the MCAT. I credit creatine and running to the test site.

A stat question, just for argument: if variation in consumption of fish by pregnant women causes variation in children's IQ, and the causation holds within whites and blacks, and blacks eat less fish, it seems that fish consumption may account for a portion of the B/W cognitive gap. Right?

Superdestroyer,

I fully agree that the ability to learn QM varies both within and between races. I also agree that most of what the left has argued in the past as influencing IQ does not seem to do so (books in the house, the ethnic slurs one hears in multiracial environments).

What I disagree with is the fatalism. If a particular supplement is cheap, safe, and has even a bit of evidence behind it, it is worth trying ones self and researching further. Another way of interpreting my presentation is: weak smart drugs already exist, some populations take more of them than others. In the future, we will have better smart drugs. People make their own smart drugs in varying doses. One day, if we do the research and aren't shut down by bio-luddites and race-deniers, these smart drugs will be available pharmaceutically.

I think, and I am surely not the only one, that low IQ is a problem that can be solved or treated. Like rickets or type I diabetes.

Jason Malloy, if you are read this, would you mind pumping those gene's HS mentioned in the essay into the hapmap site, and seeing if the allele frequencies vary by race?

Cameron:

"Many minority groups have come to the United States and have met little persecution/hate while others have withstood a tremendous amount. Indian's, for example, have met little (still some, but this is a very small amount) resistance in comparison to other minority groups because they are able to fit in, maintain respectable careers, and are capable of rising to higher socioeconomic classes."

LOL...tell that to the Chinese who came to work on the railroads?

http://us_asians.tripod.com/timeline-1875.html

It is a little more complicated than that. First you have to be able to get jobs. There are plenty of examples of wealthy and highly educated blacks and Hispanics who have caught hell in this country...it had nothing to do with individual merit but group association.

"able to fit in, maintain respectable careers, and are capable of rising to higher socioeconomic classes."

No more like..."allowed to fit in, come here highly educated from the upperclasses, and face little discrimination in hiring".

Obviously if the Chinese who came here to work the railroads and were forced to live in Chinatown came here well educated it would not have mattered as they were "Chinamen" and Chinamen had a "place". If you think discrimination is just about the "actions" of the people being discriminated against than you have no concept of American history.

Even today...if the average Indian came here (the barely literate low caste or unscheduled caste) came here in mass what do you think the response or "resistance" or "stereotype" would be?

Jason,

Are you an only child? I remember my sister and I grew up in the same household, but had different dietary preferences. We managed to eat different quantities of different foods. Even more so when she became a vegetarian. Same household, variation in diet. For most kids, at least when I was growing up, the clean your plate thing was dead. Food choice at school can make a difference as well.

I am not arguing that nutrition accounts for the whole gap. I am arguing it may account for a small fraction. More generally, I am arguing that some things might increase intelligence, and that is good. I am pro-eugenics too.

There's no way it can be that low. Something has to explain all the college students who graduate and all those people with various professional degrees. For 5% of the population to only have 125%, that implies that the rest of this country lives in poverty, has criminal tendencies, and lives off welfare.

What's wrong is not the statistic that only 5% of the population has an IQ over 125, but your idea that anyone below 125 must live in poverty, have criminal tendencies, and live off welfare. This, to me, is the huge problem with those who take glee in the race-IQ correlation -- they distort, exaggerate, and flat-out make up a good deal of the relevance of IQ to real life. Are there correlations between IQ and various measures of life success? Yes. Is everyone below-average IQ doomed to a worthless, unproductive life? Absolutely not.

What IQ measures, most precisely, is the ability to do well on IQ tests. This is obviously related to testing well on the SATs, school tests, etc. Testing well will itself get you a long way in life even if the tests don't show anything other than the ability to take tests.

There is a correlation between that test-taking ability and some other success measures which cannot be traced back directly to taking tests, yes. But the degree of that correlation is rarely spelled out clearly by people who talk about this sort of thing, leaving the implication that IQ is destiny.

Finally, there are other talents besides IQ, though they may be correlated to a greater or lesser degree. It's hard to know famous people's IQs unless they broadcast them, but one example is Jason Kidd, who probably has a signficantly below-average IQ considering it took him 4 times to meet the NCAA minimum SAT score. Not only is he a great athlete, but he's one of the "smartest" players in the game.

I don't have access to most articles, but from google scholar, I think whites consume more fish than blacks.

