• About

Pumpkin Person

~ The psychology of horror

Pumpkin Person

Category Archives: ethnicity

Revisiting the IQ totem pole

07 Monday Feb 2022

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 100 Comments

Below our my best estimates of the genetic IQs of many populations. Given the lack of precision, all estimates rounded to multiples of 5.

As one can see, there seems to be a pretty strong negative correlation correlation between IQ and skin colour. Those at the top of the totem pole are all light skinned. Those at the bottom are mostly dark skinned. This is likely because skin colour is a proxy for how far ones ancestors were able to migrate from the tropics and this likely would have selected for the cognitive ability to adapt to an environment unsuited to our African bodies.

It’s interesting that Arctic people have both lower IQs and darker skin than their ancestral climate predicts.

There also seems to be a negative correlation between antiquity and IQ. For example apes appear in the fossil record 25 million years ago and they average IQs of only 15. Ashkenazi Jews appeared only about 800 years ago and they average about 105.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Estimating genetic IQ in deprived populations

28 Friday Jan 2022

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity, Uncategorized

≈ 61 Comments

By the end of the 20th century, Whites, Indians, Coloureds and Blacks in South Africa averaged IQs of 98, 92, 82, and 69 (UK norms). Although all four “races” were in school when tested and used to paper-pencil tests, and although the test used (Standard Progressive Matrices) was culture reduced, there were enormous difference in the quality of environment the four races were exposed to including the biological environment which affects brain growth. I tried to correct for this by comparing the different rates of stunting (low height), but as commenter “some guy” noted, this measure is too confounded with genetic height to be a good proxy for environment.

Perhaps a better proxy is Human Development Index (HDI) which combines income, education, and life span. While life span is confounded with genetics to some degree, being reared in a poor uneducated home is a clear environmental effect.

In 1991, South Africa’s Whites, Indians, Coloureds, and Blacks had HDIs of 0.901, 0.836, 0.663, and 0.50 respectively (see table III).

source

To put these numbers in perspective, I wanted to know the HDI of black Americans because black Americans have continued to score 15 points below white Americans for roughly a century, and it doesn’t seem to matter whether they’re reared by their biological parents or adopted into White professional homes. Thus black American HDI is perhaps a ceiling beyond which environment much affects IQ.

An article in The Atlantic (October 14, 2014) by Theodore R. Johnson reported their HDI but I don’t think a 2014 figure is comparable with the 1991 figure for South Africa’s races, both because living standards have changed over time and so has the method of calculating HDI. But assuming the relative ranking of black America has been similar over time (slightly above Saudi Arabia and slightly below Qatar) then in 1991 they had an HDI of about 0.705 (Saudi Arabia) to 0.745 (Qatar) or roughly 0.725.

Black Americans (1991 HDI 0.725) score 15 points lower than white Americans, but 16 points higher than South African blacks (1991 HDI 0.5). The former gap is arguably 100% genetic judging by the results of the Minnesota transracial adoption study suggesting HDI has no effect on IQ once you hit at least 0.725. The latter gap is probably 31% genetic, because Black Americans are only 75% Black. Adjusting for this reduces the latter gap to 11 points suggesting that for people with HDIs below 0.725, subtracting the HDI from 0.725 and then multiply by 48.9 gives an estimate of how much Raven IQ (taken by people in school) has been supressed by environment.

So the IQs of South African Whites and Indians (98 and 92 respectively) are probably not supressed because their 1991 HDIs were above 0.725 but Coloureds were 0.062 below this threshold, so multiplying by 48.9 suggests their IQs were supressed by 3 points. This would raise them from 82 to 85, the same as African Americans.

Native Americans

According to one study, “by 2001, the American Indian and Alaska Native population and the Canadian Indigenous population had…HDI scores comparable to South Korea or the Czech Republic and Belarus or Trinidad and Tobago, respectively.” In 1991 Czech Republic had an HDI score of 0.733 and Trinidad and Tobago, 0.67. Averaging just those two (couldn’t find 1991 data on the other countries) suggests American Indians and Arctic people had a 1991 HDI of 0.702.  This suggests their Raven IQs are supressed by 1 point. This is consistent with a study that found that several years of foster care in white homes did not at all improve the IQ of these.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

The pseudoscience of stunting & wasting

27 Thursday Jan 2022

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity, heritability, Uncategorized

≈ 22 Comments

Stunting is defined as being at least 2 standard deviations (SD) below the average of the reference group for your height, sex and age. Wasting is defined as being at least 2 SD below average weight for your height and sex. The reference group is an international sample of socio-economically advantaged breast fed children.

