This pattern holds internationally. If these tests were not getting at some underlying truth, we would see semiconductor fabs opening up in Latin America rather than Taiwan, and software production moving to Nigeria rather than India. This is simply rubbish. India has nearly 10 times as many people as Nigeria, so one would expect the talent pool to be 10 times as deep, even if mean IQ in both countries were the same. Indeed, wasn't it you, Razib, who put a post up mentioning that the mean IQ in India was 80?

Having actually participated in the decision-making process in one or two international investments, I don't think that "mean IQ" really has anything to do with it. People who don't have a chance to be educated don't make good software developers, and that applies whether we're talking about Pakistan or Sierra Leone. To imply that this says anything about their innate abilities, as you seem to be doing, is an insult to those who lack the good fortune you've had in terms of educational opportunities.

Touche :) Yeah, right. As if the social structure in Costa Rica had nothing to do with well-attested historical patterns of conquest. Those non-white Costa Ricans must have been playing on a level playing field from day one, mustn't they, Godlesscapitalist? What incredibly shoddy reasoning.

do you believe that there are biological differences between ethnic groups, and that these biological differences *could conceivably* include neurological differences Let me rephrase your question in a less loaded fashion, as the way you put it is excessively flattering to your position.

Do I believe that there are variations in the distributions of biological traits amongst the myriad ethnic groupings that exist on this planet? Of course I do; it is a self-evident fact that such differences exist.

To concede this much, which, in my view, is conceding very little, is not to buy into your position that the reason there is no software industry in, say, Zaire, as opposed to India, is because blacks are somehow intellectually inferior (because that's what's really at issue here) to Indians.

The truth is that you don't have a single shred of biological evidence yet to support the notion that blacks are somehow intellectually less capable than other groups; all you have to go on is a scenario that already has an explanation which is as solidly attested to as can be, namely that most of the black diaspora got to where it is by slavery, and that the British empire gave favorable treatment to groups like the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia, and Indians in East and Southern Africa.

Those successful Indians you like to boast so much about are largely of East African origin, Idi Amin's gift to the Western world. I've done business with quite a few, so I know what I'm talking about here. These folks were already successful before they got to the West, and that success was due in large part to the favored minority status they enjoyed during the days of the British Empire. The India of 1.2 billion individuals, the one in which poverty, ignorance and disease still remain rampant today, is far from being some sort of showcase for Indian innate IQ. Even with the economic growth since Rajiv Ghandi's reforms, per capita GDP is still lower than it is in much of Africa, and HIV is exploding across the subcontinent at such a pace that southern Africa will no longer be uniquely burdened by the disease.

As long as there are 1.2 billion Indians and Chinese apiece, as opposed to 600 million Africans and perhaps 400 millon South Americans, and as long as it remains true that neither the Chinese nor the Indian diasporas were created through slavery (no, indentured servitude is not slavery), it will be nonsense to make the sorts of claims you're making.

That's just not true - there is a ton of biological evidence, and we've gone into it at length in the archives. very brief, noncomprehensive review: Your "evidence" isn't evidence for the particular claim you want to make: that blacks have lower innate intelligence than others.

the-white-man-did-it This is as nonsensical an argument as they come. So what if "the white man did it?" If it happened, it happened, and let's face it, "the white man" did do a hell of a lot of things over the last 500 years. Why are you carrying water for him anyway? I'm white, and I don't feel a reflexive need to defend "the white man" against all accusations made against him.

See for all your trumped up, untested theories of "slavery" and "poverty" and "colonialism" What a bullshit statement! Are you trying to say that these things didn't happen, and that they didn't have pernicious effects on the people they happened to? This has got to be one of the most ignorant and intellectually dishonest statements I have ever read anywhere.

Your response just indicates to me that you seem to have an axe to grind where certain groups are concerned. Why should blacks or anyone else have to bear the burden of "proving" their intellectual capabilities to you? Who made you judge and juror over hundreds of millions of other souls? And how well do you think you'd do on any tests of intelligence if you were born to a poor mestizo or African family?

Mr. Malloy, you really are a piece of work. You don't think there's anything wrong with dismissing the capacities of hundreds of millions of people, but when anyone dares to point out that you're full of it, you suddenly get all snippy and defensive; one would think a person who likes dishing it out ought to be able to take a little of his own medicine, but you and Razib are extremely thin-skinned individuals.

