According to scholar Arthur Jensen, on a scale where white Americans average IQ 100 (SD = 15), African Americans have a mean IQ of 85 (SD = 12). The question is, what does this actually tell us about the number of extremely high IQ African Americans? The question was discussed on the West Hunter blog back in June, where the blogger wondered how many African Americans qualify for Nation Merit recognition (somewhat equivalent to an IQ of 139+ as measured by the PSAT, though the exact cut-off fluctuates a bit from state to state):
Consider black Americans. If their mean IQ is one std lower than whites, while the width of their distribution is lower (12 points instead of 15) – then for them the NMSPQRT threshold is 4.475 standard deviations. Instead of 1 in 200, the fraction of winners is less than 1 in 200,000.
This is too simple: IQ can’t be exactly Gaussian, blacks in the US are not perfectly homogeneous, etc. But it does show the trend: such high scores are much, much, much rarer in groups with low mean scores. It’s also the case that any black kid with such a high score would get a far better offer from Harvard.
However our very own Lion of the Judah-Sphere wrote in the blog’s comment section:
Hate to brag— okay no, I don’t, I love bragging— I’m black and was a National Merit Finalist. Granted, it was in a southern state with a low cutoff score. Strangely enough, out of about a dozen people in my school who made it to the semifinalist level, three of them were black (me and two black females).
But given the stats cited above and other anecdotes, the blogger found Judah-sphere’s claim very had to believe.
A few people have asked me to write about the IQ standard deviation of different races, and I’m always reluctant because one thing I’ve noticed is that although blacks have a smaller SD than whites, there are a lot more high IQ blacks than their small SD would predict. For example, in the book The Bell Curve, they attempted to estimate the number of blacks in America with IQs of 125+ and find that the actual frequency of high IQ blacks is much greater than the Gaussian curve would predict. Note, they were using a scale where an IQ of 100 and an SD of 15 were equivalent to the mean and SD of all Americans, not just white Americans, which is why the reported IQs for blacks are a few points higher than Jensen’s stats:
…As of 1994 there were approximately 32.8 million blacks in America. If the estimate is computed based on the mean IQ (86.7) and standard deviation (12.4) of blacks in the NLSY, a table of the normal distribution indicates that only 0.1 percent, or about 33,000, would have IQs of 125 or higher. If one applies the observed distribution in the NLSY and asks what proportion of blacks are in the top five percent of the AFQT distribution (roughly corresponding to an IQ of 125), the result, 0.4 percent, implies the answer is about 131,000. There are reasons to think that both estimates err in different directions. We compromise with 100,000.
I wish they had elaborated on what reasons there are to think both estimates err in different directions!
On page 454 of The Bell Curve, they note that in 1993, “only 129 blacks, 234 Latinos nationwide had SAT verbal scores in the 700s–and these represented all-time highs–compared to 7,114 whites.” They are referencing the older, much harder version of the SAT that existed before the re-centering of the scale circa 1995.
Back in 1993, there were probably only 3 million 17 year-olds in America (including perhaps 2.25 million whites and perhaps 360,000 blacks), and virtually 100% of the brilliant ones wrote the SAT. Thus, if 7,114 out of 2.25 million white 17 year olds scored 700+ on the verbal SAT (one out of 316), then, on a scale where white America averages 100 with an SD of 15, this can be roughly equated to a deviation IQ of 141 (just over the national merit level).
Now, if on the same scale, U.S. blacks supposedly have a mean of 85 with an SD of 12, the Gaussian curve predicts that of the perhaps 360,000 African American 17-year-ods in 1993, only one of them should score 139, and not a single one should score 140+. Instead 129 scored 141+. How do we explain this?
Perhaps the old SAT is not normally distributed at the extremes. I forced it to fit the bell curve among whites which meant 700+ was assigned an IQ of 141 ( based on the fact that only one in 316 whites corresponds to the +2.73 SD level on the normal curve), but in reality, when representative samples of all U.S. white teenagers (not just the college bound segment) took the old verbal SAT as part of norming studies, a score of 700+ was actually over +3 SD from the mean because the true distribution is not perfectly normal, and departure from normality likely gets worse the more you deviate from the mean of your race.
I suspect this problem is largely limited to highly crystallized tests like the SAT and AFQT. Because these tests are measuring cultural learning in addition to biological ability, there’s no reason to expect them to perfectly fit the Gaussian curve, which is largely limited to biological distributions. Although it’s sometimes suggested that culture loaded tests are more heritable than culture reduced ones, several studies have found the opposite. And of course there’s more to biology than just genes.
