Short piece provides proof for a Flynn Effect in North Africans who moved to Morocco. Download as pdf for best experience.
Sami: Very good points, Thinking Mouse.
The majority of our immigration comes from Latin American, average present IQ 90-95, and from East Asia, average present IQ 100-107. This averages out to close to 100 as it is, if you look at those two groups in combination. And this doesn’t take into account the Flynn Effect (though, unfortunately, I doubt Mexican American Barrio culture, as it presently is, at least, is something that would do much to accelerate the Flynn Effect, sorry to say.
And we get smaller input from places like the Middle East, present average IQ 84-90, if Richard Lynn’s methods for assessing this are valid (highly questionable, at best). However, Arab Americans and Iranian Americans both have average incomes and average levels of educational attainment — both considered to be rough proxies for average IQ — than the White American average. So, it is clear, that within American culture (in stark contrast to the case with Europe) those groups seem to be Flynn-effected upward.
In short, I am unconvinced that our present immigration policy is dysgenic.
Instead of simply not being Flynn-effected, I would argue that barrio culture is actually IQ-impairing. I don’t have any evidence for that, but I can hardly think of a more aggressively, belligerently, arrogantly ignorant culture in the US. Even US Black culture is more educated and intellectual than US barrio culture. Isn’t that pitiful?
Latin America does NOT have an average IQ of 90-95. Most of the immigration is from Mexico, IQ 90. The rest is from Central America, IQ 85-90. Average IQ of Hispanics in the US is ~90. We don’t get that much immigration from East Asia. China is where most of it comes from, IQ 105. Combined together, you get IQ 96, but there are many more Hispanics, so that lowers it to ~93. At the end of the day we don’t know what the IQ of immigrants, legal and illegal, is in the US.
Hispanic IQ in the US is not undergoing any Flynn rises compared to Whites. It just stays at 90. Arab and Iranian IQ is not high, but in the US, they may be selected. Anyway, they appear much smarter than Hispanics here in the US, whatever their IQ’s are.
You have only to look at large Hispanic communities to see that the IQ is not the same as a nearby White town. This Hispanic city here may have an IQ of 93. I came from a nearby White town which probably had IQ of 100. The differences were so stark it was shocking. So you can see that even seven IQ points at a macro scale like that has a huge effect on the intelligence of a city. You can really see IQ differences when you look at whole cities full of people of different IQ’s.
US IQ has always been 100. In recent years it has fallen to 98. How did that happen?
Answered on Quora.
I hate to say it, but I think they have genetically low IQ. This is very sad because it smashes a lot of our hopes for Africa and makes its problems even less salvageable.
Nevertheless, due to something called the Flynn Effect, IQ’s in at least some African countries have risen a lot in only a few decades. I believe Kenya saw a rise of ~30 IQ points. But everyone else’s went up too due to the same effect, so at some point, it’s an arms race. An example would be the question of how fast do I have to be to outrun a tiger? I don’t have to be faster than a tiger to outrun a tiger, I just have to be faster than you!
Nevertheless, assuming that Flynn rises are actual increases in intelligence (I think they are), then Africans are definitely getting smarter. That the rest of the world is too doesn’t matter so much. If Africans get more intelligent, they will be so much better at solving their problems.
There are a lot of tropical diseases, parasites, and malnutrition in Africa which undoubtedly lower scores. Nevertheless, I still feel that there is a genetic lower intelligence that is a huge problem. Personally I think many of the problems of Africa are down to low intelligence.
What I am interested in is the notion of raising IQ. IQ can absolutely be raised in many ways, mostly nutritional. The Flynn rise is partly due to nutrition but also due to better education and also a more complex modern society. The ~30 point rise in Kenya was heavily on vocabulary, mathematics, and general knowledge, and it was thought to be down to better schooling.
Let’s get serious about IQ and do everything we can to raise the IQ’s of Africans in whatever way we can. If we can’t raise it enough by environment, maybe in the future we could monkey with human genes. I am serious. That’s how serious of a problem low IQ is in large populations.
You don’t make a problem go away by saying it doesn’t exist. It just festers, prolongs, and maybe gets worse.
I Wonder: Robert,
I must be in the lower IQ range. Tried to send money through Pay/Pal. Kept saying info was missing even though I supplied full Visa information. Try again, later. I enjoy your blog, your writing style, sly wit, and the various subjects covered.
Hi you may not be low OK at all. A lot of very smart people cannot navigate such things well. My Mom has a 150 IQ and for a long time, she was having my brother or I do a lot of online and computer stuff for her because she could never figure out how to do it. My Dad had a 129 IQ and he never bothered with computers apparently because he had no idea how to operate one. To be honest, he never learned how to operate a TV remote properly either! But even towards the end of his life, he was one smart guy!
In their case, their generation simply never learned to get comfortable with gadgetry. The new generations coming up now are actually more intelligent in terms of IQ tests than the generations before them, especially the WW2 generation. This is known as the Flynn Effect which states that indeed people have been getting smarter with each generation for a long time now.
Intelligence is not all genetic. If you grow up in a culture surrounded by gadgets, you will become more intelligent in visuospatial skills than someone who did not grow up around such things. Also many of the WW2 generation never got comfortable with gadgets, so they feel helplessness, frustration and anxiety when they try to use them.
Believe it or not, “If you fail, try again. If you fail again, try, try again,” is pretty much a fallacy. Everyone is supposed to have this sort of grit and stick-to-itiveness, but few do. The reasoning is simple. Humans have egos. Egos are designed to protect ourselves from unpleasant emotions and cognitions such as thinking you are a failure.
If you take the idea, “People are trying to convince themselves that they are not failures,” and then plug it into your world and then look at the people your world with this concept in mind, so many things will become clear. This is because a lot of human defensive behavior is wrapped up trying to convince ourselves that we are not failures. Those successful at lying to themselves this way can function pretty well. Those who are more honest with themselves tend to get depressed. Indeed, studies show that depressed people are more realistic than happy people. Lying to yourself is good for you!
The WW2 people’s brains work about as well as ours do. They are about as fast and store and retrieve information just as well. So we are not smarter in terms of overall intelligence. But in specialized subsections of intelligence, indeed, there have been some marked rises in the past 100 years.
Bottom line is that just because you cannot do some fairly simple thing, it does not mean you are dumb. You could well have an average all the way up to very high IQ. Doing relatively simple things especially technologies, is not a very reliable indicator of intelligence.
Ben Steigmann writes:
“When you analyze IQ gains over time, you often find that they do not constitute enhancement of these latent traits — they do not seem to be general intelligence gains, or quantitative factor gains, or verbal factor gains (Wicherts et al, in press). In the language of factor analysis, this means that IQ gains over time tend to display ‘measurement artifacts or cultural bias’. For a second time, we are driven to the conclusion that massive IQ gains are not intelligence gains or, indeed, any kind of significant cognitive gains.” – James R. Flynn
Yes, but he doesn’t really say that.
Flynn gains show major gains in abstract thinking. That is, humans have been getting better and better at abstract thinking and especially abstract verbal thinking via Flynn gains. The reason for this in that we engage in much more scientific thinking than we used to. Humans keep getting more and more scientific minded with each generation and this shows up on tests. A more scientific minded person is a more intelligent person than a less scientific person.
Flynn gains show major gains in the ability to solve new problems that we have never been confronted with before. We are better at problem solving ability due to Flynn gains. This may be due to the increased complexity of modern society.
Flynn gains show massive gains in visuospatial skills, particularly visuospatial analysis. We are simply more intelligent with regard to visuospatial analysis than we were before, possibly due to all of the gadgets that we use and the complex nature of modern society.
Let us go test by test to show what tests the Flynn gains are on.
Digit Span: This tests working memory. According to the results of this test, we have better working memory due to Flynn gains.
Coding: This is a test of raw processing speed. According to the results of this test, our brains are better at raw processing speed (they work faster than before) due to Flynn gains.
Block Design, Perceptual Reasoning, Picture Completion, Comprehension, and Similarities: The gains on Similarities are particularly striking. These are tests of verbal skills, primarily verbal analytical skills. According to the results of these tests, we are better at verbal analysis than due to Flynn gains. This, particularly the Similarities gains, may be due to increased scientific thinking in day to day life. People are thinking much more scientifically than they used to be, hence they are more intelligent than they were before.
Picture Arrangement: This tests logical reasoning. According to the results of this test, we are better at pure logical thinking due to Flynn gains. Once again, I think the fact that we think more scientifically is the reason for this. Scientific thinking is based on logic and a more scientifically oriented person is more logical than a less scientific person.
Object Assembly: This is a test of visual analysis, synthesis and construction. According to the results of this test, we are better at visual thinking due to Flynn gains. We can analyze things visually better, we can synthesize visual input better with other visual input, and we can build and construct things visually better than before. These gains may be due to all of the tech gadgets that we increasingly use which are probably making us smarter in visual matters.
Digit Symbol: This is a test of raw processing speed like Coding above. It also tests visuomotor coordination. So now we have two tests that show that our brains are actually working faster due to Flynn gains. We are also better at visuomotor coordination due to Flynn gains. This seems like exactly the type of skill that would improve with all the computer, video game, TV remote control, cellphone, and smartphone use going on. All of those things would seem to require visuomotor coordination.
Block Design: This is a test of visuospatial motor skills somewhat similar to Digit Symbol above. This skill is excellent for those going into fields such as engineering and physics. This test is one of the best measures of visuospatial ability ever designed. People who excel at math and science due very well on this test. According to the results of this test, we are better at visuospatial motor skills of the type used in math and science fields due to Flynn gains.
Society is becoming increasingly scientific and also increasingly mathematical. Probably 50 years ago, most people did not need much in the way of math skills. Furthermore, mathematics teaching has dramatically improved in grade school over the last century. This is evidence that better mathematics teaching in elementary school causes actual growth in certain areas of the frontal lobe of the brain. Better math teaching actually gives you a better brain!
Similarities: This test shows perhaps the largest Flynn rise of them all. Similarities tests verbal comprehension, visual abstract processing and problem solving, particularly for brand new problems that the person has never encountered before (problem solving on the fly). According to the results of this test, we are better at comprehending verbal input, the processing of visual abstract thinking (also shown in other gains) and problem solving as a result of Flynn gains.
The suggestion is that the increased use of scientific thinking is possibly responsible for the huge gains on this test. Note that we are now better at problem solving on the fly for novel problems due to Flynn gains. This is why the “hollow gains” nonsense bothers me so much. Don’t you think that an improved ability to solve novel problems on the fly would come in handy at work and in life in general?
Comprehension: This is a test of the ability to deal with abstract social conventions, rules and expressions. I believe this is the test where they give you a saying and ask you to interpret it, like “People in glass houses should not throw stones.” According to the results of this test, we are better at figuring out abstract social conventions, rules and expressions in human society due to Flynn gains. Why we would become better at this is unknown, but the interpretation of sayings is probably due to improved logical and scientific thinking.
Picture Completion: This is a test of the ability to quickly perceive visual details. According to the results of this test, we can now see details in visual objects and scenes better as a result of Flynn gains. I would think that a society of people who spend so much time watching TV, on the Internet, at computers, playing videogames and using cellphones and smartphones would get better at quickly perceiving visual details in objects which you need to do to use any of these gadgets properly.
Picture Arrangement: This is a test of the ability to reason and the ability to understand the precursors and consequences of acts. According to the results of this test, we now have improved reasoning abilities and can understand the cause and effect relationship of things in life better as a result of Flynn gains. When I think “reasoning” and “cause and effect,” the first thing that comes to mind is scientific thinking. This once again may be a result of improved scientific thinking.
However, we have not improved at all on a number of tests, in particular on Vocabulary, Arithmetic and General Knowledge. That is, we know no more words, are no better at math and have no better general knowledge than people earlier in the last century. We have made no gains at all in these areas. The fact that we made no gains here, along with the fact that while we improved in one test of a battery but maybe did not improve in two others shows you the somewhat haphazard nature of the gains. It is true that we have not gained on “g” or general intelligence factor, but on the other hand, we are much more intelligent in certain areas and ways than we were before.
The phrase “hollow gains” is meaningless nonsense invented by Jensen to preserve his hard hereditarian beliefs.
Developmental gains at age 0-2 mirror Flynn IQ rises. This rules out test-taking effect, education, etc. as causes and suggests better nutrition.
A high correlation was found between increased developmental gains in recent years and the Flynn Effect. In other words, the FE is already operating from ages 0-2. That is too early for education or many other environmental effects to take place and the only reasonable explanation for Flynn-like gains at such a very early age is better nutrition. Furthermore, education is ruled out as is test-taking or practice effects, as infants don’t practice taking tests. Better test-taking skills has been suggested as a reason for the FE, but there seems to be a lot of good evidence that this is not true. Furthermore, infants get no formal education, so education cannot be a possible source of these early gains.
Also the theory that the Flynn Effect represents “hollow gains” and not any real increase in intelligence is laid to rest here. Developmental gains means that children are reaching real developmental milestones faster and better than they were before. The only way that could possibly be interpreted is as an intelligence increase. It’s not a “hollow gain” to for an infant to reach developmental milestones faster and better than they did earlier. If children are reaching these milestones better and sooner than they were before, that can only be possible if they are definitely smarter.
I always thought there was nothing to this “hollow gains” nonsense, and this is more evidence of that.
Conclusion: The Flynn Effect is real and appears to represent an actual intelligence increase, possibly related to better nutrition. It seems reasonable that better nutrition would make better brains, and that may be what is occurring.
Johan Mayer writes:
Have you tried correlating the IQ scores with local lead poisoning? The main gains from the Flynn effect ended by the late 1970s (birth years), suggesting that fuel lead didn’t play a role (as both whites and blacks would experience higher intelligence, thus raising the intelligence that 100 represents—rather, it was probably the elimination of malnutrition), and that some of the remaining gap should arise from differential lead paint.
The calculation might look as follows:
Deficit = sum(over n) Distribution of lead level(n) x IQ_deficit_from_lead(n)for each neighborhood.
Add the deficit to the mean IQ calculated from the composition of the neighborhood, then re-estimate the (before lead) IQ of each group, fitting to composition and reevaluated IQ; re-normalize the black IQ to the white (raised) IQ.
Elevated black blood lead (much more common than elevated white blood lead) suggests that at least another 3 IQ points can be gained for blacks on that count, using Detroit data.
I did a similar calculation for national IQ and malnutrition (using 1991 data), on the basis that malnutrition knocks off about a standard deviation of IQ (15 points, although I also found a source that claimed 11), multiplying by the malnourished proportion of the population. This pushes sub-Saharan African National IQ to the range upper 60’s to upper 70’s.
Black African skin bleaching tends to be between 30 and 70% among women historically, although men are also using such products; the products are notorious for mercury content, suggesting that childhood exposure via the mother should cost another 11 points on average (mercury ppm in mother’s hair on the order of 150, with 0.15 IQ loss per ppm—products sold to Africa typically have much higher mercury content). I couldn’t find much by way of statistics for US black women. For Asians, there has been much growth of the use of these products since the early National IQ estimates were made.
African leaded fuel use will also greatly harm urban populations (who will dominate National IQ estimates), although they were phased out by 2006; the time to affect primary schools is about nine years, although the IQ estimates are based on the the 90’s. South Africa should suffer 7 points, and Nigeria probably the same.
