Diet & the aging process

David Sinclair seems like a really credible source on slowing down the ageing process because (a) he’s a Harvard professor and Harvard has their pick of the litter, and (b) he looks incredibly young for a 52-year-old. Of course some of his youthful appearance might just be genetics since high IQ people tend to be very skinny and neotenous.

Image found here

One of the reason I like him is he believes in eating only one meal a day which I love because I’d much rather have a big meal while I’m binging on netflix on the couch then have a dozen small snacks that I can’t enjoy because I need to be back at work 10 minutes later. He’s also a huge fan of fasting which I love because it allows you to compensate for overindulging on the weekend which I need to do. He also hates exercise just like me.

He also drinks diet coke! My dad’s always sending me emails about the hazards of diet soda, but I love diet coke because it gets me through my fasting days. I can’t drive a car for any length of time without getting my diet coke fix from the McDonald’s drive through (the best diet coke on Earth, so refreshing with all the ice) but sadly I have to bring my own straw now because they’ve got environmentally friendly with the paper straws.

He also believes plants are healthier than meat. This is reminiscent of Rushton’s r/K theory in that meat build muscles and energy which helps you attract women and leave lots of offspring (r strategy) but plant allows you to live a long life. That’s fine too because I’m loving me Harvey’s veggie burgers and Burger King’s plant based whopper, and I’ve even taken to plant based omelets that you just put in the toaster. This was my breakfast several weeks ago:

Below is a clip from an interview with David Sinclair:

Revisiting Jewish brain size

Ashkenazi professor’s cranium holds its own compared to those of far more robust monster men in the Upper Paleolithic

The below passage is from the 1911 book The Jews: A Study of Race and Environment
By Maurice Fishberg (hat-tip to blogger n/a):

One of the methods of determining the volume of the brain case, and approximately the weight of the brain, is the determination of the cranial capacity. Very few direct measurements of this kind have been taken, because only few Jewish skulls have found their way into anthropological museums, where they could be studied carefully. But from the few studies of this character that have been made, it appears that the Jews are somewhat at a disadvantage. Lombroso’s studies of the Jews in Turin, Italy, which were made in an indirect fashion, showed that the Jews have a smaller cranial capacity than the Catholics of that city.2 Weinberg collected measurements of seventeen Jewish skulls in various museums of Europe, which were made properly, and are not approximations. The average cranial capacity was 1421 c.cm., which is about thirty to forty c.cm. below the average cranial capacity of the population of Europe. Of course the small number of skulls thus measured is not sufficient to draw positive conclusions.

But the average cranial capacity is nowhere near 40 cc (cubic centimeters) above 1421 (1461 cc) in Europe, and certainly wasn’t in 1911. For example based on Beals, Smith, and Dodd’s (1984), collation of 20,000 skull size measures, Lynn (2006) reported the following crania data for Europeans and other peoples:

beals
Lynn, 2006

One reason for the huge discrepancy might be the method used. For example most of Beals, Smith and Dodd’s data Lynn says he used was obtained by mechanical packing with mustard seed. However they note that historically, the main method was filling the cranium with shot, but this method became obsolete because it yielded results that were 6% too high.

Given that Fishberg’s book was written in 1911, he likely is reporting on shot values which thus need to be reduced by 6%. Doing so reduces the Jewish value to 1341 cc which is indeed below the European mean.

But keep in mind that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from a hybrid population that was about 40% Middle Eastern and 60% mostly European (Atzmon et al, 2010). Given 1369 cc for Europeans and 1293 cc for South Asians & North Africans (SANA), the ancestral population likely averaged (0.6)1293 + (0.4)1369 = 1324 cc so there’s been an increase of perhaps 17 cc.

What was the average IQ of the ancestral population? Richard Lynn put Europeans at 99 and SANAs at 84, but he also put sub-Saharan Africans at an absurdly low 67 but noted that living in the Third World depressed their IQs by 13 points. Most SANA don’t quite live in the Third World, so lets say their IQs are depressed by half that, and raise them to 92 (note: no such adjustment is made for brain size because that data mostly comes from before 1940 when even the First World was malnourished).

Expected IQ of ancestral population: 0.6(92) + 0.4(99) = 55.2 + 36.8 = 95

On a scale where British, American & Australian whites average IQ 100 (SD = 15), today’s Ashkenazi Jews average 110. In other words, their IQ seems to have increased by about 1 standard deviation in the last 700 years, probably because of intense natural selection to earn a living in high IQ occupations (Cochran, Hardy & Harpending, 2006).

