Imagine you had a random sample of 16 white men with the following heights measured without shoes on:
Todd: 75 inches
Dave: 74 inches
Bill: 72 inches
Tim: 72 inches
Ted: 71 inches
Mike: 70 inches
Joe: 70 inches
Ed: 70 inches
Rick: 70 inches
Henry:68 inches
Ian: 68 inches
Andy: 68 inches
Don: 68 inches
Steve:67 inches
Eric: 67 inches
The average raw height of these men is about 70 inches and the standard deviation is about 2.4 inches. Now if we wanted to express these heights on the same scale as IQ, where the white mean is set at 100 and the white standard deviation is set at 15, instead of calling it IQ (Intelligence Quotient) we would call it HQ (Height Quotient). In order to convert the heights to HQ, we would use the following formula:
HQ = [(Height – 70 inches)/2.4](15) + 100
When this is done, the men have the following HQs:
Todd: 131
Dave: 125
Bill: 113
Tim: 113
Ted: 106
Mike: 100
Joe: 100
Ed: 100
Rick: 100
Henry:88
Ian: 88
Andy: 88
Don: 88
Steve:81
Eric: 81
We would call the HQs listed above fluid HQs, because they were taken without shoes and thus measured the raw physical height, uncontaminated by the socioeconomic opportunity to buy better shoes.
Now imagine we asked all the men to put their shoes on and found the following heights measured with shoes:
Todd: 77 inches
Dave: 76 inches
Bill: 74 inches
Tim: 74 inches
Ted: 72 inches
Mike: 71 inches
Joe: 71 inches
Ed: 71 inches
Rick: 71 inches
Henry:68 inches
Ian: 68 inches
Andy: 68 inches
Don: 68 inches
Steve:67 inches
Eric: 67 inches
Now the mean height has risen from about 70 inches to about 71 inches, and the standard deviation has risen from about 2.4 inches to about 3.13 inches. So the shoes have not only increased the average height of the men, but increased the differences between them. Why? Because the short men were unable to find employment, and thus couldn’t afford to buy shoes at all. This is analogous to how people with low fluid IQ are denied access to more education to prop up their crystallized IQ.
By contrast, the men who were at least 70 inches tall could afford to buy shoes which increased their height one inch, and the men who were at least 72 inches tall could afford to buy shoes that increased their height by two inches. This is analogous to how people with high natural IQs get full academic scholarships, and thus can afford graduate school with greatly increases their crystallized IQ.
So let’s call HQ measured with shoes on (if you even have shoes), crystallized HQ, because it reflects both the raw biological trait, and the cultural perks that trait allows you to acquire (in this case of HQ, shoes. In the case of IQ, schooling). In order to calculate the crystallized HQs that are also scaled to have a mean and SD of 100 and 15 respectively, we invoke the same formula used above, except we amend it to reflect the new distribution of heights:
HQ = [(Height – 71 inches)/3.13](15) + 100
With the above formula, the men in whatever shoes they have, get the following crystallized HQs:
Todd: 129
Dave: 124
Bill: 114
Tim: 114
Ted: 105
Mike: 100
Joe: 100
Ed: 100
Rick: 100
Henry:86
Ian: 86
Andy: 86
Don: 86
Steve:81
Eric: 81
Notice how the HQs of the men calculated with whatever shoes they have, are virtually identical to their HQs measured without shoes on. So even though an environmental intervention (buying shoes) greatly increased the absolute difference in height between men, measured in inches, it did nothing to increase the relative difference between men, measured in HQs, which by definition have a standard deviation of 15.
Analogously, even though factors like education, parenting, studying, etc, greatly increase performance on crystallized IQ tests like vocabulary and the SAT, they have little effect on the relative difference between people, as measured by the IQ scale. This is why both HBD extremists and extreme HBD deniers can both be right simultaneously; because culture has large effects on absolute differences while biology determines relative differences.
It’s only when you get environmental effects that are uncorrelated with individual differences in biology (i.e. 20th century increase in schooling partly responsible for the Flynn effect), that the effect of culture becomes unmasked.
Pumpkin Person 
Good post.
Although I want to point out something that I’ve pointed out before: the ability to absorb information from schooling is likely just as genetically determined as raw (fluid) intelligence, thus explaining the equal or higher g-loading of crystallized IQ compared to fluid. Some people acquire great degrees of schooling (pun intended) and do little to improve their overall intelligence; some people have little schooling but they still seek out intellectually engaging environments through other sources. And some do the exact opposite. The only reason we see a correlation between schooling and ability to absorb information is because those with the latter tend to be given opportunities to do the former in modern societies.
Not a good post at all actually…
Since when is body height is not measured barefoot in the morning when it’s for a scientific purpose ?
And one thing he seems to forget: variation in height is much more independent of race than variation in IQ. Although height is a highly polygenic trait that is strongly influenced by environmental interventions that are much less artificial and temporary than wearing shoes. And what kind of shoes are is he actually talking about ? Boots, high heels, Flip-flops ? Is there an IQ-height of shoes correlation ?
Be serious just one second Pumpkin…
variation in height is much more independent of race than variation in IQ. Although height is a highly polygenic trait that is strongly influenced by environmental interventions that are much less artificial and temporary than wearing shoes.
Height is pretty dependent on sub-population: Masaii and Norwegians vs. Eskimos and Pygmies. I’m guessing height is strongly genetically determined.
? Boots, high heels, Flip-flops ? Is there an IQ-height of shoes correlation ?
I think his point is that greater initial height leads to greater returns on shoe height, in the same way fluid intelligence leads to greater returns in crystallized intelligence. So yes, there’s a IQ-height of shoes correlation in his example.
Not a good post at all actually…
Since when is body height is not measured barefoot in the morning when it’s for a scientific purpose ?
It’s just an analogy. The idea is that just as one’s performance on IQ test has a both a real component (raw fluid biological ability) and a fake component (acquired knowledge, education, test sophistication, self confidence, motivation), the same is true for height, which can be faked through higher shoes or posture.
This is an important distinction because when something like the Flynn effect occurs, the question becomes, how much of it is a real biological change, and how much is just a product of socialization and culture.
But the other point of the post is that even though IQ has a fake component, it’s still an excellent measure of real ability, because those with real ability tend to be the one’s who also acquire the fake ability (i,e. education) so the rank order remains. The analogy with height would be if those with the most real height, were also the ones to acquire the most fake height (i.e. high shoes)
What if high heels are cheaper/less prized than flip-flops and allow low IQ people to get an artificial booster that make their biologic+genetic IQs higher than average ?
Afro, they know they are in trouble, so now they must invent myths to save the paradigm.
The Alamo of genetic determinism is the GE amplification model.
What if high heels are cheaper/less prized than flip-flops and allow low IQ people to get an artificial booster that make their biologic+genetic IQs higher than average ?
If short people started wearing high heels, and tall people started wearing flip flops, what would happen is the correlation between fake height (height measured with shoes) and real height (height measured without shoes) would decrease, and fake height would be rejected as a valid measure of height.
Analogously, if dumb people started getting university degrees, and smart people started dropping out of high school, then the correlation between fake IQ (IQ measured on highly culture loaded tests) and real IQ (IQ measured on culture reduced tests) would drop, and fake IQ tests would be rejected as a valid measure of intelligence.
I should note though, that culture loaded tests are not just tests that require a lot of knowledge, they’re also tests that require certain culturally acquired attitudes. For example, the Raven progressive Matrices requires very little cultural knowledge and thus is assumed to be culture reduced, but those with very little schooling still flunk it because they don’t have the cultural attitude of trying hard on paper and pencil tests.
“fake height would be rejected as a valid measure of height.”
And that’s actually the case, in the real word. When we talk height and height increase overtime, we talk about barefoot height. With respect to IQ, education can’t be thought as an artifact at all, there is nothing fake about knowing more, having more concepts for your intellect to handle. Today, 90 IQ skilled clerk is contributing much more to society than a 110 IQ unemployed person or a 100 IQ psychologist.
“Analogously, if dumb people started getting university degrees, and smart people started dropping out of high school, then the correlation between fake IQ (IQ measured on highly culture loaded tests) and real IQ (IQ measured on culture reduced tests) would drop, and fake IQ tests would be rejected as a valid measure of intelligence.”