Thus the pre-environmental expected IQ of blacks is well within a standard deviation of whites.
East Asian cities are often near coasts, and historically held much smaller portions of their respective countries’ populations, as elsewhere. Thus their early (for the third world) industrialization would tend to have a lower impact on IQ.
Lead has been studied, and childhood lead is substantially lower than adult lead, which may account for much of the national IQ achievement of Chinese versus other societies; child rearing practices that avoid putting unknown objects in the mouth might play a role, but then again, given the relatively small family sizes and involvement of grandparents, more supervision might also play a role.
As to the topic of your post, another possible cause for the lack of black achievement considering IQ is racism.
The author makes a strong case that US Black IQ’s can increase 3 points and African Black IQ’s can increase 10 points due to environmental interventions. This is certainly plausible.
I have no problems with any of these environmental efforts. All the power to them. A gain of even 3 IQ points for Detroit Blacks would be a fantastic thing indeed. A 10-point IQ gain for African Blacks would be a great thing for them and for Africa as a whole. Many of Africa’s most serious problems would surely ameliorate with a 10-point IQ gain. An IQ in the upper 70’s would put Africa on a par with the IQ’s of some Gulf states such as Qatar that have created highly evolved civilizations. However, even US Blacks with IQ’s a full 9 points higher than the Qataris fail miserably at creating the highly evolved society that the Qataris created.
One argument is that Qatar only exists in its current form due to oil wealth. Give Black people oil wealth, and they will create a Qatar.
However, this has not happened in Africa. Nigeria has tremendous oil wealth, and it is one of the evil and diabolically failed states on Earth. Nearly all of the wealth has been stolen by a tiny elite and the rest of the population flounders in monstrous poverty. Gabon is a much better case, and oil wealth has allowed them to have a $20,000 per capita income. Gabon is basically a middle income country. However, almost all of the wealth has been stolen by a tiny elite, ~50% of the population is starving, and and the vast majority of the population live in horrifying poverty.
Give a Black society money, and the most cruel and sociopathic Blacks will steal almost all of it for a small elite group, leaving the vast majority of the population to suffer in terrible poverty (the African model).
Alternatively, give another Black society money, and income will be much better distributed, but the most cruel and sociopathic Blacks will create in monstrous violent crime rate, destabilizing a prosperous society.
The African wealth distribution style is also seen in Haiti and was seen until the 1960’s in the Dominican Republic. The rest of the Caribbean has a much more equitable distribution system. Trinidad and Tobago has a PCI or $20,000/yr due to oil wealth, but they have one of the highest violent crime and homicide rates on Earth. A Trinidadian woman I spoke to said it was because local young men had imported gang culture from the US, and it was now spread all through the country. Still, a country with a $20,000 PCI and that high of a homicide rate nearly qualifies as something like a failed state right there, at least on that one variable.
Although we have shown that Blacks can create wealthy societies (at least in the case of oil), those societies show significant problems either in democratization or extremely high violent crime.
In the African model, a tiny elite will steal all the oil wealth and leave most of the people scrounging for scraps.
In the Caribbean model, wealth will be distributed much better, but society will still be saddled with a horrific violent crime rate.
As the comparison with Qatar and the US shows, there is a lot more holding Black people back than just a low IQ. With an IQ of ~83, the Arabs can create Dubai, along with a highly civilized state with a shockingly low crime rate. With an IQ of 87, US Blacks still cannot create anything like Dubai even with an IQ advantage.
So obviously the problems of Black people extend beyond IQ, and a rising Black IQ is not a cure-all.
What these problems are is unknown, but there appear to be genetic factors predisposing Blacks to greater crime and antisociality. What these factors are is unknown, but I am convinced that they exist. Antisociality will create thieving elites in Africa and Caribbean societies with better income distribution but extremely high violent crime rates.
Getting a handle around Black problems involves not only raising Black IQ but dealing conclusively with whatever it is that is crimogenic or psychopathogenic in Black biology or Black genes.
Once IQ is high enough though, whatever Black criminogenic issues are involved tend to wash out. I have read that setting Black IQ at ~113, the Black and White crime rates are equal. High intelligence often washes out criminal tendencies due to greater forward thinking, possibly greater empathy, guilt and worry and lessened impulsiveness. As IQ rises in any race of humans, empathy, guilt and worry tend to rise and impulsiveness tends to decline.
I do not agree that racism affects Black IQ scores very much. Instead, moving from a non-racist country (Jamaica) to a racist country (the UK) results in a gain of up to 14 IQ points in the second generation. Blacks living in “highly racist” White societies typically have IQ’s ~13-18 points higher than Blacks living in non-racist societies such as the Caribbean and Africa.
Skin bleaching products sold in the US probably do not have much mercury in them.
Repost from the old site.
This is follow-up to an earlier post – Black Crime and Intelligence – An Intrepid Investigation. No matter how much Leftists and liberals deny it, there are clear differences in racial crime rates in the US. US Hispanics and Blacks have higher crime rates than Whites in the US in the same way that Asians have lower rates. It is neither controversial nor racist to report on this observable fact.
The usual Left explanation for elevated Hispanic and Black crime rates is poverty, lack of opportunity, unemployment, low rates of educational attainment, lack of government investment and poor schools in poor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The general rationale behind all of these is said to endemic White structural racism and discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics.
Another argument is that Blacks and Hispanics do not have elevated crime rates – it is only that racist police racially profile Blacks and Hispanics to stop and search them more often, resulting in higher arrest rates, while Whites who are just as criminal are let off the hook.
These appealing arguments are becoming harder and harder to sustain in the face of new evidence and rapidly decreasing White racism in US society. This decline has occurred in tandem with harsh penalties – social, occupational and monetary – against Whites who discriminate against non-Whites, continuing affirmative action programs, quotas and goals, judicial mandates for ethnically diverse schools and workforces, etc.
All of this has resulted in a White population whose recent thinking has been molded by anti-racist discourse and who consciously try to avoid overt anti-White discrimination and even bigotry most of the time. This is actually a good thing. Each and every human being should be evaluated and treated on their individual merits or demerits, race be damned. And, regarding crime, the judicial system should be fair with regard to suspects and arrestees.
One problem in getting a handle on racial differences in crime rates is that it has been very difficult to find good ethnic breakdowns of US crime rates, mostly because law enforcement agencies usually refuse to count Hispanic offenders at all or in any rational way.
The Color of Crime, a report by the frankly racist New Century Foundation, is nevertheless an excellent document that has managed to dredge up some good figures for Hispanic, American Indian and Pacific Islander (in the US, they are about 50% Hawaiian, 25% Samoan and 20% Chamorros on Guam and in the US Micronesian Territories) crime rates in the US.
Samoans and Hawaiians are Polynesians, but Chamorros are Micronesians. Hawaiians are well-known to have an elevated crime rate in Hawaii. For instance, Hawaii has the highest rate of theft, larceny and property crime of any state. It is a good guess that much of this stealing is being done by native Hawaiians.
In (independent) Western Samoa itself, recent reports describe a traditional society with a crime rate is extremely low.
But statistics from 30-40 years ago tell another story.
In Western Samoa in the mid-60’s, the rates of assault and serious assault were 400 percent and 40 percent higher, respectively, than the rest of the US. In 1977, Western Samoa had a murder rate 60 percent higher than the rest of the US. In American Samoa the rate was much higher – 460 percent higher than the rest of the US.
In general, the Samoan crime rate in the rest of the US is not known. However, Samoans are over-represented in juvenile hall in San Francisco, and across the bay in Alameda County, Samoans have a higher crime rate than Hispanics.
And in Micronesia, on Guam at least, the crime rate has gone through the roof since the 1960’s, whereas previously it was quite low. The breakdown of the nuclear family and the introduction of a money-based economy has been blamed for the crime explosion on Guam. Saipan is also now reported to have a high crime, and even murder, rate. The reasons are not known.
It has been idiotically bashed all over the Left as “racist”. Here is a typical argument, this one from Wikipedia:
One New Century Foundation’s publication, The Color of Crime, makes various claims about the relationship between crime and race. The publication concludes that black people are more dangerous than white people, just as “young people are more dangerous than old people” and “men are more dangerous than women.” It claims that is logical to take precautions around black people.
The SPLC has led attacks against the report authored by the execrable Heidi Weiss, leader of an attack force against the fine scholar Kevin MacDonald. The attacks by Tim Wise on ZNet are quite sophisticated. An excellent rebuttal of many of Wise’s main points can be found on Global Politician here.
Bottom line is that Wise appears to be disputing what seems obvious to most any non-Leftist with a brain: Black people have a dramatically elevated crime rate, and one is more likely to be victimized by Blacks than by Whites, no matter what one’s race is.
Furthermore, Wise’s characterizing of Jared Taylor as a “White Supremacist” is as problematic as calling 99% of US Jews “Jewish supremacists” based on their Zionism. How about “White Nationalist”? And it is grossly unfair of Wise to call Taylor a Nazi, especially since he renounces anti-Semitism.
Wise is an anti-racist activist. I am an anti-racist too, but facts are facts.
Despite the fact that The Century Foundation authored the report, The Color of Crime is excellent, and attacks on the report do not do it service. Those opposed to the report are asked to logically rebut its arguments or hold their tongues.
The best figures are towards the middle of the report. Of most interest are the overall Hispanic and Black crime rates. The report states that the Black crime rate is 7.4 times the White rate, the Hispanic rate is 2.9 times the White rate and the Indian and Hawaiian rates are about 2 times the White rate.
From another study, Masking the Divide, by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (actually a liberal think tank), the figures are a bit different: the Black crime rate is 9.1 times the White crime rate and the Hispanic crime rate is 3.7 times the White crime rate.
Combining the two reports, we get a Black crime rate 8.2 times the White rate and an Hispanic crime rate 3.3 times the White rate.
The Color of Crime found that poverty, unemployment and lack of education add little to the Black and Hispanic crime rate differentials compared to the White rate – that is, when Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all live in poverty, have the same low educational variables and the same unemployment rates, the differential between Blacks and Hispanics as opposed to Whites remains pretty much the same.
The report also effectively deals with familiar complaints from the Left that the Black crime rate is so high because police selectively target Blacks for arrest while ignoring White criminals. A careful examination of the data in the report, shows that, actually, looking at the whole picture, if anything, the system is somewhat prejudiced in favor of Blacks and against Whites.
There is a suggestion that Blacks are actually underrepresented, and Whites, overrepresented, in the nation’s prison population as compared to their actual crime rates. Hence, prejudice and discrimination does not appear to be a significant factor in Black crime rates.
Further, Blacks are much more likely to target Whites as crime victims than vice versa.
An incredible anecdote: In a 3-year period in the US, there were 9,000 cases of group Black on White sexual assaults – about 10 per day. In that same 3-year period, Whites, with a 4.5 times greater population, committed exactly zero group sexual assaults on Blacks. That figure alone is simply stunning.
The Left loves to talk about hate crimes, but the only hate crimes they are interested in are White hate crimes against non-Whites. The report makes it quite clear that Blacks are much more likely to commit hate crimes against Whites than vice versa.
What is fascinating is that the media plays up White on Black hate crimes for weeks on end as the crimes of the century, while Black on White hate crimes are met with deafening silence. That right there would seem to give the lie to the notion that the US media is hopelessly prejudiced against Blacks and in favor of Whites. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case.
I have no idea why Whites are so much less likely to commit crimes than Blacks or Hispanics, or even why the lesser differential between Whites and Amerindians and Hawaiians exists, nor why Asians commit crimes at dramatically lower rates than Whites. Some will talk about genes and others about culture.
Lining up IQ with crime rates seems entirely logical to me. Groups with lower average IQ’s should commit more crimes than those with higher IQ’s on an ascending linear scale.
Unfortunately, the results do not pan out very well. Let us look at some racial IQ scores followed by racial crime rates in the US:
IQ scores: East Asians:1 106 (link) Whites: 103 (link) Hispanics: 89 (link) American Indians 87 (link) Blacks 85 (link) Polynesians 85 (link, link and link).
Crime rates: Asians: 78% lower than Whites (!) Whites: Baseline Amerindians: 100% higher than Whites Polynesians: 100% higher than Whites Hispanics: 230% higher than Whites Blacks: 720% higher than Whites (!)
The racial IQ scores and racial crime rates do not line up very well; there are some correlations, but there are also some problems. The small difference between East Asian and White IQ’s in the US would not seem adequate to explain an Asian crime rate that is a mere 22% of the White average.
The Hispanic crime rate is 65% higher than the Amerindian and Polynesian crime rates, yet Hispanics have significantly higher IQ’s than both groups . The Black crime rate is an incredible 310% higher than the Amerindian and Polynesian crime rates, despite the fact that all three groups have the same IQ’s.
In these cases, there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between IQ and crime. There is a modest correlation between crime and IQ between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, but the differences are completely out of sync with what we would expect merely based on IQ.
In particular, the Black and Hispanic crime rates are far higher than expected by IQ compared to Whites2 (especially looking at the Polynesian and Amerindian figures), and the Black crime rate that is 2.5 times higher than the Hispanic rate is dramatically higher than expected by IQ compared with Hispanics.
Furthermore, we can completely rule out IQ-crime links in Hispanic mestizos . How is it that Amerindians have a crime rate 2 times that of Whites, yet White-Amerindian mixed race people (Mestizos with an average of only 1/3 Indian blood and probably a good amount of heterosis) have a crime rate of 3.3 times that of Whites? That makes no sense whatsoever.
One would expect White-Amerindian mixed-race US Mestizos to have a crime rate median between Whites and Amerindians and probably closer to Whites, say 1.35 times the White rate, considering that Mexicans and Chicanos in the US are about 63% White on average.
Also, from 1960-1995, the Flynn Effect3 has been causing steadily increasing IQ’s in Americans of all ages and ethnic groups. During this period, the US population increased its IQ by 9 points. At the same time, crime exploded from 1960-1980 and has continued at a very high level ever since.
How is it that a steadily rising US IQ has coincided with a skyrocketing crime rate?
The Flynn Effect has had its most noticeable effects at the lowest end of the IQ range – precisely the people that are most likely to commit crimes. Nevertheless, wild crime increases occurred in tandem with a progressive loss of those very people most likely to commit crimes – those with the very lowest IQ’s.
All of this seems to indicate that whatever in God’s name is causing racial differentials in US crime rates, IQ does not seem to play a huge role. Perhaps other biological factors could be involved, but that seems dubious.
For instance, there are recent suggestions that Polynesians (the study looked at Maoris) may be predisposed to violence due high rates of an a gene that codes for low levels of a component – MAO inhibitor – that breaks down neurotransmitters in the brain associated with violent and impulsive behavior.
With lower levels of the MAO inhibitor, Polynesians have higher levels of catecholamines that tend to cause violent and aggressive behaviors.
It is likely that Polynesians selected for aggression during their colonization of the Pacific Islands. Without an aggressive temperament, they may not have been able to undertake mad, near-suicidal journeys on boats to colonize those islands in the first place.
Once on the islands, individual tribes of South Sea Islanders, especially on Fiji and New Zealand, were continuously locked in the most horrible tribal warfare with most of their neighbors, in addition to having downright brutal and vicious societies of their own.
No evidence has yet been presented of a Black or Mestizo genetic propensity to violence. How is it then that the Polynesian Polynesians, with their low rates of MAO-inhibition, have a dramatically lower crime rate than Blacks and Hispanics, who have no provable genetic links to crime?