Assuming a 0.4 correlation between IQ and brain size (Gignac & Bates, 2017), selection for a 1 SD increase in intelligence should cause about (0.4)(1 SD) = 0.4 SD increase in IQ. Given the within sex standard deviation for cranial capacity is about 91 cc, we should expect the brain size of Ashkenazi Jews to have increased by 0.4(91 cc) = 36 cc

So the actual brain size increase has been about half as much as the actual increase but given these are all very rough numbers, we shouldn’t expect perfect agreement.

When did triple digit IQ populations first appear?

The first fully modern human skull appears in sub-Saharan Africa about 195,000 years go. It probably belonged to a population with an average IQ around 80. But it was surrounded by archaic humans with IQs in the 70s or less.

It wasn’t until about 70,000 years ago that the second fully modern human skull appears in the fossil record. It seems fully moderns (IQ 80+) were incredibly rare for our first 125,000 years.

About 70,000 years ago, modern humans began a massive exodus out of Africa. Richard Klein believes a sudden increase in intellect allowed this exodus. I believe this exodus is what caused the sudden increase in intellect, because by leaving the tropics, we had to be smart enough to survive the cold, something we hadn’t done in over 25 million years.

By 40,000 years ago, the first humans had reached the arctic and around the same time, real art first appears in the archeological record. The first populations with a mean IQ in the triple digits had appeared:

Art from 39,000 years ago

Some would stay in Europe and become the Whites. Others would freeze further and become 103 IQ Northeast Asians.

Some would cross over to the New World where they became the Native Americans. This tiny group found two whole fertile continents all to themselves that was teaming with Megafauna that had never before been hunted. These huge beasts were so easy to catch that folks didn’t need their triple digit IQs to survive and since the brain is so metabolically expensive, they began to regress to an IQ of 86. A rare evolutionary reversal.

There’s been virtually no further change in human IQ in the last 10,000 years with the exception of Ashkenazi Jews (and perhaps some casts in India) who rapidly evolved to IQ 110 during the last few millennia.

It’s only a small exaggeration to say our species stopped evolving 40,000 years ago.

And yet look how much the World has changed since then. Because of the cultural leap that occurred 40,000 years ago, humans are the only species with an extended phenotype that constantly reinvents itself, even in the face of genotypic stagnation.

World’s most influential woman throws her weight around: DO WHAT YOU’RE TOLD, BITCH!

The Daily Mail reports:

Sen. Joe Manchin is taking heat from all sides as he resists eliminating the last stalwart against the Democratic agenda, the filibuster, including some of the biggest names in America. 

Manchin has told colleagues his phone has been lighting up with calls in recent days, including from former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

But when both men failed to persuade the stubborn senator, the big Kahuna herself decided to pick up the phone and show the former Presidents how it’s done.

While Oprah is knowing for crying on TV and giving away free stuff to audience members, she did not become the World’s ONLY black billionaire (from 2004 to 2006) and the most influential woman alive, without knowing how to play hardball.

From deep within her $100 million Santa-Barbara mansion she likely yelled “get Joe Manchin on the phone”

When his assistant picked up, she was likely informed he was busy.

“It’s Oprah Winfrey,” she likely said.

“Right away, Mam!” the nervous assistant likely replied.

When Manchin raced to the phone she might have said:

“Fix the filibuster, BITCH! Otherwise you gona be known as dat white bitch!”

Guest post by Illumanticatblog

The following is a guest post by Illumanaticatblog. The views in this article do not necessarily reflect those of pumpkin person

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The criteria for iq is arbitrary. decisions or what you do with information is extremely important not just how much you have. that is why the brain builds models of things and performed operations on them to get results. iq tests only show superficial results. different people have different operation sets. what we learn influences them.

adapt and turn to your advantage is not iq test measurable. there are so many things to adapt to the tests are limited in scope.

So intelligence is performing operations on a model of something. This is precisely how goals are planned and achieved. But it also means one preference of goals decides if one is high or low based on execution. A hard goal can only be done by a high intelligence person. The number or range of goals achievable, easy and hard is IQ.

