quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Reality is stubborn. Biological reality will NOT change because you want it to. It will NOT change because of the political winds of our time. It will NOT change because it is "wrong". It will NOT change because of faith. It will NOT change despite all the ad hominems one wants to use to condemn it or the messenger. It will NOT change except by evolutionary processes.
Your use of anaphora clearly displays your ineffectiveness, which is why you feel compelled to resort to such redundant rhetorical devices. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [qb] [QUOTE]Of all those in this thread you certainly have the sharpest tongue.
You think my tongue is sharp, because your mind is so dull.
It's true that I 'cut to the quick', but then you're and easy mark, so....
quote:Great, you've added "dull" to the long list of insults.
It seems you are too dull to notice the my use of dull simply juxtaposes your use of sharp.
In other words, it went right over your dull head.
Whining about 'being insulted' is just another form of excuse making for your intellectual failures.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: This is what happens when you romanticize reality and hope that those "draining ideologies" just go away by ignoring them.
Of course I'm to ignore any ideology since it hinders the process of fact finding in the context of science. Your particular ideology is simply an interference to objectivity, which is why you drown the thread with so much meaningless rhetoric. Though I do appreciate you owning up to the fact that you are indeed nothing more than a victim of ideology.
quote:They continue to fester, they gain more momentum, more evidence, and it hits you like a ton of bricks.
More nonsense from you. It's ironic that you criticize wordsmiths given that the majority of your posts consists of delusional rantings about the inevitability of evidence piling up in favor of your seemingly bunk thesis. Though us undistracted, rational people can see the contrast in that mainstream academia surely doesn't see such a trend, especially the American Psychological Association, who directly contradicts you ("what little evidence there is, fails to support the genetic explanation"). Of course, you live in a world external to our perception.
quote:With regard to IQ, there is mountains of evidence supporting my side, only scattered tattered bits supporting yours (propped up by mainstream non-scientists and hacks like Lieberman who claim race doesn't exist yet did an study on race; what did he do, get two White kids and call one of them black to find that their IQ is equal? lol). Had you not ignored this for so long, it wouldn't have been so hard a pill to swallow.
Fibs, ad hominems, distortions, generalizations, and plain old delusions are what you've been pathetically reduced to in repetition. Now Lieberman is a "hack", but Rushton isn't, and now the American Psychological Association is wrong, but you, a referenceless and ideologically driven/anonymous poster on Egypt search, are right, as far as presenting the established consensus view? Surely these illusions of yours have taken you to the deep end of fairy tale lake.
quote:Watson knew it. Spencer knows it. You now know it. I know it. It's not so hard is it? It's generally excepted anyway, but we can still live in polite society. Equality under the law doesn't mean we have to be biologically the same.
The people you cite had absolutely no evidence to offer, which is convenient since when one "knows" something, they often are able to demonstrate it, which isn't the case. Watson's own scientific colleagues condemned him, as well as his audience, so by "everybody", I assume that you mean Watson. Surely racist people still exist, so this isn't surprising that racist people would make racist comments. What separates that from science is being able to prove it. Surely, "everybody" in the middle ages knew that Europeans were dull witted and barbaric, as many still in fact hold true today.
quote:You can't and shouldn't supress knowledge. Have you learned anything from the story of Galileo?
I've read all the sources you've cited. I've investigated it because I'm interested in the topic. So to say I've only focused on one ideology is completely flawed. All the research leads to this ideology.
I'm not into playing coy or being naive about what the APA says. Anybody remotely intelligent can see that they're saying genetics is at the root of race disparities without actually saying it. Truth eventually trumps politics. It's just a matter of time.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just tell me please that you don't buy this bunk.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: other info from wiki.
The Nri Kingdom is the oldest Kingdom in what is now known as Nigeria today. ... modern day popular dating ... 900AD ...
But if so, you reall need to go here and skip down to the FOUNDATIONS section. Also go here and pay attention to several of Myra's posts.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I've read all the sources you've cited. I've investigated it because I'm interested in the topic. So to say I've only focused on one ideology is completely flawed. All the research leads to this ideology.
I'm not into playing coy or being naive about what the APA says. Anybody remotely intelligent can see that they're saying genetics is at the root of race disparities without actually saying it. Truth eventually trumps politics. It's just a matter of time.
Clearly you haven't read anything I've cited since you've provided no competent rebuttal. Your political spin garbage is non-applicable to the scientific assessments being addressed, but of course the premise of your entire argument stems from political ideology, so I expect nothing more I suppose.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
I've read all the sources you've cited. I've investigated it because I'm interested in the topic. So to say I've only focused on one ideology is completely flawed. All the research leads to this ideology.
I'm not into playing coy or being naive about what the APA says. Anybody remotely intelligent can see that they're saying genetics is at the root of race disparities without actually saying it. Truth eventually trumps politics. It's just a matter of time.
Clearly you haven't read anything I've cited since you've provided no competent rebuttal. Your political spin garbage is non-applicable to the scientific assessments being addressed, but of course the premise of your entire argument stems from political ideology, so I expect nothing more I suppose.
You posted politics, not science. This is about science, not condeming people because biological truth may hurt peoples' feelings.
Refer to the table yet again, please. Digest it for awhile.
Heck, Imus was condemned by his colleagues for being a racist. Is Imus racist? No. But what he said was not PC, so "everybody" condemned him. In the end, he won millions in his lawsuit, because he was right and "all of them" were wrong.
In science, reaction is that much worse. When studies show an ugly truth and that truth is reported it's backlash city.
All of your attempts at obfuscation fall flat. I used to use the very same arguments you all have, but I realized I was being disingenuine in the face of reality.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
3) Environment has NO ROLE in the development of civilization but plays 100% ROLE in the development of individual intelligence.
4) Genes play NO ROLE in intelligence and intelligence is NOT heritable.
5) There is no Black-White IQ gap despite 100 years of research to the contrary.
6) IQ is meaningless
7) Race doesn't exist.
8) Evolution can lead to new species being created, various breeds, all with different morphologies, temperament, dispositions, intelligences, but the same laws of evolution do NOT hold true for humans. It's just inapplicable, because, well, he says so.
That pretty much sums up Rasol's position and yours. It's really trite stuff and easily refuted. You've been beaten in this debate folks.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's amazing how you can't see the irony in your post.
The principal irony in this thread has already been denoted.....
You advocate for the notion of innate intelligence, while providing a personal example of ineducable illiteracy.
You attempt to take a false pride in the notion of 'group IO', but lack the self respect that is required in order for you to educate yourself.
More diffusion, deception, and attacks.
The usual "educate yourself" ad hominem or "read this book" appeals to authority. You've been served in this thread.
Your main reponses have been:
1) Name-calling
2) Refer to Mismeasure of Man (laughable) and other books which support MY position not yours, if you're not naive enough not to see it
Aside from that, you've offered nothing.
Refer to The Bell Curve as a start. If you want something more damning and of higher caliber read Jensen's book the G Factor.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: You posted politics, not science. This is about science, not condeming people because biological truth may hurt peoples' feelings.
Refer to the table yet again, please. Digest it for awhile.
Heck, Imus was condemned by his colleagues for being a racist. Is Imus racist? No. But what he said was not PC, so "everybody" condemned him. In the end, he won millions in his lawsuit, because he was right and "all of them" were wrong.
In science, reaction is that much worse. When studies show an ugly truth and that truth is reported it's backlash city.
All of your attempts at obfuscation fall flat. I used to use the very same arguments you all have, but I realized I was being disingenuine in the face of reality.
No, what I posted was an assessment put fourth by a renowned geneticist in direct critique of a supposed discipline imposing its self onto their field as an authoritative reference for human biodiversity. Data was cited therein, yet you have miserably failed to comment. This is not surprising since you've been exposed previously as feigning an interest in the literature in question, the same literature which you've yet to read, yet choose to criticize politically. Your table is spin garbage, not data.
Hopefully you remember when I addressed the IQ and Wealth of Nations? Well here's a relevant paper with the accompanying data table, which basically again, refutes your bogus position, as has been done ad nauseum by so many. .................................................................
A Few Thoughts on IQ and the Wealth of Nations
By Steve Sailer
I want to contribute some observations about the landmark book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn of the U. of Ulster and Tatu Vanhanen of the U. of Helsinki. It was the subject of an extremely informative Feb. 27th VDARE.COM review by J. Philippe Rushton, which this is intended to complement.
The book's content is irresistible - at its heart is a table of the average IQ scores of 81 different countries, most drawn from studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The national average IQs range from 107 for Hong Kong to 59 for Equatorial Guinea.
Lynn and Vanhanen benchmarked their IQ results so that Britain is 100. America scores 98 on this scale, and the world average is 90. IQ's are assumed to form a normal probability distribution ("bell curve") with the standard deviation set at 15. Here are a few examples:
Admit it, you want to know what the rest of the table says! Beyond satisfying sheer curiosity, though, the strong correlation between IQ and the wealth of nations is of world-historical importance. From now on, no public intellectual can seriously claim to be attempting to understand how the world works unless he takes IQ into account.
How much can we trust these IQ results?
As soon as I received the book, I turned to Appendix 1, where Lynn and Vanhanen describe all 168 national IQ studies they've found - an average of just over two per country.
Are the results internally consistent? In other words, when there are multiple studies for a single country, do they tend to give roughly the same answer?
I expected a sizable amount of internal divergence. I spent 18 years in the marketing research industry, so I know how expensive it is to come up with a nationally representative sample. Further, Lynn and Vanhanen use results from quite different IQ tests. They rely most on the non-verbal Raven's Progressive Matrices, which were designed to be used across cultures, even by illiterates. Yet, they also have a lot of results from the Wechsler exams, which are more culture dependent - the Wechsler include a vocabulary subtest, for example. And they report results from other IQ tests, including a few from the oddball Goodenough-Harris Draw-A-Man test. Also, sample sizes vary dramatically, from a few dozen in some obscure countries to 64,000 for one American study. Finally, some studies were of children, others of adults.