Very well then. Having disposed of biological arguments, let us move along.
I am inclined to fall back on the old environmental standby – culture. Even if poverty, lack of education and unemployment have little to do with high Black and Hispanic crime rates and the role IQ is not dramatic either, there is yet another explanation:
There is a possibility that in recent years, both Blacks and Hispanics have developed an underclass culture that is simply criminogenic in and of itself. The hows and whys of the development of this underclass can be debated at length, but it’s existence seems uncontroversial, and whatever caused this sick culture, IQ or race itself do not seem to be at work.
See this website, Brown Pride , for an example of a depraved, wicked and amoral subculture operating in the Hispanic underclass.
This Black and Hispanic underclass contrasts with large numbers of Blacks and Hispanics who have “made it”, assimilated to proper US society, are employed and out of poverty, and have relatively low crime rates.
1. The only data available for Asian IQ’s in the US are for East Asians. This group logically includes Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Ainu, Taiwanese, Mongolians, Tibetans, Hmong, Mien and some smaller groups, but we do not know if all these groups were included. Studies in the US usually focus on the first three groups. It is quite difficult to draw a line showing where “East Asians” end and “Southeast Asians” begin.
2. Let us suppose a linear relationship between Hispanic and White IQ’s and crime rates. Extrapolating that to Black IQ, we should get a Black crime rate 4.9 times higher than the White rate; instead the rate is 8.2 times higher. Assuming a linear relationship between Black and White IQ’s and crime rates, we should get an Hispanic rate that is 5.4 times the White rate; instead it is 3.3 times the White rate.
Differentials between White, Hispanic and Black rates alone cannot be fully explained by IQ. Either the Black rate is higher than expected, or the Hispanic rate is lower, or both.
3. The Flynn Effect has been subjected to a lot of criticism, typically emanating from those White Nationalists who refuse to believe that anyone, especially the Blacks and Browns they dislike, is getting smarter. A number of arguments have been put forth, one of the most powerful of which is that the Flynn Effect does not show an increase in intelligence; it just shows that people are getting better at taking tests.
Yet the Flynn Effect shows up as early as 4 years old. One wonders just how many rigorous tests the average 4 yr old has been subjected to? Furthermore, Flynn himself presents some interesting arguments that cast doubt on the test sophistication argument.
Furthermore, in dismissing the Flynn Effect as simply measuring “some abstract test-taking ability”, these same detractors pour cold water on IQ tests themselves, the results of which they so cherish, as they show the delightful 10 and 15 point gaps between Whites and Browns and Blacks respectively. The consensus now is that test-taking skills cannot explain the Flynn Effect.
Another argument is that the Flynn Effect is having little effect on “g”, a hypothesized, supposedly heavily genetic or biological factor of purported pure, raw intelligence.
However, the Flynn Effect is greatest on the most heavily loaded g tests, and much less on the least g-loaded tests. Either “g” means nothing, or “g” is also increasing. Note that there is good evidence that “g” is in fact increasing, and a good theory is that it is related to improved nutrition. More evidence linking nutrition to IQ is found in studies linking IQ with micronutrient levels, namely iron , in the blood.
This is because height has been increasing in tandem with the Flynn Effect (not only that but socialist states are making people taller than less socialist states), and so has head size and cranial capacity and even brain size. This provides an excellent underpinning for increases in the biologically-driven “g”.
Hybrid vigor, or heterosis, which has been increasing, much to the disdain of White Nationalists, has also been suggested as a prime driver of the Flynn Effect. Heterosis has supposedly been increasing in modern society as more isolated, rural and ethnocentric populations move to urban areas and have children with those outside their ethnic group. But Flynn himself completely pours cold water on the heterosis theory.
A very long (24 pp.) discussion about whether or not the Flynn Effect is valid and what it is measuring is here. The American Scientist also took a look at the subject in a much-quoted article.
Steve Sailer wraps it up in a recent post, suggesting that the Flynn Effect shows people are definitely getting smarter, but only in certain ways. Sailer is not even really a White Nationalist, as he advocates “citizenism” as opposed to ethnic ethnocentrism. This is close to the universalism advocated by this blog. His site is always interesting, and it worth a read.
Repost from the old site.
A recent post of mine noted that the Black IQ in the US has shown gains of about 5.5 points against Whites in both children and adults. At age 12, the Black IQ is now 90.5, as opposed to 85 30 years ago. Black adult IQ’s have risen from 79 to 84.5 during the same period.
At the same time, Blacks have shown major gains in achievement test results relative to Whites. They narrowed the achievement gap by about 30%, about the same degree to which they reduced the IQ gap. There is even some suggestive evidence that the Blacks who have experienced the most desegregation benefited most of all (Keita 2007). Integration seems to be good for the Black IQ .
Rising IQ’s over time are referred to as the Flynn Effect (FE).
In Britain, the results are even better. West Indian Blacks in the UK now have an IQ of about 93.5 at age 11. Scores for adult Caribbeans in the UK are not known. Studies from 1960’s-70’s showed an IQ of 85 for these same children, but now it has moved up by 8.5 points. Young Caribbean Blacks in the UK have closed the IQ gap by more than half.
Interestingly, this IQ increase has coincided with a spectacular increase in crime among these British-born Jamaicans. The first generation that came in the 1950’s and 60’s were mostly hard-working and law-abiding. But their offspring in many ways have been a disaster.
Here we see once again the phenomenon discussed on this blog before, that the male children of low-wage immigrants to the West are often criminals. This even held for the offspring of Irish, Italian and some Jewish Whites to the US over 100 years ago. With a rising IQ coinciding with a skyrocketing crime rate, again we see the disconnect between the simplistic game that White Nationalists play called “low IQ = high crime”.
Most Caribbean Blacks in the UK are Jamaicans. In Jamaica, the Black IQ is about 71.5.
A counterargument to these rising Jamaican IQ gains is that these Jamaicans are heavily intermarrying with Whites. In the first generation, up to 25% married Whites, and in the second generation, the figure is said to be up to 50%. These are just anecdotes, not hard figures. The claim is that all of the rise is due to White genes.
But let us look at the argument. If base Jamaican IQ is 71.5, then a 25% outmarriage rate in the first generation raises the IQ 3.5 points to 75. Instead, this generation had an IQ of ~85, 10 points higher than genes would have predicted. A 50% outmarriage rate in the 2nd generation should raise IQ by 6.25 points to 81.5. Instead, the figure is 93.5, 12 points higher than expected.
A good analysis of the UK Jamaican data is that, if assuming the benefit of increased White genes, the more complex modern environment in the UK is raising Jamaican IQ by 10-12 points.
In another study by Barbara Tizard (Tizard et al 1972), Jamaican children in the UK who were raised with Whites in an institutional setting had IQ’s of 108, mixed race children had IQ’s of 106 while White children had IQ’s of 103, at age 4-5. If anything, this study showed a slight advantage for the Black children.
Opponents say that these Jamaicans were selective immigrants – that is, they were the brightest of the bright. James Flynn argues in counterpoint that selective migration could not have raised IQ’s by more than a few points (Nisbett 1998). Figures for later ages were not available.
Black children in the US score 95 at age 4 and Blacks in Africa score 92 at that age, both scores in comparison to a White score of 100. The Black US score then declines to 85 (a 10 point drop) and the African Black score drops to 67 (an incredible 25 point drop).
Black scores decline as children age, and this recent post suggests that initial high followed by sharply declining scores are indicative of earlier maturation among Blacks. I do not know to what extent early Black maturation (Blacks do mature earlier, and this has a genetic basis) explains the strange phenomenon of high Black IQ’s in small children which rapidly decline into adulthood.
But it is interesting that Tizard’s group raised together in an institutional setting, the young Black kids had even higher IQ’s than the Whites.
In the Caribbean nation of Dominica, there has been a stunning rise in IQ over a 36 year period from 1965-2001. There was an 18 point rise during this period, which rose their IQ’s from 61 to 73 (the IQ’s did not rise by 18 points because other groups’ IQ’s were also rising during this period). This represents a gain against UK Whites of 12 IQ points.
The test used was Raven’s Progressive Matrices, a test that is said to be the best available for measuring pure “g” intelligence.
Therefore, intelligence has not risen in a general, across-the-board kind of way. However, certain aspects of intelligence have definitely risen, and those aspects would seem to me to have quantifiable benefits in modern society, occupationally, academically and in other ways.
It also predicts success in life in various ways pretty well and is not culturally biased in any way. The researchers gave a vocabulary test to the group and found a similar rise of about 18 IQ points on that test.
Researchers tried to tease out which factors were most related to the IQ rise. The only factor that explained the rise fairly well was schooling, so it appeared that improved schooling was a major cause of the IQ rise. The IQ rise occurred at the time of a major expansion of the school system in Dominica.
Socioeconomic status of parents explained about 10% of the IQ gain. This shows that increasing incomes in the 3rd World may pay off in increased IQ’s in the children. Interestingly, researchers found no effect on family size, types of food consumed, head size or height. Mysteriously, researchers were unable to explain much of the IQ rise.
These findings are interesting for many reasons. This post suggests that most of the FE is due to increased caloric intake among children, resulting in earlier maturation. Improved nutrition has often been suggested as a reason for the FE, but did not seem to be a factor here.
Those who favor a genetic explanation for racial variations in IQ (nearly all of whom are White racists) disparage all societal interventions to increase IQ as worthless. In particular, they oppose spending any more money on educating “inferior” Blacks and Browns, as it is just throwing good money after bad. This study indicates that increased educational spending can indeed have IQ benefits for Blacks.
Some other findings in this study are of interest. One is that the rise is on the Raven’s test, which is the most heavily g -loaded test in existence. Critics of the FE claim that the rise is not on g, or general intelligence, and hence it is worthless. The Dominican rise was definitely on g.
In the West, while there have been major rises in tests of problem-solving, visual analysis, visual intelligence and verbal analysis, there have been little to no gains in general knowledge, vocabulary, arithmetic and mathematical analysis.
Some interpret this to mean that there has been no rise in general intelligence – only a rise in “factors subject to environmental bias”. Such an analysis is false – but it is interesting that in Dominica such huge gains are being seen in vocabulary, while in the West vocabulary gains have only been 4.4 points over 80 years.
A study out of Kenya in 2003 looking at 7 year old children found an incredible 26 point gain over 14 years from 1984-1998 in rural Kenya, leaving them with an IQ of 89 (Daley et al 2003). This apparently represented a 21 point IQ gain over British Whites from the previous IQ of 68.
The rise was correlated with schooling, family structure, nutrition and the health of the children. Schooling seemed to be the major factor and once again coincided with a major educational expansion by the government. The test used was the children’s version of Raven’s, the Children’s Progressive Matrices, once again a very g-loaded test, so the Kenyan rise was also on g.
The Kenyan, UK and Dominican studies are important because they show Blacks reducing the Black-White IQ gap by 10-21 points in a few decades. Hereditarians argue that the Black-White gap is permanent in all areas of the world, and that Blacks are a hopelessly stupid race – a drain on humanity. All money spent on raising Black IQ’s are wasted for this reason.
The three studies above show purely environmental factors causing major reductions in the Black-White IQ gap.
Another study found massive gains, that I have not been able to quantify, in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, over a 72-74 year period. The gains were probably at least on the order of 20 points or so. Researchers suggested that increased cognitive stimulation in the form of a more complex world was responsible for the rise.
A common complaint of all of these studies showing rising Black IQ’s, both in tandem with Whites and closing the Black-White gap, is that the studies are done only on children. But most IQ tests are done on kids. Taking African studies as an example, we can see here that 69% of all tests in this series were done on kids.
In my opinion, testing kids is probably a better way to measure pure neurological efficiency without throwing in all sorts of potentially confounding extraneous variables.
Adults are much more likely than kids to have physical and mental diseases (schizophrenia and depression lower IQ), to be in jail, prison, or homeless, to abuse alcohol and drugs, or to have suffered serious head injuries. All of these factors throw a monkey wrench into tests that should be trying to show us real differences between races.
Just today, the White Nationalist blog Majority Rights posted a well-done article by Richard D. Fuerle, A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect. The article’s interesting premise is that the FE is due to increased caloric intake, and even increasing obesity, in our modern world. This increased food intake would result in earlier maturation and higher IQ’s among children, which would then level off in adulthood.
The author suggests that the FE is not really an IQ increase but an effect of this early maturation, and that people are getting less intelligent, not more so.
I believe this theory is wrong, though it has an interesting premise. James Flynn also disagrees with Fuerle’s article, saying that the author was led astray as he did not have good knowledge of the literature. Flynn also disagreed with the notion that the FE was only in children and that it leveled off in adulthood, saying that he had refuted this in an article his famous article published in JEM: The Journal of Educational Measurement, in 1984 (Flynn 2008).
Some of the comments following are also not correct.
First of all, IQ’s have been rising among all age groups, not just kids. It’s really a cohort effect. James Flynn agreed with me (Flynn 2007) that Black adults of today have the same IQ scores (100) as the Whites of 1957. Blacks of today have somewhat higher scores than the Whites of WW2.
This brings up a conundrum as one wonders if today’s US Blacks would have been able to beat the Japanese in WW2, since they can’t even seem to run Detroit (Taylor 2007). This long and rather involved post of mine deals with a lot of the arguments around the FE, including some of the misconceptions about it. My post theorizing that Blacks of today equal the Whites of 1957 is here.
Here, I show that Black children and adults have indeed made about a 5.5 IQ point gain on Whites over the past 30 years, coinciding with the liberation of Blacks via Civil Rights laws.
The notion that IQ has risen due to increased caloric intake is interesting, but probably invalid. Flynn himself says that after 1950, gains due to nutrition were minimal to nil in the West.
Furthermore, the gains should have been across the board, not just in the certain areas that the FE is in. As we see above, The FE is also occurring in 3rd World countries like Kenya and Dominica, where excess nutrition is certainly not an issue. In those countries, it is related to better education, if anything. Much of the FE remains mysterious.
The notion that gains are occurring only in certain areas that are “subject to environmental bias” is not correct. First of all, in Dominica, huge gains were seen in vocabulary, one of the areas that is not seeing much gain in the West.
Vocabulary, general knowledge, basic math, and mathematical analysis are all subject to environmental influence too, but Western society has not been promoting these areas so much.
The areas that the FE is occurring in – verbal analysis, analytical reasoning, visual analysis, visuospatial reasoning, on the spot problem solving for which no previous method was known, etc. – are areas that our increasingly sophisticated society has been promoting.
We have promoted this in terms of an increasingly complex society and the mass promotion of scientific thinking. The visuospatial aspect may be due to video games, cell phones, computers, and many things that need programming – boom boxes, car radios, microwaves, answering machines, thermostats, on and on.
My personal opinion is that TV has a lot to do with it. TV shows are increasingly complex, and kids sit in front of TVs with clickers clicking through 50 different channels one after the other. The camera usually only focuses on something for a short time, then moves on. Even jokes and dialog on TV come at a rapid pace. Movies seem to have gotten a lot more complex in recent decades too.
Lastly, the FE is only ending or reversing in Scandinavia. It is still going full blast in the US and in the 3rd world.
The notion that IQ is rising while “real intelligence” – general knowledge, math and vocabulary – is not cannot be supported. Those three things are no more “real intelligence” than the stuff that is going up in the FE.