You know, in many societies today and it was universal until not so long ago, dumb boys had better educational opportunities than bright girls. Today, bright children in a bad school, bad neighborhood, broken families with a kind of anti-intellectual culture have just as much chances of succeeding than favorable SES students who are just intellectually average.
The difficulty of having reliable IQ tests performed cultures that greatly differ to the west is that the admistration condition may be very different. In Africa for instance, many tests were performed outdoors, on the ground, without air conditioning. Children tend to be distracted by shapes and tools they are not used to see and don’t even have word in their language for them. Children may even be fearful if the administrators are whites especially in colonial years or even today with the terrific stories they are often told about white people. There are many many things to take into consideration and that’s why children’s IQs (in non-western countries) often have low reliability, show lower results than adults and different tests show little correlation between each others, much less with “g”.
And that’s actually the case, in the real word. When we talk height and height increase overtime, we talk about barefoot height.
I know. I had to stretch the analogy to make it work, by imagining a society where height is measured with shoes on AND where people with higher barefoot height are rewarded with higher shoes.
With respect to IQ, education can’t be thought as an artifact at all, there is nothing fake about knowing more, having more concepts for your intellect to handle.
No one is denying that education isn’t useful. It makes you appear smarter and confers a lot of the same benefits that intelligence confers.
In the same way, high heel shoes are useful. They make you appear taller and confer a lot of the same benefits as real height (get more respect, see over more people in a crowd).
But while the benefits of education and high shoes are very real, they are not real increases in intelligence and height respectively. A low IQ educated person will not be able to adapt to a relatively novel situation. A short person in high heels will not be able to reach far horizontally.
But you can’t take off the benefits of education as you remove your shoes. The Flynn effect gains, especially in the most g loaded tests, are part of us and we can’t just switch their effects off as we please unless we decide to fail an IQ test on purpose. Education, by itself is a crucial aspect of life and contribution to society and when it comes to IQ tests, the gains you got from education are part of your unalienable acquired ability. And my opinion is that IQ is indeed mostly about acquired ability, then genes may play a role in the ease one has to acquire aptitudes but willpower (or pressure) may often surpass the importance of genes in that matter.
And my opinion is that IQ is indeed mostly about acquired ability, then genes may play a role in the ease one has to acquire aptitudes but willpower (or pressure) may often surpass the importance of genes in that matter.
Dude, I know I’m starting to sound like a retarded broken record at this point, but it’s likely that willpower (or response to pressure) are genetically determined (at least to some extent).
One who is genetically well endowed but lazy will not get as much benefit from education as someone who’s less endowed but hardworking. And the genetic IQ-industriousness/motivation relationship you will try to invent is quite dubious.
And I agree, you sound retarded but don’t worry, you’re not the worst.
AFROSAPIENS WHAT IS YOUR IQ ??????
Man, on the internet everybody claims to have a 135 IQ you know 🙂 . For that reason, I won’t say the exact number so that I won’t pass for a liar or show off but some indications may give you an idea.
-I skipped a primary school grade
-Speak French as a first language, quite at ease with English and Italian
-Graduated from elite high school and top ranking law school.
-Started working for a kind of prestigious law firm
-Good at making friends and attracting girls, leader personality
-Lean body, tall, better than average looking
-Full blooded black guy from Haiti
Afrosapiens, what I find interesting about your case is if I heard about a smart black lawyer from a rich educated family, I would think “that makes sense, he comes from an elite black family that is genetically smarter than the average black family”
But then I find out you’re adopted, and thus have no genetic relationship to your rich and educated parents who are white, so you could not have inherited your intelligence from them genetically.
So, do you think you’re smart because of the good environment they provided, or do you think you were naturally intelligent, and that’s what caused them to adopt you. Perhaps they chose you because you were an especially bright and alert looking baby? Or perhaps they chose you because your biological parents seemed smart?
Or is it just a coincidence that a smart white family ended up adopting a smart black kid?
You can say it, I am very curious and I will believe you. It seems weird that you are so obsessed with how the people will perceive you.
“It seems weird that you are so obsessed with how the people will perceive you.”
It was an indirect message to all those cyber-genius who in spite of the sky high IQ they claim spend their days spreading nonsense and hatred to the world, thus expressing attitudes of very low IQ individuals.
Pumpkin, here is some more about my story:
I was born in the lowest ranks of the Haitian society, my biologic mother does not even know my biologic father and my sisters are actually my half sisters. Our biologic mother gave the three of us at a Catholic orphanage my adoptive parents had already prospected for potential adoption, they never met my biologic mother. In that orphanage, my elder sister ingested a toxic product that caused that gave her an emergency status for adoption so that she could get cured as soon as possible in a developed country. Since my parents wouldn’t want to separate siblings, my younger sister and I were adopted quick before it was to late for my sister who needed surgery. When I arrived in France (16 month old), I was diagnosed with sever motor retard and I really could not appear any smart especially since I spoke no french at all and neither did my sisters until half a year.
So as you can see, I started very bad. I don’t know what could have happened to the poor baby me in another environment, either in Haiti or in another first world family. But the magic of social environment operated to make me turn up just as my upbringing and social environment would predict. I’m the son of a human rights attorney and of a prosecutor. Just tell me how couldn’t I have turned up anything else but a precocious student and professional ? Your adoption studies are bogus, so are your hereditarian theories and there is nothing coincidental or strange in my story. It is the reality of the world, we tend to become like the person who raised us, because they are our role models, they are our standard of what is good or bad and they have plans for us that are consist in making us as good or better than them. That’s how a child-parent relationship works.
And remember, normal people and intelligent people as well do not spend their days estimating and judging other’s intelligence. People who look for a child are not looking for an intelligent child, they look for a human being that they will love and raise to be an intelligent person. Come back to earth dude.
Anomalies exist. They don’t disprove trends. Established facts: there are no shared environment effects on psychological traits, and non-shared environment is mostly measurement error and noise.
lthough I want to point out something that I’ve pointed out before: the ability to absorb information from schooling is likely just as genetically determined as raw (fluid) intelligence, thus explaining the equal or higher g-loading of crystallized IQ compared to fluid, Some people acquire great degrees of schooling (pun intended) and do little to improve their overall intelligence; some people have little schooling but they still seek out intellectually engaging environments through other sources. And some do the exact opposite.
Well I think your natural intelligence causes you to acquire knowledge, but the knowledge is not the intelligence, it’s just a reflection and enhancement of the intelligence, that correlates extremely well with its genetic component.
In my analogy, knowledge is to intelligence as shoes are to height. It’s kind of a silly analogy, but works in the sense that just as knowledge and schooling allows you to fake higher intelligence, shoes allow you to fake higher height, but if height were to cause high shoes the way intelligence causes high schooling, then faked height would be as good a reflection of natural height as faked intelligence is a reflection of natural intelligence.
Facts: IQ tests test prior acquired knowledge. Cultural loading and g-loading are highly correlated.
Basic evo and bio leads one to expect individuals and the races of man to exhibit low variation wrt to intelligence, the most complex trait known.
Specialization within society (an extension of which we see with civilization and divisions and stratification of labor) is what was selected for, which involves greater and greater accumulation of knowledge.
Massive inequities exist even within the developed wrt access to culturally important knowledge.
Groups that are on the receiving end of these inequities are the ones who score lower on IQ tests.
Every instance of a gap closing has followed an influx of wealth and political capital for the disadvantaged group.
Theory 1: IQ tests the amount of knowledge acquired. People likely differ in the amount of knowledge they have acquired, and this differential arises from the inequities in society.
Theory 2: “natural intelligence causes you to acquire knowledge, but the knowledge is not the intelligence, it’s just a reflection and enhancement of the intelligence, that correlates extremely well with its genetic component.”
Theory 2 needs to posit several hypothetical realities beyond the facts; intelligence is something other than knowledge acquired that happens to neatly mimic it. Theory 2 also doesn’t explain all of the facts.
“the ability to absorb information from schooling is likely just as genetically determined as raw (fluid) intelligence,”
Gf is supposed to be the ability to absorb the information; higher Gf is what makes for differential acquisition, allegedly. So by design, Gf should have a higher heritability than Gc. It does not.
If we acknowledge the reality of brain plasticity that is consensus among neuroscientists, the only analogy with height that can be made is that IQ changes, just like height changes are environmentally triggered biologic changes and between group average variation translates variation in exposure to these environmental influences.
AFROSAPIENS WHAT IS YOUR IQ ????????
http://www.averageheight.co/average-male-height-by-country
AFROSAPIENS WHAT IS YOUR IQ ????
Probably around the black population mean, or regressing towards it.
I sense you have an intense rage against Afrosapiens, I can understand why, but you dont have to lie because he probably have an higher IQ than you while being totally dishonest.
Height is an analogy genetically for IQ. Both are just as heritable, measurable, and constant (changing only by time.)
Both have mostly additive variance to the heritability them as well.
IQ points and inches or centimeters are not the same kind of metric units. IQ points are not units and IQ is not an absolute value that you can divide or multiply. Half one’s IQ never means half one’s intellectual performance. And this is one reason why you have so much hard time finding genes that influence IQ whereas spotting the genes of height or skin color are made easier by the fact that we can relate them to quantities of matter.
But what is the material reality of intelligence ? Can you hand me a piece of intelligence ?
Intelligence is just like beauty, its reality is a matter of subjective interpretation and there is little opportunity to find an universal and quantifiable definition of it.
Lol…and what is your “fluid HQ” pumpkin person ?
Reciprocity is essential for altruism as well for behavioural predispositions. If you are exposed for some intelectual stimuli you need fall in love with it to begin to deepen. People do like about ”things” that they can to love, intelectual stuff included.
If not there a reciprocity (mirror-genes) between intelectual stimuli (any nature) and you, then you are not biologically predisposed to fall in love for it. My empathy about mathematics is on a psychopathic level.
Wow, your analogy now is truly good!!!! congratulations!!! Because shoes are human invention like ”accumulated knowledge” (without DIRECT biological transmission as happen among non-human animals).
Wow, your analogy now is truly good!!!! congratulations!!!
Thank you!
Because shoes are human invention like ”accumulated knowledge” (without DIRECT biological transmission as happen among non-human animals)
Exactly. And shoes add fake height just like knowledge and education add fake intelligence. And when those with the most real height/intelligence,get the most access to the fake height/intelligence, the fake stuff correlates well with the real stuff, which is partly why tests of knowledge are such a good measure of IQ, even though they only measure culturally acquired info, and not direct biological ability..
Non-human animals is to armor their biologies that are in direct contact with their environment. We ” choose ” the mind. Rather than suffer the direct effects and perverse (anti-empathic) of natural selection, we, through our large brains, reinvent the world to adapt. Our armor are the products we invented to defend ourselves. And the self-consciousness is an amplification, via language and reflective semantic values (questions), this powerful and unique combination that makes up the human species.
Yes because any human knowledge will have a purely biological roots. We extend this source, because the human being needs this complex illusions system, the lie has an evolutionary value, without it, we would all be depressed. As I am, at least in terms of melancholy.
However, the human being, in my opinion, is unlikely to be able to uncover all the secrets of existence.
But, remember, don’t mistake biological semantic intelligence ( like to do verbal analogies or comparisons ;), understand environment ) with chrystallized general knowledge & vocabulary. Both have, generally, strong correlation…
This is one post that I finally agree with. However, I don’t think that using shoes is a proxy for education because I think the impact of education is much larger. I think a better analogy is using muscles and weight lifting.
Certain races have a better predisposition for bigger muscles. It’s inheritable and varies by person and race. For example, it’s been determined that African Americans have a higher concentration of fast twitch muscles than other races. Nevertheless, even if one race tends to have bigger muscles, you’ll see many individuals within that race have smaller muscles because that’s what the bell curve indicates – high variability.
However, you won’t see such diversity in world competitions because it brings about the people in the .001% which is the extreme end of the bell curve. In these cases, you notice that one race commonly comes out on top. That’s because if the bell curve is shifted to the left just slightly for one race, then the probable number of people at the far end of the bell curve is virtually zero. The same concept applies to billionaires which is the tail end of the curve. You will see extreme IQ at this end as well as extreme other traits as well such as work ethic (which I think is also inheritable and much more valuable to financial success).
But, world competitions isn’t real life. Neither is a billionaire’s world. It’s simply not common and as such, your IQ at birth simply doesn’t dictate where you will end up in life. Just like a muscle competition sponsored by your local town, any ethnic group can win because you just need to be in the top 10% of the population (not the top .1%) and exercising a lot with weights can get you there.
And, this is the reason why I don’t like your analogy with shoes. Education has much more impact than shoes in determining your IQ as the Flynn effect shows. Modern devices such as TV and computer games have actually increased our intelligence significantly. Every day, you are training your mind to think analytically and it’s stretching your brain’s capabilities. This forum itself is training our mind, something that we wouldn’t have had 100 years ago. Shoes have a small effect on height but the change in IQ due to education is somewhat larger.
Using the muscle analogy, if you work out every single day for 10 years, you will become very strong. Stronger than even many people in a ethnic group that might have a gene for more muscles.
By training your mind, you can propel your IQ to the tail end of your race’s bell curve which can put you in the 5% right side of a smarter race’s bell curve.
IQ and Financial Success
This is a separate topic that I discussed with you and you weren’t convinced. You were convinced that high IQ was a necessity for success despite the data that suggests the correlation breaks down after an IQ of 120. You cited billionaires as counter weight. Yes, billionaires probably have high IQs but they are at the tail end so don’t represent common scenarios. In more realistic scenarios, other traits are much more valuable to success than IQ like work ethic and taking initiative. It’s traits like calling someone on the phone day after day until you get a yes. That’s much more valuable to success. And, I bet among your field of billionaires, you’ll find that not only high IQs but the highest degree of worth ethic and taking initiative.
Imagine a common business scenario and you can see the truth of this. Think of running a bagel store. Imagine what a brilliant, high IQ person would do differently than a mediocre IQ person. Yes, a high IQ person might think of some ways to be better efficient but its value will be limited. The largest deciding factor of who’s going to succeed in life is the person who can wake up every day at 4 AM. Get his buttt out of bed and get to work, day in and day out. That doesn’t take IQ. That takes hard work.
I think most people, including most HBD people, would agree with your muscles analogy. And in many ways it makes sense. Those with a naturally muscular build will be more motivated and encouraged to lift weights, and thus even though muscle mass can be greatly improved by environment, it would nonetheless be highly heritable, because those with the right genes end up in the right environment (the gym). Analogously, IQ would be highly heritable despite the effects of education, because those with high IQ genes would end up in the IQ boosting environments (i.e. graduate school, libraries, my blog :-))
However I reject the analogy, because in my humble opinion, the increases in strength caused by weight lifting are REAL while the increases in intelligence caused by schooling are fake. We can see this with the Flynn effect. By today’s standards, half of Victorians were mentally retarded on IQ tests, but no reasonable person thinks retardates could have created such a magnificent society. So obviously, their lack of schooling exaggerates how dumb they were, though I do think their low IQs were mostly real, given their small malnourished brains.
Thus I think the effect of education on IQ is more analogous to the effect of shoes on height than it is to the effect of weight lifting on strength, because the shoe effect, like the education effect, is fake.
And taking off a pair of dress shoes will drop your height by at least half a standard deviation, analogous to how dropping out of high school has been shown to drop IQ by half a standard deviation.
“Those with a naturally muscular build will be more motivated and encouraged to lift weights, and thus even though muscle mass can be greatly improved by environment, it would nonetheless be highly heritable, because those with the right genes end up in the right environment (the gym).”
No, those who perceive an interest in building muscles and are confident about their ability to success and get a good payback will end up in environments that favor muscle growth.
“However I reject the analogy, because in my humble opinion, the increases in strength caused by weight lifting are REAL while the increases in intelligence caused by schooling are fake. We can see this with the Flynn effect.”
-Increases in strength are real
-gains in barefoot height are real
-Increases in education are real (we actually do know more than before)
-Increases in IQ seem somewhat artificial, we are probably not that wiser than Victorians or more interestingly, correcting Einstein’s IQ for the Flynn effect would not make him that exceptional by today’s standards.
Question: is IQ a measurement of something real ? Is IQ a measurement at all ?
