« Blink! | Gene Expression Front Page | Blind Watchmakings »
September 01, 2003

more IQ and Populations

If you found IQ and Populations interesting, and especially if you're curious about the derivations of the National IQ figures, please see this post from Steve Sailer in which he discusses "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"...

The IQ structures of the two giga-countries, China and India, demand more intense study, in part because the future history of the world will hinge in no small part on their endowments of human capital.  The demography of India is especially complex due to its caste system, which resembles Jim Crow on steroids and acid.  By discouraging intermarriage, caste has subdivided the Indian people into an incredible number of micro-races.  In India, according to the dean of population genetics, L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, "The total number of endogamous communities today is around 43,000"  We know that some of those communities - such as the Zoroastrian Parsees of Bombay - are exceptionally intelligent.

He also considers the Flynn Effect, nutrition, and the remarkable gap in IQ figures between Americans of African descent and present-day Africans.

 

Posted by ole at 07:59 PM




the Parsees were almost white, so they were given tremendous privileges by the british... all the prime land in bombay is owned by them today... in blackamericanspeak they were "sellouts" to the british... this translated into tremendous benefits over the generations and thus today the community is very prosperous in india and even considers itself a kind of elite overlord community that is above those "black indians" who gave them refuge from religious persecution... to a Steve Sailor kind of person, their current financial success (coupled of course with their white skin) is indicative of their high IQ...

Ole, can you please explain to me how the Jewish IQ, which was below US national avg in the 1920s became far above the national average in a couple of generations??

Posted by: turkey time gobble gobble at September 2, 2003 07:17 AM


"can you please explain to me how the Jewish IQ, which was below US national avg in the 1920s became far above the national average in a couple of generations??"

do u have references regarding Jews having lower IQ's during the 1920's?

Posted by: the_alpha_male at September 2, 2003 11:52 AM


I think a lot of these inter-national or inter-cultural comparisons of IQ are very shaky (not to say a load of bollocks). I think I'll work up a post on the subject, but I need to do a bit more reading first.

Posted by: David B at September 2, 2003 11:57 AM


If the study mentioned in this news report holds up, won't that make the numbers quoted above for alleged national and racial IQs meaningless? How can Steve Sailer or anyone else claim with a straight face to know anything about "African IQ" when the people being measured are illiterates living on the verge of starvation?

All this Race/IQ speculation smells like so much rehashed 1930s pseudo-science to me. It doesn't help matters that Mr. Sailer writes for VDARE, an organization that spends an indecent amount of time complaining about the evils of non-white immigration. Could there possibly be an agenda at work here? Nah, perish the thought!

Posted by: Hardbitten Sceptic at September 2, 2003 01:11 PM


"All this Race/IQ speculation smells like so much rehashed 1930s pseudo-science to me."

ummm... why then, do so many of these studies involving IQ and ethnicity end up showing Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians at the top of the IQ chain. All part of some right-wing Euro centric plot I guess.

I fail to see why these IQ studies, particularly intra-cultural and inter-national IQ studies, are pseudo-science akin to Adolf Hitler and his nazi theorist's Aryan Race mythology.

They have their inadequacies, granted, but to obfuscate the issue by labeling them "bollocks" or "pseudo-science" is obscurantism at it's worst.

If anything, the shortcomings and limitations of these early IQ studies cry out for more research, not blanket ad-hominem attacks.

In fact, I am sure that the nazi's banned IQ tests because the tests indicated that their Jewish population outperformed their German population (somebody must have the reference).

I find psychometrics and genetics fascinating and it is that reason that I am drawn to Gene Expression and intellectual material of the same sort - not out of some inner fascist/elitist fantasy. I am sure most "gene expressionists" feel the same way.

Posted by: the alpha male at September 2, 2003 03:47 PM


"ummm... why then, do so many of these studies involving IQ and ethnicity end up showing Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians at the top of the IQ chain. All part of some right-wing Euro centric plot I guess."

Or a useful device to deflect charges of racism - leave out the "honorary white" and say "See? We can't be racists!"

Posted by: Hardbitten Sceptic at September 2, 2003 05:17 PM


"If anything, the shortcomings and limitations of these early IQ studies cry out for more research, not blanket ad-hominem attacks."

Oh please! I see no reason why I have to pretend that such obviously ill-motivated "research" is anything other than the swill that it actually is. I also hope you realise that "argumentum ad hominem" ("argument against the person") applies to individuals, and not to arguments.

There is a difference between saying, "You're wrong 'cause you're a Nazi!" and "This tripe looks just like the old Aryan rubbish of the 1930s!" The former is an illegitimate form of argument, while the latter most definitely is not.

But in any case, this is all just a distraction. You fail to address the real point at issue here, to wit, how is it possible to say anything useful about IQs across groups when environmental hardships can lower IQ heritability to almost nothing? Anybody who insists that he has "proof" of genetic differences in IQ, in light of the research indicated in the WaPo article, is simply engaging in quackery.

Posted by: Hardbitten Sceptic at September 2, 2003 05:24 PM


There's certainly no need for a flame war. Hardbitten, I can see your point about collecting world IQ scores, it's very preliminary and doesn't need to be swallowed whole. But other things such as similar scores for different studies makes the data more interesting. You aren't supposed to read things such as this as dogma, and if you read Sailer's review or his comments on it here (where he gives a 'grain of salt' warning), or Godless' recent FPP, you'll see that most of think that way (in fact both of them seem to address issues that concern you. e.g. nutrition).