Another argument advanced later in the discussion has to do with Malcolm Gladwell’s misreading of the FE. Gladwell says that the gains have been almost exclusively on a subtest of the WISC called Similarities. Although gains on Similarities reflect increased use of scientific thinking in our society, these gains are disparaged in the comments section as showing a phony effect of increased intelligence when there has been none.
First of all, the commenters are wrong in that gains on Similarities are a meaningless artifact. Similarities tests for the ability to solve problems on the spot without a previously learned method. Raven’s tests for the same thing – it is said to test for the “ability to make sense of the buzzing confusion of life”. Second, Gladwell is wrong. Major gains have occurred on many tests, not just Similarities:
Look at the gains:
Similarities 23.45 Picture Arrangement 21.5 Coding 18 Object Assembly 17.35 Block Design 15.9 Picture Completion 11.7 Comprehension 11 Vocabulary 4.4 Arithmetic 2.3 Information 2.1
A good summary of my current feelings about IQ and race are summed up here in this nice comment on Watson, Population Groups, Etc by Michael Blowhard on the nice 2Blowhards blog:
…”G” is just a correlation between a bunch of IQ test scores. IQ is about being a good abstract thinker, which (like all important skills) has a huge environmentally acquired component. It is taught from birth in our abstraction-saturated culture.
Even a cursory glance at history shows that the “achievement” levels of nations or civilizations change massively for purely cultural and situational reasons. Through much of the 20th century China was more of a hellhole than Africa is now, but I don’t think those guys are dumb.
Generally, people who make a huge deal about IQ are Mensa types without many achievements of their own to point to who like to feel superior to others. Such types are all over the net.
“If someone values modern-economy-type settings, and thinks only in terms of succeeding in such a thing, and orders all other people only according to how well they succeed in such a setting, this is OK of course.”
Maybe less OK if those who order others according to how well they succeed in a modern setting have a history of committing mass murder against those they consider to be among the lower orders.
Posted by: mq on November 10, 2007 4:42 PM
A nice photo of James Flynn, along with Richard Lynn and Philippe Rushton, from an obscure document reporting on a conference on intelligence in Amsterdam last year, is here. The link also features a short, interesting interview with Flynn along with some interesting abstracts on intelligence.
Some abstracts I found interesting were those showing that the more intelligent people are, the less likely they are to believe in God. Also, among believers, the more intelligent people were, the more liberal and less literal they were in their beliefs. These findings also applied at a national and ethnic level.
Other abstracts showed that the more intelligent people are, they longer they live and the healthier they are. A recent finding not in the document was that in the West, the smarter you are, the more likely you are to be a vegetarian.
- Daley, Y. C., Whaley, S. E., Sigman, M. D., Espinosa, M. P., and Neuman, C. (2003). IQ On the Rise: The Flynn effect in Rural Kenyan Children. Psychological Science, 14, 215-219.
Flynn, James R. (November 2007). Personal Communication.
Flynn, James R. (January 2008). Personal Communication.
Keita, Lamin. (December 2007). Personal Communication.
Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Race, genetics, and IQ. In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.) Black-White Test Score Differences. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution.
Taylor, Jared. (December 2007). Personal Communication.
Tizard, B., Cooperman, O., Joseph A., & Tizard, J. (1972). Environmental Effects on Language Development: A Study of Young Children in Long-stay Residential Nurseries. Child Development, 43, 337-358.
Repost from the old site.
None other than hereditarian Charles Murray himself, shows that Blacks reduced the Black-White IQ gap by 7.5 points (or .5 standard deviation) for the cohorts born in the 1920’s (my father’s generation) to the cohorts born in the 1960’s (my three siblings’ generation). Since then, Murray claims that the B-W gap has actually increased slightly.
The test used was Woodcock, and the ages were from 6-65. The .5 standard deviation reduction occurred on IQ and the two measures of g, fluid g and crystallized g. Fluid g is roughly a measure of raw brain processing power, and peaks early, possibly in the early 20’s, though it seems hard to believe if you spend a lot of time around college kids.
Crystallized g is the sort of thing that 50-year old’s like me excel in, and it may be called knowledge, or wisdom, or cumulative life experience. There is a reason why primitive tribes always chose an older person or persons to make all of the important decisions for them, and why they paid so much attention to elders.
This secular rise in IQ and both forms of g can only be seen as a Flynn Effect. The notions that the the B-W IQ gap is genetic and set in stone forever and cannot be moved 1% by any environmental factor, or that the Flynn Effect is not on g, or is not on crystallized g, or whatever the fake hereditarian (usually racist) line is today, or that recent rises are only on certain tests and only affect kids, must all be rejected.
I haven’t looked into the study yet, but the whole thing is online at the link if you want to pick it over. The B-W shrinkage may have been due to better nutrition for Blacks or possibly to the increased complexity of American society during this period.
Blacks born during this period also started to see a lot of benefits in the way of employment and education open up for them. The reason for the slight shrinkage in recent years in not known, but other data show that in Black kids anyway, the gap has closed 5-6 points over the past 30 years.
Repost from the old site.
I am republishing this piece which I published earlier. I am including some links and some more data making the case for a 6 pt. Flynn Effect gain for US NE Asians from the 1970’s to today. They went from about 97.5 IQ to 103.5 IQ (or 100.5 IQ to 106.5 IQ renormed) over 30 years, meeting and then surpassing US Whites, a gain of approximately 6 full points, purely by the environment.
In the comments section, Alan Weiss, a very smart guy, says it is either intellectually lazy or racist to assume that the B-W IQ gap, now at 13.5 points, not 15 points, as is frequently reported, is genetic. I don’t agree that it’s automatically racist or lazy to assume that the B-W gap is genetic. The hereditarians have done some excellent work in proving their case.
I guess my argument is that the hereditarian case is not necessarily relevant. Saying that “the gap is genetic” doesn’t really mean much.
The hereditarians say that 70% of the B-W IQ gap is genetic?
James Flynn points out that in the 1940’s in the US, the IQ gap between NE Asians and Whites in the US was 3.5 points. The scores were US White = 100, US NE Asian = 97.5. Now, the hereditarians say that 70% of that racial gap is genetic, and it’s insurmountable. US NE Asians could never come within 1.5 pts. of US Whites, no matter what happened in their environment.
But look what happened.
In the next generation, they not only met Whites, but they surpassed them. They gained anywhere from 5.5 to 6.5 IQ points on Whites. Now, with renorming, Whites are at 103 and US NE Asians are at 108. So an “insurmountable” gap that was “70% genetic” was not only surmounted, but it was actually surpassed.
Flynn says that US Chinese had an IQ no greater than Whites in 1949, (actually their IQ was 97.5) yet got better jobs due to extra-IQ factors such as stronger work ethic and higher motivation. They used these new jobs to provide a better environment for their kids, which raised their kids IQ’s to 109 in children, falling to 103 by adolescence as parental influence wore off.
In his book, Asian Americans, Achievement Beyond IQ (The book is available for browsing online, and you are free to look through it). Flynn notes that the average US NE Asian American IQ may have risen 10 points over 30 years. From 1943-1975, average IQ was ~97.5 for Chinese and Japanese.
Flynn also found that Chinese-Americans in earlier decades were working at occupations that suggested IQ’s fully 21 points higher than what their actual IQ’s were.
This shows right there that IQ is not destiny, and there are extra-IQ factors that figure in occupational success. Now it is 103 according to Flynn (106 renormed), and others pretty much concur. This chart shows a US Asian IQ of 106 (Reynolds and Chastain, 1987, p.330). With an IQ of 106, it appears that US Asian IQ may have risen fully 6 points relative to other scores in 20-30 years.
Flynn also suggested an Asian IQ (Chinese, Japanese and Korean) of 104 in the last few years. With renorming, that should be 107. With renorming, all scores point to a US Asian IQ of 106-107.
There is support for Flynn’s data from hardcore hereditarians. Richard Lynn reports that Japanese IQ was significantly higher than average IQ in the United States, and that Japanese IQ scores had risen over the past generation (Lynn 1982).
Herrnstein and Murray 1994, Rushton and Jensen 2005 and Lynn 2006 all find that the average IQ scores of East Asians in Asia, North America and Europe are significantly higher than 100. Lynn has US Asian IQ at 106 and rising in this article.
About the Flynn Effect, Flynn notes that our vocabularies and information are no greater than our ancestors, so we can’t do any better at reading an adult novel.
The Dickens-Flynn Model shows that all of so-called pure genetic aspects of IQ can actually be explained by the environment.
Smaller families have had an IQ effect that looks like better nutrition – they can provide a better environment for their kids.
Studies have also shown that Asians enjoy studying more than other groups. This may explain their superior performance even relative to IQ.
This is what I mean when I say that when they say that racial gaps are “70% genetic” or whatever, it doesn’t necessarily mean all that much. Now the hereditarians have to look at the 5.5 point gain that US NE Asians have over US Whites (US NE Asians = 108.5, US Whites = 103) and say that gap is 70% genetic. Does that make any sense either? Of course not.
Once these “wholly genetic” gaps are not only overcome but even surpassed by purely environmental actions, the whole hereditarian argument gets a bit silly.
- Flynn, James R. 1991. Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Herrnstein, RJ and Murray, C. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press
Lynn, R. 1982. IQ In Japan And The United States Shows A Growing Disparity. Nature, 297:222-3.
Lynn, R. 2006. Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Books.
Reynolds, C. R., Chastain R. L., Kaufman, A. S., & McLean, J. E. 1987. Demographic Characteristics And IQ Among Adults: Analysis Of The WAIS-R Standardization Sample As A Function Of The Stratification Variables. Journal of Social Psychology, 25:323-342.
Rushton, J. P. & Jensen, A. R. 2005. Thirty Years Of Research On Black-White Differences In Cognitive Ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
Liberal Race Realism is very much misunderstood. See the first word there? It’s liberal. We have conservatives, reactionaries, fascists, racists and White nationalists constantly trying to get us on board their ships. We’re never getting a boarding pass. Never! Ever! We will never join you!
You know why? Because we are liberals, with a capital L. Liberals don’t do conservatism, reaction, fascism, racist hate, or White Supremacism/White nationalism.
Here is the conundrum for Left-liberalism:
Just supposing that there are differences between the races that are not caused by oppression, racism, etc. This is painfully obvious to anyone who will look. The Left refuses to look, because the reality of the whole mess is bad for the Left. So we say it doesn’t exist, unscientifically. We wish the reality away.
The question of my site is, given that these differences exist, how do we build a Left response, Left theory and Left project that takes this stuff into account? The Left can respond to any reality, any truth, that exists on this Earth. If it’s fact, we can deal with it and work it into our theory somewhat. By running away from these facts, the Left says that these facts are incompatible with Left theory and practice.
Reactionary race realists (most race realists are reactionaries) are already gleefully predicting that the facts of race realism, when they become too obvious to be denied and are widely believed by the population, are going to spell the death of the Left and liberalism for the foreseeable future. Why? Because the facts of race realism tear asunder every presumption of Left theory and practice, I suppose, namely, that we all have equal abilities and temperaments.
Let’s take this one horrible step further. Let us suppose that race realism means that there are genetic differences between the races that societal intervention cannot alleviate.
That means that Blacks will always have lower intelligence than European Whites, no matter what. This means effectively that Blacks will always have, under the present capitalist regime, lower educational outcomes, lower occupational status, lower incomes, poorer housing and neighborhoods, poorer health care outcomes, less wealth accumulation, etc. than Whites, much of this deriving directly from lower intelligence.
As lower intelligence leads to lesser educational attainment, so it leads to less success in the work arena. Lower income and wealth accumulation follows from this, as does poorer housing and neighborhoods and poorer health outcomes, since we must pay for health care in capitalist America.
Ok, so how do we deal with this reality on Left? What do we do, given these facts, if they are facts?
Because the typical response to saying that Black intelligence will be lower than White intelligence for the forseeable future, with all the negativity to follow, is to move to the Right, specifically towards reaction. Most everyone who explicitly adopts this POV is White, and sooner or later they become reactionaries. Usually they start calling for dismantling civil rights protections. Often they go further into advocating a return to segregation or explicit White nationalism/White separatism. They typically become some sort of Libertarians and advocate ending all social spending.
It’s possible that they take this extreme stance because only in the arena of reactionary thought are views about race realism allowed to flourish.
Why can’t Left-liberalism incorporate these facts into its theory and practice?
People are people, no matter what. A human being is a human being, no matter their IQ.
We educate everyone here in America. No one ever said the purpose of education was to raise people’s IQ’s, and anyway, the evidence from the 3rd World is that education does in fact raise IQ via the Flynn Effect. The purpose of education need not be to remove all racial gaps in IQ and achievement, and if they are genetically mediated, which is possible, then the effort will fail anyway.
Surely a Black person with an 85 IQ benefits a lot more from a 12 years of K-12 education than if they received none at all, correct? Are the reactionaries so insane as to believe that all education is wasted on anyone with an 85 IQ? What about White people with 85 IQ’s (16% of the White population)? Would they do better to get zero years of school as opposed to 12 years? Are 12 years of schooling really wasted on them?
If someone is born with lower intelligence, why must this person suffer in poverty their whole life because of what God ordained? Why must they live in inferior housing and an inferior neighborhood over something that’s not their fault? Why should they have poorer health outcomes and less ability to go to the doctor simply because of how they were born? Because this is where the reactionary race realist argument leads to.
Let’s try something else.
Suppose Blacks had the same abilities as Whites, genetically. All of the problems, including low IQ, were simply due the fact that they are fucking up, often on purpose. If this were true, and strangely enough, this sort of follows from liberal beliefs about genes and environment, I would argue for a harsh response to Blacks. Not necessarily cutting them off altogether, but I would certainly be a bit less likely to help them.
But there’s no evidence that that is true.
If Blacks do have low IQ due to things they cannot control, then, as a socialist, I would argue that there is no reason that the higher IQ group ought to obtain dramatically higher income, wealth, housing, living spaces and health than the lower one.
As much as possible, socialists should try to attempt to more equalize incomes, housing, living spaces and health care access for both groups, the higher IQ and the lower.
It’s not going to be possible to equalize educational access, since that would require fudging the test scores, dumbing down the curriculum, or marking up Black scores due to their being Black and marking down White scores due to their being White.
Wealth will be hard to equalize due to the variable of spending and saving.
Why should Whites be allowed to become dramatically richer, healthier, better housed, and live in better places than Blacks, simply because of how the genetic dice got rolled?
Answer: They have no such right. If both groups were equal, and Whites got that way by simply trying harder, then we could make the argument that the White position is just.
Why should Blacks be forced to become dramatically poorer, less healthy, worse housed, and live in worse places than Whites, simply because of how they were born, a variable that they had no control over whatsoever?
Answer: This is not right. It is not just. They should not be forced into these outcomes, and that they are is an outrageous injustice.
If you look at the bolded statements above, you can see that far from being a reactionary or racist movement, Liberal Race Realism is actually progressive, even very progressive.
There are a few things progressive people can do with regard to differential IQ results. The current results* show US White IQ = 103 and US Black IQ = 89.8. That’s being somewhat generous with Black IQ, as I am wont to do. Others might peg it a couple of points lower, but whatever. There’s about 1 Standard Deviation separating the two scores. I have a feeling that a lot of what people call Black pathology flows right from this I STD.
