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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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:

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.