I'm sorry that I didn't realize this was supposed to be the court of Louis XIV, with fawning sycophants uttering affirmations of your every thoughts, however shoddy, but I don't see myself playing the online equivalent of a Versailles courtier anytime soon. This post is simply a farrago of unsubstantiated, pejorative insinuations, and undeserving of being taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

The majority of those who have professional familiarity with all of the data are on our side with a ratio of three to one! Whoo haa! Argumentum ad Populam alert! You've gotta be kidding me if you think this proves anything whatsoever. Quite apart from the question of who exactly you think has "professional familiarity with all of the data", which I'm sure you'd define in such a manner as to tilt the playing field in your direction, it is still a fact that popularity proves nothing about the correctness of an argument. The biblical account of the creation, the notion of a flat earth, and the ptolemaic system with its epicycles, were all accepted wisdom amongst those with "professional familiarity" with such questions at some point, as was Newtonian physics and the notion that germs were spontaneously generated. I'd be ashamed of myself if I were ever caught out putting such nonsensical debating tactics to use on a public forum.

Unlike you I tend to bat for my own people But who are "my people?" Unlike you, I can't identify my interests with those of more than a billion others who share little in common with me other than their skin color.

I prefer to deal in the concrete rather than racial abstractions, and I certainly don't hate myself or feel the slightest bit of guilt about anything. To say that certain white people did bad things at some point in time is not to implicate myself in their deeds, any more than to say that Beethoven and Michelangelo created great art is to seek for myself a share in their glory.

And in that area the evidence for racial differences is overwhelming. Nobody is arguing about what we perceive in testing today, and to pretend otherwise is to introduce a red herring into the discussion. Let us stick to the main issue, namely, whether or not these differences are due to innate shortcomings of poorly-performing groups, or to other causes. Any theory that argues for the former will also have to account for the historical performance shortfalls of groups like the Irish in the UK, and the Burakumin in Japan, both of which tended to be about a standard deviation below the mean of the larger population, but differed hardly at all from the rest of the populace in any observable genetic traits. It is interesting to note, by the way, that the Irish test gap has disappeared as Ireland has grown wealthier; what "genetic" theory can explain that?

In any case, as gc has previously noted, some people prefer very elaborate environmental theories to relatively simple genetic ones (ergo, 'Modern-day epicyclists'). But I see no reason to do so. Some people prefer simplistic and braindead theories to elaborate ones because such theories are the only ones they can comprehend. Newtonian physics is a lot simpler than general relativity, so by your criterion it ought to be preferable to Einstein's thingamabob, ought it not? As Einstein himself is supposed to have once said, "things should be explained as simply as possible - but no simpler."

And for what it's worth, razib has a pretty thick skin from what I've seen. Certainly thicker than yours, in this venue. So you say, but he's the one who has resorted to foul language in the past in response to criticism, not I. A different gloss on your statement is that since you find his ideas simpatico with your own, you're more willing to overlook his shortcomings.

Gee, Martin, don't tell us what you really think about people whi disagree Oh please. Martin is right on this one - it's simply silly to dismiss genocide in the American context by saying "other people did it too."

What happened to the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas was a terrible crime, whether or not it was committed by "white people", and though Hugo Chavez is a dangerous demagogue, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Would Razib be so quick to defend the British if it were the Amritsar Massacre that were being addressed? Would you, who I assume to be of Korean ancestry, be clamoring to defend the Japanese for their use of Korean women as sex slaves, the experiments of Unit 731, or the Nanjing Massacre, if someone were to raise these issues as a point of contention?

There's nothing unique about pointing out historical iniquities in the manner Chavez has done, and it happens in other contexts all the time. Implying as Razib has here that this is all about "hating whitey" is simply ridiculous. It plays to the craving for victim status that many white people feel, but with which I share no sympathy. I am well aware of the privileges of my background, and I wouldn't want to be Asian, Hispanic or anything else for all the goodies affirmative action might offer.

what the fuck should i care about amritsar? because i'm brown? Nice language there, but no, not because you're brown, but because you're clearly of Indian extraction, so one would expect the issue to be brought home more clearly to you. If you mean to imply that you have absolutely no links binding you to India other than your name, fine then, but it was absolutely legitimate for me to bring up Amritsar.

