Richard Hoste, a White nationalist commenter, takes issue with my comments about a <70 IQ in Blacks just not being the same as a <70 IQ in a White. He repeats the standard line from Jensen and Rushton that a White with <70 IQ usually is genetically diseased in some way that effects the way they walk and talk. The Black with the same IQ is not. That’s why they seem different. This is the typical line that I keep hearing, but it still doesn’t make sense. In the US, Whites with IQ’s <70 are generally living in group homes, are not allowed to have kids or marry, have poor social skills, poor judgment, generally do not work or work only at specialized jobs, have their finances monitored by someone, and are not allowed to drive cars. In other words, they just can’t live on their own and make it. And it’s not just because they walk and talk funny. It’s because in many important ways, they are dumb as doorknobs, and we don’t trust them to make sensible decisions. Nevertheless, in Africa, Blacks with <70 IQ’s drive vehicles, work at regular jobs, live on their own, have excellent social skills, marry and raise children, live on their own or own a home, pay their bills and manage their finances, etc. They don’t need supervision. They can do it on their own. I imagine something similar is going on with Papuans (IQ 64), Aborigines (IQ 62), Bushmen (IQ 54) and Pygmies (IQ 60?). All these folks can live quite well on their own with little or no supervision. In addition, we have first hand reports. I spoke with an anthropologist who works in Africa. He told me that the Africans he works with do not seem stupid. A similar statement was made by Jared Diamond about the Papuans he worked with and by a man who worked with Bushmen. Yet if you meet an American White with an IQ <70 like these native peoples, they will appear to be dumb as a rock, and not just because they can’t walk or talk right. I know, I have spent a lot of time with the local retarded adults, and I made friends with quite a few of them. Further, we have the examples of the 67 IQ Nigerian scammers who ran circles around the American scam victims I worked with who had IQ’s of 65-73. One of these women walked and talked normally, but these Nigerian foxes just had her running around like a chicken with her head cut off with all their endless tricks and games. When it came to “con artist IQ,” these guys had genius IQ’s, over 140. They were expert manipulators, experts at human psychology, and they knew how to mimic and play-act emotions and push people’s emotional buttons like few people do. They were like expert actors, except they were evil. In some very important ways, these Nigerians were much smarter than the Americans who had the same or even slightly higher IQ’s. Further, Hoste notes that 16 I’ve also met some very smart Blacks who seemed kind of “dumb” in some ways. One guy says he has an IQ of 185. He has a PhD and is a professor at a university. Yet he misspells words and is sloppy with his sentences. It’s like he doesn’t give a damn about things like that. I recently found the blog of a famous Black scholar, and the same thing was going on. Great mind, brilliant thinker, very creative, very nice sentences in an artsy way, but often sloppy. Misspellings, poor sentence construction, poor punctuation. I sent him a mail telling him he needed an editor but he never wrote back. Once again, there was a brilliant sloppiness about him and a feeling that about certain things, he didn’t care and was just going to blow it off. The end result was that to me his writing looked sort of stupid due to his errors, but I’m sure he doesn’t see it that way. I’m going to tie together these examples of very high and very low IQ Blacks by suggesting that maybe there is a “Black intelligence” that differs from “White intelligence” and that these tests may not be measuring properly. I realize that’s a subjective judgment, and I don’t have much to back it up except intuitive hunches and “general feeling,” but that’s what I’m concluding after thinking hard about this stuff for a couple of years now. By the way, this conclusion is also consistent with race realism. If Blacks and Whites are different racially in more than obvious ways, a specific “Black intelligence” that differs from the White kind is a possibility.
You might be right overall, but didnt you pretty much contradict yourself when talking about the scam victims, by saying that even though they had extremely low IQ’s, some of them (well, at least one?) seemed like a normal person who was “just plain dumb”.
From my own personal experience I can say that I’ve met some whites who probably have IQ’s near or below 75. If we assume it takes about 85 IQ to pass high school (based on black/Hispanic dropout rates), then probably most dropouts are significantly below that, and there are a lot of white high school dropouts. I worked as a sub in a 11th/12th grade classroom where almost half of the students listed Japan under “cities in Asia” and not under countries, which would seem to imply that they weren’t being misled by some trick and actually thought Japan was a single city. They also misspelled the names of some other cities and countries on the same test. And this was an open book test, so all they had to do was copy them. And these kids weren’t even dropouts. I’ve met white dropouts too and they seem to all regret dropping out but weren’t bright enough at the time to realize how much it would limit their career options.
Also, you could say they were just slacking, but come on, who doesn’t know that Japan is a country even just from general life experience?
Here is something I was just thinking about last night involving the Flynn Effect and it really confuses me and I have no way to make sense of it. It’s often said by “race realists” that the reason Africa is in the dire position it’s in is primarily due to low intelligence(IQ 70 average). If the Flynn Effect is a proven phenomena, and I have reason to believe it is, then whites of 100 years ago were of the same intelligence as Africans today.
So why weren’t Europe and America of 1909 in the same condition that Africa is right now?
If the Africans of today were utilizing all of their IQ, why shouldn’t they be able to build a society that is the equivalent of the west a century ago?
I’m not trying to ask trick questions. This is a genuine inquiry and I’d be interested in hearing some theories and how this relates to the Flynn Effect.
The main reason are because Africans are more tribal than nationalists like Europe, with a lot of different tribes and languages living in the same country. Making it hard to get a different tribes of people to live together for the national good.
African countries were artificially created by European powers to exploit their natural resources during the colonial era, and the European colonists did not consider to educate the masses with education to run an efficient country, so after the African countries got their freedom from Europe. The people went back into the tribal ways they lived for centuries before colonisation.
It’s beginning to turn around for some African countries though. Equatorial Guinea has a higher GDP than Eastern European countries with $14, 491 per capita, and Angola’s economic growth has exploded in the last couple of years and has a higher GDP than Ukraine with $6,331 per capita and growing.
It’s worthwhile to remember that IQ mainly measures g, and that it is on g in particular that AAs always tend to do poorly. On items that don’t measure g so well, AAs tend to do better. For example, they do half a standard deviation better on forward digit recall (highly g loaded) than on backward digit recall (poorly g loaded). That implies that, on average, if you were to match AAs and whites on backward digit recall, the AAs would be considerably better on forward digit recall. It seems somewhat reasonable to surmise that, at, say, a fixed IQ of 70, AAs would outperform whites on tasks involving memory. No doubt there are other, less heavily g-loaded tasks on which they would perform better as well, including, perhaps, general verbal fluency.
Now g certainly is highly correlated with success in modern life. But at the low end, it may well be these other kinds of capabilities that make the most difference in terms of being able to function independently in society.
I should say also that I am very skeptical of the assessments of national IQs, most especially because of the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect is especially detected in supposedly culture free tests such as the Raven Progressive Matrices. But it is typically such tests that are used to compare across national cultures. I don’t know how one gets around the inherent problem of employing “culture free” tests to assess national IQ while bearing in mind that such tests have some very subtle but critical defect in terms of the cultural bias they actually introduce, given that the American culture of, say, 50 years ago produced raw scores so very much lower than the culture of today.
Two answers:
1)The Flynn Effect doesnt affect all of intelligence, just certain skills, so it’s not really a valid comparison.
2)America/Europe in 1909 was in fact pretty bad when you think about it. American cities were full of malnourished children and adults, gangs ruled the streets even in all-white neighborhoods, and major wars broke out every few decades. It’s not really hard to believe the average intelligence back then was considerably lower than now. The main difference between Africa today and America then was that even in the worst times, there was always an intellectual elite in America that managed to shield itself from all of those bad things that kept the other 95% of people down. The Flynn effect probably doesnt really apply to the absolute upper class.
1) Is that something Flynn himself has said? I thought the Flynn effect is with regards to overall intelligence, not just intelligence is some areas.
2) There were certainly problems in the west in 1909, such as distribution of wealth, child labor, crime and such, but these were still powerful, influential nations with robust industrialized economies.
I think we can take for granted that whites today are more intelligent than whites of 100 years ago, but the question is how much less intelligent were those whites back then and how did they still manage to have advanced nations? I wonder if there is some sort of cutoff point in the Flynn Effect and where it would be, because obviously if you keep going back far enough after reducing 3 pts for every decade, 300 years ago everyone would’ve been a talking monkey. I’ve never heard this issue addressed.
Tulio: Africa is a shithole because the countries were divided up according to the whims of europeans. Imagine if Europe had been randomly divided up with no concern for existing cultural and linguistic boundaries – there would be chaos.
I think it’s hard to deny that colonialism devastated Africa in as much as it destroyed the natural boundaries between various pre-existing nations and set up new ones with no regards to what was there already. I’m sure things will eventually smooth out given enough time. I don’t know if I’d say that’s the only reason or even the main reason for problems of Africa today. It seems to me is that what Africa most lacks is human capital. You can have a place like Japan that has few resources and they can be wealthy because they have high human capital. So Africa needs to invest heavily in education and so people will have the skills it takes to run a modern society.
People often like to point to S. Africa and say “see, see, that’s what happens when you let blacks take over”. I’m as anti-racist as it gets, but I think it was pretty obvious that standard of living would go down in S. Africa. If you have a huge class of people that lived under deep oppression and don’t have the skills and education it takes to run an advanced society, then of course the country will take a step back. Nontheless, apartheid needed to be ended regardless of results, because it’s immoral to systematically deny basic rights to people because of their race.
So I think it’s a lot of things conspiring all together that essentially has Africa in a dark age. It’s rarely just one thing that’s the cause, it’s many things, some from within, some from outside. Unfortunately Africa is just taking a lot of body blows from all directions. Be it droughts, famines caused by man and nature, intractably corrupt governments, HIV, environmental degradation, colonialism, debt to the IMF, ethnic conflict, endless coup d’etats, lack of education, It’s hopelessly sad. It is truly the Dark Ages there in every sense. I hope things turnaround in Africa someday.
“Imagine if Europe had been randomly divided up with no concern for existing cultural and linguistic boundaries.”
But that’s exactly how Europe was before the world wars, and still is to some extent. Europe was ruled by imperialists, too.
Maybe you’re just showing some good examples of how alot of studies that show IQ to be well correlated with certain life outcomes (it’s a very convoluted field) are deeply flawed.
In my experiences with racialists/hereditarians and environmentalists/extreme egalitarians, and a whole host of other political extremists, IQ seems to have profoundly little to do with something like intellectual honesty, or general intellectual honesty, contrary to what someone like Michael Levin would buttress.
By the way, is it true Mohammed Ali scored only an 80? I know he below average, but 80 seems extreme.
“One guy says he has an IQ of 185.”
If someone says that he has an extraordinarily high IQ, ask him what test he took. Very few tests are capable of generating scores of above 160, and anyone who claims to have an IQ of 185 is almost certainly lying.
The professors that have sloppy spelling and such probably fit into the “absent-minded genius” profile.
Why do you assume that the Nigerian scammers have an IQ of 67? Who says they’re average Nigerians? Such an assumption is groundless. They’re more likely to be unemployed university graduates with IQs of 100 or greater.
They’re dumb as rocks in many important ways – we spent a lot of time talking to them and got to know them very well. In some ways, they ARE sort of “retarded.” Most of them are not college students. Quite a few are high school students, but they tend to be dropouts. Nigerian college students may well have average IQ’s of 85, I do not know.
Sorry jasonkkaramo@yahoo.com or Jason Karamo, but I can’t answer your question now because you are banned from the site.
HAND!
HTH!
READ THIS. Sorry for it being so long. The information presented above suggests that African born blacks residing in western countries as a group possess IQs that are between 5 points and a full standard deviation (15 IQ points) above that of whites living in these countries. So that the median IQ for African blacks residing in the west should be about 110, if one accepts that research suggesting direct casual relationships between academic attainment levels and IQ (e.g. Gottfredson,The information presented above suggests that African born blacks residing in western countries as a group possess IQs that are between 5 points and a full standard deviation (15 IQ points) above that of whites living in these countries. So that the median IQ for African blacks residing in the west should be about 110, if one accepts that research suggesting direct casual relationships between academic attainment levels and IQ (e.g. Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999)!
Research also shows that when African Americans are matched as to linguistic behavior (e.g. black vs. standard English), literacy levels and to the comprehension of sayings requiring specific knowledge, that African Americans perform as well or better than do Whites on IQ tests.
By Bernie Douglas (April 10, 2008), Revised February 17, 2009
What are IQ Tests?
IQ is a culturally and ideologically rooted construct; an index intended to predict success or outcomes that are valued as success by some people, in western societies. The items on these tests are largely measures of achievement at various levels of competency (Sternberg et al, 1998a, 1999, 2003a) and are devised impressionistically by psychologists to simply mimic the psycholinguistic structures of schooling and middle class clerical/administrative occupations (Richardson, 2000, 2002). Alfred Binet, the inventor of the first intelligence test devised this instrument more than 100 years ago to screen “children” for educational difficulties, and made clear its conceptual foundations (See Richardson, 2002). His interest was in the educational development of children, and argued that his test could not be used for children over the age of seventeen. He also believed that scores on his test could be radically improved through learning and instruction. Stern (1914) would devise what is known today as the concept of “I.Q.,” which stands simply for “Intelligence Quotient.” Stern’s quotient system was, too, like Binet’s test, devised for use exclusively with children, and was not intended for use with adults.
IQ tests were originally intended to be little more than devices for generating numbers that are useful in assessing academic aptitude with in a given culture, and for use mainly with children. IQ tests sample some elements of intelligent behavior and these elements are associated with academic performance (Capron et al, 1999). Traditional IQ tests do not measure the many forms of intelligence that are beyond more academically specific skills, such as music, creativity, art, interpersonal and intrapersonal abilities (Braaten and Norman, 2006; Gardner, 2000; Armstrong, 1993). The processes associated with schooling influence performance on IQ tests through a combination of direct instruction and indirect inculcation of modes of thinking, and the values associated with standardized testing (Ceci and Williams 1997; Ceci, 1991; Richardson, 2000, 2002). Tests have a narrow focus on skills and tasks which are acquired and rehearsed through the processes of formal or informal schooling (Ceci and Williams, 1997; Ceci, 1991: Kamin, 1974).
IQ and similar tests are also unable to measure one’ s potential, are not independent from what is measured by achievement tests and are not powerful predictors of low reading performance (Siegel, 1989, 1992; Bradshaw, 2001; Naglieri and Reardon, 1993; Rispens et al 1991). Test results in one child can vary according to mood, motivation, and fatigue, while the tests themselves show prominent rehearsal/learning effects, generally assume a degree of literacy, and are largely framed to suit mainstream Western cultural requirements (Ceci & Williams, 1997; Ceci, 1991; O’ Brien, 2001; Richardson 2000, 2002; Sternberg, 2004). For these reasons and others many believe that the use of IQ tests should be abandoned (Siegel, 1989, 1992; Vellutino et al, 2000, Bradshaw, 2001; Schonemann, 1997c). In addition, no tests except dynamic tests (see Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002a) that require learning at the time of the test directly measure ability to learn. Traditional IQ tests focus on measuring past learning, typical of the kind acquired through the processes of formal schooling and cultural exchange. While these things are known to be heavily influenced by accessibility, motivation and available opportunities to learn (see Fagan and Holland, 2002, 2007).
Heritability and IQ:
Despite what some have argued in the past, there is no serious evidence which has demonstrated IQ tests to measure either an inborn property or what is commonly understood to mean intelligence (see Hirsch 1970, 1997, 2004; Schonemann, 1997c, 2005; Schonemann and Schonemann, 1994; Kempthorne 1978, 1997; Capron et al, 1999; Vetta, 2002; Wahlsten, 1981, 1990; Capron and Vetta, 2001). Intelligence is a highly subjective and culturally confound concept which remains largely undefined (Schonemann, 1997c; Sternberg, 2007; Cole et al, 1971; Guttman, 1992). The twin and adoption studies commonly used to report heritability estimates in relationship to IQ tests have also been shown to be suspicious in nature. The biometrical school of scientists who fit models to IQ data traces their history to R. Fisher (1918), but their genetic models have been shown to have virtually no predictive value (Vetta, 2002; Vetta, 1976; Capron and Vetta, 2001; Capron et al, 1999; Schonemann, 1997c). For example, statistical models used in twin studies and inferences from them relating to IQ tests lack statistical validity, and are thus of dubious value (Capron et al., 1999; Kempthorne, 1997; Schonemann, 1997c; Schonemann and Schonemann, 1994).
Wahlsten (1981) argues that errors are so wide spread in the heritability literature that the critical reader has good reason to doubt every article published on the topic in relationship to IQ. He goes further stating that it is necessary to check the arithmetic, algebra and original references before seriously considering any conclusions. For example, the most widely used heritability method, now, is based on a paper by Jinks and Fulker (1970). However, this method contains an algebraic error that renders its application in most instances, worthless (See: Capron et al, 1999; Schonemann, 1997c, 1990). Schonemann (1997c) shows that conventional heritability estimates often produce absurdly high values for variables that cannot possibly be genetic. He found that if one applies the traditional heritability arithmetic to the twin data collected by Loehlin and Nichols (1976), that the answer to the question Did you take a bubble bath last year is 90% genetic (Schonemann, 1997c)! Kempthorne (1978, 1997) argues that the concept of heritability is important for plant and animal breeding because it is possible to design and carry out experiments to estimate variance components, but that data on humans is observational and individuals are not randomly assigned to environments, and should, for these reasons, be ignored.
A psychologist administering an IQ test to different kinships (e.g. twins) is not manipulating either the genetic or environmental factors, as is done in animal experiments (Capron et al, 1999; Kempthorne, 1997), thus their estimates tend to be speculation in absence of any definitive proof. Many well regarded statistical and biometrical experts have argued that the true heritability of IQ is probably closer to zero (see: Schonemann, 1997c, 1990; Schonemann and Schonemann, 1994; Capron et al, 1999; Vetta, 2002; Wahlsten, 1981, 1990; Vetta and Coureau, 2003; Taylor, 1980; Hirsch 1970, 1997, 2004; Kempthorne 1978, 1997)! Indeed, literacy and acculturation have been shown to predict IQ score differences between groups and individuals better than any other variables (Boone, 2007; Manly et al, 1998; Fagan and Holland, 2002, 2007; Ryan et al, 2005).
Why the Racial Controversy?
While one will find many flaws and inconsistencies associated with the concept of IQ, this has not managed to sway some hard nosed advocates from continuing to promote the test’s practical merits for predicting academic success and occupational status within western market based societies – This is in spite of the test’s predictive value in these areas also having been roundly challenged (Schonemann, 1997c, 2005; Siegel, 1989; Bradshaw, 2001; Sternberg, 2001; Frank, 1983).
Some of the more ardent IQ advocates have even gone so far as to argue that the possible reason many blacks and other minorities do not achieve in areas relating to academic attainment and occupational status, particularly in the US, is not due to historical racism or negative societal factors, but instead because of factors that relate to low IQ scores. Ignoring historical events (e.g. slavery and Jim Crow) economic and educational biases (Pattillo,1999; Diamond and Spillane 2004; Roscigno, 1998), the affects of culture and cultural differences (Valsiner, 2000; Cole et al. 1971; Serpell R., 1979; Ogbu and Simons, 1998), the questionable methodology and theory involved in IQ tests (Schonemann, 1997c, 2005; Guttman, 1955, 1992; Hirsch, 1970, 1997, 2004), poor test validity and predictive value (Schonemann, 1997c, Bradshaw, 2001; Sternberg, 1997), test bias (Manly, 1998; Helms, 1992; Helms, 1997; Kwate, 2001; Baldwin and Bell, 1985; Borsboom, 2006) and overwhelming criticism leveled against heritability estimates (Capron et al, 1999; Schonemann, 1994, 1997c; Hirsh, 1970, 2004 ; Kempthorn; 1978, 1997; Lidz and Blatt, 1983; Joseph, 2004, 2006; Vetta, 1976, 2002), these advocates tend to proceed with their arguments, unaltered.
For example, in 1994 authors Herrnstein and Murray in their controversial book “The Bell Curve” argued that a dysgenic trend exists in western societies that foresee the establishment of a “cognitive elite.” Although their work was subject to wide and often scathing criticism, the authors managed to generate a substantial amount of media attention, which helped to perpetuate negative ethnic stereotypes in the formal literature and in public discourse for a number of years.
Many IQ advocates argue that a general index of cognitive ability is the single best predictor of virtually all criteria considered necessary for success in life in the Western part of the developed world (Schmidt, Ones & Hunter, 1992), and maintain that the average undergraduate, “those who graduate from college or university”, must possess an IQ that is on average no lower than 115 (Ostrowsky, 1999; Gottfredson, 1998), while individuals who are able to obtain a graduate level degree must on average possess an IQ in the range of 125 (Gottfredson, 1998). This often serves the implied purpose of suggesting that blacks and other minorities do not go on to, or graduate from institutions of higher learning, and ultimately move on to professional careers and economic success, not because of matters relating to personal interest, financial ability, or the quality of schooling received in the past; but instead because of factors relating to IQ scores (e.g. Jensen, 1980; Gottfredson, 1998). Arguments such as these tend also to base themselves within the shaky framework that is, “nature vs. nurture.” In this case, does more school develop high IQ, or does a high IQ equal more school and greater socio-economic success (Jensen, 1980; Gottfredson, 1998)? Others have pointed out, simply, that the correlation between IQ scores and school performance is one deliberately built into tests and that processes associated with schooling directly influence tests performance (Richardson, 2002).
Black African Immigrants Significantly Exceed Whites in Level of Education:
African-born blacks comprise about 16 percent of the U.S. foreign-born black population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000), and are “considerably” more educated than other immigrants. The vast majority of these immigrants come from minority white countries in East and West Africa (e.g. Kenya and Nigeria). While less than 2 percent originate from North or South Africa (CIA World Factbook, 2004; Yearbook of immigration Statistics, 2003). An analysis of Census Bureau data by The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (1999-2000) and the “Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research” (2003) find that Black African immigrants to the United States are more likely to be college educated than ‘any’ other immigrant group, which included those from Europe, North America and Asia (see also Nisbett, 2002; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). African immigrants have also been shown to be more highly educated than any native-born ethnic group including white and Asian Americans (Logan & Deane, 2003; Williams, 2005; The Economist, 1996; Arthur, 2000; Selassie, 1998; Nisbett, 2002).
Most research suggests that between 43.8 and 49.3 percent of “all” African immigrants in the United States hold a college diploma (Nisbett, 2002; Charles, 2007; U.S. Census, 2000). This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., substantially greater than the percentage of European immigrants, nearly “double” that of native-born white Americans, nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans, and more than “8 times” that of some Hispanic groups (Williams, 2005; Nisbett, 2002; Kent, 2007; The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000; U.S. Census, 2000)! Black immigrants from Africa have also been shown to have rates of college graduation that are “more” than double that of the U.S. born population, in general (Williams, 2005). For example, in 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a “graduate degree”, compared to 8.1 percent of adult whites (a difference of “more than” double) and 3.8 percent of adult blacks in the United States, respectively (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000). This shows that America has an equally large achievement gap between white Americans and African born immigrants as between native born white and black Americans.
In the UK, 1988, the Commission for Racial Equality conducted an investigation on the admissions practices of St. George’s, and other medical colleges, who set aside a certain number of places for minority students. This informal quota system reflected the percentage of minorities in the general population. It was discovered that minority students with Chinese, Indian, or black African heritage had higher academic qualifications for university admission than did whites (Blacks in Britain from the West Indies had lower academic credentials than did whites). In fact, blacks with African origins over the age of 30 had the highest educational qualifications of any ethnic group in the British Isles (Cross, 1994). According to the 1991 British Census, 26.5 percent of black Britons who were born in Africa had at least some college education. In contrast, only 13.4 percent of white Britons had gone to college.Thus, the evidence pointed to the fact that minority quotas for university admissions were actually working against students from these ethnic groups who were on average more qualified for higher education than their white peers (Cross, 1994; Also see, Dustmann and Theodoropoulos, 2006).
Dustmann and Theodoropoulos (2006) provided the first thorough investigation of educational attainment and economic behavior of ethnic minority immigrants and their children in Britain. This study investigated how British born minorities performed in terms of education, employment and wages when compared to their parent’s generation, as well as to comparable groups of white natives using 27 years of “LFS data” (Labour Force Survey). In both generations Black Africans topped the list in both years of schooling/educational qualifications and wages/employment followed by Indian and Chinese immigrants. This study generally found a strong educational background for Britain’s ethnic minority immigrant population; with second generation ethnic minorities, ‘on average’, doing better than their parents, and “substantially better” than their white peers in most socio-economic indicators and outcomes.
Again, when comparing immigrants in the United States one quickly finds that the racialist models adopted by many Psychologists do not always predict outcomes in the way one might expect. For example, it has been shown that black immigrants born from Zimbabwe (96.7 percent), Botswana (95.5 percent) have high school graduation rates that far exceed all white immigrant and native born groups. While the average Nigerian immigrant (58.6 percent) living in the United States is “eight times” more likely to have obtained a bachelors degree than the average Portuguese born (7.3 percent) (Dixon D, 2006; Dixon D, 2005)!
The African born in the United States are concentrated in management or professional and sales or office-related occupations. Of the employed population age 16 and older in the civilian labor force, the African born are much more likely than the foreign born in general to work in management and professional occupations as well as sales and office occupations (i.e. clerical/administrative). Additionally, the African born are less likely to work in service, production, transportation, material moving, construction, and maintenance occupations than the foreign born in general (Dixon D, 2006). In the UK a study by Li and Heath, from Birmingham University and Oxford University (respectively), found that Africans are more likely to be in professional and managerial jobs than white British men, with a large proportion, about 40%, holding these positions (Li and Heath, 2006; Cassidy, 2006).
Black African Educational Attainment and their Implications for IQ:
The information presented above suggests that African born blacks residing in western countries as a group possess IQs that are between 5 points and a full standard deviation (15 IQ points) above that of whites living in these countries (see, Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999; Richardson, 2002; Cross, 1994; Williams, 2005; Nisbett, 2002). So that if one accepts the research suggesting direct casual relationships between academic attainment and IQ (Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999) the median IQ for African blacks residing in the west should be about 110! This is especially true for those living in the United States and in the UK. One may also expect to find, according to much of the “corroborative” literature that relates IQ with education, approximately twice the number of African born immigrants with IQs in the 115 range, than among the general white American population (Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999; Williams, 2005; Nisbett, 2002); and more than twice the number of African immigrants in the 125 IQ range (see Gottfredson, 1998; Nisbett, 2002; The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000). For example, in the United States, African born blacks and their offspring have been reported to exceed American born whites in several of the most cognitive socio-economic indicators – ‘the areas of educational attainment and occupational status’ — in ways that are virtually identical to the gaps observed between native born white and black Americans (Nisbett, 2002; Charles, 2007; Le, 2007; Le, 2007; US Census Bureau, Census 2000. “5% Public Use Microdata Sample.”).
Some advantages to using academic attainment comparisons for the analysis of major group differences in IQ in Western industrialized nations are that they provide very big numbers, sample sizes often in the hundreds of thousands, that are genuinely random; and consequently specific ethnicities can be compared with statistical confidence. Evidence shows that the differences in overall educational attainment observed between African born blacks in the United States and UK and native born whites are quite spectacular! Indeed, if one chooses to adopt the racial hereditarian thinking of Jensen (1980), Herrnstein and Murray (1994) or Gottfredson (1998), these disparities become suggestive of underlying intelligence differences between the two populations; with these differences in “strong favor” of African born blacks! Though higher cognitive indices are said by some to be predictive of more educational achievements and more education predictive of higher intellectual outcomes (e.g., Brody, 1997; Ceci & Williams, 1997), so that there are reciprocal relationships. Most who study African immigrants attribute their inclination toward academic attainment to be the result of positive cultural factors (Arthur, 2000; Selassie, 1998).
In the United States today, most claims regarding differences between ethnic ‘populations’ in relationship to IQ test performance are based on statistically derived data that relate to scholastic aptitude tests (e.g. Flynn, 2006). With this in mind, and acknowledging the superior educational attainment of African blacks in the United States (and elsewhere) it can thus be argued, because of their superior educational attainment levels, that they must also surmount far more in number and more difficult scholastic aptitude tests, in general, which in turn would require higher level IQs (see Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999). As whites on average do not, or are unable to attain the same levels of academic achievement within these (their own!) academic institutional frameworks, they must also by the racialist thinking employed by some, possess significantly lower cogitative indices on the group level (e.g. Jensen, 1980; Gottfredson, 1986, 1998). In fact, attainment differences of these ‘grand’ magnitudes would suggest that American whites, in particular, are at a significant intellectual handicap when matched against immigrants of black African, East Indian, and East Asian descent. Incidentally, most American whites themselves are the children or grandchildren of “self-selected,” voluntary immigrants from Europe (Ogbu and Simons, 1998), and thus these trends can not be said to result from immigrant selectivity.
African born blacks residing in Western countries tend also to be concentrated in higher level professional occupations, which are considered (by some) to be more intellectually demanding; requiring greater cognitive ability (Jensen, 1980; Gottfredson, 1986; Herrnstein and Murray, 1994), than the average occupations of either American or British born whites (Nisbett, 2002; Dixon, 2006; Li and Heath, 2006; Dustmann and Theodoropoulos, 2006). According to IQ advocates and social Darwinists, alike, these occupational differences should also be indicative of higher levels of intelligence among black African immigrants than among whites (e.g. Gottfredson, 1986; Jensen 1980). Cole (1990), argues that the relevance of school-based skills, such as those found on IQ and scholastic aptitude tests, will grow as the outside-of-school contexts becomes more like that of school itself. While demand for these kinds of school based skills are found most frequently among the clerical/administrative occupations (Richardson, 2002) which African born blacks residing in western countries tend to be found overrepresented (Nisbett, 2002; Dixon, 2006). In fact, as virtually all IQ tests in popular use today were designed specifically for the purposes of predicting academic success and occupational status, it could thus be argued that the west’s hereditarian “Cognitive Elite” (discussed in “The Bell Curve”) could be best described as black men and women from Africa.
Something else to note, according to the New York Times (Roberts, 2005), for the first time in history more blacks are coming to the United States from Africa than during the entire span of the transatlantic slave trade: “Immigration figures show that since 1990 more Africans have arrived voluntarily than the total who disembarked in chains before the United States outlawed international slave trafficking in 1807. “ For example, research shows that around 15% of Ghana’s 20million citizens live aboard (Owusu-Ankomah 2006). Similar trends can be observed among other African states. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey counted 114,000 black African immigrants in the Washington metropolitan area, alone, accounting for about 11 percent of the area’s total immigrant population. Less than 6 percent arrived before 1980. In other words: black African achievement can not simply be dismissed as that of a “small group” of elites entirely unrepresentative of the greater continent. Moreover, the academic attainment and occupational achievements of black Africans are not only documented in the United States, but also the UK (Li and Heath, 2006; Dustmann, Theodoropoulos, 2006) and Canada (Guppy and Davies, 1998; Boyd, 2002; The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2008).
Culture, Race and Intelligence Testing:
It is taken for granted by many in the West that children who do well on standardized tests are intelligent. However, different cultures have their on views of what intelligence is and often these views do not resemble western notions (Sternberg, 2007; Cole, 1990; Cole et al. 1971; Greenfield, 1997). In this respect, people that are considered intelligent may vary from one culture to another, along with the acts that constitute intelligent behavior (Sternberg, 2007). It has been said, for example, that the comparison of IQ scores of different nationalities or cultural groups is, at best, a hazardous enterprise and at worst a nonsensical and mischievous waste of time (Mackintosh, 1998).
In addition, few researchers ever apply standardized measures that are either preferred by or normed in favor of those whose livelihoods or day to day lives are more closely associated with the informal sectors and/or economically disparaged segments of society to those from more affluent or formal society, in order to provide some kind of balance. It has been shown, for example, that tests which are highly novel in one culture or subculture may be quite familiar in the next (Valsiner, 2000), so that, for instance, unschooled subjects may fail at classification tasks characteristic of school learning contexts and succeed with classification relevant to their own everyday practical experiences (Cole, 1990; Cole et al. 1971). That is, even if components of information processing are the same, the experiential novelty to which they are applied may be different (Valsiner, 2000; Sternberg, 2004). Thus, the structure of thought depends upon the structure of the dominant types of activity in different cultures. In other words, people will be good at doing those things that are important to them and that they have opportunities to do often.
A study by Serpell (1979) highlighted this well. Zambian and English children were asked to reproduce patterns using three media alternatives (wire, clay, or pencil and paper). It was found that the Zambian children excelled in the wire medium with which they were most familiar, exceeding the English children in that task; while the English children were best with pencil and paper. Both groups were found to perform equally well with clay. Thus, children performed better with the materials that were more familiar to them from their own environments. A study by Carraher et al (1985) also demonstrated examples of this effect, this time in a group of Brazilian children. The study found that the same children who were able to do the mathematics needed to run their street businesses were often unable to do “the same” mathematics when presented in a more formal (grade schooling) context.
Cole et al (1971) studied a tribe in Africa called the “Kpelle” in which culture was shown to have a rather humorous effect on interpretations of intelligence. In this study adult participants were asked to sort items into categories. However, rather than producing the kind of taxonomic categories (e.g. “fruit” for apple) typically done in the west, the Kpelle participants sorted items into functional groups (e.g. “eat” for apple). After trying and “failing” to teach them to categorize items taxonomically, the Kpelle were asked as a last resort how a “stupid” person would do the task. At that point, according to the researchers, without any hesitation, the Kpelle sorted items into taxonomic categories (Cole et al., 1971)! Demonstrating that not only where these individuals able to do the presented tasks, but in their own culture, what was considered intelligent by western views was thought to be “stupid.”
Education, Literacy, Culture and Standardized Tests –When Blacks Exceed Whites!
Crawford-Nutt (1976) found that African black students enrolled in westernized schools scored higher on progressive matrix tests than did American white students. The study was meant to examine perceptual/cultural differences between groups, and demonstrated that one’s performance on western standardized tests may actually correspond more closely with the quality and style of schooling that one receives more so than other factors. These findings closely support research suggesting that the forms of recognition and reasoning found on Progressive Matrixes tests are exercised and maintained within a western style educational setting (Ceci & Williams, 1997; Ceci, 1991; Richardson, 2000, 2002). Buj (1981) also showed Ghanaian adults in another study to score higher on the same supposedly ‘culture fair’ intelligence test than did Irish adults; scores were 80 (Ghanaian) and 78 (Irish), respectively. While Shuttleworth-Edwards et al (2004) in a study with black South Africans between the ages of 19–30, showed highly significant effects for both level and quality of education within groups whose first language was an indigenous black African language. For example, black African first language groups (as well as white English speaking groups) with “advantaged education” were comparable with the US standardization in IQ test scores (e.g. WAIS-III).
Other programs have shown dramatic improvement in test scores for socially disadvantaged adolescents as a result of short-term cognitive training, so that “…three months later their performance was indistinguishable from that of middle class students” (Feuerstein & Kozulin, 1995, p. 74). Studies done with Ethiopian immigrant students coming from extraordinarily poor rural circumstances tested in Israel by different IQ tests had, in pre-intervention tests, demonstrated lower test scores than the Israeli norm. However, after a short but intensive teaching process the Ethiopian immigrant children performed at about the same level as the Israeli norm (Tzuriel & Kaufman, 1999; Kozulin, 1998).
Bond (1924) early last century pointed out that the average IQ scores of African Americans from several northern states were higher than those for whites from many southern states (Bond, 1924a, p. 63). He argued that African Americans who migrated to the North must have left their “duller and less accomplished White fellows in the South.” Bond also believed that IQ test scores reflected social and educational training. Inline with this belief, Jenkins’s (1936) reported the results of IQ tests given to Black and White children in Illinois, and found that the proportion of students with scores over 130 was the same among Black and White children when environmental influences were comparable. A later study, involving Caribbean children, would in essence replicate these findings. The results from that study showed that when raised in the same enriched institutional environments as white children, black children demonstrated superior IQ test scores. IQs were: Black children 108, Mixed children 106, and White children 103 (Tizard et al, 1972).
Studies also show that upward of 99% of group IQ score differences between healthy black and white Americans are eliminated after controlling for cultural factors. Manly et al (1998) found that after cultural factors such as linguistic behavior (e.g. black vs. standard English) are controlled between healthy black and white Americans that IQ score differences between these populations virtually disappear; becoming insignificant in all but only one area (a reading section)! Some argue that because those who construct standardized tests come from a narrow social group that it follows that test items will contain information and structures that match the background knowledge of some people more than others (Richardson, 2000). This may explain why “acculturation” is found to predict IQ score differences better than virtually any other variable, aside from literacy levels (which is essentially another mediator of culture). Other studies have shown similar results, after controlling for cultural factors. Fagan and Holland (2002) found that where exposure to specific information was required; whites knew more about the meanings of different sayings than did Blacks, due to exposure. But, when comprehension was based on generally available information, Whites and Blacks did not differ (Fagan and Holland, 2002; see also, Fagan and Holland, 2007). This study also found that when Blacks and Whites are matched as to the comprehension of sayings requiring specific knowledge that Blacks were superior to Whites on intelligence tests (ibid).
Teng and Manly (2005) argue that tests developed for members of the majority culture are often inappropriate for ethnic minorities, especially those who speak a different language, have little or no formal education, and grow up in vastly different circumstances (see also, Williams, 1972; Boone et al, 2007). These researchers further argue that variables that directly affect test performance, such as education and acculturation instead of race or ethnicity, should be considered as explanatory variables for test performance (Teng and Manly, 2005). Boone et al (2007) obtained findings that further supported this line, as not ethnic differences, but the effects of acculturation directly and significantly influenced IQ test performance. The authors cautioned that normative data derived on Caucasian samples may not be appropriate for use with other ethnic groups (Boone et al, 2007). Ryan et al (2005) found that discrepancy in reading and education level was associated with worse psychological test performance (e.g. IQ and other tests), while racial/ethnic minority status was not.
Educational Bias:
In the United States, when matched for IQ with Whites, American Blacks have been shown to demonstrate superior “Working Memory” (Nijenhuis et al., 2004). This is a particularly interesting finding as African Americans tend to be taught by less qualified teachers (e.g. non-certified teachers and teachers with limited experience) than their white counterparts, and are provided with less challenging school work (Hallinan 1994; Diamond et al., 2004; Uhlenberg and Brown 2004). In Chicago, for example, the vast majority of schools placed on academic probation as part of the district accountability efforts were majority African-American and low-income (Diamond and Spillane 2004). Thus, it is somewhat of a surprise that African Americans should outperform white Americans on any portion of a paper and pencil test designed to mimic the structures of western style schooling and culture (Richardson, 2000, 2002).
Educational inequality in the U.S. is a pervasive part of the social system and is primarily a consequence of housing. Since the majority of states determine school funding based on property taxes, schools in wealthier neighborhoods receive more funding per student. As home values in white neighborhoods are higher than minority neighborhoods, local schools receive more funding via property taxes (Kelly, 1995). In addition, there has been a history of social policy which has limited African American’s access to avenues of wealth accumulation (e.g. purchasing suburban homes); so that black families also have far fewer assets than their white counterparts who earn the same incomes (Oliver and Shapiro, 1995). Parents with greater assets are free to use them for things like tutors, purchasing educational materials (e.g. computers), and to pay for private schools and more expensive colleges.
In a study which helped to highlight the need for better education for African American children, Serpell et al. (2006) took 162 low-income African American and white fourth graders and assigned them, randomly, to ethnically homogeneous groups of three to work on a motion acceleration task, using computer simulation or physical tools. Or to a control group that did not participate in the learning activities. It was shown that both African American and White students performed equally well on the test of initial learning, with both groups scoring significantly higher than the control group. However, it was also found that African American children’s transfer outcomes were superior to those of their White counterparts (see Serpell et al., 2006). The study demonstrated, empirically, that not only do African American children learn as well as white children, but that they may actually exceed their white counterparts in their ability to transfer learned abilities to real tasks.
A Closer Look at Culturally Bias Testing:
Barnes (1972) noted that the Stanford-Binet, and the Wisc IQ tests are examples of “Culture specific tests,” and that the culture in this instance is what is referred to as “white middle class” culture. Lyman (1970) designed a cross cultural test called the “American Cross Culture Ethnic Nomenclature Test”, or “ACCENT.” The instrument contained 20 black biased and 20 white biased items. In one experiment this test was administered to 110 undergraduates (91 whites and 19 blacks) where it was found that the black participants out performed the white participants. Blacks obtained a mean of 15.3 on the black items and 11.1 on the white items, while white subjects obtained a mean of 12.7 on the white items and 8.3 on the black items. The results of this study indicated that when blacks and whites are tested cross-culturally that blacks may outperform whites on standardized tests.
Williams and Rivers (1972b) showed that test instructions in Standard English penalize the black child and that if the language of the test is put in familiar labels, without training or coaching, the black child’s performance on the tests increase significantly. Ideally a child’s language development should be evaluated in terms of his progress toward the norms for his own particular speech community (Cadzen, 1966); however, this kind of evaluation is rarely, if ever, done with respect to African Americans. Studies using sentence repetition tasks have found that at both third and fifth grades white subjects repeated Standard English sentences significantly more accurately than black subjects, while black subjects repeated nonstandard English sentences significantly more accurately than did white subjects (Marwit et al, 1977). Students in American schools are usually taught and tested only in Standard English, which can put African American students at a disadvantage. In fact, this issue was at the center debates concerning the use of Ebonics in the American school system during the 1990s.
Researchers provide considerable evidence showing that traditional psychological assessment is based on skills that are considered important within white, western, middle-class culture, but which may not be salient or valued within African-American culture (Helms, 1992; Helms, 1997; Hilliard, 1995; Boone et al, 2007; Teng and Manly, 2005). Kwate (2001) argues that IQ tests are antagonistic and incompatible with an African centered conception of intelligence and mental health, while a study by Obiakor and Utley (2004) showed that culturally diverse learners are often excluded in educational programs in the U.S. through misidentification, misassessment, miscategorization, misplacement, and misinstruction-misintervention. When test stimuli are more culturally pertinent to the experiences of African Americans, performance improves (Hayles, 1991; Williams and Rivers, 1972b). For example, research shows that “Black Culture” depicts problem solving as an integrative hemispheric endeavor rather than a linear, analytical process (Bell, 1994), and that in this culture “psychological closeness” is necessary for one’s involvement in the phenomena which he seeks to understand.
Studies using empirical methods also find that cultural differences in the provision of information account for racial differences in IQ scores. Fagan and Holland (2007) asked African-Americans and white Americans to solve problems typical of those administered on standard IQ tests. Half of the problems were solvable on the basis of information generally available to either race, or on the basis of information newly learned; while other problems were only solvable on the basis of specific previous knowledge. In this study specific knowledge varied with race and was shown to be subject to test bias (Fagan and Holland, 2007).
Test Design:
IQ tests are not constructed on the basis of any scientific model of intelligence; they are simply created (by statistical manipulation of item content) to identify individuals who have already been deemed to be ‘intelligent’ by other, more subjective, criteria (Richarson, 2002; Richardson, 2000). These criteria involve what is called, “norm-referencing.” In norm-referenced tests, items which do not discriminate between preselected groups are simply rejected or thrown out (Williams, 1972). So that test factors are no more than a product of the arbitrary way that ability items are devised or selected for inclusion in psychometric tests. Norm referenced measures are by far the most common method used, trying out and discarding items based on item correlations is a major part of the standardized test construction enterprise. In this respect, not only can one expect to find examples of “cultural bias” built into IQ tests, but also, “observer bias.”
Psychometric tests are intended to sample performance in some aspect of the test taker’s environment. However, popular IQ tests are hardly able to do this outside of the “white middle class,” to whom the tests are typically normed. They are also particularly harsh against those who are unfamiliar with “white middle class’” cultural tools and values, or are simply unable to receive an education that is comparable with this group (Richardson, 2000, 2002; Helms 1992, 1997; Barnes, 1972). For this and other reasons the use of IQ tests can be unfair when comparing people outside of particular social groups.
Psychometric theory states that differences in raw test scores (eg, IQ-scores) of different groups cannot be used to infer group differences in theoretical attributes (e.g. intelligence) unless those test scores accord with a particular set of restrictions. The same attribute must relate to the same set of observations in the same way in each group (Borsboom, 2006; Mellenbergh, 1989). However, Wechsler (1944) “himself” warned that his Wechsler Bellevue test norms were to be used exclusively for the white population, stating: “Our norms cannot be used for the colored population of the United states. Though we have tested a large number of colored persons, our standardization is based upon white subjects only (pg. 107).” Williams (1972) administered an intelligence test which happened to be normed on the African American population to group of white Americans to illustrate the effects of cultural bias, and norm referencing. In this study it was found that black Americans demonstrated a “clear superiority” of white Americans (p. 11).
Do IQ Tests Really Measure…Stupidity?
Research has shown that IQ test scores tend to correlate negatively with scores of practical intelligence (Sternberg, 2001, 2004). Practical intelligence can be described as a person’s ability to apply learned skills and knowledge to everyday, real life tasks; or how to handle challenging situations. There is currently a lot of evidence demonstrating IQ tests to be unable to gauge a person’s overall potential or aptitude for learning (see Bradshaw, 2001; Siegel, 1989; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002a). What this means essentially is that a person who scores unusually high on an IQ test may not be an especially great learner (Sternberg, 2001). In fact, high scoring individuals may actually be demonstrating deficits in other areas; particularly in areas involving adaptive behavior or “practical intelligence” (See Sternberg, 2001).
It may also be argued based on the negative correlations observed between Practical Intelligence and IQ scores that those who score moderately or even very poorly on IQ tests may possess important strengths elsewhere. These strengths would relate more closely with adaptive kinds of behaviors and the application of learned skills and knowledge to real life tasks. These practical skills in addition to their full learning capabilities would place people of high Practical intelligence at a distinct advantage over high IQ individuals with respect to most important real life, everyday, tasks. This is because high IQ individuals demonstrate strengths in relationship to the acquisition and retention of knowledge, but are usually weak with respect to putting this knowledge to use in real life practical ways; this is essentially the difference between knowing and doing. Co-incidentally, practical kinds of skills are very similar to the kind of skills and abilities that most Anthropologists and paleoanthropologists credit with helping to make the human species so evolutionarily formidable (Tattersall and Schwartz, 2000; Kuhn and Stiner 1998).
Empirical research has shown Practical intelligence to be a better predictor of numerous real life outcomes. For example, Chawarski (2002), found that among scientists immigrating to Israel from the USSR those who were rated highest on levels of practical intelligence tended to adapt better than those who were not. This study found that higher practical intelligence also tended to predict overall success in research and development jobs; with correlations at times reaching as high as .60 (Chawarski, 2002). Correlations this high are rarely if ever obtained with IQ tests with respect to any criteria, be they academic or real life (Schonemann, 1997c; Bradshaw, 2001). Another study found that teachers of high practical intelligence were rated more effective by their school principals and were better able to handle problematic situations (Grigorenko et al, 2006). While Sternberg (2001) reported that among academics, measures of practical intelligence predict productivity, citation rates, and quality ratings of the institution at which one is teaching over and above those obtained from IQ tests.
A study by Bilalić et al (2007) found when an elite subsample of 23 children was tested for IQ that their scores were not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, IQ tended to correlate negatively with chess skill. Chess is often considered to be a game which puts heavy demands on one’s cognitive abilities and reasoning skills; requiring forward planning, short and long term strategic considerations and the ability to think dynamically. Thus, negative correlations between IQ scores and chess skills should cast some serious doubt on the value of such tests. One may be left asking, since negative correlations have been observed, which is a better measure of one’s intelligence, chess skill or IQ?
Referenced Literature:
Armstrong, T. (1993). Seven Kinds of Smart: Identifying and Developing Your Many Intelligences. New York: Penguin Group.
Arthur, John (2000). Invisible Sojourners: African Immigrant Diaspora in the United States. Prager Westport, CT.
Baldwin J.A., Bell Y.R. (1985). The African Self-Consciousness Scale: An Africentric Personality Questionnaire. Western Journal of Black Studies 1985, p61-68.
Barnes, E. (1972). I.Q. Testing and Minority Children: Imperatives for Change, 1972. National Leadership Institute Teacher Education/Early Childhood. The University of Connecticut, Technical paper, pp. 1-8.
Bilalic M. , , McLeod P., and Gobet F. (2007). Does chess need intelligence? – A study with young chess players. Intelligence Volume 35, Issue 5, September-October 2007, Pages 457-470.
Boone K.B., Victor T.L., Wen J., Razani J, and Marcel Pontón M. (2007). The association between neuropsychological scores and ethnicity, language, and acculturation variables in a large patient population. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Volume 22, Issue 3, March 2007, Pages 355-365 Special Issue: Cultural Diversity.
Borsboom D. (2006). When Does Measurement Invariance Matter? Medical Care ” Volume 44, Number 11 Suppl 3, November 2006.
Boyd, M. (2002). Educational Attainments of Immigrant Offspring: Success or Segmented Assimilation? International Migration Review 36 (Winter): 1037-1060.
Buj, V. (1981). “Average IQ values in various European countries.” Personality and Individual Differences, 2:168-169.
Braaten E.B., Norman D. (2006). Intelligence (IQ) Testing. Pediatrics in Review. 2006;27:403-408.
Bradshaw, J. (2001). Developmental Disorders of the Fronto-Striatal System. Philadelphia: Psychiatric Press.
Bredin J., Kerlirzin Y., Israël I. (2005) . Path integration: is there a difference between athletes and non-athletes? Experimental Brain Research Volume 167, Number 4 / December, 2005.
Brody, N. (1997). Intelligence, schooling, and society. American Psychologist, 52, 1046-1050.
Cadzen, C.B. (1966). Subcultural Differences in Child Language: An Inter-Disciplinary Review. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1955, 12, pp. 185-214.
Capron C., Adrian R. Vetta, Michel Duyme, and Atam Vetta (1999). Misconceptions of biometrical IQists. Current Psychology of Cognition 1999, 18 (2), 115-160.
Capron C, & Vetta A (2001). Familial studies: genetic inferences. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 5259-5265.
1998; Ostrowsky, 1999)!
Research also shows that when African Americans are matched as to linguistic behavior (e.g. black vs. standard English), literacy levels and to the comprehension of sayings requiring specific knowledge, that African Americans perform as well or better than do Whites on IQ tests.