Useless fact: David is from a Catholic family who lived in a Caribbean country, thus fish consumption was rather high, especially since his parents maintained the "no meat" rule year round on Fridays. Yet, from what tests have shown, Caribbeans have low IQs than the native born black population in the US, but higher than Africa. Interestingly, the richest majority black country in the world per GDP per capita (at purchasing power parity) is in the Caribbean (Barbados $19,274, Bahamas $20,440, Trinidad & Tobago $17,494)*. Even with Jamaica's low GDP per capita at $4,494, it's still leagues better than say Nigeria which has oil at $1,227. Haiti is really the only broken Caribbean state with a GDP per capita at $1,840, and that's better than a "stable" African country like Ivory Coast at $1,680, and right behind Senegal at $1,981.

*Even with massive US subsidies, Puerto Rico's GDP per capita is 19,300 which shameful given that other countries are able to reach similar GDPs sans the US Federal government pouring money into them. Interestingly, it's still better than Saudi Arabia's GDP per capita at 16,505, and that's an oil rich state...

I don't know. Certainly an IQ of 125 isn't necessary or even useful, but an IQ of 80 seems like it would hold you back a bit.

You know, Robert Wadlow (tallest man in the world) may have had problems, but short guys still have problems picking up chicks.

David, I didn't say fish is responsible for most of the gap. Given that I accept HS three postulates, US blacks are probably brighter than Caribbean blacks because of higher white admixture. US whites, US blacks, Caribbean blacks, and African blacks would probably see IQ gains with omega-3 supplementation.

JA, are you sure that doing well on standardized tests only correlates with test-taking? Is the correlation between college students' test scores and essay grades 0?

Hmmm, do you think some Flintstones chewables will help my LL.M. grades?

Probably not as much as an Internet outage would. :)

"Jason Malloy, if you are read this, would you mind pumping those gene's HS mentioned in the essay into the hapmap site, and seeing if the allele frequencies vary by race?"

Power To the People, bra. :)

I remember my sister and I grew up in the same household, but had different dietary preferences.

Hmm, even if we accept that parents would make separate dinners for every child (fish for Johnny, chicken for Sally), your theory would require systematic preferences. Are you hypothesizing that blacks have a genetic preference for food that depresses their IQ scores?

Food service, nurse's aide, beautician, police officer, plumber, sales clerk and so on and so forth are not the sorts of jobs you can outsource.

Actually, jobs like food service and beautician can be done by illegal immigrants working under the table for lower pay than their American counterparts. Guest workers can do jobs like nurses aide and plumbing. So that leaves sales clerk, and given the complaints that people have about customer service these days, one would suspect that low IQ plays a role in that as well. As for policing, since more and more jurisdictions now require a minimum of two years of college to take the exam, it weeds out more and more of those lower IQ individuals. As I've said before, these people are not smart enough to go to college, and they will be left off the train of progress and I predict that these people within the next 50 years will become slum dwellers.

The W-W/W-B difference is 8.3. The B-W/B-B difference is 9.5. And the W-W/B-B difference is 17.8.

Wow. That makes having children with a white woman rather pointless if the IQ only goes up by so little. Shit, it makes having children rather pointless. Plus, now I feel sorry for the whites who adopted these bi-racial and fully black children.

I think you need to get out and join organizations/associations with different types of black people.

I hate those organisations. They're remnants of segregation and should be done away with. They only reinforce separation between the races, and reinforces our inferiority vis à vis whites because we need our "own organisations" to feel competent. We're in a white country, it makes no sense to "hide" from whites.

Besides, given my own inability to complete school on time, I shouldn't associate with smart people regardless of race.

I live in Washington, D.C., some of the wealthiest and most educated black people in the country live in the DC-VA-MD area.

They all fucking work for the government, so they don't count.

Maybe they will talk to you if you don't come off so self hating and white girl worshiping. That tends to annoy black people, FYI.

White women are better looking, emotionally stable when compared to black women, and it's much easier to get along with them.

That means 6 million blacks are more intelligent than (300*.66/2)99 million whites.

That's certainly not enough, IMHO.

Obviously, most whites are not college educated and never have been, not even half, but they are mostly middle class.

I still don't see how that's possible. Nearly every job listing that pays middle class wages demands a college degree. Even the entry level jobs now require it. Everything sans degree, OTOH, pays around the $10-$15 range with a few creeping into the $17-$18 range with benefits, and that's for working with some government agency. Either these people are peasants who are living in low cost living locales in the middle of nowhere, or they're the blue collar workers which our society looks down upon and serve as the nightmare of white middle class parents.

Peter says:


According to the Freakonomics blog, there's now an intelligence test that can be given to one-year-olds, and it shows no racial gap. If indeed this test really measures intelligence, tough to tell given the very young ages of its subjects, it's strong evidence for nuture over nature.


Hey, great sarcasm.

Tests of the sprinting abilities of one-year-olds likewise show no differences, as do tests of the weight-lifting abilities.