Anyway, my broader point still stands. That atrocities have been carried out elsewhere does not mean that we are somehow obliged to ignore those that are of direct relevance to us. Would you have Hugo Chavez complain about Bantu or Japanese atrocities, simply to show he wasn't fulminating against "whitey?" And so what if he wouldn't be where he is without Spanish colonialism? That line of argument sounds suspiciously like Maureen Dowd's accusation that Clarence Thomas showed insufficient "gratitude." One can benefit from a historic injustice and still condemn it, without the slightest bit of contradiction or hypocrisy.

Jason, sorry about the mistake in ethnic identity. Your last name does sound Korean though, at least to my relatively uninformed ears. Looking it up, I see that the Soong family, whose last name bears such a resemblance to yours, was apparently of Hakka extraction, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, at least in retrospect.

my family is muslim, we don't have a close affiliation with the indian national movement and weren't too excited about switching a relatively benovelant overlord for those who had less reason to be emotionally uninvovled Well, that's certainly an interesting perspective. One learns something new every day.

do you as a white man have racial and ethnic consciousness about the injustices done to your ethnic group or are you just too far above that? I'm of predominantly English and German extraction. What injustices am I supposed to be conscious about?

I don't think the tests for "neuroticism" and all the rest are worth all that much either. This whole article is a laugh. Why should anyone believe that a 30 year old guy who didn't start his own business should have what it takes to run such a major corporation?

It's obvious that the only reason the young Murdoch is even in the running is because he's the son of the biggest shareholder. This is going to be a coronation, not a contest.

I don't think nepotism is all bad; for one thing, that Murdoch's father has such a big stake in the firm should ensure his undivided loyalty to its long term future, which isn't often the case with CEOs hired from outside.

Still, I maintain that there never has been any doubt that the younger Murdoch will eventually be crowned CEO, and I imagine that anyone else who is contacted by the headhunters to apply for the position will think he's being asked to take part in a meaningless charade.

Who knows whether or not Murdoch's son will lead the firm on to greater heights? I certainly don't. What I do know is that the pretence that this is an open audition is just ridiculous. This is as done a deal as they come.

[Rimbaud] was the product of an extremely intensive educational system Yes, the French have never had any qualms about tracking, and their system of Grande Ecoles really is something.

This is a real load of tripe, I have to say. How many ridiculous generalizations is it possible to stuff into one post? You go on and on about "pre-literate" this and "dark continent" that, but what do really know about Africa? Ever been there? Ever lived there? Ever seen more than one little corner of the second largest continent in the world?

Unless you're an Africa expert of some sort, I'm not going to take this sort of nonsense seriously. Anybody with the slightest clue about the history of the place would tell you that you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. Africa isn't a single undifferentiated mass, and dismissive nonsense like this makes you look bad, rather than the hundreds of millions of people you're so blithely looking down upon.

Wow! A lot's happened in my absence! To be fair to you, Razib, the additional remarks you've subsequently added give a lot of context that was simply absent from your original post. If you'd said all this to begin with, I wouldn't have had anything to get annoyed about.

Working in Central Africa on a mining project, I can tell you that we felt extremely keenly the impact of the tse-tse fly on our operations - it is a big killer of horses, and there were plenty of places where road transport was impractical and horses would have been a godsend.

What does this have to do with your post, you ask? It was hard - no, impossible - to set up large centralized kingdoms of the sort that were common in the middle east and the mediterranean when the only means of practical transport open to people was by foot. I think geography has been extremely unkind to Africa in this respect, as it meant that developments elsewhere in the world had a hard time penetrating to those parts of the continent that lay within the tse-tse fly belt. When you consider that this is still a problem today ... let's just say that I'll be the last person on earth to put Africans down as stupid or irresponsible, as I know I couldn't possibly survive the sorts of hardships they must live with on a lifelong basis.

So score one for GNXP There's nothing genetic about this, though, other than the fact that religion, like many other sociological traits, is usually (culturally) inherited. Last I heard, there was no such thing as a gene for either Islam or "honor killing."

Still, this is barbaric, and makes me look at Islam with even more of a jaundiced eye than I already do. Whenever I hear that "religion of piece" stuff I want to puke. I think it is true that there is a connection between educational accomplishment and religious fanaticism, so one benefit of a more talents-based immigration policy would be to keep the sorts of under-educated fanatics who carry out such barbarities out of the country.

