Scholar Jonathan Wai has an interesting method of estimating the IQs of people in various fields or success levels. He simply determined the percentage of people in a certain job category (i.e. CEOs) who attended an elite college, which Wai defined as those indicative of top 1% intelligence. These colleges arere as follows:
a. National universities and liberal arts colleges. Combined SAT math and critical reading scores
1. California Institute of Technology 1525
2. Harvey Mudd College 1500
2. Princeton University 1500
4. Yale University 1495
5. Harvard University 1490
5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1490
7. University of Chicago 1485
8. Columbia University 1475
9. Washington University in St. Louis 1465
9. University of Notre Dame 1465
11. Pomona College 1460
12. Stanford University 1455
12. Dartmouth College 1455
14. Northwestern University 1445
14. Vanderbilt University 1445
16. Duke University 1440
16. University of Pennsylvania 1440
16. Swarthmore College 1440
19. Brown University 1430
19. Rice University 1430
19. Tufts University 1430
22. Amherst College 1425
23. Williams College 1420
24. Carleton College 1415
25. Johns Hopkins University 1410
25. Carnegie Mellon University 1410
25. Bowdoin College 1410
28. Cornell University 1400
28. Haverford College 1400
b. Law schools Average LSAT scores
1. Yale University 173.5
1. Harvard University 173.5
3. Columbia University 172.5
4. New York University 172
5. University of Chicago 170
6. Stanford University 169.5
7. Duke University 169
7. Georgetown University 169
9. University of Pennsylvania 168.5
9. University of Michigan — Ann Arbor 168.5
11. University of Virginia 168
11. Northwestern University 168
c. Business Schools Average GMAT scores
1. Stanford University 730
2. Harvard University 724
3. University of Chicago 719
3. Yale University 719
3. New York University (Stern) 719
6. University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 718
6. Dartmouth College (Tuck) 718
8. Columbia University 716
9. University of California Berkeley 715
10. Northwestern University 712
11. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 710
12. University of Michigan — Ann Arbor (Ross) 703
Wai argued that if all American adults (not just those who went to college) had been forced to take college admission tests, only about 1% would have obtained at least the median scores for the above schools.
On a scale where white Americans have a mean IQ of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, I estimate that all Americans now have a mean of 96 and an SD of 15.8. This implies that the top 1% of Americans have an IQ of 133+.
Of course it’s a bit misleading to suggest that just because the average student at these schools obtained an IQ equivalent of 133+ on a college admission test, that therefore they have an average IQ 133+. These students were specifically selected for high scores on that one test. Anytime you explicitly select people for high scores on a specific test, you get a regression effect where they come crashing down to Earth on tests that were not specifically used to select them. For example, Harvard students having an average IQ equivalent of about 139 on the SAT but perhaps as low as 122 on the WAIS.
However this regression effect would not apply to people who were selected based on some other criteria. So for example, when you select Americans based on extreme wealth, Wai found that nearly half of American billionaires attended elite schools, suggesting the average IQ (on college admission test) somewhere around 133.
This is actually lower than the average IQ at Harvard (as measured by the SAT), however unlike Harvard students, the SAT scores of billionaires would not be inflated by a selection bias effect, because for billionaires, the defining criteria is money, so by the time you look at SAT scores, the regression effect has already occurred. By contrast, the defining criteria for Harvard students are high SAT scores, and so their real IQs are lower than those of billionaires, even as their SAT scores are higher.
Of course Wai’s methodology does not imply that all billionaires who attended elite schools have IQs of 133+ and all billionaires who attended crappy colleges (or no college at all) have IQs below 133+. Instead, the logic is that for every brilliant person who attended a crappy college, either because of lack of money, lack of ambition, or because the SAT underestimated their IQ, there is a mediocre intellect who attended an elite school, either because they had rich parents, or worked extra-hard, or the SAT overestimated them. In other words, exceptions in both directions cancel each other out.
Let’s try Wai’s method on the six most recent self-made U.S presidents:
1. Obama (elite school)
2. George W. Bush (elite school)
3. Bill Clinton (elite school)
4. George H.W. Bush (elite school)
5. Ronald Reagan
6. Jimmy Carter
So four of the six (66%) would have IQs of 133+ using Wai’s method. But note that Jimmy Carter, who some argue is the smartest of them all, did not attend an elite school, and George W. Bush, who some argue is the dumbest of the six, did attend an elite school. But these two exceptions cancel each other other out, and so Wai’s method would imply that 66% of recent presidents had IQs of 133+.
I wonder what percentage of my readers attended one of the above mentioned schools.
omg peepee is sooooooooo tiresome.
peepee imagines that human society is NATURE. this is the fundamental mis-understanding of north american conserv-atardism.
the REALITY:
the elite of any and all human societies is distinguished from the rest, above all, by its homogeneity.
that is,
the elite are smarter than the rest etc.
BUT this and other attributes/virtues/vices are mere ACCIDENTS, not ESSENTIALS.
IDEOLOGY is that the elite is the best.
they aren’t.
they’re just the elite.
a true gentleman treats them as CADS. president, pope, CEO, etc. who bows obeys…
the gentleman says FUCK YOU! where’s your wife? i’m so much more attractive than you, she wants me, and i’ll oblige her.
amazing how coherent i can be be after 750mL of gin in an evening.
The point is, brain size tripled in the last 4 million years of human evolution because the smartest primates disproportionately adapted the situations to their advantage, acquiring the most resources and status.
Thus if IQ is to be considered the measure of intelligence…real intelligence…the kind that allowed our ancestors to adapt; then even today we should expect at least some correlation between IQ and money (i.e. resources) and power (i.e. status).
“then even today we should expect at least some correlation between IQ and money (i.e. resources) and power (i.e. status).”
Yes, look at the Karadshians or the bright and sophisticated Russian and Chinese oligarchs, all are the finest products of evolution, there’s no doubt about this.
if IQ is linearly correlated with income, on an individual level, that must mean its correlated on a family level too (since a family is made up of individuals). So higher IQ families have more money and power..so the Highest IQ families will have THE MOST money and power… but since It only takes 1 family member to make it big for the entire family to be considered rich. It is unlikely that a majority of new money will come from very hi IQ families but extremely likely that old money will come from very hi IQ families, since they would have had more time to reproduce with other hi IQ clans (hundreds to thousands of years).Although the family would regress to some type of hi IQ mean,thus having less money or power than the 1st person in the family to to become rich . So it would probably go something like this. male or female becomes amazingly rich (IQ 130+) reproduces with lower IQ people (100 -115) over time (hundreds/thousands of years) the total amount of wealth/power the family has from the start diminishes because of regression and number of family members with hi IQ grows. A good example for my theory would be Bill Gates. He single handedly made the Gates family the wealthiest family in the world using his fluke genetic, giving him a whopping IQ of 160+. BUT his family as a whole is no way on earth more intelligent than a family that has been rich for the last 2 thousand years…. According to my theory the Gates family will eventually increase in numbers and become full of very hi IQ(powerful wealthy)individuals but none of his individual descendants will ever achieve more money and status than he has due to regression.
Correct me if i am wrong on any of this, and share thoughts please.
If i had a name for this post it would be Why Old Money families are more Intelligent than new Money Families.
“Although the family would regress to some type of hi IQ mean,thus having less money or power than the 1st person in the family to to become rich”
Sorry i meant to so “Although the family would regress to some type of hi IQ mean, thus each individual family member will have less money and or power than the 1st person in the family to become rich.”
*say* not *so* sigh 😦
Very few families maintain huge fortune over many generations, partly because their IQs regress to the mean and partly because their luck runs out.
There is no way to structure society in which it’s not a hell for the majority of inhabitants save perhaps separating couples out by great distances where comparison becomes difficult.
I do think the rank is arbitrary. I remember as a kid having a healthy physique ranked one much higher than wealth. Personally, I ranked low, so I worked hard to put myself higher than my biological endowment.
I threw in the towel on corporate life, tho. How could I possibly respect women who saw me as nothing more than a bipedal ATM? Fuck ’em. I’d rather die alone than be their slave.
I get that you being blessed with good looks and brains resent having to work hard against those who weren’t.
So you change the value system pushing the strivers to the bottom and you to the top. How does that fix anything? You just make life shitty for a different group of people.
Perhaps evolution is an inherently evil process. One can’t lessen the shittiness; one can only shift it.
Pumpkin that’s exactly what i was thinking. The only questions i have left are. Is it “inevitable” that after X amount of time all wealthy families will regress to the mean and lose their fortune? with possibly the most intelligent/luckiest families holding onto their fortunes the longest.?
Do you seriously deny the existence of, and the existence of strong effects coming from, assortative mating?
Read Gregory Clark’s The Son Also Rises and A Farewell To Alms.
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/the-son-also-rises/
everything you write here is WRONG, STUPID, and worst of all MARXIAN
“Do you seriously deny the existence of, and the existence of strong effects coming from, assortative mating?” I definitely said that hi IQ families would reproduce with other hi iq families . I just didnt quote the like attracts like study, because it should be common knowledge on this blog. Assortive mating cant last forever though, and there will be a regression due to lack of available mates overtime that have similar qualities. For example a tall women and a tall man will probably have tall children, but overtime their descendants will get shorter because of less mates and the extreme distributions, its all probability any way.
ending recently on my local PBS (US govt broadcasting for Canadians) was The Civil War.
this 12 h documentary is second only to Brideshead in super long movies.
that’s faint praise.
Canadians don’t understand that the US was and still is two countries.
