Barack Obama senior, who obtained a Harvard economics A.M. is an extreme example of the higher intelligence of immigrants from Africa
http://www.appletree.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama_2%5B/caption%5D
Recently it was brought to my attention by commenter “Swanknasty” that black populations in Britain are scoring quite well on IQ tests. I assume Swanknasty learned about this issue from the Occidentalist blog
I believe the above chart can be found here. On non-verbal reasoning (presumably the most culture reduced test) British whites scored 101.3 (standard deviation (SD) = 14.3) and British black Africans scored 94.1. For consistency, race scholar Richard Lynn calculates all IQs in reference to British whites, defined as having a mean of 100, and an SD of 15, so with reference to the British white distribution, British black Africans would have a mean IQ of 92:
100 – [(101.3 – 94.1)/14.3](15)
An IQ of 92 is quite high for population of African immigrants because scientist Richard Lynn estimated the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans to be 67. However Lynn believes that bad environment (i.e. malnutrition) depresses the mean IQ of sub-Saharan Africa by 13 points, and that they actually have a genetic IQ of 80; a bit lower than the IQ of 85 Lynn found for African Americans, who Lynn felt got a 5 point IQ boost from their white admixture.
So if the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is 67, and if their genetic IQ is 80, why do Africans in Britain score 92?
Extreme selection for education
It’s important to understand just how highly selected African immigrants in Britain are. While only one in a 100 children in South Africa grow up to graduate from college, an astonishing 40% of Britain’s Africans have college degrees. This suggests that Africans who migrate to Britain are 2.07 SD more educated than the average sub-Saharan.
On page 291, of The g Factor, scientist Arthur Jensen writes: “In general, the number of years of education, for example, is correlated .60 to .70 with IQ.” Given that immigrants from Africa are +2.07 SD more educated than the general sub-Saharan population, and assuming IQ and education also correlate 0.65 in sub-Saharan Africa, simple regression predicts that immigrants from Africa will have IQs 0.65(2.07 SD) = 1.35 SD above the sub-Saharan mean. Assuming sub-Saharan Africans have a mean IQ of 67 and an SD of 15, this would give Africans immigrants in Britain a theoretical IQ of 87 just based on education alone.
Immigrants from Africa are way more prosperous than most sub-Saharan Africans
Africans who migrate to Britain are not just way more educated than the average African, they are also much, much richer, just by virtue of the fact that they have moved to Britain. As of 2008, 50% of sub-Saharan Africa lives on no more than a $1.25 a day. By contrast, only about one in 22,000 people in the UK live in comparable levels of poverty. Thus, simply by virtue of migrating to Britain, African immigrants are likely an astonishing +3.93 SD richer than the general sub-Saharan population (on average). According to Jensen, the correlation between IQ and income is 0.4. Assuming this applies in sub-Saharan Africa, we would expect those Africans adaptable enough to migrate to a place as rich as Britain to have an IQ of 0.4(3.93 SD) = +1.57 SD above the sub-Saharan mean of 67. In other words, an IQ of 91 would be expected, just based on income alone (assuming their incomes are typical of the British population as a whole).
But African immigrants are not just educated and rich; they’re BOTH!
Based on education alone, African immigrants in Britain should have a mean IQ of 87. Based on income alone, they should have a mean IQ of 91. But the fact that they are multi-talented enough to acquire both education and income implies they might be smarter still. How much smarter? In order to answer that question, we must apply a technique called multiple regression first taught to me by a member of Prometheus. Since we know the correlation between IQ and education is 0.65, and the correlation between IQ and income is 0.4, and assuming the correlation between education and income is also about 0.4, the following standardized regression formula can be built which estimates the predictive value of education and income, independent of one another.
IQ = 0.58(education) + 0.17(income)
So African immigrants in Britain, being +2.07 SD above sub-Saharans in education, and +3.93 SD in income, would have an expected IQ of:
IQ = 0.58(2.07 SD) + 0.17(3.93 SD)
IQ = 1.2 SD + 0.67 SD
IQ = 1.87 SD
In other words, based on their education and income together, we should expect African immigrants in Britain to be 1.87 SD smarter than the general sub-Saharan population, or roughly IQ 95.
How smart would their kids be?
If two typical African immigrants (IQ 95) in Britain had kids with one another, the mid-parent IQ (i.e. the average IQ of the two parents) would be 95. According to scientist Steve Hsu, the mid-parent-child IQ correlation is 0.6, so the children of two African immigrants would be only 60% as cognitively extreme as their parents on average. If African immigrants are 28 points smarter than sub-Saharan Africans on average, the IQ of their kids should be 28(0.6) = 17 points above the sub-Saharan African average. Thus 67 + 17 = 84
But if the children of these African immigrants are not born and conceived in sub-Saharan Africa, but in Britain which has much better nutrition and living standards, their IQs should be 13 points higher than they would have been in Africa. Thus:
84 + 13 = 97
Thus the children of Britain’s African immigrants should average somewhere between 84 and 97, depending on whether they’re first, second, or third generation.
Now if an African immigrant (IQ 95) mates with a white (IQ 100), the African parent would be 28 points smarter than his race, and the white parent’s IQ would 0 points smarter than her race, so on average, they are 14 points smarter than their race. Thus the IQ of their mullato kids would be 14(0.6)= 8 points smarter than the mulatto mean. The mean white has an IQ of 100 and the mean African has an IQ of 67. But as mentioned, the African IQ of 67 is depressed by malnutrition and black Africa’s genetic IQ is likely 80, so averaging this with the white mean of 100 gives 90 as the genetic mean of mulattoes. So the children of African immigrants who mate with whites would have an IQ of:
90 + 8 = 98
[caption width="3598" align="alignnone"]
British actress & Cambridge grad Thandie Newton is an example of a brilliant mulatto who’s black half is an immigrant from Africa
Are African IQs really depressed by 13 points?
Some readers may dispute the idea that African IQs are depressed by 13 points, especially at the high end from which immigrants come. As noted above, the estimate is based on the fact that African Americans (without white admixture) have an IQ around 80 according to Lynn (13 points higher than the IQ of 67 Lynn finds in black Africa). The notion that black Africans have phenotypes nearly 1 SD below the phenotypes they would have had if born in the developed world is consistent with the fact that West Africans are several inches shorter than African Americans, as blogger Steve Sailer brilliantly noted many years ago.
But are elite Africans also nearly 1 SD below their genetic potential or does sub-optimum nutrition only impair the left half of the curve? I would argue that the effect is roughly similar across virtually the entire distribution. For example President Obama is roughly average height for a living American president and yet he towers over African leaders:
U.S. President Barack Obama (bottom row, C) waits to depart with other leaders after a family photo for the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit at the U.S. State Department in Washington, August 6, 2014. (Larry Downing/Courtesy Reuters)
This demonstrates that even Africa’s elite suffers from sub-optimal nutrition and are thus significantly shorter than elites in the developed world. Furthermore, in the 19th century, British phenotypes were significantly depressed by malnutrition, and this extended to the upper classes. British scientist Francis Galton collected height data on various occupations and found that males aged 26+ of the Professional occupation (which was very elite in those days) averaged 67.91 inches tall (see table 10 in HBD Chick’s blog post) which is well below the average of young white men today and probably even more below the average if compared to today’s elite young white men. This is strong evidence that in malnourished societies, all social classes are afflicted.
ahhh…the joy of cognitive dissonance.
but…cognitive dissonance can only afflict those with cognition of some kind.
so what’s bumpkin person’s problem?
ignorance is bliss.
david rudisha 6’3″.
obikwelu 6’5″
runners selected for height, just like US presidents.
meanwhile back on planet earth…
For example, tax records from 2000 show that his institute received $473,835 — 73% of that year’s grants. By 2009, the fund was giving about $100,000 annually to Rushton through his university. As of 2009, the fund still had some $2 million to disburse, but its donor base had fallen to one man, Walter Kistler, an aged aeronautics pioneer…Rushton transferred half the assets of the Pioneer Fund to his Charles Darwin Research Institute…The Pioneer website said that Rushton had left the Charles Darwin Research Institute in the control of his son, Stephen Rushton…Sometime in the last year, the website for the Charles Darwin Research Institute went offline.
you can’t make this stuff up.
obikwelu 6’5″
Had he been born in the developed world, he would have been 6’8″ and his IQ would have been 13 points higher.
runners selected for height, just like US presidents.
Which is why I compared Obama to other leaders, who were also selected for height.
Bullshit conjecture based on nothing.
High SES immigrants are NOT malnourished.
were they?
the tallness of American presidents is a fact. of other heads of state idk.
let’s see…
obama-san vs dutch PM Rutte…one big dude…the Dutch are the tallest in Europe. but that guy to the left is former PM of Denmark…hmmm…must’ve shrunk.
but Obama towers of Hollande and is slightly taller than Matteo Renzi and etc.
High SES immigrants are NOT malnourished.
Yes they are. Sub-optimum nutrition transcends social class. I see second generation Indian-Canadians, the children of rich doctors, who are a foot taller than their dads.
The effects of nutrition are very subtle. Scientists don’t even understand what specific nutrients are behind the 20th century rise in height.
You haven’t shown any 1 SD of malnutrition and you know it. The best we could expect are gradual gains.
Further the BW mating trend is not as you described.
You can assume I got it from whatever stupid HBD blog all you like it’s data that is widely available.
and the effect of heterosis on height?
ian khama like Obama is half white. how tall is he?
and of course there’s this little thing…not all Africans are the same…in fact, they’re more diverse at genetic level than any of the so-called races of man.
Kagame’s wife is a giant or is wearing super high heels.
the tallness of American presidents is a fact. of other heads of state idk.
Why would it be unique to America? Actually Canada has the tallest leader in the G20:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2832487/They-political-giants-tall-world-leaders-Putin-s-shorter-looks-Obama-towers-Tony-Abbott-Canada-s-PM-stands-rest-G20.html
Anthropologists are always saying that the preference for tall leaders goes back millions of years. And you think it’s some American thing?
pp is an idiot.
“they” don’t know what the specific nutrients are because there aren’t any.
1. the height gains have almost nothing to do diet and almost everything to do with infection and parasite load.