This doesn't sound promising. Nevertheless, the results show a high degree of internal consistency. Here are the first eight countries for which they have multiple scores:
Argentina: 93 and 98 Australia: 97, 98, and 99 Austria: 101, 103 Belgium: 99, 103, 98 Brazil: 88, 84, 90, and 85 Bulgaria: 94, 91 China: 100, 92.5, 103.4 Democratic Republic of Congo: 73, 72
That's not bad at all. In fact, leaving aside China, the results are remarkably consistent. There are, of course, a few countries for which different studies came up with quite divergent results, especially Poland, where the two scores Lynn and Vanhanen found were 92 and 106. Still, the correlation among results when there are two or more studies for a country is a striking 0.94.
You shouldn't take every score on faith. The reported IQ for Israel (only 94????!!!) has elicited much criticism. Lynn has replied that he wanted to publish the data as he found it, even if some of it looked implausible. His hope is to encourage further research to resolve seeming anomalies.
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.
But we can't say with any confidence what is the long run IQ potential of Indians overall. Their current IQ score (81) is low, especially compared to China (100), the other country with hundreds of millions of poor peasants. Yet, keep in mind just how narrow life in rural India was for so long. In 1952, on the fifth anniversary of independence, the Indian government commissioned a survey to find out if the average Indian villager had heard yet that the British had gone. The study was quietly cancelled when early results showed that the average villager had never heard that the British had ever arrived!
It appears likely that some combination of malnutrition, disease, inbreeding, lack of education, lack of mental stimulation, lack of familiarity with abstract reasoning and so forth can keep people from reaching their genetic potential for IQ. Lynn himself did early studies demonstrating that malnutrition drives down IQ. The co-authors conclude their book by recommending that
"The rich countries' economic aid programs for the poor countries should be continued and some of these should be directed at attempting to increase the intelligence levels of the populations of the poorer countries by improvements in nutrition and the like."
A clear example of how a bad environment can hurt IQ can be seen in the IQ scores for sub-Saharan African countries. They average only around 70. In contrast, African-Americans average about 85 [but has since then, increased by 6 pts relative to whites]. It appears unlikely that African-Americans’ white admixture can account for most of this 15-point gap because they are only around 17%-18% white on average, according to the latest genetic research. (Thus African-Americans white genes probably couldn't account for more than 3 points of the gap between African-Americans and African-Africans.) This suggests that the harshness of life in Africa might be cutting ten points or more off African IQ scores.
Similarly, West Africans are significantly shorter in height than their distant cousins in America, most likely due to malnutrition and infections. The two African-born NBA superstars, Hakeem Olajuwon and Dikembe Mutombo, are both from the wa-benzi [people of the (Mercedes ) Benz]upper class. Only the elite in Africa gets enough food and health care to grow up to be NBA centers.
This also implies that African-Americans might be able to achieve higher IQs too, although the environmental gap between white Americans and black Americans appears to be much smaller than between black Americans and black Africans. As I pointed out in VDARE in 2000, the most promising avenue for improving African-Americans' IQs is by promoting breastfeeding among blacks mothers, who nurse their babies at much lower rates than whites.
In fact, we know that IQ is not completely fixed over time because raw test scores have been rising for decades, about 2 to 3 points per decade. To counteract this, the IQ test-making firms periodically make it harder - in absolute terms - to achieve a score of 100. Lynn was possibly the first scientist to make this phenomenon widely known, although New Zealand political scientist James Flynn has gotten more credit for this recently. And, indeed, Lynn and Vanhanen scrupulously adjust the test results in their book to account for when each test was taken.
While the causes of the Lynn-Flynn Effect remain rather mysterious, it does resemble several other ongoing phenomena. For example, human beings are getting taller, living longer, and having fewer of their babies die during infancy.
One might expect IQ scores to converge as the richest nations experience diminishing marginal returns on improvements in nutrition, health, and education. By way of analogy, consider how, after 1950, average height has not grown as fast in already well-fed America as it has in rapidly developing East Asia.
It's unlikely the Japanese will ever be as tall on average as, say, Lithuanians or Croatians or African-Americans. But the gap has closed. This partial convergence in height is why you now see 6'-2" East Asian baseball pitchers like Hideo Nomo and Chan Ho Park starring in the American big leagues. Last year Wang Zhizhi, 7’-1” became the first Asian ever to join the NBA.
Perhaps that kind of convergence will happen with IQ scores someday. But the evidence that it is happening now isn't terribly strong. The odd thing about the Lynn-Flynn Effect is that it doesn't seem to have had much impact on comparative rankings of IQ over time. The smart seem to keep on getting smarter.
For instance, one of the best-documented examples of a country with rising raw IQ scores is the Netherlands (current IQ: 102). But even as far back as the 17th Century, the general opinion of mankind was that the Dutch had a lot on the ball.
One potential explanation for why IQ gaps don't seem to be narrowing (for example, the white-black IQ gap in America has been about 15 points for 80 years or so) was offered by Flynn recently. He argued that smart people, because they find cognitive challenges pleasurable, seek out more mentally stimulating environments, which in turn exercise their brains more, making them even smarter. This suggests, for example, that the Dutch will tend to become, say, Internet addicts demanding constant fixes of new information and argument, and thus continue to grow in mental firepower.
While unproven, Flynn’s suggestion seems possible. In absolute terms, it's a virtuous circle. But it seems unlikely to lead to the closing of the relative gap.
Ultimately, though, it is hard to avoid concluding that intellectual and income differences between nations stem to some extent from genetic differences. The results simply cluster too much by race. All the countries populated by Northeast Asians score between 100 and 107. The European-populated lands score between 90 and 102. Southeast Asian nations cluster in the low 90s. The Caucasian countries in North Africa and western Asia score mostly in the 80s. And so forth.
The correlation between national IQ and national income is very high. For the 81 countries, the r is .73 for GDP measured in purchasing power parity terms (which makes poor nations with lots of subsistence farmers look better off than they do in standard measures of just the cash economy). In the social sciences, correlations of 0.2 are said to be "low," 0.4 are "moderate," and 0.6 are "high." So 0.73 is most impressive.
This doesn't mean that a high IQ alone is the cause of a high income. Causation probably runs in both directions, in another virtuous circle. Rich countries tend to produce enough food to stave off malnutrition, for instance, which probably leads to higher IQs, which leads to even higher food production due to more sophisticated farming techniques.
Interestingly, per capita income correlates almost as strongly with a nation's level of economic freedom as it does with its level of intelligence. But that's in large part because economic freedom and IQ correlate with each other - at the high level of 0.63.
Freedom and brains probably contribute to each other. Although there are obvious exceptions, countries with smart workers (and smart leaders) tended to find that the capitalist system generated wealth. So there was less impetus to experiment with command economies than in places where free enterprise wasn't getting the job done.
But it could also be that freedom exercises the brain - West Germans averaged 103 while East Germans scored only 95. My pet theory is that having to make all the choices between products available in a successful capitalist economy stimulates mental development. (I believe this because, as I get older and stupider, I increasingly find shopping to be intellectually exhausting.) But evidence for this is not abundant.
Culture can play a role as well - at the extreme, contrast two countries with almost identical per capita GDPs: Barbados and Argentina (at least before Argentina's recent economic collapse). Don't cry for Argentina, because it is blessed with ample IQ (96). But it's dragged down by a notorious lack of economic and political self-discipline. In contrast, Barbados, despite an average IQ of 78, is one of the most pleasant countries in the 3rd World due to its commitment to maintaining a veddy, veddy English culture.
Still, these two countries are close to being the exceptions that prove the rule. The explanatory power of the "cultural realist" models like Thomas Sowell’s are necessarily more limited than those of "biocultural realist" like Richard Lynn. In general, cultures that emphasize, say, foresight are generally found in countries where people have enough IQ to be foresighted. Maybe people in northern countries tend to have higher IQs because people too unintelligent to effectively prepare for winter tended to get removed from the gene pool.
The IQ-income correlation is not perfect either. But even where it breaks down - most notably with China - IQ helps explain otherwise puzzling developments like the recent headline in the New York Times announcing "Globalization Proves Disappointing."
Globalization, or the fast-paced growth of trade and cross-border investment, has done far less to raise the incomes of the world's poorest people than the leaders had hoped, many officials here say. The vast majority of people living in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle East are no better off today than they were in 1989..."
On the other hand, hundreds of billions in private investment have poured into China, which, despite its parasitical ruling caste, has enjoyed strong economic growth.
So what's the story behind this story? Apparently, capital flows to where wages are low but IQs are high - pre-eminently China, where the average IQ is two points higher than the U.S. already and likely to go higher as economic development continues.
In contrast, these other regions (with the exception of Argentina) average IQs of 90 or less, sometimes considerably less.
This is not to disparage free markets - there's no alternative. The point is simply that humans differ greatly in productive capacity, so not everyone benefits from economic competition to the same extent.
The implications for immigration policy are clear.
First, any conceivable level of immigration to America is insufficient to make any difference in the welfare of the billions of foreigners living in poverty.
Second, in a world where the average IQ is 90, America's nepotism-driven immigration system (legal and illegal) will continue to import primarily foreigners with two-digit IQs. These immigrants' skills are typically insufficient to compete with our native IQ elite, but are ample for driving down the wages of our fellow American citizens who were not blessed in the IQ lottery.
The morality of such a system I leave to the reader to decide.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: This is what happens when you romanticize reality and hope that those "draining ideologies" just go away by ignoring them. They continue to fester, they gain more momentum, more evidence, and it hits you like a ton of bricks.
With regard to IQ, there is mountains of evidence supporting my side, only scattered tattered bits supporting yours (propped up by mainstream non-scientist journalists and hacks like Lieberman who claim race doesn't exist yet did an study on race; what did he do, get two White kids and call one of them black to find that their IQ is equal? lol). Had you not ignored this for so long, it wouldn't have been so hard a pill to swallow.