No, those who perceive an interest in building muscles and are confident about their ability to success and get a good payback will end up in environments that favor muscle growth.
Okay, but if you have genes for big muscles, you’re more likely to get a good payback from spending time in the gym and thus you’ll perhaps spend more time in the gym. This is what commenter bucephalus described as the gene-environment active covariance. The trait is influenced by both genes and environment, but since the genes largely cause the environment, the trait becomes highly heritable.
Question: is IQ a measurement of something real ? Is IQ a measurement at all ?
In my opinion IQ is analogous to measuring height with shoes on. It contains both a real component and a fake component. But since the fake component is correlated with the real components, it generally reflects something real, at least within a given society at a given time.
Now if the government started handing out free high heels to every American, this would cause a height Flynn effect that would be fake, analogous to how gains in schooling over the 20th century have produced fake IQ gains.
But if the government increased nutrition that made folks taller, that would cause a height Flynn effect that is real, analogous to how better nutrition over the 20th century did have some real effects on intelligence (increased brain size, and probably neurological development)
When I meant good payback I meant:
-Will my muscle growth make me attractive and as attractive as another guy who puts just as much effort ?
-Will my muscle growth make me strong and as strong as another guy who puts just as much effort ?
-Will my diploma get me better employment opportunities that are equal to someone else’s ?
In other words: Will this investment get me better in life ?
Education is not fake at all, it is not only about knowledge, it’s about thinking skills that very few could master without learning and training and that only geniuses get effortlessly.
You know, Asians have high IQs but you just seem to ignore how hardworking they are when it comes to education. Simply because they have more trust in the promise of education, trust their abilities to succeed and perceive high prestige in being educated, they make scholastic achievement a self-esteem thing. You may say they are confident because they believe in some kind of inborn advantage but it’s not the case at all, hard work is the only thing that their cultures value and the idea of relying on one’s genetic devices appears crazy to them.
In whites, Asian attitudes are somewhat less prevalent than in Asians, whites put more emphasis on well being, socialization and leisure whereas in blacks, attitudes that are conductive to academic excellence are only expressed in a minority with girls being over-represented in this category. This disengagement is due to a “why bother ?” mentality, because many blacks have come to distrust the promise of education and its institutions that appear as parts of a hostile establishment.
This differing attitudes toward education are reflected in the IQ hierarchy, now you HBDers want to see IQ as the causal factor of this whereas the most reasonable explanation is that low commitment to education causes little possibility of better performance on psychometric tests because you have not trained your IQ related skills, feel overwhelmed by the testing process’s requirements and realize you know less than you previously thought. On the contrary, if you are committed to your education, especially mathematics, you are better trained, you will take the test as a game and leave thinking “it wasn’t that difficult”.
Education is not fake at all, it is not only about knowledge, it’s about thinking skills that very few could master without learning and training and that only geniuses get effortlessly.
Education is not fake, but it allows you to fake intelligence, both in real life and on IQ tests. The skills and attitudes education provides are very real and very useful in the societies they are acquired in, but they don’t really help you adapt to relatively novel problems. Indeed in many ways, education and intelligence are opposites. Education reflects knowledge, and some define intelligence as what you use when you don’t know what to do.
However I reject the analogy, because in my humble opinion, the increases in strength caused by weight lifting are REAL while the increases in intelligence caused by schooling are fake.
Wrong. Increases in knowledge from education are real, but only because those with greater genetically determined crystallized ability acquire more knowledge. Those with high IQ will acquire more knowledge whether in or out of school.
And Jayman (he’s always good on these topics!) has questioned the idea that education (or dropping out) has any real impacts on IQ. He chalks it up to measurement error.
http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2015/01/school.html?showComment=1421780969347#c5455507730385362750
Incidentally, a large number of people seem not to benefit from weightlifting according to some studies I’ve read…
Education is fake in the sense that’s it’s not true one can only acquire the info taught in school through formal education. But it’s real in the sense that amount of acquired education is highly genetically determined
I think we are actually more ingenious, more able to adapt to new situations than Victorians did. Now we are ready to take a job overseas and adapting to the accompanying challenges very quick when Victorians hardly ever left their villages or neighborhoods and did not have the ability we have to change and adapt our usages, relativize things or think outside the box. However, they were wiser when it comes to the things of life like love and marriage (didn’t believe in fairy tales), authority (that was not amalgamated with oppression) perpetuating constraining but beneficial traditions…
Victorians didn’t have our problem solving skills because their world was less technological and complex and that gave them fewer occasions to train this part of their intellect. Now we have gained these skills though nothing basically changed in our biology but our improved skills in fluid intelligence are true, not artificial at all. We might not be wiser but we are more ingenious.
*that the amount*
Decreases in religiosity that are due to better education (understanding of the world) as well as individualization of society may have played a role in increasing fluid intelligence. Now we know that no god or tightly knit community network can save us, we are individually responsible for our own well being and solving our problems when at the same time, secularization has removed god as a source a comfort that causes resilience, resignation and inaction.
Also, our future is quite uncertain now. In the past or in developing countries, sons were expected to do the same job as their father, daughters were expected to stay at home or take part in low scale economic activities. Today, people have harder time to figure out how they’re gonna make a living, they must plan ahead because nothing is set from the start and they can’t rely on unskilled almost informally taught abilities like farming and hunting to sustain themselves.
All of this may have contributed to training the parts of our brain that are involved in fluid intelligence.
Wrong. Increases in knowledge from education are real, but only because those with greater genetically determined crystallized ability acquire more knowledge.
IQ test only include knowledge tests because they reflect a person’s biological ability to learn. Those with more ability absorb more information than those with less. But knowledge is fake only in the sense that it’s an indirect measure of learning ability. You’re not actually observing the person learn in real time, you are inferring from the knowledge they’ve acquired, that they’re fast learners.
Those with high IQ will acquire more knowledge whether in or out of school.
Are you saying that had you been denied an opportunity to attend school your whole life, except to take the SAT or PSAT, you still would have qualified as a national merit finalist?
And Jayman (he’s always good on these topics!) has questioned the idea that education (or dropping out) has any real impacts on IQ. He chalks it up to measurement error.
JayMan makes a really good and subtle point about measurement error, and I’m proud to have made the same point six months before even the great JayMan 🙂 See the third paragraph of this post about IQ being an imperfect measure of intelligence:
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/does-dropping-out-of-high-school-lower-your-iq/
However the World makes more sense if schooling really does raise raw test scores (though not intelligence itself), because if not, it would imply Victorians really were mentally retarded, and can’t blame their lack of schooling for any part of their low IQ scores. That just doesn’t pass the smell test.
So according to you, is it appropriate to change IQ test norms to account for the Flynn effect ? Is it appropriate to adjust for Flynn effect when creating IQ estimates for developing nations ? Should we only consider pre-Flynn effect IQs to compare populations ?
IQ just seems as relative as an exchange rate, nothing like a real measure but a fluctuating subjective though commonly shared value.
Pumpkin said:
> By today’s standards, half of Victorians were mentally retarded on IQ tests, but no reasonable person thinks retardates could have created such a magnificent society.
This seems like your main anecdotal evidence to disprove the Flynn effect. The logic is flawed because it’s not based upon CONCRETE logical steps. First, it’s merely your opinion that such a magnificent society can only be created by intelligent people. Second, even if the first was true, why does the average person have to be intelligent to do so. Why couldn’t such a magnificent society be designed by the far right half of the bell curve? Your logic is filled with holes. Do you have any other reason to suspect that the Flynn effect is superficial?
Instead, of basing your reasoning on specious evidence, how about thinking about the brain’s physiology. I am by no means an expert but I try to break it down logically. One important part of intelligence is the ability to retain short term memories. It’s actually very crucial to logic. In order to come to a logical conclusion, you make a series of logical thoughts. However, when you get to the 3rd step and can’t remember the 1st step which involved several ideas, then that’s when your logic breaks down. Most people can only hold 3-5 short-term thoughts in their head at one time. The smarter ones of Homos Sapien can hold more.
