There seems to be a pretty strong correlation between the average IQ of each race in America, and how over or underrepresented they are on the Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans. The following chart shows the entire U.S. population by race, with the IQs each race obtains in the United States. Population numbers in percentages.
The next chart shows the Forbes 400 by race as given by Steve Sailer:
Advertisements
I’ve always been surprised that Indians aren’t more dominant in the US wealth and business hierarchy. All the ones I’ve known personally were above average intelligence, extroverted, and sometimes even aggressive (although usually pretty nerdy, too.) They love competition, as can be seen from their success in the Scripps Spelling Bees.
Maybe they just haven’t been in the US long enough?
Yes, they’re barely over-represented on the Forbes 400. 1% of the Forbes 400 compared to 0.9% of America. This is very unimpressive when compared with Ashkenazi Jews (35.6% of the Forbes 400 compared to 2% of America). And yet both groups seem to have identical IQs, high ambition, and similar personalities.
As you’ve stated, they haven’t been in America as long. Another possibility is their dark skin makes them more likely to experience racism than Jews who can more easily hide their minority status.
How do you obtain these IQs ?
The IQ 89 for Hispanics is in fact the IQ of Native Americans.
I took almost all of them (including hispanics) from Richard Lynn’s book “The Global Bell Curve”
Native americans have an IQ of 86 but a genetic IQ of perhaps 89
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/01/correcting-ethnic-iq-differences-for-nutrition/
Hispanic Americans have an IQ of 89… their genetic IQ might be higher since English is often not their first language
1. The Jewish IQ is not 110. Ashkenazis Jews have “arguablely” ( i.e. am not convinced) avg IQ of 110. Using Ashkenazi Jews average to represent Jewish average (assuming Jewish is a major race on levels of Negloid, Mongoloid and Cacausoid) is no different from using Panda to represent all bears under the sun, isn’t it?
2. If the graph data are largely correct and the situation has remained largely so and stablised for quite some time, they show:
a. There is something very wrong, I mean VERY WRONG, with the some of the long established major theories behind the graphs (either Race, or IQ, or Both, or IQ-wealth link…unless the graph would pose to change dramatically very soon)
b. Intellectual patent right, which has been establishd worldwide only very recently in human history, has a humongous impact on protecting the existing statue quo at a time when the patent right was first introduced, given the fact that most of the old money of Fortune 400 has been preserved and multiplied exponenetially heavily depending on the worldwide income from the old patents, and fund from that would also benefit unfairly the amount of the new patent-generation vís-a-vís new startups, since the amount of research funds available is one of the make-or-break factors for innovation… Hence this unfair self-fulfilling circle continues.
c. again, casts a doubt on the real (other than theoritical) relationship between wealth and IQ at certain facets of their interactions, given the fact ( as each of us all knows from countless personal experiences) that it’s the average IQers who usually get the most wealth (so -called the top 1% – what the Fortune 400 largely represent) – bizarre, isn’t it, but a reality.
e.g. except some self-started real high tech (i.e. real high tech IMO refers to innovative high -end technologies involved in advanced industrial/information design and manufactoring, not refering to “socially feel-good, or money-shuffling high tech” such as Twitter, Facebook, Alibaba, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc whose wealth – the obscene market valuations – make the real high tech firms such as GE Engines, Intel Chips, Huawei 5G hareware & design, quality control of Mistubishi Heavy Industry etc look like street beggars) founders, most CEOs and department heads of all companies worldwide have avg IQ well below the true toppers. Look at the true picture and admit it once for all. It’s them who are the top 1% on wealthy, not the true top 1%, or even top 10% or 20%, of cognitive elites.
Using Ashkenazi Jews average to represent Jewish average (assuming Jewish is a major race on levels of Negloid, Mongoloid and Cacausoid) is no different from using Panda to represent all bears under the sun, isn’t it?
The vast majority of American Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. Ashekenazi Jews are a sub-race within whites who are a sub-race within Caucasoids.
c. again, casts a doubt on the real (other than theoritical) relationship between wealth and IQ at certain facets of their interactions, given the fact ( as each of us all knows from countless personal experiences) that it’s the average IQers who usually get the most wealth (so -called the top 1% – what the Fortune 400 largely represent) – bizarre, isn’t it, but a reality.
The correlation between IQ and money is only moderate & the money distribution so wide, that it’s not until you meet people who are really REALLY rich that noticeably above average IQ starts to appear. I estimate the relationship looks something like this:
Three figure income earners (the homeless): Average IQ 84
Four figure income earners (part-time minimum wage): Average IQ 92
Five figure income earners (middle class): Average IQ 100
Six figure income earners (future millionaires): Average IQ 108
Self-made deca-millionaires: Average IQ 116
Self-made centi-millionaires: Average IQ 124
Self-made billionaires: Average IQ 132
Self-made deca-billionaires: Average IQ 140
As for the income of different IQ levels, by their 30s I estimate the relationship looks like this:
IQ only has very weak correlation at certain points of its curve : it is by no means a line, or quasi line, but a curve, an algorisum.
That certain points included the high end points.
Sure, some self-made deca-billionaires have high IQ, while many, or most as I suspect, don’t.
Case in point, Mark Zuckerberg’s facebook, a technology worthed about $5,000 at its core, made million-billion “market” valuation at is debut. What does it mean?
Well, it means Zuckerberg’s “market” value to the humanity (as many of these Fortune 400 are) is more than the combined value of almost the entire high IQ establishment of 150+ people, working as leading engineers, brain surgeones, cadiologists, physicists, mathmeticians, psychologists, biologists, philosophists, etc. of China + Germany + Japan + Britain + Korea non-stop working 24*7 for the next 2 millenia and more! Well, what James Watson? it will take Watson-alike working 15 millenia to equal the value of drop-out kid Zuckerberg. You are dangerously using the similar to above kind of logic in interpredating those 2 graphs. To be fair, not only you, but also most of world (with avg IQ of 90) does.
Now, bearing that in mind, either we, the humanity, are completely bloody mad, or we are intentionally or unintentionally touting the absurd “logical” line of IQ-wealth of MSM scholars by scratching & reasonaing upon its superficial yet drastically misleading surface. Panda believes it is more of the latter.
IQ only has very weak correlation at certain points of its curve : it is by no means a line, or quasi line, but a curve, an algorisum.
Well at the high end income starts increasing by orders of magnitude making a linear relationship with IQ hard to maintain without statistical transformations. A simple solution is to use how many figures a person earns a year. IQ might increases on average by 8 points for each extra zero on your annual income or net worth.
Sure, some self-made deca-billionaires have high IQ, while many, or most as I suspect, don’t.
Compared to the average American most would be high IQ
it will take Watson-alike working 15 millenia to equal the value of drop-out kid Zuckerberg.
It often takes a lot of IQ to figure out how to make far more than you deserve & cleverly exploit & ripoff others. That might be evil genius, but intelligence evolved in a kill or be killed environment.
Mugabe, hear it from someone who understands twin and heritability studies better than you: https://calliehburt.wordpress.com/blog/
That link actually debunks the sources you used as a criticism of BG and HBD such as Moffitt et al., Barnes et al. etc.
Panda used to work in the dealroom for a major bank. There was a long-established “joke” (reality) around on dealing floors:
“to avoid them (some traders) lossing huge amount of money consistently across time on an almost daily basis, we (traders) have finally decided to promote them to the management”
It’s the management who get the most bonus though. The true top cognitive 1% work their arses off only for a decent pay.
Pumpkin, what do you think is the smartest animal (at the exception of the Human) ?
Either chimps or certain species of dolphins or whales. Crows are super smart too.
Intelligence is the mental ability to adapt situations to your advantage so evolution favours it
Pumpkin Person: how hot you would be in the so called scale from 1 to 10? also would you be open to homosexuality or bisexuality?.
Pumpkin Person: how hot you would be in the so called scale from 1 to 10?
Hard to judge your own attractiveness. My fiance thinks I’m hot but women are desperate & have no self-esteem.
also would you be open to homosexuality or bisexuality?.
Absolutely not!