Jerry

IQ 100
Goal: Become famous

Mordecai the blue jay, and Rigby the raccoon

IQ 105
Goal: deliver lunch

Morty and Summer

IQ 110
Goal: finish school

Catra and Adora

IQ 115
Goal: save their friendship

Spiderman

IQ 120
Goal: save new york city

Optimus Prime

IQ 125
Goal: save earth from the Decepticons

Matt Stone and Trey Parker

IQ 130
Goal: write a popular tv show

Twilight Sparkle

IQ 135
Goal: use friendship to save Equestria

Beth

IQ 140
Goal: keep her marriage and family together

Oprah Winfrey

IQ 145
Goal: run a media empire

Hell Boy

IQ 150
Goal: fight the forces of darkness

Thanos

IQ 155
Goal: population control

Jeff Bezos

IQ 160
Goal: run a planetary delivery system

Professor Xavier

IQ 165
Goal: prevent a war between humans and mutants

Issac Asimov

IQ 170
Goal: use math to predict the future of human civilization

Rick Sanchez

IQ 175
Goal: save his daughter with the portal gun

Uber Morlock

IQ 180
Goal: survive the moon crash

Ray Kurzweil

IQ 185
create superintelligence

Stephen Wolfram

IQ 190
Goal: solve physics

Horde Prime

IQ 195
Goal: rule the universe

Dr. Alexander Hartdegen

IQ 200
Goal: reverse time to prevent the death of his lover

Time magazine’s most influential LIVING people of ALL TIME (2021 edition)

(this list is incomplete and is being updated in real time)

METHOD

To make this list I looked at all the living people who had ever been Time’s person of the year, person of the decade, person of the century, or included on Time’s list of the 100 most influential people of the year, the century, or all time. Points were allotted as follows:

One of the 100 most influential of the year = 0.01 points

Person of the year: 1 point

Person of the year 1st runner up: 0.5 points

Person of the year 2nd runner up: 0.33 points, etc…

One of the 100 most influential of the century = 1 point

Person of the decade = 10 points

Person of the half-century = 50 points

Person of the century = 100 points

One of the hundred most influential people of all time = 50 points (since recorded history is 5000 years and there are 100 people)

If they shared any of these honors with someone else, the points got divided by the number of people. So for example James Watson got 1 point for being one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century and got 50 points for being one of the 100 most influential people of all time, but since both honors were shared with Francis Crick, his total was 25.5 points making him the most influential living person ever (according to the collective wisdom of the World’s most prestigious magazine).

NUMBER 1: JAMES WATSON 25.5 POINTS

Launching the genetic revolution is the most influential event since the discovery of agriculture; actually more so because it will mark the end of our species. Woke Time magazine would be horrified that they accidentally told the truth in ranking an HBDer so high (by my scoring method, at least).

NUMBER 2: Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev 13 points

Caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, dramatically changing the trajectory of World history.

NUMBER 3 & 4: THE LIVING BEATLES (12.75 points each)

Created the most loved art of all time, and inspired history’s most influential generation to change the World.

Number 5: Donald Trump 3.37 points

Woke Time magazine would be horrified to learn they’ve ranked Donald Trump above the media’s golden boy Barack Obama, especially since Obama was named person of the year twice and Trump only earned that title once. However the partial credits Trump earns from being runner-up so frequently allowed him to overtake his predecessor in cumulative influence. Whether for better or for worse, his impact on the World has been enormous.

Number 6: Barack Obama 2.11 points

Arguably the first black (or near-black) in recorded history to be the most powerful person on Earth. Helped bring dignity, pride, inspiration and status to an entire human race. Helped save America from war with Iran and helped make Israel a partisan issue.

Number 7: George W. Bush 2.04 points

Was convinced by the neocons to invade the Middle East, which arguably was the beginning of the end for America’s status as the World’s sole superpower.

Number 8: Lech Walesa 2 points

He led a pro-democratic movement which in ended Communist rule in Poland helping to end the Cold War.

Number 9: Bill Clinton 1.535 points

Led the U.S. through a period of peace and prosperity. Helped make the Democratic party more friendly to business interests.

Number 10: Vladimir Putin 1.39

Helped Russia regain its status as a major World power and counter to U.S. dominance.

Number 11: Bill Gates 1.36

As an entrepreneur he helped launch the computer revolution & as a philanthropist, he changed the face of global health care.

Number 12: Oprah 1.1 points

Invented a more intimate touchy-feely form of media communication. Popularized a genre of talk shows that discussed taboo topics like addiction, infidelity and gays. By creating a culture of confession, helped lead millions of abuse survivors to recovery. Credited with bringing literature to the masses and helping put a black family in the White House.

Number 13: Angela Merkel 1.08 points

Transformed the face of Germany by welcoming a record number of refugees.

Number 14: Pope Francis 1.06 points

Shook up the church with huge symbolic change. Started a commission to look into the church’s sexual abuse problem.

Number 15: Jeff Bezos 1.05 points

Transformed the way we buy things, making shopping a store obsolete.

Number 16: Mark Zuckerberg 1.04 points

Helped lead the revolution from traditional media to social media.

Number 17: Elon Musk 1.04 points

Transformed the World by founding SpaceX in 2002, helping create alternative energy company SolarCity and Tesla, the world’s most valuable car company.

Number 18: Ben Bernanke 1.01 points

Changed U.S. monetary policy and led an effort to rescue the global economy in 2009.

Number 19: Steven Spielberg 1.01 points

Life magazine called him “our Homer and our Hans Christian Anderson,”; films like “E.T.,” “Jurassic Park” and “Schindler’s List.” have shaped the hearts and minds of millions.

Number 20: Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 1.01 points

Created music that inspired the World’s most powerful generation to seek social change.

Number 21: Greta Thunberg 1.01 points

Inspired millions of humans to stand up for the environment.

Number 22: Jimmy Carter 1 point

Had an unusually peaceful presidency that impacted the World.

Number 23: Queen Elizabeth 1 point

Symbolized tradition for several generations in a changing World.

Number 24: David Ho 1 point

His scientific research helped millions survive AIDS

Number 25: Newt Gingrich 1 point

Led a conservative revolution, turning both houses of congress Republican in the 1990s for the first time in several decades.

Just binge watched over 100 hours of Gilmore Girls

I just watched all seven seasons, plus the unofficial season eight which aired on Netflix nine years after the official show ended. I am now an official Gilmore Girls expert.

The show revolves around Rory Gilmore and her mother Lorelai, two brilliant ultra upper-class beautiful young girls who grew up in the idyllic town of Stars Hollow, Connecticut. Because Lorelai had Rory as a teenager (a huge scandal for the upper class), the two look and behave more like sisters than like mother and daughter.

Because Rory, is too pretty, charming, intelligent and upper-class for Stars Hollow, yet is nonetheless super nice to everyone, the whole town worships her and is super protective when any guy tries to date her. Meanwhile, because her mother screwed up her life by getting pregnant as a teen (by an upper class boy), Rory’s grandparents are especially protective of Rory because they see her as their second chance to raise a daughter right, and make sure she attends Harvard, Princeton, or preferably Yale since that’s where granddad went.

One of the themes of the show is that no one is good enough to date Rory. Even when she gets a boyfriend who the town considers super tall and good looking, the grandparents humiliate him for not being a good enough student for their precious Rory.

It’s interesting that the only girl in Stars Hollow worthy of being friends with this cream of the crop pale skinned, delicate boned, blue eyed white girl is a second generation Korean immigrant named Lane Kim, (virtually the only non-white in the whole town) thus fitting Rushton’s theory that Orientals are genetically superior.

Lane eventually rebels from her strict religious mother and joins a rock band, while Rory heads off to Yale to become the super star journalist she’s destined to be.

The show has only one black character, Michelle, a stereotypical French gay man with a thick accent, who was supposed to escort Lorelai to Lane’s wedding, but blows her off to attend a Celine Dion concert. .

Michelle’s charming misanthropy and refusal to obey his boss Lorelai is reminiscent of the black butler Benson on 1970s sit-com Soap. Although he is flaming, it was still apparently too edgy to have a character who was both black and gay by the early 2000s so the show kept his sexuality unconfirmed until the unofficial season 8 in 2016.

One interesting thing about the unofficial season 8, which is set 10 years after the official series ended, is we discover Rory didn’t exactly live up to all that early promise. This fits with regression to the mean. Perfect and super brilliant kids tend to slide towards mediocrity in adulthood.

Commenter Pill lacks social IQ

Commenter Pill (aka Philosopher) lacks social IQ. He thinks that bashing another guy’s head with a beer bottle impresses women (seriously).

When he first said this years ago, I told him that such behavior would actually scare women, and former commenter Afro (who I disagreed with on many topics), but who was quite experienced with women, concurred.

But because of low social IQ, Pill simply ignored our advice, thinking he knew better.

So I decided to do a bit of research and found a study where male students from the University of South Florida were asked to estimate how aggressively the ideal man (as judged by women) would react to different scenarios.