(Sidenote: If you think about it, 3-5 is so little and really highlights how dumb Homo Sapiens really are. I think even the smartest of us are actually pretty dumb. I’ve scored very high on these IQ tests and I can tell you that I have a very difficult time multiplying 3421 x 86. It takes me ages to do it in the traditional way by adding 2 rows of numbers. By the time, I get to 8 x 3421 and I’m multiplying 8 by the last 3, I forget what 3421 x 6 is. It’s literally impossible for nearly all Homos Sapiens to do this without using multiplication tricks. It illustrates the ridiculous limitations of the human mind.)
If you notice that when you are trying to remember something, you speak it out loud over and over again. It’s because you are trying to make the short-term memory last longer. Physiologically, memories have been determined to be created when chemicals are released by the brain to alter the state of neurons. These chemicals create a semi-permanent gel to form around the neuron which becomes a memory (a gel coated neuron). If more of the chemical is produced, thicker the gel and longer the memory. The amount of chemicals released has been found to be determined by how excited you are (your brain infers that the event is important if you’re excited and thus, should be longer term memory.) But, obviously, if you keep repeating something out loud, more of the chemicals will be released and thus the thicker coat of gel and thus a longer memory. (If you also repeated it out loud in an excited state, memory comes even easier.)
Don’t you think it’s possible that the ability to make this gel becomes easier as your brain keeps doing it more and more? If you keep practicing? I don’t think any scientist knows the exact answer to this question yet (I might be wrong) but I think there is a very good chance the answer is a yes. Memory can improve. Intelligence can improve with practice.
I’m saying all of this to prove that the Flynn effect is not superficial. I definitely think SOME of it is. It’s so obviously so. A big part of these IQ tests is assessing your ability to think of new patterns but if you know the pattern from a previous test or seeing it on TV or in class, of course, the test is going to give a false positive.
Another way to think about it is using the muscle analogy. If an IQ test is testing the body’s ability to make muscles but if a person has already been working out more than another, is the IQ test valid? Nope. The only way for the test to be robust is if the test subjects all had the SAME amount of training over the same period of time. But, it’s obvious we can’t replicate such test conditions – it’s impossible. So, the IQ test is not perfect and some of the Flynn effect is indeed superficial.
Nevertheless, my hunch is that some of the Flynn effect is real as suggested by my answer based on brain physiology.
First, it’s merely your opinion that such a magnificent society can only be created by intelligent people.
Of course it’s merely my opinion, And I don’t think they were intelligent. I think that the effects of prenatal malnutrition on the brain had driven their average IQ down to a genuine 80. But I think the lack of schooling artificially dragged them down an additional 10 points, to 70. In other words, I think the nutritional deficit was real because it’s biological, but the schooling deficit was fake,
Second, even if the first was true, why does the average person have to be intelligent to do so. Why couldn’t such a magnificent society be designed by the far right half of the bell curve?
Because if the average IQ of 70 were real, there wouldn’t be enough very bright people on the far right of the curve to do so, given the population was much smaller then, and given that many of the brightest minds are lazy and don’t want to build society.
Your logic is filled with holes. Do you have any other reason to suspect that the Flynn effect is superficial?
I believe only a third of the Flynn effect is superficial. Two thirds reflects a genuine rise in intelligence caused by nutrition increasing the size and complexity of the brain over the 20th century.
One important part of intelligence is the ability to retain short term memories. It’s actually very crucial to logic. In order to come to a logical conclusion, you make a series of logical thoughts. However, when you get to the 3rd step and can’t remember the 1st step which involved several ideas, then that’s when your logic breaks down. Most people can only hold 3-5 short-term thoughts in their head at one time. The smarter ones of Homos Sapien can hold more.
Short-term memory has been virtually unchanged over the last 100 years. It’s not sensitive to either schooling or nutrition and thus has showed neither a fake or real Flynn effect.
Don’t you think it’s possible that the ability to make this gel becomes easier as your brain keeps doing it more and more? If you keep practicing? I don’t think any scientist knows the exact answer to this question yet (I might be wrong) but I think there is a very good chance the answer is a yes. Memory can improve. Intelligence can improve with practice.
There was a study where people practice their memory span for digits. At first they could only repeat seven digits from memory, but after endless practice, some could repeat 100 digits.
But when they were asked to repeat letters instead of digits, they were back down to only seven. The general finding is that experimental attempts to raise mental abilities have very little transfer effect.
So according to you, is it appropriate to change IQ test norms to account for the Flynn effect ? Is it appropriate to adjust for Flynn effect when creating IQ estimates for developing nations ? Should we only consider pre-Flynn effect IQs to compare populations ?
IQ just seems as relative as an exchange rate, nothing like a real measure but a fluctuating subjective though commonly shared value.
Many people who have criticized Richard Lynn’s international IQ research has misunderstood this.
Richard Lynn defines IQ as how high you score compared to other British whites of your age and birth cohort. So no matter where you live in the world, an IQ of 100 means you scored as high as the average British white of your age and birth chort. An IQ of 80 means you scored lower than 90% of British whites of your age and cohort. An IQ of 120 means you scored higher than 90% of British whites of your age and cohort.
Now the reason Lynn adjusts for the Flynn effect is that test scores in Britain, and most other places, have been going up by about 3 points a decade so if someone in Africa gets tested in 1990 with a test normed in 1970, their score will give an inflated measure of how high they score compared to British whites of their own era, which is the definition of IQ. Thus Lynn would subtract points from people tested on old tests.
I know what Lynn did and I also know why he did it but the question remain the same:
What’s the point of making up evolutionary theories with a value that is thought to have a large artificial component. And we can go even further by asking when this crazy inflation started and when IQ scores began to translate something artificial. Because the Flynn effect created a 15 points inflation allowing from an 85 average to a 100 average but you said the Victorians had a 70 average. Is their a way to know how biologic are all these numbers ? Isn’t IQ 100% artificial since it seems to change like the rate of a currency ?
Keep in mind that height and brain size show large Flynn effects, increasing perhaps 1.33 standard deviations over the 20th century because of better nutrition, including disease reduction which prevents nutrients from being used.
The real biological component of IQ has probably also increased by a similar amount, however IQ can also be artificially boosted by schooling, bringing its total Flynn effect to two standard deviations over the 20th century.
I think you can come up with evolutionary theories regarding IQ, but first you must understand the influence of nutrition and schooling and control for it. Only then can you perhaps compare races on genetic IQ.
“I think you can come up with evolutionary theories regarding IQ, but first you must understand the influence of nutrition and schooling and control for it. Only then can you perhaps compare races on genetic IQ.”
But that’s not what HBDers do at all, they compare raw unexplained, unrelativized statistics and use the to support their pseudo-biologic theories.
Can you tell me what is in your opinion the share of IQ that is artificial or environmetally improved in different groups. For instance I would say African blacks have 10% non genetic component in their IQ, European whites may have 50% of genetic booster, and that may reach 60% in East Asians.
I don’t know what’s your estimate but you must agree that you can’t make a biologic comparison between populations with a value that has a variable artificial component. It’s like in sports, you can’t compare someone who’s on pills with an untrained debuting athlete.
If I understand you well, IQ has three components:
-a genetic basis that you believe causes most of group differences
-a non-genetic biologic basis that is influenced by environment including nutrition and health
-an artificial component linked to education that only makes people look smarter by their test performance without reflecting real life practical ability
However, you won’t see such diversity in world competitions because it brings about the people in the .001% which is the extreme end of the bell curve.
World competition is actually the perfect place to examine true “biological” differences between the races of man.
While one race dominates the 100m dash currently, the difference between the fastest white guy and the fastest black guy in absolute terms is trivial. Certainly not enough for someone to seriously say a white guy can’t sprint at all or be a world-class sprinter.
And the analogy for how genes actually work is muscle memory. What is responsible for the violin player’s technique? The environmental inputs or the muscle memory that “remembered” those inputs and made them reflex? Which face of the drawn 3d cube is in the foreground? How do you unbake a cake? etc. etc.
What seems minimal to non-experts is huge to experts.
Experts seem to think that white men can be elite sprinters and that white men can compete at the highest levels, despite being (for now) outclassed by blacks. So…
I have a question for both Lion and Pumpkin and I would appreciate that Pumpkin answers in a dedicated post.
In your opinion, what would Black Americans done to reach social equality with whites (you may include Ashkenazim Jews) quickly after emancipation if they were just as genetically intelligent as whites ?