Intelligence is the mental ability to adapt situations to your advantage so evolution favours it
…up until the point where higher intelligence causes one to have maladaptive goals. The most intelligent are outbred in civilization.
Some contradiction here.
Revised formula for estimating IQ from bio-demographics
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/05/17/revised-formula-for-estimating-iq-from-bio-demographics/
You we know our IQ should be stable for your adult life as your height or head size. On personal anecdote, I know my wealth and income will continue to grow throught my adult life. In capitalistic economy, the game is exponential growth in both wealth and income if you know how to invest.
If using bio-demographics for my own IQ estimation, I will get my IQ growing throught my adult life, which we know it is wrong.
I do believe income/wealth correlating with IQ. But correlation is not to equal IQ. That means you will have quite few dumb at high income due to luck, athletic ability ect. Also you will have quite of smart people with low wealth due to bad luck, physical handcap, or personality handcap, or lousy market.
Value (or wealth or income) is determined by market value following supply/demand ratio. Any job can be done by more people will have low value. If computer programing needs IQ above 120, but you have over supply of people with IQ above 120 when IQ distribution is not in the shape of bell curve. Then you get problem, computer programing is no longer high pay job. However, if a particular janitor job needs ability to stand horroible stench, a person with low IQ but defect smelling ability actually become only few people in the world able to do such job. Handicap of smell function actually becomes valuable ability to do such job. This very handicap person can earn very high income due to supply/demand ratio in the efficient market. Certainly luck is need for such person to find such job.
So do not blindly equal wealth/income to intelligence.
If using bio-demographics for my own IQ estimation, I will get my IQ growing throught my adult life, which we know it is wrong.
It’s no different from estimating height from weight. You can estimate a person’s height from their weight even though weight can change radically while height generally can not.
But you would never want to use weight alone to estimate someones height just as you would never want to use income alone to estimate someones IQ…Though sometimes i do but i note the huge uncertainty
Jews are overly successful for 2 particular reasons. Being aggressive like the blacks, when it comes to politics and cunning like that of East Asians (but Jews are smarter in this realm), when it comes to money. If you’re smart and know how to exploit in America, then you’re gold. The only draw back, most people find Jews to repugnant and unattractive, so it has it drawbacks. One nothing I notice about Jews is their intense jealousy of anyone who is non-Jewish, who comes across as smarter and more talented. This coming from my own personal experience. My theory is that Jews are very insecure about their status.
PP, if you can’t beat them, why don’t you convert to Judaism and change your last name? It will make you feel better!
The exact reasons are:
-Tribalism (useful for networks)
-Higher sociopathy
-Higher rate of ADHD (energy, creativity, extroversion…)
-Higher IQ
-Particular intellectual profil: less spatial (useless to individual success), more mathematic and verbal
“particular intellectual profil: less spatial (useless to individual success), more mathematic and verbal”
Panda is absulotely unconvinced about excluding maths ability from spatial category, but including it into verbal one. Something at its definition stage goes very wrong, perhaps due to error, or perhaps due to the limited understanding , hence wrong at a certian point, of how human brains function.
e.g. one would argue the East Asian are good at maths. It is not a myth. Yet the East Asian score relatively very low on verbal – hence maths abilities. WTF?
Some maths types have a spatial component but not all, it’s more about logic deduction (no link with spatial abilities).
And I have separated maths abilities from verbal ones.
Pumpkin, who are the tallest between Congoids and Europeans ?
You’d have to compare them in the same environment to rule out nutrition differences. I know white americans are about half an inch taller than black americans though black americans are only west african congoids & have about 20% white admixture
Black Americans have been selected for size due to slave trade. Slaves were also bred by slaveowners.
I have been told by friends who have been to Africa that they are on average short.
Height is difficult to estimate because it is greatly influenced by environment and has epigenetic effects.
If a community were short because of malnourishment it will take several generations to get genetic height with each son being progressively taller per generation.
I would say that civilizations under the threat of starving to death will be naturally selected for less height
I see somewhere that psychological traits are more inherited from the mother when physical ones from the father.
I have myself observed than mixed races (Black-White) with a White mother were looking smarter.
What do you think about that Pumpkin ?
Having a white mother might give an environmental advantage (biological & cultural) but the data I’ve seen suggests it makes no difference
https://sheerazgul.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/thank-your-parents-if-youre-smart-up-to-80-of-a-childs-intelligence-is-inherited/
This article say that it only work for men .
What do you think about this article ?
It may also explain the greater variance in IQ among men.
Look the correlation between wealth and iq is weak
Candy crush generates around a million per day!
Someone could create a game like candy crush when there are probably a million other games in the market just like it see Bejeweled, many other games like it with icons switched etc..
And make it rich due to shear luck.
Bill gates got rich simply because he won a contract with IBM to write software for them while keeping the software rights.
INSTAGRAM got rich because of filters and because Facebook wasn’t cool anymore even though they both have the exact same features
Twitter got rich because it’s Facebook but you can only post 140 characters.
None of the creators of the following above had great or even original ideas. Plenty of 80 iq people could have thought. If something like, let’s make Bejeweled and replace the gems with candy!!!!
Twitter got
“Plenty of 80 iq people could have thought”
you have to have a very high IQ to make an informatic complex program.
No you don’t, it requires no effort or intelligence to clone Bejeweled and swap out the graphics. As evidence even Bejeweled was a ripped of an older tile swapping game and there are literally hundreds of thousands of the exact same game that was out before and after candy crush.
Also Shockley invented the Transistor leading to trillions in wealth generated.
He himself has not received anything for his invention except a Nobel prize.
Tesla invented alternating current leading to trillions generated. He died bankrupt.
Shockley is a bad example because his IQ was only 129 and it’s also ONE invention.
Tesla is at a so high level that he don’t even care of wealth.
I think after 130 of IQ the variance get greater and greater.
Also a plumber in NYC makes 100k-200k with no college degree simply by living in NYC and being in the union.
While a plumber with the exact same credentials living somewhere else makes 40k.
So all the plumbers in NYC are as smart as bachelor degreed white collar professionals living in other states.
Same thing with police officer and other “trade” type unionzed jobs in NYC.
A smart person will tend to only become a plumber if being a plumber pays well in the city he’s in. Everyone knows that if you want to attract smart people, you pay well.
That’s not how it works
Only plumbers in unions make ridiculous amounts. In fact all tradesmen in NYC do, police officers regularly make over 100k in NYC.
How do you Get into the plumbers union? You need to apply the catch is that no experience or education is required, thousands of people fighting for a few hundred positions. SURPRISINGLY most of the people chosen for plumber apprenticeships are all related to someone in the union.
You could be the world’s smartest and greatest plumber but there is nothing you can do to make that 100k salary without a high school education. If you ever talked to any of these union thugs majority of them are sub 90 Iqs.
All licensed trade jobs in NYC such as licensed plumber, licensed electrician various other trades all make retarded amounts of money with no college degrees. And Getting into these jobs is only possible with nepotism.
Not only union jobs, majority of jobs are given out via nepotism. I have personally called in favors to get friends and family hired that were underqualified compared to other applicants. In addition to hiring underqualified applicants as favors to friends and family.
ideed!
some american proles make more than america’s best…namely, engineers.
boston police make even more than manhattan’s iirc. public school teachers in some jurisdictions make as much.
but they’re still proles.
fussel has a chapter on this. even though Fussel was an Angelino and arriviste his book had some noteworthy notes.
social mobility goes both ways and despite my family history starting in late 18th c switzerland my immediate family wealth isn’t even in the 1%. yet my mom’s southern pwt relatives are! just goes to show that “meritocracy” is a totally bullshitr concept. “merit” is whatever characterizes the ruling class. storm the palace and define “merit”.
so i visited my local walmart. my God it’s gross. why? the people! not only the employees, but the people who shop there. i was looking for tomato plants. what did the WHITE, but short, brown eyed, ABSURDLY obese employee tell me?
“we had some, but we don’t have none no more.”
au revoir les etats unis merdeux.
Yeah, I don’t buy that getting wealthy requires a whole lot of IQ.
People have gotten rich by making cookies. That doesn’t require a whole lot of intelligence.
A lot of times, you get rich due to random luck. If you don’t factor in luck, whatever calculation is made is essentially speaking pointless.
Getting wealthy depends on a lot of factors. Rich people can be rich because their daddies are rich.
If you are an introvert, you are automatically at a disadvantage IMO. A lot of Asians are this way, even though they could probably run circles around you in terms of intelligence.
Yeah, I don’t buy that getting wealthy requires a whole lot of IQ.
People have gotten rich by making cookies. That doesn’t require a whole lot of intelligence.
Yes it does.
A lot of times, you get rich due to random luck.
But you have to know what to do with luck.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pumpkinperson.com
for those who wants to see some stats of this blog.
not famous enough for having data in the histogram 😉
Those stats are a very delayed indicator.
the romans are fairly criticized for their history in latin america, religious and still desperately poor. the romans may be taken as supportive of the latin american class system, ignoring the liberation theology-ists.
but…
carthusian to carthusian:
robert gabriel mugabe is a roman from birth. were it not for the romans he would never have become president of Zimbabwe.
racism is a recent “innovation”. the roman empire was NOT “racist”.
in the middle ages europe was no better, or little better, developed than ethiopia or india or central asia or the middle east.
racists suck bruce jenner’s vagina.
and btw pp, i never intended to take my dgree in math, i just accumulated more credits in math than anything else mid-way so i made the big push to take my degree in it.
that is, i majored in math because i was LAZY. it required SO LITTLE effort compared to other subjects.
BUT!!!
ultimately i found it BORING and TEDIOUS and STUPID.
Pumpkin, that’s pretty annoying that when you can’t dismiss something I tell you, you are just not answering.
I don’t even know what you’re referring to. I’ve answered many of your comments. But obviously I don’t have time to respond to every single comment everyone makes. There are just too many.
I am talking about the discussions we have already started about for example : the testosterone level of Europeans and the 80% heritability of intelligence from the mother.
I brought new elements in these “discussions” and you just didn’t answered.
I think it’s premature to claim most of the genetics for IQ comes from the mother. Mugabe claims that except in the case of pathology, no IQ related genes have yet been reliably discovered (one study will find an effect but other studies fail to replicate the results)
As for southeast Asians having less testorone than Europeans despite less IQ…I think Rushton’s theory works best when you average everyone in the 3 main races together. At the level of the individual or subgroup, there’s always going to be wierd exceptions. You must look at the big picture
And it’s not even clear what race southeast Asians are though i lump with mongoloid based on appearance
I don’t much about the genetics studies on intelligence, but it seem to be a good explaination for the greater SD of man in IQ and the differences in intelligence I have observed between differents type of hybrids. And if you look at the influents hybrids(Black-White), they often have a White mother(only the men of course).
For the Europeans testosterone, it also work the same for psychopathy, there is a lot more psychopaths in Europeans than in East Asian and all Mongoloids at the exception of Native Americans. And if you consider the actuals Southeast Asians as a mix of East Asians and Australoids it perfectly explain their lower testosterone rate.
You can’t deny that society influence genetics especially if it’s old model of society. This explaination is perfectly coherent and it doesn’t go in an opposite sens of Rushton’s theory. You are thinking that I think this theory explain all the testosterone differences between East Asians and Europeans, I don’t. But it explain why Asians have lower testosterone than we should expect from Rushton’s theory.
If we are averaging the three groups it give the same thing because all the Asians Mongoloids have East Asians admixture.
You would have to do a statistical analysis to show most intelligent or at least most successful hybridized black men are non-black on their mother’s side. Malcolm Gladwell is black from his mother’s side.
Obama is white on his mother’s side but sounds like he got his brains from his father’s side. His mother got a PhD in some easy subject, while his dad was an economist.
As for southeast Asians…you could be right. Society can influence genes of course…Jewish IQ is thought to have evolved through man-made selection, but civilization is a pretty recent development so my first instinct is to look at the natural world
Also does the French language have a term for Occam’s razor: a simple theory that explains many facts is better than a complex theory that explains only one.