By Bernie Douglas (April 10, 2008), Revised February 17, 2009
What are IQ Tests?
IQ is a culturally and ideologically rooted construct; an index intended to predict success or outcomes that are valued as success by some people, in western societies. The items on these tests are largely measures of achievement at various levels of competency (Sternberg et al, 1998a, 1999, 2003a) and are devised impressionistically by psychologists to simply mimic the psycholinguistic structures of schooling and middle class clerical/administrative occupations (Richardson, 2000, 2002). Alfred Binet, the inventor of the first intelligence test devised this instrument more than 100 years ago to screen “children” for educational difficulties, and made clear its conceptual foundations (See Richardson, 2002). His interest was in the educational development of children, and argued that his test could not be used for children over the age of seventeen. He also believed that scores on his test could be radically improved through learning and instruction. Stern (1914) would devise what is known today as the concept of “I.Q.,” which stands simply for “Intelligence Quotient.” Stern’s quotient system was, too, like Binet’s test, devised for use exclusively with children, and was not intended for use with adults.
IQ tests were originally intended to be little more than devices for generating numbers that are useful in assessing academic aptitude with in a given culture, and for use mainly with children. IQ tests sample some elements of intelligent behavior and these elements are associated with academic performance (Capron et al, 1999). Traditional IQ tests do not measure the many forms of intelligence that are beyond more academically specific skills, such as music, creativity, art, interpersonal and intrapersonal abilities (Braaten and Norman, 2006; Gardner, 2000; Armstrong, 1993). The processes associated with schooling influence performance on IQ tests through a combination of direct instruction and indirect inculcation of modes of thinking, and the values associated with standardized testing (Ceci and Williams 1997; Ceci, 1991; Richardson, 2000, 2002). Tests have a narrow focus on skills and tasks which are acquired and rehearsed through the processes of formal or informal schooling (Ceci and Williams, 1997; Ceci, 1991: Kamin, 1974).
IQ and similar tests are also unable to measure one’ s potential, are not independent from what is measured by achievement tests and are not powerful predictors of low reading performance (Siegel, 1989, 1992; Bradshaw, 2001; Naglieri and Reardon, 1993; Rispens et al 1991). Test results in one child can vary according to mood, motivation, and fatigue, while the tests themselves show prominent rehearsal/learning effects, generally assume a degree of literacy, and are largely framed to suit mainstream Western cultural requirements (Ceci & Williams, 1997; Ceci, 1991; O’ Brien, 2001; Richardson 2000, 2002; Sternberg, 2004). For these reasons and others many believe that the use of IQ tests should be abandoned (Siegel, 1989, 1992; Vellutino et al, 2000, Bradshaw, 2001; Schonemann, 1997c). In addition, no tests except dynamic tests (see Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002a) that require learning at the time of the test directly measure ability to learn. Traditional IQ tests focus on measuring past learning, typical of the kind acquired through the processes of formal schooling and cultural exchange. While these things are known to be heavily influenced by accessibility, motivation and available opportunities to learn (see Fagan and Holland, 2002, 2007).
Heritability and IQ:
Despite what some have argued in the past, there is no serious evidence which has demonstrated IQ tests to measure either an inborn property or what is commonly understood to mean intelligence (see Hirsch 1970, 1997, 2004; Schonemann, 1997c, 2005; Schonemann and Schonemann, 1994; Kempthorne 1978, 1997; Capron et al, 1999; Vetta, 2002; Wahlsten, 1981, 1990; Capron and Vetta, 2001). Intelligence is a highly subjective and culturally confound concept which remains largely undefined (Schonemann, 1997c; Sternberg, 2007; Cole et al, 1971; Guttman, 1992). The twin and adoption studies commonly used to report heritability estimates in relationship to IQ tests have also been shown to be suspicious in nature. The biometrical school of scientists who fit models to IQ data traces their history to R. Fisher (1918), but their genetic models have been shown to have virtually no predictive value (Vetta, 2002; Vetta, 1976; Capron and Vetta, 2001; Capron et al, 1999; Schonemann, 1997c). For example, statistical models used in twin studies and inferences from them relating to IQ tests lack statistical validity, and are thus of dubious value (Capron et al., 1999; Kempthorne, 1997; Schonemann, 1997c; Schonemann and Schonemann, 1994).
Wahlsten (1981) argues that errors are so wide spread in the heritability literature that the critical reader has good reason to doubt every article published on the topic in relationship to IQ. He goes further stating that it is necessary to check the arithmetic, algebra and original references before seriously considering any conclusions. For example, the most widely used heritability method, now, is based on a paper by Jinks and Fulker (1970). However, this method contains an algebraic error that renders its application in most instances, worthless (See: Capron et al, 1999; Schonemann, 1997c, 1990). Schonemann (1997c) shows that conventional heritability estimates often produce absurdly high values for variables that cannot possibly be genetic. He found that if one applies the traditional heritability arithmetic to the twin data collected by Loehlin and Nichols (1976), that the answer to the question Did you take a bubble bath last year is 90% genetic (Schonemann, 1997c)! Kempthorne (1978, 1997) argues that the concept of heritability is important for plant and animal breeding because it is possible to design and carry out experiments to estimate variance components, but that data on humans is observational and individuals are not randomly assigned to environments, and should, for these reasons, be ignored.
A psychologist administering an IQ test to different kinships (e.g. twins) is not manipulating either the genetic or environmental factors, as is done in animal experiments (Capron et al, 1999; Kempthorne, 1997), thus their estimates tend to be speculation in absence of any definitive proof. Many well regarded statistical and biometrical experts have argued that the true heritability of IQ is probably closer to zero (see: Schonemann, 1997c, 1990; Schonemann and Schonemann, 1994; Capron et al, 1999; Vetta, 2002; Wahlsten, 1981, 1990; Vetta and Coureau, 2003; Taylor, 1980; Hirsch 1970, 1997, 2004; Kempthorne 1978, 1997)! Indeed, literacy and acculturation have been shown to predict IQ score differences between groups and individuals better than any other variables (Boone, 2007; Manly et al, 1998; Fagan and Holland, 2002, 2007; Ryan et al, 2005).
Why the Racial Controversy?
While one will find many flaws and inconsistencies associated with the concept of IQ, this has not managed to sway some hard nosed advocates from continuing to promote the test’s practical merits for predicting academic success and occupational status within western market based societies – This is in spite of the test’s predictive value in these areas also having been roundly challenged (Schonemann, 1997c, 2005; Siegel, 1989; Bradshaw, 2001; Sternberg, 2001; Frank, 1983).
Some of the more ardent IQ advocates have even gone so far as to argue that the possible reason many blacks and other minorities do not achieve in areas relating to academic attainment and occupational status, particularly in the US, is not due to historical racism or negative societal factors, but instead because of factors that relate to low IQ scores. Ignoring historical events (e.g. slavery and Jim Crow) economic and educational biases (Pattillo,1999; Diamond and Spillane 2004; Roscigno, 1998), the affects of culture and cultural differences (Valsiner, 2000; Cole et al. 1971; Serpell R., 1979; Ogbu and Simons, 1998), the questionable methodology and theory involved in IQ tests (Schonemann, 1997c, 2005; Guttman, 1955, 1992; Hirsch, 1970, 1997, 2004), poor test validity and predictive value (Schonemann, 1997c, Bradshaw, 2001; Sternberg, 1997), test bias (Manly, 1998; Helms, 1992; Helms, 1997; Kwate, 2001; Baldwin and Bell, 1985; Borsboom, 2006) and overwhelming criticism leveled against heritability estimates (Capron et al, 1999; Schonemann, 1994, 1997c; Hirsh, 1970, 2004 ; Kempthorn; 1978, 1997; Lidz and Blatt, 1983; Joseph, 2004, 2006; Vetta, 1976, 2002), these advocates tend to proceed with their arguments, unaltered.
For example, in 1994 authors Herrnstein and Murray in their controversial book “The Bell Curve” argued that a dysgenic trend exists in western societies that foresee the establishment of a “cognitive elite.” Although their work was subject to wide and often scathing criticism, the authors managed to generate a substantial amount of media attention, which helped to perpetuate negative ethnic stereotypes in the formal literature and in public discourse for a number of years.