A second possible explanation was perhaps alluded to by the West Hunter blog: blacks in the US are not perfectly homogeneous. For example, the brilliant Steve Sailer notes that roughly 10% of U.S. “blacks” are of predominantly non-black ancestry. So even though African Americans as a whole might have a mean IQ of 85 and an SD of 12, these aggregate statistics obscure the fact that 10% of African Americans are mostly white at the genetic level, and thus probably have a mean around 93 and an SD around 14. This hyper-hybridized subset might have their own bell curve, which might partly explain the unexpectedly high number of brilliant blacks.
A third possibility is these high scoring blacks are not just hyper-hybridized black Americans but rather the best and brightest from Africa, taking the SAT as foreign students or as children of the most elite immigrants.
A fourth possibility, which I find unlikely, is that a century of statistics are wrong, and that the African American mean and SD are not 85 and 12, but rather 78 and 15+. Before they died, scholars Jensen and Rushton speculated that virtually all testing of U.S. blacks ever done excluded a large underclass of blacks. These would probably be the most dark-skinned Negroid featured blacks in the heart of the ghetto, in schools no white psychologist would dare give an IQ test, but if they would, they might find scores of only 70 or even 50, which would drag the overall U.S. black mean down to 78, while expanding the SD enough to explain high IQ blacks at the opposite extreme.
A final possible explanation for the large number of brilliant blacks is that the general U.S. black mean and SD is artificially lowered by bad environment, and only the best and brightest blacks are largely privileged enough to overcome the bad environment and reach their genetic potential. As an HBDer, I find this unlikely, but possible.
The Black IQ distribution may be fatter on the right but narrower in the middle, resulting in more high-IQ scores than indicated by a normal distribution but still with a mean lower than whites.
Oh I agree, but the question is, why is the distribution like that?
My theory: Perhaps black persecutions throughout the past four centuries had a eugenic effect, choosing for more geniuses than it seems otherwise. The top end of african Americans with high iq never assimilated due to jim crow.
The Jewish American and indian American founder population probably has the same average iq but jews have more geniuses at the top end because of strong persecution.
I suspect had jim crow survived for a millennium, black geniuses would have multiplied.
400 years is not a very long time for evolution to occur, and it seems implausible only the top of the distribution would be affected
When one is talking about potential mutations or phenotypes among 100 or so people, 400 years is more than enough time for anything to show up.
It is not enough time for a population makeover, but is enough for such phenotypes to show up at the extremes. The selective pressure for intelligence was there, but the black population responded in two ways: usually doubling down on tolerating pain or by selecting for the rare brainiacs.
I don’t buy the persecution effect on Jews. German Jews were the brightest in 17th-20th Century Germany, a time when “assimilation” was happening. Meanwhile, their Eastern Counterparts in Poland were being pushed around, and Eastern European Jews to this day, are regarded as intellectually and economically inferior to their German Counterparts.
Why? Because we insist on grouping all “blacks” into one set based on some factor. Imagine if we were to lump all people of Hispanic descent, from actual Spain to Bolivia, and try to predict IQ distribution. Would we be surprised that Bolivians don’t accurately represent Spainiards?
As an African American guy with an IQ above the 98th percentile, this is something quite obvious to me and black people in the environments I frequent. Historically and currently, not all “blacks” fit into one homogenous group as represented by the mainstream.
Learn maths. Have you ever heard about the central limit theorem??
”A final possible explanation for the large number of brilliant blacks is that the general U.S. black mean and SD is artificially lowered by bad environment, and only the best and brightest blacks are largely privileged enough to overcome the bad environment and reach their genetic potential. As an HBDer, I find this unlikely, but possible.”
Nope, simply say to us how you define ”bad environment” and how bad environment, defined, can altered organically the average intelligence of afro-americans.
Because these tests are measuring cultural learning in addition to biological ability
pp once again DEMONSTARATES that she has no memory and CANNOT distinguish between words and things.
The fluid/crystallized distinction is 100% NOMINAL. There are differences in tests with these labels, but it isn’t the crystallized/fluid difference.
pp is CLEARLY learning disabled.
Studies tell us that both are replicably real, and connected to the g factor.
Not to mention, highly heritable.
Memory correlate with IQ as low as 0.20 and SAT with IQ 0.70 or something else.
Only a complete utter moron could think the distinction is 100% nominal.
It’s reality is validated by studies showing crystallized IQ shows greater gains from adoption, schooling & immigrant assimilation & longitudinal studies showing crystallized ability shows less decline with age.