> 600,000 dead, 1 in 3 white men of fighting age in the south dead…
the real lesson of the Civil War is that universalism is EVIL.
Lincoln was a murderer.
This scene always reminds me of this:
BTW, the relevance of the clip to Videla’s is near the end of the song.
What’s your reason for disliking Lincoln?
it may be that hindsight is 20/20. not may. it is. but…
brazil ended slavery in 1893 iirc.
and with the end of slavery came sharecropping and segregation in the US. not a big improvement.
and the US is still divided along geo-political lines.
except now the pro-slavery/southern party is the GOP, the party of lincoln.
that is, taking lincoln at his word, the reason for the civil war was NOT to free the slaves…who still haven’t been fully freed…it was to “save the union”. WHY? 600,000+ dead to save the union?
the confederate elite were and are EVIL, but so was lincoln.
when it became apparent that the sacrifice would be as HUGE as it was, the silly reason “to preserve the union, the last best hope of mankind, blah, blah, blah,…” was just a lincoln ego trip…
but then again lincoln did pay the ultimate price.
but unlike MLK, did he expect to?
Of course it’s a bit misleading to suggest that just because the average student at these schools obtained an IQ equivalent of 133+ on a college admission test, that therefore they have an average IQ 133+. These students were specifically selected for high scores on that one test. Anytime you explicitly select people for high scores on a specific test, you get a regression effect where they come crashing down to Earth on tests that were not specifically used to select them. For example, Harvard students having an average IQ equivalent of about 139 on the SAT but perhaps as low as 122 on the WAIS.
Like in the notable case of Bill Cosby, there are probably some kids who have high-IQs and do poorly on standardized tests but, in general, the SAT is a good proxy for IQ.One way to look at this is consider scores from students across similar ethic and income backgrounds, in which case scores will still exhibit a bell curve.And then IQ scores can be deduced from this after making certain adjustments for socioeconomic backgrounds.
I don’t dispute the SAT is a good measure of IQ. My point is that people who are specifically selected based on extreme scores on one test, will regress to the mean on a test they were not selected on.
I’m sure there is a strong positive correlation between high scores at one IQ test and scoring well at another … A correlation of .69 was found with the Standard Matrices and WISC-R Full …Maybe there is some regression, but probably not that much among people of similar socioeconomic backgrounds
Why do you assume Cosby has a high IQ? PP should do a study of Cosby assuming that he raped 50+ women and that he’s a conservative. Criminals tend to have low IQs and according to PP black conservatives have lower IQs than black liberals (although I’m not so sure about that).
”1. Obama (elite school)
2. George W. Bush (elite school)
3. Bill Clinton (elite school)
4. George H.W. Bush (elite school)
5. Ronald Reagan
6. Jimmy Carter”
Self made politicians? or at least Good politicians?
Now i know why you like so much about iq-sterile achievements. The short way to be labelled as a genius.
”I wonder what percentage of my readers attended one of the above mentioned schools.”
As i imagined first. Iq&elitism, the new crap of z’elites’.
”So four of the six (66%) would have IQs of 133+ using Wai’s method. But note that Jimmy Carter, who some argue is the smartest of them all, did not attend an elite school, and George W. Bush, who some argue is the dumbest of the six, did attend an elite school. But these two exceptions cancel each other other out, and so Wai’s method would imply that 66% of recent presidents had IQs of 133+. ”
”Cognitive” gossip.
In a perfect world with real smart people in the goverment, politicians SHOULD have higher character, holistic & real diplomatic ability, capacity to solve problems (en masse immigration?? dysgenic problems?? … and so on).
But we live in the world that PP believes is a real world like a catlle who think that farm is a real world.
Iq and scolastic achievements is like measure the capacity to the cow to produce milk. And over-enphasis on ”iq&school&social class-achievements” is essentially a farm or slave-worker psychology.
Dammit, I’m black with high SAT and semi-decent IQ and I got rejected by several of these schools.
Fuck you affirmative action, you were supposed to help me out!
Lol, they somehow come to realize that other aspects of your profile made you unable to succeed in elite knowledge creation and transmission institutions. And most of your comments as well as your blog are manifestations of why you were not accepted in such prestigious colleges.
In other words he’s an independent thinker who calls out bullshit when he sees it, and so elites fear him
Much better to have someone safe and politically correct like you 🙂
That’s actually the opposite, Lion’s brain is not very flexible, he can’t really think out of his subjective frame of references, sticks to popular common sense and folk beliefs, does not master some basic notions of scientific method, believes and creates theories mostly based on personal judgement instead of measurable matter…
In other words, he can’t make contributions to the knowledge creation process and his abilities are mostly restricted to using his imagination to produce theories that are miles away from any form of scientific reality. There is nothing unfair in the way Lion has been excluded from these institutions in spite of showing statistical signs of significant advantage for selection.
Pumpkin, if you’re old enough (a part of me thinks you are a teenager or a very young and somewhat immature adult) may I know what kind of college you attended ? Did you graduate ?
Moreover, I believe lion is kind of geeky and misanthropic, he probably doesn’t have the social skills that make people highly functional adults and scholars.
I’m definitely misanthropic. I prefer listening to music or watching anime or working out to socializing.
I’m still vastly more rational and thoughtful than the majority of Ivy Leaguers.
“I’m still vastly more rational and thoughtful than the majority of Ivy Leaguers.”
And humble, lol.
And you are also much more dispensable, I mean would the world and our understanding of it be significantly different if the HBD joke did not exist ? Absolutely not.
It is interesting to see how little HBD is useful for other scientific fields. And the reason is simple, every scientific discipline that HBD claims to bring enlightment to provides arguments that go against it.
As far as you’re concerned Lion, let me tell you that your rationality and thoughtfulness are well hidden in your contributions to the debate. And you’re hardships in dealing with people are signs of limited cognitive ability because humans are the most complex reality in the world, the less you can or want to handle relationships with other human beings, the less manifestations of cognitive ability you make.
You know, geeks are not the finest product of human evolution and our species would quickly go extinct if we were selected for nerdiness. And it is obvious that geek behavior is pathologic and anti-social.
That’s actually the opposite, Lion’s brain is not very flexible,
You’re not very flexible. You just believe whatever white liberal elites like James Flynn and Stephen Jay Gould tell you to believe. And the fact that you are trying to throw your black colleague Judah-sphere under the bus suggests you have a genetically primitive personality
Pumpkin, if you’re old enough (a part of me thinks you are a teenager or a very young and somewhat immature adult) may I know what kind of college you attended ? Did you graduate ?
I am in my 30s and have a Bachelor degree with Honours.
And you are also much more dispensable, I mean would the world and our understanding of it be significantly different if the HBD joke did not exist ? Absolutely not.
Absolutely yes. HBD provides a much more coherent, elegant and parsimonious understanding of the world than the dozens of convoluted contradictory ad hoc theories that HBD deniers provide. That’s the whole appeal.
“You just believe whatever white liberal elites like James Flynn and Stephen Jay Gould tell you to believe.”
I don’t give a damn about whoever wants me to believe, what matters to me is what I know and what makes sense to me.
Contrary to the Pioneer Fund clique, the scholars who debunk their theories are specialists in their field and are not part of a politic and ideological institution nor do they try to advance a specific agenda, they have the neutrality that makes science possible.
“And the fact that you are trying to throw your black colleague Judah-sphere under the bus suggests you have a genetically primitive personality”
Tribalism is a primitive trait you know, ethnic genetic interests is a farce. Lion is not even part of my tribe, he is American, I am European, I feel closer to any European of Any race. As an European, I also feel closer to Americans of European descent. Lion and I only share a distant West African ancestry that implies so much genetic, ethnic and cultural diversity that our probability of being genetically predisposed to common solidarity if your theory holds some truth, which is unlikely.
“I am in my 30s and have a Bachelor degree with Honours.”
Even with all of that, still can’t show signs of reasoning skills above that of a 15 year old. Do you remember when a child commenter fantasized about establishing a HBD dictatorship and the two of you just totally connected to give this blog’s comment section’s most moronic moment in history. That was funny.
Have you ever heard about heterosis ? This is the fact that genetic diversity is the best way to enhance genetic fitness whereas inbreeding has deleterious consequences. HBD may not like it but that implies that Africans are the genetically fittest whereas Eurasians are in need of genetic diversification.
“HBD provides a much more coherent, elegant and parsimonious understanding of the world than the dozens of convoluted contradictory ad hoc theories that HBD deniers provide. That’s the whole appeal.”
Lol, in other words, HBD is a no brainer, more realistic theories are out of reach for the below average mind.
Contrary to the Pioneer Fund clique, the scholars who debunk their theories are specialists in their field
Like who?
Tribalism is a primitive trait you know,
Tribalism is primitive, but it’s morally justified if your race has been historically oppressed and needs to fight for basic equality. Attacking other blacks is disgraceful.
I feel closer to any European of Any race. As an European,
Then you’re very naive and oblivious to the racism directed at you in Europe.
I also feel closer to Americans of European descent.
You feel closer to white Americans than to black Americans?
“You feel closer to white Americans than to black Americans?”
Yes
“Then you’re very naive and oblivious to the racism directed at you in Europe”
I’ve never been a victim of racism in France or other European countries and the vast majority of blacks would say the same as me. Now I won’t say there is no racism in Europe but it’s something very limited and blacks are not the main target of it, Muslims (especially Arabs or Turks because they look muslim, contrary to Black muslims who are not labelled as potential jihadists) as well as the Roma are the most rejected groups here.
“Like who?”
Lewontin, Flynn, Wicherts and all other specialists who consistently ridiculed HBD’s assumptions.
“Tribalism is primitive, but it’s morally justified if your race has been historically oppressed and needs to fight for basic equality. Attacking other blacks is disgraceful.”
No, I judge people according to what they deserve, not who they are. Even if my father was an asshole, I would call him an asshole, no matter what he means to me.
I’ve never been a victim of racism in France or other European countries
Yes you have. You just lacked the sophistication to pick up on it. It’s very subtle in Europe.
Lewontin, Flynn, Wicherts and all other specialists who consistently ridiculed HBD’s assumptions.
And in what way are these people are more qualified than Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn?
“Yes you have. You just lacked the sophistication to pick up on it. It’s very subtle in Europe.”
Lol, you know my life better than myself. I don’t experience racism because racism is just not an important aspect of European culture, because racial prejudice is really limited here and Black Europeans just give little reasons to be deemed inferior or threatening. Europeans are also more curious and difference loving.
“And in what way are these people are more qualified than Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn?”
First thing, they are specialists in their field and don’t make up theories using fields they are not qualified in. Rushton or Lynn on the contrary present themselves as omniscientists being perfectly qualified to talk biology, genetics, evolution, history, economy or psychology when they are just psychologists.
Second thing, they are neutral. They don’t debunk HBD because it is disgusting, they debunk it because it is scientifically inaccurate and they have no specific interest in doing it except the research of scientific truth and better understanding of group differences.
Tribalism is primitive, but it’s morally justified if your race has been historically oppressed and needs to fight for basic equality. Attacking other blacks is disgraceful.
To be completely honest, a feel little affinity for blacks outside of my immediate family. That’s not to say there aren’t blacks that I like (there’s actually plenty I do), it’s just that I feel little connection to blacks based on black-ness per se.
That’s why I’ve always been so skeptical of EGI.
“That’s why I’ve always been so skeptical of EGI.”
You’re case is not that desperate 🙂
EGI is just an HBDer’s attempt to invent genetic justification for racism and nepotism. In the real world people have no interest for other’s genes and they are not even aware of their own. In addition to that, humans are 99% identical in their genetic makeup, only a tiny part of the 1% that differentiates them correlates decently with ethnicity and most of ethnic diversity is found out of Africa which is the most genetically diverse area in the world. In other words, EGI can’t be true, if it was real however, that would be fortunate and needed, we would base solidarity on the 99% genes that make us identical and humanity would be a large loving and caring family.
That’s interesting, because the comventional wisdom in HBD circles is that blacks with 1400+ SAT scores can attend any college in America with full scholarship. Elite universities reportedly fight over such students
I actually received several scholarships, but I still managed to get rejected by several Ivy League schools. I think I know why, but I don’t really want to go into it.
9 th grade drop out here. Lion dont beat yourself up, you still did better than me
Are you a young person who has briefly dropped out and may go back for his GED later, or are you 25 and older, and still have only a 9th grade education?
I’ve always admired people who dropped out of school, though I would not recommend it, given the irrational way modern society works.
im 20 and got my GED when i was 18, barely passed on my 1st try cuz i struggled in math and writing but managed to pass in huge part because of my 95th percentile score in language arts. The reason i dropped out of school, was because my home life was shit. I had a similar childhood as the kids from the documentary *The Wolf Pack* As a child i grew up poor, lived in a chaotic unpredictable environment (never knowing if i was going to get yelled at or kicked out for years and years) had complete freedom with no guidance.I was allowed to wander the streets whenever i could, but no guidance in life. (no learning good study habits, no talking about goals and achievements just very minimal parent child interaction, basically hi and bye.) and on top of that was abused and neglected for 19 years by my single parent mom, and just recently got out of the situation.At a young age i was being recruited by Stanford due to test scores and had an iq of 115 plus Attention Deficit Disorder, which drastically lowered my overall score. In hindsight all of my ADD symptoms could be attributed to piss poor nutrition ie. way too much sugar and fatty foods.(Even as a child i new fast food every night and greased up slop wasnt optimal and hated every moment of it) by the time i was 18 due to not being in school for so long,being in that same environment, and not having optimal nutrition my overal IQ was about 88. My girlfriend at the time was teaching me how to apply for jobs, and what real life outside of the fucked up world i had to endure was like. So i ended up putting my balls to the wall and spent 8 hours a day for 1 month applying for jobs, until finally i landed a 25k a year job collecting student loan debt at a call center, that i was lucky to get with a fudged up resume and appearing overly mature in the interview (suit, full well kept beard etc) eventually i moved to my grandmothers house stopped feeling anxiety felt safe, and could finally afford to switch my diet to 1 with optimal nutrition (very hi protein, average carbs, average calories, and next to nothing in fat and on the low side in sugar.all of these good things happening to me, believe it or not has raised my IQ into the 120’s and all of my ADD symptoms are pretty much gone. I still have the occasional forgetful moment here and there, but its pretty much all gone. Currently im working out a strategy to be able to save up 10k per year and spend it on community college, not sure on the major yet. I just want to take it 1 step at a time and focus on saving up the money for right now.
Wow, Pumpkin will not want to believe your story although it is a real world proof of the impact environment has on test scores and life outcomes.
It’s well documented that IQ fluctuates enormously during adolescence and early adulthood. Pumpkin may or may not be in denial about this but he certainly knows that environment has an impact in situations of extreme deprivation. As he quoted Jensen:
“There is simply no good evidence that social environmental factors have a large effect on IQ, particularly in adolescence and beyond, except in cases of extreme environmental deprivation”
he can believe what he wants the truth is the truth. To make it clear on my genetics, both of my parents are biracial mixed race (black and white mix) so that might have something to do with how my life has been turning out. I do have a sister that i lived with, but we never socialized. We grew up in a similar environment, although she was never abused or neglected and never had any add symptoms even with our shit nutrition. her iq was and is still about 125 (she never changed her diet even after moving out on her own)She is 6 ft 4 about 220 pounds. I am 6 ft 2 170 pounds. Looks wise Im considered light skind black or Latino (Latinos thought i was Latino when i went to Miami) and looks wise she is considered white or east Asian (her skin is as pale as notebook paper, and my east asian friends mistake her for east asian). anyway she was almost admitted into Harvard. Although she ended up going to Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, got a bachelors and now just graduated from graduate school from University of Cincinnati. She’s like a 100k plus in student loans, and im scared that she will end up like our mom and live in massive debt with a really good job (has a hi income but is essentially broke). but thats her life not mine. Anyway that should give more insight into the genetics part of my story
Your life would have been the same with any genetic background, your environment could have been created by people of any race and was not created by any “genotypic” IQ. You’re just lucky you found someone who helped you moving out of that, I had this luck too, in a totally different way.
“Your life would have been the same with any genetic background” doesn’t that statement go against everything HBD stands for?
It does, and just in case your IQ did not make you understand it, I am an anti-HBDer. I’m here to contradict their nonsense.
What is interesting in the IQ score you claim is that it shows no sign of regression to any mean. Since you’re an HBDer, what do you think is you genotypic IQ ? Is it 88, close to what your ancestry would predict, is it your childhood IQ eventhough heritability is low at young age or is it your current IQ that shows no sign of regression.
Something else I’m fascinated with is how much Americans know their IQ, here in France most people have never been tested at all and don’t plan to. Do Americans know their IQ like they know their age, height and weight ? That’s strange to me.
A lot of Americans were tested for gifted programs (we have gifted programs that allow above average elementary students to take coursework in institutions outside of school. We have this because we can’t track students by ability and separate them into separate classes within school, because this would be “politically incorrect”. I understand it’s different in Germany and maybe France, too).
I just found recently I was tested for a gifted program as a kindergartner. I found the score in my mom’s drawer- and it reconfirmed the 120 I got more recently. Of course, this not surprising at all given the stability of IQ (for most people).
I took an IQ test in primary school when my parents and teachers thought I had to skip a grad, I don’t know if this practice is common in the US. Gifted institutions are rare in France and mostly allow children with behavioral issues. And I even think most parents would not accept their children being put apart for the reason of being gifted, French people love equality, they always like to claim they are just average and don’t want to appear above or below the mean in any thing. A millionaire here has no issues claiming he’s only middle class, that’s a funny side of the French mentality.
i figured you were anti HBD- just wanted to make sure. and to answer your questions. 1. im not knowledgeable to give you a super accurate estimate of my genotypical IQ like pumpkin could. but out of the 3 options you gave, I would say a mixture of 2 and 3. So my childhood IQ without the ADD caused by diet and without the stressful,abusive environment. meaning 115 plus about 7-10 points because of those reasons. Being a HBD-er i would at least say my sister has a naturally higher IQ than me because she has more traits from our very intelligent ancestors than I do. And to answer your question about how Americans know their IQ. There is at least one high school close by called Withrow were everyone has to take an IQ test, their junior year. and lost of schools have their children take IQ tests at an early age, to give to their parents to read.
Also i have always believed that genetics and environment determine life outcome. Not 100% 1 or the other. Although as i can clearly see, which is more important than the other is still up for debate.
“Not 100% 1 or the other. Although as i can clearly see, which is more important than the other is still up for debate.”
I guess you imply that it is obvious that environment has more impact on IQ than genes and that the genetic influence is debated but you’re going against HBD’s main claim: IQ and life outcomes are primarily influenced by genes, environment the most disputable part of the nature-nurture debate.
As far as your genotypic IQ, pumpkin would say it is halfway between your mother’s IQ (they tend to believe IQ genes are passed through maternal ancestry) and the mean they claim for mulattos. That would give a 98.75 IQ estimate. If he uses your parent’s mean IQ to estimate what you get from your family genetics, he would say your genotypic IQ is 101.25.