Commenter “Someguy” pointed out that using stunting rates to measure how malnourished a certain ethnic group was is faulty because some groups might be genetically shorter than others. I agree but was unsure if this genetic difference would show up in young children. After all, the World Health Organization (WHO) claims children of all ethnic groups grow similarly when breast fed and born and raised healthy, at least up to age five, and so a single reference group can be applied internationally.

Further, Arthur Jensen stated that (in his population) height has a heritability of 0.95 in early adulthood, but only 0.30 in infancy. With genes having only moderate effects in the first years of life, this made it seem quite plausible that all races (with the exception of pygmies) could use the same growth chart to measure nutritional status.

However even comparing different races in First World countries show large differences in early childhood height. For example averaging across ages zero, 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 years, Dutch boys (see table 1) are 1.02 SD taller than Japanese boys (Japanese SD used since the Dutch one not provided).

To be sure this is much smaller than the 1.93 SD height gap that shows up at age 17.5, consistent with the square root of height heritability being almost twice as high in early adulthood compared to infancy.

It is sometimes said that in most ethnic groups, well nourished kids are within half an SD of the WHO growth chart so close enough, but if one population is half an SD above and another half an SD below, that’s a 1 SD difference!

And because small differences in the mean create huge differences at the extremes, a 1 SD gap means the shorter group will show about 7% of their population stunting while the taller group will show only 0.6% despite the fact that both groups have equal nutrition! That’s a little too much error for comfort.

If the World Health Organization is serious about measuring malnutrition, they should invest in getting us better polygenic scores for height. Only then could they say with accuracy that a given population is below their genetic height potential, and thus malnourished.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Adjusting South African IQs for malnutrition

25 Tuesday Jan 2022

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity, Uncategorized

≈ 30 Comments

Tags

brain size, nutrition, race, South Africa

By the end of the 20th century, Whites, Indians, Coloureds and Blacks in South Africa averaged IQs of 98, 92, 82, and 69 (UK norms) and malnutrition rates of 5.7, 10.9*, 18, and 32 percent respectively (see table 2.13 below):

From The Global Bell Curve (2008) by Richard Lynn

Malnutrition is defined here as the percentage of the population that is stunted. Stunted is defined as two or more standard deviations (SDs) shorter than comparable healthy populations. In theory only 2% of the healthy reference population should be stunted.

But nutrition is not a discrete variable. In theory there’s a perfect continuum between optimum and suboptimum processing of nutrients and each population has their own bell curve.

So if 32% of South African blacks have sub-optimum nutrition compared to only 2% of well nourished populations, then that tells us that the 32nd percentile (-0.47 SD) on the former’s bell curve equates to the 2nd percentile (- 2 SD) on the latter’s. Assuming roughly equal standard deviations, it suggests South Africa’s black bell curve is shifted 1.53 SD to the left of what was considered optimum at the time.

So the stunted children are just the tip of the iceberg. The average black child in South Africa should be 1.53 SD below his genetic potential in physical growth. What about brain size? Also 1.53 SD below genetic potential? Given the 0.4 correlation between IQ and brain size, this would predict IQ would be 0.4 (1.53 SD) = 0.61 SD below genetic potential. Multiplying by the IQ standard deviation of 15 points, this gives 9 points of impairment caused by malnutrition. Adding this to the IQ 69 of black South Africans gives IQ 78.

I applied the same calculations to all the major groups of South Africa:

It is interesting to compare the estimated black genetic IQ of 78 to the average IQ of 85 for African Americans, a presumably well nourished population judging from the fact that they are virtually indistinguishable from white Americans in height. But genetically African Americans are only 75% sub-Saharan, so adjusting for this, they go from 15 points below IQ 100, to 15/0.75 = 20 points below 100 = IQ 80. In other words, virtually all of the difference between unmixed American and South African blacks vanishes when we adjust for presumably stunted brain size.