Participants completed questionnaires alone or in small groups. The first part of this questionnaire asked participants to read three scenarios involving interpersonal conflicts between men, intended to present a variety of conflicts. In the version of the questionnaire given to men, participants were asked to imagine themselves as the victims in the confrontations. In the female version, women were asked to imagine themselves as observers of the altercations between the men. This allowed us to compare how men thought women would react to male aggression with women’s actual reactions. In the first scenario, a man gets bumped at a party and the man who bumps him calls him an ‘‘asshole.” In the second scenario a man and his girlfriend are repeatedly harassed while attending a
football game (female respondents were asked to imagine themselves as the girlfriend in this scenario). The third scenario described a couple at a mall food court whose seats are stolen, who
then get insulted when they try to reclaim them (women were again asked to imagine themselves as the girlfriend).

Following each scenario, men were asked … what a woman would think the ideal man should do.
For each question, respondents chose one of six behavioral responses that ranged from non-aggressive to progressively more aggressive: … 1.21 = Walk away without responding/Ignore it,
1.79 = Laugh it off, 3.79 = Make a verbal retort, 4.43 = Get in the guy’s
face without making physical contact, 5.04 = Push the guy,
6.00 = Punch the guy

men predicted that women would like more aggressive responses than women themselves reported preferring (men’s guesses about women = 3.47 [1.01]…women’s own responses = 2.65

Notice that punching the guy is a level 6 on the aggression scale, but pill thinks the most attractive response is smashing a guy’s head in with beer bottle which would be like a level 8. So Pill’s estimate is 4.49 SD higher than the average man’s which is already too high. But because university of South Florida men are likely somewhat above average in social intelligence, the true figure might be 4 SD on a more representative sample.

Of course there’s a lot more to social intelligence than judging appropriate levels of aggression so it’s unlikely that Pill’s overall social IQ is anywhere near as low as this study suggests.

It’s also unlikely Pill will be convinced his answer is wrong and instead will think a woman’s true response to male aggression can’t be measured by such an artificial study involving hypothetical scenarios. Indeed he will likely rationalize by thinking the study itself, and those of us who cite it, are socially unintelligent.

Believing in God vs believing in life on other planets

For generations, scientists have scoffed at the idea of God as a silly superstition, and yet if you ask these same scientists whether they believe in life on other planets, many would say something like “of course, when you consider the sheer numbers of habitable planets in the universe, the odds of alien life is extremely high”.

But you can’t calculate odds just from knowing the denominator; you also need to know the numerator, and so far we have only one example of life emerging from nothing (biogenesis): Earth. And until we find a second example of biogenesis, we don’t know if it’s a once in a solar system event, or a once in a galaxy event, or even a once in a universe event.

Scientists will say life began early in Earth’s existence, so this suggests it’s a common event. But the mere fact that Earth has intelligent life means it must have started early enough for our complex minds to have evolved, so the fact that life started early on Earth is just another way of saying complex life exists on Earth. Still tells us nothing about the probability of complex or even simple life existing anywhere else.

Since we have no way of knowing whether the denominator is small enough to make alien life probable, and it’s only one of two possibilities, there’s a 50% chance of alien life.

Thus agnosticism is the only intelligent answer to the question of life on other planets.

What about God? We have no way of knowing whether whatever events caused the universe did so intentionally, so perhaps there’s also a 50% chance of God existing.

So even though belief in life on other planets is considered way more rational than belief in God, both are equally probable. And yet, people who believe in alien life are almost certainly more intelligent on average. Probably because alien belief is generally arrived at through reasoning while theism is arrived at through faith.

The IQs of Australian Aboriginals adopted by whites Part 2: Quantity Conservation

In part 1 of this series I described an extremely important study where 35 children of varying degrees of Australoid ancestry, adopted into ordinary white homes in Adelaide, South Australia, were intelligence tested. One of the tests used was called “Conservation of Quantity” and is based on Jean Piaget’s theory that the human mind develops through stages. For example, very young children and very retarded adults, think that if you dump a cup of tea into a tall and skinny glass, causing the water to stretch out, you suddenly have more tea. They may also think that if you take some cookie dough and flatten into a really big circle, you suddenly have more cookie. Or they may think that if you take 4 pennies, and spread them apart on the table so they take up more space, you suddenly have more pennies.