2. the western diet promotes IGF. it’s not that nutrients formally unavailable are now available. it’s that the diet is unnatural and promotes IGF. so with greater height also comes acne.
nope. it just looks that way? Rutte is only 6’1″? or Obama is under 6′.
putin must’ve been malnourished inthe old Soviet Union right?
and the effect of heterosis on height?
There haven’t been many studies but in theory heterosis should improve height, IQ brain size, reaction speed, chest circumference…all of the traits that are depressed by inbreeding. The Darwinian fitness traits, Jensen called them, though biologists would go ballistic.
and of course there’s this little thing…not all Africans are the same…in fact, they’re more diverse at genetic level than any of the so-called races of man.
Diversity at the genetic level doesn’t necessarily translate into diversity at the phenotypic level. There’s a reason scientists used to use the term “junk DNA”
But of course not all Africans are the same. Ideally one should compare the heights of West African elites to African American elites, particularly African Americans with limited white admixture
pp is an idiot.
I’m not. You are.
1. the height gains have almost nothing to do diet and almost everything to do with infection and parasite load.
As I already explained to you, but you were incapable of understanding or remembering, those variables affect the efficiency with which the body uses nutrients and thus are subsumed under nutrition.
You haven’t shown any 1 SD of malnutrition and you know it. The best we could expect are gradual gains.
Go to the wikipedia article on human height. It lists average heights around the world. In West African countries men are typically no taller than 5’7″ which is more than one SD shorter than their genetic counterparts in the United States. The average young African American man is about 5’10” with an SD of about 2.58″
i both understood and remembered it pp.
like i said you’re an idiot.
the problem with infection and parasites isn’t missing nutrients.
The wiki does not tell us about high SES immigrants. Like I said…groundless
What is amusing is that blogger seems to have also renounced a strong genetic hypothesis
So we can add biology to the long list of subjects Jorge Videla knows nothing about.
yet another confirmation of the theory…
stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
long list?…hmmm…my age quotient score on information was 200 at age 9.
damn! if only that horse hadn’t kicked me in the head.
The wiki does not tell us about high SES immigrants. Like I said…groundless
It proves the countries they come from are malnourished. The onus is on you to prove these immigrants are the exception not the rule
omg. i get it now.
it really doesn’t matter what one says, because pp can’t understand it. and she has no short term memory.
she interpreted:
the problem with infection and parasites isn’t missing nutrients.
to mean, in pp-speak.
infection and parasites don’t impair the absorption of nutrients.
i’m going to have to brush up on my baby talk. but only so much can be expressed in this, pp’s idiolect.
Already met the burden: 1/3 of Africa is malnourished. No reason to think the top end is so.
Now it shifts to you. Meet it or pipe down.
US presidents and the effect of “nutrition” on the entire bell curve.
tallest US president: Lincoln
second tallest: Washington
correct me if I’m wrong.
are presidents getting taller?
it looks to me like the gains have only been on the low end.
supposing the heights are veridical…a big suuposition…
The average height of a US president has been 5 ft 10.7 inches and 5 ft 11.6 inches since 1900.
so .9 inches. but there’ve only been 44 presidents…so it may not be statistically significant…it would depend on the dist of heights…not just now, but over the whole history of the US.
5’9.8″ approx avg for pre 1900 presidents. (i don’t want to count pre/post 1900 presidents.)
5’11.6″ since 1900.
a much smaller gap than that between the avg height of an America man in 1789 – 1900 and 1900 – present.
right?
Height for young white American men was about 69 inches in the 18th century, 67 inches in the 19th century, and has increased from 67 inches in WWI to 70.4 inches today
So presumably it averaged 68 inches before 1900 and 68.7 inches since 1900
But that’s very rough
It’s possible presidents showed even bigger gains than white American men as a whole, debunking Swanknasty’s theory that elites are unaffected by malnutrition
Already met the burden: 1/3 of Africa is malnourished. No reason to think the top end is so
More like 1/3 are stunted and/or wasted. That’s just the tip of the iceberg & the most extreme cases . Subtle malnutrition affects virtually all black Africans
‘More like 1/3 are stunted and/or wasted. That’s just the tip of the iceberg & the most extreme cases . Subtle malnutrition affects virtually all black Africans’
That’s not meeting your burden. That’s you making shit up again. And stuff that makes no sense. The most extreme cases are the ones who have 1 SD levels to gain. But, the fact is 1/3 are malnourished. There is no reason to believe that 1 SD of malnutrition affects the top of the distribution.
‘It’s possible presidents showed even bigger gains than white American men as a whole, debunking Swanknasty’s theory that elites are unaffected by malnutrition’
Not my theory. Pay close attention: elites are not 1 SD malnourished to the point of gaining 1 SD in the next generation.
That’s not meeting your burden. That’s you making shit up again. And stuff that makes no sense. The most extreme cases are the ones who have 1 SD levels to gain. But, the fact is 1/3 are malnourished. There is no reason to believe that 1 SD of malnutrition affects the top of the distribution.
Swank, think about it logically. We know that West African men are no taller than 67 inches compared to 70 inches for African American men. This implies West African height is stunted by about 1 SD on average
Now if the average height were only driven down by a third of the population, then that third would have to average 61 inches tall while the rest of sub-Saharan men averaged 70 inches tall. This would result in the sub-Saharan height distribution being ridiculously skewed and having a HUGE standard deviation which it doesn’t.
Clearly the malnutrition is distributed roughly equally across virtually the entire distribution, just as Occam’s razor would imply.
‘Swank, think about it logically. We know that West African men are no taller than 67 inches compared to 70 inches for African American men’
A) We don’t know that, that’s just more of you citing blogposts — AGAIN.
B) The height differentials on average do not tell us where the majority of the gains come from
C) We have every reason to believe that the majority of the gains came from the lower end
‘Now if the average height were only driven down by a third of the population, then that third would have to average 61 inches tall while the rest of sub-Saharan men averaged 70 inches tall’
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGkJ6nnSXrOulCZt9C8N6YDqSUfUnxVeBPN33k8TSUrKfgYJYFbUa_mFy1
It affects all parts of the distribution UNEQUALLY. THEREFORE, we would not expect 13 point gains at the top. We would also not expect them in the middle. The gains would look like a line with sharp negative slope over the distribution.
It affects all parts of the distribution UNEQUALLY. THEREFORE, we would not expect 13 point gains at the top. We would also not expect them in the middle. The gains would look like a line with sharp negative slope over the distribution.
Actually you’re 100% wrong. In developing countries both the poor AND the elite are crushingly malnourished. In such countries, women (aged 25-49) in even the richest quintile have a mean height of 157 cm (SD = 7.1). See table 2 of this document:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018962
By contrast American women of all races & ethnicities aged 40-49 are 163.1 cm tall. See table 9 of this document:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf
So you’re astonishingly wrong to deny substantial malnutrition at the top. Even the richest quintile in the developing world is nearly a full SD shorter than merely average women in America. If we were to compare third world elites with first world elites, the height gap might be bigger still.
lol…
did you even look at your chart.
A) you can’t just aggregate different populations that would have “genotypically different” heights and pass it off
B) Guess where the tallest ‘poor’ country was? SSA — Senegal 163 cm. OOPS.
C) The vast majority of the other SSA countries are ABOVE that global mean.
So lol. Thanks for definitively showing that they aren’t 1 SD depressed. NEXT.
So lol. Thanks for definitively showing that they aren’t 1 SD depressed. NEXT.
Sigh. The average African American man age 20 & older is 69.8 inches (SD = 2.46 inches) (see table 12):
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf
By contrast wikipedia’s chart listing height around the world claims Nigerian men are 64.5 inches tall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height
This implies Nigerians experience malnutrition severe enough to stunt height by 2.15 SD! Now that’s just one sample & the age demographics are not perfectly comparable, so the gap is likely exaggerated, but no reasonable person can deny the average sub-Saharan is substantially malnourished.
Now some sub-Saharan countries are taller for genetic reasons, but they’re still substantially below their genetic potential.
‘Sigh.’
LOL nice try.
YOUR OWN DATA SHOWS US that SSA is NOT 1 SD malnourished in height.
So you cherry-piking another set won’t help you. A) Nigeria != all of SSA, B) that “data-point” (apparently you now disagree with your own earlier data lol) comes from a study that wasn’t even measuring height as a primary goal, it was about diabetes.
‘no reasonable person can deny the average sub-Saharan is substantially malnourished.’
Not according to your own data in comparison with average American height. Sorry charlie.
here it is for bumpkin person real clear like…
IF POPULATION A AND POPULATION B ARE CLONES OF ONE ANOTHER/IDNTICAL TO ONE ANOTHER, AND THE MEAN HEIGHT OF B IS LESS THAN THAT OF A,
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT B IS/WAS MALNOURISHED. NOR DOES IT MEAN B IS/WAS MALNOURISHED RELATIVE TO A.
cc has increased, but so has overall body size. has cc vs overall body size increased?
Ashkenazim, the cleverest people in the world, are conspicuously SHORT.
LOL nice try.
YOUR OWN DATA SHOWS US that SSA is NOT 1 SD malnourished in height.
But that data was based on women. When you look at men, nutrition seems to have a larger impact on height. I just found a fabulous study that I might post on suggesting that SSA men are 0.99 SD shorter than African American men, while SSA women are 0.61 SD shorter than African American women. The male figures are probably more meaningful because women probably hit a lower genetic ceiling for height, but even averaging them both, suggests SSAs are 0.8 SD malnourished, which is very consistent with a 13 IQ point deficit.
So you cherry-piking another set won’t help you. A) Nigeria != all of SSA
But Nigerians are much more genetically similar to African Americans than SSA as a whole, so comparing Nigerians with African Americans helps control for genetic differences and focus instead on nutrition differences.
B) that “data-point” (apparently you now disagree with your own earlier data lol) comes from a study that wasn’t even measuring height as a primary goal, it was about diabetes.
That’s not a good reason to exclude it. Wikipedia has felt it was a useful height data point for years.
IF POPULATION A AND POPULATION B ARE CLONES OF ONE ANOTHER/IDNTICAL TO ONE ANOTHER, AND THE MEAN HEIGHT OF B IS LESS THAN THAT OF A,
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT B IS/WAS MALNOURISHED. NOR DOES IT MEAN B IS/WAS MALNOURISHED RELATIVE TO A.
But the default assumption would be that A has better nutrition than B. Indeed world health organizations use the percentage of children stunted (more than 2 SD shorter than the well nourished reference sample) as a proxy for malnutrition.
cc has increased, but so has overall body size. has cc vs overall body size increased?