Watson knew it. Spencer knows it. You now know it. I know it. It's not so hard is it? It's generally excepted anyway, but we can still live in polite society. Equality under the law doesn't mean we have to be biologically the same.
You can't and shouldn't supress knowledge. Have you learned anything from the story of Galileo?
What is YOUR side? The point here is that MODERN societies like "The West" were built on a propensity and willingness to USE VIOLENCE to gain the upper hand militarily, economically and socially. THAT has nothing to do with IQ. The wholesale PLUNDER of the Americas was the result of GREED, not IQ. The creation of slavery was the result of GREED, not IQ. IQ has NOTHING to do with the rise of MODERN civilization in the way you are TRYING to pretend. The fact is that Africa and elsewhere HAD civilizations and organized societies LONG before Europe and that the ONLY reason people like the natives and Africans are not MORE developed is because of the history of the oppression and destruction of the civilizations and societies of these peoples by "The West". And the funny part is that this ONLY came about due the "the West" learning about gunpowder FROM THE MOOORS. Again, IQ has nothing to do with this. The Chinese, Arabs and African Moors had gunpowder BEFORE Europe, yet did not take it to the level of Europeans. Is this because of CULTURE or because of IQ? It is largely because of CULTURE, especially in China, but also among the Muslims. That IS NOT IQ. Europeans did not originate it, but that ONE TECHNOLOGY, is the MAIN reason that they eventually became predominant on the world stage. And AGAIN, if it WASNT for the MOORS in Spain, a LOT OF THIS would NOT have happened. Another thing that "The West" learned from the Moors was the importance of EDUCATION. It is from the Moors that Europe began developing advanced education in Universities and schools. Because before the Moors, MOST of Europe was illiterate. After this, the Christian Church became the source of most education, copying the models of the Madrassas of Moorish Spain. THAT system is what eventually began the great amount of knowledge and "higher IQ" of the average European. Unfortunately for Islam, the loss of Moorish Spain, with numerous arabic works on math, science and philosophy, was unrecoverable. They never regained their predominance in the sciences since this time. So take that B.S. about IQ and "intelligence" somewhere and learn REAL HISTORY not nonsense.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: You posted politics, not science. This is about science, not condeming people because biological truth may hurt peoples' feelings.
Refer to the table yet again, please. Digest it for awhile.
Heck, Imus was condemned by his colleagues for being a racist. Is Imus racist? No. But what he said was not PC, so "everybody" condemned him. In the end, he won millions in his lawsuit, because he was right and "all of them" were wrong.
In science, reaction is that much worse. When studies show an ugly truth and that truth is reported it's backlash city.
All of your attempts at obfuscation fall flat. I used to use the very same arguments you all have, but I realized I was being disingenuine in the face of reality.
No, what I posted was an assessment put fourth by a renowned geneticist in direct critique of a supposed discipline imposing its self onto their field as an authoritative reference for human biodiversity. Data was cited therein, yet you have miserably failed to comment. This is not surprising since you've been exposed previously as feigning an interest in the literature in question, the same literature which you've yet to read, yet choose to criticize politically. Your table is spin garbage, not data.
Hopefully you remember when I addressed the IQ and Wealth of Nations? Well here's a relevant paper with the accompanying data table, which basically again, refutes your bogus position, as has been done ad nauseum by so many. .................................................................
A Few Thoughts on IQ and the Wealth of Nations
By Steve Sailer
I want to contribute some observations about the landmark book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn of the U. of Ulster and Tatu Vanhanen of the U. of Helsinki. It was the subject of an extremely informative Feb. 27th VDARE.COM review by J. Philippe Rushton, which this is intended to complement.
The book's content is irresistible - at its heart is a table of the average IQ scores of 81 different countries, most drawn from studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The national average IQs range from 107 for Hong Kong to 59 for Equatorial Guinea.
Lynn and Vanhanen benchmarked their IQ results so that Britain is 100. America scores 98 on this scale, and the world average is 90. IQ's are assumed to form a normal probability distribution ("bell curve") with the standard deviation set at 15. Here are a few examples:
Admit it, you want to know what the rest of the table says! Beyond satisfying sheer curiosity, though, the strong correlation between IQ and the wealth of nations is of world-historical importance. From now on, no public intellectual can seriously claim to be attempting to understand how the world works unless he takes IQ into account.
How much can we trust these IQ results?
As soon as I received the book, I turned to Appendix 1, where Lynn and Vanhanen describe all 168 national IQ studies they've found - an average of just over two per country.
Are the results internally consistent? In other words, when there are multiple studies for a single country, do they tend to give roughly the same answer?
I expected a sizable amount of internal divergence. I spent 18 years in the marketing research industry, so I know how expensive it is to come up with a nationally representative sample. Further, Lynn and Vanhanen use results from quite different IQ tests. They rely most on the non-verbal Raven's Progressive Matrices, which were designed to be used across cultures, even by illiterates. Yet, they also have a lot of results from the Wechsler exams, which are more culture dependent - the Wechsler include a vocabulary subtest, for example. And they report results from other IQ tests, including a few from the oddball Goodenough-Harris Draw-A-Man test. Also, sample sizes vary dramatically, from a few dozen in some obscure countries to 64,000 for one American study. Finally, some studies were of children, others of adults.
This doesn't sound promising. Nevertheless, the results show a high degree of internal consistency. Here are the first eight countries for which they have multiple scores:
Argentina: 93 and 98 Australia: 97, 98, and 99 Austria: 101, 103 Belgium: 99, 103, 98 Brazil: 88, 84, 90, and 85 Bulgaria: 94, 91 China: 100, 92.5, 103.4 Democratic Republic of Congo: 73, 72
That's not bad at all. In fact, leaving aside China, the results are remarkably consistent. There are, of course, a few countries for which different studies came up with quite divergent results, especially Poland, where the two scores Lynn and Vanhanen found were 92 and 106. Still, the correlation among results when there are two or more studies for a country is a striking 0.94.
You shouldn't take every score on faith. The reported IQ for Israel (only 94????!!!) has elicited much criticism. Lynn has replied that he wanted to publish the data as he found it, even if some of it looked implausible. His hope is to encourage further research to resolve seeming anomalies.
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.
But we can't say with any confidence what is the long run IQ potential of Indians overall. Their current IQ score (81) is low, especially compared to China (100), the other country with hundreds of millions of poor peasants. Yet, keep in mind just how narrow life in rural India was for so long. In 1952, on the fifth anniversary of independence, the Indian government commissioned a survey to find out if the average Indian villager had heard yet that the British had gone. The study was quietly cancelled when early results showed that the average villager had never heard that the British had ever arrived!
It appears likely that some combination of malnutrition, disease, inbreeding, lack of education, lack of mental stimulation, lack of familiarity with abstract reasoning and so forth can keep people from reaching their genetic potential for IQ. Lynn himself did early studies demonstrating that malnutrition drives down IQ. The co-authors conclude their book by recommending that
"The rich countries' economic aid programs for the poor countries should be continued and some of these should be directed at attempting to increase the intelligence levels of the populations of the poorer countries by improvements in nutrition and the like."
A clear example of how a bad environment can hurt IQ can be seen in the IQ scores for sub-Saharan African countries. They average only around 70. In contrast, African-Americans average about 85. It appears unlikely that African-Americans’ white admixture can account for most of this 15-point gap because they are only around 17%-18% white on average, according to the latest genetic research. (Thus African-Americans white genes probably couldn't account for more than 3 points of the gap between African-Americans and African-Africans.) This suggests that the harshness of life in Africa might be cutting ten points or more off African IQ scores.
Similarly, West Africans are significantly shorter in height than their distant cousins in America, most likely due to malnutrition and infections. The two African-born NBA superstars, Hakeem Olajuwon and Dikembe Mutombo, are both from the wa-benzi [people of the (Mercedes ) Benz]upper class. Only the elite in Africa gets enough food and health care to grow up to be NBA centers.
This also implies that African-Americans might be able to achieve higher IQs too, although the environmental gap between white Americans and black Americans appears to be much smaller than between black Americans and black Africans. As I pointed out in VDARE in 2000, the most promising avenue for improving African-Americans' IQs is by promoting breastfeeding among blacks mothers, who nurse their babies at much lower rates than whites.
In fact, we know that IQ is not completely fixed over time because raw test scores have been rising for decades, about 2 to 3 points per decade. To counteract this, the IQ test-making firms periodically make it harder - in absolute terms - to achieve a score of 100. Lynn was possibly the first scientist to make this phenomenon widely known, although New Zealand political scientist James Flynn has gotten more credit for this recently. And, indeed, Lynn and Vanhanen scrupulously adjust the test results in their book to account for when each test was taken.
While the causes of the Lynn-Flynn Effect remain rather mysterious, it does resemble several other ongoing phenomena. For example, human beings are getting taller, living longer, and having fewer of their babies die during infancy.
One might expect IQ scores to converge as the richest nations experience diminishing marginal returns on improvements in nutrition, health, and education. By way of analogy, consider how, after 1950, average height has not grown as fast in already well-fed America as it has in rapidly developing East Asia.
It's unlikely the Japanese will ever be as tall on average as, say, Lithuanians or Croatians or African-Americans. But the gap has closed. This partial convergence in height is why you now see 6'-2" East Asian baseball pitchers like Hideo Nomo and Chan Ho Park starring in the American big leagues. Last year Wang Zhizhi, 7’-1” became the first Asian ever to join the NBA.
Perhaps that kind of convergence will happen with IQ scores someday. But the evidence that it is happening now isn't terribly strong. The odd thing about the Lynn-Flynn Effect is that it doesn't seem to have had much impact on comparative rankings of IQ over time. The smart seem to keep on getting smarter.
For instance, one of the best-documented examples of a country with rising raw IQ scores is the Netherlands (current IQ: 102). But even as far back as the 17th Century, the general opinion of mankind was that the Dutch had a lot on the ball.
