Envision US Blacks with 90 IQ Versus 85 IQ

Personally, I would be ecstatic if we could raise US Black IQ even from 85-89. IQ differences are quite sharp and noticeable towards the lower end for some reason, and 89 IQ is the IQ of the average human. It has also been estimated that a ~90 IQ is necessary in order to create a well-functioning modern society.
To give you an idea of the difference, Hispanics in the US (mostly Mexicans) have ~90 IQ, and US Blacks have 85 IQ. Hispanics do quite a bit better on all sorts of variables than Blacks. Now if we could get the Black IQ up to Hispanic level, I still think Blacks would act a lot worse than Hispanics, but they might perform better in school, have lower dropout rates, do better at occupational achievement and improve on lots of variables from where they were before.
I think they still might act pretty bad because the bad behavior seems to be due to things other than that 85 IQ. The 85 IQ is a problem, but it can’t explain the sky-high Black crime rates very well. For instance, US Black IQ is 85. US Polynesian and Amerindian IQ is 87. There’s not much difference. The Polynesian and Amerindian crime rates are only 2X the White rate, while the Black crime rate is ~6X the White rate.
So whatever causes all this Black crime, there’s more to it than an 85 IQ. There are other things going on there, and who knows what they are. Nevertheless, I suspect that a 90 IQ US Black group would have a lower crime rate than an 85 IQ US Black group simply because crime tends to decrease as IQ goes up and increase as it goes down, and the increases and decreases can be quite dramatic at the lower end of the scale (below 100).

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

0 thoughts on “Envision US Blacks with 90 IQ Versus 85 IQ”

  1. Stuff other than genetic stuff lowering the IQ would obviously be the immoral culture. However, that would only affect ghetto blacks. Perhaps the overall mean of all blacks is brought down by the ghetto blacks so it seems like ALL OF THEM have a low IQ.
    All it takes is some 70 or 80 IQ blacks to bring down the mean, so the 100 IQ blacks seem to be non-existent.

  2. What is the view around these parts toward positive eugenics?
    For example, incentivizing birth control among people in lower income and educational strata. It doesn’t have to explicitly mention race either.

    1. It could be useful, if there are norms of reaction/ gene- environment interaction and/or dependence, but if additive heredity (Phenotype = Genotype + Environment), it’s largely not going to work unless heretibility is super high, which the evidence Robert has given has shown it’s not:
      I have no problem with gentle Eugenics in theory, but in reality it may be fruitless.
      Your group’s IQ would be barely above the previous mean in 2 generations – if one were to compensate for that, you’d have to continually make for only the upper portion of society that who want to breed, breed, consistently, so you’d end up diminishing your group’s population, severely.

      1. @William, depends on how long you want it to take. It just has to be over 0.5 to actually work.
        Remove the welfare state and have 0.6-0.8 heritability, then the black population will have a stronger middle class, as we saw between 1920-1950s.
        Although the heritability factor is generally ranged at 0.5-0.8, 0.6 seems to be the most common factor.
        Currently, it is the under class that dictates black culture, and allows for negative, passive traits to flourish. The goal should be to suppress the lower class by giving them factory type jobs, or equivalent.
        Apply eugenics, lower the min-wage, remove welfare state. Even if the average IQ doesn’t grow as fast or as much as we’d like, black culture, at least, won’t be as dysgenic (or stagnating) as it is.

        1. well, I suppose it would help to make a table of what the IQ over generations would look like with x heretability;
          at 0.5, as I said, in two generations you’d be at 89 (where Blacks are currently 85, Whites 100, SD of 15), after three 87, Four 86, etc.
          So you’d be set for two to three generations.
          Then you’d have to start over.
          In essence, if you were to say “100” is the number, 16% of Blacks have IQs above that, and if you wanted 100 to be the average you’d have 16% below as well,
          so you’d be restricting breeding to 32% of the Black population.
          the question would be…..
          do they have three times as many kids to compensate?
          so, at
          about 2.4 kids per women, that’d have to skyrocket to…………………………
          2.4(100/32)= 7.5 kids!
          that’s crazy,
          and that’s under intense effect (only 32% breeding)…………………….

        2. AND
          two parents with IQs of 100 having 7.5 children is not going to be in a good environment!

        3. You cannot advocate that on here, Joe. You cannot advocate getting rid of the welfare state, lowering the minimum wage or any of the other crazy Libertarian stuff. This is a socialist blog. You cannot support rightwing economics in any way, shape, or form. You cannot advocate getting rid of the welfare state or even cutting it really. You certainly cannot advocate lowering the already low ($7.25/hr.) minimum wage.
          I ban on that, just to tell you. I ban people all the time for advocating rightwing economics.
          This is one of the things that I hate about eugenics. Everyone who is advocating it is a Goddamned conservative!