Similarly, the IQs of Indians and whites rise to their corresponding levels when reared in the UK (a well nourished country).

*The malnutrition of Indians were estimated from the line of best fit predicting poverty rates in table 2.13 to malnutrition rates in table to 2.13: Malnutrition = 0.65(poverty) – 2.79.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

How many races are there?

23 Saturday Jul 2016

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 120 Comments

In his 1998 book The g Factor, scholar Arthur Jensen used an extremely objective method to classify humans in different races: Varimax rotation of principal components applied to the genes of 42 populations studied by scholars Nei & Roychoudhury (1993).  What I love about this is Jensen used the eigenvalues > 1 rule for determining the number of components to be retained for rotation.

So based on “genetic similarity”, there are roughly six major races, though in the chart below (which I adapted from Jensen) I prefer to label all six using just three major anthropological types: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid.  Different ethnic groups have strong or weak loadings on the different components (races) and some load on multiple components, which as Jensen noted, reflect, central tendencies, not discrete categories.

varimax rotation components 1 2 3 4 5 6
population asian mongoloid caucasoid hybridized mongoloid african negroid american mongoloid non-african negroid
pygmy 651
nigerian 734
bantu 747
san (bushman) 465
lapp 500
finn 988
german 978
english 948
italian 989
iranian 635
northern indian 704
japanese 936 214
korean 959 229
tibetan 855
mongolian 842 357
southern chinese 331 771
thai 814
filipino 782
indonesian 749
polynesian 526 284
micronesian 521 328
australian (aborigines) 706
papuan (new guineans) 742
north amerindian 804
south amerindian 563
eskimo 726

I find it interesting that Italians are the most Caucasoid of all Caucasoid ethnicities (clocking in at 989). Italians look like a hybrid of what I believe are the three Caucasoid sub-races: whites, dark caucasoids, and Ashkenazim; thus it makes sense that Italians are the essence of the Caucasoid race.

It should be noted that genetic distance is measured using relatively neutral genes, which by definition are relatively insensitive to natural selection. It’s probably for this reason that sub-Saharan and Australoids get divided into different races, despite both being Negroid in appearance and IQ; because neutral genes primarily reflect the genetic clock (time since populations split) and not how truly similar folks are. So if you define race by how recently people shared a common ancestor, then this analysis should please you, but if you define race by how much people preserve the traits of a common ancestor, then an analysis using non-neutral genes is badly needed.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

The IQ of Precious

31 Tuesday May 2016

Posted by pumpkinperson in dark dramas, ethnicity

≈ 151 Comments

Commenter Mikey Blayze writes:

The movie Precious is a perfect visual representation of the black underclass

 

Precious is an unbelievably heartbreaking film about a person named Precious who has every disadvantage one can have in America: She’s black, female, incredibly dark skinned, incredibly overweight, illiterate, dirt poor, physically abused, sexually abused, pregnant with her second baby, fathered by her father; The first baby has Down’s Syndrome!  And that’s just the first 20 minutes of the movie!

But other than that, Precious is not so different from other teenaged girls.  She has a crush on her math teacher, she dreams of having a light skinned boyfriend with nice hair, but first she wants to be in one of those BET videos.

So what is her IQ?

At the start of the film we are told she is 16 years old and reads at a grade 2.8 level.  Since people typically read several grades below their completed grade level,  the average kid probably wouldn’t read at grade 2.8 level until grade 5.8 (about age 10.8), so at age 16, Precious had a reading age of 10.8 implying an IQ of 68 on the old age ratio scale 10.8/16 = 0.68.

This makes sense because according to scholar Richard Lynn, the average IQ of the darkest skinned African Americans like Precious is 80 (white norms), but because Precious is also extremely overweight, and weight/height ratio is negatively correlated with IQ at about -0.22, Precious would be expected to be below this level.  Indeed I estimate Precious to be 2.5 standard deviations above the mean of her age in weight/height ratio, so we might very crudely estimate her IQ to be 2.5 SD (-0.22) = -0.55 SD (roughly -8 IQ points) from what one might expect based on race and color alone. This reduces her IQ to 72 which is very similar to the 68 IQ as measured by her reading level.  Both numbers round to 70.