One potential explanation for why IQ gaps don't seem to be narrowing (for example, the white-black IQ gap in America has been about 15 points for 80 years or so) was offered by Flynn recently. He argued that smart people, because they find cognitive challenges pleasurable, seek out more mentally stimulating environments, which in turn exercise their brains more, making them even smarter. This suggests, for example, that the Dutch will tend to become, say, Internet addicts demanding constant fixes of new information and argument, and thus continue to grow in mental firepower.
While unproven, Flynn’s suggestion seems possible. In absolute terms, it's a virtuous circle. But it seems unlikely to lead to the closing of the relative gap.
Ultimately, though, it is hard to avoid concluding that intellectual and income differences between nations stem to some extent from genetic differences. The results simply cluster too much by race. All the countries populated by Northeast Asians score between 100 and 107. The European-populated lands score between 90 and 102. Southeast Asian nations cluster in the low 90s. The Caucasian countries in North Africa and western Asia score mostly in the 80s. And so forth.
The correlation between national IQ and national income is very high. For the 81 countries, the r is .73 for GDP measured in purchasing power parity terms (which makes poor nations with lots of subsistence farmers look better off than they do in standard measures of just the cash economy). In the social sciences, correlations of 0.2 are said to be "low," 0.4 are "moderate," and 0.6 are "high." So 0.73 is most impressive.
This doesn't mean that a high IQ alone is the cause of a high income. Causation probably runs in both directions, in another virtuous circle. Rich countries tend to produce enough food to stave off malnutrition, for instance, which probably leads to higher IQs, which leads to even higher food production due to more sophisticated farming techniques.
Interestingly, per capita income correlates almost as strongly with a nation's level of economic freedom as it does with its level of intelligence. But that's in large part because economic freedom and IQ correlate with each other - at the high level of 0.63.
Freedom and brains probably contribute to each other. Although there are obvious exceptions, countries with smart workers (and smart leaders) tended to find that the capitalist system generated wealth. So there was less impetus to experiment with command economies than in places where free enterprise wasn't getting the job done.
But it could also be that freedom exercises the brain - West Germans averaged 103 while East Germans scored only 95. My pet theory is that having to make all the choices between products available in a successful capitalist economy stimulates mental development. (I believe this because, as I get older and stupider, I increasingly find shopping to be intellectually exhausting.) But evidence for this is not abundant.
Culture can play a role as well - at the extreme, contrast two countries with almost identical per capita GDPs: Barbados and Argentina (at least before Argentina's recent economic collapse). Don't cry for Argentina, because it is blessed with ample IQ (96). But it's dragged down by a notorious lack of economic and political self-discipline. In contrast, Barbados, despite an average IQ of 78, is one of the most pleasant countries in the 3rd World due to its commitment to maintaining a veddy, veddy English culture.
Still, these two countries are close to being the exceptions that prove the rule. The explanatory power of the "cultural realist" models like Thomas Sowell’s are necessarily more limited than those of "biocultural realist" like Richard Lynn. In general, cultures that emphasize, say, foresight are generally found in countries where people have enough IQ to be foresighted. Maybe people in northern countries tend to have higher IQs because people too unintelligent to effectively prepare for winter tended to get removed from the gene pool.
The IQ-income correlation is not perfect either. But even where it breaks down - most notably with China - IQ helps explain otherwise puzzling developments like the recent headline in the New York Times announcing "Globalization Proves Disappointing."
Globalization, or the fast-paced growth of trade and cross-border investment, has done far less to raise the incomes of the world's poorest people than the leaders had hoped, many officials here say. The vast majority of people living in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle East are no better off today than they were in 1989..."
On the other hand, hundreds of billions in private investment have poured into China, which, despite its parasitical ruling caste, has enjoyed strong economic growth.
So what's the story behind this story? Apparently, capital flows to where wages are low but IQs are high - pre-eminently China, where the average IQ is two points higher than the U.S. already and likely to go higher as economic development continues.
In contrast, these other regions (with the exception of Argentina) average IQs of 90 or less, sometimes considerably less.
This is not to disparage free markets - there's no alternative. The point is simply that humans differ greatly in productive capacity, so not everyone benefits from economic competition to the same extent.
The implications for immigration policy are clear.
First, any conceivable level of immigration to America is insufficient to make any difference in the welfare of the billions of foreigners living in poverty.
Second, in a world where the average IQ is 90, America's nepotism-driven immigration system (legal and illegal) will continue to import primarily foreigners with two-digit IQs. These immigrants' skills are typically insufficient to compete with our native IQ elite, but are ample for driving down the wages of our fellow American citizens who were not blessed in the IQ lottery.
The morality of such a system I leave to the reader to decide.
Holy smokes. Did you even read that entire article?
It supports MY position. Do you even have a clue who Steve Sailer is and what his position on race and IQ is? LOL, you're in for a surprise.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Not my position, for example, I certainly do not regard you as the intellectual equal of anyone on this forum, as you are not merely saddled with and unintelligible thesis, but also have no idea of how to present it.
To me this suggests you possess and inferior intelligence. I guess that should make you happy (?) since it acknowledges one facet of your thesis?
Your inability to correctly grasp my position and subsequent need to resort to strawman argument is itself proof of your personal intellectual shortcomings...which again, is the principal irony of this thread.
quote:2) ALL races are of EQUAL intelligence.
Not my position either, and so another remark demonstrating your lack of intelligence.
quote:3) Environment has NO ROLE in the development of civilization
Also not my position and not anything I would ever say. Once again you demonstrate a lack of intelligence.
quote: but plays 100% ROLE in the development of individual intelligence.
See above.
Not my position, not something I ever said.
quote:4) Genes play NO ROLE in intelligence and intelligence is NOT heritable.
Not my position, not something I ever said.
quote: 6) IQ is meaningless.
Not my position either, and so another strawman argument and personal demonstration of a lack of intelligence on your part.
quote:7) Race doesn't exist.
Race exists as social rhetoric and unintelligent demogaguery as you demonstrate so well.
For example: Racists, attempt to hide their personal feelings of inferiority behind the imagined notion of belong to a surperior 'race'.
As if that compensates for their own stupidity.
There are have been many studies showing the relationship between such racism and low self esteem.
That race has little meaning in terms of biology and genetics...is the position of most biologists, and with whom I concur.
Strawman arguments don't prove the existence of race, they merely prove the intellectual bankruptcy of those proferring them, namely yourself Shaun.
Not my position, for example, I certainly do not regard you as the intellectual equal of anyone on this forum.
Your inability to correctly grasp my position is itself proof of your personal intellectual shortcomings...which again, is the principal irony of this thread.
quote:2) ALL races are of EQUAL intelligence.
Not my position either, and so another remark demonstrating your lack of intelligence.
quote:3) Environment has NO ROLE in the development of civilization
Also not my position and not anything I would ever say. Once again you demonstrate a lack of intelligence.
quote: but plays 100% ROLE in the development of individual intelligence.
See above.
Not my position, not something I ever said.
quote:4) Genes play NO ROLE in intelligence and intelligence is NOT heritable.
Not my position, not something I ever said.
quote: 6) IQ is meaningless.
Not my position either, and so another strawman argument and personal demonstration of a lack of intelligence on your part.
quote:7) Race doesn't exist.
Race exists as social rhetoric and unintelligent demogaguery as you demonstrate so well.
That race has little meaning in terms of biology and genetics...is the position of most biologists.
Strawman arguments don't prove the existence of race, they merely prove the intellectual bankruptcy of those proferring them, namely yourself Shaun.
Anything else?
lol Rasol, you're a lightweight. This isn't your sphere of expertise.
Btw you missed one point:
8) Evolution can lead to new species being created, various breeds, all with different morphologies, temperament, dispositions, intelligences, but the same laws of evolution do NOT hold true for humans. It's just inapplicable, because, well, he says so.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
^ That's a pitiful attempt at insult, which you are no good at, as cleverness is required.
This is and intellectual property you lack, for reasons which I am sure you have some excuse for.
quote:Rasok, you missed on - Evolution can lead to new species being created, various breeds, all with different morphologies, temperament, dispositions, intelligences, but the same laws of evolution do NOT hold true for humans.
^ Not my position, and so another unintelligent strawman argument.
Ok, i've covered it now.... feel better?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sundiata, do a search on VDARE.com for all of Steve Sailer's articles. To begin with VDARE is an anti-immigration site. Sailer tackles all kinds of issues, race and IQ among them. His position is explicit, nearly as explicit as Hart.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Holy smokes. Did you even read that entire article?
It supports MY position. Do you even have a clue who Steve Sailer is and what his position on race and IQ is? LOL, you're in for a surprise.
It's simply hilarious how you refuse to read critical points that refute your claims, and instead choose to categorize people by polarization, in your attempt to summarize Sailer's views. Because he is a conservative, in no way suggests that he supports your extremist claims and agenda, especially considering the above, and particularly what was printed in bold.
This assessment totally contradicts you. I probably disagree with only one statement here, and in general, he definitely correlates IQ with wealth and environment, as was exemplified by the huge disparity between African Americans and Black Africans, and the much smaller, but decreasing disparity between African and white Americans. I've come to the conclusion that you don't read because you're scared of what you may learn. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, you're incapable of coherent substantive rebuttals. I have very little else to say to you except, be well. We're on different wavelengths and exposed to vary different sources (mine up-to-date and relevant, yours not so much). I'll carry on this discussion with others in this thread. At least they attempt to add meaningful replies.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Holy smokes. Did you even read that entire article?
It supports MY position. Do you even have a clue who Steve Sailer is and what his position on race and IQ is? LOL, you're in for a surprise.
It's simply hilarious how you refuse to read critical points that refute your claims, and instead choose to categorize people by polarization, in your attempt to summarize Sailer's views. Because he is a conservative, in no way suggests that he supports your extremist claims and agenda, especially considering the above, and particularly what was printed in bold.
This assessment totally contradicts you. I probably disagree with only one statement here, and in general, he definitely correlates IQ with wealth and environment, as was exemplified by the huge disparity between African Americans and Black Africans, and the much smaller, but decreasing disparity between African and white Americans. I've come to the conclusion that you don't read because you're scared of what you may learn.
