« You have to be crazy to burn a Koran | Main | Who's a fan of team sports? »

April 06, 2011

Comments

Black Americans certainly did not "come from Nigeria", although a Yoruba-like ancestry component is the predominant one in African Americans.

Here are Jason Richwine's calculations of scores from the 2003 New Immigrant Survey's backward digit span "mini IQ test". The scores are those of the _children_ of immigrants to America:

White natives are at 100, with a standard deviation of 15.

European legal immigrants' kids: 99

India: 112

Northeast Asia: 106

Southeast Asia: 104

sub-Saharan Africa 89

Mexico 82

Central America/Caribbean 83

South America 86

Source: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/03/legal-immigrants-hints-of-iq-scores.html

The second-generation Indians are remarkably smart, despite the regression toward the mean. Why is India such a dump if its people are so smart? Can it all be due to immigrant self-selection when there are so many successful Indians in so many countries?

[HS: Smart Indians don't want to live in country that's a "dump", so the smart Indians use their intelligence to figure out how to move to a better country.

I keep saying that regression towards the mean is overstated. Smart Indian parents will have smart Indian children, and the regression towards the mean mostly stops after one generation, so all of their descendants will also be smart.]

Half Sigma. the bottom line is that India is highly multi-racial with many many different races due in part to the caste system and the various castes having been endogamous, etc.

There are a minority of elite high IQ upper caste groups, but my understanding is that the majority of Indians belong to lower IQ subgroups. This results in an Indian distribution with a low average and a high SD, or at the very least the distribution has a number of outliers corresponding to the upper caste groups.

Most people talk about the average Indian as though India were racially homogenous, which is a big mistake.

I think our Indian American friend who commented on this earlier is correct. India is a 1000 micro-races. It is impossible to come up with a mean IQ for Indians without tested a substantial percentage of these micro-races. Lynn's estimate is made up from a insufficient sample size. It therefor cannot be considered accurate or relevant.

I agree. I told an Indian colleague once that I'd like to visit his country...everyone seems so smart and hard working.


His response is, every Indian I've ever met was either the smartest kid in their college class, or the child of someone who was. He said there are a LARGE number of Indian douchebags in India.

When it comes to skewering 'diversity', average relative differences across identifiable racial/ethnic population groups are what's important. And since 'diversity' is being shoved down the West's throat, with all its rather obvious attendant adverse consequences (like economic/social inequality), it's important to be able to construct good arguments against it. And it is to be hoped that one day average IQ will be part of that argument chain. But it's pretty clear we're not quite there yet though.

Average absolute values for IQ in a population can probably help explain e.g. why one nation is 'developed' and another is not. But there are usually mitigating factors there.

The other key point is that high IQ Indian Americans aren't merely from the upper portions of some overall homogenous Indian IQ distribution. They come from higher IQ subgroups. This mans that their children regress to the mean of the high IQ subgroup, not to the overall Indian mean.

If you believe that the average I.Q. score of US-born children of Mexican immigrants is 82, you also must believe in the Easter Bunny. If that were true a substantial portion of them would be mentally retarded.

Richard Lynn also claims that Iran's IQ is 84, even though more than three-quarters of the population is either Persian or Azeri. He claims Lebanon's IQ is 86. These middle-income countries are neither very malnourished, nor as unintelligent, on average, as African-Americans. His figures are extremely dubious.

India as a whole has a too low IQ to compete with China, plus too many Muslims. Yes, it has a high-IQ sub-population that can compete in the global economy, but India as a country cannot do so. The reason for India's rather unusual IQ profile is bacuse of the caste system, which was born because Indians are a mix of two groups.

Explaining the evolution of India's caste system is in fact quite easy once you accept that the Indo-European language family was born in northeastern Europe and was brought in the form of proto-Sanskrit, essentially a European language, to northern India. It is also easy to explain why these Europeans managed to conquer parts of India in the first place. According to the cold climate theory for the evolution of high IQ, those who spread from Africa throughout the Indian Ocean to Australia 60,000-40,000 years ago and remained in or near tropical regions regions throughout this time period did not evolve high IQ. Those who settled in cooler northern Eurasia did. The Indian caste system evolved as a marriage between light-skinned, Indo-European speaking high-IQ European newcomers and a lower-IQ, largely African-derived population living in India by 2000 BC.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090922/full/news.2009.935.html

Indian ancestry revealed

The mixing of two distinct lineages led to most modern-day Indians.

The researchers showed that most Indian populations are genetic admixtures of two ancient, genetically divergent groups, which each contributed around 40-60% of the DNA to most present-day populations. One ancestral lineage — which is genetically similar to Middle Eastern, Central Asian and European populations — was higher in upper-caste individuals and speakers of Indo-European languages such as Hindi, the researchers found. The other lineage was not close to any group outside the subcontinent, and was most common in people indigenous to the Andaman Islands, a remote archipelago in the Bay of Bengal. The researchers also found that Indian populations were much more highly subdivided than European populations. But whereas European ancestry is mostly carved up by geography, Indian segregation was driven largely by caste. "There are populations that have lived in the same town and same village for thousands of years without exchanging genes," says Reich.

Peter, one problem is that most whites with an IQ of 75 or 80 have an actual organic problem -- Down Syndrome or a similar malady. This leads to other medical problems, distinctive facial features, etc.

People who fall into the medically-normal-but-really-dumb category are much less easy to spot, and are capable of learning tasks that simply require repetition and rote memorization. But such individuals aren't capable of any degree of abstract reasoning.

That's consistent with my experience with Mexican immigrants. If you tell them to wash pans by hand, they can remember that after some degree of repetition. But if you tell them "wash All-Clad pans by hand but it's OK to put the other stuff in the dishwasher," and that's too much for them. Reasoning -- the ability to make and apply the most basic generalization -- is just beyond them.

“This mans that their children regress to the mean of the high IQ subgroup, not to the overall Indian mean.”

This is the Shakespearean Theory of Racial Regression to the Mean. What’s in a name? A subgroup of smart people can have their own mean if they can come up with a good name for themselves. Extra points for a mascot.

“regression towards the mean mostly stops after one generation, so all of their descendants will also be smart.”

What a deal! You know, the Mormons offer a pretty good deal, too. No matter how bad you sin, you get an automatic ticket to heaven if you die before you turn 8.

Zippy,that was horribly offensive and shocking.

And very very funny.

Fjordman, your description of India's genetic history is much too simplistic. The Reich et al. study is not compatible with the classic Aryan Invasion Theory model where white Indo-Europeans invaded an India populated by swarthoids a few thousand years ago. The European-like ancestry component in Indians has too high frequencies in Southern and low-caste groups to be that recent. Also, low-caste/casteless northern Indians are genetically more "European" than high-caste southern Indians such as the high-achieving Iyer.

Razib Khan has hypothesized that the following scenario is what actually played out in India:

(1) Before the Neolithic revolution India was populated by people similar to today's Andaman Islanders speaking an unknown language.

(2) With the dawn of agriculture, perhaps 10,000 years ago, Middle-Eastern agriculturalists invaded India, genetically mixing with the locals. These agriculturalist introduced the Dravidian language family to India, and transformed the population into European/Andaman hybrids.

(3) A few thousand years ago a bunch of Indo-Europeans invaded/migrated to India, gaining political and religious supremacy. Their genetic impact, however, was weaker than that of the previous "Dravidian" invasion.

(Apologies to Razib if the above was not entirely accurate.)

I think that the high intelligence of some Indian groups is due to economic specialization rather than European genetic influence. Cf. Cochran et al.'s hypothesis of Ashkenazi intelligence.

To JL, the first poster.

So you are saying that Sub-Saharan Blacks are smarter than Mexicans and South Americans? I'm surprised that the Mexican who cuts my lawn can manage to do so in neat little rows. Imagine how much neater my lawn would be if I had a bushman do it instead.

The irony here is that in India, the elite Brahmins spend all their time talking about how stupid the Patels and Singhs are. How they cannot form the basics of a civilized society. And the lower down the caste you go the dumber the Indian becomes.

But in America, the elite Brahmins want to tell the world that the lowest untouchable classes can all get into Harvard if only they had better nutrition.

It would be interesting to conduct IQ tests in malnourished North Korea and compare the results to Indians. If I am not mistaken, China had and still has famine. Did the IQ results reflect this?
I thought the IQ tests in China from the 60's were still high even though malnutrition was still rampant.

If you want a realistic look at the genetic potential of the average Indian, google stats on the largely rural-derived British Sikh community. I'll tell you right now that they're only a little bit below white Brits in income. I will add that Indians are hardworking grinds and have tiger families, so they do probably outperform their IQ by at least some.

Indian-Americans come from many different subgroups. Some are known for their accomplishment, others are middling. Few are low caste or untouchable, but a lot are from the middle of the caste ladder. From what I can tell, 2nd generation Indian-Americans of most castes tend to perform about the same.

It's often overstated just how much of a caste-achievement gap exists in India. Upper castes do tend to be wealthier, but the gap is much smaller than black-white. You find many upper castes in poverty and some lower castes in the affluent class. The idea that high caste are a cognitive elite does not exist in India.

Have you looked at the disparity between social class in India? Clearly the bottom 2/3 of the Indian population is dragging the IQ down. The immigrant Indians are def from upper caste and have more wealth and access to education and good genes.

IQ is negatively correlated with poverty since the brain won't have adequate nutrition to develop and its hard to pursue academics when one worries about clean food/water and safe shelter.

There was an economist professor(I think his name was Garrett Jones or somesuch) who tried to equate low intelligence of countries to dysfunction/non-economic performance of the population. Basically he says that east Asians were smart when they were poor and used their smarts to make non-Communist south Korea, Japan, HK, Taiwan, etc great. IQ tests for these peoples going back 60 years say they are smart.

Maybe
1)IQ scores are inaccurate.
2)Indians/Middle Easterners face other environmental hazards that Chinese people do not which cripples IQ of native Indians.
3)Indians etc are really not that smart like Lynn says.

Also Half Sigma comment on this autistic genius. Also is he jewish?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/

"Richard Lynn also claims that Iran's IQ is 84, even though more than three-quarters of the population is either Persian or Azeri. He claims Lebanon's IQ is 86. These middle-income countries are neither very malnourished, nor as unintelligent, on average, as African-Americans. His figures are extremely dubious."

No they're not dubious. The reason people in the middle east/south asia score as low as African Americans despite being caucasoid is because they are much more malnourished than African Americans. A country's income is only a weak proxy for how well nourished the people are. Look at the average height. In India men are only 5'5". In Iran young men are only 5'8.5". Even kings and queens in India have their mental and physical development stunted by malnutrition and are more malnourished than the poorest African Americans living in the ghetto. African American men are 5'10".

The same disparities in nutrition that explain why Americans in 2011 have higher IQ's and height than Americans in 1917, also explains why some countries are so much taller and smarter than others, even when race is controlled. The effect is seen both across time (Flynn Effect) and space (international IQ differences).

Zippy, I had to look up what "all clad" was. I have never heard of that brand name on my life. You're not talking about abstract reasoning here, you're talking about a brand name whose engraving on each item is hidden and requires English literacy to read, and also causes them to take slightly longer to do the job that you'll pay them the same for no matter what (and the dishwasher probably doesn't do any noticeable damage to your precious cookwear).

Abstract reasoning is knowing what i++ is, or understanding most concepts in statistics, or understanding HBD. Differentiating between pot brand names can be done by anyone who gives a shit. Driving a car is more abstract than that.

"People who fall into the medically-normal-but-really-dumb category are much less easy to spot, and are capable of learning tasks that simply require repetition and rote memorization. But such individuals aren't capable of any degree of abstract reasoning."

So is is the general consensus that abstract reasoning is basically what defines "G"? Is abstract reasoning the most coveted form of intelligence? I'm a believer in the multiple intelligence theory and think intelligence often expresses itself in ways outside of solving puzzles, which is what IQ tests are heavily weighted on. Muhammed Ali had an IQ of 78, yet had a quick wit way out of the norm for a guy with his score. I googled "Muhammed Ali quotes" and some of his stuff is really good. Hardly typical of man that's borderline retarded.

In his case, there was something that an IQ test just wasn't measuring. That's why I'm reluctant to call people "dumb" because they have a low score. People with low IQs may be very socially savvy, can raise kids properly, function normally, may be very "street smart", have a lot of life wisdom, be musically creative, know how to tell a good story, have a clever sense of humor, etc. But they may not be able to solve puzzles. So why is IQ considered the be all and end all of someone's intelligence. I think what IQ tests do best is predict someone's ability to thrive in modern society within the context of Western culture and its particular intellectual demands. Many people with lower IQs aren't exactly stupid either.

"So we shouldn't take take the 81 number literally."

I've met some lower caste Indians and, while not brilliant, they were definitely smarter than an IQ of 81. An IQ of 90 plus or minus some points is probably in the ball park of what India's mean IQ is. But again, it's hard to figure out what their IQ distribution is because even different upper caste Indians probably have different mean IQs and different variances compared to other upper class Indian castes.

"Half Sigma. the bottom line is that India is highly multi-racial with many many different races due"

India isn't really multi-racial. They just have different religious subgroups that developed different intelligence (while still being basically the same ethnicity) levels because of:

1) Being genetically isolated from other Indians for religious reasons.

2) Each Caste performing different labor functions in Indian society.

The situation is analogous to the relationship between Southern European (Disraeli, David Ricardo, Judah Benjamin, etc) and Eastern European Jews.

Southern European Jews (while probably a bit more intelligent the Europeans) aren't AS intelligent as Ashekanazi Jews despite being ETHNICALLY the same group as Ashkenazi Jews (60% Greco-Roman and 30% Anatolian DNA) aside from the fact Ashkenazi have a tiny bit more Northern European/Slavic DNA than the Southern European Jews do.

Btw, its not clear that the Indian higher castes have high variance.

Ashkenazi Jews have a mean IQ of 10 BUT we have lower variance than European gentiles do.

According to Charles Murray, the Jewish IQ STDV is 13 whereas European gentiles have a STDV of 16.66 (African American IQ variance is also 13 and remember that AAs are 18% European genetically so the African African IQ variance is probably lower than 13).

I assume the Europeans have wider variance than Jews do because the Jewish labor force was more Niche oriented in trade and finance whereas Europeans had to have a much broader distribution of labor.

East Asians also have equal variance to Europeans, again, probably due to labor force differentiation.

Labor force variation probably explains both mean IQ and IQ variance better than the "Ice people/Sun People" theory does or else Eskimos and Sammi would have sky high IQs and Northern Europeans would be more intelligent than Southern Europeans.

"Those who settled in cooler northern Eurasia did. The Indian caste system evolved as a marriage between light-skinned, Indo-European speaking high-IQ European newcomers"

India wasn't invaded by Europeans. The "Aryan" invaders looked more like modern day Persians and Afghanis.

As an Indian citizen currently in the US, I'd like to state how despicable I find Indian attitudes towards anything that doesn't massage the collective Indian ego. The comments in WSJ show that Indians are excessively defensive, often mendacious, supercilious, disconnected from reality, and lack the ability to critically introspect.

This, in my opinion, is the real failure of Indians. Even if India had the same IQ distribution as China, I'd much rather bet on the Chinese, whose humility in matters of learning makes me optimistic about their future.

IQ tests are rigged in favor of those who share a cultural background with the test designers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity

One would think the people making IQ tests would be more...ahem... intelligent.

This is a response to a commenter in the previous thread.

Indian-American is a shameless liar. Very much akin to the Black Nationalist (or more accurately, fantasist) in his delusional self-aggrandizement of his race. Each of his points he raised is either a misrepresentation or an outright lie.

1) The majority of Indian Americans are not Brahmins but they are overrepresented. This does not in anyway dispute the fact dispute the fact that Indian Americans come from the top decile of their home society. Does being a jat sikh matter if he is a top 1% among jat sikhs?

2) English is indeed not actually commonly spoken in India. However, in no way is it as alien to India as it is to China. More critically, diglossia means that English is the lingua franca of India's elite and that most people will know some pidgin at the least.

3) The performance of selected Indians in America is no way indicative of their non-selected host societies. I can pick Euro Americans two standard deviations above the mean and form a nation composed entirely of millionaires.

4) India's poor social, health, and environmental indicators cannot be separated from Indians themselves as they are responsible for it.

5) A more realistic view of India's capabilities is not to analyze diaspora communities at all, but to take a large collective study of the original non-selective populations. The Harvard TIMSS study of two Indian provinces indicate that India has a whole has an IQ of somewhere above Africa and roughly on par with Arab muslims states.

6) The population of the Indian subcontinent has a small component of Australoid ancestry.

7) India's outsourcing "advantage" over China is due to the historic role of English in India and the vast linguistic gulf between Mandarin and English comparative to Hindu and English. South Korea and Japan outsource to China. Western Europe outsources to Eastern Europe. It is only in the Anglophone west that India enjoys a comparative advantage.

8) 25% of Chinese college graduates are unfit to work for a foreign multinational. I doubt 25% of American college graduates are fit to work for a foreign multinational, particularly one that requires command of a foreign language and according to the standards of an elitist consulting firm. Chinese graduates in certain locations earn similar wages to factory workers is not because of lack of talent, but because of quantity. Your stupidity is amply demonstrated here as it is a surplus of college graduates that is driving down wages while those factory labourers you discourage earn more than triple the average wage in India.

9) What you call middle class Indians are not middle class at all. Rather they are a small elite whose aspirations are patterned after the developed worlds middle class.

10) Irrelevant.

11) Irrelevant.

12) Ahhh the gold standard of we used to be "awesome". Before the British empire and the advent of the industrial revolution, all civilization was based on subsistence agriculture with a small rent seeking elite extracting surplus from their host societies. Such a paradigm served India well since it allowed a small elite, with higher capabilities than the average would indicate, to extract an obscene amount of wealth from the much dumber labouring masses. The wealth and opulence of India's elite vis-a-vis the hoi palloi is no coincidence when compared to the relative egalitarianism of northern Europe.

His further comments are in the same vein and really I'm too tired this evening to debunk them any further.

Why is Pakistan such a basket case compared to India? Is it just because of Islam, or is there some IQ or caste thing going on?

"I think our Indian American friend who commented on this earlier is correct. India is a 1000 micro-races. It is impossible to come up with a mean IQ for Indians without tested a substantial percentage of these micro-races. Lynn's estimate is made up from a insufficient sample size. It therefor cannot be considered accurate or relevant."

That is even more true of Africa. What is a "Nigerian" exactly? A South African? They are not ethnic groups, tribal, clan...they are made-up nationalities that have no real meaning other than a passport and geographic location.

You blathered:

"But Richard Lynn also says that the average IQ in Nigeria, the country in Africa where American blacks came from, is only 67."

Half Sigma...LOL

First off, you quote Richard Lynn, a known data massager, even Dienekes is on to him.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/08/richard-lynns-massaged-iq-data.html

Most African Americans did not "come from Nigeria" that is nonsense. First off, African Americans are 15-20% Northern European. From the studies I read about 4% Native American, but in some areas, no Native ancestry, in some, such as Oklahoma it can be quite high.

Of the remaining 75% or so African ancestry it is spread from Senegal (Sahel) to Angola.

Razib is doing an African genetic project, why don't you go consult him, seems you are often lacking in education.

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/slave_trade_map.jpg

PROJECTED EXPORTS OF THAT PORTION OF THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH SLAVE TRADE HAVING IDENTIFIABLE REGION OF COAST ORIGIN IN AFRICA, 1711-1810.