Jason,

Power To the People, bra. :)

I would do it, but I'm not smart enough. I only just mastered putting things in italics. I also don't know if I have access to the accession numbers for the alleles. If I feel super ambitious, I may try though.

Systematic food preferences: yes. The variation in PTC tasting shows that for cruciferous vegetables. The upper-middle class eats out a fair amount. Restaurants will indeed prepare food for each family member. Who eats more of different leftovers is susceptible to preference.

Whether there is any genetic racial variation in preference for fish, I don't know. And as I said, it could only account for a small fraction of the gap, less than 4 points. But the racial variation in fish consumption and type of cooking may point to a genetic difference in preference.

It's hard to know famous people's IQs unless they broadcast them, but one example is Jason Kidd, who probably has a signficantly below-average IQ considering it took him 4 times to meet the NCAA minimum SAT score. Not only is he a great athlete, but he's one of the "smartest" players in the game.

NFL players are a partial exception. Most draft prospects take the Wonderlic intelligence test as part of the annual "combine" evaluation, and while the scores are supposed to be confidential they're the worst-kept secret imaginable. You can find them easily enough through Google.

Wonderlic scores are supposed to be a very good proxy for IQ scores, with a Wonderlic of 20 equal to an IQ of 100. As for the scores of NFL players, the rule of thumb is that the closer to the ball that a player lines up, the smarter he is.

"Jason Malloy, if you are read this, would you mind pumping those gene's HS mentioned in the essay into the hapmap site, and seeing if the allele frequencies vary by race"

The names of the genes are DTNBP1 and CHRM2.

1. Go to the Happlotter Home

2. Plug "DTNBP1" or "CHRM2" (without the quotes) into the "Gene name" box.

3. Press the "submit" button

4. Examine the "iHS" graph.

Blue = European
Green = S-S African
Red = E. Asian

DTNBP1 seems to be more elevated in Europeans or East Asians than Africans. CHRM2 seems to be mildly more elevated in Africans than Europeans or East Asians.

"Actually, jobs like food service and beautician can be done by illegal immigrants working under the table for lower pay than their American counterparts. Guest workers can do jobs like nurses aide and plumbing."

This may be an argument against unchecked immigration from the bottom end of the IQ spectrum (competition at the top end may drive down the rising levels of income inequality), but not against outsourcing (the original complaint).

This [is not] an argument ... against outsourcing (the original complaint).

A lot of outsorced jobs seem to involve the "top end" of the IQ spectrum. This article from the Guardian reports that labor shortages in such fields as IT and finance have caused Indian wages in these sectors to reach U.S. levels. As a result, some outsourcing firms are now re-exporting IT jobs to rural America.

Mark:

The studies Halfsigma links to suggest specific SNPs on the genes correlate with intelligence (rs324650 on CHRM2, for instance) but when I try to do a search by SNP, I can't seem to find any. Any idea as to why?

According to the Freakonomics blog, there's now an intelligence test that can be given to one-year-olds, and it shows no racial gap. If indeed this test really measures intelligence, tough to tell given the very young ages of its subjects, it's strong evidence for nuture over nature.

Hey, great sarcasm.
Tests of the sprinting abilities of one-year-olds likewise show no differences, as do tests of the weight-lifting abilities.

Children obviously have nothing remotely close to adult-level physical abilities at age one and therefore intergroup differences will not be apparent even if they arise in later years. It is not so obvious, however, that some meaningful sorting of children by intelligence at age one is impossible.

Ok, read a bit of the happlotter info. iHS is a sign of recent positive selection.

TNBP1 has been significantly selected in whites. It doesn't pass significance test for Asians or blacks. CHRM2 looks like it hasn't been under positive selection in any population, but there's no score under the Yoruban population. Does that mean one version is universal in that population?

"The studies Halfsigma links to suggest specific SNPs on the genes correlate with intelligence (rs324650 on CHRM2, for instance) but when I try to do a search by SNP, I can't seem to find any. Any idea as to why?

1. Go to a HapMap Gemome Browser

2. Plug "SNP:rs324650" (without the quotes) into the "Landmark or Region" box.

3. Under "Details" look at the "Genotyped SNPs" pie charts.

CEU = European
CHB = Chinese (E. Asian)
JPT = Japanese (E. Asian)
YRI = Yoruban (African)

E. Asians > Europeans > Africans

Observe that "T" is greater in Europeans than in Africans; greater in E. Asians than in Euros.

Do you know which polymorphism corresponds to increased IQ? You're only saying that one polymorphism is more common in one group than another. For all we know, it could work the opposite way from what we're expecting. From anyone with access to scholarly papers, is 'T' the smart SNP or the dumb one?