Oh dear. All "critical points" aside, the correlation holds. Ain't nuthin' in life 100% predictive.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Oh dear. All "critical points" aside, the correlation holds. Ain't nuthin' in life 100% predictive.
The point is that no where in the article presented, does he support your distortions, you simply didn't read the article. I collected the footnote from here , Click, as the bare quote caught my attention, which compelled me to read the article. I wasn't concerned with any particular political format the author in question followed, only the information.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anybody else? Rasol is still pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity. Maybe he'll ante up some day. He should teach a class on the art of obfuscation and the craft of pointless remarks.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody else? Rasol is still pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.]
This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Oh dear. All "critical points" aside, the correlation holds. Ain't nuthin' in life 100% predictive.
The point is that no where in the article presented, does he support your distortions, you simply didn't read the article. I collected the footnote from here , Click, as the bare quote caught my attention, which compelled me to read the article. I wasn't concerned with any particular political format the author in question followed, only the information.
I'm going to take Richard Lynn's word for it. The data he compiled speaks for itself. He's yet another celebrated scientist in his field. You don't even own the book. Buy a copy and have a look through it. Whether IQ predicts GDP to a high degree is really secondary to this entire discussion anyway. Let's not get off track.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody else? Rasol is still pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.]
This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
Damn, all those rich white racists out there with low IQs running the country. I can't begin to list all of the notable men pre-1950's that shaped our world and politics who were explicitly racist.
When you mean racists have low IQs, you're talking about overt racist, not the smart kind. The smart kind wouldn't admit to it to begin with.
Do you see the irony in your post? Blacks are not less intelligent just because they have lower IQs than whites, but Whites who have low IQs are dumb. Hmmm....
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is this topic still being debated??! The debate should have ended on page 1 of the thread!
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Have any of you read Michael H. Hart's latest book? He's a Jewish astrophysicist who holds degrees in physics, law, astronomy, and computer science.
But no degrees in history or anthropology which are what subjects his book adresses?!
quote:His book is apparently the anti-thesis of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel which posits that geography was the most important feature in the development of human history.
In other words, he posits a racial reason why some societies are more "advanced" than others of course he goes strictly by the technological calibration view of advancement.
Open and print it if you don't want to buy the book.
If you've read it, how about actually giving us reasons as to why his thesis is somehow valid. Since I doubt it is if he uses scientifically defunct views of 'race'.
quote:Have a look at the Chapters on Egypt and Sub-saharran Africa. I've noted some problems with his analysis but also am looking for your input/assessments. I'm 2/3 of the way through the book and his thesis (average population intelligences explains world history) does have a lot of explanatory power. It doesn't mean it's correct, but it's another theory alongside all the others written to explain why world history developed the way it did.
But is not intelligence based on individual persons instead of whole populations?? We have gone over these issues countless times that it is very tiresome.
The 'Bell Curve' and all those other Eurocentric/white racist analysis of IQ based on whole sale populations have been proven to flawed based on the fact that there are many factors that influence IQ including learning environment, as well as the fact that whatever genetic factors involved cannot be generalized about an entire population let alone the various populations of Africa which have been proven to be the most genetically diverse of all!
quote:For Sub-saharran Africa: he basically says nearly all of it was backwards and contributed nothing to civilization. Anything produced there was introduced from the outside with few exceptions.
In other words, he just repeats what white racists have been saying for the past several centuries despite all the evidence that says otherwise!
The map below shows many but not all of the indigenous civilizations created by Africa.
Even European explorers who came to Africa "discovered" cities in the heart of Congo. Yet you never hear about such facts, instead you hear the repeated imperialist and racist lie of Africans being "primitive" and "backwards".
quote:For Egypt: he says it was a SouthEast Asian caucasoid people who founded it. He gives reasons why we are still intrigued by Egypt but argues that it's place in history is overrated.
I take it you made a typo and meant Southwest Asian caucasoid?? First of all, I thought it was explained to you before that that racial classification terms like "caucasoid" are scientifically debunked. Many peoples from Africa through Asia and even the Pacific have been called "caucaoid" just because of certain features which have nothing to do with peoples of the Caucasus mountains or Europe! And second, I thought it was made clear to you also that the peoples of Southwest Asia have diverse ancestries-- some of which is African! This is true for Levantine people as well as Arabs of southern Arabia. But apparently the author is unaware of this fact. Third, what evidence does the author provide to suggest the ancient Egyptians were Southwest Asians? Practically all archaeological evidence shows the Egyptians to be native to their own land which is in Africa.
Also, apparently the author despite him being Jewish ignores that the ancient Hebrew scriptures of his faith which described the Egyptians as one of the peoples of Ham or as blacks!
The author is obviously just going by eurocentric doctrine #6: IF IT WAS GREAT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHITE. But then he simultaneously goes by eurocentric doctrine #7: IF IT WAS NOT WHITE, AND ITS GREATNESS IS UNDENIABLE, THEN IT MUST BE DEPRECATED IN SOME WAY. Which means he considers the Egyptians to be 'white' as in "caucasoid" but not white enough apparently.
quote:a) the language is extinct and nothing derives from it
The modern Coptic language is a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian.
quote:b) Egyptians made no significant contribution to literature
Egyptian hieroglyphic script is the direct ancestor of many scripts used in Southwest Asia which in turn gave birth to the alphabet.
quote:c) Egyptian paintings don't appear to have influenced Western art, nor has any Egyptian music survived.
So? But Egyptian paintings and other artwork makes it perfectly clear that the Egyptians were black.
quote:d) The Egyptian political structure (monarch) was not original and did not influence modern thinkers
The oldest evidence of monarchy comes from the Nile Valley not in Egypt but to the south in Nubia. Also, the Egyptian ruler was not viewed as a mere monarch but a living god by the Egyptian people. Such a political and religious custom is also practiced in many other parts of Africa to this day!
quote:e) Ancient Egyptian religion was abandoned centuries ago with no successors
Not entirely true. Modern day Coptic Christians as well as some rural Egyptian Muslims still preserve ancient practices stemming from ancient Egyptian beliefs.
quote:f) No major modern philosophical theme derives from Egyptian sources.
Maybe so, but the fact that Egyptians practiced philsophy long before the Greeks still counts as a major historical achievement.
quote:He goes on to provide succinct reasons why Egyptian contributions have been overestimated (ex. the pyramids are impressive and are structures that still stand unlike other smaller structures erected in acienct societies; overestimate importance of architecture over science, math, law, literature, philosophy, etc that make up culture).
But all those other aspects of culture you just described were also part of Egyptian culture. But according to your author they don't count simply because we don't use it today.
It seems the author only counts cultures as being historically valid only if it is used today, mainly by the West! Now how biased does that sound?
quote:Agree or disagree I've found the book fascinating. I've never read a book that directly implicates human intelligence as the prime mover in history yet everything written about history is usually a proxy for it. When we talk about military power, victories, agriculture, art, music, architecture, literature, philosophy, economy, political systems etc; where and why these things developed and when, and by whom.
Of course there's intelligence involved in such developments, but what evidence suggests that some populations are more intelligent thant others?? Better yet, why does the author repeat debunked lies such as African not developing any advanced cultures of their own when they obviously have?? You fail to also realize that the development of advanced culture not only takes intelligence but is also made possible by the right conditions of environment. Thus, why is it more civilizations and the earliest civilizations all developed in the south in tropical to subtropical regions than in colder northern areas like Europe? Perhaps Europeans and other northern peoples are less intelligent!?
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I'm going to take Richard Lynn's word for it. The data he compiled speaks for itself. He's yet another celebrated scientist in his field. You don't even own the book. Buy a copy and have a look through it. Whether IQ predicts GDP to a high degree is really secondary to this entire discussion anyway. Let's not get off track.
We are on track and it seems convenient that you shun any assessment that doesn't fully support you, as non-important. But in any event, I'm simply hard-pressed to find any such evidence reinforcing your views with out a very sound rebuttal to counter it. Such data always seems to be misappropriated, falsified, or outdated. On every front you've been dismissed, the significance of environment on IQ, Wealth's (nutrition and resources) influence on IQ, adoptive studies reinforcing environmental explanations, increase in IQ by at least 6 points (relative to other groups) among American Blacks reinforcing environmental effects, the lack of genetic evidence isolating genes responsible for intelligence, the subjectivity of "race" its self, I mean, you really have no argument and have been stripped down to nothing more than wacky diatribes and progressive whining.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Why is this topic still being debated??! The debate should have ended on page 1 of the thread!
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Have any of you read Michael H. Hart's latest book? He's a Jewish astrophysicist who holds degrees in physics, law, astronomy, and computer science.
But no degrees in history or anthropology which are what subjects his book adresses?!
quote:His book is apparently the anti-thesis of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel which posits that geography was the most important feature in the development of human history.
In other words, he posits a racial reason why some societies are more "advanced" than others of course he goes strictly by the technological calibration view of advancement.
Open and print it if you don't want to buy the book.
If you've read it, how about actually giving us reasons as to why his thesis is somehow valid. Since I doubt it is if he uses scientifically defunct views of 'race'.
quote:Have a look at the Chapters on Egypt and Sub-saharran Africa. I've noted some problems with his analysis but also am looking for your input/assessments. I'm 2/3 of the way through the book and his thesis (average population intelligences explains world history) does have a lot of explanatory power. It doesn't mean it's correct, but it's another theory alongside all the others written to explain why world history developed the way it did.
But is not intelligence based on individual persons instead of whole populations?? We have gone over these issues countless times that it is very tiresome.
The 'Bell Curve' and all those other Eurocentric/white racist analysis of IQ based on whole sale populations have been proven to flawed based on the fact that there are many factors that influence IQ including learning environment, as well as the fact that whatever genetic factors involved cannot be generalized about an entire population let alone the various populations of Africa which have been proven to be the most genetically diverse of all!
quote:For Sub-saharran Africa: he basically says nearly all of it was backwards and contributed nothing to civilization. Anything produced there was introduced from the outside with few exceptions.