For instance, when Black and White IQ’s are held constant, Blacks have 2 times the crime rate of Whites. That’s a 100% increase, and that’s a big difference. Nevertheless it is about the same as the Native American and Polynesian crime rates in the US, two groups that mostly no Whites in the US give two shits about one way or the other. The Polynesian IQ is about the same as Blacks, yet Blacks commit 4.5 times, or 350% more crime, which is very strange.
That right there implies that there is more than IQ causing Black crime. One of the projects of this blog is to quit fucking around with fake liberal/Left BS explanations for Black pathology and to figure out what is really driving this stuff, come Hell or high water.
One problem with the current White nationalist line about Black IQ is that there are way too many smart Blacks. The White nationalist line goes that Blacks are semi-retarded with a IQ of 89.8 (when 88 was the former retarded line and then PC people changed it to 88 and changed retardation to 73, throwing 1/3 of all Blacks out of retardation.
So the line is Blacks Are a Bunch of Retards. We’ve heard this line forever coming out of the Black IQ scores in Africa, which, at average IQ of 70, are in fact retarded. 50% of African Blacks are retards, and the other 50% are not, but are not very smart at all.
The problem is that when you take these attitudes out into the real world, they don’t really pass the smell test. There are way too many smart Blacks. This is the first problem. So the scores in a way don’t make sense. It’s quite clear to me that Blacks are currently less intelligent than Whites in the US at 1 STD. Whether that’s permanent or not is up is another matter. But to listen to White nationalists, smart Blacks are few and far between.
In Africa, extrapolating from the tests, there might be 2% of the population above IQ 100. Above IQ 115, maybe 1 in a 1000. Beyond that, the numbers get vanishingly low. I have seen number crunchers who say that with an IQ of 70, there must be zero, or maybe one, Black in Africa with an IQ above 130, gifted in the US. That seems to low for me, but you get the picture.
The problem is that when you look around at Black Africans, there are quite a few who are very, very smart. I know a fellow from Togo who has a Masters in Computer Science. He used to work for me, and he had that kind of sloppy Black genius, but he’s very smart.
Last I talked to him, he was in France involved with some super-brains at MIT doing cutting edge graduate IT theory work in stuff that I could barely even understand. He was thinking of going for a PhD in Computer Science. I’ve spoken to him, and he’s smart as Hell in all sorts of other ways too. I don’t know what his IQ was, but I was worried it was higher than mine, and I’m smarter than 999/1000 Americans.
I have also heard White nationalists make fancy arguments that because Blacks are so stupid, they have never created any “geniuses on the level of US Whites” and apparently never will. This bothers me.
Suffice to say that while clearly US Blacks are much less intelligent than US Whites, and clearly African Blacks are way too stupid for their own good and we must try to raise their IQ’s as a public emergency issue, in some way, the tests still seem to be underestimating Black intelligence.
Africa is an obvious case. Most Whites with IQ’s below 73 can’t drive a car, work, marry or live independently. They live in group homes and have very limited lives.
Black Africans, with an average IQ 3 points below the retardation level in the US, can drive, marry, have normal friendships, live independently, have children, etc. In short, they are able to function in a normal African society and do not need to be institutionalized, nor should they be institutionalized.
I talked to a lot of these characters when I did anti-scamming work. In some ways they were dumb as rocks, but in other ways they were smart as whips. In one case, we had an American with an IQ of about 76. She was sent in wild circles for months by these 70 IQ Africans with their wild schemes, games, stories and lies such that she was nearly driven nuts. They took for stupid and were running rings around her dumbass brain. Yet the tests say she was smarter than they were. Bullshit.
Long story short, yes, Africans have frighteningly low IQ’s, and many African problems surely flow directly from that. On the other hand, in some weird way, the tests are yet underestimating Black African IQ.
In the US, yes, Blacks are 1 STD lower in IQ than So many things, obviously, first of all, the achievement gap, flow directly from this fact. On the other hand, extrapolating out from these scores, we realize that there are should not be that many smart Blacks.
Yet, curiously, there seem to be way too many smart Blacks around than the stats would suggest. Alpha Unit, Car Guy and tulio types (commenters and writers on the site) should be quite rare, in fact, once you start looking around, it seems like they are everywhere, even in the Abagondsphere. Turn on Pacifica, and it’s full of smart Blacks. Way too many.
Something doesn’t make sense. Maybe it’s the Flynn Effect. According to the Flynn Effect of rising IQ’s in the US, your average Black today has the same IQ as the average White in 1960. That’s stunning, and doesn’t seem to make sense on so many levels, but the facts are true. In fact, James Flynn himself has verified that truth to me.
If Blacks are as smart as 1960 Whites, why are they so fucked up, and why can’t they create the 1960 White America? Once again, things don’t make sense. My conclusion is that it’s possible that US Blacks are perfectly capable of creating 1960 White America, it’s just that they are fucking up. Why, I have no idea, but you’ve seen the figures. Whatever reasons for them, lack of brains is not one of them. The conclusion is that Blacks are screwing up and need to get off the dime and get their shit together.
That Blacks have the same as 1960 Whites makes sense to me looking at my blog, at the blogosphere, and tuning in to Pacifica. There are way too many smart Blacks for the scores to make sense. But the intuitive reality makes sense if the entire scale has been flying upward with time. The old low is the new average. The old average is the new bright. We’re getting smarter, though Idiot Culture would seem to argue against that.
So we finally work our way back to the Black genius. if Black brains really are different on average (I say they are) then the Black genius will look different from the White genius. We may see this in a WN way of the Black genius is not even a genius, just a mediocrity, but that doesn’t seem to add up.
Black ideologues have long had the rather racist notion that Blacks have some particular thinking style that is not picked up on IQ tests and hence the tests are biased. I think this is nonsense in a way that it denies the realities of intelligence differences, but in a weird way, they may be onto something. As a race realist, I would go further and say that in fact Black brains are different on average from White brains. So Black intelligence and Black genius looks somewhat different from White genius.
To Whites, even some very smart Blacks seem sort of stupid due to sloppiness.
Their brain is going like a wild pinball machines, analogies, puns and references bouncing off each other like wild, but then there are spelling and punctuation errors and other fuckups. You call them on it, and the Black genius doesn’t seem to care. His brain’s going a mile a minute, all this genius stuff is pouring out like water over a broken dam, and Hell with the small stuff, errors and bullshit.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a good example of the Black genius. Here is his webpage. I wrote him a while back, offering to copy-edit his stuff, but in that Black either too proud of don’t give a fuck way, he never wrote back.
Here are two videos of two other Black geniuses.
One is Cornel West, the stunningly brilliant Black academic. The other is Micheal Eric Dyson, another incredible Black academic. This is where WN’s infuriate me. Both of these guys, especially West, are flat out top notch thinkers. I think West is up there with Tolstoy, Dante and Plato as a thinker.
Modern White philosophers leave me cold because I can’t understand them. West breaks all that BS down into street lingo that almost the average Black on the street could sort of figure it out. Watching his mind is facscinating. It’s like watchign a Coltrane jazz solo. It’s got to be the Black genius. Furthermore, think about.
The other is Michael Eric Dyson. Once again, the archetypal Black genius, brain as a pinball machine thing. He’s more like a great rapper than great Black jazz musician, but it’s more or less the same thing.
How many Whites think like these guys? Not many.
Many very smart Blacks do not display the typical Black genius. Acculturated in White society, they don’t sound a lot different from Whites.
*Setting US IQ at 100.
Repost from the old site.
James Flynn is an Emeritus Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. He has also done a lot of work on the Flynn Effect, which shows IQ’s rising all over the world in the past 80 years for unknown reasons. We’ve written about at a lot on this blog.
For reasons that remain unknown to me, White nationalists (almost all of whom are just White racists really) are driven into a frenzy by the mention of Flynn’s name. I find this very mystifying.
First of all, White nationalists insist that Blacks are defective, and present a lot of evidence indicating that Blacks as a group do have a lot of problems and that this group does do a disproportionate amount of damage to society. All of this is noncontroversial to anyone whose brain has not been turned to mush by political correctness.
Low IQ is frequently cited by White nationalists as one of the reasons for Black dysfunction and the resulting serious problems inflicted on society.
Other reasons are given too, but all of these are chalked up to genetics for some odd reason. It’s an odd White nationalist who thinks culture or environment is behind Black pathologies. Fair enough.
But when someone like Flynn comes forward and notes that Blacks have gotten dramatically more intelligent in the past 80 years, White nationalists for the most part just go ballistic and see red. Why?
If Black dysfunction really is caused by low IQ, and these problems cause massive damage to society, would it not be better for Blacks, White racists and everyone else for the Black IQ to go up, and problems resulting from the low IQ to diminish? Sure, right?
Think again. White nationalists are furious at the notion that the Black IQ is rising. Almost nothing sends them battier.
This is very strange. It implies, despite all of their rhetoric, that White nationalists really do not have the best interests of Blacks at heart. They don’t want Blacks to get smarter, better, or less dysfunctional. The more fucked up, stupid, violent and criminal Black people are, the more joyous White nationalists are.
Excuse me, but what a bunch of cruel, perverse assholes White nationalists are! You bitch that Blacks are incompetent, violent idiots, but that’s just the way you want them to be. If that’s the case, then maybe you just deserve to live with them and their messes after all?
There must be some other motivation here. The only thing that makes sense is a hoary cliche that I usually don’t consider.
White nationalists want Blacks to be stupid, dumb and fucked up because that way White nationalists can feel superior to Blacks.
White nationalists are the insecure punks from high school rejoicing in the failures of their rivals. White nationalists have an emotional investment in feeling superior to other races, and anything that suggests that the folks they dislike are gaining some ground in the footrace sends them into conniptions.
Sheesh. How petty and childish can you get? As long as this is what really motivates White nationalists, I’d say they have no right to diss Blacks for being pathological. Looks like White nationalists are plenty pathological themselves. We need to feel better than others because we’re a bunch of insecure weenies! Waaa waaa!
Anyway, Flynn has a very good article on the stupidity and uselessness of US liberalism from a sane First World point of view. He points out quite well what a bunch of political morons we are. But if the Democrats took up Flynn’s philosophy, they would get massacred. America is a center-right to conservative society at best, and liberal pikers like Obama are the best we can do.
Flynn also talks about US Blacks. He points out that between the ages of 25-45, there are only 57 Black men likely to be permanent (or even semi-permanent) partners for every 100 Black women. Sure, Black women could marry out, but few non-Black men want them. If you’re a Black female, you either have a kid out of wedlock with some Black loser, or you forego now and forever your chance to have a kid.
I think that most people have a right to have kids. As such, it’s reasonable that Black women are going to figure out a way to become mothers one way or another. That’s reasonable. I’ve made this argument to some White “liberal” Americans and they frowned. “Having kids isn’t all it’s cracked up to be,” a mother of four (!) grimaced. Hmm.
Flynn points out that for every 100 Hispanic women, there are 96 promising males, hence their single parenthood rate is 50% lower than Blacks. It all makes sense. Black illegitimacy isn’t sky-high due to Black genes (Why were 80% of Black parents married in 1960?) but due to unpleasant circumstances, namely the catastrophic state of Black men in America.
A commenter points out the problem that I have long had with the hereditarian view of human genetics, in particular IQ, where these characters are the most vocal. On the face of it, the hereditarian view is a valid hypothesis, it’s just that the people proposing it are such a bunch of malign and loathsome shit, almost to a man. And yes, they are almost all men, by the way. Women are understandably repelled by this misanthropic view, as they ought to be, since women are natural humanists.
For instance, quite a few people say I’m a good writer. Some even say I’m a great writer. Maybe they’re right, who knows?
But the point is that though I had talent even as a child, it didn’t end there.
I wrote a poem in the second grade, and the teacher thought it was so great that she called the principal in and read it to the class in front of him while everyone clapped. Actually, the poem sucked, but it was pretty good for a 7 year old.
At age nine, I was working on a novel. At age 16, I won an award for the best high school newspaper column in the state. At age 22, my creative writing professor said he’d never seen anything like it in his life and compared my stuff to Thomas Pynchon. At age 31, my friends were reading my stuff and shaking their heads, comparing it to James Joyce or William Shakespeare.
Anyway, the point is…guess what? I’ve been practicing writing my whole life! In the last few years, when I publish nearly every day, I’m practicing almost all the time. It wasn’t just some God-given gift. I’ve been working on it for 45 years! I have friends who are awesome musicians. Guess what? They all practice or if they are in a band, rehearse, constantly. They only get better and better. My artist friends draw all the time. The more they draw, the better they get.
Your risk of Alzheimer’s is related not so much to IQ but to the degree to which you exercise your brain in life.
Suppose two guys are born with a gift for running. At age 50, one guy hasn’t run in 25 years, and he sits on his ass all day, drinks beer and watches TV. His friend at age 50 still runs marathons. Guess which one is the better runner? Your brain isn’t all that different from your legs. Your brain is like a muscle; it gets better the more you use it.
The hereditarian approach to IQ has serious weaknesses. How can we explain 20 point IQ gains in only 70 years in the West in the 20th Century (the Flynn Effect) with consummate massive increases in head size? Guess what? It didn’t happen by genes, and genes didn’t make those heads bigger either.
How can we explain the 20 point gap between US Black and African IQ? Probably not by genes.
How can we explain 5-14 point Flynn rises in IQ in the second generation of many ethnic groups who move from the 3rd World to the West? Not by genes.
Ground Zero for the atavistic misanthropes of the hereditarian game was always the almost physically repulsive Gene Expression blog. The character named godless capitalist was always a loathsome man. The repellent Jason Malloy was a close second. Even Razib was creepy as fuck.
I remember once the news hit that IQ’s in Scandinavia, previously rising due to a Flynn Effect, had actually started to decline in recent years. The assholes on Gene Expression were practically throwing a party on their fucking site! IQ’s are going down, yeehaw! Malloy was pouring the drinks. What kind of human being rejoices when humans are getting stupider? Good God.
The commenter sums this view up nicely:
I agree that hereditarian racialists shoot down every bit of evidence for environmental effects on IQ. They tend not to merely disagree that the evidence is persuasive; they tend to angrily reject it and ridicule as it the stupidest idea ever. I think they’re somewhat justified in doing so because hereditarian positions are perfectly valid a priori assumptions, and, though not without problematic implications, would seem a wiser basis from which to proceed.
Nevertheless, one of those problematic implications hinted at tends to manifest itself as diehard genetic determinism, which in the hands of the average punter often produces a sort of supreme disgust with the world, seeing in it only human(oid) rubbish fit only for extinction natural or assisted.
Well, at least it does so in its most extreme forms.
The more moderate form is also dehumanizing, however. It says to a person all that you are now, or all that you’ve managed to achieve by now, that’s it; there is not the slightest chance you’ll ever amount to any more than that (so just give up and die already, or something useful like that, you get the feeling they’d like to add).
The hereditarians are flat out wrong on IQ. They always say that there is an environmental effect on IQ, but then whenever you show them any evidence of it, they immediately shoot it down. There are few hereditarian researchers on IQ who actually acknowledge evidence for an environmental effect on IQ.
Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton and the snide, upper class, snooty, antisocial atavists over at Gene Expression lead the pack. Since nearly the entire HBD/race realist sphere follows the line of Jensen and Rushton, nearly this entire sphere has rejected all evidence for a direct effect of the environment on IQ. Every time we show them they evidence, they shoot it down.
Nearly all White racists and especially White nationalists reject all evidence for an environmental effect on IQ and shoot down any evidence they throw up.
White nationalists have a lot at stake in this debate.
White nationalism is founded on the idea that European Whites are a genetically superior race, and most of the other races, including Blacks, Bushmen, Pygmies, Eskimos, Amerindians, mestizos, mulattos, Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, Southeast Asians, Papuans, Aborigines and Negritos are all quite genetically inferior in intelligence.
They also throw in all non-European Whites as genetically inferior in brains, including Arabs, North Africans, Iranians, Afghans, East Indians and the people of the Stans. Since most White nationalists are Nordicists, Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus are also thrown in as intellectually genetically inferior.
There isn’t much evidence for this, as Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus in general have IQ’s that are quite high. Furthermore, Eskimo and Maori IQ is high. The IQ’s of many groups in the US, including Mexicans, East Indians and Africans, are also quite high.
When we suggest that there are environmental effects on IQ, we shoot down their whole theory of genetic intellectual superiority and upset their whole theoretical worldview.
But there is quite a bit of evidence for environmental effects on IQ.
Wild IQ rises in the 20th century, mostly in the developed world, are impossible to explain by genetics.
The much higher IQ of US Blacks as opposed to other Blacks is hard to explain by genetics, though WN’s and the Gene Expression authors never tire of retarded explanations. The WN explanation for the 20 pt difference between US and African Black IQ is that it is explained by White blood in US Blacks. This explanation is retarded as it can only explain 4.5 points of the gap, leaving the other 15.5 points unexplained.
The Gene Expression folks say that African IQ is artificially lowered by malnutrition (they invoke environment only when it suits their hereditarian bias and reject it the rest of the time). Therefore, normative Black IQ is 80, and US Black IQ of 87 is also explained by White blood. But there is no evidence for their theory.
The White nationalists and their HBD buddies also pour cold water on the Flynn Effect showing massive IQ rises in the 20th Century. According to them, while IQ has actually increased, real intelligence has not gone up one single iota. The FE IQ’s are not on some BS called “g intelligence,” therefore they are nothing, meaningless ephemera. People are not getting smarter at all, not even 1%. Never mind that Flynn rises are typically accompanied by massive increases in head size, which would suggest real intelligences rise.
For instance there have been 22 different studies of IQ and breastfeeding, all the way up to age 50. All of these studies found cognitive benefits from breastfeeding. On the contrary, hereditarians recently championed one study that found no de novo effect for breastfeeding on IQ. Instead, the differences were tied up with mother’s IQ’s. That is, smarter mothers breastfed more and stupider ones did not. I will take 22 studies over one any day. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 128)
The effects of nutritional supplementation in pregnancy on IQ of offspring have been studied.
Nutritional supplementation in pregnancy and later supplementation of children has been shown to have effects at age 24 in Guatemala (1980) and age 18 in Mexico (1982). Mexican boys improved on IQ, and Guatemalans improved on a range of cognitive and achievement outcomes. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 124)
Lead levels in blood have a strong effect on IQ, leading to declines of up to 10-15 points. There is a clear cause effect relationship between blood levels and IQ. Blood lead levels are higher in Blacks than in Whites, because Blacks tend to liver in older dilapidated housing that has lead paint. Black children apparently ingest the paint chips somehow.
Iron level in the blood also effects IQ. The less iron, the lower the IQ.
Studies have consistently shown that malnutrition leads to low IQ and antisocial behavior in childhood. Iron deficiency is quite high in US Blacks and Hispanics.
One controlled study found that children who were severely malnourished in childhood ended up with IQ’s of 84 when returned to the home, 82 when institutionalized and 97 when adopted away (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 123).
A study in South Africa showed that intensive courses in college teaching Black college students the types of intelligence that are tested for on IQ tests quickly raised IQ’s from 83 to 97. Students were generally aged 18-22, above the age where environment is said to effect IQ. Even Philippe Rushton agreed that scores went up in this study, but he had some retarded reason why this had no effect on his hereditarian theories (Rushton and Jensen 2005).
It is a common canard among White nationalist and hereditarian circles that all early intervention programs designed to raise IQ have not been able to do so. It’s true that they often do not raise IQ, but they have other benefits. What matters is whether these programs are cost-effective or not.
Yet some very intensive programs have been successful. The Abecedarian and Perry Preschool projects (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 108) showed long-term rises in achievement scores lasting all the way into adolescence. Abecedarian found rises of 4.5 IQ points all the way into adulthood. The problem is that Abecedarian was quite expensive. Whether 4 point IQ gains could occur in large populations given this treatment and whether this would be cost-effective is not known.
- Rushton, J. Philippe and Arthur R., Jensen. 2005. Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol. 11, No. 2, 328–336.
Sternberg, Robert J. and Grigorenko, Elena. 1971. Environmental Effects on Cognitive Abilities. New York: Routledge Psychology Press.
We have remarked upon a number of cases in which movement from a Third World country to a 1st World country results in an IQ gain for the Third Worlders in the 2nd generation. The results will be listed below and the data can be found by searching the archives on the blog (I’m too weary to look them up and link them); anyway, regular readers have already read the original pieces.
Pre-West Post-West* IQ Gain Jamaica 71 86 15 US Blacks** 72.5 87 14.5 India 83 94 11 Mexicans 85 95 10 Philippines 86 93.5 7.5 Chinese 97.5 105 7.5 Japanese 97.5 105 7.5 Morocco 84 89 5 Post-West refers to second generation. The figure for US Blacks is their theorized genetic IQ based on African/Caribbean scores plus the White % in US Blacks.
The Filipinos, Mexicans and US Blacks went to the US. The Indians and Jamaicans went to the UK. Moroccans went to the Netherlands. Gains ranged from 5-15 points in the second generation. This is above and beyond the Flynn gains already taking place, and probably ongoing in most of those countries.
The gains are where these ethnic groups actually closed the gap with Whites by the amount of the gain in the third column. Looked at in another way, these groups closed the gap with Whites by 5-15 IQ points in a single generation. In addition, there are ongoing Flynn gains occurring alongside these migration gains, but they are not showing up as IQ gains because the Whites are pacing and matching the others precisely.
The Filipinos’ IQ’s are 13 points below the 106.5 for Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, giving them an IQ of 93.5. This is a full 7.5 point Flynn rise over the 86 IQ in the Philippines just from moving to the US.
However, Filipinos are starting to come close to US Whites in occupational success due to extra-IQ factors. This is the part that is very interesting. In other words, despite IQ’s that are a full 6.5 points below that of US Whites, Filipinos are beginning to match Whites in occupational success. This is because Filipinos have extra-IQ factors above and beyond the extra-IQ factors that the Whites have.
The extra-IQ factors are simply postulated, but they may have to do with “introversion.” Along with that, we may find self-discipline, orderliness, a strong work ethic, punctuality, ability to follow orders, putting in extra time on the job, cautiousness, ability to self-train and self-teach, etc. All of these things will tend to increase with introversion and probably decrease with extroversion.
As Whites are considerably more extroverted than Filipinos (Asians), Filipinos will probably score better on many extra-IQ factors than Whites, with the end result being that the extra-IQ factors allow the Filipinos to overcome an IQ deficit and nearly reach parity with Whites on the job.
The Filipino figures come from James Flynn’s book, Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ. In the book, Flynn shows that the second generation of Chinese and Japanese made not only remarkable IQ gains against US Whites, going from the 97.5 IQ of their parents to the 105 IQ of the second generation (and passing Whites at the same time) but they were on average working at positions that were 10-20 points above where they should have been working based on their IQ’s.
The question arises, What about US Blacks? The fascinating thing about African-Americans is that they have an unexplained 14.5 IQ rise above and beyond what ought to be their genetic IQ.
The hereditarians have never been able to explain this well. On of their feints is to say that IQ in Africa (= 67) is artificially lowered by malnutrition. Well, possibly, but then why is Black IQ about the same in the Caribbean (= 71)? Keep in mind that Caribbean Blacks often have a small amount of White in them (Jamaicans have 9%). So it does look like genetic Black IQ is indeed around 70.
That means they are mentally retarded, but we have already had the discussion about this on the blog. The commenters and I agree that Blacks in Africa and the Caribbean with 70 IQ’s are not retarded in the sense that a White person with a 70 IQ is. In this sense, the tests don’t seem to measure Black intelligence properly. On the other hand, while they are not retarded, I don’t think that your average 70 IQ African is all that intelligent.
I’m getting at a couple of things here. First of all, can Blacks make use of these extra-IQ factors to at least overcome their 13.2 point IQ deficit with Whites in the sense of at least performing above their predicted IQ level on the job? Keep in mind that in order to do that, Blacks would have to display these extra-IQ factors above and beyond the level of the Whites. Since Blacks are the most extroverted race of all, this seems dubious.
On the other hand, we have a large up and coming Black middle class that is itching for success. By dutifully emphasizing the extra-IQ factors listed above, upwardly mobile Blacks will at least be able to perform above their IQ level on the job.
On curious area that no one considers is personal skills. There seems to be a lot of evidence that Blacks are more socially adept than Whites. In jobs where social intelligence and skills are highly valued, conscientious Blacks may be able to outperform their White co-workers and at least partially close the occupational success gap with them.
Second of all, it seems possible that Africans moving to the West may experience ~15 point IQ rise in the second generation. It hasn’t showed up yet, but no one has looked for it. So the 67 IQ Africans by the second generation should be at IQ 83. It’s not that great, but there are more or less functional countries with 83 IQ’s. There aren’t that many with ~70 IQ’s. To the extent that Africa can mirror the environment of the West in Africa itself, they won’t even have to come here.
This is groundbreaking work that is receiving very little ink, less than it deserves. At the very least, rising IQ with migration and extra-IQ factors show that neither is IQ set in stone, nor is it destiny.
- Flynn, James R. 1991. Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pretty interesting, and I have long suspected this, or actually worried about it, because I’m opposed to the hereditarian line. However, you can’t have Flynn Effects raising IQ’s by 3 points via genetics, so the Flynn Effect shows that environment can also play a strong role in, at the very least, increasing IQ scores.
For those who don’t want to click the link, the article states that UCLA researchers have found evidence that intelligence is largely inherited. That’s overstating the case of what they found, though. What they found was identical twins had very similar levels of myelin sheathing in the brain’s axons in brain regions key to intelligence, such as the corpus callosum and the parietal lobes.
Myelin is a coating on axons, which are the connections between neurons, or brain cells. The fatter the sheathing, the better the axons work, that is, the faster the axons fire messages. Myelination of the brain actually peaks in middle age, which is not really evidence that this process is intimately linked to intelligence, since fluid IQ (a measure of pure, raw brain speed) peaks around age 23 and then drops. Crystallized IQ often keeps going up into middle age and beyond.
This is an interesting question that we have been discussing in the comments threads.
I haven’t taken an official position on genetics and IQ yet, because I don’t want to say that some race or another, particularly, say Blacks or Hispanics, is genetically inferior to some other race. It’s not something I want to believe, much less say. At some point, the evidence will become so overwhelming that one will look like a kook if you deny that, but we are not really there yet.
I deeply fear that this may be the case though. Nevertheless, the evidence is not yet so clear-cut that one is almost engaging in pseudo-science to deny it, hence it is still safe to hedge one’s bets and be an IQ agnostic.
One of my principal agendas on this blog, though, is to fight the (what I call) pseudo-science that says IQ and other intelligence tests are meaningless in terms of measuring brainpower; that is, I advocate that IQ tests are indeed meaningful and real measures and are not culturally biased or whatever.
This latter is still a common position, especially in the softer sciences, but increasingly I feel that it needs to be called out as BS. One can certainly be a Leftist and believe in the reality of IQ and other psychometric tests. An acquaintance of mine, James Flynn (discoverer of the Flynn Effect), is a Leftist who very much believes in the reality of IQ.
Deep inside though, I really do fear that genetic Black IQ may be as low as ~70, possibly ~67. That’s what it is in Africa. Caribbean Blacks with a bit of White in them and maybe a better environment only score ~71. I really think that the true genetic IQ of US Blacks ought to be ~72.5, just going by their African + White mix.
What is very strange though is that the US Black is so unaccountably high, why it is ~87 and not ~72.5, where we would expect it to be on account of their genetics. In other words, US Black IQ is way too high to be explained by genetics alone.
No one really knows why this is. Either they engaged in some eugenics while here in the past 100 years or so to select for higher IQ’s, or the nutrition and extremely advanced environment of the US has jolted the IQ up. Anyway, the evidence seems to suggest a gain of about 15 IQ points in US Blacks, relative to Whites in about 100-125 years.
Concomitantly, we have seen a massive increase in head size in US Blacks. The head size changes seem to be due partly to nutrition but also partly to genetics.
The only way they could be due to genetics is if US Blacks have been eugenically selecting for IQ somehow in the past 125 years. At the same time, the US Black phenotype has become much more progressive and much less archaic, particularly with regard to prognathism. That is, in the past 125 years, US Blacks seem to have been selecting for both more progressive features and higher IQ. This makes sense since more progressive phenotypes tend to have higher IQ’s.
So Blacks closed the B-W IQ gap in the US by about 15 points in the past 125 years. Now that right there is quite shocking!
Then we have Britain. Several lines of evidence suggest that Anglo-Jamaican IQ in the UK ought to be ~72. That’s what is in Jamaica. Nevertheless, Jamaican Blacks have about the same IQ’s as US Blacks (86 to ~87 for US Blacks).
This is very odd, but it lines right up with the evidence from the US, and suggests that merely moving Blacks in an advanced Western environment results in an IQ gain of about 15 points. In Black kids, it’s even higher. Black kids in the UK and US have IQ’s as high as 95 (age 5). It does plunge back down, but once again, that looks like the Western environment is jacking up Black kids’ IQ’s by up to 25 pts.! Now that does drop to a 15 pt gain with adulthood, but still.
I think this is hopeful. To me this suggests that if you move Africans into a Western environment, by the second generation, their IQ’s could well gain up to 15 pts. If the average African IQ is 67, that would give them IQ’s of 82. That’s not great, but it’s probably workable. India and Pakistan have IQ’s in that range, and they more or less function.
What worries me is the possibility that Blacks in the West can only achieve about a 15 point IQ gain on account of the improved environment. After that, they might ceiling out. I’d rather see them close the gap altogether.
Now the US Black IQ of ~87 is not low by world standards. That’s the same IQ, approximately, as many Latin Americans, Arabs, Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians and Filipinos. Most of those folks seem to be able to create more or less functional societies. I’m aware that US Blacks can’t even seem to run Detroit, much less a whole country, but whatever the reason for that is, I don’t think it’s because they’re stupid.
Now even an ~87 IQ may not be so great in the West. Here in the US, Blacks possibly have one of the lowest IQ’s of any major group, despite the fact that an 87 IQ isn’t all that low. In advanced Western societies, the key term is group competition. If there’s a tiger after you and me, I don’t have to outrun it, I just have to outrun you. And here is the rub. If even at an ~87 IQ, US Blacks are outcompeted by most other groups, the relatively higher IQ will be less meaningful since they will still tend to fall behind the competition.
Repost from the old site.
