A commenter on this blog named “Swanknasty” seems to feel the high IQs of Africans in Britain debunk HBD and apparently feels that it’s the responsibility of HBDers to explain every anomaly that occurs anywhere in the world. As I discussed in a previous post, in 2009, the kids of African immigrants in Britain had an IQ of about 94 (on national norms); this converts to an IQ of 92 on Richard Lynn’s scale where IQs are calculated only with reference to whites, and Swanknasty has since cited even more recent data (see page 10 of this document) that these kids score the same as British whites on the GCSE, implying an IQ of 100 on Richard Lynn’s scale. It should be noted that the GCSE is not an intelligence test, but an education exam, though it correlates about 0.7 with the general intelligence factor (g), a figure substantially lower than the 0.85 g loading of most official IQ tests. But let’s say the kids of African immigrants have an average IQ anywhere from 92-100.
An IQ of 92-100 is quite high because according to scientist Richard Lynn, sub-Saharan Africa has an average IQ of 67 (genetic IQ 80). By contrast African Americans who Lynn feels have much better nutrition & living standards, have IQs from 80 to 95 depending on how much white admixture they have, with an average IQ of 85.
So why do the children of African immigrants in Britain (who presumably have little white admixture) have an IQ of 92-100? The obvious answer is that their parents are highly selected and whatever regression to the African mean occurs in their children is roughly negated by the huge nutrition boost they get from being born in the UK. Remember that according to Lynn, even African Americans with virtually no white admixture have an IQ of 80, compared to the mean of 67 in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting first world conditions boost IQ of Third Worlders by 13 points.
But Swanknasty believes I am overestimating both how selected African immigrants to Britain are and how much of a nutrition boost their children get. So in this post, I will try to bring some new numbers.
How selected are immigrants from Africa?
Swanknasty cited page 18 of this paper to claim that in 1979, first generation African immigrants had a mean of 12.2 years of education. Swanknasty felt this showed that they are not that highly selected since they are only a little more educated than high school graduates on average, but the African born immigrants surveyed in 1979 were roughly 36 years old and would have likely attended university around 1963. Figure 1 in this document, shows that in 1970, less than 1% of college age sub-Saharan Africans were enrolled in tertiary education. Further, in 1950 South Africa, only 0.5% of Africans even qualified for university. So being a bit more educated than a high school graduate in 1963 likely put African immigrants to Britain in the top 0.5% to top 1% of sub-Saharan Africans of their cohort. Normalizing the distribution, the African immigrants to Britain are 2.43 standard deviations (+2.43 SD) more educated than the average black African.
Assuming a 0.65 correlation between IQ and education (Jensen, 1998), we would expect their IQs to be 0.65(+2.43 SD) = +1.58 SD higher than the average black African. Assuming the sub-Saharan distribution has a mean of 67 and an SD of 15, that puts them at 91 (24 points above the African mean). This is probably a conservative estimate; those who migrate to Britain are not only way more educated than the average African, but were resourceful enough to escape a poor country and adapt to an unimaginably prosperous one. In addition, many of them, despite being born in Africa, probably achieved their education in the developed world, suggesting they met even higher standards than university students educated in sub-Saharan Africa.
How smart would their kids be?
Now given that the correlation between the IQs of both parents averaged together correlates 0.6 with the IQs of their kids, the children of smart parents are only 60% as far above average as their parents. So if first generation African immigrants averaged IQ 91 (24 points above the black African mean), their kids should average average 81 (14 points above the black African mean). So why do they average 92-100? 81 would be the expected IQ of the children if their parents had decided to stay in sub-Saharan Africa. But as I explained above, Richard Lynn believes the IQs of sub-Saharans are 13 points below their genetic IQ; the IQ they would have had under first world conditions. These kids were born in first world conditions, so we must add 13 points to their IQ of 81, which raises it to 94.
Of course all this is quite oversimplified. The full nutrition boost might not happen until the grandchildren of African immigrants since even second generation immigrants can still be born to women who experienced malnutrition in the old country which could harm the nutrition of the fetus. However elite Africans have been migrating to the UK for multiple generations so multi-generation effects are plausible.
Does migrating from the Third World to the First World really boost IQ by 13 points in the next generations?
As mentioned above, scientist Richard Lynn believes that even African Americans with virtually no white admixture have an average IQ around 80 (13 points above the sub-Saharan mean of 67, according to Lynn). This implies First World conditions lift IQ by 13 points or just over 0.8 SD.
As brilliant blogger Steve Sailer noted, support for this idea can be seen by comparing First World and Third World heights. A study recruited peoples of West African ancestry from several places around the world. The West Africans born in America (who had presumably lived in the developed world for centuries) had a mean height of 1.765 m (SD = 0.073) for men (see table table 1 of this document) and 1.634 m (SD = 0.064 for women). By contrast, in the exact same study, men living in sub-Saharan countries had a mean of 1.684 m (Nigeria) and 1.701 m (Cameroon), so about 1.693 m overall; women in sub-Saharan countries had a mean of 1.583 m (Nigeria) and 1.607 m (Cameroon), so about 1.595 m overall.
In other words, Third World West African men were 0.99 SD shorter than African American men, and Third World West African women were 0.61 SD shorter than African American women; averaging across both genders, it seems being born in Africa stunts height by about 0.8 SD, relative to those born in the First World. If First World conditions are powerful enough to lift height by 0.8 SD, why can’t they do the same for IQ? Height is even more heritable and less malleable than IQ is, so if it works for height, it can work for IQ. As Lynn has noted, this is likely also the major cause of the Flynn effect, since even in the developed world, heights have increased substantially over the 20th century. It also likely explains why the children of highly selected Indian immigrants to America (who enjoy far better nutrition than they would have India) do not seem to regress to India’s low IQ, and instead become academic achievers.
Now Swanknasty has argued that even if First World conditions can lift the height and IQs of average Africans by 0.8 SD, they will not have that biological effect on the children of immigrants, because if these are as elite as I say they are, they are already well nourished. However I would argue that being rich and educated largely doesn’t protect you from whatever malnutrition (including disease), infection, and parasite load is stunting one’s country as a whole. And indeed, in the same height study I cited above, West African men living in England (presumably first generation immigrants who were born in the Third World) were 1.11 SD shorter than African American men and West African women were 0.48 SD shorter than African American women; so overall these elite Africans who migrated to England are 0.8 SD shorter even when compared to merely average African Americans (an apples to apples comparison would be to African American elites and would show an even greater height difference).
So if even the elite Africans who migrate to England can not escape the malnutrition of the average black African, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect their kids and grand-kids, who are born with the nutrition and healthcare of the First World, to be a couple inches taller and 13 IQ points smarter then they would have been in Africa.
What about British Caribbeans?
Swanknasty contends that my model can not explain the fact that the kids of Caribbean immigrants in Britain also obtain IQs in the 92-100 range, despite the fact that Caribbean immigrants are substantially less selected. And indeed page 18 of this document shows that in 1979 , British immigrants born circa 1943 in the Caribbean averaged 10 years of education. However figure 1 of this document shows that this birth cohort of Caribbeans overall averaged only about 5.8 years of schooling. Thus those who migrated to Britain were 4.2 years more educated on average.
In the United States, for every year of extra schooling achieved, people seem to average 3.54 points more IQ. Assuming a similar trend applies in the Caribbean, we should expect those who migrated to Britain to be 3.54(4.2) = 15 IQ points smarter than average Caribbeans. According to Richard Lynn, black Caribbeans average IQ 71, so adding 15 points gives an IQ of 86. But because of regression to the mean, their kids would be only 60% as far above the Caribbean mean, so an IQ of 80 would be expected for their kids.
However on page 51 of his 2006 book Race Differences in Intelligence, Richard Lynn noted that Caribean children born in Britain are 0.67 SD taller than Caribbean children born in the Caribbean. Assuming British nutrition also boosts their IQs by 0.67 SD, we should expect the Caribbean immigrants born in Britain to average 90 instead of 80. But they actually score a bit higher.
The most likely explanation is that Caribbean immigrants have acquired a lot of white genes since moving to Britain. Indeed an article in The Guardian had this warning to British immigrants from the Caribbean: Mixed-race relationships are now so common that some ethnic groups – starting with African-Caribbean – will virtually disappear. Given this high rate of mixing, and the tendency of mixed race people to only identify as black, it’s likely that many of the immigrant children classified as Caribbean have acquired a white parent or grandparent in the time that their families have been in Britain.
‘How selected are immigrants from Africa?’
That was in 1979. This new cohort came from the early 2000s, when the immigrants were EVEN LESS selected.
‘Normalizing the distribution, the African immigrants to Britain are 2.43 standard deviations (+2.43 SD) more educated than the average black African.’
The 2001 tertiary education number was 2.77 percent. Tertiary education puts an individual in the 65th percentile of African immigrants. SO…1.92 – .38 = 1.54 SD. Further, the HS education number is 80th tile versus 50th tile for African immigrants, so ~ .82 SD. Last, primary school is 33rd tile for SSA and 13.5 for African immigrant, so ~ .67. Average the groups with the 40-44-16: 1.084 SD more education on average.
Contrast that with US African education —> 40 percent have a college degree. 64.7 percent have ‘some’ collegiate education. In other words, US African immigrants are more selected but perform worse.
‘And indeed, in the same height study I cited above, West African men living in England (presumably first generation immigrants who were born in the Third World) were 1.11 SD shorter than African American men ‘
It only shows that they are MUCH LESS SELECTED than you believe they are re: their elite status. I showed you the Nigerian WHO data —> Nigerians in one of the more modern cities, 70 inches, ‘HEALTHY’ by the WHO.
‘ I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect their kids ‘
It’s unreasonable to eat your cake and have it too. Either they are super selected or they are malnourished on the order of 1 SD. You can’t have both.
‘Given this high rate of mixing, and the tendency of mixed race people to only identify as black,’
Save the fact that those identifying as ‘black’ had two black parents in the sample.
The Caribbean numbers don’t add up. The Black African numbers don’t either, if we look at them reasonably.
Further, your ‘education IQ add’ fails to account for the difference between American education and ‘other’ education. Many studies have found African college students average an IQ of 84. That would make the IQ ‘add’ around 1-2 points. Even with an average IQ of 95, the IQ add would be a little over 2 points.
‘this converts to an IQ of 92’
It’s closer to 93. It’s like 92.8.
No it’s 92 because we’re converting to a scale where the white mean is 100 & the white SD is 15.
You converted to a scale where the white mean is 100 but the country’s SD is 15
Since the white SD is smaller than the country ‘s SD, you use this formula:
100 – [(101.3 – 94.1)/14.2](15)
.4 difference….the numbers still don’t match. Remember, US Africans are more selected.
Hugh – The Muslims from North Africa who invaded Spain were mostly Berber. And berbers in the past were all Caucasoids, not that different from Southern Europeans. Think of the Carthaginian Hannibal from Roman times. There were also sub-saharan blacks among the Muslim armies, but they were a small minority before they began to interbreed with the White Muslims. I think the dysgenic breeding with blacks came later during the French colonization of the Middle East, which would make sense, as European colonists created bastard dominions that should have not existed in the 1st place.
Here is a well known drawing from the Christian Spaniards who depicted the majority of the Muslims as “White”.
Let’s assume the immigrants in 2001 were as old as they were in 1979 (they are getting younger), and that they were likely to attend university 15 years before 2001. The average growth in tertiary enrollment from 1991-2001 was .07. So extrapolating 15 years leads us to 1.7 percent.
2.12 SD – .38 SD = 1.74 SD for 40% at absolute optimistic maximum.
They simply are not as selected as you want them to be.
the China was ahead until…stuff is 100% bs.
I just get a laugh when East Asians have to constantly validate themselves as being successful grinds, and no more.
how are asians boring when a lot of them are talented as fuck not to mention rich history and cultures.
http://hypebeast.com/forums/off-topic/213759/page/3
That was in 1979. This new cohort came from the early 2000s, when the immigrants were EVEN LESS selected.
Why are you assuming all african British who wrote the CAT & GCSE in 2009-2014 are descended only from immigrants who arrived in 2001? Many could even be grandchildren of immigrants arriving in the 1970s
Tertiary education puts an individual in the 65th percentile of African immigrants. SO…1.92 – .38 = 1.54 SD. Further, the HS education number is 80th tile versus 50th tile for African immigrants, so ~ .82 SD. Last, primary school is 33rd tile for SSA and 13.5 for African immigrant, so ~ .67. Average the groups with the 40-44-16: 1.084 SD more education on average.
Where are you getting the education percentages for African immigrants vs Africa ?
It only shows that they are MUCH LESS SELECTED than you believe they are re: their elite status.
The correlation between IQ & height is only 0.2. It’s possible to be highly selected for IQ & still be short, especially if your country has a short average
I showed you the Nigerian WHO data —> Nigerians in one of the more modern cities, 70 inches, ‘HEALTHY’ by the WHO.
That particular demographic might have been even taller had they been born in Britain. And even if some parts of sub-Saharan Africa enjoy first world nutrition, it doesn’t prove most high IQ black Africans have. Many will have high IQs despite suboptimal nutrition because their genetic IQs are even higher.
Save the fact that those identifying as ‘black’ had two black parents in the sample.
Citation ?
Further, your ‘education IQ add’ fails to account for the difference between American education and ‘other’ education. Many studies have found African college students average an IQ of 84. That would make the IQ ‘add’ around 1-2 points.
It depends how much education you think the average african has
‘Why are you assuming all african British who wrote the CAT & GCSE in 2009-2014 are descended only from immigrants who arrived in 2001? ‘
Because roughly around that time, the gains start. We don’t have to. If you want to average the numbers out, that’s fine — they will still come out closer to mine than yours.
‘Where are you getting the education percentages for African immigrants vs Africa ?’
‘African migration to the UK – University of Warwick’ is a power-point on the subject. I assume they’re university lecture notes, which means the likely source is a textbook.
‘The correlation between IQ & height is only 0.2. It’s possible to be highly selected for IQ & still be short, especially if your country has a short average’
Yes it’s possible but less likely than the immigrants not being that elite on average and therefore being malnourished on average.
‘That particular demographic might have been even taller had they been born in Britain.’
Yeah maybe. Unfortunately for you, the WHO said that they were HEALTHY. Read: NOT MALNOURISHED. The simplest inference is that indeed, the WHO knows what they are talking about.
‘African migration to the UK – University of Warwick’ is a power-point on the subject. I assume they’re university lecture notes, which means the likely source is a textbook.
This source ?:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/crer/events/african/confp_david_owen.ppt
The section on education is very vague. Further it’s based on a 2008 survey. Most of the respondents said they arrived circa 2001 so i assume that’s why you say they are 2001 immigrants but many of the immigrants surveyed were teenagers so that might largely explain why there weren’t more educated
Yes it’s possible but less likely than the immigrants not being that elite on average and therefore being malnourished on average.
Speculation
Yeah maybe. Unfortunately for you, the WHO said that they were HEALTHY. Read: NOT MALNOURISHED. The simplest inference is that indeed, the WHO knows what they are talking about.
By malnourished they mean malnourished enough to be stunted or wasted relative to most healthy populations. If they are genetically tall, they can be malnourished & still have less stunting than better nourished people who are genetically shorter. It’s not as if WHO compares their phenotypic height to their genetic height.
It’s not vague at all. The numbers are clear and once again they support me.
Lol you accusing ME of speculation?
That entire point was to demonstrate that YOUR supposition was just as speculative.
Just like your supposition about what the WHO meant is strained. Either they meant no malnutrition when they said healthy or they meant some weird version of health that co-exists with 1SD of malnutrition
In a modern city SSA heights are normal. Supports what I have been saying.
The lack of similar results in the US also makes my point.
I don’t disagree with what WMC is saying, either. I’m just trying to demonstrate that, taken in the HBD paradigm, this data destroys it. HBD loses the big home game.
It’s not vague at all. The numbers are clear and once again they support me.
In my humble opinion, it once again doesn’t support you; it’s full of vague categories like “higher Ed” and “other qualifications” and “no qualifications ” & categories that are irrelevant to many immigrants like GCE & GCSE . The part that is not vague is that 23.2% have a degree or equivalent but only about 76% of the sample are old enough to have a degree, so of those old enough, nearly a third have degrees in contrast to only 1% of South Africa, suggesting they might be roughly 2 SD more educated than sub-Saharan Africa
Just like your supposition about what the WHO meant is strained. Either they meant no malnutrition when they said healthy or they meant some weird version of health that co-exists with 1SD of malnutrition
You are arguing that tall Africans are well nourished by citing a source that uses height to measure nutrition. Circular logic
In a modern city SSA heights are normal. Supports what I have been saying.
Not really. It might contradict what you are saying. An elite city should above normal height if they are as well nourished as Westerners since first world elite cities have above normal heights
The lack of similar results in the US also makes my point.
You claim U.S. African kids have an IQ of 89 derived from Digit Span. Nonverbal CAT suggest British African kids have an IQ of 92. So in both countries, the kids of immigrants score about 90 on culture reduced tests so they are similar results
The categories are clear. Higher ed = tertiary. High GCSE = HS. Mid GCSE = some secondary and so on…
Further the other data I cited shows 34% UK immigrants > than tertiary. 23.2 + 11.8 = 35. Sounds about right.
No pumpkin the highest it goes under your paradigm is 1.6-1.75 SD.
And are elite cities 3 inches taller, pumpkin? No they are not so it really doesn’t matter.
The WHO found that the city was not malnourished so whatever malnutrition there may have been was likely not 1 SD.
They’re not similar results when 40 percent of Africans to the US have a college degree and 24.7 percent have some tertiary pumpkin. To apply your logic they should be acing the Brits. Instead we find that they are behind by .25 SD.
~*.225 SD.
In other words you have a theory that explains an anomaly but can’t really predict anything…C.Y.A.
And it only explains the anomaly when making ludicrous assumptions.
The categories are clear. Higher ed = tertiary. High GCSE = HS. Mid GCSE = some secondary and so on…
LOL! 11.2% of the immigrants in the survey were not even old enough to finish high school. 24% were too young for a degree. Many come from countries without GCSE; they never heard of it. What a joke.
Here’s some quality data:
http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibrary/briefingsupdated/how-are-ethnic-inequalities-in-education-changing.pdf
Figure 3 shows an astonishing 60% of Nigerian born British age 25-49 have a degree or equivalent, as do 50% of South African born & 40% of British born in the rest of Africa.
Overall, it seems 50% of recent African adults who migrate to Britain have degrees, compared to perhaps 1% of those who stay home, suggesting the migrants are 2.33 SD more educated.
The WHO found that the city was not malnourished so whatever malnutrition there may have been was likely not 1 SD.
This study found that young men in a modern Nigerian city are 170.83 cm,
https://ispub.com/IJBA/2/2/12890
which is more than 1 SD shorter than average African American young men, let alone more affluent African American men, suggesting even black phenotypes in modern african cities do not reach their genetic potential
They’re not similar results when 40 percent of Africans to the US have a college degree
50% of recent adult African born British have degrees, so your claim that American Africans are more selected seems wrong
Once again, learn to read your sources. Level 4 degree equivalent != College degree. It equals HS and >…which is why it dovetails with all the other figures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Qualifications_Framework#Framework
The numbers all square with what I say…
‘Overall, it seems 50% of recent African adults who migrate to Britain have degrees, compared to perhaps 1% of those who stay home, suggesting the migrants are 2.33 SD more educated.’
Lol no pumpkin. It is as I have said this entire time.
‘50% of recent adult African born British have degrees, so your claim that American Africans are more selected seems wrong’
They don’t have actual college degrees, pumpkin.
https://ispub.com/IJBA/4/1/13635
A little taller than average —> randomly selected sample from five states in southeastern Nigeria.
Keep in mind, that you aren’t just talking the random city dweller. You are talking about the cream of the crop in that city.
Jorge that’s because when he trotted out a dataset with all of SSA they turned out to be taller than depressed average and the elites were about as tall as first worlders. So now we’re pretending that Nigeria is all
Swank, i don’t know how it works in Britain, but the Wikipedia link you provided says level 4 = certificate of higher education
Further, the source i cited showing 50% of Africans have degrees claims only 24% of young British born adults do
Sounds like college, not high school
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school_diploma
In the UK this is given at year 11.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Higher_Education
This is given after at least one more year = 12 = high school.