It seems simple regression works, even on fictional characters created by writers who know nothing about psychometrics or statistics, and probably don’t even believe in IQ!

However watching the film, one gets the sense from her subtle sense of humour that Precious is smart despite her illiteracy, which is almost understandable given the abysmal quality of the inner-city schools she attends.

In an especially adorable scene, Precious complains about being an “insect victim”, only to have a white student tell her that insects are bugs; what Precious meant to say was “incest victim.”

“What are you a scientist now?” says Precious sarcastically.

Once Precious leaves these ghetto schools and attends an alternative high school (which I also attended as a teenager; I’m now in my thirties) we see her reading level blossoms to a grade 7.8 level in about a year, thanks to the support of a loving teacher.  The national average for American adults is 8th grade level, so this implies Precious now has an IQ around 100!

Although this film is fictional, cases like this are not that uncommon.  For example boxer Mike Tyson was considered borderline mentally retarded because of his low reading level, but under the tutoring of his boxing coach, his reading improved by about three grade levels in three months.  Such anecdotes underscore the pitfalls of using academic SAT type measures to estimate IQs.

 

 

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is there a secret black underclass?

27 Friday May 2016

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 95 Comments

Commenter Mikey Blayze wrote:

Hey Pumpkin? Are you 100% sure there is no secret super low IQ black under class? Because im here to tell you there is -.- You have obviously never seen just how degenerate the inner city is from first hand experience. I spent a great deal of my young adult hood traveling to the inner city from my suburban home, usually for excitement and easy women and I can tell you there is a large group of blacks that have IQ of 75 , possibly lower.The IQ of the homeless is 85. They form groups, a social heirarchy, and co-ordinate together to make what little money they can. I have seen this for myself. I swear on my life there are at least hundreds if not thousands of adult inner city black males that survive solely on robbery and theft and their females survive of the meager financial support from the male activities. Tell me Pumpkin, What would the IQ be of someone who could only think of theft or robbery to make money. Theres a large amount of blacks that get away with this behavior constantly because in the inner city theres little to no police enforcement. The inner city is essentialy a modern day African Savannah. Its called a concrete jungle for a reason. Please do more research on a plausible theory before dismissing it.

I do agree that there are subpopulations of U.S. blacks with IQs below 75.  For example scholar Arthur Jensen discovered an entire school district in rural Georgia where the average IQ of late adolescents was about 70.  The question was whether these secret subpopulations are large enough to drag the national black IQ average down to 78, instead of the mean of 85 that is typically reported.

One reason for my skepticism is that tests like the Wechsler scales attempt to get extremely representative samples.  For example, the 1995 U.S. census reported that 18% of college age blacks had less than a high school diploma (about one fifth); meanwhile 21%  of college age blacks  in the 1995 norming of the Wechsler adult IQ test also had less than a high school diploma (also about one fifth).  Such careful matching of demographic variables gives me confidence that Wechsler norms are valid.

On the other hand, there is enormous IQ variation even among people with the same education, and this is especially true of blacks, so just because the Wechsler scales fully sampled low education blacks, does not mean they fully sampled low IQ blacks.

Scholars Rushton and Jensen wrote:

It is widely known among test developers that although samples are carefully drawn to create a nationally representative sample for the entire population, they are not chosen to get an accurate estimate for subgroups such as Blacks. The most disadvantaged elements in poorer schools in inner cities are rarely, if ever, included.

news_b50cent-1

Thus I decided to take Mikey Blayze’s advice and do more research.  Although there are probably few if any studies on the IQs of poor inner city blacks, I did find a paper on the prison population in the Southern United States.  The paper reported that the white prisoners averaged IQ 87.66 on the WAIS-R, while the black prisoners averaged 78.47.

However because the WAIS-R was normed in 1978 and the prisoners were apparently tested in 1987, we should probably deduct 2.7 points for inflated norms (the Flynn effect), which reduces the IQs to 84.96 and 75.77 respectively.