If you feel comfortable answering the first question, you may want to answer this other one:
In your opinion, if Subsaharan Africans were just as intelligent as whites or Asians, how would they have done to reach a similar level of development and advancement to Europe and Asia ?
I expect your answers to reveal the extent of your ignorance about the factors that influence a group’s social advancement. Because, if you come to find answers in HBD, the prerequisite is that you thoroughly studied the history and environmental situation of a population, that many things simply appeared anomalous to you and that caused you to question the human worth of that given population.
We can’t link much anything in the “environment” to any outcome. At best, it’s developmental noise in action.
Swank said:
> World competition is actually the perfect place to examine true “biological” differences between the races of man.
> While one race dominates the 100m dash currently, the difference between the fastest white guy and the fastest black guy in absolute terms is trivial. Certainly not enough for someone to seriously say a white guy can’t sprint at all or be a world-class sprinter.
You quoted me initially so it suggests that you disagree with me. But, nothing in your follow up suggests anything contradictory. I actually agree with your assessment.
World competition like an NBA league is testing who’s the best at the extreme tail end of the bell curve. The people in the .001% in the world. You will not see diversity there since a minor shift in the bell curve will make the possibility of even a single individual for a specific ethnic group virtually zero.
However, I agree that the absolute terms are trivial and I suggest such in my previous answer. The real world is not comprised of the .001%. And, the absolute differences between muscles and IQ are not substantial. A person from any ethnic group can become a strong person, a smart person or a successful person if they work out, practice their mind, or work hard.
Oh I wasn’t meaning to disagree but call even further attention to. One assumes that sprinters self-select for the ‘best’ genes and they undergo the best possible environment.
Can you tell me what is in your opinion the share of IQ that is artificial or environmetally improved in different groups. For instance I would say African blacks have 10% non genetic component in their IQ, European whites may have 50% of genetic booster, and that may reach 60% in East Asians.
A more meaningful way to ask it is what percentage of the difference between groups is genetic, what percent is the biological environment, and what percent is artificial? A lot more research needs to be done, but I would tentatively say, based on what little research has been done, that close to 100% of the 15 point gap between adult American blacks and adult American whites is genetic.
By contrast, of the 36 point IQ gap that I think exists between adult African blacks and adult American whites, only about 44% appears to be genetic, about 33% appears to be the biological environment, and about 22% appears to be artificial.
You assume that black Americans have an environment that is equal to whites and that the difference is entirely genetic in origin. My opinion is the opposite, most of this difference is caused by what you deem to be artificial test performance due to different culture with respect to education, then environmental disadvantages create non genetic biologic differences and the genetic component has no influence at all.
The gap between adult American whites and adult African blacks is not 36.
Expressed in British norms, White Americans have an average IQ of 98 whereas adult Black Africans tend to have an IQ between 75 and 85, 80 seems to be the most accurate. So the gap is somewhere around 18 points, 23 being the most extreme estimate, 13 the most favorable towards Africans. Contrary to black Americans, the non genetic biologic component seems to be stronger, then the artificial component is somewhat less important while the genetic component is null or even beneficial to Africans who actually do better than their environment could predict, they do very well when compared to black Americans.
One thing I’d like to make you aware of is that twin studies never estimate the share of IQ that is genetic. The .75 correlation found in MZ twins doesn’t mean IQ is 75% genetic. And the correlation in IQ between twins is not the most important for social theories, I think what matters the most meaningful is the parent-child. What I found on Wikipedia is interesting.
Parent-child—Living together .42
Parent-child—Living apart .22
Adoptive parent–child—Living together .19
This is very low actually, it is hard to say parents pass a lot of their IQ. It seems that the base parent-child IQ correlation is somewhere around 0.20 and that a similar home environment adds an additional 0.20.
The correlation between cousins (.15) is even more interesting, it shows how little ancestry influences intelligence since persons having 2 grandparents in common have a very weak IQ relationship that is even lower than the parent-adoptive child correlation.
It also appears that these correlations are not stable, the parent-child IQ correlation used to be higher
Lol, seriously even Lynn never claimed that the African-White American gap was 36 points, that would mean Africans have an average IQ of 62 which makes no sense at all. No, the most reasonable estimates give IQs around 80 with a correlation with “g” that happens to be lower than in Europeans so even this 80 seems to be an underestimate.
You assume that black Americans have an environment that is equal to whites and that the difference is entirely genetic in origin.
I assume it because on the Minnesota transracial adoption study where blacks adopted from a young age into professional white homes enjoyed an IQ boost in childhood, but by late adolescence, had regressed to the national black mean, as if they had never been adopted at all. Similarly for adopted whites, except they regressed down to the national white mean.
Adopted mulattoes were half way between the adopted blacks and adopted whites, despite being born to white mothers, and thus even having enjoyed the benefits of a white prenatal environment.
Taken at face value, this study implied that neither the cultural or prenatal environment explains any part of the black-white IQ gap in the U.S., but it’s only one study and alternative interpretations are always possible, though they tend to be convoluted.
The gap between adult American whites and adult African blacks is not 36.
Expressed in British norms, White Americans have an average IQ of 98 whereas adult Black Africans tend to have an IQ between 75 and 85, 80 seems to be the most accurate.
As I showed in the other thread, 82 seems to be an excellent estimate for the IQs of sub-Saharan university students, but these are probably 18 points higher than the average sub-Saharan adult who probably has only an 8th grade education and an IQ of 64.
By contrast whites in the U.S., Britain, and Australia, all average about 100 according to Lynn, but because the U.S. population is substantially non-white, the overall U.S. average has typically been 98, but is now closer to 96.
One thing I’d like to make you aware of is that twin studies never estimate the share of IQ that is genetic. The .75 correlation found in MZ twins doesn’t mean IQ is 75% genetic.
If the MZ twins are reared apart, including prenatally, is an estimate of what percentage of the variation in IQ is genetic, which is the definition of broad sense heritability. Broad sense heritability is just the squared correlation between phenotype and genotype which is thought to be roughly equal to the correlation of MZ twins reared apart.
You’re being boring pumpkin because we’ve already talked about many things you are repeating here.
On the Minnesota adoption study, I told you that mothers who gave their child to adoption we re not representative of their community, that their IQs were lower than their group average and it was a positive sign that their children ended up with an IQ somewhat over their ancestral group average. You also seem to ignore that Asians did not progress to the Asian average. The study’s authors strongly reject the HBD interpretation of their findings and had an argument with Lynn for that reason. They don’t recognize racial genetics as a cause of the differences.
The Minnesota Adoption Studies: Genetic differences and malleability.
Scarr, Sandra; Weinberg, Richard A.
“The Transracial Adoption Study (TAS) tested the hypothesis that Black and interracial children reared by White families would perform as well as other adopted children on IQ and school achievement tests. The sample included 176 adopted children (130 Blacks) and 143 biological children of the adoptive parents. All Ss were aged 4–11 yrs. Among the adoptees, 111 were adopted in the 1st yr of life and 65 after 12 mo of age. The Adolescent Adoption Study (AAS) assessed the cumulative impact of differences in family environments on children’s development at the end of the childrearing period. The sample included 194 adopted children in 115 adoptive families and a comparison group of 237 parent-age- and IQ-matched biological children in 120 other families. All the adoptees were adopted in the 1st yr of life and were 18–22 yrs old at the time of the study. In the TAS, Black and interracial children scored as well on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale or the WISC as adoptees in the other studies. Individual differences among them, however, were more related to differences among their biological than adoptive parents, whether they lived together or not. Young siblings were intellectually similar, whether genetically related or not. In the AAS, Ss’ IQ test scores were similar to those of their parents and siblings only if they were biologically related. It is concluded that younger children are more influenced by differences among their family environments than older adolescents, who are freer to seek their own niches. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)”
With respect to your estimate of the average African IQ, it is just unreasonable, unscientific, senseless and not supported by any study other than Rushton’s one. It is impossible that the average IQ of African students is only 82 when their diplomas are highly valued in Europe and they become very skilled professionals. Or IQ is meaningless by itself. On this argument, we will simply not be able to have a discussion.