        4. Robert-
          What do you think about the correlation between wealth and income? It’s supposed to be moderately positive (0.4), at least in the U.S.
          Do you think it’s overblown…or that even if it is, the way the wealthy behaves is just immoral?

        5. Your remarks about suppressing the few remains of the Welfare State are disgusting. America has one of the most inequalitarian social systems in the world and in the history of civilization, do you want it to be even more severe? The remedy you are calling for don’t even lead to America as you have known it, but to India, where they think exactly as you do. The net result is no betterment of the IQ whatsoever.

    2. For me, I am convinced that it is the only way.
      I tend not to fall on genetic engineering, because that opens a different argument, that affects more than what, I believe, we’re capable of answering. It’s not at all productive for current conversations; I see a Gattaca type future, which sucks.

      1. I’m not quite sure how the racial mean, what’s being regressed to changes- I’d expect it’d have to be massive mutations or something of that sort, how Archaic are the old racial means…
        I think we could look at how Ashkenazi Jew IQ skyrocketed in the second millenia as a starting point.

        1. Well, if we wanted the overall population to be revamped, then yes it possess a problem.
          I would say just take a particular sample and go with that. Had the Ashkenazim went back to the general white population, their IQs would’ve regressed at a faster rate – fast enough to negate potential growth.

    3. But it may not be the genetics but rather the chosen behavior. Smoking around kids, drug abuse, poor nutrition.

      1. Most of which can be tied back to Iq/ behavioral traits.
        As been discussed before, those with lower IQ are more impulsive thus would partake in substance abuse more often than others.
        However poor nutrition indeed could damage the IQ to an extent.

        1. extremely strong environment warps genes- that’s how humans have emerged, evolved, etc.
          but,yes, with “smoking weed” references, Jason is being a little bit silly/naive
          I think the “stop, then start” theory of evolution is better, we don’t see massive changes depending on specific environment at any given time, do we?

      2. it’s going to take a lot more than that, Jason.
        although, ultimately, that’s how the only sustainable change is made (other than perhaps genetic engineering).

  3. It might take 100 years to grow 5 IQ points, even with eugenics. Besides, there’s still that testosterone problem – black crime will most likely, always be higher. But maybe low enough that it’s not a big difference.

    1. As far as I’ve been research, I think the M-AOA allele variants actually play a larger role in crime difference than T differences.
      T association with crime, on the whole, is somewhat partial as far as I’ve read while MAOA and serotonin (brain serotonin) and yeilds far closer correlations.
      Basically If the MAOA sequence is longer, you’ll absorb more serotonin and be more stable mentally speaking. If shorter then the opposite effect.
      Blacks have about a 5% frequency of the most severe type compared to 1% of whites. This, keep in mind, is only part of it with IQ resounding possibly the majority.

      1. having Serotonin levels out of whack, can make it, that if you are at any sort of stressful part of your life (for example, a poor Black living in the ghetto) it can mess with you pretty bad.
        I was in a bad rut this Spring and not sure I would ever make it out.
        I am, I suppose a rare White with serotonin issues.

        1. Actually serotonin issues isn’t rare in whites. There are other variants of MAOA that exist much more frequent in other races that can make someone have issues.
          The one I mentioned was likely for those that were serious taking part in violent crime.

  4. Thanks for the interesting discussion guys. Some of you really know your stuff. I haven’t studied much about genetics.
    Robert wrote:

    This is one of the things that I hate about eugenics. Everyone who is
    advocating it is a Goddamned conservative!

    I find that too. In fact a good percentage of them are nothing less than nazis.
    I assume our shared goal is to have peaceful prosperous societies, comprised of intelligent thoughtful people. What I’m wondering is if there is a humane liberal context that can accommodate some form of gentle/positive/non-coercive eugenics. (Assuming it works, which itself is being debated above).
    One example: Incentivized eugenics limited to families that already have children. I’d imagine that greatly reduces the risk of the mother suffering from depression due to being sterilized. Instead of ending up with 6 kids growing up in poverty and doing poorly in school, she could be limited to her current 2 kids, and the state would set up a full college fund for them, in exchange for her being sterilized. Stuff like that.
    Is this vision liberal? Or is it still right-wing because at root it is still making judgments regarding what kind of people I want to exist or not exist in society?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)