In other words, he just repeats what white racists have been saying for the past several centuries despite all the evidence that says otherwise!
The map below shows many but not all of the indigenous civilizations created by Africa.
Even European explorers who came to Africa "discovered" cities in the heart of Congo. Yet you never hear about such facts, instead you hear the repeated imperialist and racist lie of Africans being "primitive" and "backwards".
quote:For Egypt: he says it was a SouthEast Asian caucasoid people who founded it. He gives reasons why we are still intrigued by Egypt but argues that it's place in history is overrated.
I take it you made a typo and meant Southwest Asian caucasoid?? First of all, I thought it was explained to you before that that racial classification terms like "caucasoid" are scientifically debunked. Many peoples from Africa through Asia and even the Pacific have been called "caucaoid" just because of certain features which have nothing to do with peoples of the Caucasus mountains or Europe! And second, I thought it was made clear to you also that the peoples of Southwest Asia have diverse ancestries-- some of which is African! This is true for Levantine people as well as Arabs of southern Arabia. But apparently the author is unaware of this fact. Third, what evidence does the author provide to suggest the ancient Egyptians were Southwest Asians? Practically all archaeological evidence shows the Egyptians to be native to their own land which is in Africa.
Also, apparently the author despite him being Jewish ignores that the ancient Hebrew scriptures of his faith which described the Egyptians as one of the peoples of Ham or as blacks!
The author is obviously just going by eurocentric doctrine #6: IF IT WAS GREAT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHITE. But then he simultaneously goes by eurocentric doctrine #7: IF IT WAS NOT WHITE, AND ITS GREATNESS IS UNDENIABLE, THEN IT MUST BE DEPRECATED IN SOME WAY. Which means he considers the Egyptians to be 'white' as in "caucasoid" but not white enough apparently.
quote:a) the language is extinct and nothing derives from it
The modern Coptic language is a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian.
quote:b) Egyptians made no significant contribution to literature
Egyptian hieroglyphic script is the direct ancestor of many scripts used in Southwest Asia which in turn gave birth to the alphabet.
quote:c) Egyptian paintings don't appear to have influenced Western art, nor has any Egyptian music survived.
So? But Egyptian paintings and other artwork makes it perfectly clear that the Egyptians were black.
quote:d) The Egyptian political structure (monarch) was not original and did not influence modern thinkers
The oldest evidence of monarchy comes from the Nile Valley not in Egypt but to the south in [url=[url=]Nubia. Also, the Egyptian ruler was not viewed as a mere monarch but a living god by the Egyptian people. Such a political and religious custom is also practiced in many other parts of Africa to this day!
quote:e) Ancient Egyptian religion was abandoned centuries ago with no successors
Not entirely true. Modern day Coptic Christians as well as some rural Egyptian Muslims still preserve ancient practices stemming from ancient Egyptian beliefs.
quote:f) No major modern philosophical theme derives from Egyptian sources.
Maybe so, but the fact that Egyptians practiced philsophy long before the Greeks still counts as a major historical achievement.
quote:He goes on to provide succinct reasons why Egyptian contributions have been overestimated (ex. the pyramids are impressive and are structures that still stand unlike other smaller structures erected in acienct societies; overestimate importance of architecture over science, math, law, literature, philosophy, etc that make up culture).
But all those other aspects of culture you just described were also part of Egyptian culture. But according to your author they don't count simply because we don't use it today.
It seems the author only counts cultures as being historically valid only if it is used today, mainly by the West! Now how biased does that sound?
quote:Agree or disagree I've found the book fascinating. I've never read a book that directly implicates human intelligence as the prime mover in history yet everything written about history is usually a proxy for it. When we talk about military power, victories, agriculture, art, music, architecture, literature, philosophy, economy, political systems etc; where and why these things developed and when, and by whom.
Of course there's intelligence involved in such developments, but what evidence suggests that some populations are more intelligent thant others?? Better yet, why does the author repeat debunked lies such as African not developing any advanced cultures of their own when they obviously have?? You fail to also realize that the development of advanced culture not only takes intelligence but is also made possible by the right conditions of environment. Thus, why is it more civilizations and the earliest civilizations all developed in the south in tropical to subtropical regions than in colder northern areas like Europe? Perhaps Europeans and other northern peoples are less intelligent!?
Great post. Somet things to investigate further and you offer things that I myself thought about while reading Hart's book.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: You posted politics, not science. This is about science, not condeming people because biological truth may hurt peoples' feelings.
Refer to the table yet again, please. Digest it for awhile.
Heck, Imus was condemned by his colleagues for being a racist. Is Imus racist? No. But what he said was not PC, so "everybody" condemned him. In the end, he won millions in his lawsuit, because he was right and "all of them" were wrong.
In science, reaction is that much worse. When studies show an ugly truth and that truth is reported it's backlash city.
All of your attempts at obfuscation fall flat. I used to use the very same arguments you all have, but I realized I was being disingenuine in the face of reality.
No, what I posted was an assessment put fourth by a renowned geneticist in direct critique of a supposed discipline imposing its self onto their field as an authoritative reference for human biodiversity. Data was cited therein, yet you have miserably failed to comment. This is not surprising since you've been exposed previously as feigning an interest in the literature in question, the same literature which you've yet to read, yet choose to criticize politically. Your table is spin garbage, not data.
Hopefully you remember when I addressed the IQ and Wealth of Nations? Well here's a relevant paper with the accompanying data table, which basically again, refutes your bogus position, as has been done ad nauseum by so many. .................................................................
A Few Thoughts on IQ and the Wealth of Nations
By Steve Sailer
I want to contribute some observations about the landmark book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn of the U. of Ulster and Tatu Vanhanen of the U. of Helsinki. It was the subject of an extremely informative Feb. 27th VDARE.COM review by J. Philippe Rushton, which this is intended to complement.
The book's content is irresistible - at its heart is a table of the average IQ scores of 81 different countries, most drawn from studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The national average IQs range from 107 for Hong Kong to 59 for Equatorial Guinea.
Lynn and Vanhanen benchmarked their IQ results so that Britain is 100. America scores 98 on this scale, and the world average is 90. IQ's are assumed to form a normal probability distribution ("bell curve") with the standard deviation set at 15. Here are a few examples:
Admit it, you want to know what the rest of the table says! Beyond satisfying sheer curiosity, though, the strong correlation between IQ and the wealth of nations is of world-historical importance. From now on, no public intellectual can seriously claim to be attempting to understand how the world works unless he takes IQ into account.
How much can we trust these IQ results?
As soon as I received the book, I turned to Appendix 1, where Lynn and Vanhanen describe all 168 national IQ studies they've found - an average of just over two per country.
Are the results internally consistent? In other words, when there are multiple studies for a single country, do they tend to give roughly the same answer?
I expected a sizable amount of internal divergence. I spent 18 years in the marketing research industry, so I know how expensive it is to come up with a nationally representative sample. Further, Lynn and Vanhanen use results from quite different IQ tests. They rely most on the non-verbal Raven's Progressive Matrices, which were designed to be used across cultures, even by illiterates. Yet, they also have a lot of results from the Wechsler exams, which are more culture dependent - the Wechsler include a vocabulary subtest, for example. And they report results from other IQ tests, including a few from the oddball Goodenough-Harris Draw-A-Man test. Also, sample sizes vary dramatically, from a few dozen in some obscure countries to 64,000 for one American study. Finally, some studies were of children, others of adults.
This doesn't sound promising. Nevertheless, the results show a high degree of internal consistency. Here are the first eight countries for which they have multiple scores:
Argentina: 93 and 98 Australia: 97, 98, and 99 Austria: 101, 103 Belgium: 99, 103, 98 Brazil: 88, 84, 90, and 85 Bulgaria: 94, 91 China: 100, 92.5, 103.4 Democratic Republic of Congo: 73, 72
That's not bad at all. In fact, leaving aside China, the results are remarkably consistent. There are, of course, a few countries for which different studies came up with quite divergent results, especially Poland, where the two scores Lynn and Vanhanen found were 92 and 106. Still, the correlation among results when there are two or more studies for a country is a striking 0.94.
You shouldn't take every score on faith. The reported IQ for Israel (only 94????!!!) has elicited much criticism. Lynn has replied that he wanted to publish the data as he found it, even if some of it looked implausible. His hope is to encourage further research to resolve seeming anomalies.
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.
But we can't say with any confidence what is the long run IQ potential of Indians overall. Their current IQ score (81) is low, especially compared to China (100), the other country with hundreds of millions of poor peasants. Yet, keep in mind just how narrow life in rural India was for so long. In 1952, on the fifth anniversary of independence, the Indian government commissioned a survey to find out if the average Indian villager had heard yet that the British had gone. The study was quietly cancelled when early results showed that the average villager had never heard that the British had ever arrived!
It appears likely that some combination of malnutrition, disease, inbreeding, lack of education, lack of mental stimulation, lack of familiarity with abstract reasoning and so forth can keep people from reaching their genetic potential for IQ. Lynn himself did early studies demonstrating that malnutrition drives down IQ. The co-authors conclude their book by recommending that
"The rich countries' economic aid programs for the poor countries should be continued and some of these should be directed at attempting to increase the intelligence levels of the populations of the poorer countries by improvements in nutrition and the like."
A clear example of how a bad environment can hurt IQ can be seen in the IQ scores for sub-Saharan African countries. They average only around 70. In contrast, African-Americans average about 85. It appears unlikely that African-Americans’ white admixture can account for most of this 15-point gap because they are only around 17%-18% white on average, according to the latest genetic research. (Thus African-Americans white genes probably couldn't account for more than 3 points of the gap between African-Americans and African-Africans.) This suggests that the harshness of life in Africa might be cutting ten points or more off African IQ scores.