If your fluid ability wasn’t so impaired by alcohol, you might realize that after I’ve explained it to you multiple times!
”Only a complete utter moron could think the distinction is 100% nominal.”
Physiologically and literally speaking, maybe not.
Nominally speaking, yes, is a moron.
Personality, creativity, wisdom, intelligence, cognition…. all of it is inside the same spectrum, the same phenomena.
Of course, fluid and chrystallized have different functions and impacts but it doesn’t mean that both are literally separated. If someone is extremely good in ”fluid aspects”, is likely to be not so good in chrystallized. I think.
Indeed a ”dark enlightement”… light*** rationality**
https://taawaciclos.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/otan_4.jpg?w=820&h=463
What the fuck did I just click on?
Called reality.
IQ distribution is not Gaussian for others either, this is nothing unusual
“Many more extreme scores were observed than would be predicted by a normal curve. For a chart of deviation IQs based on the normal curve, look here.Observed rarities of high scores were between the normal distribution (too rare) and logarithmic distribution (too common). A logical candidate for the ‘true’ distribution would be the log-normal distribution.”
http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/John_Scoville_Paper.htm
Yes, but the question is why isn’t it Gaussian?
Now with this old childhood IQs (which are just a ratio of mental age to chronological age) you can kind of understand it because of uneven growth spurts in mental development, but in adulthood why is it happening?
Is it because it’s a “crystallized” test (as were most of the old ratio IQ scales), or would the departure from normality happen on “fluid” tests too?
The black chicks at my school that got NMF were pretty black. Like, even darker than me (and I’m pretty dark). I’m sure though they just barely made the cutoff. I was surprised they did so well, though they were both in my Calc 2 class, so they couldn’t have been total dum-dums.
Were these dark skinned black girls descendants of slaves or descendants of voluntary immigrants from Africa?
Pretty sure slave descendants (like me). Which makes it even more surprising.
More than 40% of USA population obtain a degree. That set th average IQ of university students is http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/blackelite.htm
Affirmative action an lax standards explain all
When outcomes came to the scene, black and womyn disappear. Only remain Jews, Whites and Asians , predominantly males
I think black females are smarter than black males, which is the contrary in barely all the other races.
barely?
I’m guessing the black IQ bell curve is very non-Gaussian. As in, really fat tails. I know this contradicts the “85 IQ, SD 12” meme that’s becoming the gospel, but I know from personal experience (meaning, within my own extended family) there seems to be a lot of variance: Phds in STEM subjects, others who barely graduated high school…
Of course a distribution can have a small SD but still have lots of people at the extremes if the distribution is very non-Gaussian.
Ah yes, that’s true.
What could cause a distribution(of biologically normal individuals) to be significantly more or less gaussian than an other one at the exception of population size ?
As a result, environmentalism remained hegemonic throughout the 1960s. War on Poverty had failed, and that the black-white test score gap probably had a substantial genetic component?
Pingback: Some statistical notes | evolutionistx
You answered your own question here:
“A second possible explanation was perhaps alluded to by the West Hunter blog: blacks in the US are not perfectly homogeneous. For example, the brilliant Steve Sailer notes that roughly 10% of U.S. “blacks” are of predominantly non-black ancestry. So even though African Americans as a whole might have a mean IQ of 85 and an SD of 12, these aggregate statistics obscure the fact that 10% of African Americans are mostly white at the genetic level, and thus probably have a mean around 93 and an SD around 14. This hyper-hybridized subset might have their own bell curve, which might partly explain the unexpectedly high number of brilliant blacks.”
Out of curiosity some time back, I ran the numbers using “The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)” data set. I accounted for the different admixture proportions and compared them to the gaussians based on whites. The assumption I used to perform the calculations was: the percentage of white genes the American Black contains determines his IQ. If you run the numbers, accounting for white gene admixture it correlates perfectly with NAEP results for the the American Black. Your observed anomaly is resolved if you analyze the data in that way.
Out of curiosity some time back, I ran the numbers using “The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)” data set. I accounted for the different admixture proportions and compared them to the gaussians based on whites. The assumption I used to perform the calculations was: the percentage of white genes the American Black contains determines his IQ. If you run the numbers, accounting for white gene admixture it correlates perfectly with NAEP results for the the American Black. Your observed anomaly is resolved if you analyze the data in that way.
Interesting, but I would need to see more specifics
When you call white/black halfbreeds black, you’re going to confuse the population distribution, thus a whole slew of bad science. Get rid of the social politics and try again.
