Language Difficulty and Racial IQ

Neo asks:

As a linguist and race realist, is there a correlation between language hardness and racial IQ?

There is no relationship at all between language difficulty and racial IQ. Amerindian languages are the most monstrous on Earth, and their IQ’s are only ~87. Eskimo languages are horrific, and Eskimos have ~91 IQ’s. The language of the Bushmen is insanely hard, but their IQ is thought to be between 50-60. Aborigine and Papuan languages can also be incredibly difficult, and their IQ’s are very low.
The languages of the Caucasus are the hardest on Earth, but their IQ’s are only ~85-90.
Truth is that as languages become used by industrialized societies as forms of mass communication, they tend to simplify and a lot of their difficulty works out of them. This is because people in modern advanced societies often want to get their point across as quickly as possible, whereas a hunter-gatherer in the Kalahari has all the time in the world.
In contrast, primitive people often have the most insanely complex languages. Primitive or noninudustrialized agrarian, rural or mountain-dwelling people do not have much intellectual stimulation, so they often play with their incredibly difficult languages as a source of creativity, fun and intellectual stimulation because they are intellectually starved and bored.
The more advanced the ethnic group -> the simpler the language.
The less advanced the ethnic group -> the more complex the language.
Of course there are many exceptions, and linguists tear their hair out and start screaming and yelling if they read what I just wrote, but I do think there is some truth to it.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “Language Difficulty and Racial IQ”

  1. Not really, has more to do with level of development. As you noted about Italian, a highly developed society is full of people who do not want to mess with a complex language and just want to get their point across as quickly as possible, hence, Italian (and other tongues of the developed world) appears to be simplifying.
    A hunter gatherer has all the time in the world and he doesn’t have to be concerned about getting his point across as quickly as possible so he can make a buck or beat the rush hour or whatever. They can kick back and play around with a complicated language.

  2. Since we’re talking I would like to say that appreciate your blog which is one of the only (the only?) non-nasty race realist blog I know.
    I comment rarely but vist the site not as rarely.

    1. Thank you very much my friend!
      Almost all race realist blogs are nasty, racist and ugly, and we are just getting started. All of that repels me, so I try to avoid all of that. Plus I am on the Left and we don’t like really nasty, ugly, mean types of racist thinking.
      I go to great lengths to be as kind as possible.

  3. I was thinking that Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese and Korean are all rated 5 in difficulty.
    I am unclear how you can be a leftist and a race realist since leftists core principle is equality, inequality is solely the result of oppression, and that the elites use any ideology or test to justify their privileged status.

    1. I was thinking that Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese and Korean are all rated 5 in difficulty.
      Yes, but Japanese and Korean are simplifying somewhat in terms of honorifics nowadays, and Hebrew is a bit in terms of phonology.
      I am unclear how you can be a leftist and a race realist since leftists core principle is equality, inequality is solely the result of oppression, and that the elites use any ideology or test to justify their privileged status.
      Yes but I reject all of that stuff. That said, I am a socialist, and I am basically a progressive person. And I still believe in equality, relatively speaking anyway. I certainly don’t celebrate inequality or anything like that.

  4. Interesting idea, is there linguist peer reviewed research on (a) IQ and language difficulty and (b) modern languages are “simplifying”?
    As an example, consider low-IQ persons who speak one language natively (say English IQ 70-85) to those who also speak English natively but with an average IQ of 105-115 (Orientals and Jews). Presumably higher IQ would have be more articulate. So it is unclear how a low-IQ population could develop and then “learn” an extremely difficult language, and why, if IQ tests are valid, they don’t then “simplify” their extremely difficult language the way 70-85 IQ’ers simplify the English language.
    Supposedly the Australian Aborgines have the lowest IQ of any extant population that has been tested, AND they lived in the stone age until very recently (some still do apparently). Would you predict their language is extremely difficult or simple?

    1. Aboriginal languages are supposedly monstrously complex.
      Interesting idea, is there linguist peer reviewed research on (a) IQ and language difficulty and (b) modern languages are “simplifying”?
      They would laugh or scream in outrage at either of those suggestions so it’s not even up for being tested. They would call both of those premises “myths.”

  5. Aborgines have the lowest average group IQ in the world (60 according to Rushton) yet they have a supposedly monstrously complex language?
    Maybe IQ tests are flawed??
    Another way to pose this is that if a person spoke 2 or more languages fluently (i.e Spanish and English) would we say that person has a low-IQ or at least average IQ? and that learning a supposedly monstrously complex language is roughly as demanding on IQ as learning 2 languages.
    Since you’re a linguist maybe you could initiate and publish papers on language and IQ.
    Does primary language difficulty itself effect on IQ (i.e do whites who speak a difficult language differ in IQ from whites who speak a simpler language)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.