Thus, I predict that people will be MORE fearful of competition in a homogenized society. I have to second your position. It seems clear to me that the less difference there is between people in their genetic potential, the greater the importance of chance environmental factors like birth circumstances will be, leading to more socialism rather than less.

In fact, this is as plausible an explanation for the socialistic tendencies of the scandinavians as most others. If my argument is correct, why anyone claiming to be a libertarian should be clamoring for Steve Sailer's hypothetical wall* is beyond me.

(*) By the way, that strikes as a truly nutty idea. Does either of Razib or Sailer have a clue just how great an undertaking it would be to build a WALL (of all things!) strong and high enough to shut off the USA from Mexico? And what happens when the Mexicans begin digging under it? Also, don't expect any cooperation from the Mexican authorities who would have to sit behind this wall of yours.

I mean, I support immigration reform too, but this idea of a wall across the Rio Grande smacks of hysteria and desparation.

The only problem with the Israel example is that it hasn't yet been shown to actually work! Just reading Haaretz and the Jerusalem Times, I see all the time that new tunnels have been found between Gaza and Egypt, or Gaza and Israel proper, so why should I believe that something like this would work on a continent-wide scale?

Then there's NAFTA to consider - I'm a believer in free trade, and any Israeli-style checkpoint would slow the pace of trade to a crawl, the cost of which isn't factored into back-of-the-envolope calculations like the one you made. And how do you deal with the environmental implications of slicing the North American continent in two? If people can't get through, how will the wild animals manage it?

I think it makes more sense to simply grant Mexicans an easy-to-get guest-worker system, with the proviso that (1) no family members may be brought along, and pregnant workers must either leave voluntarily or be deported (2) no naturalization will be possible (3) they could change employers without applying for permission (to avoid exploitative situations that would drive them back underground), and (4) any violation of these terms would mean ineligibility for 10-15 years.

Most of these illegal immigrants don't come to the USA with the intention of staying, if Victor Davis Hanson is correct; they all think they're going to make a little money, then head home to live large on their savings. A system that made it a lot easier for them to do just that would have a much more beneficial impact on the illegal immigration problem, without any of the destructive side-effects that Sailer's Wall (can we officially call it that from now on?) would have. Once a thing becomes easy to get, it becomes a lot less alluring.

self-esteem of less-capable minorities. And do you have any proof that they are intrinsically "less-capable"? That they are less well prepared to prosper in an academic environment is clear, but until some hard evidence comes in that they are held back by their own innate limitations, I'd rather we refrained from derogatory rhetoric of this sort, if you don't mind.

The European situation* is precisely why I suggested that no spouses be brought along, and that pregnant women be sent home.

Here's an alternative, less offensive approach: we could simply stipulate that no more than six months in a row be spent in the U.S, with a break of at least a month between trips. That way, we could screen out those who are already pregnant as unable to work, while making sure that those who get pregnant in America have their bambinos at home - all without having to make the rationale explicit, or even needing to treat the two sexes at all differently (damn, I'm proud of this one!)

As for the left end-of-the-bell-curve, how many of them do you think would be willing to work as day laborers picking cotton at any rate that would be competitive on world markets? If the Mexicans don't do these jobs, they simply won't be done in America, and the farming lobby is a lot more powerful than immigration-reform advocates will ever be. Sailer's Wall would be a political, economic and ecological disaster, while mine would have the benefit of allowing free trade to continue unimpeded, without any of the drawbacks of a wall. Plus, as a practical political matter, I think my position is far more likely to get the necessary political support for adoption, and politics is the art of the possible, isn't it?

(*) I'm thinking of Germany's Turkish guest-workers.

The libertarian/socialist thing isn't really the WN beef. In the White Nationalist model only a homogeneous society is good. Jews undermine that inflexible vision by way of their very existence (as a heterogeneous element). So there's no real winning this argument; as long as (most) jewish individuals think they have a right to exist or believe that they have claim to any sort of civil-rights (however these needs are politically expressed), WNs will always have their (rather meaningless) "gotcha". Dude, you are so right I can't even find the right words to express how much I agree with you. There is something pathological about their strange obsession with Jews.

The only thing unique here is the competence/intelligence of those involved. I suspect that's the thing that bugs these guys the most about Jews - being beaten at the very game they wish to play.