As far as your genotypic IQ, pumpkin would say it is halfway between your mother’s IQ (they tend to believe IQ genes are passed through maternal ancestry)
No, as far as I know, IQ is equally correlated with the IQs of both parents; it’s just that often the father’s IQ is not known, so the mother’s is used for predictions.
Anyway, I made two predictions, the second one accounting for his father’s IQ. But admit to it, you would have preferred his IQ to remain at his 18 years old score of 88, that would have supported regression to the mean and heritability of racial differences increasing with age. But his case appears to be more complex.
HBDers argue that Blayze would regress partially to the mean of his grandparents, not all the way to the mulatto mean (which is 92 or so, I believe?).
So his genotypic IQ is lower since his grandparents had pre-Flynn effect or early Flynn effect IQs.
oh and my 6 ft 4 alcoholic, mixed race, black and white father, with piss poor nutrition (eats out at restaurants every night, stuffs himself with whatever tastes good) has an IQ around 115 and my 5 ft 11 mixed race mother with piss poor nutrition (fast food every morning lunch and breakfast) has an IQ of 105
When and how often were their IQ tested ? You can’t say “X has a 105 IQ”. “X scored 115 on an IQ test in X year” is more accurate.
She is 6 ft 4 about 220 pounds.
Damn, you gotta hyuge sister! That’s amazing! Has she ever played basketball?
I’m just being goofy, but I’m seriously curious.
And good luck with your future endeavors. Sometimes I like hearing stories about people improving themselves. It helps me put my own life journey into perspective.
she sucks at sport-shes so unathletic, she has always been more into books.
If any of you could quickly post links that empirically prove, genes are more important than environment or vice versa. I will check it out. Either way as of right now i think its 50 50. In an earlier post Pumpkin said that children that grow up in a very academic environment can get a 7 point IQ increase. What Pumpkin is arguing is that this increase is fake. Much in the same way as any height increase from wearing boots is fake. He is arguing that environment doesn’t *Really* increase IQ in the same way boots don’t *Really* increase height. I’m saying that it doesn’t matter if the IQ increase is fake,its still an increase and If the environment stays the same, then the IQ increase might as well be real. Much in the same way that if you never take off the boots the increase in height might as well be real.If you grow up in a 1st world, industrialized,rich country with educated parents giving you good nutrition and a low stress environment ,Your going to have that fake iq increase for the rest of your life as long as that nutritious low stress environment stays constant. There is a saying that *more money, more problems* so gaining an abundance of resources can actually add stress similar to being broke.So money cannot add more intelligence (money cannot increase IQ)(no winning the lottery wont make you a genius). Although money WILL allow you to make even more intelligent decisions than you otherwise would have if you didn’t have any!… If living in an educational environment is equivalent to wearing hi IQ boots than attaining money is equivalent to standing on a hi IQ pedestal that constantly gets higher or lower depending on how much money is in your pocket at any given time. What i mean by this is that off the top of our heads we think of a millionaire as really smart but in reality his IQ is most likely within the average range. Why is this? he must be smart because of all the great decisions he’s made in life. But why did he make such great decisions? because he had money! a typical millionaire didn’t start with millions he built it up over time, using the saved up money to make better and better decisions as he went on. To put it in perspective someone with an IQ of 100 and 20k in their pocket, is not capable of money-making decisions that someone with an IQ 100 and 200k in their pocket is capable of.and as long as that person has money with good nutrition and low stress they will forever be in their hi IQ boots standing on their hi IQ pedestal (that constantly changes height depending on the amount of money said person has in their pocket at any given time) This explains why Bill Gates *only* has an IQ of 160 but his accomplishments would put him at an IQ of well over 200. All that money is propping up the intelligent decisions he is able to make. In a nutshell im saying that environment can raise or lower a persons genetic IQ and that increase or decrease is real only if the environment stays constant for the persons life. To prove my point imagine if you were to take an official IQ test tomorrow and then dropped off in some shitty slums in the Philippines, with no social connections,not knowing the language, no educational degrees and no money, and just had to purely use your intelligence to survive for 1 year straight. And on that 1 year anniversary you come back to your country and the 1st thing you do is take the IQ test…I predict you would score SIGNIFICANTLY lower than what you scored the 1st time because of struggling for food and having all the stress of being in super destitute poverty. (essentially wearing negative IQ boots). The poorest people from those countries are wearing negative IQ boots ALL THE TIME generation after generation because of the shitty environment they live in. (if they were to move to america their IQ’s would increase because the negative IQ boots are coming off)
Now an obvious rebuttal to my theory would be “well wouldn’t my IQ increase in that 1 year since im using my brain every day to survive?” and the answer is NO! remember the brain is an organ NOT a muscle, so using it over and over and over again for that entire year is not going to make it more efficient and Because the brain is an organ, it will function significantly better with optimized nutrition and a stress free environment, exactly in the same way that the heart will function better with great nutrition and little stress. It is a fact the brain will suffer and break down if these attributes are dismal to non existent,therefore a lower IQ.