And I must correct you, the IQ of white Americans is 100 in American norms, 98 in British norms. International comparisons use British norms which make you 36 points gap result in a 62 mean IQ for black Africans. Which is just stupid and closer to your own IQ than to the reality.
What is interesting about twin studies is that the only strong correlation that exists is between MZ twins, which give weight to the hypothesis that individual genetics play a role in the variation in IQ. However, the way that the correlation shrinks with only a few degrees of genetic remoteness shows that group genetics have little influence at population level.
On the Minnesota adoption study, I told you that mothers who gave their child to adoption we re not representative of their community, that their IQs were lower than their group average and it was a positive sign that their children ended up with an IQ somewhat over their ancestral group average.
73% of black babies are born to unmarried women
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/29/don-lemon/cnns-don-lemon-says-more-72-percent-african-americ/
So black women who give their babies up for adoption are probably overwhelmingly average black women.
Now perhaps white women who gave their babies up for adoption are below average for white women, but it’s worth noting that the adopted mulatto babies of white women scored about 7 points lower than the adopted white babies of white women, so even when adopted whites and adopted mulattoes, both have a white biological mother who gave them up for adoption, and both have a white prenatal environment and white adoptive environment, the race of the unknown biological father has a significant effect on IQ.
seem to ignore that Asians did not progress to the Asian average.
The Asian sample was very small and included Native Americans and possibly southeast Asians.
The study’s authors strongly reject the HBD interpretation of their findings
That means nothing. Virtually everyone in academia bends over backwards to reject an HBD interpretation of everything; it’s the most taboo subject of the 20th century.
With respect to your estimate of the average African IQ, it is just unreasonable, unscientific, senseless and not supported by any study other than Rushton’s one. It is impossible that the average IQ of African students is only 82 when their diplomas are highly valued in Europe and they become very skilled professionals.
A huge percentage don’t even graduate, let alone become skilled professionals in Europe. There are about half a dozen studies done by scholars other than Rushton that all found sub-Saharan university students averaging below 80 IQ. If you want to pretend these studies don’t exist, be my guest. Rushton actually found some of the highest IQ samples ever recorded in sub-Sahara because he went looking for them.
Or IQ is meaningless by itself.
When IQ is depressed by malnutrition, it tends to be very lopsided, with spatial abilities much more impaired than academic abilities, so I suspect many African university students are much more academically competent than their IQs would predict. We see the same phenomenon with white Victorians who seemed far more academically capable than their low IQs would suggest
And I must correct you, the IQ of white Americans is 100 in American norms, 98 in British norms.
I don’t know where you’re getting your facts from, but Lynn pioneered the use of using white British norms for international comparisons and he says American whites and British whites both score 100. He wrote in his book:
The metric employed for the measurement of the intelligence of the races has been to adopt an IQ of 100 (with a standard deviation of 15) for Europeans in Britain, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand as the standard in terms of which the IQs of other races can be calculated. The mean IQs of Europeans in these four countries are virtually identical, as shown in Chapter 3 (Table 3.1), so tests constructed and standardized on Europeans in these countries provide equivalent instruments for racial comparisons.
In Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, the intelligence tests have been standardized on Europeans, and this was also the case in the United States in the first half of the twentieth century. In the second half of the twentieth century American tests were normally standardized on the total population that included significant numbers of blacks and Hispanics. In these standardization samples the mean IQ of the total population is set at 100; the mean IQ of Europeans is approximately 102, while that of blacks is 87 and of Hispanics about 92 (see, e.g., Jensen and Reynolds, 1982). This means that when the IQs of other races are assessed with an American test standardized with an IQ of 100 for the total American population, 2 IQ points have to be deducted to obtain an IQ in relation to 100 for American Europeans. This problem does not arise with the only British test used in cross-cultural studies of intelligence. This is the Progressive Matrices, which has been standardized on British Europeans.
The IQ of 98 you’re citing is probably Lynn’s outdated estimate for Americans as a whole, not white Americans.
What is interesting about twin studies is that the only strong correlation that exists is between MZ twins, which give weight to the hypothesis that individual genetics play a role in the variation in IQ. However, the way that the correlation shrinks with only a few degrees of genetic remoteness shows that group genetics have little influence at population level.
It doesn’t work that way.
“73% of black babies are born to unmarried women”
Not 73% of black babies are born to poor desperate unmarried women and the percentage probably wasn’t that high by the time of the study. Other thing you seem to forget, mulattoes can have a black mother and a white father. So the regression makes sense without the genetic hypothesis. You said the Asian sample was small which is true but the black and interracial sample was not that big either, only a hundred.
“Virtually everyone in academia bends over backwards to reject an HBD interpretation of everything”
They simply reject the HBD interpretation because it makes no sense and it is done without much knowledge of the study’s background. Proof racial differences are not that taboo is that all the data that the Pioneer Fund clique carefully selects to suport its theory comes from studies carried by mainstream scientists who knew Lynn & cie would come like vultures to make racist interpretations of their findings but that did not stop them.
“There are about half a dozen studies done by scholars other than Rushton that all found sub-Saharan university students averaging below 80 IQ.”
The only students found scoring below 80 were a sample of 30 impoverished south Africans and Lynn’s two samples of 70 and 173 university students. The three samples scored 75, 78 and 79. Even secondary school students tend to have IQs over 80 and often in the high 90s. Your half a dozen studies just do not exist.
“A huge percentage don’t even graduate, let alone become skilled professionals in Europe.”
Graduation rates are higher in Africa than in the West, the meaning of education and the sacrifices they make to get it are something that does not exist anymore in the West. They don’t go to college just to go to college.
“When IQ is depressed by malnutrition, it tends to be very lopsided, with spatial abilities much more impaired than academic abilities,”
How do you know it’s malnutrition and not malaria, impaired pre-natal development, bad schooling or limited stimulation in early childhood ?
“It doesn’t work that way.”
It does.
“if you work out every single day for 10 years, you will become very strong”
No you won’t.
And a bit of schadenfreude. Videla, Swank and other idiots keep on repeating the missing heritability bullshit and GCTA’s supposed inability to fill it in. Well, that’s all complete bullshit.
http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2015/08/no-genomic-dark-matter.html
“Let me put it very simply: there is NO genomic “dark matter” or “missing heritability” — it’s merely a matter of sample size (statistical power) to identify the specific variants that account for the total expected heritability.”
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3390.html
Abstract:
“We propose a method (GREML-LDMS) to estimate heritability for human complex traits in unrelated individuals using whole-genome sequencing data. We demonstrate using simulations based on whole-genome sequencing data that ~97% and ~68% of variation at common and rare variants, respectively, can be captured by imputation. Using the GREML-LDMS method, we estimate from 44,126 unrelated individuals that all ~17 million imputed variants explain 56% (standard error (s.e.) = 2.3%) of variance for height and 27% (s.e. = 2.5%) of variance for body mass index (BMI), and we find evidence that height- and BMI-associated variants have been under natural selection. Considering the imperfect tagging of imputation and potential overestimation of heritability from previous family-based studies, heritability is likely to be 60–70% for height and 30–40% for BMI. Therefore, the missing heritability is small for both traits. For further discovery of genes associated with complex traits, a study design with SNP arrays followed by imputation is more cost-effective than whole-genome sequencing at current prices.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.6583
Also see:
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2015/07/haplosnps-and-missing-heritability.html
Good analogy!
Height is determined by measurement, not by visual perception. Visual perception often leads to wrong conclusion like following video. Only objective measurement gives correct answer.
The same with intelligence, a person’s intelligence is measured by objective evaluations include score, grades, income/wealth, academic achievement, brain size ect. Our own perception of any one’s intelligence including our own is no different from visual perception, not accurate at all. When someone does not know this, this person can not be very intelligent. There are morons here who constantly judge every thing based their own perception. You can spot them easily. They pretend to be smart but they can not hide their stupid brain.
The only way that you can figure out someone’s intelligence is based on measurable criteria. A short person can not gain height by calling tall person short.
”The same with intelligence, a person’s intelligence is measured by objective evaluations include score, grades, income/wealth, academic achievement, brain size ect.”