Commenters recently have been bringing up the Flynn Effect (FE) of rising IQ’s in the past 80 years. There are many paradoxes and controversies over this effect that the commenters have been sharp enough to notice and point out. One argument is that the FE is not a real intelligence rise at all, since it is not on real g intelligence. In other words, the FE means nothing, and people are no smarter than before. The FE gains are not gains in intelligence at all, they are zero, nothing, null.
This is not correct, but the argument is very interesting. First we need to understand what the FE is and what it means. Then we need to understand what g is and what it means. The post concludes that there has indeed been an FE rise on g, but only on one component of g. Further, the post critiques the whole notion of seeing intelligence purely through the lens of g as senseless and meaningless, not to mention flat out wrong.
The subject matter is highly complex, but I tried to make it as simple as possible. My readers are a very intelligent bunch, and I think most of you should be able to follow this argument. You really need to read this slowly and take your time to try to understand what is going on here. It took me months of studying the FE before I finally started to get a handle on it.
The Flynn Effect (FE) is a secular rise in IQ over time that has been occurring throughout the West for 80 years now. All ages and ethnic groups are effected. Preliminary evidence indicates that it is also occurring in the Caribbean (Dominica), South America (Brazil) and Africa (Kenya).
An overview of the FE itself goes beyond the scope of this post.
The FE is quite complex, and many people do not seem to understand the concept properly, hence are not able to discuss it, much less debate it. However, most people of reasonable intelligence, if interested, seem to be able to grasp the basic implications of the FE.
Hereditarians, most of whom are White racists, are very upset by the FE (Talk about being opposed to human progress!) because they have a strong emotional investment in White intellectual superiority and the intellectual inferiority of Blacks, Hispanics and other groups. We know that the major hereditarian researchers on intelligence are racists because almost all of them support getting rid of all anti-discrimination laws.
The agenda is clear for both lab coat racists and White nationalists: if we can prove that Blacks, Hispanics and others are intellectually inferior to Whites, we can legalize discrimination, especially job discrimination, against them.
A particularly frightening lab coat racist endeavor is attempting to prove that Blacks are inferior employees to Whites on average. If they prove this scientifically, then they will have a logical reason to support discriminating against Blacks in employment.
Almost all of these folks are White, and most of them call themselves race realists. They spend a good deal of time screaming and yelling about why Blacks and Browns will not accept that they are intellectually inferior (Steve Sailer specializes in this). Why would anyone want to accept, or actually accept, such a thing?
Furthermore, given the nefarious agenda behind those promoting these theories that seeks to legalize discrimination against Blacks and Browns, any Black or Hispanic person who gets behind this would have to be out of their minds.
I have ritually added “Hispanic” after Black above, but in general, Hispanics are being left out of this debate. The real effort here is directed by racist Whites against Blacks, not Hispanics. It is against Blacks that these Whites seek to legalize the right to discriminate.
The Flynn Effect has been hard to argue against, but the hereditarians have tried hard. They have shown that the FE is not on g. G is a hypothesized common correlational factor that supposedly measures pure intelligence. Everything outside of g is “not real intelligence”.
However, according to one paper, the very concept of g is tendentious to say the least, and possibly nonsensical. The paper is titled G, A Statistical Myth, by an admittedly brilliant mathematician named Cosma Shalizi. I read through the whole thing but I couldn’t really make sense of it. Perhaps someone who knows math better than I do can have a go at it.
Therefore, intelligence has not risen in a general, across-the-board kind of way. However, certain aspects of intelligence have definitely risen, and those aspects have quantifiable benefits in modern society, occupationally, academically and in other ways.
The argument of whether or not the FE gains are on g or not is very complex, about as complex as the FE itself. First of all, the FE gains have not been across the board. In general, they have focused on verbal analysis, visual analysis, visual intelligence and problem-solving. Gains have been few to none in basic things like general knowledge, mathematics, mathematical analysis, spelling and reading comprehension.
G is a hypothesized and problematic construct that is a correlational factor all of the subtests on an intelligence test. It is thought to be highly heritable and physiologically based, and this is why the hereditarians have gone nuts over it.
It measures how someone with a somewhat more neurologically efficient brain will tend to score better across an entire range of subtests than someone who with a less efficient brain.
The reason the FE is not on g is because it is limited to a subset of intelligence subtests, and gains have been small to none across another subset. Therefore, there is no g gain.
However, Raven’s Progressive Matrices has shown larger gains than any other test. Raven’s was designed to measure pure g and nothing else. Raven’s scores are not thought to be effected by environmental factors outside of pregnancy and the first few months of life, and are thought to be purely neurologically, physiologically or genetically based.
Given the pure g basis for Raven’s, the wild secular gains on it on the FE are most puzzling.
However, recently James Flynn has shown that the FE does show a .5 correlation on a factor analyzing fluid g.
There is fluid g and crystallized g.
Fluid g is thought to peak early in life. This is why things that require raw brain processing power tend to peak in young people: creativity – artists, musicians, poets, novelists, filmmakers, mathematicians, physicists – often do their best work as young people (usually as young men). Fluid g is really a measure of how well, fast or efficient your brain works.
Crystallized g is another matter altogether. Crystallized g may be seen as “what you know” as opposed to “how fast of a brain you have.” While fluid g peaks early, crystallized g often goes up throughout life, and people can still score high on crystallized g in their 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and even 80’s.
This is what we might call “accumulated knowledge” or “wisdom”. The old person’s brain does not work as fast, but the accumulated knowledge makes up for that in that they can see connections between things easier.
The young person’s brain works very fast, but with the lack of accumulated knowledge and life experience, they are not able to put things together as well to arrive at the correct conclusion. This is why no society has ever put the 18-23 year old’s in power, no matter how zippy their brains are.
Instead, the old men have always been put in power. The accumulation of a life of learning is thought to lead to a wisdom that will manifest itself as the ability to make “wise”, correct and proper decisions.
The concepts of crystallized and fluid g are complicated, but hopefully that explanation helped you understand it better.
The FE is on fluid g, not crystallized g. Visual intelligence and analysis, problem solving, verbal analysis analytical thinking in general, on intelligence tests, is in the realm of fluid g. Those are those little puzzles that ask you to decide which figure goes next in the series.
On intelligence tests, crystallized g measures accumulated knowledge and the degree to which one has learned basic tasks of modern life. The FE gains on mathematics, math analysis, reading comprehension, vocabulary and general knowledge are small to nil, and all of these tests measure crystallized g. To sum, these are the sorts of things you learn in school.
This is why, despite skyrocketing IQ’s, we cannot read a book, add and subtract, or do calculus any faster than our grandparents. We also do not know any more than they did, and we know no more words than they did.
This is obvious in the many reports on “idiocratic” state of high school seniors, college students or college grads. And this is how a puzzle is solved – how IQ’s are surely rising at the same time as idiocracy is.
From Flynn’s chapter summary:
IQ gains over time were calculated for each WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) subtest and the subtests ranked by size of gain. Verbal Similarities led at 20 points per generation – larger than gains on Raven’s Progressive Matrices.
Similarities measures on-the-spot problem-solving (something akin to fluid g); verbal subtests that do not measure this show low rate of gain. WISC subtests were also ranked by their correlations with Raven’s, the latter being used as a marker for fluid g. The r between the two hierarchies was calculated to approximate a correlation between IQ gains and fluid g .
The result of 0.50 contrasts with the negative correlation between IQ gains and the g generated by factor analyzing the WISC battery itself, which is generally viewed as predominately a crystallized g.
In sum, it appears that human groups can make massive fluid g gains in a period too short to accommodate radical change in the speed and efficiency of neural processes. Moreover, once gains in intelligent behavior over historical time are seen to be independent of brain physiology, does g really provide a criterion for assessing their significance?
Finally, not only a measure of fluid g (which is highly heritable) but also inbreeding depression are shown to be correlated with IQ gains – gains overwhelmingly environmental in origin. Therefore, correlations between such genetically influenced factors and the size of the black/white IQ gap do not show that the gap has a genetic component.
The Similarities test has risen faster than any other test. It measures analytical thinking and is thought to be a good measure of raw fluid g. The final paragraph is interesting. The Black-White IQ gap is correlated with something called inbreeding depression score, a purely heritable measure. Hereditarians use this to say that the B-W IQ gap is genetic.
But Flynn shows here that the FE (a purely environmental gain) also correlates with inbreeding depression, a purely hereditarian score. Flynn uses this to say that the B-W IQ gap is not necessarily completely genetic.
Flynn notes above that the FE cannot possibly be caused by brains that actually work better physiologically than the brains of our grandparents. Genetics doesn’t work that fast.
Therefore, what does the FE measure? Flynn says it measures “intelligent behavior.” So our brains don’t work any better than our grandparents’ brains, but we show improved “intelligent behavior” over them.
Therefore, another mystery is solved, how massive IQ gains can occur without concomitant improvement in the physiology of our brains.
Since hereditarians use g as a measure of physiological efficiency of our brains, Flynn calls this into question by noting that g gains can occur too fast to be accommodated for by physiologically improved brains. Therefore, Flynn suggests chucking g as a measure of pure brain physiological efficiency.
Therefore, the White nationalist and hereditarian argument that the FE is not on g has been proven wrong.
- Flynn, James R. 2000. IQ Gains, WISC Subtests and Fluid g: g Theory and the Relevance of Spearman’s Hypothesis to Race, Chapter 12 in Bock, Gregory R., Goode, Jamie A., Webb, Kate. Novartis Foundation Symposium 233 – The Nature of Intelligence, pp. 202-227. Novartis Foundation. Published online.
A young commenter named Ger is going round and round with me on the Primitive People Have Primitive Languages and Other Nonsense post. This person thinks that primitive peoples are actually smarter than civilized ones and suggests that civilization actually makes you stupid. An analogy was made to domesticated dogs and cats getting stupider after they were civilized and made into pets.
Problem is that civilized peoples have IQ’s that tend to be much higher than primitive or 3rd World peoples. When 3rd World peoples move to the 1st World, their children gain around 5-15 IQ points in the first generation, suggesting that civilization is good for your brain.
The Flynn Effect has been ongoing at least since 1930, with the most noticeable effects in the First World. IQ’s have been rising at about 3 points per decade due to this effect, which seems to be largely one that postulates that higher levels of civilization actually make residents more intelligent, possibly an adaptation to deal with the increasing complexity of modern life.
Adding further evidence to the data is that more primitive or Third World peoples who move to First World societies tend to flounder, suffer heavy unemployment, use welfare a lot, drink, take drugs, engage in domestic violence, commit lots of crime and suffer lots of imprisonment and finally to suffer diseases and die young.This in spite of rising IQ.
This suggests that while primitive peoples are highly intelligent (one way to prove this is to look at the miracle of their insanely complex languages) they still have not evolved the “rocket scientist” intelligence necessary to flourish in the First World. Why didn’t they evolve sky-high IQ’s? They probably did not need them. If they needed to be rocket scientists, read Moby Dick and take advanced calculus, they would have evolved the super IQ’s to do it.
Anyway, Ger doesn’t believe any of this, and thinks the modern world is a gigantic Idiocracy Factory. A recent comment:
How is sitting in front of a TV eating fast food cognitively demanding?
Granted it doesn’t require any brains to eat the Big Mac, but there may be more to the TV than meets the eye.
Actually, people have been wondering what is driving the Flynn Effect and one theory that they have come up with is…the Boob Tube! Yes the Idiot Box is thought to be making people smarter.
My late father thought this theory was insane because he hated TV.
But you need to sit back and really think about what is going on with TV. Even US sitcoms are surprisingly intelligent these days. The dialog is witty and clever and operates on several different levels. Same with your standard drama shows. These also operate on several different levels at once and there is one level, like in the sitcoms, that is actually quite intellectual. You really have to be smart to get out of these shows everything that is put into them.
On sitcoms the jokes come right after the other and they are quite sophisticated. On dramas, things happen very quickly, plots are often extremely complex, etc.
On complex TV shows, in any given minute, many different things may be going on, sometimes all at once.
Many shows nowadays test our knowledge – see the knowledge game shows for instance.
Even cable news is cognitively demanding. The issues are complex, and the stories quickly move on one after the other. Very intelligent people are interviewed in succession, and they don’t really simplify the concepts they are dealing with a lot.
Even modern cartoons have a Hell of a lot going on with them. I can’t believe how sophisticated Adult Swim stuff is.
Bottom line is if you really want to get something out of TV, you need to be on the ball and paying attention, sometimes to multiple things all at once. This gets massively magnified by the modern tendency to channel surf.
The Flynn Effect is seeing its most explosive gains on visual analysis and visual reasoning. TV, along with cell phones, computers, VCR’s, remote controls, dials on automobiles, microwaves and many other things, even garage door openers, all require some kind of programming to make them work properly these days.
Of all of these, the TV must be considered one of the strongest drivers of all, if only due to its ubiquity.
From a fantastic race-realist blog called The Inductivist by Ron Guhname, we have information that the IQ of US Mexican-Americans may be rising, probably due to a Flynn Effect. There has been an incredible 10 point rise in only 25 years or so. Keep in mind that all of the data has been renormed by decade due to progressively rising IQ’s (Flynn Effect), so the apparent slow growth in White IQ actually masks a 10 point increase over 35 years. Over 35 years, there was a 12 point gain in IQ, 3.4 points per decade or .34 points per year.
Mean IQ for White Americans
Now compare to mean IQ for Mexican-Americans, using the same test:
Mean IQ for Mexican Americans
The 1980’s show no gain, but there was a great 7 point gain in the 1990’s and another 3 point gain in the 2000’s, which adds up to a stunning 10 point gain in real IQ over a 25 year period. This in addition to the 10 point Flynn gain that occurred anyway during the 35 year period time but was masked by renorming.
Looking again, from 1985-present, a period of 25 years, Mexican-Americans gained an incredible 17 IQ points. That’s .68 points per year, or 6.8 points per decade. During this period, the Mexican-American IQ grew twice as fast as the White IQ. Over 35 years, they gained 20 IQ points, .57 points per year or 5.7 points per decade.
Importing lots of low-IQ Mexicans from Mexico is not a solution to anything. Are those Mexicans “genetically low IQ?” Probably not, since that 85 IQ may well rise to 95, give them 25-35 years or so. But that’s 25-35 years of poor behavior we have to tolerate.
Meanwhile, as the low-IQ flood continues, the problems of the ever-replenishing low-IQ recent immigrants just perpetuate, solidify, and eventually become a cemented subculture that is not only impossible to eradicate but also infects surrounding groups.
Indeed, their IQ’s may rise later on, but at the moment, your average Mexican immigrant has an IQ of 82. That’s way too low to function well in a modern advanced capitalist society. No wonder there is a such a “general decline” in areas overrun by recent Mexican immigrants.
They are not very smart!
So of course we see increased crime, graffiti, gangs, rundown areas, broken-down cars, squalid homes, dirtiness, trashiness, littering, corruption, along with epidemics of gang membership, teen pregnancy and school dropout. Why the epidemics? That’s what dumb people do in advanced Western capitalist societies. They drop out of high school, get pregnant while they’re kids, become single Moms and join gangs.
The question is why don’t Whites do these things in such high numbers. Answer being that they are smarter. The smarter you are, the less likely you are to do idiot stuff like that.