Senegambia (Senegal-Gambia) * 5.8%
Sierra Leone 3.4%
Windward Coast (Ivory Coast) * 12.1%
Gold Coast (Ghana) * 14.4%
Bight of Benin (Nigeria) * 14.5
Bight of Biafra (Nigeria) * 25.1%
Central and Southeast Africa (Cameroon-N. Angola) * 24.7%

http://wysinger.homestead.com/mapofafricadiaspora.html

So about 40% of that 75% of our ancestry that is Africa, comes from Nigeria. It is also not like "Nigeria" is one ethnicity, there are 200 tribes, some of which are completely different language families, such as Niger-Congo, Afro-Asiatic, etc.

here is the info on the data from india from "iq and the wealth of nations, appendix i":

"Sinha (1968) summarizes the results of nine studies providing normative data for the Coloured Progressive Matrices for India for a total of 5,607 9- to 15-year-olds. The Indian samples were drawn from Ahmedabad, Trivandrum, Patna, Allahbad, Uttar Pradesh, Cuttack and Tiru. In relation to the 1979 British standardization sample of the Progressive Matrices, the children of India obtained a mean IQ of 77. There is a time interval of approximately 20 years between the collection of the data in India and Britain, which requires raising the Indian IQ to 81.

"A further standardization of the Coloured Progressive Matrices in India was carried out by Rao and Reddy (1968) on a sample of 1,050 5- to 10-year-olds in urban and rural locations in Andhra Pradesh. The mean IQ in relation to the 1979 British standardization of the Progressive Matrices was 80. Adjusting for the 11 years between the two standardizations raises the Indian IQ to 82.

"In 1992, norms were collected for the Standard Progressive Matrices for a sample of 569 11- to 15-years olds in Dehli. The data are given by Raven, Court, and Raven (1996). In relation to the 1979 British standardization sample, the mean IQ is 84. To adjust for the 13-year interval between the two standardizations, this needs to be reduced to 82.

"Data for 748 children aged 9 to 12 years old who were tested with the WISC-R have been reported by Afzal (1988) [Ansari Muslims of Bhagalpur residing in suburban and rural areas]. Their mean IQ was 82. Because of the 14-year interval between the standardization of the test and the collection of the data, this needs to be reduced to 78.

"The average of the four data sets give an IQ of 81 for India."

Afzal, M. 1988. Consequences of consanguinity on cognitive behavior. Behavior Genetics, 18: 583-594.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/316882077v027361/

Rao, S.N. and I.K. Reddy. 1968. Development of norms for Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices on elementary school children. Psychological Studies, 13: 105-107.

Raven, J., J.C. Raven, and J.H. Court. 1996. Standard Progressive Matrices. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press.

Sinha, U. 1968. The use of Raven's Progressive Matrices in India. Indian Education Review, 3: 75-88.
_____

the data seems to have been drawn from all over the country, but who knows about what classes|castes, etc., were included. one would have to check the original sources to figure that out:

Ahmedabad - nw, almost pakistan
Trivandrum - sw on the tip of india
Patna - ne, almost in bangladesh
Allahbad (in Uttar Pradesh) - in the north, toward nepal
Uttar Pradesh - in the north, toward nepal
Cuttack - in the east
Tiru - not sure
Andhra Pradesh - se of country
Dehli - northern india
Bhagalpur - ne, almost in bangladesh

OT...HS, here's a white prole-targeted scam that's gone viral lately. Do a Google Trends on "dinar rv" (re-valuation) and see how it's spiked since September 2010 (though it's been around for years).

It's aimed at Red State veterans and fundamentalists. It promises that "soon" the Iraqi dinar will zoom 1000x in value.

The discussions on sites like dinarvets.com are just priceless. The left half of white America on full display. People doing little victory dances and taunting "naysayers" over the windfall that only exists in their minds.

It seems that most of these rubes have only put a few hundred dollars into their "investment" because they are convinced that (as opposed to Madoff-type marks, or people who believe Chinese GDP numbers and look for 10% a year) they will get a relatively quick spike of ~1000x!

This is perfect for the fundamentalist mindset - these are folks who've been taught since they were toddlers that Jesus was coming back "soon" in a dramatic event where "trumpets will sound" because "all the prophecy is being fulfilled" but "the exact date is unknowable."

Dinar RV believers have their own Revelation myth - the RV is coming "soon" in a dramatic spike because all the conditions of Iraqi reconstruction are being met, but, at least the "mainstream" dinarists believe the exact date is unknowable.

If a scammer was truly evil, he would use some of his profits to give two or three of these suckers their windfall. Just reward a few (and tell them it was because of their "faith" or their "heroism" - they will lap it up), and word would spread like wildfire that This Is Real! and the scam would become more popular than ever.

The US Indian diaspora is not entirely upper caste.

Only 50% is upper caste and only 20% is brahmin.

50% are mid-level, mid-IQ castes like Patels and Jat Sikhs

How is moguls IQ? They should be closely related to mongolians.

One of the downfalls of HBD is its all encompassing racism. How do you expect the world to accept such an absurd theory when you relegate billions of people to the lower plains of human intelligence?

Interesting numbers, Dragon Horse. Notably the % of slave descended African-Americans who come from East Africa (i.e. Kenya, Ethiopia or Somalia) is almost nil. Obama - half white/half Kenyan - in reality is a "Black American" neither genetically nor culturally. It's interesting that so many Blacks have fallen for this scam.

"That is even more true of Africa. What is a 'Nigerian' exactly? A South African? They are not ethnic groups, tribal, clan...they are made-up nationalities that have no real meaning other than a passport and geographic location."

The difference with black Africa is that pretty much all of those tribes and subgroups are stupid. Some may be slightly more or less stupid, but it's not like the situation in India where some of the subgroups produce large numbers of genuinely smart people.

[HS: Actually, there seems to be an order of magnitude difference between most blacks and subgroups including Pygmies and Bushmen. Unfortunately, these subgroups have even lower IQs than mainstream Africans.]

"This is the Shakespearean Theory of Racial Regression to the Mean. What’s in a name? A subgroup of smart people can have their own mean if they can come up with a good name for themselves. Extra points for a mascot"

For purposes of statistical regression, that would not be enough. The group would also have to be somewhat isolated genetically from other groups for a while, but not have any such isolated groups within itself.

"One of the downfalls of HBD is its all encompassing racism"

Of course, but that doesn't make it any less true. Sometimes the truth is offensive and hurtful.

"Interesting numbers, Dragon Horse. Notably the % of slave descended African-Americans who come from East Africa (i.e. Kenya, Ethiopia or Somalia) is almost nil. Obama - half white/half Kenyan - in reality is a "Black American" neither genetically nor culturally. It's interesting that so many Blacks have fallen for this scam."

The difference between West African and East African ancestry is trivial in the grand scheme of racial diversity. All sub-Saharans cluster together genetically, with the possible exception of Ethiopian types who are largely caucasoid (West Asians). The most divergent blacks are the Bushmen, but even they are genetically close to African Americans. And with a "pure" negroid father from Africa, Obama has more sub-Saharan DNA than Reverend Wright or Louis Farakhan who have no business speaking for black people with all their white DNA. In fact the reason those men have to act so black is to compensate for the fact that they're not black.

The Jat sikhs in USA came as farmers, not as college educated elite


The patels in USA came without college education
and used chain family immigration and within the Patel caste, they is no separate elite sub-pool

The Jat Sikhs are roughly the median IQ of India
Yet they are very rich in UK, Canada and US, making their money in blue collar trades and farming

The sub-set of Jat Sikhs in US are not the elite of Indian Jat Sikhs ( Many of the Sikh Maharajas are Jat Sikhs ) and the elite did not migrate.

"Obama has more sub-Saharan DNA than Reverend Wright or Louis Farakhan who have no business speaking for black people with all their white DNA."

I'm don't see why the second part of your statement is true. "African-Americans" are arguably a nation unto themselves - one to which Farakhan and Wright certainly belong, and almost all African Americans have some white and/or native american ancestors. A half-East African who is not descended from slaves arguably has no more reason to speak in the name of the African American community than a half Inuit would have a reason to run around the US claiming to speak for Mexicans. In both cases there may be very little genetic divergence between the two groups, but a world of cultural difference.

Peter:

"Interesting numbers, Dragon Horse. Notably the % of slave descended African-Americans who come from East Africa (i.e. Kenya, Ethiopia or Somalia) is almost nil. Obama - half white/half Kenyan - in reality is a "Black American" neither genetically nor culturally. It's interesting that so many Blacks have fallen for this scam.

LOL, there is no scam.

If a Russian moves and impregnates an Armenian American woman, would the kids not be considered white Americans, despite having no Anglo or Celto-German ancestry?

Half Sigma is a Ashkanazi Jew. Is he a "fake white American"?

The reality is that people acculturate in America largely based on race. A Kenyan man in 1960 who had a child with an Anglo woman had a "black child"according to the one drop rule. No one care a damn what type of "black"the father was. LOL Malcolm X and Stokley Carmichael were Caribbean in origin. And no one cared about that either.

THe issue is if he acculturates or not.

Linda:

Yes it is true a Kenyan Luo will "group"with a Yoruban, but the genetic distance between the two groups is greater than an Irishman and a Romanian. Hell it might be greater than a lot of Lebanese are from Italians.

Sabril:

Who are the most educated immigrants to come to America?

http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/mc/news/2008/news48744.html

They also have the highest skilled occupations coming into the U.S., higher than Asians:

http://www.asian-nation.org/immigrant-stats.shtml

What do you know about ethnic diversity in Africa?

Absolutely nothing. More left wing thinking (left side of the Bell Curve)

The Undiscovered Jew said:
“Ashkenazi Jews have a mean IQ of 10 BUT we have lower variance than European gentiles do.”

Oh my God! How do you feed yourselves?

I would like to thank “lumnicence” for introducing me to the B.I.T.C.H.-100 test, the only IQ test consisting entirely of Ebonics vocabulary knowledge. I am betting it will become the industry standard by 2040.

***But Richard Lynn also says that the average IQ in Nigeria, the country in Africa where American blacks came from, is only 67...First off, you quote Richard Lynn, a known data massager,"***

Here's Rindermann's take on the Wicherts/Lynn dispute:

"Wicherts & Wilhelm questioned the validity of sub-Saharan Africa test scores. (‘The
IQ values for African countries are consistently too low’.) Results for sub-Saharan
countries are the lowest and also of the worst quality. Within-continent differences in sub-
Saharan Africa are perhaps not valid, and it is not appropriate to assign their populations
terms for low intelligence of psychiatric–neurological origin (‘mental retardation’,
‘debility’; see also Jensen, 1998, p. 367ff.), but I do not believe that the scores at the
general level are largely incorrect: The low values correspond to too many other variables
and aspects standing for low cognitive abilities like results of student assessment and
Piaget studies (e.g. Botswana in IEA-Reading 14-year-old pupils 1991 330, as IQ 75;
South-Africa in TIMSS 8th graders 1999 259, as IQ 64; Ghana in TIMSS 8th graders 2003
266, as IQ 65; South-Africa in TIMSS 8th graders 2003 254, as IQ 63; plausibility
considerations lead to lower results for the youth of Africa because of low school
attendance rates and unrepresentative participation of countries), poor quality school
systems, high skipping rates, low rates of high school degrees, low patent application rates,
no famous universities, and many reports of everyday behaviour from officials, traders,
journalists, ethnologists and other scientists in 19th century to this day such as belief in
witchcraft, use of Sangomas, etc.

This does not mean that intelligence in Africa could not be enhanced easily, at least at
the lower levels, through training (Skuy, Gewer, Osrin, Khunou, Fridjhon, & Rushton,
2002) and better nutrition (Whaley et al., 2003). It also does not mean that there is no
Flynn effect (Daley et al., 2003). But there are still some strange empirical phenomena in
the cognitive-ability research in non-western countries such as university students with
average IQ’s of 77–78 in South Africa (in psychology 84, in math 100, in engineering 103;
Rushton, Skuy, & Fridjhon, 2003), or Yanomami Indians who cannot solve one item in the
SPM (personal observation by Rindermann [2001] in Brazil). These results correspond to
the low achievement outcomes of former generations in theWesternWorld and the dispute
about their origins is similar to the frequent discussion of the validity of inter-generational
differences (Flynn, 2007).

http://www-classic.uni-graz.at/pslgcwww/rindermann/publikationen/07EJPall.pdf

"Who are the most educated immigrants to come to America?"

I don't know.

"What do you know about ethnic diversity in Africa? Absolutely nothing"

I don't know a lot, but I know more than nothing. I know that (1) there are a lot of different ethnic groups in black Africa and (2) generally speaking and on average, every last one of these ethnic groups are comprised of people who are stupid.


I found an intriguing study of the BITCH-100 black IQ test. The city of Portland, Oregon tested it for police hiring. It had no correlation with the WAIS IQ test or its subtests (in fact, it seems to have a reverse correlation for black women), but it did successfully test whether a person is black because not one white person could outscore a single black person. The BITCH may become very important if humans evolve to not have eyes.

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/psycarticles-reg/black-intelligence-test-of-cultural-homogeneity-and-wechsler-adult-BeihECbY06

The author of the BITCH-100 described how whites would struggle with the test, but blacks said, “This is a bad test,” by which they meant, “This is a good test.” But you would know that, if you had any BITCH-intelligence.

"I'm don't see why the second part of your statement is true. "African-Americans" are arguably a nation unto themselves - one to which Farakhan and Wright certainly belong, and almost all African Americans have some white and/or native american ancestors."

Most African Americans have around 83% sub-Saharan DNA. Farakhan and Wright look like they have 38% at the most and yet they walk around like the arbiters of authentic blackness. I wish someone would call them on this. Obama on the other hand probably has 50.5% sub-Saharan DNA. Even though his DNA is from a different region of sub-Sahara than most African Americans, he still is genetically closer to the average African American than near-whites like Wright and Farakhan, simply because he's not nearly as flooded by white genes as they are.

"Yes it is true a Kenyan Luo will "group"with a Yoruban, but the genetic distance between the two groups is greater than an Irishman and a Romanian."

And that's not much distance. All sub-Saharans (including West Africans, East Africans, pygmies, bushmen) are all members of the same negroid race. This is because everyone in sub-sahara breeded with one another, as there was no real barrier to breeding in Africa other than the sahara desert which separates negroids from caucasoids creating a genetic barrier that allowed them to evolve as separate races.

And everyone in Europe, the middle east and South asia are all one race, because whites, arabs, East Indians, all breeded together because there's no real barrier to breeding in Eurasia other than the Himalayas which separated caucasoids from mongoloids allowing these gene pools to evolve in isolation into distinct races. You don't see a clear separation between white and non-white caucasoids, just a gradual darkening of skin as you observe people in Northern Europe, then Southern Europe, then the middle east, then South India; but they're all the same macro-race, except for the rare splash of proto-australoid blood that may still run through the most primitive marginalized regions of india.

Jatt Sikhs in Canada and Britain are non-elite and came mainly from rural agrarian background. There are a substanial number of untouchable caste Sikhs too in Britain, who are doing about as well as Jatts. Within India, Jatts are regarded as hardworking, quarrelsome, and violent. Not at all intellectual. I have no doubt that they are, at best, average for Indian IQ.

When you can explain away the modest success of Jatt Sikhs in Vancouver BC or the UK, then I might listen to claims of 81 IQ.

I don't believe Indians are, on average, as smart as Europeans... but I don't believe their mean IQ is substanially lower either. My guess is something in the 92-94 range.

Islam and cousin marriage hinder Pakistan quite a bit. Many Pakistanis are also Balochi or Pathan, who are racially the same as Afghanistanis and are economically/academically much more backward than the Punjabis/Sindhis (both groups are of Indian origin). One of the ironies of South Asia is that the really light skinned ethnic groups are generally the dumbest, while a lot of very non-caucasian guys in the east (Bengal) and South can often be quite smart.

I never understood how Iran could have such poor test scores and IQ. The Iranians I know are pretty smart, as are their very successful 2nd generation kids. Persian civilization has historically been pretty advanced too and they seem to have a well-developed high culture. I think something related to Islam or cousin marriage is screwing with their society.

1) Jatt Sikhs are not from the top 1 percent or even top 10 percent. They tend to come, on the basis of family migration, from lots of economic backgrounds.

Other Indians do come from the top decile, but lots of the top decile are people that got wealthy through land. The Indian professionals are not the best of India, but the best of the small percentage that can afford to educate their kids. The masses, not having land, generally can't educate a kid even if he's bright. Often they can barely feed their kids.

2) The Indian super elite did speak English, but the masses have never had any understand of it at all. Even middle/upper class Indians didn't start to learn it until they had to, for professional reasons. I know lots of affluent Indians that may understand a few words, but have no functional conversational or written abilities - their kids learn English in private school when they get older. Outside of the super rich and the professionals, you won't find many fluent English speakers.

3) Yes, it is. Regression to the mean. If Indians in America are 2 SD above the native average, their children should be pretty mediocre. Not highly represented in everything from law to investment banking to medicine. If Indian kids were not doing well, you might have a point.

4) Italy had poor social and health indicators a few decades ago. Now it doesn't. Societies change and improve over time. India has been projected to become the largest economy in the world within the next few decades

5) India's IQ potential is hugely stunted by poor nutrition and healthcare. If Africans can jump from an IQ of 67 to 83 in the U.S., I'd expect 81 IQ Indians to jump quite a bit under better conditions.

6) I can't give you a definite answer as to how much Australoid there is in the population, but Southern Indians are not built like Australoids and don't have any of their behavioral/cultural characteristics. Southern Indians are also reputed to be smart than Northies, who are lighter skinned and definitely not Australoid.

7) China receives pletny of outsourcing from the West, in industrial jobs. Also, as I said earlier, English is not spoken at home for anything except the super elite. Indian professionals learn English in school, but would speak Hindi or something regional at home.

8) "1) The majority of Indian Americans are not Brahmins but they are overrepresented. This does not in anyway dispute the fact dispute the fact that Indian Americans come from the top decile of their home society. Does being a jat sikh matter if he is a top 1% among jat sikhs?

2) English is indeed not actually commonly spoken in India. However, in no way is it as alien to India as it is to China. More critically, diglossia means that English is the lingua franca of India's elite and that most people will know some pidgin at the least.

3) The performance of selected Indians in America is no way indicative of their non-selected host societies. I can pick Euro Americans two standard deviations above the mean and form a nation composed entirely of millionaires.

4) India's poor social, health, and environmental indicators cannot be separated from Indians themselves as they are responsible for it.

5) A more realistic view of India's capabilities is not to analyze diaspora communities at all, but to take a large collective study of the original non-selective populations. The Harvard TIMSS study of two Indian provinces indicate that India has a whole has an IQ of somewhere above Africa and roughly on par with Arab muslims states.

6) The population of the Indian subcontinent has a small component of Australoid ancestry.

7) India's outsourcing "advantage" over China is due to the historic role of English in India and the vast linguistic gulf between Mandarin and English comparative to Hindu and English. South Korea and Japan outsource to China. Western Europe outsources to Eastern Europe. It is only in the Anglophone west that India enjoys a comparative advantage.

8) McKinsey - "Consider the mainland's 1.6 million young engineers. Their education is generally biased towards theory, and they get little practical experience in projects or teamwork. As a result, despite seeming so numerous, the mainland's pool of young engineers considered suitable for work in multinationals is just 160,000 – no larger than Britain's. Hence the paradox of shortages amid plenty.
"

Wages are determined by supply and demand. If Chinese college grads as highly productive and competitive to those overseas, extremely high demand should push up wages quite a bit even if there's a high supply. This is what happens in America. For Chinese college grads to earn so little reflects low demand and high supply.

You should notice that for Chinese factory workers, there is immense supply. Much more so than for college grads.

9.) Lots of middle class Indians are non-elite and come from rural backgrounds. They just got lucky when their land values went up. They embrace the same culture that Westerners and East Asians do.

12.) So why didn't Africa or Latin America develop what India had? Or why was India about as historically advanced as China?

Besides, you show profound ignorance of Indian civilization. Arts, literature, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, "Arabic" numerals, building techniques, trading/commerce, etc. flourished in Indian until the collapse of the Mughal empire. India wasn't just awesome 3000 years ago - it was awesome merely a few hundred years ago by global standards. It was also well above subsistence civilization, in its total achievement.

The West did leapfrog everyone with the industrial and scientific revolution, but then the Japanese caught up easily. Others are in the process of moving up now too.

Half Sigma obviously doesn't understand the problem: Indian society is divided into castes. That is the fundamental assumption.
Here is everything you need to know about Indian IQ stratification:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/12/india-again.html

" The Iranians I know are pretty smart, as are their very successful 2nd generation kids."

Same here, but then again, a lot of the Iranians living in the US are elites who fled Iran back in the 70s when the Shah fell.

It'd be interesting to test the castes for IQ. I do know that for Indian-Americans, there seems to be fairly similar success for 2nd generation Indian-American kids, regardless of their caste.

I have noticed that Indian-American kids from less educated families, not neccessarily low caste though, are generally less successful than those from more affluent/educated families. I don't see a caste component, as plenty of these less successful are from the same castes as the more successful.

I recall seeing a chart that showed income by caste in India. Upper castes were wealthier, but the gap wasn't especially large. Nothing like black-white in magntitude. More importantly, India has much less upward mobility and healthcare/education/nutrition access for the poor. So even caste gaps may well be due to environment.

"12.) So why didn't Africa or Latin America develop what India had? Or why was India about as historically advanced as China?"

Indian-American: This seems hard to quantify for me - was India ever as advanced as China, or even particularly advanced once you remove their natural endowments from the equation (things like relatively cheap and easy vegetable fabrics, advantages in rare spice cultivation)?

With China, the advancement is pretty well catalogued through them having extensive technologically sophisticated textile and pottery exports to the West. India exported what, raw cotton, a few finished fabrics (more finished fabrics at first, but then later replaced by raw cotton because Europeans could actually weave fibres better and bulk shipping became more reasonable)? China also appears to have had relatively rationalised states with both lots of record keeping, which is apparently very unlike the Indian case where ancedotally there is almost a "dark age" of records, particularly beyond the elite classes/castes, a system of rule relatively suited to a high level of wide spread education (exams and Mandarins) and a laundry list of inventions and a grab bag of prescientific naturalistic observation which had precedence over the West.

India's agricultural systems don't look particularly sophisticated either, compared to the advanced terracing and manuring systems and relatively advanced levels of internal trade (amongst the peasantry and small producers) in China. Clearly there's some means by which Indians feed vast numbers of people, but they appear constantly on the knife edge of malnutrition and to have achieved much by placing everyone on a undernourished vegan diet that lets people survive on a much less productive and technologically intensive level of primary production.

One area where India may have been relatively advanced (compared to the world at large) may have been in some areas of medicine, of course, but this seems relatively necessary when you live in a tropical pesthole, and premodern medicine seems generally ineffective, regardless of the relative merits of Chinese-Indian-Middle Eastern-European medicine.

This is not to say that India has sucked, just that, barring a few clever mathematicians and ancient philosophers, it seems about as awesome, all things considered, as mainland and island South East Asia and the Muslim Middle East, prior to colonialism and the "great divergence" of the Industrial Revolution and preceding period, so there doesn't seem any reason it would requires greater IQ bonafides than these other places.

"Yes, it is. Regression to the mean. If Indians in America are 2 SD above the native average, their children should be pretty mediocre. Not highly represented in everything from law to investment banking to medicine. If Indian kids were not doing well, you might have a point."

Depends on the heritability:

If you had two Indian parents with IQ 140 and a heritability of 0.7 (which seems fairly middle of the road), regressing to a mean of 82, the expected value for the child would around 123 IQ, whereas it would be around 128 for Europeans with a mean of 100, which is fairly respectable for a banker*, I think. I think heritability is likely in practice to be relatively higher for Indians, due to a long history of endogamy (whether this is modelled as higher heritability or approximating a higher subpopulation mean) and assortivity.

*AudEpigone's list of IQs converted from Wordsums and GSS gives stockbrokers around 108 IQ, http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/01/average-iq-by-occupation.html, which I wouldn't be too surprised with, with a reasonably high N. Physicians are very high at 117 IQ on that list.

What does the distribution of Indian IQs look like? If the variability is large then we'd expect relatively many extremely smart people. What I'm getting at is there might be sub-populations within India that, due to genetics and culture, have a much higher average IQ than that cited. Likewise, there might be groups with very low IQs. Since India has long had a strong caste system with little intermarriage between castes, perhaps we should be considering the IQ distributions from the various castes rather than viewing India as a single distribution.

If a man who is very tall marries a girl who is very tall, one would expect their children to be well above average in height but not as tall as their parents. That's statistical regression.

Statistical regression follows more or less mathematically from the insight that there is a random element in biological attributes.

Here's a more concrete example: If you take 100 people who scored 150 on an IQ test and re-tested them with a completely new test, would you expect their average score to be higher, lower, or about the same? The answer is that you would expect their average score to be lower. Because somebody's score on an IQ test is a combination of their intelligence as well as a certain amount of luck. If someone scores very well on an IQ test, probably part of the reason they did so well was they were a bit lucky. So if you test them again, you would expect their score to be a bit worse.

So the fact that children of Indian-Americans are usually pretty smart does not disprove statistical regression. If Indian-American immigrants tend to be above-average in intelligence relative to the groups they came from, one would expect their childrens' intelligence to regress towards their group means, but still be above average relative to the group. And the group might be above average relative to India as a whole.

"Who are the most educated immigrants to come to America?
http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/mc/news/2008/news48744.html
They also have the highest skilled occupations coming into the U.S., higher than Asians:
http://www.asian-nation.org/immigrant-stats.shtml
What do you know about ethnic diversity in Africa?"
Tell them.The problem with folks on this blog is that they love quoting old research that massages their ego.Richard Lynn's studies were done long before there was even a 10% literacy rate in Africa.
Nigeria has over a 100 tribes,and we assume they are homogenous because it simplifies our research while simultaneously divorcing them from reality.

"If you had two Indian parents with IQ 140 and a heritability of 0.7 (which seems fairly middle of the road), regressing to a mean of 82, the expected value for the child would around 123 IQ,"

Matt, you do not understand heritability. Do you think if IQ had a perfect herritability of 1.0, that 140 IQ parents would always have 140 IQ kids? Of course not, because herritability is the proportion of the variation explained by GENES, not the degree to which we resemble our parents! Lots of people have genetically very low IQ for reasons that have nothing to do with their parents' genetic IQ (Downs syndrome is genetic but many high IQ professional women have kids with Downs syndrome).

A 0.7 herritability (which is actually on the low side) would not mean parents average kids 0.7 as far from their mean as they are, it means that IDENTICAL TWINS reared apart average siblings that are the SQUARE ROOT of 0.7 as far from the mean as they are. Remember herritability is the proportion of the variation which is a square root.

"What does the distribution of Indian IQs look like? If the variability is large then we'd expect relatively many extremely smart people. What I'm getting at is there might be sub-populations within India that, due to genetics and culture, have a much higher average IQ than that cited. Likewise, there might be groups with very low IQs. Since India has long had a strong caste system with little intermarriage between castes, perhaps we should be considering the IQ distributions from the various castes rather than viewing India as a single distribution."

How is India any different from the U.S.A.? America also has the equivalent of high IQ castes (Ashkenazi Jews) low IQ castes (African Americans), yet the entire U.S. population is treated as a single normal distribution with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15.

Actually setting the American mean at 100 creates a bit of confusion because America's gene pool is changing so rapidly, that 100 IQ represents a different genetic level overtime. That's why I prefer Richard Lynn's methodology which is to use only white people as the reference population for norming IQ tests. This is how IQ tests used to be normed in the early 20th century and continue to be normed in Britain. Thus if the white mean is set at 100, the mean for Americans as a whole is reduced to about 98, so Lynn reduces IQ scores from American tests by 2 points when gathering his data (that's partly why some of the IQ's he reports seem so low).

This is not a racist argument. We don't have to use whites as the reference population, but the point is, use one race as the yardstick so IQ scores have a stable meaning over time. Of course the meaning will always be ambiguous because of the flynn effect, but with a genetically stable reference population, at least IQ will be a stable measure of genetic rank, even if the environment (flynn effect) made that rank more or less impressive.

"That's why I'm reluctant to call people "dumb" because they have a low score. People with low IQs may be very socially savvy, can raise kids properly, function normally, may be very "street smart", have a lot of life wisdom, be musically creative, know how to tell a good story, have a clever sense of humor, etc. But they may not be able to solve puzzles. So why is IQ considered the be all and end all of someone's intelligence."

Because it measures g and other broad based cognitive functions. There are millions of ways people can be smart, so IQ tests only sample those cognitive functions that are most REPRESENTATIVE of how well a mind can function across a broad range of environments, because intelligence is the mental ability to adapt. That's why populations who are good at abstract reasoning are rich and populations who are musically creative and good at telling stories live in poverty. The latter have special talents suited to a traditional way of life, but they can't adapt when their way of life changes.