Similarly, West Africans are significantly shorter in height than their distant cousins in America, most likely due to malnutrition and infections. The two African-born NBA superstars, Hakeem Olajuwon and Dikembe Mutombo, are both from the wa-benzi [people of the (Mercedes ) Benz]upper class. Only the elite in Africa gets enough food and health care to grow up to be NBA centers.
This also implies that African-Americans might be able to achieve higher IQs too, although the environmental gap between white Americans and black Americans appears to be much smaller than between black Americans and black Africans. As I pointed out in VDARE in 2000, the most promising avenue for improving African-Americans' IQs is by promoting breastfeeding among blacks mothers, who nurse their babies at much lower rates than whites.
In fact, we know that IQ is not completely fixed over time because raw test scores have been rising for decades, about 2 to 3 points per decade. To counteract this, the IQ test-making firms periodically make it harder - in absolute terms - to achieve a score of 100. Lynn was possibly the first scientist to make this phenomenon widely known, although New Zealand political scientist James Flynn has gotten more credit for this recently. And, indeed, Lynn and Vanhanen scrupulously adjust the test results in their book to account for when each test was taken.
While the causes of the Lynn-Flynn Effect remain rather mysterious, it does resemble several other ongoing phenomena. For example, human beings are getting taller, living longer, and having fewer of their babies die during infancy.
One might expect IQ scores to converge as the richest nations experience diminishing marginal returns on improvements in nutrition, health, and education. By way of analogy, consider how, after 1950, average height has not grown as fast in already well-fed America as it has in rapidly developing East Asia.
It's unlikely the Japanese will ever be as tall on average as, say, Lithuanians or Croatians or African-Americans. But the gap has closed. This partial convergence in height is why you now see 6'-2" East Asian baseball pitchers like Hideo Nomo and Chan Ho Park starring in the American big leagues. Last year Wang Zhizhi, 7’-1” became the first Asian ever to join the NBA.
Perhaps that kind of convergence will happen with IQ scores someday. But the evidence that it is happening now isn't terribly strong. The odd thing about the Lynn-Flynn Effect is that it doesn't seem to have had much impact on comparative rankings of IQ over time. The smart seem to keep on getting smarter.
For instance, one of the best-documented examples of a country with rising raw IQ scores is the Netherlands (current IQ: 102). But even as far back as the 17th Century, the general opinion of mankind was that the Dutch had a lot on the ball.
One potential explanation for why IQ gaps don't seem to be narrowing (for example, the white-black IQ gap in America has been about 15 points for 80 years or so) was offered by Flynn recently. He argued that smart people, because they find cognitive challenges pleasurable, seek out more mentally stimulating environments, which in turn exercise their brains more, making them even smarter. This suggests, for example, that the Dutch will tend to become, say, Internet addicts demanding constant fixes of new information and argument, and thus continue to grow in mental firepower.
While unproven, Flynn’s suggestion seems possible. In absolute terms, it's a virtuous circle. But it seems unlikely to lead to the closing of the relative gap.
Ultimately, though, it is hard to avoid concluding that intellectual and income differences between nations stem to some extent from genetic differences. The results simply cluster too much by race. All the countries populated by Northeast Asians score between 100 and 107. The European-populated lands score between 90 and 102. Southeast Asian nations cluster in the low 90s. The Caucasian countries in North Africa and western Asia score mostly in the 80s. And so forth.
The correlation between national IQ and national income is very high. For the 81 countries, the r is .73 for GDP measured in purchasing power parity terms (which makes poor nations with lots of subsistence farmers look better off than they do in standard measures of just the cash economy). In the social sciences, correlations of 0.2 are said to be "low," 0.4 are "moderate," and 0.6 are "high." So 0.73 is most impressive.
This doesn't mean that a high IQ alone is the cause of a high income. Causation probably runs in both directions, in another virtuous circle. Rich countries tend to produce enough food to stave off malnutrition, for instance, which probably leads to higher IQs, which leads to even higher food production due to more sophisticated farming techniques.
Interestingly, per capita income correlates almost as strongly with a nation's level of economic freedom as it does with its level of intelligence. But that's in large part because economic freedom and IQ correlate with each other - at the high level of 0.63.
Freedom and brains probably contribute to each other. Although there are obvious exceptions, countries with smart workers (and smart leaders) tended to find that the capitalist system generated wealth. So there was less impetus to experiment with command economies than in places where free enterprise wasn't getting the job done.
But it could also be that freedom exercises the brain - West Germans averaged 103 while East Germans scored only 95. My pet theory is that having to make all the choices between products available in a successful capitalist economy stimulates mental development. (I believe this because, as I get older and stupider, I increasingly find shopping to be intellectually exhausting.) But evidence for this is not abundant.
Culture can play a role as well - at the extreme, contrast two countries with almost identical per capita GDPs: Barbados and Argentina (at least before Argentina's recent economic collapse). Don't cry for Argentina, because it is blessed with ample IQ (96). But it's dragged down by a notorious lack of economic and political self-discipline. In contrast, Barbados, despite an average IQ of 78, is one of the most pleasant countries in the 3rd World due to its commitment to maintaining a veddy, veddy English culture.
Still, these two countries are close to being the exceptions that prove the rule. The explanatory power of the "cultural realist" models like Thomas Sowell’s are necessarily more limited than those of "biocultural realist" like Richard Lynn. In general, cultures that emphasize, say, foresight are generally found in countries where people have enough IQ to be foresighted. Maybe people in northern countries tend to have higher IQs because people too unintelligent to effectively prepare for winter tended to get removed from the gene pool.
The IQ-income correlation is not perfect either. But even where it breaks down - most notably with China - IQ helps explain otherwise puzzling developments like the recent headline in the New York Times announcing "Globalization Proves Disappointing."
Globalization, or the fast-paced growth of trade and cross-border investment, has done far less to raise the incomes of the world's poorest people than the leaders had hoped, many officials here say. The vast majority of people living in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle East are no better off today than they were in 1989..."
On the other hand, hundreds of billions in private investment have poured into China, which, despite its parasitical ruling caste, has enjoyed strong economic growth.
So what's the story behind this story? Apparently, capital flows to where wages are low but IQs are high - pre-eminently China, where the average IQ is two points higher than the U.S. already and likely to go higher as economic development continues.
In contrast, these other regions (with the exception of Argentina) average IQs of 90 or less, sometimes considerably less.
This is not to disparage free markets - there's no alternative. The point is simply that humans differ greatly in productive capacity, so not everyone benefits from economic competition to the same extent.
The implications for immigration policy are clear.
First, any conceivable level of immigration to America is insufficient to make any difference in the welfare of the billions of foreigners living in poverty.
Second, in a world where the average IQ is 90, America's nepotism-driven immigration system (legal and illegal) will continue to import primarily foreigners with two-digit IQs. These immigrants' skills are typically insufficient to compete with our native IQ elite, but are ample for driving down the wages of our fellow American citizens who were not blessed in the IQ lottery.
The morality of such a system I leave to the reader to decide.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Damn, all those rich white racists out there with low IQs running the country. I can't begin to list all of the notable men pre-1950's that shaped our world and politics who were explicitly racist.
Why not address the citation, instead of babbling on subjectively?
quote:When you mean racists have low IQs, you're talking about overt racist, not the smart kind.
According to the paper, a "smart" racist is pretty rare , though really they are all the same.
quote: The smart kind wouldn't admit to it to begin with.
Such beliefs in the first place are rooted in stupidity, so this doesn't apply.
quote:Do you see the irony in your post? Blacks are not less intelligent just because they have lower IQs than whites, but Whites who have low IQs are dumb. Hmmm....
There is no irony. Racists are individuals, black African people are among the most genetically diverse of them all, so there is much variability on the individual level as well, concerning probably anything. Your logic as usual, is absurd.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by sshaun002: Pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.][/QUOTE]
quote:Sundiata: This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
And a necessity of Shaun's desparate delusion requires him to hope he can somehow hide this from others. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: On every front you've been dismissed, the significance of environment on IQ, Wealth's (nutrition and resources) influence on IQ, adoptive studies reinforcing environmental explanations, increase in IQ by at least 6 points (relative to other groups) among American Blacks reinforcing environmental effects, the lack of genetic evidence isolating genes responsible for intelligence, the subjectivity of "race" its self, I mean, you really have no argument and have been stripped down to nothing more than wacky diatribes and progressive whining. [/QB]
This has all been dealt with. Nutritional deficits aside, nutrition has very little role in IQ (note that it hasn't effected Black athletic ability). IQ is stable throughout life. Blacks from BETTER environments perform worse than White from worse environments. So much for environment. The Flynn effect is raw test scores, not actual gains in g. And those gains are disputed as well. Lack of genes for intelligence - again, so what? If you can measure it by proxy you don't need the locate the actual genes. NOBODY disputes the black-white gap and that gap has not closed - the Flynn Effect works for Whites too. Race is a fuzzy concept therefore it's meaningless Just because ther are intermediate colors of a rainbow doesn't mean red, green, violet, don't exist.
You keep repeating things that have been cast aside in IQ research for years. This is OLD.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Quite right Sundiata.
And a necessity of Shaun's desparate delusion requires him to hope he can somehow hide this from others.
The irony of course being that he categorizes himself as a "smart" racist, yet seems opposed to the idea of "smart" blacks. What a clown.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Originally posted by sshaun002: Pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.]
quote:Sundiata: This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
And a necessity of Shaun's desparate delusion requires him to hope he can somehow hide this from others. [/QUOTE]
So IQ DOES MATTER!!!! WOOOHOOO! SCORE!!!
A white racist with a LOW IQ of 85 is DUMB, right? But that is the averae IQ for blacks. Uh-oh, time to back track.
Grand environment, intense schooling, extra high nutrition, none of these things will increase that IQ. But inbreeding will. What could this all mean...
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
hahaha you have no knowledge of statistics. Random sampling of 1000 people will account for all the variation in a group which is why a distribution curve can be made in the first place. Talk about a need to be educated. Stats 101 at the university level baby.