T is *way* more present than A in rs324650 among East Asians (91%) relative to Europeans (47%) and blacks (27%). Since T is associated with an increase in 4-5 points of performance IQ (what is that, anyway? Is that different from G?) that is significant.

Actually, this is fun. Let's look at rs:760761, rs:2619522 and rs:2619538, all of which are associated with increased or decreased intelligence in DTNBP1.

Regarding rs:760761, 18% of Europeans carry the T allele, which knocks about 8 points off the ol' IQ, compared to around 7% of East Asians and 37% of blacks.

Regarding rs:2619522, the numbers are similar. 18% of whites carry the G allele, which knocks about 7 points off the ol' IQ, versus around 8% of Asians and 35-36% of blacks.

Regarding rs:2619538, 39% of whites carry the A allele, which adds about 6.5 points to one's IQ, versus about 99% of Asians and 31% of blacks.

All fun aside, does any of this actually mean anything?

SFG: To answer your question, "T" is the "smart one."

"The strongest association was between rs324650 and performance IQ (PIQ), where the T allele was associated with an increase of 4.6 PIQ points."

That's from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17081262

Thank you much. Never hurts to be sure.

'Performance IQ' is the non-verbal part of IQ. It includes spatial and mathematical.

If 'T' adds 5 points, and is present in 20% more whites than blacks, then it will create 5*.2=1 points of difference between whites and blacks in performance IQ. It's in about 45% more Asians than whites, which'll give them 2 more points on average.

Blacks are 20% more likely to have the T allele at 760761, which given that it costs you 8 points will lower IQ by 1.6 points on average. About the same for the next 7-point allele, again costing you 1.4 points. 8% more blacks have the bad version of the third allele, which costs you 6.5 points on average, costing you about 0.5 points.

For Asians, I calculate about 1 extra point from the first allele, 0.7 points from the second, and about 4 points from the third.

So based on these two genes (and you know for something as complex as the brain there are going to be fifty more) we've got Asians being 6 points smarter and blacks being 4.5...well, you know.

What I find compelling is that the trend goes the same way in all the genes. Can you find polymorphisms where it goes the opposite way? Do you know any other genes for IQ? Maybe we can tease out differences in strengths for different groups in verbal vs. performance.

C'mon, do it before GNXP reads this, tells Sailer, who publicizes it, and the guys with the website shut it down. This is major-league heresy.

Or, um, Steve...sit tight on this for now, s'il vouz plaiz? :)

Wow, I had no idea that actual genetic proof of racial intelligence differences was sitting out there on the internet!

If one assumes that some sort of evolutionary pressures favored higher intelligence in Europe and Northern Asia, but not in Africa, then you would expect that the majority of genes correlating with higher intelligence will appear with greater frequency in European and northern Asian gene pools.

I guess I'll have to teach myself this new technology, unless someone steps up to bat and posts the definitive blog post first.

***

And then I visited this page and I have no idea what I'm looking at.

Yeah, Thanks Marc and Mark, and SFG. One more stupid question. How do you tell if the SNP you searched for is A or T on the little pie charts?

These are just the sorts of alleles that meet criteria for actual racial difference. They correlate with intelligence both within and between races.

HS, shame on you for distracting us all with a videogame post when this is happening.

Performance IQ is nonverbal ability, including spatial relations, 3D rotations. It correlates strongly with g. Asians have relatively higher performance IQ than verbal IQ.

If this was Saturday instead of Sunday, I would have done it for you, but as it is...anyone else want to step up to the plate?

Or, um, Steve...sit tight on this for now, s'il vouz plaiz? :)

Nitpick: It's s'il vous plaît. :)

"How do you tell if the SNP you searched for is A or T on the little pie charts?"

Look at the key on the left of the series of pie charts. The "T" is blue. The "A" is red. :-)

If one assumes that some sort of evolutionary pressures favored higher intelligence in Europe and Northern Asia, but not in Africa...

Don't forget that American blacks are the product not just of natural selection in Africa, but also of human-directed breeding under slavery. It's not clear what kind of effect that would have on intelligence. The capture of slaves in Africa and the Middle Passage may also have exerted significant selection effects.

I've found that lefties tend to be more open to the possibility of biological differences between the races if the differences can be blamed on whites.

There are plenty of things that just about every non-retarded adult knows to be true, but which you still Don't Say In Public for fear of censure (or worse). Among these:
(1) There are innate differences in average intelligence between racial groups.
(2) The Abrahamic God does not exist, any more than does Zeus or Odin.
(3) Men are more rational than women, and women are more emotional than men.

There are others, but there are probably the Big Three.

The comments to this entry are closed.