However as the mind matures, we suddenly understand this is nonsense. Substances conserve their amount regardless of the form they take. What makes this a great intelligence test is that very few of us are ever taught conservation, but at a certain age we just get it, like the kid in this quick video.

An interesting question is do we get it because life experience teaches us, or do we get it because of the physical maturation of the brain? I suspect a toddler could play with water everyday for a year and never grasp conservation, but an adult, who was raised with no exposure to liquid (he drank only from a straw from a lidded cup and thus never saw it) or any other malleable substance, would immediately grasp it, simply because his brain was neurologically developed.

I don’t know the exact questions the kids in the study were asked but the results can be crudely inferred from the below graph. I may have to revise some of these numbers since reading from a graph is not an exact science, but it seems that at age eight, 87% of white kids tested in Canberra, Australia in 1969, grasped quantity conservation but only about 18% of Australian aboriginals tested the same year at Hermannsburg mission did. Assuming both groups formed a bell curve with similar variance, that suggests the Australoid bell curve is 2.07 standard deviations to the left of the white one.

At age nine, it seems 97% of white kids grasp quantity conservation, but only 38% of Australoids do, however among the Adelaide sample (largely hybridized Australoids adopted by whites), about 72% do. From these data, it seems the white > Australoid gap is 2.2 SD, while the white > mixed Australoids raised by whites gap is 1.3 SD. At age 10, there’s no data for the mixed race adopted Australoids, but only 27% of the traditional Australoids do while 97% of whites do, suggesting a gap of 2.47 SD.

At age seven, 67% of the whites grasped quantity conservation while 50% of the part-white Australoids adopted by whites did, suggesting a gap of 0.47 SD. The percentage of traditional Australoids who grasped it this young is too small to measure.

Source: Dasen, P. R., de Lacey, P. R., & Seagrim, G. N. (1973). Reasoning ability in adopted and fostered Aboriginal children. In G. E. Kearney, P. R. de Lacey, & G. R. Davidson (Eds.), The psychology of Aboriginal Australians, (pp. 97-104). Sydney: Wiley.

Averaging the data, the whites scored 2.25 SD higher than traditional Australoids, and 0.89 SD above the part-white Australoids raised by whites.

However the paper notes, “Canberra children, forming the comparison group for conservation of quantity, tend to come from relatively high-socioeconomic levels of the population”. By contrast the paper noted that the adopted part-white Australoids were raised by typical whites and I assume, the traditional Australoids were raised by typical Australoids.

In 2016, about 36% of the Canberra population (age 15+) had a Bachelor Degree level education or higher, compared to 22% for Australia as a whole. While I don’t have stats from circa 1970, assuming its education rank has been stable, the average Canberra adult was about 0.47 SD above the average Australian, and given about a 0.7 correlation between IQ and education, about 0.47(0.7) = 0.33 SD smarter than the average Australian, and given the 0.5 correlation between the IQs of parents and their kids, the children were likely 0.33(0.5) = 0.16 SD smarter than the average Australian (white kid).

So because Canberra kids were used as the white sample, we need to reduce their scores by 0.16 SD to adjust for their above average IQs. Thus the true white > traditional Australoid IQ gap becomes 2.09 SD (31 IQ points) and the true white > part-white & raised white Australoid gap becomes 0.73 SD (11 IQ points).

The IQ of Australoids raised by whites is an estimate of the genetic IQ of Australian aboriginals, and as mentioned, they score 11 points below whites. However because these had only 58% Australoid ancestry (on average) the expected IQ of an unmixed Australoid raised by whites would be 11/0.58 = 19 points below the white mean, or IQ 81.

Conclusion

On a scale where white Australians average IQ 100 (SD = 15) on a test of quantity conservation, the average unmixed Australian aboriginal likely scored about IQ 69 (1.9 percentile of the white distribution). However if raised in the same environment as whites, their IQ increases to 81, suggesting about 61% of the white > Australoid IQ gap is genetic. The effect of adoption at near infancy from a traditional fringe dwelling Australoid family into an average white family is to raise IQ by 12 points which is actually a lot considering how culture-fair conservation tests are thought to be (by some).

But perhaps not this one. The paper states: “the subject has to be able to justify his conclusions with fairly sophisticated explanations. Those children demonstrating conservation but unable to justify it receive a lower classification than those who can justify it”

Still, the effect of adoption is much less on this test than it was on the Picture Vocabulary test discussed in part one, so it’s a relatively culture fair test.