The "blacks have the most variation" tripe is useless in this regard. Show me a single study which shows blacks of any population, in any region, at any time, that consistently score well above Whites or Asians. None are to be found - and believe me, researchers of the "race doesn't exist" persuasion have tried but got the results they didn't like. More evidence negating your fantasies.
I've seen the evidence from both sides, and I can't help but conclude what I have. I didn't want to, but it's all there. What kind of idiot could deny it.
Maybe we'll one day find an environmental factor that accounts for the breadth of the disparity between white-asian-black IQ. All efforts thus far have been exhausted. But it could still exist. Until that day, we have to deal with the here and now and what we know with current data. It speaks for itself.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody else? Rasol is still pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.]
This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
Damn, all those rich white racists out there with low IQs running the country. I can't begin to list all of the notable men pre-1950's that shaped our world and politics who were explicitly racist.
When you mean racists have low IQs, you're talking about overt racist, not the smart kind. The smart kind wouldn't admit to it to begin with.
Do you see the irony in your post? Blacks are not less intelligent just because they have lower IQs than whites, but Whites who have low IQs are dumb. Hmmm....
The point you are missing is that these WHITE RACISTS got where they are BECAUSE OF RACISM not because of IQ. "The West" is a product of racist imperialism around the world for the last 500 years. There is no denying it. IQ has NOTHING to do with it. By accumulating SO MUCH WEALTH and developing SO MUCH INFRASTRUCTURE for the benefit of WHITE EUROPEANS most of it TAKEN from places like Africa, Europe increased the standard of living overall for its people greatly in the last 500 years, greatly reversing the situation that only existed 1000 years ago, where Europe was AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HEAP and Africa had greater civilizations and more learned people at the time. Therefore, this NON SENSE about IQ is irrelevant. The rise of America is DIRECTLY DUE to racism and genocide at the hands of European whites directed against Native Americans. If native Americans, Africans and everyone else were given FREE AND FAIR access to LAND, LIBERTY and EDUCATION along with the Europeans, there WOULD BE NO DISPARITY between these groups, at least not in the way it is now. Using IQ as an EXCUSE for this difference and NOT the overt OPPRESSION and RACIST IMPERIALISM of the Western World is an exercise in delusional fantasy and historical revisionism.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Somet things to investigate further and you offer things that I myself thought about while reading Hart's book.
Yeah right. But I do hope you start by investigating those links I gave you. Really, Rasol is right that you're making a fool of yourself with this IQ, 'race', and civilization bit in which you obviously have very little clue as to what you're talking about. Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Great post. Somet things to investigate further and you offer things that I myself thought about while reading Hart's book.
Thankyou, but I do hope you start by investigating those links I gave you. Really, Rasol is right that you're making a fool of yourself with this IQ, 'race', and civilization bit in which you obviously have very little clue as to what you're talking about.
Incorrect. It's clear none of you have been schooled in current IQ research.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Originally posted by sshaun002: Pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.]
quote:Sundiata: This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
And a necessity of Shaun's desparate delusion requires him to hope he can somehow hide this from others.
So IQ DOES MATTER!!!! WOOOHOOO! SCORE!!!
A white racist with a LOW IQ of 85 is DUMB, right? But that is the averae IQ for blacks. Uh-oh, time to back track.
Grand environment, intense schooling, extra high nutrition, none of these things will increase that IQ. But inbreeding will. What could this all mean... [/QUOTE]
The average black IQ is actually lower if you use the MEAN instead of the average. Still, the average is likely lower than 85 since the majority of studies are done on students. Blacks are over-represented in highschool dropouts - and dropouts is correlated with low IQ. Thus these low IQ dropouts are usually not accounted for in IQ studies.
Still with the distribution there are many talented black in America. About 1 millions blacks in America have IQs above the White average.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And what current IQ research shows anything about group IQ or that a person's IQ can be determined by the populations that person comes from??
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: This has all been dealt with. Nutritional deficits aside, nutrition has very little role in IQ (note that it hasn't effected Black athletic ability). IQ is stable throughout life.
Malnutrition and accompanying environmental effects begin at infancy and once again, your claims that it has no bearing on IQ are directly contradicted by the APA and even your supposed conservative comrade.
quote:Blacks from BETTER environments perform worse than White from worse environments. So much for environment.
So much for objectivity and honesty, you would never be able to produce such a citation attesting to this since it's just another usual distortion. Please produce figures demonstrating white nations who per capita (and socially), fare off worse than those in the African American community. In addition, it would be helpful to post the correlating IQ reports, including the updated version by Flynn which cites Blacks now at 91 (6 points higher than yesteryear).
quote:The Flynn effect is raw test scores, not actual gains in g. And those gains are disputed as well. Lack of genes for intelligence - again, so what? If you can measure it by proxy you don't need the locate the actual genes. NOBODY disputes the black-white gap and that gap has not closed - the Flynn Effect works for Whites too.
You don't pay much attention, which is why you make such blind assertions. The increase was in g, and the increase was 6 points relative to non-hispanic whites, it was a relative gain. The white IQ apparently didn't increase at all. You strike me as a man who has no idea what he's talking about, and here's a reference.
By proxy, there is no such evidence as has been reported. By no stretch of the imagination has any genetic explanation seen promise. They've all been refuted and discarded.
quote:Race is a fuzzy concept therefore it's meaningless Just because ther are intermediate colors of a rainbow doesn't mean red, green, violet, don't exist.
Red, green, and violet does exist, yet to refer to these color gradients as seen in a rainbow, as "races" is both arbitrary and silly. The distinctions are superficial and external.
quote:You keep repeating things that have been cast aside in IQ research for years. This is OLD.
Isn't that what you're doing by resurrecting dated pseudoscience and long exposed false assumptions about human variation, prior to the onset of genetic research? Surely none of these data put before you have been ousted and rendered non-applicable, so what's your point? I can't say the same for your ideas, however.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And what current IQ research shows anything about group IQ or that a person's IQ can be determined by the populations that person comes from??
You can't know a person's IQ by his/her membership to a group - although you could calculate a probability.
However, if you know a person's IQ, you know what they CANNOT do. Somebody with an IQ is not going to be able to be a successful academic.
If you have enough members of said group together and they're randomly sampled, you can predict with near certainty the average IQ of that group.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [qb] [QUOTE]Too few of them left and they live in a cold desolate areas of the world. Those involved in the warrior raids in history are now European and Asian hybrids assimilited for centuries living in Europe and Northern China.
And (as to has been expected) more excuses and non-answers. In other words: babbling. Indeed 'too few" people in Iceland live in a 'cold and desolate' place, but they still manage to consistently rank among the highest in both GDP and HDI.
quote:Ireland is a lot like Barbados, an important center for international financial transactions. I'm not sure what your point is. Average IQ of a nation is average intelligence, nothing more nothing less. The nation with the highest IQ average doesn't mean they'll get to Mars first, but all things being equal, they're the most likely to.
1) You are right about Barbados it (31), indeed, being only 9 places from Germany (22) in HDI but has a fraction of its GDP. Interesting world we live in SShaun. Unfortunately your world view fails for lack of a real explanation of these interesting events yet again.
2) You (predictably) proffered yet another excuse for Ireland, and really have'nt explained the *huge* discrepancy between ireland and germany, only some mumbling about being an international finance center(as if Germany is not) which you did'nt back up anyway.
3) You *still* haven't answered my question as to whether Germany is another "outlier" with its High IQ relative to europe but mediocre relative HDI and GDP.
quote:The nation with the highest IQ average doesn't mean they'll get to Mars first, but all things being equal, they're the most likely to.
So in your view Israel (94) would be most likely to get to mars first?
enough already
quote: Your attempts to downplay predictive value of IQ are weak. Nothing in life, especially history or the future is 100% predictive as other factors are always involved. This doesn't change the importance or role of intelligence one iota.
I'm weak? All you have provided so far are non-answers and excuses while I've provided hard data which contradicts your (non-scientific opinion/agenda) and I'm weak? Wow...
quote:These are gains in raw test scores, not in g.
Explain "g" please, with sources, and how it somehow invalidates Flynns IQ scores. Maybe I'm the wrong one here, who knows.
quote: And for that matter, don't compare IQ of Black Americans with Black Africans. The former are hybrids, the latter are overwhelmingly not.
And so the sudden gains in the IQ of African americans between 1972 and 2002 is due to their "hybrid" status (which is neglible anyway)? Could this debate get anymore absurd?
I'm afraid theres probably more where that came from.
What does a link from a renowned eugenicist blog mean to me? I actually almost expected you to do that.
SShaun, prove how humanity is:
1) divided into arbitrary "racial" super-groups (and not regional variation) that correlate demonstrably and consistently with
2) IQ discrepancies between said groups (throughout history)and
3) how they evolved a higher form of intelligence by means of selective processes that did not occur in Africa (as they did with Home sapiens sapiens 150,000 years ago which brought us here) and why
4) Mongolia is still no more advanced than most of black Africa today. Without vague excuses please.
5) Why Germany is low in HDI and GDP, and Ireland relatively high give or take IQ scores.
6) Why Ireland is equal to African american intelligence at *91*, with the former being only "hybrids" and the latter being more or less pure white European.
I gotta admit. Demonstrate those all 6 points in favor of your argument I will will have conceded defeat. At least for the time being. Of course you (predictably) won't, and (predictably) *might* proffer even more excuses.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Explain "g" please, with sources, and how it somehow invalidates Flynns IQ scores. Maybe I'm the wrong one here, who knows.
Mmmkay, he is desperate, and now it seems that he is calling people's bluffs while trying to cover his bases. He's not very clever to say the least and you were wrong about nothing, but he is. See below.
^I'm telling you, the guy is a fraud and hasn't read one lick of literature pertaining to the topic that he promotes so passionately.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Why is this topic still being debated??! The debate should have ended on page 1 of the thread!![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
In other words, he just repeats what white racists have been saying for the past several centuries despite all the evidence that says otherwise!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
What a clown.
Printer-friendly view of this topic