Yes. If you were to try to statistically predict how much CC has increased based on how much body size has increased (using the modest correlation between the two) you would severely underestimate the CC increase.
Ashkenazim, the cleverest people in the world, are conspicuously SHORT.
If they’re short, they’re short for genetic reasons. Unrelated to nutrition in their case.
‘But that data was based on women’
Oh, but you felt it was good enough to ‘prove your point’ when you first cited it. Suddenly now you backpedal (because it blew up in your face) and dismiss it as ‘not reflective.’
‘That’s not a good reason to exclude it. Wikipedia has felt it was a useful height data point for years.’
The reason to exclude is that your own data point was a) trying to measure height and b) had multiple points of reference. It’s better data. Wikipedia misses good data all the time. Here’s a source that finds Nigerian men to be 70 inches tall —> https://ispub.com/IJBA/4/1/13635. Another source I’ve found has them at 5’6.
Ah, more data that shows I am right:
https://ispub.com/IJBA/2/2/12890
Nigerians in this city are 70 inches tall on average. You may argue that they represent a wealthy portion of the population — and that’s the point, the WHO finds them to be HEALTHY. They are NOT malnourished.
Argument exploded. Those at the top are at the VERY LEAST far less malnourished.
‘Jesus Swank, proponents of open borders argue that immigrants are the most intelligent, enterprising, ambitious. ‘
Jesus Hugh, stop strawmanning my arguments. First of all, open borders proponents in the US argue that, and in the US african immigrants ARE more selected — and despite that, their children still don’t have the IQs we see in the UK. Second of all, what do you mean by ‘immigrants.’ As a group? Generally? Sure. Third of all, I didn’t say that African immigrants weren’t selected for AT ALL. Pay attention. I am saying that their level of selection does not square with the secular narrowing of the gap and the IQ as it stands.
I have documented even more data in support my position here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/01/05/more-thoughts-on-the-high-iqs-of-african-immigrants-in-britain-2/
“The effects of nutrition are very subtle. Scientists don’t even understand what specific nutrients are behind the 20th century rise in height.”
PP, what the hell? Of course we know the nutrients needed to attain our genotypic height: vitamins A, vitamin D, and, obviously, calcium. Source: me.
Moreover, human growth hormone can reverse the effects of parasites and disease on height.
Please, if you’re going to say something about nutrition, make sure it’s correct. Thank you.
https://elifesciences.org/content/5/e13410
This paper may be of use to you in the future. Talks about different ethnicities as well.
PP, what the hell? Of course we know the nutrients needed to attain our genotypic height: vitamins A, vitamin D, and, obviously, calcium. Source: me.
Part of intelligence is the ability to know what you don’t know. And that’s the part you lack in spades.
Not a response.
Africans like them are a threat to other races, we must take care of that situation before is too late.
Bullshit CYA from pumpkin.
I see he didn’t mention the mating trend which would blow his silly “theory” apart.
HBDers don’t care if HBD is true.
I see he didn’t mention the mating trend which would blow his silly “theory” apart.
Oh Dear God, I already ripped that nonsense to shreds. Go back and read what I wrote.
You didn’t do anything of the sort pumpkin. I calculated the IQs assuming no downward trend and the numbers still didn’t square.
HBDers don’t care if HBD is true.
the problem here is pp didn’t read what Swank wrote.
when pp says she “ripped it to shreds” she means she made a fool of herself.
the whites who have children with blacks and vice versa are not representative of their respective populations.
I calculated the IQs assuming no downward trend and the numbers still didn’t square.
Only because you underestimated how select African immigrants are
the whites who have children with blacks and vice versa are not representative of their respective populations.
They are not representative in opposite ways so it doesn’t matter. The white is dumber than other whites and the black is smarter than other blacks so on average they are representative.
No I didn’t actually. Lol.
In case you forgot pumpkin, here is what I said:
‘.44*105 + .4*95 + .16 * 90 = 98.6 ~ mean B/W parent IQ.
Regress to your stated mean of 91 (likely wrong) ~ 95.
INCONSISTENT even WITH your assumptions.’
105 comes from 101 and 108 rounded UP to 105. 95 comes from 90 and 100. 90 comes from 100 and 80.
That was me INCLUDING your stupid nutrition assumption. IT STILL DOESN’T SQUARE. Capish? So if we ADD the mating trend, then for the second groups, the white IQ would adjust DOWNWARD. And the overall IQ would adjust downward.
‘.44*105 + .4*95 + .16 * 90 = 98.6 ~ mean B/W parent IQ.
Your numbers are too low. As i explained in this post, the average IQ of ALL first generation african immigrants (not university educated only) should be 95; add 13 points to get genetic IQ gives 108
When they mate with IQ 100 whites, mid-parent genetic IQ = 104
Regress to the mulatto genetic mean of 90 assuming a 0.6 correlation between parents & kids gives 98 for the mulatto kids of African immigrants
(Note all IQs have been converted to Richard Lynn’s white norms as explained in the post)
‘Your numbers are too low. As i explained in this post, the average IQ of ALL first generation african immigrants (not university educated only) should be 95; add 13 points to get genetic IQ gives 108’
You explained nothing, there is no reason to assume any of that. 16% no college, 44% HS, 40% college.
lol….
actually, I just calculated. the 95 comes AFTER we RAISE everyone’s IQ. .16*80+.44*90+.4*108 = 95.6.
So you adding another 13 points is effectively adding 26 nutrition points.
95.6 + 101 = 98.3 parental midpoint IQ, the GENOTYPIC (according to you) mean would be 90.5 (101+80/2).
So regress the 98.3 down and….drumroll….
INCONSISTENT PUMPKIN.
actually, I just calculated. the 95 comes AFTER we RAISE everyone’s IQ. .16*80+.44*90+.4*108 = 95.6.
So you think the phenotypic IQ of African immigrants is 83 (95.6 – 13)?
Ridiculous.
Instead of making up numbers about the IQs of various African education levels, a much simpler approach, as I explained in the blog post, is to note that 40% of African immigrants have a college degree, compared to perhaps 1% of sub-Saharan Africans in general. That implies that education distribution of African immigrants is 2.07 SD to the right of the general sub-Saharan population. Assuming IQ correlates 0.65 with education, they should be 0.65(2.07 SD)= 1.35 SD smarter than the general sub-Saharan population (IQ 67 SD = 15). That implies a phenotypic IQ of 87.
But not only are African immigrants way more educated than ordinary Africans, they’re much much much RICHER. Since rich people tend to be smarter, even controlling for education, I used multiple regression to show their expected IQ would be 95.
And that’s just their phenotypic IQ. Since I follow Lynn in assuming African IQs are 13 points below their genetic IQ, adding13 points gives a genetic IQ of 95 + 13 = 108. These are the genes they pass on to the next generation born with the nutrition to reach their genetic ability.
‘So you think the phenotypic IQ of African immigrants is 83 (95.6 – 13)?’
Let’s play it out: .16*70+.44*80+.4*95 = 84. So yes, sounds about right when I just plug in the actual phenotypic values.
‘Instead of making up numbers about the IQs of various African education levels, a much simpler approach, as I explained in the blog post, is to note that 40% of African immigrants have a college degree, ‘
I didn’t make up numbers. 40% college, 44% HS, 16% No HS. Those IQs correspond.
‘But not only are African immigrants way more educated than ordinary Africans, they’re much much much RICHER. Since rich people tend to be smarter, even controlling for education, I used multiple regression to show their expected IQ would be 95.’
BUZZ! I disagree with these assumptions but regardless, my number reflects them anyway! First,
only the top immigrants are richer, which is why we have the TOP reflecting 95. And not only that, but the ’80’ phenotypic group ALSO IS BOOSTED.
‘Since I follow Lynn in assuming African IQs are 13 points below their genetic IQ, adding13 points gives a genetic IQ of 95 + 13 = 108.’
No pumpkin. You would add your nutrition boost to the low 80’s figure above.
YOU ARE WRONG. EVEN WITH ALL OF YOUR SILLY ASSUMPTIONS.
Let’s play it out: .16*70+.44*80+.4*95 = 84. So yes, sounds about right when I just plug in the actual phenotypic values.
These are a little low, especially for college grads, since most college students in Africa never get a degree, but your bigger mistake is assuming immigrants are only selected for education. These immigrants are even more selected for money & their wealth implies smarts independent of education
BUZZ! I disagree with these assumptions but regardless, my number reflects them anyway! First,
only the top immigrants are richer
Actually you’re 1000% wrong. The median sub-Saharan lives on
no more than $1.25 a day. What percentage of African immigrants in Britain experience such extreme poverty ?
African immigrants are like gazillionaires compared to the average African just by virtue of living in Britain & on top of that they are 40 times more likely than typical Africans to have a college degree.
It’s not surprising that such an elite subgroup would be nearly 30 IQ points smarter than Africans who stayed in Africa; analogous to the IQ gap between rich educated ivy leaguers & regular americans
‘It’s not surprising that such an elite subgroup would be nearly 30 IQ points smarter than Africans who stayed in Africa; analogous to the IQ gap between rich educated ivy leaguers & regular americans’
It’s not surprising. It’s ridiculous.
Here’s a source you love citing to as authority:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/03/legal-immigrants-hints-of-iq-scores.html
African immigrant children to the US (they’re supposed to do 13 points better per se, right?!?!?!?!) score 89 on backwards digit span. Let’s assume they regressed, though…
Assuming genotypic IQ of 80, that would leave their parental IQ at…gee, right around 95-96. And these immigrants are MORE selected.
So….in sum, a) I am correct that the children of high SES parents likely do worse than them on so-called pure measures of IQ, b) the 13 point auto-boost is likely horseshit, and c) your wealth/income attempt is silly and consistent with nothing.
You. Are. Wrong.
African immigrant children to the US (they’re supposed to do 13 points better per se, right?!?!?!?!) score 89 on backwards digit span. Let’s assume they regressed, though…
Assuming genotypic IQ of 80, that would leave their parental IQ at…gee, right around 95-96. And these immigrants are MORE selected.
Wrong! Digit Span is only moderately correlated with IQ, so people selected for high IQ would regress to their population mean on Digit Span.
Nice try. Actual data > unfounded speculation. Cough up better data than the digit span or concede the point.