There is a “mixed race” category, but that is absurdly ambigious.
Many blacks don’t know their autosomal makeup. That’s the problem.
The average African-American is about 80% African. It may be slightly lower among test-takers which, among other things could help explain the gap.
Autosomal genes are expressed genes so actual trait variation should be controlled.
The average IQ for an American is in the high 90s. And that’s just an average American in an average city, not in NYC. Those blacks in South are living among the dumbest population in America, also devoid of any WASPs, Jews and East Asians. It’s plausible they were the few of the brightest in their hometowns.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
When converting SDs, even that max of “139” seems generous. It would seem to be about 140- (24/15), not “139”. Something’s up.
I’d bet the black SD isn’t 12;
1. Admixture
2. Blacks even pure blooded, are the most diverse race (the oldest).
What about taking stimulants like “smart drugs”, maybe Blacks just had the benefit of higher Executive function?, exploiting the non-perfect relationship between SAT and IQ?
I’ve also seen that it’s a placebo, too, so I don’t know.
What does pumpkinperson think?
The SAT g loading is apparently only about 0.7 . The non-controlled 0.30 portion is mainly executive function, which could be possibly be improved by stimulants?
Could this lead to a discrepancy, if one race uses it more than the others, in this case Blacks using it more?
I don’t think the SAT measures executive functioning and I don’t know why you think smart drugs uniquely improve that domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic
“Improves cognitive function, particularly executive function”
I’m searching for whether or not the SAT measures executive function.
Blacks have less health insurance so probably do you use it less, but it could weaken the SAT- raw IQ correlation.
Is the SAT actually an IQ type test (correlation DOES imply causation) or is it just casual/coincidental? That could be an indicator.
I can’t find it.
But, I do remember a study of school children in Quebec and their sleep levels (most closely relates to executive function), showed more significant grade declines in Math and Reading, but not in Science and History, so I think it could work on the SAT?
“I don’t know why you think smart drugs uniquely improve that domain.”
Are you saying it does MORE than just improve executive function?
I hate to seize on some minute anti-IQ/HBD detail, but we’re all autists with weird obsessions here, so;
Is it possible to have an artificially inflated IQ/academic performance moment?
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/no-you-did-not-get-an-artificially-high-score-on-that-iq-test/
Robert Lindsay says no, on anything.
The SAT has a restriction of range problem. Since only students hoping to go to college take it, the left side of the curve is cut off. Thus, we should not expect a ‘normal distribution.’ And since African Americans are not a biologically homogenous, independent biological group, we can’t expect them to all belong in the same distribution.
If we assume that everyone who could score high on the SAT actually takes the test, then the high end reflects the right side of the general population curve, not just the college bound curve.
pumpkinperson, can you possibly give me an estimate of how many black africans have IQs over 125 please?
pumpkinperson, this article claims that only one black people in 218 000 has an iQ over 140. Is this valid or not in your own assessment?
https://creativityalliance.com/forum/index.php?topic=8668.0
I’d be more like one in 8000 in the US assuming a mean of 85 & SD of 15. Many claim the SD is smaller than 15 but on the best & best normed test (wechsler) it’s 15
Ok, thank you!
“The question was discussed on the West Hunter blog back in June, where the blogger wondered how many African Americans qualify for Nation Merit recognition (somewhat equivalent to an IQ of 139+ as measured by the PSAT, though the exact cut-off fluctuates a bit from state to state)”
How is National Merit uniformly equivalent to an IQ of 139 if the cutoff differs with each state? For example, California has the highest index of all the states, clocking in at 223, yet one of the Dakotas has it around 213 or so (can’t remember the exact number). That’s a 10 point spread. Furthermore, if the top 0.5% of college bound students achieve National Merit Status, wouldn’t the IQ percentile be higher according to the assertion that 100% of students capable of scoring sublimely on the PSAT take it?
I assume it averages 138 (might be bit lower in dumb states & higher in smart states)
I assume that of the people who take it, more than 0.5% meet the cut, but only 0.5% would qualify if everyone took it
In addition, only a certain conglomerate of English+Math scores guarantees an aspiring student recognition; no two 1400s on the PSAT are alike (i.e. a student with an English score of 640 and a Math score of 760, the maximum Math score, will not even come close, but a 760 English and a 640 Math shoehorns him into recognition in many states.
(Note: The PSAT changed in 2015 which explains the 4-digit scoring system of 320-1520.)