Many IQ advocates argue that a general index of cognitive ability is the single best predictor of virtually all criteria considered necessary for success in life in the Western part of the developed world (Schmidt, Ones & Hunter, 1992), and maintain that the average undergraduate, “those who graduate from college or university”, must possess an IQ that is on average no lower than 115 (Ostrowsky, 1999; Gottfredson, 1998), while individuals who are able to obtain a graduate level degree must on average possess an IQ in the range of 125 (Gottfredson, 1998). This often serves the implied purpose of suggesting that blacks and other minorities do not go on to, or graduate from institutions of higher learning, and ultimately move on to professional careers and economic success, not because of matters relating to personal interest, financial ability, or the quality of schooling received in the past; but instead because of factors relating to IQ scores (e.g. Jensen, 1980; Gottfredson, 1998). Arguments such as these tend also to base themselves within the shaky framework that is, “nature vs. nurture.” In this case, does more school develop high IQ, or does a high IQ equal more school and greater socio-economic success (Jensen, 1980; Gottfredson, 1998)? Others have pointed out, simply, that the correlation between IQ scores and school performance is one deliberately built into tests and that processes associated with schooling directly influence tests performance (Richardson, 2002).
Black African Immigrants Significantly Exceed Whites in Level of Education:
African-born blacks comprise about 16 percent of the U.S. foreign-born black population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000), and are “considerably” more educated than other immigrants. The vast majority of these immigrants come from minority white countries in East and West Africa (e.g. Kenya and Nigeria). While less than 2 percent originate from North or South Africa (CIA World Factbook, 2004; Yearbook of immigration Statistics, 2003). An analysis of Census Bureau data by The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (1999-2000) and the “Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research” (2003) find that Black African immigrants to the United States are more likely to be college educated than ‘any’ other immigrant group, which included those from Europe, North America and Asia (see also Nisbett, 2002; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). African immigrants have also been shown to be more highly educated than any native-born ethnic group including white and Asian Americans (Logan & Deane, 2003; Williams, 2005; The Economist, 1996; Arthur, 2000; Selassie, 1998; Nisbett, 2002).
Most research suggests that between 43.8 and 49.3 percent of “all” African immigrants in the United States hold a college diploma (Nisbett, 2002; Charles, 2007; U.S. Census, 2000). This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., substantially greater than the percentage of European immigrants, nearly “double” that of native-born white Americans, nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans, and more than “8 times” that of some Hispanic groups (Williams, 2005; Nisbett, 2002; Kent, 2007; The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000; U.S. Census, 2000)! Black immigrants from Africa have also been shown to have rates of college graduation that are “more” than double that of the U.S. born population, in general (Williams, 2005). For example, in 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a “graduate degree”, compared to 8.1 percent of adult whites (a difference of “more than” double) and 3.8 percent of adult blacks in the United States, respectively (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000). This shows that America has an equally large achievement gap between white Americans and African born immigrants as between native born white and black Americans.
In the UK, 1988, the Commission for Racial Equality conducted an investigation on the admissions practices of St. George’s, and other medical colleges, who set aside a certain number of places for minority students. This informal quota system reflected the percentage of minorities in the general population. It was discovered that minority students with Chinese, Indian, or black African heritage had higher academic qualifications for university admission than did whites (Blacks in Britain from the West Indies had lower academic credentials than did whites). In fact, blacks with African origins over the age of 30 had the highest educational qualifications of any ethnic group in the British Isles (Cross, 1994). According to the 1991 British Census, 26.5 percent of black Britons who were born in Africa had at least some college education. In contrast, only 13.4 percent of white Britons had gone to college.Thus, the evidence pointed to the fact that minority quotas for university admissions were actu
I may of made repeats.
“I may of made repeats”
Is this eubonics for my editing sucks?
Too bad because you have some interesting data. An 80 IQ black always seems more functional than an 80 IQ white. You might be on to something, but you need to delete half your work and all your repeats in order to make a more cogent argument.
There is also strong evidence to suggest that whites with strong European heritage on the whole are a genetically dead end race . Genetic diversity is slowing down the development further of whites compared to other groups like African blacks which explains the rises in Black average IQ for the past century. Also the skulls of the majority of sub saharan blacks are gracile as opposed to the more primative robust versions if anyone has heard of what gracile and robust skulls are. This also explains why when Blacks migrated out of africa people developed fast adaptations to the new enviroments. This was also evedent during the tras atlantic slave trade when slave carriers and masters commented on the fast adaptibilty of the blacks and how it threatend their own lives. Black culture in America despite the primative exterior has also been shown to be way ahead of “opposing” or rather “other” cultures in the fact that it involves quite hgh amount of cognitive strains on the brain and so on which help with that area of development. Black intelligence and adaptibility has also been shown for centuries in pre colonial africa were ancient sophisticated states and empires were built in large inhospitable areas like the asante in tropical west africa to rozwi, mwenemutapa and other central and outh african states. Many historians ay that the europeans were a lot tougher on the native africans in the conquests of africa due to the sheer brilliance of adaptiveness and how quick the africans learnt compared to the average citizen in europe. Africans are also a very entrepreneural people. If you look at many other poor states around the world like say nicaragua or columbia of peru for exampe which are majority white states you’ll see no driv in the poor elements of the population and no on the whole uniqueness. Commentators have even said that many african states that are on a par on development with many non african states have said and shown that these states have vastly more human potential due to the natural learning abilty and drive of africans. I COULD GO ON AND ON but i’ll choose not to. Here are some links.
“He repeats the standard line from Jensen and Rushton that a White with <70 IQ usually is genetically diseased in some way that effects the way they walk and talk. The Black with the same IQ is not. That’s why they seem different…This is the typical line that I keep hearing, but it still doesn’t make sense. In the US, Whites with IQ’s <70 are generally living in group homes, are not allowed to have kids or marry, have poor social skills, poor judgment, generally do not work or work only at specialized jobs, have their finances monitored by someone, and are not allowed to drive cars."
This is how it works: Within both Whites and Blacks, 1.5% or so of the population is organically retarded (OR) (mildly, moderately, or severely) and these are the people that "are not allowed to have kids or marry, have poor social skills" and whom you stereotypically think of as retarded. OR is due to DNA mutations which have a pervasive effects. In addition, in both races there are familial retarded (FR) people and this is due solely to low IQ. These people are just slow and don't fit the typical stereotype. For whites 2% or so of the population is FR and for Blacks 16% of the population is. The high ratio of ORs to FRs in the White population is what leads to the stereotype about MRs and the incredulity about blacks MRs. I've know a number of White and Black FRs and they seem about the same (to me).
I work with alot of blacks and from my observation they do think differently than other races and they are good at different things than other races tend to be.
The blacks I know are great at bullshitting and rapping their way into positions. They really know how to make that good first impression and say whatever it takes. They are very good at evaluating what people expect and playing to it in a glib superficial way. Let’s face it-that is a skill.
Where they fall short is in actually doing what they say they can do. Vast majority have very poor work ethic and problem solving skills. I’ve also seen that they can’t self-organize. I haven’t seen one yet that can walk into a position that is totally new and devise ways of structuring and organizing it efficiently.
The result of that is they do things in the most inefficient way, make their jobs impossible, make everyone else’s lives difficult, things get out of control and a total mess, and someone has to step in and fix the shit. Then they are resentful and belligerent that someone is “stepping on their toes” and “telling them how to do their job”.
For example, when most people have alot of information coming at them, they try to find a way to organize it and make it manageable to make it easier on themselves. That’s common sense. Even a simple fucking alphabetical paper filing system could go a long way. What I’ve seen time and again with blacks is that as information comes at them, they throw it into a big pile and things quickly go downhill. They then stress out as they lose a handle on things and they become rude and belligerent because of that stress.
I’ve seen it alot, so much so that it’s become a pattern. I don’t know why they tend to be like that. Is it something organic in their brains? Is it cultural? Both? I don’t know.
The second paragraph behavior is both organic and cultural, especially in Black males.
Really, anecdotal evidence? Then you are working with some poor blacks. It’ll be great if you mentioned the number of blacks that you have worked with, the exact positions, rather than using glib terms such as “rapping their way in”.
I’m not sure which blacks you’ve worked with. The ones that I have worked with (and mind you, I have worked in many positions, from lower end and higher), and I can tell you that they are quite organized. In lower, blue collar positions that I have worked in during my younger years, I was taught a system of cleaning which was quite efficient at saving time whilst presenting quality. In manager positions, they were able to stay organized, and keep their post running smoothly.
I’ve even worked for black business owners, and was floored by her level of higher mathematical skills, as well as her complex – yet efficient – system of organization. Her business is running quite smoothly, with plans to open more.
This is why anecdotal evidence is, quite simply, garbage. For all of your stories of blacks “singing their way into jobs, to prove that they cannot handle it”, I have plenty of evidence of highly popular, widely successful businesses run by blacks. I can also present information of whites that wowed me at how poorly their work ethic is.
This is why you do not make theories based on the individual.