If you want good arguments for the predominantly genetic basis of IQ (and other traits), check out the following: Jayman, HBD Chick, Gregory Cochran, Steve Hsu, and Razib Khan.
And a lot of HBDers cite the fact that the children of upper income blacks score as low or even lower than the children of lower income whites as an argument for minimal impact of environment on outcomes.
“And a lot of HBDers cite the fact that the children of upper income blacks score as low or even lower than the children of lower income whites as an argument for minimal impact of environment on outcomes.”
That’s not true for IQ, 16% of Whites score below the Black mean, 16% of blacks score over the white mean. So it implies upper class Blacks do as well as Middle class whites. Their money may give them good living standards but some other factors impede them to reach parity with similar background whites but their intellectual performance is still well above poor whites.
Then anyone is free to make their own opinion of what are these factors preventing blacks to reach parity. We will never agree on this point.
she told me her IQ was 105 a few years ago when i asked her about it. She didn’t tell me which test specifically cuz she really didn’t care. and my dad scored 115 on a iq test he took after graduating from UCLA, which was a few decades ago since he is almost 60. I wish i could be more accurate.
Pingback: The average IQ of daytime talk show hosts | Pumpkin Person
If you want good arguments for the predominantly genetic basis of IQ (and other traits), check out the following: Jayman, HBD Chick, Gregory Cochran, Steve Hsu, and Razib Khan.”
ok ill check them out
“And a lot of HBDers cite the fact that the children of upper income blacks score as low or even lower than the children of lower income whites as an argument for minimal impact of environment on outcomes.”
If poor white people can afford the same nutrition as upper income blacks (which they can)and can live a similar lifestyle to upper income blacks (which they can), then their environment is essentially the same.So if whites are scoring higher than blacks in the same environment than they must have a higher genetic IQ, exactly what HBD predicts.This is completely different in 2nd and 3rd world countries where the difference between being poor and being upper is starving to death vs having multiple cars, a house, clean drinking water etc. vs America where the difference between being poor is and being upper income, is driving a hoopty vs driving a BMW. Owning a house vs Owning…a more expensive house…etc
I will believe the IQ is all genetics theory when i see studies that show poor people in in a 3rd world country score higher in IQ than their upper income peers.
“This is completely different in 2nd and 3rd world countries” what i mean by this is that poor people and upper income people in America can have similar nutrition and lifestyle (ie. a similar environment) while poor people in the 3rd world and upper income in the 3rd world cannot. (ie. an opposite environment)
Afrosapiens-“That’s not true for IQ, 16% of Whites score below the Black mean, 16% of blacks score over the white mean. So it implies upper class Blacks do as well as Middle class whites. Their money may give them good living standards but some other factors impede them to reach parity with similar background whites but their intellectual performance is still well above poor whites.”
If upper class blacks only do as well as middle class whites then it proves that blacks are 1 standard deviation behind because of racial IQ. The only debate we should be having here is why blacks with IQ’s of 85 have more offspring than blacks of 100. While whites with IQ’s of 100 produce more offspring than those with IQ 85.
let me correct this, what i mean to say is “The only debate we should be having here is why blacks with IQ’s of 85 out reproduce blacks of IQ 100. While whites with IQ’s of out reproduce whites with IQ 85.”
Well, there is one thing:
Income is not wealth, having a typical upper-class income doesn’t mean you have the wealth of the upper-class, that your environment is really upper class (neighborhood, peers, social culture, lifestyle, family members). Black upper class individuals are often first generation achievers who have not really cut links with their lower class background and relatives. There is also an over-representation of women in the black upper-class, this implies a higher share of single parent families who do not provide the best environment for intellectual stimulation and actually may face financial hardships (like your successful but already heavily indebted sister). So the income aspect of defining social class needs to be relativized and there are chances that upper-class blacks live lives not that much different from middle class white whereas upper-class whites are more linked to the old money, the high culture, live in really upscale neighborhood and evolve in a 100% upper-class environment with upper class relatives, peers and cultural standards.
Afrosapiens-That actually makes perfect sense. and you could tailor your hypothesis to explain the African IQ 85 at some elite universities and many other speculations, if you so choose to. Theres also evidence supporting your argument that I am aware of.
“a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. ”
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism
let me correct this, what i mean to say is “The only debate we should be having here is why blacks with IQ’s of 85 out reproduce blacks of IQ 100. While whites with Ia 100 IQ out reproduce whites with IQ 85.”
why is my spelling so bad. 😦
bcz ur dyslexic
Don’t worry, spelling has low g-loading.