It should also be noted that WAIS-R IQs are reported with reference to the entire U.S. population, not just the white population, which averaged IQ 101.4  SD = 14.65 on U.S. norms.  Compared to the national white mean and SD, white prisoners were -1.12 SD and black prisoners were -1.75 SD, corresponding to IQs of 83 and 74 respectively, using white norms.  Since the black inner city tends to have very high incarceration rates, the IQ 74 of black prisoners might be representative of the black underclass.

This is a bit higher than the rural Georgia black teens who averaged IQ 70.  On the other hand, a study of almost all black homeless people in Milwaukee showed an average IQ of 80 (white norms).  Averaging black prisoners in the South (IQ 74) with mostly black homeless in Milwaukee (IQ 80) with black teens in rural Georgia (IQ 70) probably gives a reasonable estimate of the IQ of the black underclass, and that estimate is 75 (white norms).

If the black underclass average IQ 75, it makes sense that the average U.S. black is about IQ 85 (white norms) and that the Wechsler samples are probably correct despite probably not sampling inner city blacks.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Were Native Americans too smart to be slaves?

17 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 71 Comments

hqdefault

One of the biggest mysteries of history is why did White Americans travel all the way to sub-Saharan Africa to get slaves, when they had a huge population of Native Americans they could have enslaved.  One reason is that Native Americans were more respected than Blacks.  But why?  In searching for answers,  Dinesh D’souza suggests three reasons in his book The End of Racism:

  1. Native Americans were respected because they lived in the Americas, which Whites viewed as a paradise.  The Garden of Eden.  By contrast Blacks lived in the thick dense burning hot jungles of sub-Sahara, surrounded by incects and massive snakes.  Whites viewed Africa as hell on Earth.
  2.  Native Americans were reddish in skin tone, and that’s a colour Whites respected.  By contrast, Blacks were blackish in skin tone an that’s a colour Whites (and all races) associated with darkness and evil.
  3.  Englishmen discovered Blacks at the same time they discovered chimpanzees, and in the same place: Africa.  This caused scientists to look for similarities between Blacks and monkeys such as prognathism.

And so it is for these three reasons that Blacks were considered subhuman enough to be slaves, but Native Americans were considered noble savages who reminded Whites of their own ancestral past.

But that still doesn’t fully explain why Whites would risk their lives and travel all the way to Africa to get slaves, and so we see on pg 85, the biggest reason Native Americans weren’t slaves:

…Indians proved quite adept at escaping, and when this happened they faded into the landscape; it was extremely difficult to retrieve runaway Indians who knew the territory.  By contrast, Africans could run but they could not easily hide.

So unlike Africans, Indians could adapt: take whatever situation they’re in, and turn it around to their advantage.  As my high school chemistry teacher would say “That’s really what intelligence is.”

So in sounds like Whites got so tired of being constantly outsmarted by their Indian slaves that they risked their lives traveling all the way to Africa to find slaves who couldn’t outwit them.

This might explain why Native Americans, despite being the most socially and economically disadvantaged people in society, score 10 IQ points higher on the SAT than African Americans do, even though African Americans are part White.  If African Americans did not have White admixture, they might score close to a full standard deviation behind Native Americans.

Scholar J.P. Rushton argued that Mongoloids were more genetically advanced than Caucasoids who were more genetically advanced than Negroids.  Rushton believed this because Mongoloids were the newest race, and had the most ice age exposure, while Negroids were the oldest race, and had the least ice age exposure.

I find it interesting that even the least intelligent form of Mongoloid (Native Americans) outsmarted the most intelligent form of Caucasoid (Europeans), during slavery.

I also find it interesting that Native Americans were able to independently create a civilization, something not even Whites did!

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Racial differences in SAT scores

17 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 20 Comments

college_admissions_test1

Image found here

Commenter chartreuse argues that not only is the SAT a valid measure of intelligence, but that it’s even better than official IQ tests.  I wouldn’t go that far, but the SAT is unique in that it’s been used to collect data on millions of test takers.  For that reason, it’s an especially reliable source for documenting racial differences in IQ within America.  One can convert SAT scores on the post-1995 SAT into IQ equivalents using this formula I created:

IQ equivalent (U.S. norms) = 23.835 + 0.081(new SAT score)

One problem is that although the SAT is given to an enormous sample of Americans, it is not given to a representative sample of Americans.  Only about the most academically successful third of American 17-year-olds take the SAT,  however one might crudely adjust for this filtering.