"First off, you quote Richard Lynn, a known data massager, even Dienekes is on to him."

Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Lynn, but the errors Dienekes points out in that post are not "data massage" but small typographical errors that do not affect his conclusions. Dienekes's own "refutation" of Lynn's Greek IQ data contains calculation errors, and relies on Buj's worthless study.

"Who are the most educated immigrants to come to America?

http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/mc/news/2008/news48744.html"

Yes, of all immigrants to America, black Africans are from the most elite sections of their native countries. The average black African immigrant to America probably has an IQ substantially in excess of 100. Yet, as I wrote above, Jason Richwine found that the children of these African immigrants have an estimated mean IQ of only 89. If that is correct, it suggests that regression toward the mean depresses the intelligence of second-generation Africans much more than that of any other immigrant group, and that Lynn's estimates of African IQ are plausible.

Linda:

Everything you said about African Americans is meaingless, because no one used a blood quantum to define who was "African American" ever in U.S. history.

Someone 1/8 African and 7/8 black was called an Octeroon and was legally black in most states in the U.S. until quite recently in history.
Culture is not defined by "admixture".

If a man that looked like Farrakhan or Wright grew up in the same town as my grandfather, he would be called a "negro" at best and be subject to Jim Crow laws, the courts would call him a "negro" and if he said "I'm white" or "mostly white" and tried to act as a white man he might go to jail if he was lucky (if he was not lynched).

That ingroup and outgroup situation in the U.S. due to the one drop rule, is what defined who was and who is not African American, and although it is not the law of the land anymore, most people still use it to some extent. If Wright is culturally African American and calls himself that, that is good enough for most Americans (white or black) in the present and historically.

What you re talking about has no meaning in the real world outside of a science lab or some science nerd blog.

sabril:

I read what you typed but it "ain't sayin' nothin'".

LOL Idiot.

Most Africans have never been tested. Lynn is a known for massaging data and making up statistics.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/08/richard-lynns-massaged-iq-data.html

Africans are some of the wealthiest and most educated immigrants in the U.S., as I have shown above. Your response tells me you are not very education and likely not wealthy either. :-)Haters are "gonna hate".

What else is new?

As far as Indians, one should look closely at nutrition, as I said on the last thread about Indians, basic nutrient deficiency does affect IQ.

"Worldwide, about two billion people — a third of the globe — get too little iodine, including hundreds of millions in India and China. Studies show that iodine deficiency is the leading preventable cause of mental retardation. Even moderate deficiency, especially in pregnant women and infants, lowers intelligence by 10 to 15 I.Q. points, shaving incalculable potential off a nation’s development. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html

"Nigeria has over a 100 tribes,and we assume they are homogenous because it simplifies our research while simultaneously divorcing them from reality."

There's nothing per se wrong with making simplifying assumptions. For many purposes, it's good enough to think of the Earth as a perfect sphere even though that's obviously wrong.

As another example, it's reasonable to state that the Southern US States are warmer than the Northern US States. Even though there are many Southern states and their climates vary somewhat.

In the case of Nigeria, there may be 100 tribes, but so what? None of them is like the Brahmins or Ashkenazim.

"What you re talking about has no meaning in the real world outside of a science lab or some science nerd blog."

Skin color has no meaning in the African-American community? Yeah, sure. Please read some history.

Posted by: k
"Who are the most educated immigrants to come to America?
http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/mc/news/2008/news48744.html
They also have the highest skilled occupations coming into the U.S., higher than Asians:
http://www.asian-nation.org/immigrant-stats.shtml
What do you know about ethnic diversity in Africa?"

African immigrants to America are outliers, they do not represent the average. The same is true for Indians. They are basically the cream of the crop for their society and they have very little in common with the African or Indian equivalent of "Joe Sixpack".

African immigrants to the US are not Outliers.I know plenty of guys who had Cs in school back there,but still score highly on the SATs and get scholarships to the US,subsequently graduating with high GPAs.Let us not even talk about the cream.For your information,the brightest are so pampered by the government during their college years that they do not see any point of going to the US.

Sabril:
You said it all in the statement"What do i know about Africa?nothing."Dont even try to arrive at conclusions when you do not understand the data

African immigrants are only the cream in one sense:they are from wealthy families.If you are western you will now assume that wealth has some correlation with iQ.Not in Africa.It depends on where your grandfather was when colonialism ended,and how close he was to a large farm when white settlers left.Please convince me that this is a byproduct of "abstract reasoning ability"

"Matt, you do not understand heritability. Do you think if IQ had a perfect herritability of 1.0, that 140 IQ parents would always have 140 IQ kids? Of course not, because herritability is the proportion of the variation explained by GENES, not the degree to which we resemble our parents!"

I'm not entirely clear what you are saying Linda. Heritability is of course the amount of variation within a population that is due to genetic variation and not "the degree to which we resemble our parents".

If IQ had a heritability of 1.0, then the child of two IQ 140 parents would not always have an IQ of 140 due to normal statistical variation involved in this complex trait, but the population of children with two IQ 140 parents would definitely have a mean IQ of 140 around which their IQs would be normally distributed (and we are talking about the children of Indian migrants as a population, not individuals).

In any case, the regression to the mean equation which I used is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ.

"Most Africans have never been tested"

So what? Probably most people have never had their physical strength formally measured and yet I am confident that men are stronger than girls.

"Lynn is a known for massaging data and making up statistics."

Even assuming that's true, so what? My belief that blacks are stupid is not based on the authority of this individual.

"Africans are some of the wealthiest and most educated immigrants in the U.S"

I'm extremely skeptical of this claim, but again, so what? I don't dispute that some blacks are smart enough to obtain a college degree or that African immigrants to the United States are drawn heavily from such a subgroup.

"Your response tells me you are not very education and likely not wealthy either."

Lol, FWIW I am both educated and wealthy. Not that it really matters. See, the strength of my argument does not depend on my personal characteristics.

"You said it all in the statement"What do i know about Africa?nothing."

Nonsense, that's not what I said. I said that I don't know a lot about ethnic diversity in Africa but I know more than nothing.

Is misquoting me the best you can do? Or do you have an actual argument to make?

"Dont even try to arrive at conclusions when you do not understand the data"

Agree, but in this case my understanding is more than sufficient to be reasonably confident in my conclusions.

And here's some free advice for you: RIF -- reading is fundamental.


India is the miscegenated Brazil of Asia.

This is anecdotal...but most of the Indians I've known have been very similar to blacks in temperment and intellectual abilities.

---
Recent genetic research on Indians:

Conclusion: India = Miscegenation Central

"The latest evidence of modern genetic research indicates that the peoples of both north and south India are of mixed Mongoloid/Australoid/Caucasoid racial ancestry, consisting of an autochthonous sub-Gangetic base which has been gradually combined, through a series of population expansions and the historical migrations of various immigrants, with west Eurasian and East Asian elements."

Most of the major Indian populations are so racially admixed that they exhibit membership in multiple gene clusters and are therefore homogeneous genetically on a subcontinental level


Bhasin (2006), in the study Genetics of Castes and Tribes of India: Indian Population Milieu:

India has been peopled by human groups carrying a diversity of genes and cultural traits. We have almost all the primary ethnic strains Proto-Australoid, Mediterranean, Mongoloid, Negrito and a number of composite strains. It is homeland of over 4000 Mendelian populations, of which 3700 endogamous groups are structured in the Hindu caste system as ‘jatis’.

In short, the older view that north Indians are mainly Caucasoid whereas southern Indians are mainly Australoid is incorrect. Indians, both from the north and the south, seem to be a racially admixed population with each individual genotype exhibiting membership in multiple gene clusters, albeit in varying degrees in terms of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid admixture ratios. South Asian populations consist of an indigenous Australoid base combined with both Caucasoid and Mongoloid racial elements; Indo-Caucasoid (Indo-Aryan speakers and Coon’s hybrid Mediterranean strain) peoples tend to be concentrated in the east and west of India, Indo-Mongoloid (Tibeto-Burman speakers) seem to be concentrated in the north eastern region of the country, and Proto-Australoid/Indo-Dravidian peoples (Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian language speakers) are mostly found in the south, with peoples of full Australoid or “Negrito” origin located on the archipelagos (e.g. the Great Andamanese and Jarawa) surrounding the southern tip of the subcontinent.

To repeat, most of the major Indian populations are so racially admixed that they exhibit membership in multiple gene clusters and are therefore homogeneous genetically on a subcontinental level."

In more ways than one, Indians are like blacks:


English Woman Speaks Frankly About Difficulties of Having Mixed-Race Baby with Man from India

Lowri Turner

Daily Mail, UK, 13 July 2007


"She's getting very dark, isn't she?" This is what one of my friends recently said about my much adored - 12-week-old daughter.

She didn't mean to be rude. But it was a comment that struck me with the force of a jab to the stomach.

Immediately, I was overwhelmed by a confusion of emotions. I felt protective, insulted, worried, ashamed, guilty, all at once. The reason? My lovely, wriggly, smiley baby is mixed race.

...

I am white and I have two sons from my first marriage who are both milky complexioned and golden haired. My twin sister, who I spend a lot of time with, has a Danish partner. As a consequence, she has two boys who are also pale skinned and flaxen haired.

Into this positively English next generation, I have now injected a tiny, dark-skinned, dark-haired girl. To say she stands out is an understatement.

...

The truth is, whatever the label, the fact there is a label proves that my daughter's conflicting parentage matters.

...

But when I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien. With her long, dark eyelashes and shiny, dark brown hair, she doesn't look anything like me.

I know that concentrating on how my daughter looks is shallow. She is a person in her own right, not an accessory to me. But still, I can't shake off the feeling of unease.

I didn't realise how much her looking different would matter and, on a rational level, I know it shouldn't. But it does.

Evolution demands that we have children to pass on our genes, hence the sense of pride and validation we get when we see our features reappearing in the next generation.