Nope, measure objectively intelligence we need analyse individuals first. Our societies are far to be perfect in meritocratic terms, is not completely imperfect but is far to be ideal. Many ( intellectually morons but not technically and psychopathically) morons have higher scores in iq tests, higher grades, income wealth. Kardashians** Rappers** Sportists** Celebrities** And not just ”celebrities” who are a little and unconvenient minority of intermediary parasites, but many ”less able” people who are selected based on their technical skills, capacity to replicate the repetitive knowledge memorized.
First, we need analyse biological traits that correlates with higher intelligence variants or types. Second, we need to know how people use their cognition to interpret the world (logical intelligence), interact (interpersonal or emotional intelligence) and learn. The problem about it is that human individuals tend to be very diverse, in a individual levels. Cognitive diversity again, in quantitative and qualitative terms.
People are agents of their own actions (and reactions about the circumnstances) and iq tests just extrapolate it based on simulations of reality, the real world. Iq correlates with income for example, because iq is like a ”purified” school exame. To be good in the school you need have the same capacity to apply your cognition in the iq tests. Both correlates and measure partially what we know as ”intelligence”. But, as human beings have a panacea of intelligence types or combinations between personality and cognition (pure technical cognitive skills, without any personality or other influence) types, iq seems to be a relative imperfect measure.
We live in XIX social models where ”education” is used as filter to select unilaterally people who are good to learn (part of) knowledge which are ”learned” in the schools. People are not selected by their individual quality but by their contextual qualities which are good for the system like conformity, higher technical intelligence, good to have higher grades (people who make things and not people who think about it, intellectually smart, the real big picture). people are not individually analysed and selected, the system creates a hierarchical mechanism steps, from school for university, for few people occupy the white collar jobs, system select ”itself” the people who are conveniently perfect to this kind of work. We have a big and imperfect structure called ”education” working freely like A kind of ”Skynet”, a artificial intelligence.
Humans (i.e, psychopathic elites) create a big structures that will opress them (i.e, normal ones).
”Our own perception of any one’s intelligence including our own is no different from visual perception, not accurate at all. When someone does not know this, this person can not be very intelligent. There are morons here who constantly judge every thing based their own perception. You can spot them easily. They pretend to be smart but they can not hide their stupid brain.”
So, Charles Darwin was a moron.
perception is nothing bad, bad is the interpretation that we give for it.
They pretend to be smart but they can not hide their stupid brain.
They can hide it from others stupid individuals.
I understand…., if a 6 ft 2 man wears 5 inch elevator shoes, society will see him as a giant and will accrue to him, all of the social benefits of being taller as seen by the outside world. Similarly if an extremely hi IQ man attains 3 different masters degrees and just crazy levels of education in general he will accrue all of the social benefits of those degrees. Also if an extremely rich man lets say 200k a year income, creates the illusion that he is a millionaire. He will gain the social benefits of a millionaire. In all of these situations each man goes home looks in the mirror and knows he is living a lie, and anyone close to him will know he is living a lie but t the social benefits of hyping up our Best attributes outweighs the personal cost of being a fake. This explains why body builders (who are already enormously buff use steroids), this explains why already pretty girls use makeup. Hell it explains why nerds feel like shit when they don’t have the highest grades in the university. there all trying to get that extra edge. This most likely has to do with humanities competitive nature. In the case of a competition like for example the Olympics where people are in the top 0.01% of the league. Even a small boost or small edge is imperative to the be the best. Interestingly, we are probably like this because those of us who unconsciously strive to be the best as individuals achieved greater reproductive success than those that didn’t.
In all of these situations each man goes home looks in the mirror and knows he is living a lie, and anyone close to him will know he is living a lie but t the social benefits of hyping up our Best attributes outweighs the personal cost of being a fake.
And this is why so many educated don’t believe in IQ. They know their extra schooling has artificially enhanced their performance on IQ tests just like the tall man knows his cowboy boots have artificially enhanced his height. The high IQ man then falsely concludes IQ is not genetic.
But what he doesn’t comprehend is that his intelligence caused him to get the high degree which caused him to score even higher on the test, while unintelligent people drop out of school artificially scoring lower on tests. So the ABSOLUTE difference between the smart and stupid might get exaggerated by education, but the RELATIVE difference remains genetically fixed.
Hard concept for many to grasp.
I understand it, although i am many times more curious about your IQ is beneficial no matter what theory. About how money is like IQ, you can never have enough and all of your problems can be solved by simply having more of it. I think that theory is 100% true and genius. Listen to this though. Is it possible that simply having money artificially raises your IQ because it allows you to make better decisions and therefore solve problems easier and more efficiently? For example lets say i’v had my car for a few years now and my car breaks/crashes. At this point i have 4 most logical options. Buy a new car, hire a repair guy, repair it myself, sell its parts. Out of all those options the most intelligent thing to do would be to buy a new car, and the least would be to sell its parts. If i don’t have enough money to buy a new car or hire a repair guy OR fix it myself, and i decide to sell its parts….. Selling its parts would be the most intelligent choice.and if i had enough money to buy the new car and bought the new car instead, that would be the most intelligent choice. Since buying the new car is more intelligent than selling its parts in the grand scheme of it all. Did money just artificially raise my intelligence, yes or no? I think yes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3213179/Are-worrier-Chances-GENIUS-Neurotic-people-likely-imaginative-creative.html
human beings have delayed instinct. It explain self consciousness and reflective thinking capacity.
Boarding school is a good environment to be analysed genetic influence. 😉
Pumpkin what color are you hair ? and your eyes ?
I just want to visualize you in my head
Pumpkin what color are you hair ? and your eyes ??
Pumpkin what color are you hair ? and your eyes ?????
Pumpkin what color are you hair ? and your eyes?
Pumpkin what color are you hair ? and your eyes??????????????
My hair started out strawberry blond, and is now dark brown. I’m not comfortable saying my eye colour.
It’s bluish-green, last I saw.
Why are you not confortable saying your eyes color ?
And Carl, how do you know that ?
And how could you hair transform into dark while you start with strawberry blond hair ? it seems pretty impossible
So ?
And by the way Pumpkin, do you have a above average skull size, or under average, or average ?
Dude, I can give you all the informations you need on the author of this blog if you pay me 2000$(you can pay me in bitcoins).
yet another jewy jew senator has opposed the deal with iran…which was negotiated by the half jew “Kerry”. his dad’s name was Cohen/Kohn/whatever.
the pushy striving obedient amoral fucktards (= jews) have taken over les etats unis merdeux, if pee pee didn’t know that.
yet of course in the mass media which they control they almost every day portray themselves as victims.
i oppose the deal myself, because i hope no deal will encourage the iranians to build a bomb and use it on Israel.
hitler’s work has yet to be finished.
the war’s winners, the anglo-sphere, is now jew-run. one need only look at the rich lists of these countries.
so mongoloids like churchill were fighting for the wrong side. they were mongoloids, they were confused.
churchill, roosevelt, degaul, etc, imagined that their sort still ruled their respective countries and would in perpetuity. they didn’t then and they don’t now.
the truth has no obligation to comfort or confirm, not yet taken down by jewgle:
sadly pee pee equates social status as she imagines it as equal to truth.
THE TRUTH:
and he succeeded in large part.
amoral fucktards (= jews)
We have our own moral which is very different from your low IQ gentile moral. And you cant call us fucktards, because you will be the only fucktard when I will denounce you to the police and screw up your miserable animal life.
denounce me to the police?
jews = mentally retarded sociopathic race.
i’m in the bgi study fake-jew!
but it’s irrelevant.
american jews now mostly marry non-jews, if they marry at all.
palestinians will soon if they don’t now, outnumber jews in israel + territories.
the anglo-prole-jew-sphere is in decline. all five of its constituent countries are at the bottom of the developed word in trade deficit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance_as_a_percentage_of_GDP
1. china and “greater germany”/the EU is ascending and will be in the ascendency.
2. palestinians will say “one man/woman one vote.” and israel will dissolve like apartheid south africa.
3. the anglosphere’s best will emigrate to non-jew countries.
4. eventually the jewiness of the anglo-sphere will be too obvious to deny, even for germany. it will become a laughing stock.
sadly pee pee equates social status, as she imagines it, to truth.
Panda is curiously waiting to see PP run a similar entry on c*cks, namely CQ.
And he can use condoms in places of shoes in his theory.
Would PP get the same conclusion? Most likely. ROFL
^^^ good one.