For example, the average white SAT taker has an SAT score of 1068 which equates to an IQ of 110 (U.S. norms); 107 (U.S. white norms).  But we know that the average IQ of all post-boomer Whites is 103 (U.S. white norms); 100 (U.S. white norms).  Thus in the chart below, I just assume that the college bound segment of each race is 7 IQ points higher (U.S. norms) than the general U.S. population for each race:

race mean sat of college bound seniors mean iq equivalent of college bound seniors (u.s. norms) mean iq equivalent of college bound seniors (u.s. white norms) mean estimated iq in the general u.s. population (u.s. norms) mean estimated iq in the general u.s. population (u.s. white norms)
asian americans 1091  112  109  105  102
whites 1068  110  107  103  100
american indians 982  103  100  96  93
mexican americans 916  98  95  91  88
puerto ricans 917  98  95 91  88
other hispanics 932  99  96  92  89
african americans 864  94  91  87  83

If anything, the chart above overestimates the general population score gaps between different races, because it assumes a 7 point IQ gap between the SAT population and the general population in every race, but in non-Asian minorities, that gap could be larger because a smaller percentage of those races go to college, and thus the college bound elite are even more filtered for ability.

It should be noted that the relatively small gap between Whites and Asian Americans might be because (1) the SAT does not emphasize spatial ability, and (2) Asian Americans are not equivalent to East Asian Americans, but include non-white caucasoids and southeast Asians who have australoid admixture.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Does IQ explain racial differences in extreme wealth?

07 Monday Dec 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 57 Comments

As the pie charts below indicates, blacks and Ashkenazim are dramatically under and over represented among the Forbes ranking of the 400 richest Americans, respectively:

americanpopulation

The data for this pie is found here: http://isteve.blogspot.ca/2012/07/forbes-400-by-ethnicity.html

The data for this pie is found here:
http://isteve.blogspot.ca/2012/07/forbes-400-by-ethnicity.html

Despite being 13.6% of America, Blacks are typically only 0.25% of the Forbes 400 (Oprah), though some years as much as 0.5%. Meanwhile, despite being only 2% of America, Ashkenazim are estimated to be 35.56% of the Forbes 400. Some might dispute these numbers on the grounds that partial Jews get counted as Jews, however this is counterbalanced by the fact that many full-Jews probably get mistaken for Gentiles. Further, partial Jews are often counted as Jews for census purposes, so counting them as Jews maintains consistency, though admittedly, this is not an exact science.

On a scale where the average White American has an IQ of 100 (SD = 15), I assume the average American has an IQ of about 97 (SD = 15.5) and the average Jewish American has an IQ of 110, and the average Black American has an IQ of 85. This means that the average Ashkenazi America scores 0.84 SD higher than the average American and the average Black American scores 0.77 SD lower than the average American.

Jewish overrepresentation

If IQ correlates about 0.4 with cumulative life time earnings, and if IQ causes income, either directly, or via credentials, then Jews having IQs 0.84 SD above the U.S. mean should cause financial success that is 0.84 SD(0.4) = 0.34 SD above the U.S. mean.

Now assuming there are about 242 million American adults, and only 400 of them make the Forbes 400,  then making the Forbes 400 requires wealth at or above the top one in 605,000 level.  In other words, normalizing the distribution of financial success, you need to be at least 4.67 standard deviations more financially successful than the average American to make the Forbes 400.  However based on IQ alone, the Jewish income distribution should be 0.34 SD above the U.S. mean, thus the Forbes 400 requires one to be 4.67 SD – 0.34 SD = 4.33 SD above the Jewish financial mean.  In other words, based on IQ alone, one in 136,074 Jewish Americans should make the Forbes 400, compared to one in 605,000 Americans in general.

Assuming there are about 4.84 million Jewish adults in America, this suggests that 4,840,000/136,074 = 35.57 Jews should be on the Forbes 400 (roughly 9% of the list).  Instead Jews are roughly 36% of the Forbes 400.  This shows that even controlling for IQ, Jewish Americans are overrepresented among the super rich by a factor of four.  However before controlling for IQ, they are overrepresented by a factor of 18.  This shows IQ can explain 78% of Jewish overrepresentation, with only 22% unexplained.