Just truncate the distribution like Jorge said.
Even assuming that the average genotypic IQ was 80 (thus reflecting the nutrition boost) AND that NO ONE with an IQ under 85 were let into the UK, our average IQ? 95.
Your assumptions = ‘look magic! here’s 13 points, here’s another 8! — 21 extra points I found them in my back pocket!’
Nice try. Actual data > unfounded speculation. Cough up better data than the digit span or concede the point.
Backwards Digit Span correlates 0.6 with IQ (and is relatively insensitive to nutrition so the 13 point is irrelevant here). If immigrant kids score 89 (9 points above the African genetic mean) we must divide these 9 points by 0.6 to get their IQ, and add this to Africa’s genetic mean:
9/0.6 = 15 + 80 = 95
So the kids score 15 points higher than the African (genetic mean).
Since in childhood, the mid-parent child IQ correlation is only 0.5 (as opposed to 0.6 when kids get older), so the parents IQ would be 15/0.5 + the African genetic mean of 80 which gives an IQ of 110 for the parents.
So evidence continues to accumulate that you’re 100% wrong, however I’m more comfortable with real IQ data, as opposed to making indirect estimates from a single subtest like Digit Span. I’m especially uncomfortable when I haven’t seen the original study.
‘So evidence continues to accumulate that you’re 100% wrong, however I’m more comfortable with real IQ data, as opposed to making indirect estimates from a single subtest like Digit Span. I’m especially uncomfortable when I haven’t seen the original study.’
The nutrition boost is nonsense, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Your selectivity criteria are nonsense, as I have also repeatedly shown.
And the above from you a) concedes that I am correct about the children of immigrants performing worse than their parents, and b) is still silly speculation.
No word on the truncated distribution that puts your entire argument to bed for the 100th time from the 100th angle? Of course not.
First wrong assumption — how do you know that they didn’t take into account the correl between IQ and BDS when making the IQ calculations? You don’t. Yet another reason why actual data > unfounded speculation.
The nutrition boost is nonsense, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.
Actually you’ve demonstrated nothing of the kind. You denied that third world elites were substantially malnourished and I cited impeccable data showing that they were.
Your selectivity criteria are nonsense, as I have also repeatedly shown.
You haven’t come close to showing anything of the kind.
And the above from you a) concedes that I am correct about the children of immigrants performing worse than their parents, and b) is still silly speculation.
Yawn. As my blog post clearly explained, the children of migrant Africans regress to the mean, but also enjoy a nutrition boost.
First wrong assumption — how do you know that they didn’t take into account the correl between IQ and BDS when making the IQ calculations? You don’t. Yet another reason why actual data > unfounded speculation.
You don’t know either. You’re the one who cited the study. It’s your responsibility to know what the numbers mean if you’re going to assert with such confidence that it supports your argument.
Just truncate the distribution like Jorge said.
Even assuming that the average genotypic IQ was 80 (thus reflecting the nutrition boost) AND that NO ONE with an IQ under 85 were let into the UK, our average IQ? 95.
It doesn’t work that way. They probably let in some African immigrants with a genetic IQ below 50, but the genetic average could still be 108 because the standard deviation & population are sufficiently large.
‘Please try to keep up because it’s very tedious having to repeat myself.’
I know what you did, and I have explained to you REPEATEDLY why it IS WRONG.
‘What does the the income of the top 4.8% in Africa have to do with Africans who left Africa to find higher incomes elsewhere? There’s no way of estimating how prosperous African migrants would have been had they stayed in Africa, nor is it necessarily appropriate, because part of what makes high IQ people prosperous is their ability to figure out how to escape a bad environment and adapt to a better one. We see this even within countries. The high IQ farm boy moves to the big city and gets rich. The low IQ farm boy stays in the country and stays poor. We don’t ask what the income of the high IQ farm boy would have been had he stayed in the country where there are few opportunities.’
The fact that you don’t understand this is telling.
You must take how prosperous they are RELATIVE TO AND WITHIN THEIR POPULATIONS, if you try to simply compare X black in the US income to X black in SSA income, you aren’t going to come out with anything that makes sense.
You need to ask WHERE that group came from. They must have been making an income in SSA before they left. Whatever that likely income was MORE ACCURATELY represents their actual wealth and you should know it.
‘It’s your responsibility to know what the numbers mean’
BUZZ!
You’re attacking the accuracy of the numbers, so no, it is YOUR responsibility to show they are in some way inaccurate.
‘You denied that third world elites were substantially malnourished and I cited impeccable data showing that they were.’
Actually, I said that the malnourishment was not equal across all incomes — true and shown by the data. And I said that the actual elites — here’s a hint…the top 10% are not the true elites. Remember, you’re arguing that these people are > 2 SD on both education and income, right? The heights increase with income according to your own data, which backs me up.
‘Swank maintains that africa suffers from extreme cultural backwardness, not malnutrition. Those most eager to escape that are obviously those who understand the situation and have the capacity to go and compete in the west.’
And I also never said that Africa doesn’t suffer from malnutrition. Obviously at the VERY LEAST 1/3rd of SSA suffers from malnutrition. The question is a) how severe is that malnutrition, b) is the malnutrition equal across the distribution.
‘Are us africans more selected, why? Green cards more selective than britians points-based system?’
I’m not sure. I’m just going by the data. Multiple data points show that Africans to the US have better credentials than those going to the UK.
‘To me is appears more likely that the élite-hood of africans is england is more pronounced than most people thought. That seems more likely than the alternative explantion. England has found a completely new formula, which works on blacks, but not on pakis and leaves other ethnic groups unaffected.’
That still wouldn’t explain the narrowing. The trend in immigration has been less and less selective, so the children should be getting “less smart” over time. Also, that data I linked to showed multiple immigrant groups doing better over time, not just the blacks. The Chinese and Indians don’t seem to be as affected though.
‘Now if an African immigrant (IQ 95) mates with a white (IQ 100), the African parent would be 28 points smarter than his race, and the white parent’s IQ would 0 points smarter than her race, so on average, they are 14 points smarter than their race’
BUZZ!
If the genotypic mean is 80 and they have the nutrition, then the African parent is 15 points smarter than his race. So on average, the mulattos are 7.5 points smarter, and then you must regress this number.
You are wrong.
If the genotypic mean is 80 and they have the nutrition, then the African parent is 15 points smarter than his race
But the African parent doesn’t have nutrition because he was born in Africa. His phenotypic IQ is 95, but his genetic IQ is 95 + 13 = 108
The average of 95 comes after adding the nutrition, pumpkin.
You are wrong.
Swank as i explained in my blog post, multiple regression based on education & income predicts a phenotypic IQ of 95 (adjusting for malnutrition brings them to 108)
‘Swank as i explained in my blog post, multiple regression based on education & income predicts a phenotypic IQ of 95 ‘
No it doesn’t. ‘Thus, simply by virtue of migrating to Britain, African immigrants are likely an astonishing +3.93 SD richer than the general sub-Saharan population (on average),’ is a silly statement. If State A has income 2 and State B has income 4, do people who walk from State A to State B become twice as rich as people in State A upon arrival? No. Does it mean that the people who walked from State A to State B should be assumed to have State B’s income when they were in State A? No.
The correl between amount of education and IQ is also too high. It’s usually between .5-.6.
Once again, the genotypic IQs with the (ridiculous) nutrition assumption would be 80, 90, and 108.
You’re wrong from every single angle.
No it doesn’t. ‘Thus, simply by virtue of migrating to Britain, African immigrants are likely an astonishing +3.93 SD richer than the general sub-Saharan population (on average),’ is a silly statement. If State A has income 2 and State B has income 4, do people who walk from State A to State B become twice as rich as people in State A upon arrival?
Well given I don’t have access to quality data, I was forced to make very crude assumptions. I assumed that British Africans were economically well assimilated into Britain. This was a bit optimistic. Stats show that the African immigrants have a poverty rate of 45%:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/media-centre/poverty-twice-likely-minority-ethnic-groups-education-fails-close-gap-694
compared to 23.2% for Britain as a whole:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/one-four-britons-now-living-3861508
That’s a normalized difference of 0.6 SD. So deduct 0.6 SD which means African immigrants might be only 3.33 SD more prosperous than Africans in Africa instead of 3.93 SD more prosperous like the typical Brit. But it makes very little difference to the final calculations, and in some ways the +3.93 SD estimate was an underestimate, since I assumed the most extreme level of poverty documented in Britain was equivalent to the median income in sub-Saharan Africa ($1.25 a day) when in actuality it’s probably not as bad.
The correl between amount of education and IQ is also too high. It’s usually between .5-.6.
Jensen said 0.6 to 0.7 and he’s the gold standard. Further, the huge jumps in average IQ as people move up the education ladder (i.e. college grads 113, PhDs 125) are only plausible with a correlation around 0.65. Further, you have argued that IQ has more predictive value at the low end so I would expect you to err on the high side for a low IQ region like sub-Saharan Africa. Further, countries like South Africa have strict exams for getting into university which might imply the IQ education correlation is higher there.
No pumpkin it is way less. You seem to think comparing incomes and poverty rates between welfare prosperous states with dysfunctional non-welfare states makes sense. It doesn’t.
No pumpkin it is way less. You seem to think comparing incomes and poverty rates between welfare prosperous states with dysfunctional non-welfare states makes sense.
Make all the post-hoc excuses you want. IQ correlates with money. Period. Africans who migrate to Britain become way richer than Africans who stay in Africa. Period.
You can argue it’s not that simple, but then you’re arguing from the wrong side of Occam’s razor.
‘Make all the post-hoc excuses you want. IQ correlates with money. Period. Africans who migrate to Britain become way richer than Africans who stay in Africa. Period.
You can argue it’s not that simple, but then you’re arguing from the wrong side of Occam’s razor.’
You are way on the wrong side of Occam’s Razor because none of your ‘simple’ explanations make sense.
IQ correlates with money, sure. But BETWEEN countries it makes NO sense to make the assumptions you made. Walking to State B from State A is no reason for you to assume I had State B’s income especially when the governments are different, the development states are different, etc. etc.
FYI, slick, 7300 dollars is the top 4.8% in Africa. THAT is the likely income of these immigrants….which is 1.6Z better than the average. And that’d be the cream of the immigrants.
You’re wrong, Pumpkin. This blogpost is post hoc excuses.
You are way on the wrong side of Occam’s Razor because none of your ‘simple’ explanations make sense.
IQ correlates with money, sure. But BETWEEN countries it makes NO sense to make the assumptions you made. Walking to State B from State A is no reason for you to assume I had State B’s income especially when the governments are different, the development states are different, etc. etc.
As I explained above, the average Brit is +3.93 SD more prosperous than the average black in Africa. You countered that I can’t just assume Africans who move to Britain are as prosperous as Brits, so I did some research and it seems African immigrants are 0.6 SD less prosperous than the British people on the whole. Thus I subtracted 0.6 SD from 3.93 SD, which means Africans in Britain are only 3.33 SD more prosperous than blacks in Africa. In other words, in response to your criticism, I adjusted the figure downward, but it makes little difference to my overall calculations.
Please try to keep up because it’s very tedious having to repeat myself.
FYI, slick, 7300 dollars is the top 4.8% in Africa. THAT is the likely income of these immigrants….which is 1.6Z better than the average. And that’d be the cream of the immigrants.
What does the the income of the top 4.8% in Africa have to do with Africans who left Africa to find higher incomes elsewhere? There’s no way of estimating how prosperous African migrants would have been had they stayed in Africa, nor is it necessarily appropriate, because part of what makes high IQ people prosperous is their ability to figure out how to escape a bad environment and adapt to a better one. We see this even within countries. The high IQ farm boy moves to the big city and gets rich. The low IQ farm boy stays in the country and stays poor. We don’t ask what the income of the high IQ farm boy would have been had he stayed in the country where there are few opportunities.
it’s not only silly, it’s retarded.
it’s obvious pp’s IQ is less than 65. her “genetic IQ” is about 45.
‘As I explained above, the average Brit is +3.93 SD more prosperous than the average black in Africa.’
This is also wrong. A) as I’ve already explained the method of comparison is trash — when you compare poverty rates, you are not really comparing personal income, you are comparing other differences between the states; when you compare what people earn competing in the same system against one another, then you are comparing what that correl is supposed to represent, and B) as a matter of fact, 1% of the UK’s population lives on less than 1.25 a day.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY
factoring in the (STILL optimistic) education and income assumptions with now verified data points lops off 8 IQ points.
Your own data shows that I am right about malnutrition being a) less than 1 SD on average and b) affecting the distribution unequally. So there is little if any nutrition boost we can expect from these elites.
You are wrong.
This is also wrong. A) as I’ve already explained the method of comparison is trash — when you compare poverty rates, you are not really comparing personal income, you are comparing other differences between the states; when you compare what people earn competing in the same system against one another, then you are comparing what that correl is supposed to represent,
Part of competing against others in the same system is being adaptable enough to escape the system & find a more prosperous place and adapt to it. The fact that high IQ people are more likely to move to more prosperous place is built in to the IQ-income correlation. This is just an extreme example.
and B) as a matter of fact, 1% of the UK’s population lives on less than 1.25 a day.
That doesn’t make sense. It would imply 1% of the UK is sleeping on the street every night. However I haven’t read the methodology.& maybe this new source you provide can improve my estimates. What year did 1% of UK supposedly live on less than $1.25 a day and what was the comparable percentage in SS Africa the same year?
Your own data shows that I am right about malnutrition being a) less than 1 SD on average
The nutrition deficit doesn’t need to be a full SD because the IQ deficit (13 points) arguably caused by malnutrition is a little less than an SD (0.87 SD ). Further, you’re only able to argue it’s less than 1 SD by coming up with arbitrary excuses to ignore the Nigerian data which shows an astonishing 2+ SD deficit.
and b) affecting the distribution unequally.
The rich are taller than the poor in both third world countries and first world countries, but that doesn’t prove that the third world rich are not malnourished compared to the first world rich or for that matter the first world poor. Within countries, people with height genes tend to get rich. The third world rich might even be taller than the first world poor, but the well nourished first world poor could still be closer to their genetic height potential than the malnourished third world rich.
‘Part of competing against others in the same system is being adaptable enough to escape the system & find a more prosperous place and adapt to it. The fact that high IQ people are more likely to move to more prosperous place is built in to the IQ-income correlation. This is just an extreme example.’
You made it extreme artificially. The income-IQ correl is meant to be measured within a population. It is almost WORTHLESS beyond that. This statement ‘the fact that high IQ people are more likely to move to more prosperous place ‘ is also silly. Moving away from your home is not the same as being more likely to do a more complicated job that makes more money. The former is RISK-TAKING, the latter is “smarts.”
‘ What year did 1% of UK supposedly live on less than $1.25 a day and what was the comparable percentage in SS Africa the same year?’
Circa 2010 according to the World Bank data I cited to.
‘The nutrition deficit doesn’t need to be a full SD because the IQ deficit (13 points) arguably caused by malnutrition is a little less than an SD (0.87 SD ). Further, you’re only able to argue it’s less than 1 SD by coming up with arbitrary excuses to ignore the Nigerian data which shows an astonishing 2+ SD deficit.’
Lol let me rephrase — it is NOWHERE NEAR that. Your OWN data SHOWED that SSA is NOWHERE NEAR 1SD (read: nowhere near 13/15 SD) depressed. The tallest countries were in SSA, and many of the widest spreads between rich and poor were in SSA — as I predicted.
It is YOUR new data point from Nigeria that is suspect. And even if it were true, it hardly a) constitutes the whole of SSA and b) stands in place of earlier data that YOU cited. So sure, if by ‘arbitrary excuse’ you mean ‘hold you to YOUR own source,’ sure.
So there is no reason to expect a 13 point nutrition boost….ESP from an African “elite.”
You made it extreme artificially. The income-IQ correl is meant to be measured within a population. It is almost WORTHLESS beyond that.
True; the correlation is a within country correlation. But look at it this way:
You measure the IQs of a few thousand South Africans at age 16. Then at age 40 you phone them all up to find out their incomes. Let’s say you find a regression slope of x for the sample. Now let’s say a few dozen are no longer in Africa; they’ve moved to Britain so they have to report you their income in a different currency but you convert it, and add them to the scatter plot.
The question is, will the Africans who moved to Britain hover around the same regression line as the rest of the Africans, or will they be outliers because they earned their incomes in a different country from everyone else.
I don’t know, but for simplicity, I assumed they would fit the same regression line. Now that assumption could be wrong, but failing to consider income when estimating the IQ of African migrants is also risky, because an African doctor who moves to the UK and becomes high income by first world standards is probably smarter than an African doctor who makes much less money staying in Africa, simply because immigration itself probably screens for IQ independently of education. Even among those with equal education, it is likely the best and brightest who have an advantage in getting into the UK.
This statement ‘the fact that high IQ people are more likely to move to more prosperous place ‘ is also silly. Moving away from your home is not the same as being more likely to do a more complicated job that makes more money. The former is RISK-TAKING, the latter is “smarts.”
But people capable of doing complex jobs likely have an advantage in the immigration process.
Circa 2010 according to the World Bank data I cited to.
And the comparable figures for SS African countries in 2010, according to the World Bank?
Lol let me rephrase — it is NOWHERE NEAR that. Your OWN data SHOWED that SSA is NOWHERE NEAR 1SD (read: nowhere near 13/15 SD) depressed. The tallest countries were in SSA, and many of the widest spreads between rich and poor were in SSA — as I predicted.
Not exactly. I can’t link to it here, but google “TRENDS IN NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF ADULT WOMEN IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA”. Table 3 shows Central African women (who are probably the closest in the study to African Americans) are 158.6 cm tall (SD = 6.66). That makes them 0.7 SD shorter than African American women of the same cohort (163.2 cm).
Then scroll down to table 6. It shows the wealthiest sub-Saharan women are 160.7 cm tall, so even the WEALTHIEST SS African women are shorter than AVERAGE African American women. of course that’s not an apples to apples comparison. If you compared wealth SS African to wealthy African American, we might find a 0.7 SD gap.
And keep in mind this data is on women which suppresses the height differences as I explained above.
It’s wrong because you are comparing apples to oranges. If you are strictly using income to assess IQ, then you must keep the correl WITHIN the population. If you’re trying to say that the ‘average’ African migrant would be smarter than the average prosperous African, you wouldn’t use his income under entirely different system of government to do so.
‘But people capable of doing complex jobs likely have an advantage in the immigration process.’
Yes BUT THE DESIRE to emigrate has less to do with IQ and more to do with risk-taking or things not related to IQ, which is why the assumption remains unfounded.
‘And the comparable figures for SS African countries in 2010, according to the World Bank?’
Around 50 percent. A little less, actually.
This new data set you trotted out and now urge me to discard 3/4ths of also supports my point. First of all, their “wealthiest” seems to be anyone above maybe the 70th percentile. Look at figure 10. The elite are actually taller than the American average, and the increasingly elite are very close to the American average. They aren’t 1 SD depressed. They aren’t .8 SD depressed.
Actually, it’s hard for me to tell. Suffice to say that they are not significantly different from the American average at the top…plus, dropping East Africa out of the equation would boost the heights anyway.
Most everything I’ve seen supports me and the notion that you can’t have it both ways pumpkin: if you want these African immigrants to be a super elite, then there is little, if any, nutrition boost. If you want any significant nutrition boost, these African immigrants cannot be that elite.
Jesus Swank, proponents of open borders argue that immigrants are the most intelligent, enterprising, ambitious. Opponents to immigration agree and often (retorically) deplore that the countries in most need of those people lose them. Even refugees are likely smarter than those who stay home and accept their lot in life. I have never seen anyone so unwilling to acknoledge this as Swank.
Can’t this discussion move beyond this no-brainer of a point. The more backwards, the more extreme the selection. Swank maintains that africa suffers from extreme cultural backwardness, not malnutrition. Those most eager to escape that are obviously those who understand the situation and have the capacity to go and compete in the west.
Posted the first response in the wrong subthread. They fill up fast.
Jesus Hugh, stop strawmanning my arguments. First of all, open borders proponents in the US argue that, and in the US african immigrants ARE more selected — and despite that, their children still don’t have the IQs we see in the UK. Second of all, what do you mean by ‘immigrants.’ As a group? Generally? Sure. Third of all, I didn’t say that African immigrants weren’t selected for AT ALL. Pay attention. I am saying that their level of selection does not square with the secular narrowing of the gap and the IQ as it stands.
‘ I have never seen anyone so unwilling to acknoledge this as Swank.’
FURTHER…TAKE A LOOK at ACTUAL data. Most immigrants from SSA to the EU15 ARE LOW-SKILLED. That is a FACT.
I know swank, you’re not saying they aren’t at all selected. Like Mugabe admits there may be a little biodiversity. Are us africans more selected, why? Green cards more selective than britians points-based system?
Assuming there is this secular narrowing, which has shown itself among kids right after a drive by the government to lift disadvantaged schools. Let’s assume it. To me is appears more likely that the élite-hood of africans is england is more pronounced than most people thought. That seems more likely than the alternative explantion. England has found a completely new formula, which works on blacks, but not on pakis and leaves other ethnic groups unaffected.
Again reposted…
‘Are us africans more selected, why? Green cards more selective than britians points-based system?’
I’m not sure. I’m just going by the data. Multiple data points show that Africans to the US have better credentials than those going to the UK.
‘To me is appears more likely that the élite-hood of africans is england is more pronounced than most people thought. That seems more likely than the alternative explantion. England has found a completely new formula, which works on blacks, but not on pakis and leaves other ethnic groups unaffected.’
That still wouldn’t explain the narrowing. The trend in immigration has been less and less selective, so the children should be getting “less smart” over time. Also, that data I linked to showed multiple immigrant groups doing better over time, not just the blacks. The Chinese and Indians don’t seem to be as affected though.
yeah. was the claim that 40% had degrees before they immigrated to the UK or that 40% had earned degrees after immigrating?
anyway a correction. if one simply lopped off the bottom 25%, the mean of the remaining would be 6.36 points higher. i forgot to divide by 1 – .25 = .75. here’s the formula: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truncated_normal_distribution
but obviously:
1. the white dist would have to be similarly adjusted though perhaps with a lower truncation point
2. truncation is the greatest possible difference the exclusion of x% can make…the excluded x% are not just the bottom x% in ability.
3. the black British dist likely has a smaller SD than the white or overall dist and the extra points from truncation would be multiplied by the ratio of the two…if the black british SD were 12 rather than 15 the 6.36 bump would become 5.09 points.
4. the actual % excluded may be no greater than that for whites, given that black british birth rates are only marginally higher than white british. perhaps the crtique would be “devastating” if applied to british Pakis and East Pakis/Bangladeshis, but not to blacks.
Cut-off yes, East-pakis advancing too yes, white brits sliding down, probably a little. The most serious doubt for me is the absense of similar trends at university level. The fact that chinese don’t do quite as well at university confirms for me that the true test of ability occurs at that level.
If blacks, or east pakis, indeed are coming. Isn’t this grassroot movement a strange way for it to happen. Where is the arrowhead of black achievement?
yeah, I already truncated it ASSUMING a “genotypic” IQ of 80 and assumed > 70. The difference was 6.41 points.
I then truncated it — for fun — to assume no one less than IQ 85 were entered: the resulting IQ was 95.
Even with absurd optimism the numbers don’t square once you regress the kids.
‘ The fact that chinese don’t do quite as well at university confirms for me that the true test of ability occurs at that level.’
That doesn’t make sense to me. If anything it demonstrates that cultural factors are strong, because the Chinese do extremely well on so-called “g” tests like the CAT and achievement tests like the GCSE….yet somehow fall short.
Of course, if you want to abandon HBD assumptions and measure ‘ability’ with some other yardstick, be my guest…but playing by HBD rules leads us here.
Swank, a few days ago “g” in this case was defined by you, or was it Mugabe, as precisly those tests, so naturally they are loaded with that. So racism at university is the next frontier, and after that? Given this promising development in britain, should we expect to see any of it in the us, or will the battle be fought in europe? Maybe whites in Japan need a little help too.
‘Given this promising development in britain, should we expect to see any of it in the us, or will the battle be fought in europe?’
A few quick thoughts. The US education system is more decentralized than the UK’s education system, which makes enacting measures like those I pointed out earlier, easier. There are also less blacks in the UK, which would make it easier to “culturally acclimate” them. Last, regardless of their initial ‘IQs,’ the Africans that come there do already have several positive cultural attributes. Emigrating to the West signifies an affinity, of one kind or another, for Western culture.
there is no “the true test of ability” Hamlet.
Nice try. Actual data > unfounded speculation. Cough up better data or concede the point.
it appears that Obama is also taller than all heads of state/government for the G20. but it’s hard to tell.
but for the G8 Obama looks the tallest.
He’s shorter than Canada’s PM. He’s taller than Asian leaders and female leaders & at least half of white male leaders
Steve Hsu wondered if Obama’s wears lifts since they were supposed to be around the same height but Obama looked taller in a picture
he looks taller than Terrance…or is it Phillip?
pictures are required. the Dutch PM is clearly taller than 6’1″.
of course canuckistan has a new PM every few minutes, but here are some pictures…it’s important the picture not be on ground as it’s never as level as floor.
http://pm.gc.ca/sites/pm/files/styles/photogallery_item/public/media/photos/1463_20110204_Photo_Album_PM_Washington_3.jpg?itok=tvWZOoSp
Rich africans so severly malnourished? And at the same time no malnutrition at all in europe? To me it’s not enough that malnutrition happens to fit in an equation with those suspect british school grades. It has to make some sense as well.
humans aren’t rats Hamlet, and the terms of the argument are vague, so it goes on forever.
but those aren’t American or Canadian style “grades” which aren’t very g-loaded at all despite what Chinese pp may tell you.
they’re TESTS/CUMULATIVE OBJECTIVE EXAMS.
Nutrition doesn’t fit lol that’s the funny part
I think the same HUGH, this is not possible. I think many african leaders tend to be older than Obamba. intelligence (whatever what its mean) CORRELATES with height, correlates, but is not the same thing, please Pumpkin!!!! more complex, more complex, more complex…..
Malnutrition seems to affect all of one society & none of another. Rich or poor makes little difference. But rich country or poor country makes big difference
No it doesn’t. Not on the order of 1SD in the second generation. No proof, just assertion. And no reason to believe so.
There is reason to believe so. Reports of children of immigrants averaging two inches taller than their parents have been reported in the literature
https://books.google.ca/books?id=mQovr42wLOwC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=children+of+immigrants+inches+taller+than+their+parents&source=bl&ots=GmqRhrOJe3&sig=Bt1iYBHgZwuYaMyg-7PLBn9jP0g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iTSiVM20B8uqyATXu4KoAw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=children%20of%20immigrants%20inches%20taller%20than%20their%20parents&f=false
2 inches is 0.78 SD in adult male height, comparable to 13 IQ points.
And going from sub-Saharan Africa to the developed world is such a big jump, if anything the results should be even greater
‘ Reports of children of immigrants averaging two inches taller than their parents have been reported in the literature’
Once again, you fail to partition out gains in the lower versus gains in the upper parts of the distribution. Whatever gains there are in the upper distribution aren’t on the order of 1 SD.
The children of High SES immigrants do NOT exceed their parents accomplishments by anything close to 1 SD, and once you take into account the language barrier, definitely do WORSE on measures of achievement.
You are wrong.
True and relevant.
‘And going from sub-Saharan Africa to the developed world is such a big jump, if anything the results should be even greater’
Only that big of a jump for 1/3 of the population according to FACTS. Elites have captured many first world benefits already.
Only that big of a jump for 1/3 of the population according to FACTS. Elites have captured many first world benefits already.
Prove it. Find data showing that Africans who are more educated that 99% of Africa are just as tall as British whites who are more educated than 99% of British whites
Once again, you fail to partition out gains in the lower versus gains in the upper parts of the distribution.
Immigrants tend to come from the upper part
Whatever gains there are in the upper distribution aren’t on the order of 1 SD.
Citation?
The children of High SES immigrants do NOT exceed their parents accomplishments by anything close to 1 SD, and once you take into account the language barrier, definitely do WORSE on measures of achievement.
Many immigrants come from countries that are already nourished so the kids get no nutrition boost, only a decline caused by regression to the mean, plus reduced motivation
‘Prove it. Find data showing that Africans who are more educated that 99% of Africa are just as tall as British whites who are more educated than 99% of British whites’
Do you not understand what I am saying? It certainly seems as though you aren’t. Whatever gains there are won’t be on the order of 1 SD. That is not the same as saying that there is exactly ZERO malnourishment. So I don’t need to find that data.
I have presented evidence that the gains would not be equal across the distribution. YOU have the burden to show that they WOULD be equal.
‘Many immigrants come from countries that are already nourished so the kids get no nutrition boost’
Yeah, must be why those African immigrant children do worse than their parents in the United States, where they are more selected.
All of your assumptions are silly and even with most of them the numbers don’t make any sense.
But hey, I’m glad you pointed out that HBDer’s blog, because he has a more detailed takedown of the ‘super selection’ argument. You should read it.
“no malnutrition at all in europe?”
http://www.european-nutrition.org/index.php/malnutrition
http://www.karger.com/Article/PDF/235664
the conflation of height gains and IQ gains and the explanation of both with “nutrition” has an assumption behind it.
that taller is better. and that if person A is shorter than person B as a result of his diet, then he has not reached his potential.
following this to its absurd conclusion, if one wanted to maximize his child’s IQ he would give him HGH and feed him an IGF promoting diet…that is a crap diet full of processed grains, seed oils, milk, saturated fat, etc.
really?
needless to say this is WAY over pp’s head, pp’s rather small and close to the ground head.
greater height = shorter life expectancy, greater cancer rates, ceteris paribus.
it has been claimed that cranial capacity has increased in the last 200 years in Britain and the US.
has it increased relative to body size?
The most important difficult piece now to most people is UNDERSTAND what really are ”environmental factors”. Environmental factors like the own name suggest, is a circunstancial factors (and not genetic or biological factors), i.e, caused by humans or by interactions among human beings and their environments, when we have ”gene-gene interactions”’ or ”gene-environment interactions”, like ”domino effect”, specially to ”gene-gene interactions”. Why ”gene-gene interactions”??
Human (gene) and human (gene) interactions in a nano, micro and macro- (social-cultural-economic) scales. Like when draconian government decide expulse ”cognitive elite” of their country (macro-environmental factors). This guy was jailed unfairly during five years (micro-scale environmental factors). Today i’m very anxious and angry and fight with the first person who appeared in my front (nano-environmental factors, ”my ”gene”- interact with ”gene” of unhappy and unlucky first person.)
Among ”genetic factors” and ”environmental factors” there a degree or a spectra between them. Environmental factors are the dynamics among biological predispositions of people and other living beings and their respective environments, the ”technic” produced by dynamic interactions. Environmental factors can’t explain alone the behavior of people, can explain the reaction of people to determined and or specific circunstances based on set of limited and little plastic behavioral predispositions, explain and are the product or technic this interactions.
Off topic comment.
The correlation between I.Q and height is weak. If you have the proofs that african immigrants in Britain tend to be taller than native africans in Africa, we can talk without extremely vague aphorisms. African immigrants, in my not-so-humble suggestion, tend to be selected more by healthy than intelligence OR in societies with strong natural pressures, i.e, natural selection, the correlation between intelligence and physiological health is greater than in modern societies OR peoples, like Ashkenazim, because mental and physical healthy people are more prone to work better than sick people. Intelligence drain health in modern societies or at least ”fight” each against other because nature favors health and not intelligence itself.
Its analogy is weak. Obama, a ”mulatto” man and a ethnic diversity of OLDER african ”psycho incompetent leaders” (majority). Higher status or dominance relate invariably more with combination among MASCULINE physiological with personality traits than pure intelligence. Its completely logical because if politics related with REAL intelligence then most of presidents would be scientists at least.
I read the paper again (i already see it before). The number of individuals analyzed is few than i imagine. 175 mil british kids was analysed. British population with 0-15 year old is 17% of total. 65 million= total, 11 million ”kids and pre-teens” in Britain. 175 mil is 1,6% of pupile britisch population.
How ”racism” in Britain can produce quasi-equality of ”cognitive scores” among whites and mulattos?????? 😉
And the famous ”regression to mean”?????
The correlation between I.Q and height is weak.
It’s very weak within countries & within generations because within the same time & place, IQ & height only correlate for genetic reasons (mutation load, assortative mating) & the genetic link is tiny
However between generations & between countries, height reflects massive differences in nutrition which affect IQ greatly
Specially to people who are more predisposed to have ”height potential”. But is complex, my example, i’m 1,72 cm, i’m lower than my two older brothers but i grow in very good familiar environment. My father is not taller (average), most of its family, specially for men, aren’t taller (average height). Cases and cases. In my case, specially for the hormonal factors and less but important heritability produce my ”height potential”. Less testosterone during the womb.
Of course, what you said now, on average, this can be true, indeed. But can’t explain everything. Interesting that east asians are biologically shorter than whites.
When do not have STRONG SELECTION or EMPHASIS to determined traits, epigenetics and plasticity of traits caused by environmental factors can be more important than genetics only. Like height in Pygmies, like unusual cognitive advantages in ashkenazim, like blue eyes in northern whites, creativity in whites, spatial intelligence in east asians. ”Culture” can contribute to this specific pressures or emphasis. In Pygmies, height is predominatly genetics, quasi a biological traits.
3% of british population are composed by mulattos. 65 million=total, 1,95 million of mulattos. Estimatives of mulato-british (and not anglisch) population with 0-15 years old, 30%. 585 mil.
1,956 ”pupils” (mixed white-”african” ??? + mixed white- caribbean). 0,33% of mulatto british pupils was analysed in this study.
Other estimative= 22% of 0-15 years old ”british mulattos”, 429 mil. 0,45%.
Despising the fact that british des-government don’t know exactly the real number of non-natives living in UK.
”Representative” data, anyone can falsify study without the responsibility to show to interested communities its tools of analytical job. Many ”education exxxberts” studies was proven to be fraud recently.
But the idea of ”strong selection” to higher technical intelligence of immigrant africans in UK (and mixing race with intelligent white british) is viable to me.
The answer to finish the cognitive gap between whites (only whites) and blacks is MORE RACISM, ‘like’ in UK. Like ”anti-semitism” improve eugenic mechanisms in ashkenazim. hehehe.
The best eugenics is the dysgenic of most and selected the few best who resist better.
Pp, I doubt the uk African population are the elite of their home countries. A huge proportion of Jamaica and other Caribbean islands migrated to uk and have the same average iq as the African group.
If anything, uk immigration patterns favors family chain migration. Pakistanis are mostly from a small part of mirpur. The same is true with Indian, where many are blue collar punjabis, not nerdy Pakistanis. Bangladeshis are mainly from sylhet.
The elite Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis are in the us.
Pp, I doubt the uk African population are the elite of their home countries. A huge proportion of Jamaica and other Caribbean islands migrated to uk and have the same average iq as the African group.
They have the same IQ as african immigrants because they are the elite of the Caribean + have more white admixture
Because you must be led, optimistically stating that all of the bottom 16% have completed primary school puts them in the 33rd percentile for SSA.
That does not square with the middle at 2.07.
More ridiculous cherry-picking and apples to oranges.
Next pumpkin will tell us a poor US black making 456 a year is 2.7 * .4 smarter than an African ~ 83.
Gee I guess an average IQ black in the US makes 456 a year.
Lol . Noooonsense.
* just poor US black and whatever the poverty income is can’t be bothered to look.
Regardless your assumptions are silly
Because you must be led, optimistically stating that all of the bottom 16% have completed primary school puts them in the 33rd percentile for SSA.
You still don’t seem to understand how I calculated the difference in education between Africans and African migrant to Britain. I compared the frequency of college graduation and NOTHING ELSE. I did not assume anything about the frequencies of other education levels because they were not part of the calculation.
Now you could argue that estimating the difference based on one data point (college degree frequency) biased my estimate upward. Perhaps I would have arrived at a different figure had I looked at the bottom end (the percentage who haven’t completed primary school among Africans vs African migrants). If you have a source for that data please provide.
‘Now you could argue that estimating the difference based on one data point (college degree frequency) biased my estimate upward’
I have already argued this and I have shown you that another data point that would be relevant in the set DEMONSTRATES that your estimation is significantly biased upward.
Even assuming that ALL of the bottom 16% COMPLETED primary school puts them above 33rd percentile, which is <50th percentile, which makes your 2.07 biased very far upwards.
I already showed pumpkin the chart demonstrating that more LOW skilled immigrants from Africa come to the EU15 than high-skilled —> by a good amount, which suggests a weak to negative correl with education for migrant status.
They simply are not that highly selected.
But of course, this nonsense and the silly assumptions attendant to the nonsense prove my main thesis:
HBDers don’t care if HBD is true.
Now, there could be a quibble with me equating hereditism with HBD, but….looks like a duck, talks a like a duck, acts like a duck —> duck.
‘While only one in a 100 children in South Africa grow up to graduate from college, an astonishing 40% of Britain’s Africans have college degrees. This suggests that Africans who migrate to Britain are 2.07 SD more educated than the average sub-Saharan.’
Also wrong. The average African who migrates to Britain, even with those figures holding for all SSA, wouldn’t be 2.07 more educated. You can’t take 40% of a population as representative of the entire population. 22% of South Africans overall achieve high school graduation — they are .77 SD more educated. And let’s just assume that the bottom group has finished primary school — they are above 47th percentile, so -.07 SD education. 2.07*.4+.77*.44*.16*-.07 = 1.16 SD more educated on average.
1.16(.58) + (.17)3.92 (lol) ~ 1.34.
That knocks off 8 points and brings us to 87. Regress it down and we get 20.1*.6 + 67 ~ 79.
Even adding 13 nonsensical points doesn’t square the numbers.
Even with your nonsensical income assertion.
Even with unreal selectivity.
not only wrong but demented and retarded.
1. South Africa’s blacks are still overwhelmingly crushingly poor. nothing close to the poor blacks or whites of the UK.
2. for haters of Apartheid it may come as a shock that de Klerk was right…as crushingly poor as they are South Africa’s blacks have it better than most of SSA’s blacks…South Africa receives lots of immigrants every year from the rest of black Africa. how many? i couldn’t find the figure.
where are the HBDers with IQs above 70?
Also wrong. The average African who migrates to Britain, even with those figures holding for all SSA, wouldn’t be 2.07 more educated. You can’t take 40% of a population as representative of the entire population. 22% of South Africans overall achieve high school graduation — they are .77 SD more educated. And let’s just assume that the bottom group has finished primary school — they are above 47th percentile, so -.07 SD education. 2.07*.4+.77*.44*.16*-.07 = 1.16 SD more educated on average. .
You misunderstood what I did. I’m not saying university educated Africans are 2.07 SD above the African mean (they’re actually quite a bit more than that), I’m saying that since a university degree puts one in the top 1% of the Africa normalized education distribution (+2.33 SD) but only the top 40% of the African migrant education distribution (+0.27 SD), then the African migrant distribution is about 2.07 SD to the right of the Africa distribution (2.33 SD – 0.27 SD); ergo African migrants (to Britain) are 2.07 SD more educated than blacks who stayed in Africa.
Oh then it’s even more ridiculous. Gotcha.
HBDers don’t care if HBD is true.
This irrational blogpost is proof.
It’s also funny that I cited passages from Lieberman’s refutation of Rushton and Jorge linked to the full review, complete with additional comments by other academics.
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/lieberman-on-rushton.pdf
And yet…
not a peep.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
What’s also funny is that none of these assumptions explain the simple chart on that blog:
Immigration has gotten less selective over time, not more.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
African immigrants like the black descendants of slaves in the Americas, are useless parasites living on the sustenance of Whites. Blacks, whether they are African American or recent immigrants from the sub-sahara, high IQ or low IQ, educated or not, are heavily overrrepresented in gov’t work at the expense of taxpayers’ funding, and have less entrepreneurial activity combined, when compared to the average, poorly educated Chinese peasant who opens a restaurant or shop.
Just because the children of immigrants to places like England and the U.S. are much taller than their parents does not mean that their parents were malnourished and therefore did not achieve their cognitive potential. Children of Indian immigrants (who are often doctors and engineers) to the States often tower over their parents, but I doubt their parents suffered any cognitive deficits due to their diet in India. It is just that the typical American and British diet is heavy on dairy (meat, eggs, and especially cheese), and this calcium-rich diet maxes out long-bone growth. I am not a doctor, but there’s probably a law of diminishing return here, where it’s important to have a certain degree of nutrition early in life, but anything beyond that won’t significantly impact one’s intellectual development even if it does have an appreciably impact on height and overall size. As an aside, many Koreans who were adopted by European and American families in the 1970s were found to be severely malnourished at the time of adoption, but exhibited above-average IQs when tested by European or American educators several years hence. Though they had missed months or maybe a year of adequate nutrition in their countries of origin, it was relatively easy to make that up. In other words, nutritional requirements for normal development seem to be rather low and can be met by most parents in rich countries and well-to-do parents in poorer countries.
I agree that height can sometimes be misleading. For example one study found that adoption increased height but failed to increase IQ or head circumference
But the general trend over the 20th century has been whatever has made us taller has also increased brain size & likely other properties of the brain too
And I would not be surprised if these second genetation Indian immigrants have bigger brains than their parents & much better spatial ability
Even brilliant Indian doctors need their towering kids to help set up the computer. Malnourished people are still smart in some ways but there are certain abilities (spatial) that are very sensetive to prenatal nutrition
Pumpkinperson, I did not know that spatial ability is much more sensitive to nutrition. Thanks for pointing that out. I think you might be using the term ‘malnourished’ rather liberally, though. It seems that many of said Indian immigrants aren’t lacking in spatial ability because they’re among the biggest groups in Silicon Valley. So, far from needing help setting up their computers, they’re the ones programming them. I know you’re half-joking about the computer bit, though, and the fact that immigrants might have good spatial abilities doesn’t mean their kids don’t stand to benefit from improvements in nutrition, Stateside.
I don’t think programming loads heavily on spatial ability; it probably loads more on g (general intelligence) & working memory; neither of which seem sensetive to nutrition
But actually using the computer probably loads on spatial ability 🙂
Here’s an excellent article on the role of nutrition in explaining the Flynn effect:
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn1990.pdf
If you really care about helping poor black people, you should be more open to Lynn’s nutrition theory
Nothing could do more to help SS Africa than improving prenatal nutrition there
That has nothing to do with whether those at the top are substantially malnourished to such an extent that they gain .8 SD in the next generation.
That has nothing to do with whether those at the top are substantially malnourished to such an extent that they gain .8 SD in the next generation
Well we should hope I’m right because it means that simply by bringing prenatal conditions of sub-Saharan Africa up to first world standards, we could lift the IQ there from 67 to 80 & if I’m right this lift would extend to the top allowing for a large cognitive elite (IQ 120+) to emerge there. Such an IQ gain would have a miraculous effect on the quality of life & economy in SS Africa
This is how foreign aid should be directed
We don’t have to hope you’re right for any of that to occur. If the real depression occurs at the bottom, then a big boost in average IQ will come from that.
Incidentally having enough money and governmental stability to think abstractly probably factors a lot into learning to think abstractly.
Yes but if im right that there’s lots of room for improvement at the top, this would have outsized benefits because the top of the distribution run the government, the economy, academia, work as doctors in hospitals etc.
The same thing happens under a cultural theory. Prosperity creates more of a need for complex jobs, and that need drives the development of the necessary human capital.
More importantly it doesn’t matter what anyone wants to be right — what matters is what is true and what we have evidence to believe.
And on balance these assumptions you have made are wrong.
Actually on balance I am right, as I document here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/01/05/more-thoughts-on-the-high-iqs-of-african-immigrants-in-britain-2/
“..what matters is what is true and what we have evidence to believe.”
If so, it’s no longer a matter of refuting Rushton, or Lynn, by pointing to a single society during a moment in history. You Swank have the burden on you to make it believable that an alternative to HBD is the truth, and explain all counter examples to THAT.
Not really.
A theory’s truth value does not depend on whether there are other theories available.
But I do believe that the environment and its near infinite points of impact are more likely to explain most of our P values.
That said, the mainstream consensus favors significant environmental impact and some genetic impact. And at this point most of the evidence supports that viewpoint. It does not support HBD.
This latest bit of evidence is damning because it assumes most of what HBD says as true and still fails to predict what has happened. It’s not an abacus tally move it’s a nail in the coffin.
Can you eat me my Nazi balls
‘ A theory’s truth value does not depend on whether there are other theories available’
But you argue the opposite, bio-NON-diverisity in the field of human intelligence. Or at least bio-INSIGNIFICANT-diversity. Do you admit that bio-INSIGNIFICANT-diversity has almost no evidence at all to support it. No-one ever attempted to prove THAT in a serious way.
I don’t need to “admit” that at all. Mainstream science supports that viewpoint. Indeed, the response to Rushton is called “group differences in intelligence are best understood as environmental in origin,” or i.e. bio-INSIGNIFICANT-diversity.
And look around the world, Hugh. Most IQ gaps are in fact environmental — North South Korea, North South US, Irish vs British, developing vs developed shall I go on?
Most IQ gaps have the causes I say they have.
I accept the examples of Korea and Ireland. Environment matters, but notice how you only have to provide the Koreans with freedom and a market economy and they pull themselves up.
The example developed vs developing is no example at all. So, yes you should probably go on.
You don’t “give” people free market economics. South Korea got a huge infusion of wealth and unsurprisingly developed its human capital.
hugh has fallen for the Anglo-American bullshit.
there is no free market. if libertardians were serious people they’d move to Somalia and achieve the Somali dream. they aren’t serious people. obviously.
‘mer’ca-stan has two problems:
1. white-trash—Southerners and flyover country-ers.
2. jews.
compared to these two the Mexican and black problem is minuscule.
libertardians worship jews. namely Friedman and Rand. they love the jewish cock in their butt. they’d love if Rand would peg them.
they’d love it if Rand would peg them.
and if they’re female or the typical transsexual libertardian, like Deirdre McCloskey, then they’d love to bump tacos with Rand or fake tacos.
american “conservatism” and “libertardianism” when it isn’t of the Buckley/Buchanan/Santorum sort is
1. perverted in every way.
2. satanism in all but name.
3. lower class.
Libertarians worship Jews? Libertarians worship of Ron Paul & the Lion of the Blogosphere has been claiming for years that he’s the candidate of the antisemites
And how can you simultaneously complain about Jews & white trash when they’re opposites in so many ways. They practically cancel each other out
your ignorance is deeper than the Mariana Trench.
get into the BGI study, then you can have an opinion. i’m pretty sure the study has 0 Canadians. you could be the first.
If you were in the BGI study you’d be smart enough to answer the questions i just asked.
how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? it’s a meaningless question. your question is only meaningful within your (false/simplistic/naive) worldview.
there are paleocons like Buckley/Buchanan/Santorum and then there are the Protestant and irreligious American conservatives who are, by world standards, crazy.
American conservatives are like N Koreans. that’s how far out they are compared to the rest of the world.
In June 2011, Santorum said he would continue to “fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”[218] In an interview with NPR in the summer of 2005, Santorum discussed what he called the “libertarianish right,” saying “they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone….”
Mel Gibson and Pat Buchanan are both paleocons.
both detsructure and I know that you, bumpkin person, are not European in ancestry. your ignorance of the Judenfrage is evidence enough.
Friedman and Rand are the founders of libertardianism. both were Jewish.
paleocons hate Jews and for paleo reasons and they aren’t ashamed of it.
i myself think the Jew Marx and the German Engels were geniuses, but i’m not a Marxist.
the Jews have fooled the dim witted Southerners like destructure.
they haven’t fooled the paleocons.
Buchanan’s speech at the ’92 GOP convention is the best speech i’ve ever heard. but Cuomo’s in ’84 was great too. and Bill Clinton’s in 2012 was great.
it’s not an accident that all four Scandinavian countries and Finland have a cross on their flag.
In hoc signo vinces
There are social conservatives (southerners), fiscal conservatives (business men), & foreign policy conservatives (neocon intellectuals & pro-war types)
You seem to be equating fiscal conservatism with libertarianism, but Ron Paul is usually considered the libertarian candidate. He’s fiscally conservative & was one of the 10 most admired men in the world for several years on the Gallup poll, but he’s way too anti-neocon to get elected president or even get the nomination despite his huge loyal following among young people.
I was just surprised you would say libertarians worship Jews because the Lion is always saying Ron Paul appeals to antisemites & uses antisemetic code words like “federal reserve”. But of course he’s only one libertarian.
your classification of conservatards is from the ‘mer’can mass media you see in Canada.
the real division is between RCs and the few Orthodox and the rest. and one needn’t be practicing or identify oneself as Orthodox. it’s culture by descent.
wiki on paleoconservatism:
Kirk called libertarians “chirping sectaries”, quoting T. S. Eliot, and said that they and conservatives have nothing in common. He called the movement “an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating.” He said a line of division exists between believers in “some sort of transcendent moral order” and “utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct.” He put libertarians in the latter category.
libertarianism is like gay marriage but more Jewish.
Our basic position on the state has always been twofold: 1) a recognition that man is a social and political animal who cannot be treated as an “individual” without doing damage to human nature. In this sense libertarian theory is as wrong and as potentially harmful as communism. The commonwealth is therefore a natural and necessary expression of human nature that provides for the fulfillment of human needs…
libertarian conservative is a contradiction in terms, like heterosexual drag queen.
Jew Friedman, Jew Rand, and transsexual Deirdre McCloskey are epitomes of libertarianism.
Libertarians as simply conservative? Lol.
Libertarians are a lot like HBDers. A lot of just-so stories
HBDer on everything: not enough IQ.
Libertarian on everything: not enough “free market”
Pingback: More thoughts on the high IQs of African immigrants in Britain. | Pumpkin Person
Pingback: More thoughts on the high IQs of African immigrants in Britain | Pumpkin Person
Where do you guys get the idea that all african suffer from malnutration.there are africans richer than whites there are even african billionaires i for example am a kenyan with a networth of about two million most of which is inheritance bt what i can tell there are africans who live more prestigeous lifes.
Even if the African Immigrants have an IQ of 95 on average, their children must regress to the mean of the genotypic African IQ of 80. However, data shows that the children of such educated immigrants have educational attainments rivaling the Chinese and surpassing whites. Even if they all intermarried with whites, they should still be behind whites in terms of educational attainment. If we accept your value for educational attainment and IQ at 0.6-0.7, They probably have higher IQs than whites which is inconsistent with the HBD hypothesis.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/DustmannTheodoropoulos2010.pdf
(page9)