I am right for the millionth time.
Swank, you’re wrong for the billionth time. Your own link says:
It is awarded after one year of full-time study (or equivalent) at a university or other higher education institution, or two years of part-time study.[1][2] A Cert.HE is an independent tertiary award
Further, by your logic, 76% of Britain young adults would be high school dropouts
That’s the academic level 4 and one type of level 4 qualification. There are also vocational level 4 equivalents. To give you an idea of what a ‘level’ is, a cosmology certificate = level 3. A nurse is level 5. The best analogue is to think of it as US high school completion and higher. The UK system has several tracks, which is why HS > is best.
*cosmotology
At the very least its equivalent to “some tertiary education”.
‘At the very least its equivalent to “some tertiary education”.’
The level 4 overall isn’t necessarily, the certificate is. Your own data shows that they counted ‘vocational’ certifications.
But even assuming so it really doesn’t change the overall picture that much, actually.
Even assuming 2.77 tertiary enrollment —> 1.92*.5 + .16*.56 (33rd tile to 16tile) + .44*1.1 (80th tile to 40th tile) = 1.53 average more SD educated.
The level 4 overall isn’t necessarily, the certificate is. Your own data shows that they counted ‘vocational’ certifications.
My own source said only a quarter of Britain’s young people have it. That tells me it’s beyond high school
Even assuming 2.77 tertiary enrollment —> 1.92*.5 + .16*.56 (33rd tile to 16tile) + .44*1.1 (80th tile to 40th tile) = 1.53 average more SD educated.
If 50% have some tertiary, then the median african immigrant has some tertiary. No more calculations needed. 50 percentile is the median
Besides your other education figures are dubious since the survey you cited included teenagers & children
‘My own source said only a quarter of Britain’s young people have it. That tells me it’s beyond high school ‘
The cohort is 16 to 24. That should clue you in on who can actually get these qualifications. The best analogue is HS.
‘If 50% have some tertiary, then the median african immigrant has some tertiary. No more calculations needed. 50 percentile is the median’
The average is better for this situation — mean years of schooling.
‘Besides your other education figures are dubious since the survey you cited included teenagers & children’
They agree with several other data points I have cited.
The cohort is 16 to 24.
Even still; the vast majority of that cohort are college age or older & still only a quarter have it. Unless most young adults in the UK are high school dropouts which is absurd, it’s equivalent to tertiary education
The average is better for this situation — mean years of schooling.
We don’t have quality data to calculate the mean in either britain or sub-Saharan Africa. Besides in regression (predicting IQ from education) it’s best to normalize distributions which means the median is the normalized mean
‘Even still; the vast majority of that cohort are college age or older & still only a quarter have it. Unless most young adults in the UK are high school dropouts which is absurd, it’s equivalent to tertiary education’
It’s not absurd. You are thinking ‘US High School dropout.’ Once again, plenty of kids in the UK ‘go another way’ and get more vocational certificates and training. BTE certificates can be started at 16 and completed by 18 which would = level 4. The system is more welcoming of vocational, rather than academic, tracks.
So no it’s definitely not equivalent to ‘tertiary’ academic education with the US system as our guide. An actual associate’s degree is Level 5. You need to think of Level 4, in most cases, as a High School graduate doing some on-the-job training.
And whenever they have calculated the education level of immigrants, they have used the mean or average. You’re saying we don’t have quality data, yet every single time my number comes out looking a lot like their number.
1.5 SD = 93rd tile.
Mean years of schooling was 12.2 — so HS and change. 93tile sounds about right.
For 2011 — where your figures come from — the tertiary enrollment ratio is 7 percent.
Sounds about right.
There’s really no escape pumpkin. The data supports me.
Swank,
You’re grasping at straws. The bottom line is this degree (whatever you want to call it) is equivalent to the most educated third of British society, just like a university education in the U.S. puts you in the top third
And even if you want to minimize the education of recent immigrants, the kids who took the CAT IQ test were also largely the grandchildren of older more selected immigrants , not just the children of recent immigrants
The UK’s system has different incentives than the US system…again it’s more vocation friendly. And the number for level 4 overall is around 40 percent, which is high.
The degree is not the equivalent of a US bachelor’s degree — at all. AINEC.
‘ the kids who took the CAT IQ test were also largely the grandchildren of older more selected immigrants , not just the children of recent immigrants’
Who should have regressed TWICE back to their respective means.
Your theory predicts great things for US Africans. They have actual 4 year bachelor’s degrees at an incidence of 40%. I guess a large portion of their nutrition gains got lost in the mail.
Well swank as i said, even your source
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/crer/events/african/confp_david_owen.ppt
said about a quarter of african immigrants have university degrees, & when you adjust for a quarter of those surveyed being too young to have one, its more like 1/3
Ok…
2.33 – .67 = 1.66 = within the range I predicted.
My range was 1.2-1.7 highest likelihood. And it doesn’t explain the numbers — even with a nutrition boost, which — if there was any — would be lower than .8 SD.
I’m not so sure the Educational attainment included those ‘too young.’ The sample size for ‘Africa’ as a whole in that sample is lower than the others. It’s about 86%…which would exclude all of the young group and some of the 16-24 group. Seems like they accounted for it and asked 18+. The 25% figure seems good.
‘24% were too young for a degree. ‘
This is untrue, because the degree we’re talking about is routinely obtained by those 16-18 years of age and even moreso for those 18 and over. Also, we don’t actually know the percentage breakdown of each age — because the sample is smaller, it’s likely that they corrected for it.
Swank,
I think considering both our sources, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the median african recent immigrant in britain (older than 25) has more than a high school doploma but less than a university BA .
That’s all we know & all we need to know
‘That’s all we know & all we need to know’
And the actual GER for recent immigrants in that same data set is 7 percent….therefore —> 1.5 SD.
And actually, the preponderance of evidence still supports me.
The degrees you want to call degrees are not college degrees. The degrees you think = tertiary can and are awarded at around 12 years of education in many cases. The data you cited to explicitly said they took and considered vocational qualifications. The survey’s sample size for education was smaller than the overall sample which suggests it doesn’t suffer from the problem you say it suffers from. The survey also gibes with the other numbers — 40% tertiary in the 2001 census, 34% tertiary in the other data point, 12.2 years in 1979. We know for a fact that immigration has become less selective over time as well.
In 1991 GER for tertiary was 2.6 %.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRICA/Resources/e-book_ACU.pdf
2001 census numbers indicate that that’s either 1.69 or 1.53 SD above the African average.
And just in case you forgot — your theory fails on US Africans, who are more selected and gain the benefit of first world nutrition.
Swank,
The preponderance of evidence does not support you at all. All the data on recent immigrants is vague & you insist on making arbitrary assumptions & interpretations that make them sound as uneducated as possible
And even if immigration did become less selective for Africans in Britain, they had more educated Africans to select from each year, so it’s exceedingly unlikely that modern african immigrants are less educated than the 1979 data
‘ you insist on making arbitrary assumptions & interpretations that make them sound as uneducated as possible’
The assumptions you make are arbitrary. Mine are supported by actual facts. The level 4 is indeed what I say it is. Your data explicitly stated they accepted vocational equivalents. So if you want to treat an African immigrant who worked in X profession for 10 years and is a supervisor (NVQ 4) as ‘tertiary educated,’ that’s on you. It definitely isn’t an arbitrary assumption to say it’s not quite the same as ‘tertiary education.’ You complain about the survey and claim that 24% aren’t old enough for a degree — you just divided the 16-24 age group into equal percentiles and summed them to 22. Talk about arbitrary — you don’t know how many individuals were in each year. The sample for education was smaller, which indicates the problem may be more a figment of your imagination. The data from my survey is consistent with other data. Your inferred data point of 50% is consistent with none of the other data.
But hey….we know that the GER in 1991 was 2.6 for tertiary education. So, let’s average out what we have: 34 + 40 + 35 + 50 /4 = 39.75 ~ 40. 1.94 – .25 = 1.69.
Swank,
First of all, if you want the people reading to be convinced by your arguments, you should try to make them easier to follow or people will just tune out. Try explaining your calculations, acronyms & repeatedly citing sources
When you say GER most people probably don’t know what or where you’re talking about but I’m assuming you mean gross enrollment ratio (the percent of college age sub-Saharan Africans actually enrolled in tertiary education) but i have no idea which particular source you’re using
But the bottom line is are you agreeing that new African immigrants are +1.69 SD more educated than the average black in Africa?
‘you should try to make them easier to follow or people will just tune out. Try explaining your calculations, acronyms & repeatedly citing sources’
I have already spelled out the arguments several times. I’m not going to do longhand on the 20th iteration.
And no, I’m not agreeing that the number is 1.69. I have said I would be surprised if, in reality, it is more than 1.3. It’s barely in the likely range I specified. But sure, you can use it if you want.
1.69*.65 = 1.09. The children regress .6, so .6*1.09 = .6591. .66 * 15 = 9.9. Add that 67 = 76.9.
Adding the nutrition bonus does not explain the British IQ.
If you want to agree to 1.69, we can turn back to what, if any, nutrition add is likely.
‘ but i have no idea which particular source you’re using’
This is what I mean. I already cited this source. It’s the world bank.
My google translate turned “GER” into “german national football team”, very confusing, anyway
‘Adding the nutrition bonus does not explain the British IQ.’
The rather fuzzy concept of IQ has got its lasting power partly because it has been observed to be refelected in real life, in particular in the job market and in higher studies. If you now introduce an IQ less connected to other observable outcomes the concept will ehm, not be the same.
‘The rather fuzzy concept of IQ has got its lasting power partly because it has been observed to be refelected in real life,’
Yes. Centuries of slavery and openly justified institutional oppression have nothing to do with it, I’m sure.
Now is not ‘for all time,’ get it through your head.
Swank
I don’t have time to search through all your posts to find every link you’ve ever provided, but lets be conservative and assume the new immigrants are only 1.3 SD more educated than the sub-Saharan average & let’s ignore all the extra smarts it took to figure out how to escape Africa & adapt to prosperous Britain & let’s ignore all the earlier immigrants who were more selected still
A 0.65 correlation between IQ & education means those who are 1.3 SD more educated should have IQs 1.3 SD (0.65) = 0.85 SD above the sub-Saharan mean.
The 0.6 correlation between parent & offspring IQ means their kids should be 0.6(0.85 SD) = 0.51 SD above the sub-Saharan mean of 67 which gives an IQ of 75.
Add the 13 point nutrition boost if the kids are born in Britain & we get an IQ of 88 which is roughly 90
Their scores on an actual culture reduced IQ test (the CAT nonverbal) is 92 (also roughly 90)
So even assuming the immigrants are every bit as mediocre as you say, the numbers still fit
‘I don’t have time to search through all your posts to find every link you’ve ever provided,’
I provided the link two posts ago. Like I said, I’m not going to longhand it every time for your benefit.
‘Add the 13 point nutrition boost if the kids are born in Britain & we get an IQ of 88 which is roughly 90’
Nice attempt to handwave 4 IQ points. 88 is practically 90 which is practically 92. No pumpkin, it doesn’t work that way. Even with the unlikely nutrition boost, you are still over 1/4th of an SD short.
Even with 1.69, you’re still short.
When your numbers are short even after including extremely unreasonable assumptions — i.e. 13 point nutrition boosts — there’s a problem.
Will you agree to 1.69 so we can turn to the nutrition assumption?
“African populations are, on average, much taller than their low income would suggest.” Take a look at figure 4: most of the SSA countries have a mean female height that is not .8 SD below the west, as your other data set also showed.
http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2012vol90/e-pub/23011936.pdf
Oh, five posts ago. Very easy to see.
‘Yes. Centuries of slavery and openly justified institutional oppression have nothing to do with it, I’m sure.’
Slavery and centuries of oppression, that’s america you’re talking about, and the modern form of soft oppression called affirmative action. UK is different, that the unspoken assumption behind all your claims, is it not?
‘UK is different, that the unspoken assumption behind all your claims, is it not?’
The world oppressed Africa as well through colonialism. HBDers love handwave away history. Remember, during the time of Rome, Caesar thought that the northern Europeans were irredeemably stupid, and it took the northern Europeans about 1200 years to catch up.
So most of Africa’s recent history is unfortunate. For American blacks, doubly so because of slavery and the fact that they live in a society with that legacy. For BA, maybe less so, because the stigma isn’t the same.
There’s also a) less blacks, b) a more standardized school system, and c) a resource push.
Afaik, there hasn’t been a study on what the effect of a ‘head start’ program that lasted ages 5-16 would have.
‘ let’s ignore all the extra smarts it took to figure out how to escape Africa’
Probably not much more. Acting on a ‘desire to escape’ has a lot to do with risk-taking and persistence. In case you didn’t realize, most immigrants from Africa to the EU15 are low-skilled. So it can’t take that much smarts. I’ve already made this point and cited the data many times. So yes, it’s a point that should be essentially ignored or counted as negligible.
‘ & adapt to prosperous Britain’
Adapt to a place with a) more resources to go around and b) a cushy social safety net?
‘& let’s ignore all the earlier immigrants who were more selected still’
We don’t ignore them. We consider the fact that their grandchildren have doubly regressed to the mean.
‘The world oppressed Africa as well through colonialism. HBDers love handwave away history. Remember, during the time of Rome, Caesar thought that the northern Europeans were irredeemably stupid, and it took the northern Europeans about 1200 years to catch up.’
We’ve gone over this, today there is the internet where you find all the knowledge there is. Europe after Rome didn’t have that. The parallel is laughable.
‘Afaik, there hasn’t been a study on what the effect of a ‘head start’ program that lasted ages 5-16 would have.’
Resource pushes and head starts, any doubts in your mind about the sustainability of that? You seem so sure about this it’s as if it’s your religion Swank.
‘We’ve gone over this, today there is the internet where you find all the knowledge there is. Europe after Rome didn’t have that. The parallel is laughable.’
Mostly in a language you don’t speak, needing to be accessed through a network that probably doesn’t exist for you by a machine you likely don’t have.
‘Resource pushes and head starts, any doubts in your mind about the sustainability of that? You seem so sure about this it’s as if it’s your religion Swank.’
I’m not sure of anything. I’m offering guesses. I defer to the mainstream scientific consensus on this issue.
I understand that not every african has internet, but the cities have it. They speak english or french. Not everyone in the west is able to use the internet for anything useful, and likewise in africa. But enough of the do, enough to make any comparison with medieval europe a complete joke.
And what you call mainstream science isn’t. If you don’t like Rushton and Lynn, try Murray. The fact that geneticists havn’t fully analysed all genes is a shame, Newton didn’t understand why exactly bodies gravitated together, but that didn’t stop him or anyone else. I realize this last parallel is a bit …, but you understand what I mean by it.
swanky is an idiot. sub-sahara is relatively the same when blacks first appeared. European colonialism provided a few infrastructures in place, but other than that, nothing has changed. Ancient Athens was cosmopolitan than most of Africa now.
If you don’t like Rushton and Lynn, try Murray.
what do they teach in Danish schools?
none of the above is a scientist. none of the above has any mathematical sophistication.
murray’s degrees are in history and political science. and flushton and Lynn’s are in psychology.
‘ Not everyone in the west is able to use the internet for anything useful, and likewise in africa’
Lol. Information is readily available to the west. It simply is not for Africa. Only 39% of the populous lives in cities. And afaik only half of those individuals have -any- type of ‘internet-accessing’ device: i.e. a smartphone. Just because they own a device that accesses the internet doesn’t mean a) they can afford the data plan and b) they can meaningfully use it to get ‘real’ info.
So not an exact comparison, but closer than you’re letting on, though.
‘If you don’t like Rushton and Lynn, try Murray’
Rushton and Lynn have drawn such criticism from actual experts in various respective fields so as to have almost zero credibility. Suzuki’s, an actual geneticist’s, treatment of Rushton and Rushton’s arguments is instructive.
and arguing with swanky is like arguing with those east asian supremacists who believed china was ahead of Europe except the last few hundred years without going over any details. china failed to refined her inventions. Compare the astrolabe of the Arabs and the compass of the Chinamen, and tell me who has better aesthetics and intricate craftsmanship.
Yes, JS, northern europe must have been overflowing with civilization for thousands of years….which is why Caesar thought those peoples to be stupid and fit only for slavery. I understand that you’re just trying to rationalize your own prejudices — but stop pretending you aren’t.
Despite East Asians having a higher visual IQ than Whites, they have yet to come up with a beautiful structure such as the Santa Maria Cathedral in Florence, completed during the Italian Renaissance, which was an apex of human artistic expression in terms of architecture combined with art. Whether its the sculptures outside of the cathedral or the paintings and floor patterns inside of it, no structure in East Asia has even come close.
Blah blah blah, JS.
northern europe must have been overflowing with civilization for thousands of years….which is why Caesar thought those peoples to be stupid and fit only for slavery
and how is sub-sahara Africa more sophisticated now than when black men first appeared? Of course, with European colonialism, countries like Ghana and cities like Nairobi, Kenya, get to look like Western enclaves.
the China was ahead until…stuff is 100% bs.
parts of Europe or most of Europe was behind at some points. that’s true. but the best parts of Europe have always been the best. ancient Greece and Rome were simply superior to ancient China. the medieval cathedrals have no competitors in chinese architecture. the chinese never had a lot of plumbing afaik. etc.
JS, the point is whatever. If you want to talk about the cool stuff whites have done, then neat-o, let’s high-five. But right here, right now, in this discussion….whoooooooooooo cares? We have a theory. We have one of the theory’s leading exponents discussing the falsification of that theory. We have data that indeed, falsifies his theory.
FYI, Lynn probably knows it too. He commented on the British data, selectively analyzing only age 5 IQ data (showing that Black Africans at that point were at IQ 90), and then attributed their IQs to ‘hm, must be because they are young and develop fast.’ Of course, if he were honest, he would have dealt with the other accessible data showing that their IQs appear to be rising with age, rather than falling.
Indeed, the millennium cohort wave 5 data —> children 11 —> now shows vritually no b/w gap in “verbal similarities.” Afaik, the correl with g there is high, too. Now, keep in mind, that this is DIFFERENT data. We have datapoints for age 5, 7, and now 11. At age 11 we see virtually no gap.
http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/page.aspx?&sitesectionid=1330&sitesectiontitle=MCS+age+11+initial+findings
I found a picture of Lynn’s theory:
that might be from one of the best three movies ever.
here’s the vid and the commentary by Jim Morrison:
smell that?…
nothing else in the world smells like that…
i love the smell of rotting HBD flesh in the morning…
that gasoline smell…
smells like victory.
This may be more accurate…it looks like they are walking away from a trailer.
a comment on HBD from an historical persepctive:
but among barbarians…there is no natural ruler…they are a communityof slaves…wherefore the poets say: it is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians…
and the Nazi theory that the Greeks are not the Greeks and the Romans not the Romans, that both have been polluted by “non-Aryans”…that’s been disproved. the Greeks are the Greeks and the Lebanese are the Phoenicians. etc.
Nice attempt to handwave 4 IQ points. 88 is practically 90 which is practically 92. No pumpkin, it doesn’t work that way. Even with the unlikely nutrition boost, you are still over 1/4th of an SD short.
An IQ of roughly 90 is an IQ of roughly 90, regardless of whether it’s 88 or 92. This isn’t an exact science, it’s just rough and ready estimates based on crude data & oversimplified assumptions
Given all the conservative estimates i made (assuming only +1.3 SD education for those who migrate & assuming no extra IQ points for the smarts it takes to become a citizen of a way richer healther country) its amazing my model still comes so close to the target
Take a look at figure 4: most of the SSA countries have a mean female height that is not .8 SD below the west, as your other data set also showed.
1) female data consistently shows smaller height differences between the first world & the third world
2) you have to compare apples to apples as i did in this post when i compared the height of only first worlders & third worlders of west african ancestry. There’s enormous genetic diversity in Africa. A country could be taller than the Westerners despite being malnourished because they’re genetically tall. By contrast those with pygmie genes will be short no matter how good their nutrition
It’s only ‘inexact’ because of the magic nutrition boost that gives you 13 random points to play with and excuse inaccuracies. No sale.