I would be more open to your testosterone theory if you could cite other populations it applies to (Indians perhaps? Jews? Though i don’t know their testosterone levels) It seems strange to have an entire theory just for one group, though Cochran did this for Jewish IQ
I know what Occam’s razor is and it’s just the literal traduction of this in french. But it doesn’t apply here because I am not proposing a theory which remplace Rushton’s theory but which add precisions.
Actually, the Europeans seems to be in the norm at world level because all other people are divided by language as Europeans are. Chinese are uncommon with their symbolic language which allowed them to be unified and to need less aggressive individuals. And we can extent this to all Asians Mongoloids who have predominant Chinese admixture. There is no other exemple of unified “continent” in the world at the exception of India.
And Indians seems to have low testosterone in comparaison of Arabs and North Africans. I don’t know if Indians have a symbolic written language which wouldhave allow them to be unified when keeping their oral languages diversity.
What I know is that India have a casts systeme which could have influence testosterone levels.
At a smaller scale, France also have a “casts system” in comparaison of others europeans countries. It’s difficult to change of social class in France. And, you may have noticed it, French are very feminine if we compare them to Germans for exemple, who are logically more evolved (Nordics are more evolved than Mediterraneans). It’s of course in a lesser extent that the previous examples.
For Jews (and all others nomades), you don’t have a selection on testosterone because it leads to have more sexual desire and more children and a too large people don’t work for nomadism. But they compensate with higher ADHD .
Of course, there are not enough datas to confirm(or not) what I am saying but it seems logic.
So the theory is that if an entire race speaks the same language, this will minimize war & thus minimize selection for aggression (testosterone)? It’s logical, but I would need to do a lot more research before agreeing that that’s part of the explanation.
I’m trying to comment it in psychological comments but i can’t. Only a exception in this post ( because i’m answer only post was write about me).
In the ”Stuart post”, they are debating about brain size or iq differences to explain why cognitive exceptionalities are more common in men than in women ( because for me, women are slight smarter than men, but depend what population you are analysing): testosterone levels.
Testosterone, lack, excess or unusual exposure, is one of the responsible to cause giftedness. Higher iq and greater brains are just one of many bio-products of testosterone role and not the fundamental cause, which are the testosterone.
The answer seems a little bit obvious.
So are you saying the male brain size advantage is negated by their extra testosterone?
Negated??
Nope, testosterone is a key for men big brain as well for all panacea of exceptionalities which are more common in men.
Exposure of testosterone during pregnancy change brain organization. I read in a recent paper that of the mark of giftedness would right hemisphere predominance or simmetric brains.
I wonder if this also applies to big brained Neanderthals
Other doubt. Testosterone levels have a strong causal effect to increase what kind of intelligence???
i think verbal intelligence, i.e, higher verbal intelligence could be caused by reduction of testosterone levels in men, specially with math or non-verbal deficits or weaknesses while intelligence types with strong technical cognitive enphasis could be correlate with higher testosterone levels, of course, on average. Work niches show us this behavioural implications caused by different testosterone levels or not exactly like that.
Neanderthals had weak verbal capacity… Is not??
Non-verbal capacity seems more concentrated in right brain hemisphere.
But even in verbal exceptionalities, men look more aberrant than women.
Men develop muscles, body hair, penis by this extra testosterone or Y. Why not personality and intelligence higher variability?!? Maybe, i’m not a expert, i’m expert in speculation. 😉
Slanted forehead is a ”male” trait while straight baby-looking forehead is ”female” trait. 😉
It does not require a high IQ to steal from others though Forbes would have us correlate intelligence to race and wealth.
It takes as much intelligence to share as it does to hoard. As much intelligence to lie as it does to tell the truth. As much intelligence to steal as does to make reparations. Just like the Civil War, this is a moral question. It is what distinguished Lincoln from Douglas and it is why Fort Sumter figures prominently in history.
This is a propaganda and its pathological.
I think you would like Elon Musk.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/12/23/what-exactly-is-the-correlation-between-iq-and-brain-size-in-adults/comment-page-1/#comment-21220