Black underrepresentation

If IQ correlates about 0.4 with cumulative life time earnings, and if IQ causes income, either directly, or via credentials, then Blacks having IQs 0.77 SD below the U.S. mean should cause financial success that is 0.77 SD(0.4) = 0.308 SD below the U.S. mean.

Now given that you need to be at least 4.67 standard deviations more financially successful than the average American to make the Forbes 400, and based on IQ alone, Blacks should have an income distribution shifted 0.308 SD to the left of Americans in general, the Forbes 400 requires one to be 4.67 SD + 0.308 SD = 4.98 SD above the Black financial mean.  In other words, based on IQ alone, only one in 3,483,046 Black Americans should make the Forbes 400, compared to one in 605,000 Americans in general.

Assuming there are about 32.912 million black adults in America, this suggests that 32,912,000/3,483,046 = 9.45 Blacks should be on the Forbes 400 (roughly 2% of the list).  Instead Blacks are typically only 0.25% of the Forbes 400 (Oprah).  This shows that even controlling for IQ, Black Americans are underrepresented among the super rich by a factor of eight.  However before controlling for IQ, they are underrepresented by a factor of 54.  This shows IQ can explain about 85% of black underrepresentation, with only 15% unexplained.

Discussion

IQ explains 78% of Jewish overrepresentation in extreme wealth, and 85% of black underrepresentation.  What explains the rest?

The most obvious possibility is some kind of multiplier effect.  What I mean is that because the IQs of one’s family members tend to regress 40% to the mean of their race, a Black with an IQ of 140, will tend to have parents with IQs of 118, while a Jew with an IQ of 140 tends to have parents with IQs around 128.  Thus, even when Blacks have the same IQs as Jews, Jews still have the advantage of higher IQ family members to give them career advice, lend them money, etc.

Another obvious possibility is that other traits, either cultural or genetic, may gives Jews an advantage when it comes to making money, such as more stable families, lower incarceration rates, and a tradition of entrepreneurialism.

A final possibility is that Blacks suffer from anti-Black discrimination and Jews benefit from philosemitic discrimination.  This would be mitigated to some degree by affirmative action for blacks.

However a discrimination model is hard to square with the fact that Blacks do much better on measures of fame and popularity than they do on wealth, while for Jews it’s the opposite.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

contact pumpkinperson at easiestquestion@hotmail.ca

Recent Comments

Some Guy on Some ethnic differences in…
pumpkinperson on Some ethnic differences in…
Name on Some ethnic differences in…
Some Guy on Some ethnic differences in…
RaceRealist on Some ethnic differences in…
actually not AIDS br… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
sorry, AIDS brain... on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
538 = number of elec… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
biscuit on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
Name on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
Name on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
was pill bottom of h… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
notice how pill refe… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
The Philosopher on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
cassidy hutchinson v… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…

Archives

  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014

Categories

  • autism
  • chronometrics
  • dark dramas
  • ethnic genetic interests
  • ethnicity
  • Flynn effect
  • genetic similarity theory
  • heritability
  • horror
  • income
  • Ivy League
  • love stories
  • Low IQ
  • Michael Jackson
  • Oprah
  • politics
  • pumpkinperson
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Recent Comments

Some Guy on Some ethnic differences in…
pumpkinperson on Some ethnic differences in…
Name on Some ethnic differences in…
Some Guy on Some ethnic differences in…
RaceRealist on Some ethnic differences in…
actually not AIDS br… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
sorry, AIDS brain... on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
538 = number of elec… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
biscuit on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
Name on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
Name on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
was pill bottom of h… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
notice how pill refe… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
The Philosopher on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
cassidy hutchinson v… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…

Archives

  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014

Categories

  • autism
  • chronometrics
  • dark dramas
  • ethnic genetic interests
  • ethnicity
  • Flynn effect
  • genetic similarity theory
  • heritability
  • horror
  • income
  • Ivy League
  • love stories
  • Low IQ
  • Michael Jackson
  • Oprah
  • politics
  • pumpkinperson
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Pumpkin Person
    • Join 631 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Pumpkin Person
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: