Commenter Mugabe writes:
black Africans today and whites in 1900 scored the SAME. AND present day Africa is A LOT shittier IN EVERY WAY than 1900 in the West.
If what Mugabe is asserting here is true, then according to the Phenotype = Geneotype + Environment model, blacks must have a higher genetic IQ than whites, because given an inferior environment, they have an equal phenotypic IQ. But is Mugabe’s assertion true?
According to scientist Richard Lynn, on a scale where the white mean in Britain is set at a 100, “studies of the most satisfactory representative samples on the Standard Progressive Matrices give an IQ of 66” for black Africans. Of course Richard Lynn’s claim is controversial, but that’s a whole other topic. For the sake of argument, let’s take the IQ 66 figure as the best estimate of today’s black Africa’s IQ.
How does this compare to how whites scored in 1900?
In one study (see figure 2) the top 10% of British people born in 1877 (by definition those with IQ’s above 120 for their era) performed the same on the Raven as the bottom 5% of British people born in 1967 (by definition those with IQ’s below 75 for their era). In other words, performance on the Raven had increased by the equivalent of 45 IQ points in less than a century! Of course it wasn’t a level playing field because those born in 1877 took the test when they were a somewhat elderly 65 while those born in 1967 took the test when they were young sharp 25 year olds, however Flynn cites longitudinal studies showing that Raven type reasoning declines by no more than 10 points by age 65. That still leaves us with 35 points to explain.
Another source of inaccuracy was that although the test was not timed for either group, those born in 1877 took the test supervised while those born in 1967 got to take the test home. This could potentially make a large difference; not necessarily because the unsupervised group would cheat, but because they would probably take more breaks since they were in the comfort of their homes. They would probably return to challenging items after they had time to relax and see those items from a fresh perspective, while those who took the test supervised in some strange room were probably more likely to rush through the tasks so they could go home. I would estimate that being allowed to take an test home improves test performance by about 5 IQ points on average, though this is just a guess.
But that still leaves a huge difference of 30 IQ points. In other words, by the standards of modern British whites, whites born in 1877 had IQs of 70 (only 4 points higher than blacks score in sub-Saharan Africa today).
Correcting the IQs of Victorian whites for years of schooling
But it’s important to note that the British born in 1877 probably completed no more than eight grades of schooling on average, while modern whites average more than 12 years of schooling, and not attending high school may reduce IQ scores (though probably not real intelligence) by 8 points. It may seem unlikely that schooling could influence a test that seems as culture fair as the Raven, but some people argue that the Raven is actually culturally biased. Richard Lynn argues that it requires basic math skills like addition and subtraction and believes the rise in education explains part of the adult Flynn Effect. At the very least, people with more schooling might be more likely to take the test from a mathematical perspective or with more motivation, confidence, and persistence. So correcting for their lack of schooling raises the IQs of British Victorians from 70 to 78.
Correcting the IQs of modern black Africa for years of schooling
Black Africans also achieve much less schooling than modern whites, however the Black Africans who are typically tested in Raven IQ studies are school children, so the years of schooling variable is already controlled. Thus their IQ of 66 can not be increased by correcting for years of schooling.
Correcting the IQs of Victorian whites for nutrition
What about the biological environment? Whites born in 1877 were 1.5 standard deviations shorter than whites today. If we make Richard Lynn’s assumption that nutrition (including disease which limits the body’s ability to use nutrients) affects IQ to the same degree it affects height, then correcting for nutrition further raises the IQs of white Victorians from 78 to 101 (an increase of 1.5 SD). So correcting for just the two most obvious environmental variables (years of schooling and nutrition) brings white Victorians up to the level of modern whites.
Correcting the IQs of modern black Africa for nutrition
Black Africans today are also malnourished as evidenced by modern West Africans being 0.8 SD shorter than modern African Americans. Correcting their IQ for this 0.8 SD deficit raises them from 66 to 78. This is somewhat lower than the average IQ of 85 for African Americans, but keep in mind that the average African American has as much as 25% white ancestry and whites average around IQ 100. Based on these stats, Richard Lynn calculates that African Americans with no white ancestry have IQs around 80.
So after correcting for very simple and obvious environmental deficits, blacks reared in the third World have the same IQs as their genetic counterparts reared in the First World for centuries.
Conclusion
This demonstrates that a simple Phenotype = Genotype + Environment model can work well for group differences, with environment defined simply as years of schooling + nutrition. This simple model seems to explain both the Flynn effect, and IQ differences between blacks in the Third World and blacks who have lived in the First World for centuries.
Of course Richard Lynn’s claim is controversial, but that’s a whole other topic. For the sake of argument,
If we make Richard Lynn’s assumption
Your argument is “assume they have 30 more points. QED.”
Even Mugabe doesn’t dispute the score, only its validity
i don’t even question its validity in the narrow sense of that term.
what i question is the validity of its validity, so to speak.
that is, i simply cannot believe that most black africans are mentally retarded in the same way that people in the US are mentally ratarded, those who score below 70 on an IQ test.
that is, i simply cannot believe that most black africans are mentally retarded in the same way that people in the US are mentally ratarded, those who score below 70 on an IQ test.
Whites who score below 70 on IQ tests are far more likely to be organic retardates than blacks are, and thus look and sound more retarded, and have other deficits in addition to low IQ.
Further, because the Third World retardation is caused largely by malnutrition, it’s disproportionately concentrated in spatial abilities and thus less noticeable and culturally significant.
In addition, races that did not evolve high overall IQ would have evolved compensatory abilities (relatively high social IQ, charisma, athletic talent); all of which would mask “retardation”
“Whites who score below 70 on IQ tests are far more likely to be organic retardates than blacks are”
This is a very important point that shouldn’t be glossed over. People from different groups who may have an individual IQ of 70 are not the same because different groups have different averages. The further away from the average one gets, the more likely it is to be the result of a defect. For example, a person with an IQ of 85 from a group that averages 100 is still within 1 stdv. There’s probably nothing functionally wrong with them or at least nothing serious. They’re just not very bright. If you go 2 stdv’s to 70 then it’s no longer an issue of being not bright. The deviation from the norm is so great that there is something wrong with them. However, a person with an IQ of 70 from a group that averages 85 is still only 1 stdv frm average. There’s nothing functionally wrong with them either. They’re similarly not very bright for their group. But you’d have to go lower, perhaps 60 or so, before you started to see the same kind of functional problems you would for someone from a group that averages 100.
To make the point, chimpanzees are often quoted as scoring from 35 to 50 on IQ tests. Yet they’re not defective. They’re normal, fully functional and could easily survive on their own. A person in that range, however, isn’t normal or functional and couldn’t survive on their own.
I was being a little glib. The assumption regarding height and IQ forms the bulk of your explanation and it rests on an outright assumption.
and it implies that:
1. african americans were selected at random from the black african population. which any fucktard knows is false. they were selected from West Africa almost exclusively.
2. that modern day black africans eat better than late victorian whites.
So after correcting for very simple and obvious ILLOGIC, this demonstrates that…
pp’s IQ is too low to reason with. she can’t even have an opinion. she’s at the level of a chimp.
So in sum, to explain the white IQs requires a huge assumption, the data point for black Africans requires a huge assumption, and I’m not sure where or how we are to conclude that black Africans now are on par with Victorian whites from this analysis.
re: nutrition.
1. african americans were selected at random from the black african population. which any fucktard knows is false. they were selected from West Africa almost exclusively.
I don’t think that matters for the purpose of IQ analysis because regional IQ differences in SS Africa are not consistently found if they’re even found at all. Now for the purposes of height analysis he compared West Africans to black Americans.
2. that modern day black africans eat better than late victorian whites.
Pumpkin included disease in his definition of nutrition and there’s no doubt that Victorians had far more biological afflictions than modern blacks, lived shorter lives, and ate food much less enriched and fortified by vitamins.
which west africans pumpkin?
The current SSA infant mortalities are a rough match for 1920-1930 England. But 10 years ago, they were more comparable to 1900 England’s infant mortality rates.
…in 1900.
there’s no doubt?
i doubt.
those infectious diseases which can be treated with antibiotics are the only exception.
malaria and hiv and ebola and guinea worm inter alia were not afflcitions of the victorians.
so africans haven’t been behind? they’ve just been behind a century later? Freetown today or London 1900. hmmm.
Sierra Leone 38
Central African Republic 48.5
Democratic Republic of the Congo 49.5
Guinea Bissau 50
bottom of the table in life expectancy are two countries where a lot of slaves were sold. where those slaves originated idk.
life expectancy in 1900 in the UK = the same.
By 1900 in Britain it was about 47 for a man and about 50 for a woman.
So whenever this data was gathered, it’s likely that Africa was worse off than 1900 England.
A lot of those life expectancy numbers are skewed by AIDs and violence and thus a poor measure of the biological environment.
And of course Rushton argues blacks have a genetic tendency to live shorter lives, though I don’t know if he means because of their behavior or not.
i should’ve said antibiotics and vaccines of course. but parasitic infections like malaria and guinea worm inter alia there is still not much in the way of prevention aside from clearing out the mesquitoes or the “kissing bugs” in the case of chagas or the snails in the case of schisto etc. Brazil has done a lot in this regard since the 60s when my parents were in the Peace Corp and half of the volunteers came back with some permanent damage. but what’s been done in Africa?
and hiv has no vaccine. and i can imagine ebola is just the worst, and that’s why it’s news. likely Africa’s got a lot of viruses without vaccines.