With my daughter, I don't have that. Do black fathers who marry white women and then have paler-skinned children feel my sense of loss? Or maybe Chinese mothers or Middle-Eastern grandparents grieve when they see a child they know to be their own, but whose features don't reflect that?

...

Even admitting to having mixed feelings about her not being blonde and blue eyed, I feel disloyal and incredibly guilty.

I know the obvious comment is that I must have known how a child of our union would look when I married an Indian man, but it is a wise woman who thinks that far ahead when she falls in love.

I didn't think about any of this before I got pregnant. I wanted to have a baby. Her colour and culture were immaterial then.

But self-flagellation is not useful. I have more pressing concerns. I am now the mother of a 'black' child, even if she is more the hue of weak tea than espresso.

This is a role for which I am utterly unprepared. Part of me thinks I should be playing sitar music to her in her cot, mastering pakoras and serving them dressed in a sari, but that would be fantastically fake coming from me.

When she was born, pale but with lots of dark hair, I asked the midwife if her eyes would stay blue. 'Asian genes are very strong,' she said in what I took to be an ominous tone.

No more Brady Bunch kids for me. The midwife has been proved right and every day my baby's eyes get a little darker.

...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467787/I-love-mixed-race-baby--does-feel-alien.html

Here's what I posted on the other thread..but these articles also pertain to this discussion:

MUST-READ Articles on Indians:

India & Racial Admixture: India is the Brazil of Asia

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/2633384/1/


Software Executive says Indians are Incompetent Programmers, Cheats and Frauds

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_102709.htm


The growing Indian lobby mirrors Israel lobby:

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1404/article_1241.shtml

Indians are the second largest group of illegal aliens in the United States:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2011/02/20/h-1b-and-illegal-immigration/


English woman speaks frankly about having a mixed-race baby with man from India:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467787/I-love-mixed-race-baby--does-feel-alien.html

Indian-American is perhaps right about middle-caste/lower-caste Indians doing very well in the US. I really wouldn't know about that, but I did go and do a casual inspection of contests/elite Math departments to see how well-represented Brahmins were.

This is in no way a claim that Brahmins are smarter than non-Brahmin Indian castes - the reasons may be cultural for all I know. Anyway, here's what the evidence looks like:

1. Tenured faculty at Stanford Math: 3 Indians - two Southern Indian Brahmins, and 1 non-Brahmin upper caste.

2. Chicago Math: 4 Indians - 3 Southern Indian Brahmins, and 1 non-Brahmin upper caste.

3. Princeton Math: 3 Indians (1 is likely half-Indian) - 2 North Indian Brahmins, 1 probably half-Indian (Amit Singer).

4. Harvard Math: 1 Indian (Vaibhav Gadre) - most likely a North Indian Brahmin but possibly also a North Indian non-Brahmin upper caste.

5. MIT Math: 2 Indians - 1 Southern Indian Brahmin, and 1 likely a middle/lower caste North Indian.

Whether for cultural reasons or not, Brahmins do seem pretty well-represented in extreme g-loaded professions (to be a top 5 Math department faculty member probably needs an IQ of 170 + high levels of creativity).

Some further data on Brahmin representation, this time pertaining to a subset of Brahmins, quoting what I found on another blog:

Tamil Brahmins have "won 3 Science Nobels (Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, C.V. Raman), the only Abel Prize that a non-White has got(Srinivasa Varadhan), the only Nevanlinna prize that a non-White has got (Madhu Sudan), produced the greatest Mathematical autodidact in the last century (Srinivasa Ramanujan), and produced the current world chess champion (Viswanathan Anand). Further, Tamil Brahmins are almost definitely going to bring South Asians their first Fields Medal (Akshay Venkatesh/Kannan Soundararajan), and have produced the youngest person (Vinodhini Vasudevan) to ever get a perfect SAT score at age 12 (also the only one to do so out of 600,000 gifted seventh- and eighth-graders the program has tracked through two decades). "

And now on to the Waterman awardees ("The Alan T. Waterman Award is the United States's highest honorary award for scientists no older than 35", URL here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_T._Waterman_Award) :

3 Indian winners - 2 North Indian Brahmins, and 1 North Indian upper-caste winner.

Multiple time Putnam fellows: "In the history of Competition, only seven students have been Putnam Fellows four times, with nineteen others winning the award three times. "

3 Indians: 1 North Indian Brahmin, 1 South Indian Brahmin, and 1 North Indian non-Brahmin upper caste individual.

"If IQ had a heritability of 1.0, then the child of two IQ 140 parents would not always have an IQ of 140 due to normal statistical variation involved in this complex trait, but the population of children with two IQ 140 parents would definitely have a mean IQ of 140 around which their IQs would be normally distributed"

No Matt, even if IQ had perfect heritability, IQ 140 parents would not average IQ 140 kids. That's because parents with IQ 140 have hit the genetic lottery, and their kids will regress to the genetic mean. The kids will not be lucky enough (on average) to inherrit all the same high IQ genes that their parents had. You're assuming people are genetic clones of their parents. We are not.

Now although IQ 140 people would not average IQ 140 kids even if IQ had perfect heritability, they would average IQ 140 identical twins. However there would be no normal distribution around this mean of 140 as you suggest because 100% of the variation in IQ would be explained by genes, thus there could be no IQ variation among people who are genetically identical to people with IQ's of 140; they would all be 140 too.

"The growing Indian lobby mirrors Israel lobby:

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1404/article_1241.shtml "

May I ask why the VDare white niggers strongly support deploying American troops, nuclear weapons, and stealth bombers to defend South Korea from North Korea but also think it's immoral for Jewish Americans to ask the US government for mere diplomatic support of Israel?

It seems like AIPAC is a good, moral, organization for Americans to support and I'm surprised petah brimelow isn't donating some of his (rather substantial according to DA King) slush funds to AIPAC to show satisfactory fealty to International Zionism.

What sort of psychological disorder does he have that causes him to have paranoid fantasies about Jewish motivations?

"In any case, the regression to the mean equation which I used is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ."

Wikipedia is incorrect. They are confusing herritability with the parents-child IQ correlation. This is a very common error, even among specialists in the field. It's actually the SQUARE of the identical twins reared apart IQ correlation, but even this is not a perfect measure of herritability because even identical twins reared apart shared some environment especially before birth.

"(to be a top 5 Math department faculty member probably needs an IQ of 170 + high levels of creativity)."

Nonsense! There's only about 311 people in all of America with IQ's above 170 (one in a million level). Considering many of them are children or retired, and many others have other interests besides academia or math, there's simply not enough of them for elite faculty to be recruited exclusively from this range. Even the most elite math department would be lucky to get even one person with an IQ this high.

"Yes, of all immigrants to America, black Africans are from the most elite sections of their native countries. The average black African immigrant to America probably has an IQ substantially in excess of 100."

I don't think so. Rushton found that even university students in black Africa averaged IQ's in the mid 80s. The only group he found (thus far) that averaged IQ's above 100 were engineering students and they were only a bit above 100. So unless immigrants from Africa are more intellectually elite than African engineering students, I don't see it.


"Yet, as I wrote above, Jason Richwine found that the children of these African immigrants have an estimated mean IQ of only 89."

He found this on a backwards digit span test if I'm not mistaken. Backwards digit span is only moderately g loaded, and loads high on memory where blacks perform relatively well. Had those immigrant kids been given a more g loaded test like Matrix reasoning, I suspect their IQ's would have been substantially lower.

"May I ask why the VDare white niggers strongly support deploying American troops, nuclear weapons, and stealth bombers to defend South Korea from North Korea but also think it's immoral for Jewish Americans to ask the US government for mere diplomatic support of Israel?"

I think any criticism of Jewish Americans that may exist in this context is because Jewish Americans are rich, powerful and intelligent enough to get America to sacrafice for Israel by making Americans think they are acting in America's best interest. If Jewish Americans simply came out and simply asked for help for Israel, the critics would be much less vocal. It's the feeling that Americans are being manipulated or tricked into acting in Israel's interests that causes the resentment.

"No Matt, even if IQ had perfect heritability, IQ 140 parents would not average IQ 140 kids. That's because parents with IQ 140 have hit the genetic lottery, and their kids will regress to the genetic mean. The kids will not be lucky enough (on average) to inherrit all the same high IQ genes that their parents had."

Yes, people have a random selection of 0.5 of each of their parents' diploid genome and are not clones of their parents. So even if IQ genes are purely additive and heritability is 1.0, a population of children derived from two IQ 140 parents will not uniformly have 140 IQs - for the reason that they could, for example, completely randomly select a subset of each parents genes coding for either higher than average or lower than average IQ.

This is why variation continues to exist in the resulting population even should all of the variation be explained by genes, because of random sampling of genes from parents. But that population will still have an mean of 140 IQ (provided the sample of that population is large) because of the law of large numbers as applied to the random sampling process.

That is my understanding, although I'm not sure if that holds (and impression is that it does not) if there is a strong degree of "epistasis" present - are you saying that there is?

"This is a very common error, even among specialists in the field. It's actually the SQUARE of the identical twins reared apart IQ correlation"

If you have a cite for that, maybe you can get the article altered. I'm not entirely clear whether that changes the form or validity of the regression to the mean equation in the article (whatever measures we use to determine h and h2), I don't think it does and if not seems irrelevant to anything I am saying.

Re: Brahmins

I see a lot of Patel kids on Wall Street and in medicine. I also see a fair number from other non-upper caste backgrounds. So I'd conclude that economic and academic attainment is high across castes among Indian-Americans.

However, it is possible that Brahmins are smarter.... but more drawn to intellectual pursuits. Maybe more likely to major in CS or EE, rather than medicine/dentistry. Patels, from what I know, are more money oriented than Brahmins. The link between economic attainment and IQ isn't always super strong.