Sometimes it's hard to know where to start with people who object, b/c they start out with different degrees of shared premises. From people on the hard ends of the left and the right who reject everything on principle, to people in the center who end up having intelligent problems with a few key premises. I might be able to talk with you better, or defend charges of "pseudo-science" better if I knew how many premises we shared. Do you think that the study of human intelligence is a valid science? That the g factor is the best measure we have of such a thing? That g correlates with many important life outcomes? That at least some of the individual differences in g are the result of genetic variation? Do you believe we have reliable, unbiased instruments for measuring g? Do you think 'race' exists? Do you think genetic differences between geographically distant people are possible? And finally do you think there are easy answers for explaining the achievement gap between American blacks and whites?

For everyone of these, I have come to a certain conclusion, based on my readings of two opposing sides. Depending on how many of these premises we share, the more productive our conversation can be.

Posted by: Jason M. at September 3, 2003 01:42 AM


Hitler did ban intelligence testing. He didn't want scientific grounds for thinking that German Jews were smarter than Gentiles to get into the public discourse. Hans Eysenck was a young Aryan academic psychologist who stood to benefit from the departure of Jewish profs in the 1930s. Instead he emigrated to Britain and joined the "London School" (after Galton, Pearson, Burt etc) who relied on IQ tests; Eysenck resented having to do "German psychology" to get ahead.

The canard about Jewish immigrants to the States in the early 20C being pronounced moronic on the basis of defective IQ testing was spread around by SJ Gould in that miserable tissue of lies, "The Mismeasure of Man". It's about as historically reliable as the rest of the late Marxoid's ink cloud.

Posted by: WJ Phillips at September 3, 2003 08:06 AM


Godless,

for Eysenck and Nazi psychology see:

(1) Rebel with a Cause (WH Allen, London: 1990) by Hans J Eysenck. (2) Hans Eysenck: The Man and His Work (Peter Owen, London: 1980) by RB Gibson. (3) Obituary by Chris Brand in Mankind Quarterly, Fall/Winter 1997 (pp 67-83).

and from an interview at Institute of Psychiatry, London University (February 1993):

Alexander Baron: People of a certain political persuasion have attempted to make out
that you are somehow sympathetic to Nazism. Is that true?

Professor Eysenck: Hardly. I left the country at some considerable risk to get
away from it. My grandmother died in a concentration camp, so that is another
thing. (She was a crippled victim of the euthanasia programme- WJP).

Eysenck left Germany as early as 1934. His stepfather was a Jew. His journey from liberal optimist/nurturist to semi-sceptic parallels that of the part-Jewish Art Jensen, with whom he did joint lecture tours. Both were consistent throughout their careers in adherence to the empirical; Eysenck says it was coming to Britain which taught him that what counts if what can be proved, and what works (or not). Hence, inter alia, he became one of the foremost figures in the counter-attack on the Viennese quack and his swindling successors.

Unlike Gould, for whose lies about Jewish IQ:

"Early IQ Testers, Immigration, And The Holocaust

"Gould's most inflammatory allegation consists of blaming IQ testers for magnifying the toll of those lost in the Holocaust (p. 263). Here he has followed the lead of Leon Kamin's (1974) The Science and Politics of IQ. The Kamin-Gould thesis is that early IQ testers claimed their research proved that Jews as a group scored low on their tests and that this finding was then conveniently used to support passage of the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 which then denied entry to hapless Jewish refugees in the 1930s. Gould goes so far as to claim (1996, pp. 195-198; 255-258) that Henry H. Goddard (in 1917) and Carl C. Brigham (in 1923) labeled four-fifths of Jewish immigrants as 'feeble-minded ... morons'.

"The facts are very different. Goddard wanted to find out if the Binet test was as effective at identifying 'high-grade defectives' (the term then used for those with mental ages between eight and twelve) among immigrants as it was among native-born Americans. By 1913, Goddard had translated the Binet test into English and arranged, over a two-and-a-half-month period, for it to be given to a subset of Jewish, Hungarian, Italian, and Russian immigrants "preselected as being neither 'obviously feeble-minded' nor 'obviously normal'" (Goddard, 1917, p. 244, emphasis added). Among this "unrepresentative" group (178 subjects in all), the tests successfully categorized 83% of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the Russians. Goddard (1917) explicitly did not assert that 80% of Russians, Jews, or any immigrant group in general were feeble minded nor that the figures were representative of all immigrants from those nations. Nor did he claim that the feeblemindedness he was measuring was due to heredity. The vast majority of the many immigrants going through Ellis Island were never given mental tests. Nor was a random sample of any national group of immigrants ever tested. The only study by Goddard involving the testing of immigrants begins with the following sentence: 'This is not a study of immigrants in general but of six small highly selected groups...'(1917, p. 243)."


from a review of 'The Mismeasure of Man' in
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 23, No. 1 (July 1997), pp. 169-180 by J. Philippe Rushton.

Gould is up with Margaret Mead or Kinsey for gullibility and intellectual slovenliness- to put it charitably.

Posted by: WJ Phillips at September 7, 2003 03:04 AM