The current SSA infant mortalities are a rough match for 1920-1930 England. But 10 years ago, they were more comparable to 1900 England’s infant mortality rates
You’re assuming infant mortality is only caused by bad environments. Rushton felt high black infant mortality was because they are less K selected.
those figures are CURRENT!
that’s what Flushton would have to have meant.
but he was a psychologist and not a biologist.
blacks may have shorter life expectancy, but maximum is the same as everyone’s. and this i know because there are super long lived black people. here’s one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Brown.
One person proves nothing. You would need a list of the oldest Americans and see if blacks are over or underrepresented.
Okay, well two metrics used to assess the general health status of populations do not support that Africans — when the data was taken — had it better than white victorians.
Incidentally, Rushton misapplied r/k theory and r/k theory is discredited anyway; at least, according to biologists the above statements are true.
incidentally, Rushton misapplied r/k theory and r/k theory is discredited anyway; at least, according to biologists the above statements are true.
According to biologists? Did you do a poll?
The biologists who have reviewed Rushton’s work voice those objections.
Environments that are less stable and more unpredictable — like fierce cold environments — are the “less K-selected” environments; tropical diseases are chronic, cold-weather diseases are acute, weather is more variable, etc.etc.
Rushton’s response was a vague reference to the African Savannah, which in no way encapsulates SSA’s full environment.
*which means most of it rests
pp never answered his question and then assumes without stating it that balcks living in the first world have the same environment as those living in the third world.
and he implies that british whites born in 1877 were malnourished compared to contemporary black africans.
but pp IS mentally retarded so no surprise.
that balcks living in the first world have the same environment as those living in the third world.
should have been:
that blacks living in the first world have the same environment as whites living in the whites world.
if the argument requires more than one step it’s too challenging for pp.
just a racist canadian retarded piece of shit.
that blacks living in the first world have the same environment as whites living in the whites world.
The Minnesota trans-racial adoption study showed that they do. Of course it’s only one study, but it’s by far the best study done on the topic so I’m going to believe it until a better study overturns it.
if the argument requires more than one step it’s too challenging for pp.
If the argument requires only one step, Mugabe is dumb enough to take two.
just a racist canadian retarded piece of shit.
I’m not racist at all. If you honestly think I am after all this time then you’re a poor judge of character..
The Minnesota trans-racial adoption study showed that they do.
Assuming P = G + E, which is my tentative assumption when it comes to group differences.
RGM says:
“i simply cannot believe that most black africans are mentally retarded in the
same way that people in the US are mentally ratarded, those who score below
70 on an IQ test.”
Oh, I totally can! Based on my admittedly anecdotal observations plus all the IQ literature I’ve read, it seems obvious that the average black african is pretty damned retarded. As a thought experiment, imagine that a country were to have an average IQ of 70, and then try to imagine what life in that country would be like — welcome to just about any African country circa 2015! Characterized by perpetual chaos, pestilence, and an utter lack of intellectual curiosity or enlightenment. The dark continent indeed.
I notice Robert Gabriel Mugabe also trolls other HBD sites like Lion of the Blogosphere, and I think that’s awesome. I do the same thing with SWPL sites like Salon and the Gawker blogs, sometimes even on The Root and BET (which are websites for black people). Of course most of the commenters who react do so in a predictable fashion, but the reason I keep at it is the hope that maybe even 1 in 100 readers will see my out-of-place comments in the stream of otherwise predictably circle-jerky comments, and say “hey, that *is* a bit odd now that I think of it. Why *is* it the case that blacks are (on average) much more violent and stupid that every other ethnic group, regardless of where they are in the world? That can’t all have to do with racism and colonialism and microagressions, can it?” So if I manage to “turn on” even a few people that way, then mission accomplished.
So I assume RGM is trying out the same kind of psy-ops on the HBD blogs, which I totally respect. But I think he’s facing an uphill battle, because most HBD’ers are already converts; they grew up as obedient SWPLs, and only later converted to HBD based on their observations and intellectual courage. I think RGM, on the other hand, wrongly believes that the typical HBD’er grew up in a racist hillbilly KKK family, and that once the HBD’er realizes that he’s been fed on a diet of hateful racist lies, he will suddenly become a SWPL, But I don’t think many HBD’ers would meet that description.
all wrong as usual.
what i believe about hbders and hereditists is that they’re MORONS.
they lack “cognitive ability”. or as pof Shoe says “cognitive abirity”.
they’re like my dog, but not as pretty or good at killing squirrels.
Cockring, Shoe, Occidentalist, pp, Khan, Murray, Lynn, Flushton = FUCKTARDS.
you do know i’m in prof Shoe’s BGI study right?
You lack cognitive ability. Lynn and Rushton are original thinkers who have made major contributions to science.