And when even that falls short we apparently should still accept it because “it’s not an exact science.” No it’s because the proffered explanation doesn’t fit the data.
And I already explained below why escaping Africa doesn’t take any special smarts.
Apples to apples in your other data set with CA the elites weren’t 1 SD shorter either.
I also brought up the fact that pumpkin is attempting to equate gains like FE type supposed “first world” gains with the gains we see when we alleviate stunting or some sort of serious malnutrition.
Let’s forget about what Ceasar said about north europeans, and while I also think the architecture of Florens is nice, there is no need to use that as a baseball bat against china or whatever. The Greeks were the Greeks, and Lebs wew Phoenecians, so what? Lovely weather, of course there’s gonna pop up a civilization in the Med. area. Since then norther europe has been largely freed from the depressing effect of bad weather, thanks to technology and partly thanks to what was developed in Greece, Rome etc.
The questions that are useful now, and in principle answerable, unlike – who invented “philosophy” -, are
1. What do the uk data mean, do they show a change taking place, or is it government money and destuctive competition between schools behind it.
2. If there is a true change, is it a change where an exisiting population is rising, or is it an inflow of highly selected new people, or both?
3. Why, if it’s real, does it happen in the uk now, and not in america ten years ago for instance. Pumpkin basically says highly selected immigrants plus nutrition, Swank says africans in the US are more selected and also got nutrition covered, so it must be a sudden decrease in discrimination and racism in england.
Then there are more useful questions of course, so let’s forget about what that ignorant ancient bigot Ceasar said in order to feel even more special 🙂
It’s only ‘inexact’ because of the magic nutrition boost that gives you 13 random points to play with and excuse inaccuracies. No sale.
You’re in denial
And when even that falls short
Psychometrics is not physics. Rounding IQs to the nearest multiple of 5 is as precise as you can expect. The model predicted an IQ of about 90 & the observed scores were about 90. Fixating on the fact that neither were exactly 90 is splitting hairs. You can’t expect 100% precision in the social sciences
And I already explained below why escaping Africa doesn’t take any special smarts.
Smarts certainly helps. Smart people will see the advantages of doing so, learn how to jump through the hoops. .. And there’s so much competition
Apples to apples in your other data set with CA the elites weren’t 1 SD shorter either.
That data was on women which minimizes height differences
Third world west african elites are not short compared to average african americans but they could be short compared to african American elites
And in this blog post i cited data showing west african immigrants to Britain are short & they’re the relevant group in this discussion
You argue that proves they’re not that elite but their education level suggests they’re cognitively elite
there is no evidence at all that diet is the reason for the Flynn effect. what evidence on the question there is, is against it.
it may be that diet explains some gains in height. it may be that disease explains the rest.
so what? taller people have bigger brains…but they aren’t smarter. this is the finding once population heterogeneity/stratification is accounted for. Steve Shoe posted on it, but i can’t find it.
this is a fortiori true when comparing populations whether they differ in height for genetic or environmental reasons, that the taller ones have larger brains does not explain why they might score higher on IQ tests.
the retardation doesn’t stop from pp. she’s failing the Turing test.
she again is comparing SSAs as a whole to those of SSA ancestry in the developed world or merely to people in the developed world…AND THEN…ON TOP OF THAT…she’s equating less height with less nutrition.
SSA immigrants to the developed world are not drawn at random from all SSAs. the descendants of slaves in particular are almost exclusively from West Africa.
pp is too retarded to argue with Swank.
she believes what she wants to believe, and is literally incapable of understanding the evidence.
the retardation doesn’t stop from pp. she’s failing the Turing test.
she again is comparing SSAs as a whole to those of SSA ancestry in the developed world or merely to people in the developed world…
Dear God you’re confused. That’s precisely what I’m warning not to do
If you understood any part of my blog post & the discussion you would know I’m arguing you should compare West Africans (not the whole of sub-Saharan Africa) in the third world with African Americans
AND THEN…ON TOP OF THAT…she’s equating less height with less nutrition.
As does the World Health Organization
SSA immigrants to the developed world are not drawn at random from all SSAs. the descendants of slaves in particular are almost exclusively from West Africa.
Duh! That’s why I’ve been arguing they should be compared to West Africans only.
Your reading comprehension is below that of a 10 year old…seriously
Yes, the Mediterranean, especially the northern side is very affable and conducive to intellectual and cultural endeavors, unlike its southern counterpart, better known as the rancid cesspool of North Africa, which was a result of the Islamic dysgenics and fanaticism.
However, as Saint Occult the Portuguese has hinted, the Chinese who are now living in Milan and Barcelona, produce nothing of significance and have nothing remarkable to contribute in their respective Spain and Italy. Better still, the large contingent of East Asians in California, with a similar climate of pleasantness, are nothing but boring grunt grinds in Silicon Valley, producing IT gadgets and insignificant apps for consumers with bad taste.
JS, civilizations first popped up around the Mediterranian, but not beacause moving there automatically turns you into a Michelangelo. It’s more like the cold damp north or the warm damp jungle both presented much more challenges, until most of that got eliminated as a factor by technological advances.
Hugh – When Spain was conquered by the Muslim fanatics from the North African region, many of them subsumed their aggressiveness from the soft pleasant climate. They began to flourish in the high arts, sciences and philosophy. So yes, a combination of climate and genes are needed for civilization achievement. The dysgenic Moroccan immigrants in Spain today could barely read Don Quixote, let alone come up with anything life changing.
Steve Jobs was part Arabic, and for him to lead a bunch of East Asian engineers to design tasteless Apple gadgets in California for dumb consumers is rather impressive. Asians themselves make boring elites because of their cognitive profiles, even when under the right conditions, they do not produce any breakthroughs, creatively or scientifically.
The arabs of spain found the women of the northern spanish provinces, infused by the earlier germanic invaders, espacially attractive, so they asked to have a quota of them delivered each year. Maybe I can find a link, it’s what I read. So much so that after a few generations they were quite pale and even blonde-haired. I’m not saying this is the explantion for anything in particular, but may. Norther africa was also partly populated by germanics who didn’t stop when they’d thrown out the romans from spain. Don’t know if they got killed by the muslims, but being a dane I know that converting to islam is no problem if that’s what it takes to gain some benefit. Scandinavians are not ones to die or suffer for principles :).
About Steve Jobs, it’s always seemed to me that mediterrenean people are stonger individualists than north europeans, and can be very persistent when they find what they want. That probably goes for some pockets of lebanese and nobler arabs in general too.
it’s always seemed to me that mediterrenean people are stonger individualists than north europeans, and can be very persistent when they find what they want.
I also think Mediterranean people are more passionate, outspoken and yes, more individualist. Machiavelli could have not been a Swiss.
Also, East Asian immigrants don’t populate the South Euro Zone as much as the Stoic Anglosphere and the Northern Euro areas. Call it a cultural clash!
JS, why do you think it is that nowadays south europeans need a north european vehicle to do themselves justice. I mean, spain, italy are by no means poor countries, but they have huge unemployment and young gifted people are either lying on the couch or moving to germany.
Hugh – Because the Southern Euros are gradually losing their identities, and want to be part of the global world. The worse is what Jorge Videla is foreseeing. Turning a once noble, Old World Continental European population into Anglosphere degenerates.
It would be a sad day when Spanish women decided to become drunken Anglo bitches.
Wow, you and Mugabe are a rare kind of snobs, harking back to the noble romans. I spent some time, in my profession, in Italy. The italians, especially women, seemed to think the anglosphere was so hot, for lack of a better word. Scandinavia was also ok by them, but more like friendly rivals for the attention of the anglos… very funny. They were proud of their history, but always with a ‘but’ appended to it. Like we are the greatest, but the future looks bleak and who cares. I have sympathy for your idealization of latin europe but I wonder if there is much hope. The ideals you and Mugabe hold dear, as I interpret it, are things of the past and hard to fit into the modern world.
Simply put, the Southern Euro region was where Western civilization began, and where Western colonization of the world also began (with Spain & Portugal).
The culture (literature, philosophy, and the arts) and to a certain extent, science, were in their apex in Greece, Rome and Renaissance Italy.
You could also say HBD began in Spain. It was her explorers who said low IQ savages lived in warmer climates.
Spain was a prolific maker of new nations and new peoples (Latin Americans).
cognitive dissonance on display by bumpkin person.
which is especially remarkable, because:
1. bumpkin person can’t think, has no cognition.
2. only evil people want to believe in HBD regardless of the evidence.
hey i’ve got it for Jensen—Densen.
Flushton and Densen.
both had low IQs, but afaik Densen wasn’t a thief like Flushton.
No proof rushton stole anything. Stop smearing people
the evidence is, as usual, impossible to interpret in any other way.
You people make up so many lies that I have to stand back laughing! I mean for gods sake! African immigrants are highly selected by who exactly? Anyone who can find the ticket money to come from Africa comes o the UK or USA. There is no sectional process involved at all,
‘Apparently feels that it’s the responsibility of HBDers to explain every anomaly that occurs anywhere in the world.’
Well….
““If a multiracial society is found where these race differences in intelligence are absent, the evolutionary and genetic theory of these differences would be falsified. Those who maintain that there are no genetic differences in intelligence between the races are urged to attempt this task.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/280689/SFR05_2014_Text_FINAL.pdf
Most of those are from Occi’s blog. Anyway, the data is of the same class and caliber that HBD’s use to defend HBD. The NAEP has roughly the same correl with ‘g’ as the GCSE.
The NAEP has roughly the same correl with ‘g’ as the GCSE.
Citation?
Table 3 suggests the NAEP has a correl of .7
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0VDoaXaIou8ZldtYkVzYTdfRjQ/edit?pli=1
First off, thanks Pumpkin for continuing to produce quality post. That is valuable 🙂 I would like to substitute a cultural boost for most of that nutritional boost. Highly selected immigrants can absorb a better culture, others probably can’t.
Second, Mugabe admitted that “g” in this case was just a bag of test, the cat, gcse and some more similar tests. They correlate with each other. This doesn’t completely erase their applicability, but certainly limits it.
Third, and most important. That Lynn qoutation speaks of a society. “If a multiracial society is found where these race differences in intelligence are absent…”. Schoolkids’ tests are not a society, it takes university level achievements, income levels, a little wealth and transfer to a successor generation. That is what’s meant by “g”.
‘ that “g” in this case was just a bag of test’
That’s all ‘g’ ever is, Hugh. It’s a factor produced from test batteries. So it’s just as good as any other ‘g.’
‘Schoolkids’ tests are not a society’
Then let us throw out SAT, NAEP, and school-age IQ tests from the US that HBDers use to make their case. I’m fine with that.
‘I would like to substitute a cultural boost ‘
I actually don’t have any problem with this — mainly because it goes against HBD.
But Swank, it’s different when you have a bunch of tests where the results rhyme with what can be observed in reality. And also, if many more and different tests support the finding of your uk tests, then sure, that would strenghten it so that lack of real life observations in support of it would mean less.
About the cultural boost. Some fraction of afticans can absolutely make use of the benefits of a western culture. African americans I believe have made some use of it, some of them more than others. HBD doesn’t have to mean zero culture-factor. Exposure to things means a lot, it is hard to sit in the jungle and invent stuff, you have to stand on the shoulders of giants. But, in america, with about 40 million blacks, there ought to be an upper class of about 4 million blacks on the same level as the white top ten percent, in every way except maybe wealth. There isn’t as far as I know, and how do you explain that?
‘But Swank, it’s different when you have a bunch of tests where the results rhyme with what can be observed in reality. ‘
Translation: it’s different when the data confirms my viewpoint.
‘ if many more and different tests support the finding of your uk tests, then sure, that would strenghten it so that lack of real life observations in support of it would mean less.’
Many different tests ALREADY DO SUPPORT this ‘finding.’ What lack of ‘real life’ observations are you talking about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne-Marie_Imafidon not real? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-smartest-schoolboy-11-year-old-boy-4056609 not real?
“Translation: it’s different when the data confirms my viewpoint.”
Swank, don’t you have affirmative action precisely because of what can be observed in reality?
Those people you link to are certainly impressive. When a woman such as her goes into a profession without automatically also working to “promote” people like herself, then you have a trend. Ever heard of Stephen hawking working to promote british lads?
The boy, impressive of course. I suspect his iq score is age adjusted somehow, but I’m sure he’ll be an astro physicist. I think occurances such as the ones you point to are within what would be expected, otherwise you are on to something. A suggestion for Pumpkin maybe to blog about, what frequency of geniouses should we expect from the Lynn numbers.
‘Swank, don’t you have affirmative action precisely because of what can be observed in reality?’
Look, this appeal to ‘what we see in our lives,’ is just an appeal to widely held biases. The data are the data.
‘what frequency of geniouses should we expect from the Lynn numbers.’
Genius != IQ. Faraday couldn’t do anything more than basic math. Feynman’s IQ was 125.
I don’t doubt that any ‘genius’ would score reasonably well on the SAT or some other measure (at least around 1SD above average). But beyond that, other factors simply are more important.
“Look, this appeal to ‘what we see in our lives,’ is just an appeal to widely held biases. The data are the data.”
You tried to say that it was my viewpoint, but it’s not an individual’s viewpoint, or any viewpoint. It is statistics if you like.
“Genius != IQ. Faraday couldn’t do anything more than basic math. Feynman’s IQ was 125.”
Forget about the word “genius”. The boy has an iq of 162, what frequency of that can be expected based on different assumptions of mean for the group in question.
I’m curious, where do you get your links from? Do you know these by heart, or do you make a google search for accomplished x, or is there a list?
‘You tried to say that it was my viewpoint, but it’s not an individual’s viewpoint, or any viewpoint. It is statistics if you like.’
Ok………
…..well most of the ‘stats’ for ‘what we see in real life’ come from SATs, NAEP, etc. There is no culturally disentangled measure, and to the extent there are any, the aforementioned are it. And they are shit for that purpose. But, they are good enough for HBDers to use in support of their viewpoints. Therefore, they are good enough to use against HBD.
‘what frequency of that can be expected based on different assumptions of mean for the group in question.’
62/15 + 1 SD gap = 5.13 Z score. So…one in every 10 million. If you want to get fresh, remember that the black SD is 13 usually. So 62+15/13 = 5.92 ~ approaching 1 in a billion.
Ok………
…..well most of the ‘stats’ for ‘what we see in real life’ come from SATs, NAEP, etc. There is no culturally disentangled
Swank, I was talking about affirmative action, not those test. I’m assuming there are some stats that motivate affirmative action. And those stats are not viewpoints.
Thanks for the calculation.. It is an interesting topic. Lack of black élite is a mysteri not addressed by your 2013 uk stats. If there is indeed a black élite out there, then much of HBD would be in serious question.
‘ Lack of black élite is a mysteri not addressed by your 2013 uk stats.’
Well….
if that boy scored 162, he is one of around 6 such people in the world by ‘stats.’
If we just do a rough calculation of the girl’s IQ —> mental age/chronological age x 100 —> 18/11 x 100 = 163 IQ.
Looks like we have two such individuals where statistics say we’d have 6 in the world. So of the 6 in the ENTIRE world…2 are in the UK.
So I respectfully disagree.
To be totally fair, borne out with SD 13 it’d be more than just 6. Maybe you’d have a classroom full of them. But to have 2 in the UK — I’m sure there’s more — is pretty impressive.
First off, thanks Pumpkin for continuing to produce quality post. That is valuable 🙂
Thank you so much, Hugh
‘To be totally fair, borne out with SD 13 it’d be more than just 6. Maybe you’d have a classroom full of them.’
Low assumed SD and high individual scores produces extreme numbers. I’m sceptical towards those mental ages, any calc based on them is so sensitive to individual biological age deviations. Assume a little higher SD, use biological age however that would be determined, and you have a different enough conclusion. Of course, big samples can’t be argued with so, that would be more convincing.
It looks to me like you put forth either uk children doing a gcse or CAT test, or spectacular individuals with high age adjusted iq:s. There should be a whole black dominated London town of fairly successful professionals. And in america you should find a whole city.
so an arch-nut HBDer, Lynn, says what falsifying his theory would entail.
it is falsified.
no, says, bumpkin person. that’s not the theory. Lynn didn’t mean what he said.
Huh? One anolamous score on a test that doesn’t even correlate highly with g or call itself an IQ test does not falsify HBD
The race IQ gaps still exist in britain they’re just a lot smaller
And Lynn’s statement was silly anyway. A society could easily exist where blacks scored not only equal to whites, but 30 points higher than whites, simply via selective migration
What matters is how representative samples score
Can’t believe this needs to be explained
I think Lynn counted on some rationality in the interpretation of what he wrote/said. Like pumpkin says, a vacuous falsification can easily be arranged, have one african professor go to mongolia, done.
The GCSE correls with g as high as most any other achievement test and according to that test — no, you’re wrong, the gap no longer exists. The CAT correls with g. The KS4 gaps were within error last we checked.
Good for thee and not for me, the HBD story.
Remember, Lynn’s data had the UK black IQ at 86 as of the 90’s. And now we know FOR A FACT that immigration has become less selective –> the proportions receiving X education haven’t changed all so much, BUT the education rate in SSA has gone up, decreasing the expected ‘IQ-to-credential’ association.
Explanation 1) They are all supermen + 2) who suddenly got nutrition + 3) But the benefits of such only occur here despite even more favorable conditions obtaining elsewhere.
What’s good for the gander ain’t necessarily good for for the gosling. Sorry, blame it on google translate.
In a few weeks time we should have the 2014 numbers from the uk. Whatever they indicate will be more telling than the previous numbers. If the trend of black advancement is still intact, we have truly exiting mysteri on our hands.
Define ”selection of immigrants africans” in this context.
Is not simple immigrate from Africa to USA, even to UK. Africa have unfortunately (ECOLOGICAL DISASTER) more than 900 million people. The number of (non-slaves in the past) african diaspora is not impressive as mexican (quantitative) or hondureña (proportion) diaspora in Amurrica. African immigrants very probable AREN’T representative of native population.
In Brazil 93% of the childrens are studying. It is not mean nothing. ”Anomalies” are: few studies. Some studies, many them are real scientifically controversial studies versus one century of similar results.
Again, the voice of reason: you supposedly do not need understand reality throught statistics if you can understand it throught reality.
All of us can become a genius****** 😉
You believe it**
They aren’t representative, but they aren’t as ‘superhuman’ as pumpkin believes. If anything, the US African immigrants ARE more in line with pumpkin’s selection estimates — and yet, those African immigrants and their children do worse. Despite ‘more selection,’ and despite whatever silly nutrition boost assumptions pumpkin is making. If it actually happened and we observed it, then it should have happened in the US. All signs point to it not having happened in the US.
I agree with you. You are a puzzle to me, i don’t understand their point of views.
My point is that selection and ‘nutrition,’ based on reasonable data and inference, can’t support the numbers in the UK.
If these inferences pumpkin made were accurate, we would observe the trend in the US — moreso, because the US African immigrants are MORE selected. We don’t.
‘hese kids score the same as British whites on the GCSE, implying an IQ of 100 on Richard Lynn’s scale. ‘
Looking at it again, the Black Africans SLIGHTLY outscore the whites.
”If these inferences pumpkin made were accurate, we would observe the trend in the US — moreso, because the US African immigrants are MORE selected. We don’t.”
Prove it… Data…
”Looking at it again, the Black Africans SLIGHTLY outscore the whites.”
Intelligence is not only score higher or not in ”cognitive’ exames who you agree with me that this tests are far from perfection. 😉
Human beings AREN’T computers. My older brother ”have” higher iq but he’s clearly a mattoid with little consciousness. 30’s year old and already talk like a teen thug.
But, you believe in completely linear correlation between good behavior and higher ‘intelligence”’ ***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom#Managed_migration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points-based_immigration_system_(United_Kingdom)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programme
UK is very hard on immigration. More and more qualified immigrants are able to get permits in UK.
If UK was in Oceania would be so restrictive to immigration than Australia. There are more non-selected (self-selected 😉 ) immigrants in UK specially because is geographically ”easy” immigrate from India, Middle East or Africa.
Keep in mind…I’m not saying that there’s NO genetic component, necessarily. I’m only saying that the strong hereditarian position taken by HBDers, by this data, is likely false. Instead, the mainstream consensus has the most evidence in support.
Let’s count it: GCSE scores rising and now show no gap, KS4 show no gap, CAT tests from years ago age 11 show less than predicted gap, Millenium cohort data shows a rising trend resulting in age 11 as of 2012-ish showing no gap.
They must be eating really well.
and you’ve got an Irishman above. Colbert /kolbert/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conn_Colbert
what did the English and some Americans used to say about the Irish? similar to what Aristotle said about the barbarians.
It’s not so controversial, really. Most IQ gaps we observe are primarily environmental anyway.
“Most IQ gaps we observe are primarily environmental anyway.”
You are wasting your life with this false idea.
Oh…Irish/English false? N. S. Korea false? Immigrants to US circa early 1900’s vs natural citizens false? South Italians v North Italians?
HBDers tend to think many facts are false.
A lot of those gaps get exaggerated Swank
Also, the modern day british whites are dumb. Read up on Bruce charlton’s mutation theories, or do a google search and see british iqs are declining.
This is a problem in general on your blog, pumpkin, you forget that evolution is like a bathtub that has water flowing in and water flowing out, but is usually in balance, but is sometimes not. This is why your history of the world post was bogus.
Separately, there will be no double regression to the mean. That is what happens when you apply a math concept you do not understand, and so extend it in an incorrect way.
-written on iPad
Regression to the mean does occur across multiple generations. But pretend-I-don’t-know-what-you-mean pedantism is always fun.
The drop to which you refer is insignificant afaik it was 2 points. The white mean was 101 anyway, so…..we’re talking about 1 point, really.
Separately, there will be no double regression to the mean. That is what happens when you apply a math concept you do not understand, and so extend it in an incorrect way
Swanknasty is the one who keeps arguing that the grandchildren of smart immigrants will regress to the mean twice , so you’ll have to discuss that with him
neither you, nor Bruce, nor pumpkin has any mathematical sophistication at all.
i do.
Your only math sophistication consists of arguing that not all distributions are perfectly normal & noting that some surfaces that look flat will eventually curve
I would seriously doubt if you could take on members of Prometheus on a really complex abstract math problem
it takes mathematical sophistication to recognize it bumpkin person. the only psychologist who had it was Peter Schoenemann, a German American and very anti-HBD psychometrician. a guy like Schoenemann make Densen look retarded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sch%C3%B6nemann
is charlton one of the so called VIPs who reads your blog? what a joke.
pp, few people with very high IQs have mathematical sophistication.
if one hasn’t studied maths at upper division ug or grad level or studied theoretical physics, it’s impossible to have any mathematical sophistication.
“mathematical sophistication” isn’t my expression. it’s used by math departments in their advice to graduate applicants. it means something very specific.
HBDers don’t respect scientists or experts. I’m unsure if HBDers believe experts exist.
only in the HBD world would I have to doggedly fight to have the position of mainstream scientists taken seriously.
and in the “global warming is a hoax” world and the the creationist world too.
science is just a conspiracy of political correctness, whenever your larger worldview can’t handle it…don’t ya know.
so rather than scrap your worldview, you lie to yourself. some find that much easier than others.
HBDers want to believe in HBD for some perverted reason.
HBDers want to believe in HBD for some perverted reason.
You have it exactly backwards. HBD deniers don’t want to believe in HBD because they think it’s evil. Any credible scientist who endorsed HBD would instantly lose credibility
you have it exactly backwards.
you are a case in point.
politically correct conspiracy theory again.
all HBDers suffer from this delusion.
now Steve Shoe has gone off the deep into into madness. he actually believes he’s going to create Telosians on earth.
I love how the term conspiracy theory is used to discredit theories that make no reference to conspiracies
HBD is simply unfashionable because of WWII & America’s disgraceful history on race
There’s a lot of white guilt & HBD will not get a fair hearing until that passes
Not nessecarily any conspiracy, just the tendency of the pendulum to swing from one extreme to another
It’s unfashionable because it’s wrong.
Other conspiracy theorists have their reasons as well.
It’s unfashionable because it’s wrong.
It’s not that simple swank. Humans are emotional creatures. HBD is considered morally wrong because of recent history & once we decide something is wrong for emotion reasons, we find a scientific excuse to dismiss it
Other conspiracy theorists have their reasons as well.
What do conspiracy theories have to do with it
It’s not that simple indeed. Humans are emotional. So as much as the liberal establishment has an agenda so does the Pioneer Fund. Once again it doesn’t even require peer review. As Lieberman said this line of attack can be turned easily: HBDers defend the 19th century’s political correctness.
no one with an i-anything has an IQ over 100.
It won’t necessarily be something like .6^2.
Assuming h^2 .64 and….idk e^2 .36 being ‘lucky + environment’ we’d get the sum of G which would have .8 SD variation and E which would have .6SD variation.
So for the average 2 SD guy, 1.6 SD is genetic potential and he happened to get +1.2 SD of ‘luck.’
Let’s say his kid regresses so that he is just 1.6 and 0 sd of ‘luck.’ Well the average person he meets at his level will also have some +SD ‘luck.’ About .96 SD… So the rate will slow down, but it won’t stop.
So for the average 2 SD guy, 1.6 SD is genetic potential and he happened to get +1.2 SD of ‘luck.’
Let’s say his kid regresses so that he is just 1.6 and 0 sd of ‘luck.’ Well the average person he meets at his level will also have some +SD ‘luck.’ About .96 SD… So the rate will slow down, but it won’t stop.
But the regressed children of african immigrants mate with other regressed children of african immigrants. They don’t mate with random smart Africans because they’re living in Britain
There are plenty of other blacks in Britain….
And there are likely plenty of upward “lucky” immigrant children from those populations too.
There are plenty of other blacks in Britain….
But we’re talking about the segment who self identifies as african as opposed to say Caribean
And there are likely plenty of upward “lucky” immigrant children from those populations too.
The whole reason the second generation regressed to the mean is the luck ran out, so when the second generation mates with one another, not much reason to expect still more regression in the third generation
The lucky would be the new immigrants arriving all the time.
a map showing the absence of the ONLY known dietary cause of mental retardation, cretinism. guess what? it’s much worse in Russia than it is in Africa.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Iodine_deficiency_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2002.svg
The lucky would be the new immigrants arriving all the time.
Well i think the african kids who took the CAT IQ test can be subdivided into 3 groups, each with their own mean IQ
1) the grandchildren of the older highly selected immigrants
2) the children of recent less selected immigrants
3) those who are both 1 & 2
When 2 second generations mate, there’s no reason to expect much regression in their kids
I never said there was. But there are plenty of new African immigrants to Britain. So plenty of grandchildren of first generation immigrants will continue to regress. The rate will slow down, as I already said, but they will still likely regress.
When 2 second generations mate, there’s no reason to expect much regression in their kids.
yet another example of mathematical “simplicity”.
the environment changes and thus so does the “genetic true score”. the genetic architecture depends on the environment. the first generation may score lower or higher than their parents as their alleles may be + or – for the new environment. the parental mean IQ/offspring IQ correlation for British blacks is what?
the kids of immigrants have different AND a better environment than their parents had in many ways which have nothing to do with “nutrition”.
psychometrics isn’t physics. but flushtonian and densenite psychometrics is like astrology.
furthermore correlation must include the alpha.
that is the regression line may have a non-zero intercept, alpha.
consequently children can score higher than their high IQ parents most of the time even if the correlation between parents’ IQ and kids’ IQ is much less than 1.
I’m convinced that the only way to convert these people is with their own assumptions. They think all environments and genes go in one direction or the other and stack. Which is fine….the data from the UK are pretty strong.
It’s fine.
If the sample from Manchester had second generation immigrants, which it likely did, that puts the possible ‘height-nutrition 1SD in one generation’ theory to bed anyway.
bumpkin person mentioned dichorionic vs monochorionic twins. this led me again to blow her up…i’m actually wondering if she’s a blow up sex doll…
well in one study the h^2 calculated using the dichorionic twins is .08 for block design, but still respectable for vocabulary…using the bullshit assumptions as usual.
so it appears by their own bullshit assumptions that genes have almost 0 independent effect…on block design…the sort of test pp considers to be among the “real” IQ tests.;)
i thought it might be .2. i was too “optimistic”.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ee4KTFdIabAC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=dichorionic+twins+identical+iq&source=bl&ots=4S-6dFjmZa&sig=MmBKMKks9JK_qnvsGuftPVFpumY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nvisVLaYFpXZoATH2YGABw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=dichorionic%20twins%20identical%20iq&f=false
the root of “scientific” racism is hereditism. the above proves hereditism is 100% FALSE.
prediction: hereditists will rebrand themselves as “congenitalists”.
The fact that prenatal environment has such a big effect on block design (which shows a big Flynn effect ) proves my point that nutrition (especially prenatal) is the main cause of the Flynn effect
no it doesn’t you fucking retard.
it applies only in utero. and the mother can eat the best diet in the world and it will make no difference. it’s only a nutrition effect if it’s caused by DIET or wasting diseases.
i did your assignment for you.
the only evidence i could find was for PREMATURE infants assigned different diets, one “high nutrient” the other “standard”. the kids were tested at age 13. there was NO difference for girls so the “significant” difference for males mentioned in the abstract may have been practically insignificant. and the effect was in verbal IQ.
You should educate yourself. It can’t be fun not knowing anything
Prenatal & early nutrition is the main cause of the Flynn effect
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1127240?sid=21105577529653&uid=4&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=3737720&uid=2&uid=63&uid=83
Regression to the mean:
There are two components that go into each person’s z-score on a particular test: their true z-score, and some random error. When there is group of scores that are above or below the mean in a guassian distribution, on average both the true scores and the random errors will have been above or below the mean. Look at it like this: if a bunch of people take an IQ test and score 145, then on average they will both be above average in skill and luck. Why do we know they are lucky? Because the shape of guassian distribution implies there is a greater density of people who are below 145 then above it, so there are more people who will have been lucky to get a 145 then unlucky to get it.
As a result, if we test people who score a 145 on an IQ test again, they will score lower, the amount depending on how much luck (randomness) was involved in the test (a 12 minute test will have more regression than a 12-hour one).
However, if we were to predict the test scores two tests from now, we would not expect the scores to keep regressing to the mean! That would be ludicrous! Instead, we would expect the scores on the second retest to match the scores on the first retest.
So, regression to the mean is an artifact of random errors being normally distributed with a mean of zero in a population, but not in a sub-population that is selected based on some criteria that is conditional on that degree of randomness.
As a result, you cannot appeal to regression to the mean as a reason that z-scores will keep returning to the mean every generation. Rather, you will need another reason,.
no need for a math lesson. the regression merely knocks off the environmental good luck or bad luck of the parents, theoretically…BUT the h^2 for IQ varies from one population to another and from one time and place to another AND the environment is not static, thus there is NO “true score” to regress to?
GET IT?
This was for swanknasty who seems to need a math lesson.
maybe,
but the bigger point is that one cannot say as pp does…
“the parents score so much higher than those who didn’t emigrate, and h^2 is such and such, therefore the true score for the parents must also be very high, and thus with purely additive heritability the children will have the mean of their parents’ true scores.”
Lagos to London is a HUGE environmental change.
And it was inapplicable to what I wrote. Perhaps you need reading lessons.
even in the lifetime of one person the environment changes and thus his place on his own norm of reaction changes.
true score test theory is just another example of the total absence of mathematical sophistication in psychologists and behavior genetics people.
You’re missing the mating factor here. Think of it as averaging scores. You test one person and you get their score and some error. You test them again and this score reflects more or less their true score. Now you test someone else for the first time and average the score. The true score will be less than that average.
I just moved the thread down here.
‘You’re in denial’
A full 13 points falls short but your response is ‘meh not an exact science’ and that I’m in denial. Surreal.
‘Rounding IQs to the nearest multiple of 5 is as precise as you can expect.’
So 13 magic points of nutrition and 5 magic points for wiggle room — you have any magic beans, too? The nutrition add is simply bogus. Any nutrition gain would be on the order of 4-5 points max.
‘And there’s so much competition’
So much competition that low-skilled African immigrants outnumber high skilled immigrants. No really, must take super smarts.
‘could be short compared to african American elites ‘
Doubt they’re 3 inches shorter.
Your ‘West African’ height study doesn’t specify whether the populations studied were first-generation immigrant populations. So………maybe they will grow in time. The fact that those populations haven’t grown, and we know that Manchester is a first world town, which would seem to disprove your theory anyway. These individuals don’t seem to have shot up to full height. The study was carried out in the late 90’s, which means that many second generation and 1.75 generation immigrants may have been included.
Swank, this whole question of height is meanignless. it has no significance to the question unless you assume, falsely, that
shorter indicates inferior. it does not. except in the case of iodine deficiency and prolonged severe malnutrition. that is, near starvation level.
there is simply NO evidence that diet and diseases impairing absorption of nutrients have any long term effect on “cognitive ability”.
it’s just MADE UP…OUT OF THIN AIR.
crania are larger in the last 200 years, because people are taller. that’s the ONLY reason. and once stratification is accounted for there is 0 correlation between height/cranial capacity and IQ.
another anomaly…the Baltics and Northern Russia. greater cc than the Japanese and the British.
lol what do you want me to do? I’ve already said he’s trying to equate one phenomenon ( FE gains and assuming nutrition explains most if not all of that phenomenon) with another phenomenon (both height and IQ gains from relieving severe malnutrition). I think that was one of the first things I said. I already said that only 1/3rd of Africa is malnourished in the ‘severe’ sense.
If people don’t want to hear it they don’t want to hear it.
there is simply NO evidence that diet and diseases impairing absorption of nutrients have any long term effect on “cognitive ability”.
There is simply no evidence you have an IQ above 50. Check the literature showing identical twins where one gets even slightly more nutrients in the womb has a bigger head & higher IQ at age 15, especially on the most Flynn affected nonverbal tests.
I used to think you were really smart. Sadly the more you post, the more ignorance & confusion you reveal
i did.
there is no evidence.
i never said anything about the womb. did I?
if a mother drinks while her kiddies are in the womb they often turn out retarded too.
is that what happened to you pp?
i used to think you were just retarded.
now i know you have an IQ of 45.
pp you’ve been calling a moron, idiot, whatever since my tenth post on your old blog.
just more lies from bumpkin person.
stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
So 13 magic points of nutrition and 5 magic points for wiggle room — you have any magic beans, too?
You want more precision? Average the IQ 88 (low estimate) children of supposedly less selected new immigrants with the IQ 94 grandchildren of highly selected old immigrants & the average for african British kids is 91 (one point off from the CAT scores they obtained)
The nutrition add is simply bogus. Any nutrition gain would be on the order of 4-5 points max.
So nutrition can only affect height which apparently you must think is much less genetic than IQ?
So much competition that low-skilled African immigrants outnumber high skilled immigrants.
That means nothing. African immigrants are more educated than british whites
Doubt they’re 3 inches shorter.
That’s a lot more than 0.8 SD
Your ‘West African’ height study doesn’t specify whether the populations studied were first-generation immigrant populations.
The study was done on adults in the 1990s so probably mostly first generation
it’s all moot, because nutrition has no effect on IQ except for iodine deficiency and prolonged severe malnutrition in infancy.
bumpkin person strategy:
1. make shit up, and keep saying it over and over again.
2. whatever shit you’ve made up greatly exaggerate its importance.
‘Average the IQ 88’
….that you obtained after adding 13 bonus points.
And we really don’t know what portion of second-gens mate with new first-gens. So assuming no regression is inaccurate.
But yes, let’s focus on the main issue — the magical 13 points.
‘That means nothing’
It means that figuring out how to get out of Africa can’t be that hard if millions upon millions of low-skilled individuals with sub 8th grade education can get to the EU 15.
‘The study was done on adults in the 1990s so probably mostly first generation’
‘The main period of arrival of first-generation Black African, Indian and Pakistani groups was between 1965 and 1974.’
http://www.childmigration.net/files/iwp_2009_18.pdf
So no there were probably plenty of second generation individuals in ~ 1995. Thus, I think by your own study, we see that second generation immigration don’t gain .8 SD of height.
Also note table 19 —> gibes with my numbers. 41 percent men have tertiary compared with 37 percent women.
‘That’s a lot more than 0.8 SD’
By the CDC data, the 50th tile is 70 and the 15th is 67. So an SD is 3 inches and .8SD is 2.4 inches.
In case you’re wondering, I don’t think they’re 2.4 inches taller on average either.
oh forgot to put the ~ sign in front of 3 and 2.4
And we really don’t know what portion of second-gens mate with new first-gens. So assuming no regression is inaccurate.
Assuming double regression in grandchildren would be even more inaccurate. On balance the grandchildren would lift the IQ average of British African kids.
It means that figuring out how to get out of Africa can’t be that hard if millions upon millions of low-skilled individuals with sub 8th grade education can get to the EU 15.
Their education is an issue we’ve discussed to death; the question is whether successfully migrating to the First World displays intelligence independent of education since it’s such a smart thing to do. Citing their education and skill level tells us nothing about how smart they are compared to those of similar education/skill who stayed in Africa.
‘The study was done on adults in the 1990s so probably mostly first generation’
‘The main period of arrival of first-generation Black African, Indian and Pakistani groups was between 1965 and 1974.’
A lot of those arriving circa 1970 brought children who were foreign born since people had kids younger in those days, so in many cases even the children of first generation immigrants are first generation immigrants. Further as I mentioned in the blog post, on page 51 of Lynn’s book he cites study that Caribbean kids born in Britain are 0.67 SD taller than children born in the Caribbean. I would expect an even bigger boost for African kids since sub-Saharan Africa’s more malnourished than the Caribbean.
Further, I cited a study showing among the younger generation, Black British are taller than White British. You claimed it was because Black kids mature faster. However by adolescents whites catch up:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=CT1GgunY_-IC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=white+children+taller+than+black+children&source=bl&ots=pcYo6otEM4&sig=ft_rXUdZsYv–mX4VWjzHIImLI0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6L2uVIP3L4q1yATagYLwCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=white%20children%20taller%20than%20black%20children&f=false
Further, if even the British born blacks are malnourished, we would expect them to be especially short in childhood, because malnutrition impairs height more in kids, because much catch-up growth occurs by adulthood in such children
By the CDC data, the 50th tile is 70 and the 15th is 67. So an SD is 3 inches and .8SD is 2.4 inches.
In case you’re wondering, I don’t think they’re 2.4 inches taller on average either.
It depends on the sample. I’ve seen HUGE studies suggesting the height SD is only 2.57 inches; if so only 2 inches is needed to get a 0.8 SD difference.
i challenge bumpkin person to provide ONE piece of evidence that anything other than cretinism or prolonged severe malnutrition has any lasting effect on IQ. phenylketonuria or some other rare genetic disorder doesn’t count.
she won’t find it, because it doesn’t exist. all that exists is correlations and conjectures by the likes of flushton, densen, and lynn.
THE explanation for why white kids in 30s America would have a mean score of 80 today, below American blacks has absolutely NOTHING to do with nutrition. hey, Meng Hu agrees with me. Flynn agrees with me.
My God there’s much you don’t know :
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1127240?sid=21105577529653&uid=4&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=3737720&uid=2&uid=63&uid=83
that’s TOTALLY irrelevant.
wtf? are you drunk? AND retarded.
Meng Hu believes the best, though unsatisfying explanation for the Flynn effect, is that IQ tests DO NOT measure intelligence.
the ONLY CONCEIVABLE way that could be relevant to the “nutrition” hypothesis is if you believe that:
1. premies are LESS common today.
2. the reason they are less common is maternal DIET.
that’s TOTALLY irrelevant
I suppose proving you wrong is irrelevant since you’re irrelevant
AND that DESPITE there hypothetically having been MORE premature births back in the day…
THESE INFANTS SURVIVED!!!
you didn’t even ANSWER my question.
let alone prove me wrong.
Why are babies being born with bigger brains every decade? If its not nutrition, what is it?
you didn’t even ANSWER my question
The study suggested prenatal nutrition has a long term effect on IQ. Guess you can’t read an abstract
i read it AND the one you posted AND it is TOTALLY irrelevant. you’re just retarded. sorry, i meant you’r a moron. IQ = 45. though with your obsession with IQ tests maybe your phenotype is 65.
if anything, premies are MORE common today AND are MORE likely to survive than in times past. and there is no greater congenital “nutritional” deficiency.
AND those babies who were IN THE WOMB during the Dutch famine showed NO effect on IQ at age 18.
i’ve already posted that 100 times TODAY.
greater height = bigger brain != higher IQ when population stratification/heterogeneity is accounted for. that is the brain size and height IQ correlation is spurious TOTALLY.
bigger people have bigger brains. people HAVE gotten bigger. that’s it.
the increase in cc over the last 200 years is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS unless there has been an increase in the ratio of cc to height for fixed heights.
has there been?
AND those babies who were IN THE WOMB during the Dutch famine showed NO effect on IQ at age 18.
Unless you can show the Dutch famine was strong enough to impair their brain size or height, there’s no reason it should have affected IQ.
if anything, premies are MORE common today AND are MORE likely to survive than in times past
So? The vast majority of newborns are heavier with bigger brains
greater height = bigger brain != higher IQ when population stratification/heterogeneity is accounted for. that is the brain size and height IQ correlation is spurious TOTALLY.
You’re a moron TOTALLY
the increase in cc over the last 200 years is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS unless there has been an increase in the ratio of cc to height for fixed heights.
Which there has
Seems reasonable that varied diet with food from all around the world provides better supply of trace minarals, than if you eat only what’s grown around where you live. Usually very small effect from that, but it you live in a place with soil deficiencies it could mean more.
Also very reasonable that identical twins, or fraternal twins, get a little different conditions in the womb, and that could have a small effect.
Whatever these things imply, it’t NOT that enviroment alone determines intelligence, or anything near it.
It just means that even a good environment could be slightly slightly better and add a couple of points, maybe five points but I doubt it.
notice pp STILL has provided NO evidence.
AND I REPEAT:
brain size IQ correlation = 0!
height IQ correlation = 0!
the Dutch data show that if even if your mom was STARVING when she carried you, it makes NO difference to your IQ at age 18.
AND I REPEAT AGAIN:
brain size IQ correlation = 0!
height IQ correlation = 0!
i WILL provide proof.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4932.abstract
Brain size does not predict general cognitive ability within families…
Several recent studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have indicated that a substantial correlation (mean r = ≈0.4) exists between brain size and general cognitive performance, consistent with the hypothesis that the payoff for increasing brain size was greater general cognitive ability. However, these studies confound between-family environmental influences with direct genetic/biological influences. To address this problem, within-family (WF) sibling differences for several neuroanatomical measures were correlated to WF scores on a diverse battery of cognitive tests in a sample of 36 sibling pairs. WF correlations between neuroanatomy and general cognitive ability were essentially zero, although moderate correlations were found between prefrontal volumes and the Stroop test (known to involve prefrontal cortex). These findings suggest that nongenetic influences play a role in brain volume/cognitive ability associations. Actual direct genetic/biological associations may be quite small, and yet still may be strong enough to account for hominid brain evolution.
‘Meng Hu believes the best, though unsatisfying explanation for the Flynn effect, is that IQ tests DO NOT measure intelligence.’
That’s interesting Mugabe. What would you say intelligence is? Whoever says, or believes, the above clearly has a more refined idea about that.
“intelligence” is a word.
it is used in many senses,, not one.
in order to use it in one sense, univocally, the g factor must exist. it doesn’t. not in the sense that Densen and Flushton and Lynn and Gottfredcunt say it does.
so what has happened is increases in IQ scores have either:
1. not affected this g or
2. the means of measuring this g sucks or
3. there simply is no g to measure, no univocal sense of the word “intelligence”.
1. has been claimed by retards like Densen. it’s 100% FALSE.
2. if the only means of measuring g are artificial and culture bound, then the intelligence people exhibit in their everyday lives may be quite different from their “psychometric” intelligence. so that one may have a high IQ, yet not be especially smart at anything other than things like IQ tests.
3. if g is real, then more subtests must be included in IQ batteries and they must be much more practical.
but g is not real. the reason for interest in it is obvious though. it makes psychology professors feel like they’re important people. it has political/ideological implications. but ultimately it’s an example of a common misunderstanding. that is, that because there is one word, then there must be one thing to which that one word refers. when, in fact, all that’s required is that the senses of the word have been derived one from the other by semantic resemblance/commonalities. this is Wittgenstein’s “family resemblance”.
WMC cites one tiny anomalous study (36 sibling pairs) to argue no within family brain-size IQ correlation
Meanwhile a study on an astonishing 14,000 sibling pairs found the within family head size-IQ correlation emerges by as young as age 7:
http://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Race-and-Sex-Differences-in-Head-Size-and-IQ-1994-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen-Fred-W.-Johnson.pdf
I don’t particularily like iq or talk about intelligence. But I recognize that there seems to be something there that makes all kinds of mental challenges easier for some, and most often whether it’s maths or word puzzles the same individuals are good at it, and it often though not as reliably translate to sports as well. Mental stamina seems to be important for success, to be able to go on day after day, and I can see where “intelligence” helps with that.
I the danish school system we don’t have those tests, which I think is a good thing. While test results for a whole population may say something, on individuals it says less, sometimes only if they had a good day. Much better then to allow people to study and when the courses get more difficult some will drop out and others stay on. In the end we produce just as qualified and competent people as a test-based system does.
However imperfect the iq test are, they do appear to show something, and most of all on national level. The south koreans I bet have always scored high, and lo and behold they rise from poverty in a couple of generations. Farmers in china score high, don’t they, despite everything, so it makes sense that china is growing economically. The irish and east germans scored lower and look now.. yes it is possible to prove earlier tests wrong, but so far there is a pattern to it. Israel is perhaps the best illustration for HBD, with different, and all of them priviledged, groups of jews so far apart.
the study i linked to measured actual brain volume, both total and for several regions.
bumpkin person’s uses cranial circumference.
according to the authors the highest reported correlation between this and brain volume is .5.
they found a within family correlation of .2 corrected fro attenuation for white males between circumference and IQ. correlations for other groups was less. for black females, like Oprah, it was only .06!
given this the correlation between IQ and circumference for white male siblings could still be as low as -.75 or as high as +.95 between brain volume and IQ. i believe the within family correlation is between standardized differences between sibling pairs on circumference and IQ.
i’ll go with the smaller MRI study.
should’ve been:
…given this the correlation between IQ and total brain volume for white male siblings could still be as low as -.75 or as high as +.95…
and all of Densen’s work is suspect, because his figures are always higher or more in favor of hereditism than anyone else’s. usually by a lot.
other researchers have found a tiny, but statistically significant correlation between cranial circumference and IQ. nothing close to Densen’s .2.
they found a within family correlation of .2 corrected fro attenuation for white males between circumference and IQ. correlations for other groups was less. for black females, like Oprah, it was only .06!
A correlation of 0.06 is quite high considering:
1) sibling pairs of the same gender and race have serious range restriction.
2) IQ at age 7 is a crude proxy for genetic IQ
3) head circumference is a crude proxy for brain size
other researchers have found a tiny, but statistically significant correlation between cranial circumference and IQ. nothing close to Densen’s .2.
Wrong, you just read only politically correct crap. The median of all the major studies suggests a 0.23 correlation between head circumference and IQ and the one study that correlated head size directly with g (not IQ) found a 0.3 correlation.
Further, scientists who are not even interested in IQ have found large head circumference to lower the risk of dementia in later life
just to show how dense Densen was, or how dishonest, i’ll take the first three studies i find on within race/gender cranial circumference/IQ correlation for adults which have informative abstracts and are not by flushton, densen, or lynn.
abstracts which give the correlation are difficult to find. those which claim the correlation is statistically significant slightly easier, but un-informative.
BUT your TOTALLY irrelevant “proof” DID show that genes have NO independent effect on block design or rather the Falconer’s formula heritability is only .08, likely well below the margin of error. i don’t know what n was.
that is, one twin gets more, the other less, of whatever their identical genomes need to be smart… supposedly. this in utero effect TOTALLY destroys claims of genetic causes for IQ differences.
So i guess you’re a creationist now. If intelligence is as non-genetic as you say, then it could not have evolved via natural selection which acts on genes
IQ is not intelligence . G is not intelligence. The amount of intelligence that was likely heavily selected for is intelligence > retardation.
I highly recommend the pumpkin to purchase this book when it comes out, written by Stuart J. Ritchie.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1444791877/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/277-6539514-0618836#productDescription_secondary_view_pageState_1420649399515
Looks good. I’ll check it out
No word on the West African Manchester heights? It seems like your own study did you in.
No it did you in. As usual you’re trying desperately to spin evidence that opposes you into evidence that supports you
Most first generation African immigrants arrived between 1964-1975. The study took place in the mid-90’s. It’s very likely that adult children of first-gen immigrants were included.
They didn’t gain an SD in height over in Manchester, pumpkin.
Dear God Swank, the short height of those blacks proves my point that those immigrants were malnourished even if some were second generation (speculation )
And now the generations of blacks that actually took the recent tests is actually taller than whites, proving my point these kids benefitted from nutrition that their parents/grandparents lacked
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16877952/
But no one has ever been able to convince you of anything so i can’t keep arguing forever
Your mind is made up & getting you to concede a point is like pulling teeth
I admire your unrelenting persistence though
But i only have so much energy & so much time
You aren’t convincing me because you don’t have good arguments, pumpkin.
The short height of the blacks in Manchester doesn’t prove your point because the average DIDN’T MOVE at all from the Nigerian average. If it was as you said, then the average would have been higher.
And your adolescent data is garbage as well — are you going to stick with Rushton’s r/K or not? Do blacks simply develop and mature earlier, which would explain them being taller, or do they not?
And spare me the ‘persistence’ argument. You have been wrong several times now: you were wrong about SSA heights, you were wrong about elite heights in SSA, you were wrong about Level 4 qualifications, you were wrong about the tertiary education numbers (all of them back up my interpretation of ~40% tertiary).
Your nutrition theory, as pointed out from different angles by me and Jorge, assumes that FE gains were primarily caused by nutrition, are connected to height gains, correspond neatly to IQ gains, AND that gains we will see in the first generation are the type of gains we see when alleviating SEVERE malnutrition.
It’s not compelling.
Keep in mind I also posted more recent data showing virtually no gap in British African IQ for verbal similarities. We have data points for verbal and spatial IQ of second generation Black Africans in the US — 1.2 SD gap on Wordsum, which correls .71 with IQ =.85 SD ~ 13 points = 87. So Brit Africans 99 + 92/2 = 96. US Africans 87+89/2 = 88.
64.7% of US Africans receive tertiary education. Using the same GER from before, that gives us around 2.3 SD selected, which works out to an IQ of 80. The US Africans, by your theory, should have IQs of about 93. The Britains, as we have discussed, should have an IQ of either 88 or 90 — depending on either 1.3 or 1.69 selection. The average there is 89.
Let’s just treat nutrition as a random variable with possible observed values of 1-25. The mean would be 25(26)/2/25 = 13. The SD would be 7.35. So we have 5/7.35 below for US Africans. And we have roughly 1 SD above for Brits. The probability of this occurring in your theory? .24*.16 = 4 percent.
Not unlikely enough for you?
Canada has similar numbers, re: selection for African immigrants. IF Canada’s IQ numbers resemble the US’s, then now the probability of these three events happening in a row is 1 percent.
Point being, if we travel around the world and compute the first-world second generation African immigrant IQ — your theory will become less and less likely.
No swank you’re the one who has been wrong about most things, especially the heights
You went from arguing immigrants suffered no malnutrition to arguing that even their grandchildren are malnourished after generations in Britain & when i pointed out the young cohorts are tall, your only rebuttal was to despetately cite rushton who you normally condemn as pseudoscience
You’re inconsistent, wrong & unbelievably stubborn
But I love the persistence
‘You went from arguing immigrants suffered no malnutrition ‘
I never said no malnutrition, I actually said malnutrition that is not on the order of 1 SD…or relatively insignificant malnutrition.
Here are my first thoughts on the issue, because you enjoy strawmanning:
‘DECEMBER 29, 2014 AT 8:13 AM
…And if African immigrants were super selected it’s unlikely that they were that depressed in nutrition.’
Here is the second statement I made:
‘You’re confusing gains from relieving malnutrition with the FE-type gains that have (allegedly) come from “improved normal” nutrition (of course, those gains are probably less than half of the FE gains anyway). The African immigrants weren’t likely malnourished, so nutrition gains of this magnitude do not show up this fast.’
So no pumpkin…only you have been inconsistent.
‘when i pointed out the young cohorts are tall, your only rebuttal was to despetately cite rushton who you normally condemn as pseudoscience’
It is pseudoscience, and that’s the point. However, it’s part of HBD. IF you want to say ‘I abandon this part of HBD to explain X anomaly,’ that’s fine.
The nutrition theory is bust.
Exhibit Z that the nutrition theory is garbage:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16298218
http://www.cashdividend.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Gertler-et-al-2011.pdf (page 11, bottom line)
This study looked at stunted versus non-stunted children and the effect it had on their IQs through age 18.
The effect difference was .4 SD. That’s with SEVERE malnourishment.
Now, maybe you could argue that the children who were ‘not stunted’ scored .4 SD above. Of course, those children were better off — like you believe the Africans to the US are — and thus were probably smarter on average. Regardless,drawing the inference in your favor would bring the total up to .8 SD.
.8SD gains therefore only happen with SEVERE malnourishment, i.e. the lower third of SSA, i.e. not our chosen demo.
I found a picture of your nutrition theory pumpkin:
Swank,
I don’t have time to correct all your mistakes right now, but this latest one was especially egregious. Height is just one indicator of how well nourished one is. IQ is another. So when you select people who are especially malnourished by one indicator (height), they will regress upward to the mean on another (IQ).
The same thing would happen if you went the other way. If you defined severely malnourished as those who were mentally stunted (retarded IQ), and then measured their height, you would find that stunted IQ had only minimum impact on height.
Does that mean nutrition doesn’t affect height? Of course not.
By contrast, if you use a neutral measure of malnutrition (the country they live in), you tend to find parallel effect on both height and IQ.
Oh okay, so now we have super upward regression to thank. Magic, magic, everywhere.
“After controlling the confounding variables, 24 children with moderately chronic undernutrition (group 1) were compared to 17 normal children (group 2)…Conclusions: Chronic and moderate malnutrition did not influence the cognitive function, the intelligence quotient, and the impulsivity index.”
http://comprped.com/?page=article&article_id=8013
I guess they didn’t use enough ‘indicators,’ eh?
“There were Positive history of late supplementary feeding, low caloric diet, anorexia, poor weight gain, decreased velocity of growth in the early years of life, meat consumption ≤ 2 times/week and in small amounts, and history of insufficient food intake in the early years of life continuing to school age in the undergrowth group.”
Duh, guys…there was about 2 SD worth of upward regression!
Also nevermind that the stunted children were IQ tested SEVERAL TIMES in the Jamaican study.
And nevermind that supplementing nutrition produced .4 SD worth of benefit in those children.
Everything is consistent with what I said ORIGINALLY.
i don’t have time to correct all your mistakes right now.
more lies from bumpkin person. as usual.
1. she has a very low IQ.
2. she’s evil.
bragging about how big your tv…
it’s time to leave the trailer park.
bumpkin is a great example of false consciousness.
this is an advantage capital has in multiethnic societies like shit-merica and canuckistan.
“your problems aren’t caused by the shitty economic and class system you live under, they’re caused by black people and Mexicans.”
amy chua said the same in World on Fire. i guess she’s an idiot too.
Engels, a rich German gentile capitalist:
Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker. Consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. …
since the bourgeois illusion of the eternity and the finality of capitalist production has been added as well, even the victory of … is accounted as a sheer victory of thought; not as the reflection in thought of changed economic facts but as the finally achieved correct understanding of actual conditions subsisting always and everywhere …
And your adolescent data is garbage as well — are you going to stick with Rushton’s r/K or not? Do blacks simply develop and mature earlier, which would explain them being taller, or do they not?
By adolescence the two races achieve similar heights
https://books.google.ca/books?id=CT1GgunY_-IC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=white+children+taller+than+black+children&source=bl&ots=pcYo6otEM4&sig=ft_rXUdZsYv–mX4VWjzHIImLI0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6L2uVIP3L4q1yATagYLwCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=white%20children%20taller%20than%20black%20children&f=false
So the fact that in Britain, in the younger generation blacks are taller than whites shows that the young generation is not malnourished, unlike previous generations of British blacks who were probably mostly first generation immigrants and thus short
Oh okay, so now we have super upward regression to thank. Magic, magic, everywhere.
Nothing magic about it, Swank. It’s simple logic. Children who are defined as malnourished by one criterion will regress to the mean on another criterion. Stunted height is not malnutrition, stunted height is an effect of malnutrition, just like stunted IQ is an effect of malnutrition.
But we wouldn’t take kids with low IQs and say, since they’re only slightly short, nutrition has minimal impact on height, so why would we do the reverse?
Now if we define malnutrition as Third World living conditions, we are not preselecting our data based on either height or IQ, and thus we find malnutrition has a parallel effect on both variables.
And btw, you’re wasting your time attack the nutrition model. Most HBDers would agree with you that the IQ gap between blacks in the developed world and blacks in Africa is largely cultural (Richard Lynn and I are in the minority, even among strong HBDers, in arguing it’s nutrition)
But HBDers would argue that most of the black-white IQ gap within the developed world is genetic. That’s the position you want to be debunking.
Arguing whether blacks in Africa score low because of cultural or nutritional deprivation doesn’t get you anywhere, because both are environmental, so the whole debate is irrelevant to genes, and everyone agrees they have a 13 point environmental deficit, regardless of whether its nutritional or cultural
I just watched a video with Steven Pinker. He talks about the high iq of european jews. He mentioned adoption studies and was very categorical. No evidence of environment making any difference. Of course it was the short and quick version, but he didn’t seem to think what he said was the least bit controversial. So is he also a nutter far outside of mainstream science without knowing it? “Plonker” maybe?
more google translate, you viking pos.
he was categorical that, because there are NO adoption studies, Jews raised by gentiles and vice versa:
there can be NO categorical claims regarding the genetic “fitness” of Ashkenazim for contemporary and late 20th c American
The part about adoption studies was not about jews, it was environment vs genetics in general. He even said there are no such studies with jews, and I am not focusing on jews here except I find israel fascinating. I used to think they were a nation of 110+ all of them.
according to Lynn the Ravens scores for Israel average 87 or something like that.
too bad he’s not Chinese or he could be called Chinker.
how about Stinker. Steven Stinker.
How about Even Pinker. The pinker the more anxious to be mainstream.
for one whose native language isn’t English it may be impossible to tell, but Pinker is what’s called “precious” and nauseatingly so.
sense 4 of http://www.thefreedictionary.com/precious:
4. Affectedly dainty or overrefined
I pick that up, stop thinking that non native speakers are idiots Mugabe. All the more reason to believe he is mainstream.
here’s what Americans think of Danes.
Pinker gives is confused. he thinks he’s a poodle.
http://img.tedcdn.com/r/images.ted.com/images/ted/2cc6d3a7f29dff9bb21d734f462bb07e8457a2ca_1600x1200.jpg?
Some american have a sense of humor, but on the whole it’s way below the level of the english.
I notice you don’t bunch Pinker together with Rushton and Lynn. Pinker is a geneticist. I think you will find Dawkins is also HBD-oriented, but doesn’t focus on it very much.
Pinker is not a geneticist Stig. he’s a psychologist.
and he’s a moron too, and his speech on Ashkenazi IQ was totally disingenuous.
he’s just not a racist moron afaik.
Flushton, Densen, Lynn…all psychologists. Murray’s PhD was in poly sci.
‘criteria for malnutrition at age 3: angular stomatitis; kwashiorkor (protein malnutrition); sparse, thin hair; and anemia’
‘compared with children who had met no malnutrition criteria at age 3, children who had met 1, 2, and 3 criteria had mean total IQs at age 11 that were 3.3, 9.0, and 15.3 points lower, respectively. Controlling for race, ethnicity, and 14 psychosocial measures did not change the study’s findings.’
http://www.jwatch.org/jw200306240000006/2003/06/24/early-childhood-malnutrition-has-lasting#sthash.dhpY94H2.dpuf‘
Looks like it’s around 1 SD for severe malnutrition, as I said. Although, if we were to take the growth rates out a step further for 4/4 criteria, it would come out to about 1.4 SD. But these numbers are for those who are ACTUALLY and TRULY malnourished.
and that’s only when the malnutrition occurs in infancy…
but there IS another exception i know of…
namely thiamine deficiency. this is the proximal cause of WK in those alcoholics who develop it. the brain damage suffered by some alcoholics is NOT caused by alcohol directly. beriberi is the name for thiamine deficiency which results from poor diet alone. and WK can also result from beriberi. of course it may be that most or all of the thiamine deficiency found in some alcoholics is caused by drinking and not eating, that is, the very poor diet often associated with alcoholism.
but, though WK is horrible and irreversible, iirc it has no effect on IQ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%E2%80%93Korsakoff_syndrome
Looks like it’s around 1 SD for severe malnutrition, as I said. Although, if we were to take the growth rates out a step further for 4/4 criteria, it would come out to about 1.4 SD. But these numbers are for those who are ACTUALLY and TRULY malnourished.
The immigrants from West Africa are malnourished enough for their heights to be stunted by 0.8 SD compared to genetically similar people born in the First World. Why can’t their IQs also be stunted by 0.8 SD, or are you saying IQ is more genetically fixed than height?
Because there isn’t a 1/1 correspondence between height and IQ. Because based on the data only severe malnutrition has an effect like this on IQ when we use non-height indicators.
It’s not like being shorter causes them to have lower intelligence or that being less intelligent causes them to be shorter.
‘Assuming double regression in grandchildren would be even more inaccurate. On balance the grandchildren would lift the IQ average of British African kids.’
I never said it wouldn’t, but it would still have likely regressed over multiple generations, so the lift wouldn’t have much explanatory power. And no, it’s not inaccurate — I already explained why and pointed out the error in Gs’s ‘math lesson.’
‘The question is whether successfully migrating to the First World displays intelligence independent of education since it’s such a smart thing to do’
And the answer seems to be ‘no.’ Risk-taking and other behaviors probably explain the decision to leave more than smarts past some (very very) low baseline.
‘so in many cases even the children of first generation immigrants are first generation immigrants’
Yes, they would be 1.75 generation immigrants, as I already said. These immigrants should have gained the benefits of first-world nutrition as well because they were young when they arrived.
‘if even the British born blacks are malnourished, we would expect them to be especially short in childhood, ‘
More false equating with “first-world improved nutrition effects” with “malnutrition in the stunting sense” effects.
‘I’ve seen HUGE studies suggesting the height SD is only 2.57 inches; if so only 2 inches is needed to get a 0.8 SD difference.’
CDC is gold standard.
I never said it wouldn’t, but it would still have likely regressed over multiple generations, so the lift wouldn’t have much explanatory power. And no, it’s not inaccurate — I already explained why and pointed out the error in Gs’s ‘math lesson.’
When the IQ 94 offspring of the older highly selected immigrants mate with one another, no regression should occur (since the second generation has already regressed) and their kids should preserve the IQ 94.
When the IQ 94 offspring of older highly selected immigrants mate with random blacks with an IQ of 94, their kids will regress to a mean that is lower than that of the second generation highly selected immigrants (94) but higher than the genetic mean of random blacks (80) which means the kids will regress to a mean of 87. Given the 0.6 parents-offspring IQ correlation, their kids would have an IQ of 0.6(94 – 87) + 87 = 91
So on average, the grandchildren of highly selected older immigrants should have an IQ of 93. Averaging them with the IQ 88 (low estimate) children of less selected new immigrants, gives an IQ of 91 (virtually identical to the their nonverbal CAT scores)
And the answer seems to be ‘no.’ Risk-taking and other behaviors probably explain the decision to leave more than smarts past some (very very) low baseline.
I think you’re severely underestimating the cognitive component. It takes IQ to know, think, and plan beyond your immediate environment, to understand the numerous benefits of living in the developed world, to know and understand how the immigration process works, to know how to organize the trip, to have a job lined up for you when you arrive, to be in an occupation that is valued by Britain, to have English skills when it’s not your first language etc.
Yes, they would be 1.75 generation immigrants, as I already said. These immigrants should have gained the benefits of first-world nutrition as well because they were young when they arrived.
Not necessarily. A lot of the benefits are prenatal
More false equating with “first-world improved nutrition effects” with “malnutrition in the stunting sense” effects.
It’s a matter of degree
CDC is gold standard.
Perhaps, but you didn’t actually calculate the height standard deviation from the CDC data, you estimated it from percentile differences in height. When I calculate it directly from the standard error for black men aged 20-39, 40-59, and 60+, I get standard deviations of 2.66 inches, 2.31 inches, and 3.26 inches, respectively. Averaging all three gives 2.74 inches. (see table 12):
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf
Thus elite African American men would only need to be 2.19 inches taller than elite West African men to suggest that First World nutrition benefits even the elite phenotype by 0.8 SD.
And keep in mind that IQ is likely more sensitive to nutrition than height is because IQ is less heritable so even the absence of nutritional height differences in some cases would not prove the absence of nutritional IQ differences.
And even if some African elites are as well nourished as Westerners, the low heights of Africans who migrate to Britain show that the population we’re actually interested in is not.
Now drag that average down slightly because the top African men will probably intermarry with whites. And now combine that average with the average among less selected new second generation children. You still end up in the same general area — can’t explain it with the nutrition boost. If you want to call it a cultural boost, that’s fine.
‘I think you’re severely underestimating the cognitive component.’
I know what you think, but unfortunately, when millions upon millions of people with sub-8th grade education do X, it’s not so reasonable to believe “smarts” isn’t a big factor in doing X — at least past that level.
‘Not necessarily. A lot of the benefits are prenatal’
Mmhm. Well I have cited multiple studies that back up what I say. First I had studies that used stunting. You took issue. Then I used two studies that had more inclusive malnutrition measures and one that didn’t use height at all.
‘It’s a matter of degree’
And the data indicates that the degree you are positing is inconsistent with what we observe.
‘ only need to be 2.19 inches taller than elite West African men’
2.4 isn’t so much different than 2.2. It’s an interesting question. I think income would be a bad way to assess it. Net worth would probably be better.
‘And keep in mind that IQ is likely more sensitive to nutrition than height is’
Not according to what I’ve cited.
‘the low heights of Africans who migrate to Britain show that the population we’re actually interested in is not.’
Not really. Especially not if the average didn’t lift. Even if “most of the benefit is in prenatal” nutrition, the first-world boost would still show up. Notice in the studies I cited that the children responded to supplementation.
Now drag that average down slightly because the top African men will probably intermarry with whites
And the second generation immigrants who marry non-immigrant blacks probably marry some who are part white, causing the British African community to absorb more white genes, further lifting the average.
And now combine that average with the average among less selected new second generation children. You still end up in the same general area — can’t explain it with the nutrition boost. If you want to call it a cultural boost, that’s fine.
It most certainly can be explained by a nutrition boost since I cited data showing older generations are short, and the young cohort that’s doing well is taller than whites, and I further cited a source showing this can’t be explained by fast maturation rates in blacks, since by adolescence, whites have caught up.
I know what you think, but unfortunately, when millions upon millions of people with sub-8th grade education do X, it’s not so reasonable to believe “smarts” isn’t a big factor in doing X — at least past that level.
The point is they are smart relative to their education, and a lot of their educations are high.
Not according to what I’ve cited.
The data you cited did not prove that adult height is more sensitive to nutrition than IQ is, because the first study used height to measure nutrition (circular evidence) and did the second study even talk about height?
It’s possible that it is, but I haven’t seen any strong evidence either way
Not really. Especially not if the average didn’t lift.
It’s lifting in the young generation, that’s actually doing well on these recent tests
‘causing the British African community to absorb more white genes’
I’m not sure if they would identify as Black African, in that case.
‘The data you cited did not prove that adult height is more sensitive to nutrition than IQ is’
It observed the effect of malnutrition on IQ. The indices of malnutrition they used apply to the lower 30-40% of the African populous. The study did not use height as a measure of malnutrition.
‘It’s lifting in the young generation, that’s actually doing well on these recent tests’
By your link it just says they ‘begin’ to catch up at around 11, and it also says white girls don’t finish catching up until 15.
Regardless, even if true it would support me anyway. This is the third generation. The second generation didn’t seem to show any significant gains…which means the gains don’t all come at once.
‘The point is they are smart relative to their education, and a lot of their educations are high.’
I get the point, but I could just as easily bring up that risk-taking and IQ have a negative correl, that some African countries have HUGE emigration numbers that make super selection for it very unlikely beyond “I need to get out of this place and take a chance,” etc. It’s a wash. The activity itself just doesn’t seem to be that cognitively demanding.
I get the point, but I could just as easily bring up that risk-taking and IQ have a negative correl,
And I could bring up the fact that IQ and voluntary migration has a positive correlation with IQ as Jensen mentioned in his 1998 book. We could argue back and forth for years, but without some actual data, we simply don’t know how much immigration selects for IQ independent of education.
By your link it just says they ‘begin’ to catch up at around 11, and it also says white girls don’t finish catching up until 15.
It says around puberty, whites and blacks have similar heights
Regardless, even if true it would support me anyway. This is the third generation. The second generation didn’t seem to show any significant gains…which means the gains don’t all come at once.
You’d have to get pretty creative to spin this as supporting you. The cohort that’s doing well on the tests you cite is exactly the cohort that is well nourished, regardless of whether it took them one or two generations.
‘we simply don’t know how much immigration selects for IQ independent of education.’
I agree, which is why I’ve been saying it’s a wash.
‘It says around puberty, whites and blacks have similar heights’
No pumpkin it does not say that. It says that around puberty whites start catching up — black growth rates slow down and white growth rates speed up so that they achieve similar heights.
‘You’d have to get pretty creative to spin this as supporting you’
Not really. By Lynn, the last generation — nutrition boost and all — had 86 IQ. This generation is doing much better. If many of the third generation are only now starting to capture the benefits of ‘tall-nutrition,’ then the current second generation hasn’t really captured it yet and they constitute a large part of the demo.
It’s been shown that if you carry a surname indicating some forebear of yours had a white collar profession you are more likely to also be white-collar, several generations later. This is not surprising since your lineage would have attracted above average women, and then it just goes on.
The relevance here is that regression to mean in your case would not be regression to the mean of the nation, but some higher mean. Suppose five generations of upper class breeding, then you have distanced yourself from much of the intelligence drags in the gene pool.
So, these Africans don’t really regress to the African mean, but to a mean of finer pedigree Africans. I hope pedigree isn’t offensive.
‘The relevance here is that regression to mean in your case would not be regression to the mean of the nation, but some higher mean.’
But that’s already accounted for. The trend continues downward because mating “at your level” on average will give you a spouse who themselves, on average, is not at their respective mean.
“The trend continues downward because mating “at your level” on average will give you a spouse who themselves, on average, is not at their respective mean”
Lots your calculations of mixed offspring takes white and black means into account. In this case take black mean 1 and black mean 2 into account, or even one single higher subsection-of-blacks’ mean.
Are jews sliding down because they are collectively regressing to the mean of all humanity? No, this is not an exercise of mathematics only, it’s also about how human genetics works, and your genes can’t carry around the “memory” of a distant mean.
I agree, which is why I’ve been saying it’s a wash.
No it’s not a wash. A wash would imply that Africans who migrate to Britain could be either smarter or dumber than equally educated Africans who stay at home. It’s ridiculous to think that people who were smart enough to move to a country that gave a vastly higher standard of living, health, and prosperity for themselves and their families, could be dumber than equally educated immigrants who stayed at home.
So both groups are either equally intelligent (and even that’s unlikely), or the migrant group is smarter to an unknown degree.
No pumpkin it does not say that. It says that around puberty whites start catching up — black growth rates slow down and white growth rates speed up so that they achieve similar heights.
No, it says “Around puberty, Black children begin to slow down in growth, and White children catch up…”; not “start catching up” but “catch up”
And even if Black kids have a maturation advantage at this age, it would not be enough to make malnourished Blacks taller than whites; at best it would make them equally tall. The height gap between the well nourished and malnourished is actually greater at ages where height is still growing. So clearly, the younger cohorts of British Blacks are well nourished
This generation is doing much better. If many of the third generation are only now starting to capture the benefits of ‘tall-nutrition,’ then the current second generation hasn’t really captured it yet and they constitute a large part of the demo.
Whatever the breakdown might be and however many generations it may have took, the cohort that’s scoring above IQ 90 are well nourished, as evidenced by their superior height.
Strained interpretation if the white girls don’t catch up until 15.
Likely interpretation is that at some point in puberty whites start growing faster so that by the end they achieve similar heights.
And they wouldn’t necessarily be equal, either.
Regardless I have multiple studies using non-height indicators for malnutrition showing the type of deficit you’re talking about only in the presence of sever malnutrition.
Regardless I have multiple studies using non-height indicators for malnutrition showing the type of deficit you’re talking about only in the presence of sever malnutrition.
And those studies would probably also show height is only diminished by severe malnutrition (unless those studies defined malnutrition as short height in which case they are circular)
And yet we know third world immigrants are diminished in height, so why not IQ?
‘And yet we know third world immigrants are diminished in height, so why not IQ?’
Because what data we have on the subject doesn’t support the deprivation you suggest from less than severe malnutrition. The huge regression boost wouldn’t exist here because shortness is not caused by the lower IQ. Any “regression” would just come from whatever genotypically-short-false-malnutrition-positives. The non-height nutrition indicators used were as close to 1/1 correlates of malnutrition as it gets, so they capture the X factor very well. And in that study, it showed the effect simply was not that significant unless the malnutrition was severe.
I already said that a nutrition boost of some kind isn’t undefensible or unreasonable. 4-5 points? Plausible. 13? Unlikely beyond severe malnourishment.
Because what data we have on the subject doesn’t support the deprivation you suggest from less than severe malnutrition
Does it support the adult height deprivation that we actually observe when malnutrition is measured independently of height?
The huge regression boost wouldn’t exist here because shortness is not caused by the lower IQ. Any “regression” would just come from whatever genotypically-short-false-malnutrition-positives. The non-height nutrition indicators used were as close to 1/1 correlates of malnutrition as it gets, so they capture the X factor very well. And in that study, it showed the effect simply was not that significant unless the malnutrition was severe.
Did the non-height indicators of malnutrition show a large effect on adult height when the malnutrition was not severe? If not, then the studies can’t speak to whether African height deficits are paralleled by IQ deficits, because they’re not measuring the same variables that are affecting height.
Or you could just argue that the average African who comes to Britain is severely malnourished, but that wouldn’t help your case. Either way, you have to be consistent.
‘Does it support the adult height deprivation that we actually observe when malnutrition is measured independently of height?’
If when malnutrition is measured independently of height, we observe the deprivation in adult height, and separately, when malnutrition is measured independently of height, we do not observe a similar deprivation in IQ…the inference I’m drawing is reasonable.
I’ve already cited to several different studies with similar results.
I’ve already cited to several different studies with similar results.
You cited one study where malnutrition was defined by height, and another study that wasn’t open access.
Here is the entire abstract, which I already mostly cited:
“Malnutrition is associated with cognitive impairment in young children. But, do these cognitive deficits last, and do psychosocial variables influence the relation between malnutrition and poor cognition?
In this prospective study, 1559 children from the island of Mauritius (69% Indian, 26% African Creole) were assessed for malnutrition at age 3 years and were followed until age 11. Twenty-three percent of the cohort met at least 1 of 4 criteria for malnutrition at age 3: angular stomatitis; kwashiorkor (protein malnutrition); sparse, thin hair; and anemia. Cognition was measured by testing IQ at ages 3 and 11, and by testing reading, school, and neuropsychologic abilities at age 11.
Compared with adequately nourished children, malnourished children had significantly lower scores on nearly all cognition measures at ages 3 and 11. Among malnourished children, IQ remained essentially unchanged from age 3 to 11. Also, the more evidence there was of malnutrition, the greater the cognitive impairment: For example, compared with children who had met no malnutrition criteria at age 3, children who had met 1, 2, and 3 criteria had mean total IQs at age 11 that were 3.3, 9.0, and 15.3 points lower, respectively. Controlling for race, ethnicity, and 14 psychosocial measures did not change the study’s findings.”
I cited another study that, while it did use height, it used height in addition to several other indicators and found no significant impact. And then I cited another study, the first one, that used stunting as their measurement of malnutrition.
Swank, you have yet to find a study showing that malnutrition (defined independently of height) stunts adult height by 0.8+ SD yet doesn’t stunt scores on culture reduced adult IQ tests.
I don’t need to, Pumpkin. YOU are the one saying that there is a near 1/1 link between the two. All I need to show is what I said at outset: the effect on IQ, outside of severe malnourishment, is not as extreme as you say it is. And the data I have cited reflects what I said.
I don’t need to, Pumpkin. YOU are the one saying that there is a near 1/1 link between the two.
Yes you do need to. I provided evidence that the African phenotype is 0.8+ SD below its genetic potential for height. Occam’s razor suggests it’s also below it’s genetic potential for IQ by similar degree.
You’re arguing that whatever depressed their heights by 0.8+ SD is too weak to have depressed their IQs by a similar amount. Prove it.
You’re the one with the theory that adult height is much more sensitive to nutrition than culture reduced IQ is. Prove it.
Misuse of Occam. We observe height deprivation in the presence of malnutrition. We also observe minor effects on IQ with roughly the same level of malnutrition. Ergo the simplest explanation is a differential effect.
You have yet to even establish a link between the two.
I found an excellent study:
PERSISTENCE OF NEUROLOGICAL CRETINISM IN OLD
ENDEMIC GOITER AREAS OF THE CARPATHIANS
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228360300_Persistence_of_the_neurological_cretinism_in_old_endemic_goiter_areas_of_the_Carpathians
It reported on five people selected for severe malnutrition as defined by iodine deficiency.
Although the sample size was extremely small, it’s consistent with my view that malnutrition affects height and IQ to a similar degree. Both height and IQ were about 4.5 SD below average for their age, gender and ethnicity
We observe height deprivation in the presence of malnutrition. We also observe minor effects on IQ with roughly the same level of malnutrition.
You have no idea whether the levels of malnutrition are qualitatively and quantitatively identical. And the height study you cited used height to measure malnutrition, and thus is useless for assessing the effect of malnutrition on height
That’s not really a good study. The sample size alone makes it nearly meaningless.
There’s also the fact that adolescents & adults born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome/Fetal Alcohol Effect grow up to have heights 2 SD below the mean and IQs of 68 (also 2 SD below the mean)
https://books.google.ca/books?id=V6CG5RzC2nkC&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq=fetal+alcohol+syndrome+IQ+height&source=bl&ots=5T_HnAIIPC&sig=d_bH0ge8UaiSeE4mtK89fGl-DNo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7QK0VPX5PM6RyATJ2oCgCQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwDTgK#v=onepage&q=fetal%20alcohol%20syndrome%20IQ%20height&f=false
This indicates that when prenatal consumption is bad enough to impair the baby’s adult height, the baby’s adult IQ is impaired to a similar degree
Is alcohol now considered a nutrient? You’re just cherry-picking syndromes that necessarily implicate nervous system development, taking the most severe cases of those syndromes, and then, because in the most severe deprivation all indicators of health will be very low, passing it off as showing an equivalent effect. Not so different from saying, ‘you see, people who go without water for over a week have zero cognitive function and zero circulation, therefore circulation and cognitive function effects are the same in the absence of water.’
Actually some scientists believe that fetal alcohol syndrome is caused by malnutrition:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7312865
But the point is that I’ve now documented three examples at three very different levels, showing that when the biological environment is bad enough to lower height, IQ tends to get lowered to a similar degree:
1) iodine deficient people grew up to be roughly 4.5 SD below average in both height and IQ
2) Fetal alcohol children grew up to be roughly 2 SD below average in both height and IQ
3) West Africans are 0.8 SD lower than African Americans in both height and IQ
I’m sure there are exceptions, but it’s a reasonable model
‘But the point is that I’ve now documented three examples at three very different levels, showing that when the biological environment is bad enough to lower height, IQ tends to get lowered to a similar degree:’
One study was meaningless — sample size 5. Both studies actually just showed phenotypic effects of severe specific syndrome X, which does not suggest this ‘so goes height, so goes IQ’ connection you want to draw.
When we use general malnutrition, which is the best analogue for what you’re arguing the West African men have, we note minimal effect on cognitive functioning unless the deprivation is severe. So you don’t have ‘three very different levels.’ You have one for one syndrome, another for another synrdome, and the last is an attempt to connect ‘general malnutrition’ with two specific syndromes. No sale.
One study was meaningless — sample size 5
It was meaningful enough to get published and the results were statistically significant
Both studies actually just showed phenotypic effects of severe specific syndrome X, which does not suggest this ‘so goes height, so goes IQ’ connection you want to draw.
Severe syndromes are just extreme examples of the very continuum I’m discussing. The effect of the biological environment on IQ and height
When we use general malnutrition, which is the best analogue for what you’re arguing the West African men have, we note minimal effect on cognitive functioning unless the deprivation is severe.
General malnutrition and severe are vaguely defined terms. Minimal effects on IQ do not challenge my model unless they’re paralleled by large effects on adult height. You have yet to cite a single study where the effect on both can be seen.
So you don’t have ‘three very different levels.’ You have one for one syndrome, another for another synrdome, and the last is an attempt to connect ‘general malnutrition’ with two specific syndromes
All three measure the effect of the biological environment on both IQ and adult height. All three measure the effect of diet on IQ and adult height
No sale
That’s your problem not mine. You’re the one claiming that nutrition affects IQ much less than it affects height. The burden of proof is on you.
‘Nothing magic about it, Swank.’
Once again, pumpkin, the critique lies in the extent rather than in the thought. The regression simply would not be as large and you would need it to be.
‘But HBDers would argue that most of the black-white IQ gap within the developed world is genetic. That’s the position you want to be debunking.’
Position debunked. Virtually no verbal similarities gap, higher GCSE achievement, etc. etc.
If the populations were genetically identical, we would expect the children of college educated — but not necessarily college graduated — individuals to perform better than white children. College student whites probably are in the 105-110 range. So we’d expect 104-ish from the children. The fact that we’re seeing around 96-100 from the black Africans, suggests that the genetics are responsible for maybe .2-.5 of the gap.
Once again, pumpkin, the critique lies in the extent rather than in the thought. The regression simply would not be as large and you would need it to be.
It all depends on the correlation between IQ and height. If it’s anywhere near as small as it is in America, the regression would be HUGE.
Position debunked. Virtually no verbal similarities gap, higher GCSE achievement, etc. etc.
And yet large gaps persist on the sub-tests of the CAT IQ test and on measures of spatial working memory and strategic thinking:
White and Indian children made fewer mistakes than those from other ethnic groups, however there was little difference among White, Mixed-ethnicity and Indian children in strategy or speed. Pakistani and Bangladeshi, and Black children made more errors, had poorer use of strategy and completed the task more slowly than those from other ethnic groups.
See the cognitive ability PDF:
http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/page.aspx?&sitesectionid=1330&sitesectiontitle=MCS+age+11+initial+findings
If the populations were genetically identical, we would expect the children of college educated — but not necessarily college graduated — individuals to perform better than white children. College student whites probably are in the 105-110 range. So we’d expect 104-ish from the children. The fact that we’re seeing around 96-100 from the black Africans, suggests that the genetics are responsible for maybe .2-.5 of the gap.
Well first of all, it’s more like 92-100, with the higher scores being on the most suspect tests like GCSE and isolated subtests (Similarities). Second of all, comparing college students in the First World to college students in Africa is fallacious. In the First World, attending college is an average achievement, while in sub-Saharan Africa, it’s relatively rare.
A more appropriate comparison would be the children of white doctors, lawyers, and PhDs with the children of African college students. Both are selected to a similar degree within their respective populations.
*looks like it reflects the total difference.
The no qualification parents group scored 43 errors….that equates to maybe eighth grade, so IQ 90. IQ 94 would be the IQ after regression…but it could be lower, like 92. So, the black African IQ held steady.
The strategy had the black Africans matching individuals with an equivalent of 1-3 years of HS. Averaging those figures leads to IQ 93. After regression it comes out to 96.
The no qualification parents group scored 43 errors….that equates to maybe eighth grade, so IQ 90. IQ 94 would be the IQ after regression…but it could be lower, like 92. So, the black African IQ held steady.
You’re saying the African British kids scored the same as “no qualification” kids?
I believe about 11% of white British have no qualifications, so the median British white with no qualifications would probably be around the 6 percentile of white education levels (1.53 SD below the mean). Given a 0.65 correlation between IQ and education level, that implies an IQ 0.6(1.53 SD) = 0.99 SD below the mean. Given the 0.6 correlation between parents-children IQ, the kids should be 0.6(0.99 SD) = 0.59 SD below the white mean, and thus have an IQ of 91. But given that there are a lot of non-whites among the children of unqualified, it’s likely lower still.
Having said that, just because the children of unqualified parents likely have an IQ around 90, that doesn’t mean they perform at that level on every subtest. Since most of these individual subtests likely have mediocre g loadings, low IQ kids likely regress upward to the mean on them. But ignoring that upward regression caused by non-g variance, an IQ around 90 is likely for any demographic that scores the same as the children of the unqualified.
The strategy had the black Africans matching individuals with an equivalent of 1-3 years of HS.
We would need to know what education percentile that corresponds to among British whites before we could estimate the IQ of the children of such people (see above)
‘You’re saying the African British kids scored the same as “no qualification” kids?’
On the error measure the British Africans scored slightly above. The problem with going by the median is that the median within that percentile group may not represent much of a difference. For example, 11 percent may have only 8th grade, but only 3 percent have only seventh grade. I just looked at wiki for my IQ-education guide.
‘it’s likely lower still’
I already knocked off a few points in consideration of a) BA’s did score slightly higher and b) non-white status.
‘We would need to know what education percentile that corresponds to among British whites ‘
I’m not sure what’s wrong with using wiki. But if you want to go by ‘education percentile,’ we just need to look at the percent of white British who receive D-G levels on the GCSE.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/local-area-analysis-of-qualifications-across-england-and-wales/rpt—local-area-analysis-of-qualifications-across-england-and-wales.html#tab-Highest-Levels-of-Qualification-for-Usual-Residents-Aged-16-to-64
GCSE levels looks to be at the 35th percentile, so between ~20-35 is probably D-G. With regression that’s 94 IQ. But it’s likely closer to 35 than the middle, so 96 seems reasonable. And it gibes with wiki.
GCSE levels looks to be at the 35th percentile, so between ~20-35 is probably D-G. With regression that’s 94 IQ. But it’s likely closer to 35 than the middle, so 96 seems reasonable. And it gibes with wiki.
No idea what wiki page you’re talking about…
Of the 12,757 kids who took the strategy test (see table 5.2 of the full report), it looks like 10,335 had parents with more education than GCSE (D-G) and 1,520 had parents with less education, Thus parents GCSE (D-G) would be below the 19 percentile, but above the 12 percentile, so the median would be at the 16 percentile (1 normalized standard deviation below the mean in education)
Since education correlates 0.65 with IQ, they would be 0.65(1 SD) = 0.65 SD below the mean in IQ.
Since the parents-child IQ correlation is 0.6, their kids would be 0.6(0.65 SD) = 0.39 below the mean in IQ, which equals IQ 94.
But since much of the sample was non-white, the kids of GCSE (D-G) would have IQs around 92, on white norms.
So if the black British kids scored the same as the kids of GCSE (D-G), an IQ of 92 is implied by the strategy test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Other_correlations that’s the wiki page.
‘Of the 12,757 kids who took the strategy test…’
No, pumpkin, you need to look at the number of parents to figure out the education percentiles. There were 13,287 parents and 3318 with NVQ 1 or below qualifications (that’s equal to GCSE D-G). That’s 25%. Those with no qualifications fall below the 19th percentile. I don’t agree with taking the median, because there’s no continuum for this qualification — you either have it or you do not (unlike merely ‘GCSE’ qualifications, where there is a continuum), but regardless, 22 percentile median. -.77 * .65*.6*15 = IQ 95. I don’t think it should be dragged down significantly, if at all, either. If anything it’s slightly higher. Most of the GCSE sample was overwhelmingly white anyway.
96-100 on balance, as I said, is very reasonable.
No, pumpkin, you need to look at the number of parents to figure out the education percentiles.
What’s the difference? All the kids have parents. We’re interested in ranking the children who took that particular test by the level of education their parents had, and then assigning IQs based on the correlation between the IQs of kids and the education of parents. We went about this indirectly but it’s the same concept.
There were 13,287 parents and 3318 with NVQ 1 or below qualifications (that’s equal to GCSE D-G). That’s 25%.
Not all parents had kids who took all tests. You’re taking education percentiles from everyone but only test scores from those who were tested. My method avoided this problem.
Those with no qualifications fall below the 19th percentile. I don’t agree with taking the median, because there’s no continuum for this qualification — you either have it or you do not (unlike merely ‘GCSE’ qualifications, where there is a continuum), but regardless, 22 percentile median. -.77 * .65*.6*15 = IQ 95. I don’t think it should be dragged down significantly, if at all, either. If anything it’s slightly higher.
Why would it be slightly higher? Because the people who participated in this study are smarter than the general British population. If so, that would apply especially to the low scoring demographics and their scores on the tests would be slightly higher than in a representative sample of those demos.
We could split hairs all year long. There are so many different tests, so many different ways they can be interpreted, so many different assumptions, etc.
I prefer to just go with the best data on British Africans: The CAT test says they have an IQ of 92 & that’s the gold standard; some of the other scores are encouraging and suggest CAT scores might improve, but not yet.
If we’re doing this whole, education to IQ to regressed IQ thing, then we need to look at the parental population to get a proper regressed IQ.
These tests are CAT subtests afaik. But there are plenty of other tests as well. We essentially have almost every other test indicating an insignificant gap, zero gap, or a positive gap.
If we’re doing this whole, education to IQ to regressed IQ thing, then we need to look at the parental population to get a proper regressed IQ.
The parents in the study are the parents of the kids in the study. So by looking at the parents of the kids, you are looking at the parents in the study; the only difference is I was looking specifically at the parents of the kids who ACTUALLY TOOK THAT TEST. If you don’t believe that the parents of those kids are representative, then you don’t believe the kids are representative and the whole study is suspect.
These tests are CAT subtests afaik.
The CAT reports IQ scores (i.e. non-verbal IQ); this scale doesn’t.
In terms of education level, it may not be representative — of course, that’s not what the study was measuring anyway. So it can be representative re: raw IQ and unrepresentative in another sense. When we do it my way, the numbers come out similar to the wiki numbers.
Plus, like I said, even if you want to interpret this test in your way, on balance, the scores support what I say.
The CAT data is not the only good data. Everywhere else HBDers use tests like the GCSE and KS4s, etc. etc. On balance the gap is very small. .2-.5, with no improvement and no backslide, would be the ‘genetic’ portion.
Tests like the GCSE examinations, are designed to measure outcomes of specific learning and instruction, and the test content is drawn directly from the taught curriculum.
Richard Lynn did not include such tests in his 2006 review of black british IQ
‘It all depends on the correlation between IQ and height. If it’s anywhere near as small as it is in America, the regression would be HUGE.’
Only if being shorter was caused by being dumber and we divided by some low correl like .1-3. That’s not the case. X factor is causing both short and dumb — allegedly. If you pick out all the short people and you’d expect 2/100 to be X height, but 30 of them are X height….it all depends on how many of the 30 you think are just short and how many are actually stunted.
‘And yet large gaps persist on the sub-tests of the CAT IQ test and on measures of spatial working memory and strategic thinking:’
That gap isn’t particularly large, and that’s just one subtest overall. Although it depends if the ‘strategic thinking’ difference of 3 points reflects an SD or if it reflects the total difference.
‘Well first of all, it’s more like 92-100, with the higher scores being on the most suspect tests like GCSE and isolated subtests (Similarities).’
There’s nothing suspect about the GCSE. It correlates with ‘g’ as well as the current version of the SAT does and the NAEP. And all of the measures of IQ we have are “isolated subtests.” The fact is that the black Africans have performed well on most and much better than expected on all. The KS4 at 16 showed no gap. Looking at all of it and averaging it out, 96-100 is more than reasonable — especially because the black Africans now slightly outperform whites on the GCSE.
‘A more appropriate comparison would be the children of white doctors, lawyers, and PhDs with the children of African college students. Both are selected to a similar degree within their respective populations.’
If you believe the education in Africa is of comparable quality to America and that many other non-IQ factors are at play in an individual’s academic life, sure. I don’t hold that belief. You have to imagine what the current education system would represent, relative to the African population, in a US/UK-like environment where education is made very easy for everyone. And in that situation, a current master’s/doctorate/whatever in Africa seems about like an associate’s degree. A lot of them, as Jorge says, come to the UK and obtain further qualifications or have extensive on-the-job experience. And they often obtain those further qualifications through what’s called a “bridging program.” The standards are not as high as they would be for white applicants.
Plus, in Africa, again…it’s less about intellectual barriers as it is about ‘will.’ No matter how smart you are, if you are living in a hut you have other problems.
If you believe the education in Africa is of comparable quality to America and that many other non-IQ factors are at play in an individual’s academic life, sure. I don’t hold that belief. You have to imagine what the current education system would represent, relative to the African population, in a US/UK-like environment where education is made very easy for everyone.
The point is you have to compare the most educated several percent of one society with the most educated several percent of another. Attending college is fairly average in the West, but way above average in Africa, so by comparing the children of African and Western college students, you’re comparing the children of Africa’s genetic best with fairly average white genes
And the counter-point is that you can only make that comparison if the societies themselves are equal in this respect. In the first world, education is easy. So an individual with average motivation will be mostly (or to a .65 extent) selected based on his IQ. In the third world, you are not only selected for ‘IQ.’ You are selected mostly for sheer willpower and motivation and a bit of ‘IQ.’ It’s the same situation as ‘walking from State A to State B income.’
Yes you can argue that the correlation between IQ and education is different in different countries but until we have data on what it might be, the default assumption is that it’s the same.
The default assumption is easy to challenge: a society that is manifestly different. Done.
The default assumption is easy to challenge: a society that is manifestly different. Done.
Prove it’s manifestly different in a way that significantly lowers the IQ-education correlation. You can’t.
Definitively, maybe not. Enough to bring the default assumption into serious question? Sure. The education IQ correl was observed in first-world societies. SSA is an entirely different society.
where did the highly educated African immigrants obtain their degrees?
1. was it from a British uni?
2. if from an African uni, was it the U of Capetown? or Witwatersrand? probably not.
and as usual off topic but on the bigger topic…even the Abos can run fast.
if there were, in fact, non-trivial differences in the means of the races of man one would expect that such would never happen.
she beat all the West Africans and is 5th all time.
even ignoring the likely cheating of the Eastern Europeans, such a showing would be impossible unless the differences between the races were trivial.
the only other possible explanation is that the SD is greater for some populations with a lower mean or that the normal distribution is a bad model for some populations.
and btw, the Abos are even more marginalized and more hated than Native Americans. but even though their closer to Europeans genetically, the white Ausies call them “blackfellas”.
being honest the Abos do look like Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons, but w/o their large cc unfortunately, perhaps. but this vid should quiet those who think the Abos aren’t, despite appearances, just like them.
from the second best movie of the 80s after American Gigolo:
…even though they’re…
the Abos, like the Native Americans, seem pretty cool to me. and if one pays attention he’ll see that their primitive appearance is only in the face. their bodies look much less primitive than the average N. European power lifter. much less. really!
Paul Theroux in his Happy Isles mentions that the Abos actually drink less than white Australians, but are much more likely to get in trouble while intoxicated.
i knew two Ausies in hs. one was a total racist. he said the Abos were lazy and spent their time huffing gasoline fumes and drinking. (uhhh…maybe those were their best options?)
colonized peoples are the target of HBD. no surprise.
the only exception today is the Indians who had an impressive ancient civilization and have an elite which has impressed Europeans. it helps that many Indians are European in facial skeleton (though not in coloring). Sanskrit was, and Hindi is, an Indo-European language after all.
it’s been 500 years of Europeans in Latin America and it even sucks in Argentina, Uruguay, and Costa Rica…so
black Africa has the “advantage” of no colonists except in the far south, but it’s gonna be a long long time if Latin America is anything to go by.
just re-reading my brilliant comments…
brilliant by the standards of pee pee’s blog at least.
freeman is an example of the overlap in traits. freeman is an abo…genetically distant from europeans and africans but much closer to europeans.
it is a great “uper-cut” for the racists that an abo wins the 400.
upper cut.
…and i’m a total tyson fan btw…greatest since louis and marciano…and very smart…
but in favor of HBD
it should be said that
marciano was like a marathoner vs sprinters.
he took a lickin’ and kept on tickin’.
and he did give a lickin’ supposedly.
he was obsessed with physical fitness.
and he died in a plane crash and afaik all his fights were fixed…he was italian after all.
it should be said that
marciano was like a marathoner vs sprinters.
he took a lickin’ and kept on tickin’.
and he did give a lickin’ supposedly.
he was obsessed with physical fitness.
and he died in a plane crash and afaik all his fights were fixed…he was italian after all.
‘Arguing whether blacks in Africa score low because of cultural or nutritional deprivation doesn’t get you anywhere, because both are environmental,’
On the contrary, it gets me everywhere. There isn’t much evidence that you can differentially improve nutrition much more from current first-world levels, i.e. make improvements that blacks will realize rather than whites. There is plenty of evidence that black culture can be improved and that several cultural depressive effects resulting from discrimination/negative external perception, can be lessened. These would be improvements that would raise black IQ but have little effect on white IQ.
It is possible to improve IQ scores through culture. For example Jensen believed (falsely, in my opinion) that more than half of the Flynn effect could be explained by cultural changes over the 20th century (more schooling, media, etc).
However he believed this part of the Flynn effect was spurious (similar to the gains you sometimes see from head-start or adoption into an upper class home), and that only the biological component of the Flynn effect (i.e. increased brain size caused by nutrition) reflected a real gain in intelligence.
If you take an untrained chimpanzee, and train it to lay a puzzle, you quickly see a sharp rise in its performance. Then you can train it a little more and see some additional improvement. At some point no amount of training helps, an ape can’t even understand the concept of solving rubic’s cube.
What if it’s the same with human mental capacity. That would suggest environment and exposure to brain teasing problems may give a boost, but with sharply diminishing returns, and some point where no amount of effort helps the long-term ability.
That’s it, it’s all cultural you say, but don’t forget that the condition of not being at all familiar with brain teasers is itself .. hardly related to giftedness.
The gains from headstart or adoption aren’t necessarily spurious. The big question is whether the programs cut-off too early in a child/adolescent’s development.
It would be interesting to look at adopted siblings who were both home schooled and see what the IQ correl is.
*adoptive.
Gosh, you guys do like wast time heh??!
About dutch food-deprivation. This event happen after period of “fat cows”??
Populations are heterogeneous. Then, bad environments can have greater impact in some subgroups of individuals and can have zero effect in others. Taller and thin can be more resistent.
Someone has already parroted the things I’ve said in regards to Rushton and East Asians:
IQ is far from being the only measurable innate difference between races (insofar as IQ is innate). J Philippe Ruston in Race, Evolution and Behaviour lists several dozen race-dependent variables under the headings of Brain size, Intelligence, Maturation rate, Personality, Social organisation and Reproductive effort. Under Personality are listed the following: activity level, aggressiveness, cautiousness, dominance, impulsivity, self-concept, sociability. On all of these except cautiousness blacks score higher than whites who in turn score higher than Asians. With cautiousness the position is reversed with blacks scoring lower than whites who score lower than Asians. It is not unreasonable to interpret these differences as the Asian personality being less enquiring or adventurous than that of whites, less sociable and more submissive.
And even asked questions that Mr. Videla would elaborate:
Why did China show so little interest in analytical philosophy? Why did China never develop a political system more sophisticated than that of the god-Emperor when Europeans ran through just about every form of political organisations there is in the past 2,500 years, most of them before the birth of Christ? Why was the idea of political participation, so widespread in Europe in both the ancient and the late mediaeval world, absent in China? Why was there an absence of civil society in China?
One thing that many East Asian supremacists will be hush hush about is this:
Europeans colonized the world and made it what is today. Had China became the main driver of colonization, you would only find Chinatowns.
Here is the link to the site:
Why have East Asians not dominated?
https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/why-have-east-asians-not-dominated/
how fast would Mennea have run had he been ‘roiding or whatever Jamaican sprinters are doing? Borzov ran the 1972 200m in 20 flat, the same time (or less) than the time that won in 2000!
it’s not that Europeans suck at the 200m…it’s that they aren’t any faster than scrawny Mennea in 1979. so it’s been more than 35 years and the record has been beaten, but the white record has NOT.
hmmmm.
there’s some culture going on here.
he ran at altitude but still that race was redonkulous.
19.72 wasn’t beaten until the other MJ beat it in the 1996 Olympic trials. in the Olympics he beat it again of course.
but let’s compare physiques. is it all HBD?
MJ is much much more muscular. what if Mennea had been similarly “built”?
That’s it Mugabe, Mennea could not have been similarly built. If he somehow managed to build muscles like that he would no longer be fast, it would take all his body could muster. Then’s there is skeletal differences too, and maybe oxigene uptake tho that matters more for long distance
lol hugh you’re right, but not for the reasons you think. Steroids. Were you here when everyone was comparing HBD to bodybuilding and talking about Ahnold? Then I put up a pick of Ahnold pre steroids and post steroids.
Aaah, I get zis, steroids. I thought we were talking about ze paaful bleck mussles
90% likely MJ was on steroids or performance enhancers of one kind or another.
‘A wash would imply that Africans who migrate to Britain could be either smarter or dumber than equally educated Africans who stay at home. It’s ridiculous to think that people who were smart enough to move to a country that gave a vastly higher standard of living, health, and prosperity for themselves and their families, could be dumber than equally educated immigrants who stayed at home.’
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The decision to migrate is driven by mostly non-IQ factors. It’s not ridiculous at all, because — once again — the emigration percentages to the EU 15 suggests that it simply does not take much, if any, smarts to leave. So past that bare minimum of smarts, other non-IQ factors are much more important.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The decision to migrate is driven by mostly non-IQ factors.
Mostly is not entirely.
It’s not ridiculous at all, because — once again — the emigration percentages to the EU 15 suggests that it simply does not take much, if any, smarts to leave.
We have no IQ figures on the immigrants. All we know is that they’re highly educated on average, and those who are not could easily be self-selected for IQ independently of education
So past that bare minimum of smarts, other non-IQ factors are much more important.
It doesn’t work that way. Outcomes are probabilistic. It’s not as if IQ, matters greatly up to a point and then suddenly becomes irrelevant. That’s almost never observed in any empirical data on any IQ related behavior. Instead the way it usually works, is the probability of a positive outcome (i.e. migrating to the developed world) increases a couple percentage points, each step up the IQ ladder.
The black Caribbean IQ cannot be due to mixing because it was mostly with lower IQ whites from the working class and also plenty of the mixed identify as mixed, If there was such a tendency to identify as black you’d see way more blacks in the samples compared to mixed. Also the one drop rule does not really exist in the UK.
I don’t think it ever existed.
Pingback: Does the Flynn effect imply blacks are genetically smarter than whites? | Pumpkin Person
Pingback: Estimating the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa | Pumpkin Person
I wasn’t supposed to comment on that blog anymore but I have to react on some inaccuracies.
Africans in Europe are not elite at all, at least one third of them are refugees from the Horn of Africa and the Congo, they probably depress the average IQ, especially the Somali and Eritreans who are not adapted to western life at all.
An other third are moderately educated persons starting in the working class and looking for upwards mobility for themselves or their children and they generally manage to.
The last third is composed of extremely skilled professionals and their family, Ghana and Nigeria are huge providers of this kind of migrants. If their average IQs reflect their educational achievement in Europe, they are probably around or over 110.
However, one thing that you can’t do is assuming that African Europeans have a similar profile as South African migrants and that the average IQ you see is representative of the educated South African migrants, which is actually not the case.
Caribbean scores however are probably representatives of the Caribbean diaspora except that your hypothesis that this label also includes mixed race Caribbeans is inaccurate because Europe doesn’t have a one drop rule culture and mixed-race is a well recognized category, a mulatto is never called a black person in Europe.
Africans in Europe are not elite at all,
Of course they’re elite. And I’m not talking about all of Europe, but specifically Britain.
Europe doesn’t have a one drop rule culture and mixed-race is a well recognized category, a mulatto is never called a black person in Europe.
British mulatto Thandie Newton was described as black in a major British newspaper:
Miss Newton, who was born in London and spent the first three years of her life in Zambia, said she and her younger brother Jamie were the only black children in the area and were treated as outsiders.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603878/My-racist-abuse-growing-Cornwall-Hollywood-star-Thandie-Newton.html
“Of course they’re elite. And I’m not talking about all of Europe, but specifically Britain.”
Above average, maybe but elite like the top 1% or even the top 10%: no way.
Many Africans came as illegals, refugees or unskilled workers. Others came to study after being granted a scholarship though they started in a disadvantaged background at home. The Chinese on the contrary are more elite in Europe than Africans. They are “la crème de la crème” of a 1,3 billion population.
“Miss Newton, who was born in London and spent the first three years of her life in Zambia, said she and her younger brother Jamie were the only black children in the area and were treated as outsiders.”
OK, you’re happy you find one quote that seems to contradict my assertion but I won’t change my mind, I live in Europe and I can tell you people here self-identify and are identified as mixed race if they have a non-white parent. We have no social norm aimed at preserving the superior white race by calling black everyone whose blood is “stained by sub-human ancestry”.
You also like the idea that high IQ causes longevity, but you must also explain me why 29 of the 100 longest lived Americans in history were black. This is not only astonishing because of the overrepresentation of blacks among super-centenarians but also when we know all of the disadvantages they had to suffer in America.
What causes this longevity (also seen in the Caribbean) and what is their in the r-K evolutionary theory to explain that ?
Above average, maybe but elite like the top 1% or even the top 10%: no way.
Many Africans came as illegals, refugees or unskilled workers. Others came to study after being granted a scholarship though they started in a disadvantaged background at home
Europe is a huge step up in living standards from sub-Saharan Africa. I would expect mostly the best and brightest to make the leap on average, even if they came as refugees.
The Chinese on the contrary are more elite in Europe than Africans. They are “la crème de la crème” of a 1,3 billion population.
Why the hell would the best and brightest Chinese want to come to Europe when their home country is the World’s largest economy?
OK, you’re happy you find one quote that seems to contradict my assertion but I won’t change my mind, I live in Europe and I can tell you people here self-identify and are identified as mixed race if they have a non-white parent. We have no social norm aimed at preserving the superior white race by calling black everyone whose blood is “stained by sub-human ancestry”.
Europe is hugely influenced by North American culture.
“I would expect mostly the best and brightest to make the leap on average, even if they came as refugees.”
The reason why you flee as a refugee is that you are under direct threat of death, not because you want to make it in another place. As a refugee, you will go at any risk, in any country that can appear as a welcoming safe haven. And I’m glad to see that today, Europe (Northern Europe especially) is becoming this place more than the USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina or Australia have ever been at any moment in their history.
These refugees do not express the behaviors of polished and cultured people and believe me, I’m talking as black European liberal. They have a lot of social issues, they suffer emotional trauma from many factors coming from either their home or host country.
“Why the hell would the best and brightest Chinese want to come to Europe when their home country is the World’s largest economy?”
Because Europe offers living standards that are unmatched by any country in the world except maybe Canada, Australia and New Zealand when on the other hand, all that China has to offer to her genius population is dull factory jobs, when its living standards are mostly shitty if you can’t place yourself on the receiving side of corruption. In other words, because China is a third world country whereas Europe is in the very first world.
“Europe is hugely influenced by North American culture.”
We tend to protect ourselves from the most disgusting side of American culture and pride ourselves on sustaining a fairer, more harmonious and welcoming society in which race is mostly something seen as skin deep that can’t define an individual’s worth. The reason why we can’t believe that much in race is because our societies have never been built on a race based caste system. In parallel we don’t acknowledge white behaviors, black behaviors or Asian behaviors because we are exposed to a huge degree of diversity of behavioral tendencies within a race. We know the French and the British, though they are both white are kind of extraterstrial to each other, that a black West African Muslim is nothing like a Caribbean and that a French congolese is much closer in behavior to the French norm than an Italian. The world of HBD is basically unseen in Europe and the IQ scores you are discussing here reflect this reality without the help of any “unrepresentative elite sample”.
Afro, what is you knowledge of twin study designs and behavior genetics?
Twin studies: pre-scientific estimates of genetic influences on a trait or pattern.
Behavior genetics: pseudo-scientific field led by non geneticists and trusted by no reasonable person.
So you deny that there is no such thing as shared environment effects or GxE which has been a finding replicated again and again and again?
What I deny is the fact that any figure of heritability based on twin studies can support genetic arguments for between group differences. Identify the very genes and the debate will be over, that’s it. Unfortunately for you, molecular genetics is out of reach for Lynn, Harpending, Cochran and other HBD moron pseudo-scholars.
Steve Hsu says that identifying the genes would require 1,000,000+ samples, but the evidence is clear and it says that most of the genetic underpinnings of the traits of intelligence and cognitive ability are:
1. Additive
2. Mostly caused by common variants
And failure to find genes through GCTA is probably due to rare variants and underpowered samples.
How many irrealistic requirements will HBDers invent to explain the fact that molecular genetics can’t support their theories ?
A large sample of 126 000 persons has been screened and nothing relevant was found. 126 000 is the size of a medium-sized European city or nearly half of Iceland’s population yet nothing could be found to explain the genetic basis of variation in intelligence in a sample that is large and meaningful enough. Finding common SNPs for height is possible in samples of less than 10,000 persons so come on dude, realize there is something wrong with your theory.
I would be pleased to see the pioneer fund go bankrupt financing such a huge, costly and pointless GWAS. At least we’d finally get rid of their nonsense once for good.
In addition to that, your estimates are based on a ridiculous understating of school achievement in Sub-Saharan Africa. You said 1% of black South Africans have attended college.
First, this 1% of the population is not 1% of the relevant population: adults over age 25.
Second, we d’like to know from what year this data is.
Third, Apartheid caused generations of black South Africans being denied access to education
Fourth, that could be an HBD argument, black South Africans have significant bushmen admixture, they are not a full blooded black population and have different genetics from typical West Africans.
Recent standardized secondary school achievement tests show West Africans having scores reflecting an IQ close to 90. enrollment in 2013 was 54% in Benin, 52% in Cameroon, 39% in Ivory Coast, 61% in Ghana, 44% in Nigeria, 41% in Nigeria. Just to give you more data to estimate the IQ of full blooded black populations.
For your information. Only West Africans are full blooded Blacks, people from central, eastern and southern Africa have varying degrees of Pygmy, Bushmen and sometimes Caucasoid admixture. West Africans came to dominate the rest of Africa during the Bantu migration but they are not indigenous in Central, Eastern and Southern Africa.
As far as African Americans, more recent studies show children having IQs in the low 90s and that the static black-white IQ gap is a myth. Since the studies are not longitudinal, there is no reason to believe that their IQs will regress later in life. If they do however, that must not be interpreted in terms of blacks getting dumber growing up but whites getting smarter by benefiting longer from various environmental advantages. Never forget, IQ indicates a ranking, not an absolute value. A drop or an increase in IQ is a change in one’s position on a scale more than a change in actual performance.
In addition to that, your estimates are based on a ridiculous understating of school achievement in Sub-Saharan Africa. You said 1% of black South Africans have attended college.
First, this 1% of the population is not 1% of the relevant population: adults over age 25.
Second, we d’like to know from what year this data is.
What I said was 1% of college age sub-Saharans in 1970. The figure for South Africa was 0.5% and from 1950.
Recent standardized secondary school achievement tests show West Africans having scores reflecting an IQ close to 90.
HBDers would strongly dispute this
For your information. Only West Africans are full blooded Blacks, people from central, eastern and southern Africa have varying degrees of Pygmy, Bushmen and sometimes Caucasoid admixture.
Bushmen and pygmies are considered black by many people, though HBDers believe they are less intelligent than mainstream blacks (i.e. congoids)
As far as African Americans, more recent studies show children having IQs in the low 90s and that the static black-white IQ gap is a myth.
What recent studies are you referring to?
“What I said was 1% of college age sub-Saharans in 1970. The figure for South Africa was 0.5% and from 1950.”
Well, who cares, sub-Saharan migrants are in their thirties on average, their college cohort is the early 2000s, not the 1970s, 1950s, 1930s or whatever.
“HBDers would strongly dispute this”
HBDers dispute whatever disproves their theories but accurate data tells a different story from what they want to hear, just look for it and explain it instead of ignoring it and labelling it “unrepresentative elite samples”.
“Bushmen and pygmies are considered black by many people, though HBDers believe they are less intelligent than mainstream blacks (i.e. congoids)”
Morphologically, Pygmies and especially bushmen are greatly different from Negroids. The former are not even a sub-type of the latter since they appeared earlier in the course of human history. Just to give you an idea of what this admixture produces, Nelson mandela (from the Xhosa people, a heavily mixed race bantu group) could not have West African lookalikes.
Culturally and socially, the bushmen are stone age hunter-gatherers living in unorganized communities and speak languages that are unrelated to their negroid neighbors. Pygmies are unorganized stone age hunter gatherers too but are held in a slave-like (or lowest caste) status by their negroid neighbors so they speak the same languages and there only remain traces of original pygmy language that is now rather seen as slang or lower class dialect. Negroids however are iron age agriculturalists and pastoralists where the absence of tse-tse flies allows keeping big chattel. Most of these populations at least had developed early state organizations in pre-colonial times, from loose chieftaincy to highly centralized and stratified society.
Congoid is a stupid label for negroid, it implies the Congo region is where this phenotype originates when Negroids actually come from the Sahel but their genetics show a significant North-East African or West Eurasian input. The Congo region is where pygmies originate.
“What recent studies are you referring to?”
There is a link to a paper by Flynn referring to it in the comment section of a post about Indians. Flynn said studies showing IQs over 90 became the norm for African Americans after 2002 but were also seen well before though with a majority of data rather implying an average in the mid to high 80s.
Well, who cares, sub-Saharan migrants are in their thirties on average, their college cohort is the early 2000s, not the 1970s, 1950s, 1930s or whatever.
The point of the post was to look at how selected the parents and grandparents of British black teenagers are, as a way of explaining their test scores.
HBDers dispute whatever disproves their theories but accurate data tells a different story from what they want to hear, just look for it and explain it instead of ignoring it and labelling it “unrepresentative elite samples”.
In other words, deny reality. Great strategy.
Morphologically, Pygmies and especially bushmen are greatly different from Negroids. The former are not even a sub-type of the latter since they appeared earlier in the course of human history.
In classical anthropology there are only 3 races: Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. Carlton Coon came along and replaced the Negroid category with Congoids and Capoids, but many race scholars just stayed with simplified model, in which case congoids (i.e. West Africans) and capoids (i.e. Bushmen) were just viewed as two very different types of Negroid, kind of like how Native Americans and East Asians are two very different types of Mongoloids and Europeans and South Asians are two very different types of Caucasoids. You consider the whole concept of race to be racist, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to classify people racially.
There is a link to a paper by Flynn referring to it in the comment section of a post about Indians. Flynn said studies showing IQs over 90 became the norm for African Americans after 2002 but were also seen well before though with a majority of data rather implying an average in the mid to high 80s.
The rising African American IQ is a statistical artifact caused by tests like the Wechsler that define an IQ of 100 as the U.S. mean instead of the U.S. or British white mean. Because of mass immigration the average IQ of all races is going up, relative to the U.S. mean, but the gap between U.S. whites and U.S. blacks has hardly changed in the last 100 years, when calculated as a function of the white standard deviation.
“The point of the post was to look at how selected the parents and grandparents of British black teenagers are, as a way of explaining their test scores.”
What explain their test scores is not their ancestry but their commitment to education and upward mobility. 94 average hides a huge disparity between the top and the bottom of this demographic, West Africans tend to have achievement statistics that reflect a mean IQ well over 100, migrants from war torn areas probably score lower due to their apparent struggle to adjust to European life.
From 1% college enrollment in the 70s (as you claim) sub-Saharan Africa is now coming close to 20%, a 2000% increase in 45 years, that’s the hell of a proxi to estimate genetic giftedness…
“In classical anthropology there are only 3 races: Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid.”
But you know how far from science classical anthropology has later been proven to be. And didn’t you forget Australoids ?
“congoids (i.e. West Africans)”
Interestingly, the Congo is not even in West Africa and West Africans do not originate from the congo. Read the above answer again please.
“You consider the whole concept of race to be racist, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to classify people racially.”
I mentioned morphology, language, social status and admixture. Not race per se but notions that HBDers like to use in their racial and racist theories.
“The rising African American IQ is a statistical artifact caused by tests like the Wechsler that define an IQ of 100 as the U.S. mean instead of the U.S. or British white mean.”
This is exactly what Flynn did avoid by considering studies that showed the gains blacks have made on non-hispanic whites. And his conclusion was that the static black-white gap was a myth and that its bridging could only be explained in terms of environment.
Pingback: Eyferth the Cat – coontown university department of life sciences
It is not clear that the most of biracials in the UK identify as “Black”. The one- drop rule is more characteristic of the US and has not existed in the UK historically. While the designation of biracials as black did sometimes occur in Britain, it was not a common nor as strict as in American culture. In previous times biracials were sometimes designated colloquially as “colored” or “half caste” instead of Black. Before the 2000 option of the “mixed race” category was introduced, that of “other” existed on official forms. Some of those individuals identifying as black also chose “black other” rather than “black Caribbean”,(perhaps as a way indicate a distinctiveness from other Black groups)
The trend for biracials, especially White- Black Caribbean biracials, seems to be one of assimilation into British culture.
Some biracials (though likely more so those who are more white than black) may in fact identify as White or “English” as the article below describes.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21595908-rapid-rise-mixed-race-britain-changing-neighbourhoodsand-perplexing
“Rob Ford of Manchester University points out that Caribbean folk are following an Irish pattern of integration, in that their partners are often working-class. The Irish parallel also suggests they will eventually be fully absorbed into the British population. Polls show that adults who are a mixture of white and black Caribbean tend to see themselves not so much as black, Caribbean or even as British, but rather as English—the identity of the comfortably assimilated.”
The perception of biracials that they are externally perceived as black seems to be moderate-(possibly low) rather than strong.
37% of (black-white) biracials believe they are perceived as mixed an another 28% believe they are perceived as ambiguous. 38% believe they were perceived as “belonging to a single group” and 5.7 % “don’t know”…….
p.80-83
Mixed Race Identities
By Peter Aspinall, Miri Song
https://books.google.com/books?id=hRA0AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mixed+Race+Identities++By+Peter+Aspinall,+Miri+Song&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIzKz5jODHyAIVRXg-Ch3upg–#v=onepage&q=Mixed%20Race%20Identities%20%20By%20Peter%20Aspinall%2C%20Miri%20Song&f=false
A significant number of those who feel themselves perceived as black, nonetheless identify as mixed race.
http://www.academia.edu/1490635/Is_racial_mismatch_a_problem_for_mixed_race_young_people_in_Britain
correction: 37.6 (black-white) biracials believe they are perceived as mixed an another 17.8% believe they are perceived as ambiguous. 38% believe they were perceived as “belonging to a single group” and 5.7 % “don’t know”…….
The “single group they thought they were perceived to be was “black” in two thirds of the 38% (about 25% of the people in the group) and something else in the remaining third (about 12%).