We could say that Brahmins are more of an intellectual elite, but different castes are comparable in economic attainment, in the U.S.

On a side note, I don't believe so called "Indian Castes".

Despite the original intention thousands of years ago, Indian castes have no more meaning to each other as what Obama is to his Dad, after India has been conquered numeriously by pretty much every other tribes of the Eurasia. The people there, including "high caste" such as Brahmins, are so mixed for generations that renders meaningful tribes/castes , hence seperate IQ scores etc, ridiculous.

Look at facial features, one can easily identify who is Black , who is White, and who is Oriental under most circunstances. Yet give you all the "castes" of India, such as looking at crowded Delhi street shot, most of them would look almost the same to most non-Indians even without dressing them in the same manner. This simple trial tells volumns of whom they really are.

Obama looks Black and is taken as Black to most people including himself. Yet he is only the second generation mixed, still with 50% white/European blood.

Then look at Obama's daughters.

Now 2000 years from now, try to imagine what the future 44th generation of Barrack Obama Clan would look like after numerous mixings with Persians, Mongols, Turks , Dalits, etc.? Will they look, think and act as White, or Black? ---
exactly, these people are today's so called "high caste" , "highly intelligent" and "WHITE" Brahmins ! Don't make me laugh.

This article is not evidence of anything Half Sigma--Indians abroad are the most intelligent in America-smarter than Jewish Americans too! The WSJ did not conclude that Indians in India lack intelligence, simply that the education system(according to a few in an industry) is not what they wanted.

Even the President of the United States-Obama himself-has stated that Indians in India are a threat to American dominance in science. Surely he would not say this unless his advisors had read many reports suggesting so.

//

"It's the feeling that Americans are being manipulated or tricked into acting in Israel's interests that causes the resentment."

No, it's the need to blame one's problems on someone else which causes the resentment. Israel is just a convenient issue for the anti-Semites to whine about.

The fact is that the US has spent a lot more resources helping other countries. We have a substantial military presence in South Korea, France, Italy, Japan, etc. We actually have a treaty with France, Italy, and the UK which says that an attack on any of those countries will be treated as an attack on the US. We do none of this for Israel.

"Nonsense! There's only about 311 people in all of America with IQ's above 170 (one in a million level)."

Linda, go google IQ + fat tails. Also, go look at Steve Hsu's post here:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/07/annals-of-psychometry-iqs-of-eminent.html

What's interesting are the scores of the 12 theoretical physicists, selected in a "more or less random fashion, using, e.g., membership lists of scholarly organizations and expert evaluators in the particular subfields."

Also, "note that 64 eminent scientists -- well known, but not quite at the Nobel level."

We're talking of theoretical physicists who are at ordinary schools too.

To quote Steve Hsu again:

"The lowest score in each category among the 12 theoretical physicists would have been roughly V 160 (!) S 130 M >> 150."

It that's the worst of non-Nobel level but eminent scientists in theoretical physics, I'm pretty confident in my assertion that a faculty member in a top-5 Math department will be *significantly* better in terms of smarts.

--------------------------------------

Do also note that it is anyway not very smart to assume perfect normality for the distribution of *any* trait you see in a population. The only place where perfect normality exists is in theory, and that too with a statistic derived from infinitely many random variables:

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

"We could say that Brahmins are more of an intellectual elite, but different castes are comparable in economic attainment, in the U.S."

Pretty likely. Like I said, this might also be entirely cultural (smart Patel decided to write code for algorithmic trading instead of joining academia).

"Yes, people have a random selection of 0.5 of each of their parents' diploid genome and are not clones of their parents. So even if IQ genes are purely additive and heritability is 1.0, a population of children derived from two IQ 140 parents will not uniformly have 140 IQs - for the reason that they could, for example, completely randomly select a subset of each parents genes coding for either higher than average or lower than average IQ."

But there are also all kinds of genetic mutations that occur (some quite minor) and most of these would have the effect of lowering IQ (since most mutations are harmful). Also, just because kids inherit a random sample of their parents' high IQ genes, does not mean they inherrit the same COMBINATION of genes that made each of their parents so brilliant so kids would regress to the mean even if IQ was 100% genetic.

"I'm not entirely clear whether that changes the form or validity of the regression to the mean equation in the article (whatever measures we use to determine h and h2), I don't think it does and if not seems irrelevant to anything I am saying."

It underestimates the degree of regression.

"But there are also all kinds of genetic mutations that occur (some quite minor) and most of these would have the effect of lowering IQ (since most mutations are harmful)."

Ah. I see now that you were saying this earlier. True, and I did not acknowledge this (nor likewise dominance interactions that depart from purely additive effect, where two recessive major deleterious alleles coincide and give rise to a syndrome), but mutations with large effect on IQ are relatively rare (though less so for deleterious mutations as you have said) so I think this is not a huge factor (expect in those cases where a major deleterious mutation does occur).

"does not mean they inherrit the same COMBINATION of genes that made each of their parents so brilliant so kids would regress to the mean even if IQ was 100% genetic."

I've already stated this, as I have stated, on a population level (for a population of offspring and their expected value) I do not think it matters unless epistasis is important or dominance effects are frequent (and most IQ variation is as far as I can see according to experts, additive).

"It underestimates the degree of regression."

The degree to which it underestimates regression (in the population of offspring) still seems fairly marginal to me.

"Do also note that it is anyway not very smart to assume perfect normality for the distribution of *any* trait you see in a population."

The whole field of statistical hypothesis testing is based on the assumption of normal distributions. Obviously PERFECTLY normal distributions are seldom observed, but roughly normal distributions are the norm. When a trait deviates significantly from the normal distribution, there's usually an obvious explanation. For example, there are more men over seven feet tall than the normal distribution would predict, but that's because of rare pituitary disorders that override normal variation. Are there rare diseases that cause genius? Perhaps in the Ashkenazi population, but generally speaking diseases and disorders only lower IQ.

But in any event it's a moot point because intelligence is not measured on absolute scale like height or weight, so it's very hard to know it's true distribution. That's why modern IQ tests are NORMALIZED. That is people with scores that are higher than 98% of the population are ASSIGNED IQ's at the 2 sigma level, regardless of whether their scores actually fall at the 3 sigma, 4 sigma, or 10 sigma level. The scores are FORCED to fit the normal curve.


"The lowest score in each category among the 12 theoretical physicists would have been roughly V 160 (!) S 130 M >> 150."

These scores have ambiguous meaning because they are normed according to outdated ratio IQ's. On older tests, a 10 year old who scores like a 16 year old would have an IQ of 160 because 16/10 =1.6. A 10 year old who scores like a 22 year old would have an IQ of 220. These ancient ratio IQ's are normally distributed from about 70-130, but beyond those limits they become increasingly hard to interpret because they have different standard deviations at different ages and for different abilities, the relationship between mental ability and age is not linear across the full age spectrum etc.

A study using the modern IQ scale found that physics professors at the elite Cambridge university had IQ's from 112 to 136:

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/grady/emptypromise.html

To me that sounds too low to be accurate, but your numbers sound too high. The truth is probably in between.

@Linda,

The Roe scores were not normed using ratio IQs. They were cross normed using a population of Columbia grad students who took both Roe's high ceiling exams and standard IQ tests like the WAIS. Read the book.

"The whole field of statistical hypothesis testing is based on the assumption of normal distributions."

That's *SO* incorrect! Two points:

1. The assumption of normality, insofar as it is used for statistical inference, for what? *Not* for the population distribution. The only time the assumption of normality is invoked is when you use any of the versions of the central limit theorem that I linked to and have a statistic that is normally distributed.

2. There are statistics that are not normally distributed under the null hypothesis. A simple example is in multiple variable regression or in variable selection for such a regression. See:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~blackwel/ftests.pdf

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~gsimon/Pamphlets/MultipleRegressionModelSelectionCOLLECTION7APR08.pdf

"The scores are FORCED to fit the normal curve. "

This doesn't make sense either given the theoretical absence of symmetry in the distribution (a lower bound of zero on IQ and no corresponding upper bound). Further, even if I could force the distribution of whites to be normal with mean 100 and sigma 15, if you applied the very same scale on an arbitrary population (say, Africans), the distribution would not be expected to be normal. (Draw two arbitrary, unidentical pdfs and try your usual method).

"These scores have ambiguous meaning because they are normed according to outdated ratio IQ's. "

Any links to show that THIS result was based on an age normed distribution?

"The Roe scores were not normed using ratio IQs. They were cross normed using a population of Columbia grad students who took both Roe's high ceiling exams and standard IQ tests like the WAIS. Read the book."

This cite says the test was normed based on a 1930s version of the Binet test (a ratio scale in those days):

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Roe.aspx

The scores look like a ratio scale to me. Some of the scientists had IQ's in the mid 190s and that's unheard of on deviation scales like the WAIS.

"May I ask why the VDare white niggers strongly support deploying American troops, nuclear weapons, and stealth bombers to defend South Korea from North Korea but also think it's immoral for Jewish Americans to ask the US government for mere diplomatic support of Israel?"

Is everyone at Vdare for that? Buchanon? Is he for helping Libya?

Patels and Brahmins, to some extent, value different things too. Patels care more about money and prestige. Brahmins are more concerned about intellectual achievement, without neccessarily attaching a monetary value to it. Patels own motels (even if they have engineering degrees), while Brahmins design computer chips in San Jose. The Brahmin kids I know tend to be more on the nerdy side, while the Patels are manic in their desire to pursue medicine/dentistry and make $$$.

The more important observation is that middle caste and upper caste Indians are pretty similar in general in overall achievement in America. Even if Brahmins tend to do lot of intellectual heavy lifting that other castes have more trouble with.

In Indians, you have a population with a modest, though not low, mean IQ. A high amount of variance. Also, a strong work ethic, family system, frugal mindset, and material/status orientation. Which is why Sikhs do okay in the UK.

The comments to this entry are closed.