Based on the data above, Mexican Americans anyway present no obvious problems in terms of IQ (On this test, they score only 6 points below Whites!) but recent immigrants are probably a catastrophe, for at least the next 25-35 years anyway, and continuous flood tide of unscreened immigration from Latin America means a nightmare that ever perpetuates, rising again, Lazarus-like, with each new pulse of low-IQ immigrants, even as older cohorts brain up and civilize themselves.
Repost from the old site.
This article was linked on Reddit.com with a number of critical comments. I will attempt to address these comments. One commenter said, “I’d like to see real reporting on this rather than some guy’s blog.” A number of comments also attacked the reasoning and logic behind the piece.
James R. Flynn, one of the world’s most pre-eminent researchers in intelligence, has reviewed this article and agrees with its premises. Specifically, he agreed that the Black IQ of 2007 is the same as the White IQ of 1957.
I am well aware that IQ scores are only high or low relative to other scores. However, White racists love to bash US Blacks over their “low IQ of 85”. According to White racists, this means US Blacks are a race of morons and idiots.
My point is that if the Black 85 IQ of 2007 is a “low IQ” and evidence of stupidity and idiocy, then the Whites of 1957 also had a “low IQ” that proved that they were also a race of morons and dunces. This is because the Black 2007 IQ is precisely the same as the White 1957 IQ.
One of the most interesting things that has been happening in the area of intelligence testing in the past 80 years has been something called the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect (FE) has shown that IQ scores have been rising all across the West for the past 80 years. There is much debate about the causes of this effect and less about whether or not it is real.1
The general consensus is that it is a real effect, and that scores are indeed rising not only in the West, but in the 3rd World as well.2 From 1925-1995, IQ scores in the West rose about 3 points a decade, or about 20 points. The effect is seen across all racial groups in the West and among Dominican and African Blacks.
There have been many arguments back and forth about this phenomenon. White racists say that the effect is not real and that it is only measuring a “test-taking effect”. That is, as people get better and better at taking tests in our test-taking societies, IQ scores will rise, but it is not a real increase in intelligence, it only shows that people are getting better at taking tests.
What is interesting is that these same White racists are the very folks who like to bellow about the “low Black IQ” of 85, 15 points below the White average. They seem to think that this 15-point difference is real. But IQ tests are either valid or they are not.
They either measure real intelligence or they just measure some fake “test-taking ability”. IQ scores cannot be valid measures of racial differences in humans, except when the scores are going up.
In other words, if the FE is fake, so are IQ tests themselves. You can’t have it both ways. 3
Despite a mountain of increasingly Lysenko-like Leftist and liberal opposition to the notion that IQ tests measure intelligence, there is increasing agreement among psychometricians that IQ tests do in fact do a good job of measuring intelligence, and are not culturally biased in any way.4
Other White racists argue that the FE is only occurring on the subtests of the IQ test that are lowest in the g factor. The g factor is a hypothetical factor that is thought to be highly genetic and is considered a “pure” measure of intelligence. In fact, the FE has shown its highest scores in those subtests highest in g.5
Another argument is that the FE is occurring only in “learned knowledge” – book knowledge, or things learned in school, and that this does not really measure increased intelligence.
There are two types of intelligence discussed here – fluid and crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence is a good raw measure of sheer processing speed. It tends to peak young. It can be seen in math prodigies, poets, songwriters and novelists who do their best work up until their early 30’s or so, and then start to decline. Fluid intelligence declines with age. G is a good measure of fluid intelligence.
Crystallized intelligence can be called “knowledge” “book learning” “what one knows” or even “wisdom”. It is the accumulated knowledge and wisdom gained through a lifetime of learning and experience. As expected, it does not decline with age, and older people often score very high crystallized intelligence.
In the West, the vocabulary and mathematics subtests (measures of crystallized intelligence) have risen only 2 points, while the FE rise as a whole was 20 points.
In other words, people are not that smarter in terms what “what they know” than they were in the past. Their vocabulary base and ability to do math has not gone up much. The tests that show the most increase are tests measuring the ability to think abstractly and visual analysis.
There is good evidence that people in the past were more concrete and not as scientific-minded (abstract) as we are today. One of the increases is on the ability to solve a “completely new problem that one has never been exposed to before”.
If you have ever taken an IQ test, you know what the visual analysis tests are. Those are the tests that show you several geometric or designed figures and ask you which one is next in the series, or which one is does not belong there. These tests have shown the most explosive gains of all. So, it’s clear that we really are “getting smarter” and not just “knowing more stuff”.
Another argument against the FE, albeit not racist, is that it is due to increased Black-White intermarriage. From 1972-2002, such intermarriage increased from 1% to 4.5% in the US. Flynn shows that rates of intermarriage explain little of the FE.
There have been many theories about what is causing the rise in IQ scores. Some suggest better nutrition6, which is leading to taller people with larger heads.7
Others say it is an increasingly technological society, with television, remote controls, computers, video games and even cellphones all making people smarter. The increasing complexity argument is supported in that Flynn gains are concentrated on something called “visual analysis”.
Others say that the increased availability and quality of education (especially math classes) is making people smarter. This was the main observable cause of the FE in Dominica recently.
A good, but long, debate on the FE is here. A fascinating transcript of a talk by Flynn at a university in London recently is here. In the talk, Flynn discusses the FE at length and attempts to make some sense out of it.
Much is made of the present Black IQ score of 85. White racists use it to show why they feel that Black societies, including ancient ones, have accomplished little. Not only is the Black IQ the same as it has always been, but it is irremediable, as IQ is, so the White racists say, 80% genetic.
There are some serious problems with this analysis.
First of all, one must understand just what an IQ score really is. An IQ score is merely a relative score, and as scores rise, the tests are regularly re-normed at the 100 average here in the US. Therefore, the 20 point IQ rise has been completely masked.
Whites scored 100 and Blacks scored 85 in 1925. In 1995, after a 20 point rise in both groups, Whites scored 100 and Blacks scored 85 once again. Do you follow? The regular renorming8 of test scores every decade or so masked any rises that were occurring and made them invisible.
It is important to recognize that a score of 85 is not necessarily low and a score of 115 is not necessarily high. The scores are only relevant in terms of what they are being compared against – they are not raw scores but comparative scores.
Suppose we ran into some aliens on another planet who had managed to design their own IQ tests. Suppose they were 10 times more intelligent on average than we are. Suppose they normed their tests exactly the way we do above.
The aliens who scored in the lowest 2% might still be, say, seven times smarter than the average human! If they gave their tests to us, we might receive an average score of 30, or below the lowest 1% of their society. On their test, that would be considered seriously retarded. Do you follow?
Now suppose we went to another planet and found another population. Suppose this group of aliens was not very intelligent yet. Suppose some of the brighter ones had set up their own IQ test with the score breakdown above and normed for their population.
We might find that the upper 2% of their population, scoring over 130 on the test, actually has an IQ equivalent to humans of 85. 85% of us would be considered “gifted” on their test. Understand?
The tests are relative. Set at 100, 15% of any population will score 70-85. Whether or not that is “slow” depends on the intelligence level of the population itself.
Second, Blacks of all ages, not just Black children, are reducing the Black-White IQ gap. Between 1972-2002, Black IQ at age 24 rose from 79 to 84.5, a gain of 5.5 points. A similar gain was seen amongst Black children. Even racists Arthur Jensen and Phillipe Rushton agree that the Black-White gap is not immutable. To continue to harp on this theme in face of contradictory evidence is either ignorance or White racism.
White racists are in agreement that the Black average IQ of 85 is “low”.
To this they ascribe all sorts of Black problems and pathologies, including welfare dependency, laziness, illegitimacy, amorality and irresponsibility, disorganized and uninhibited behavior, low income, poor education attainment and job performance, high crime and imprisonment rates, early death and poorer health, poor parenting, drug and alcohol abuse and just generally less civilized behavior.9
See here for a good description, by John McWhorter, of the Black pathologies referred to here, their history and some theories about what did and did not cause them.
White racists take it further and say that an average IQ of 67-86 (depending on the region) prevents Blacks from creating decent and civilized societies anywhere on Earth.
Instead of simply dismissing this argument with the usual name-calling cries of racism, we need to take it on head-on with facts. We need to ask these same White racists whether the average White American in 1957 was so stupid that he was doomed to the very same pathologies and failures ascribed to US Blacks today. Surely they will say no.
US culture in 1957 was White culture. Blacks were segregated and kept down. US White culture had just beaten Nazism and Japanese fascism and then built up US society into perhaps the first-rate industrial power on Earth, all in a short period of time. Viewed through the prism of history, it was a stunning achievement.
Illegitimacy, drug and alcohol use and addiction, welfare use, crime rate and unemployment were low. Educational attainment and health status were good, parenting styles were competent and the behavior of our society was generally viewed as highly civilized.
Now get this!
The IQ score of US Blacks today is exactly the same as the IQ score of US Whites in 1957!
The US Black IQ score of 85 today is the same score as the US White IQ score of 100 in 1957, due to a 15 point rise in Black IQ (1995-2005 saw and end to the FE and even IQ declines in Scandinavia, although see here for Flynn’s paper suggesting that the FE seems is continuing in the US, especially for US Blacks).
Which leads us to some painful questions. If US Whites could build, by 1957, one of the greatest societies of our time, why can’t Blacks, in 2007, do the same? I believe White racism plays some role in Black failure to equal White rates of achievement 60 years ago. But there is no way that White racism can explain all or even most of this failure. Much of it must be laid on Black society itself.
What is fascinating is that we also cannot blame Black “low IQ” for this failure in attainment. That is because Black IQ in 2007 is not low, unless you think Whites in 1957 were stupid.
Equally fascinating is that the Black pathologies in red text above exploded after 1960. This serious pathology, visible for all to see in the Black underclass, continues today. The explosion in this pathology coincided with a rise in US Black IQ of at least an incredible 14 points, and possibly more!
If these pathologies were in any way linked to IQ, we would expect (Dramatically!) rising Black IQ to cause plummets in all of the pathologies in red above (since rising IQ typically equals drops in the pathologies highlighted above). Instead, as Blacks got smarter, their culture, in many ways, got sicker. We can even say, appallingly, that US Blacks are the smarter and sicker than they have ever been here.
We can propose a few things here:
US Blacks, with an average IQ today of 85, have the same IQ as US Whites with an IQ of 100 in 1957. If 1957 US Whites were not stupid, then neither are US Blacks today. It’s time to shut up about the “low Black IQ”, since by any reasonable standard, it is not really low at all.
The pathology of the US Black underclass and the failure, corruption and chaos in in many heavily-Black US cities, from Detroit to Newark, is surely being caused by something, but whatever it is, it’s not US Black average IQ.
The explosion of US Black pathologies from 1960 on cannot possibly be related to US Black IQ levels, which rose dramatically during this period. Rising IQ is linked by many studies to lower levels of all the pathologies bolded above. Therefore, rising US Black IQ could not possibly have caused these problems.
The increase in these pathologies coincided with the US Civil Rights Movement and the liberation of US Blacks from segregation and the worst of White societal racism. The decades in the interim have seen plummeting levels of White racism against US Blacks in tandem with rocketing US Black pathology.
If White racism caused Black pathology in the US, dramatic declines in White structural racism should have seen plummeting Black pathology. Instead, it Black pathology shot to the skies.
To sum up, in the US, neither Black IQ nor White racism are adequate to explain the increase in Black pathologies since 1960, the failure and underachievement of the Black underclass, and the chaos, corruption, amorality, disorganization and general entropy of most of our large US Black cities.
Things don’t happen for no reason. When searching for reasons for these Black problems, we need to look further than the usual scapegoats, White racism and Black IQ scores.
- 1. The FE is not controversial among psychometricians any more. Everyone agrees IQ scores are rising; most agree it’s not a fake effect of some kind. The debate is about why they are rising and what it means.2. The FE has been found in rural Kenya, in Belo Horizonte, Brazil and in Dominica. Scores in Dominica rose 18 points in 35 years, or 5 points a decade. That is much higher than the 3 points registered in the West.
3. There is general agreement now that the a test-taking artifact cannot account for all of the FE. Some have put the test-taking effect of at most 5-6 points of the 20 point rise.
I think it is even less than that. The FE shows up, and in fact, is most profound of all in the US and Britain, at age 4. This is where the White-Black gap is lowest. In 2002, at age 4, Blacks score 95.5 to the White score of 100. 4 year olds have hardly taken any tests, even nowadays. Any test-taking artifact is not likely to be large.
4. Further, IQ tests have not been made easier for Blacks between revisions. Experiments to look for whether or not the tests have been made easier for Blacks have found nothing. Large IQ testing firms deny that they have adjusted even one question to make the test easier for Blacks.
5. Flynn says his effect is highest on the most g-laden tests. His critics disagree. I have reviewed the evidence, and I agree with Flynn. Curiously, Rushton and Jenson, critics of Flynn, concede that the IQ rise is “factor invariant”, an apparent concession that FE IQ rises are in fact g gains.
Raven’s Progressive Matrices is one of the most g-heavy tests of all, and it has shown the highest rise of any test. It also is focused on visuospatial skills. Other tests have also shown dramatic rises in g.
G is also said to be heavily correlated with reaction time. Not speed of reaction time, but consistency of reaction time, measured in milliseconds. The correlation is .62. See Jensen, Clocking the Mind: Mental Chronometry and Individual Differences (2006) for more.
The higher the g, the faster the reaction time. Thus, reaction time is a good raw measure of cognitive speed and efficiency. However, recent studies showed that in the Netherlands, FE IQ gains were not translated into reaction time increases.
6. This are really a whole range of factors beyond nutrition that are best subsumed under the rubric of “health and intelligence”, an analysis of which which goes beyond the scope of this post. A good review is here. It seems likely that not just nutrition, but maternal health itself, has been improving.
7. Our heads are getting larger, and have been for 125 years now, especially in the size of the cranial vault, which develops by early childhood. This is consistent with better nutrition. Women’s bodies have not yet evolved to handle this, so we are seeing more Caesarian sections of women giving birth.
8. Some have suggested that the tests have become “dumbed down” in recent years, and this accounts for rising scores. Conservative “dysgenecists” love this argument, because they see our whole society dumbing down everything as the population gets dumber and dumber.
The truth is the opposite, but still complex. Rising scores have forced us to make the test harder and harder in order to keep averages at 100. The tests have now been revised to make them harder several times. A discussion of dysgenics goes beyond the scope of this post. Some suggest that humans are getting smarter and dumbing down simultaneously, which is a strange idea.
9. Whenever Black “pathologies” and “problems” are referred to in this piece, I am referring to the text in red here.
Repost from the old site:
There is some pretty exciting news coming out of the race-IQ studies lately, especially a new study by Flynn and Dickens (F & D henceforth) that seems to show that younger Blacks are closing the ominous Black-White IQ gap. Traditionally, this gap has been about 15 points or so.
But that does not necessarily mean that Blacks are dumb; instead, it means that on average they are less intelligent than Whites. This is on the type of intelligence that is measured on IQ tests, that does seem to be correlated with many things, including life success.
The various attacks against IQ tests have pretty much all been shown to be worthless, and no test has yet been made in which the typical racial delineation is not present. Culture-fair tests score about the same as culture-loaded tests.
IQ is indeed a reliable metric of pure brainpower, even as measured by such things as reaction time. On the other hand, it is not necessarily correlated with social skills, certain subtypes of intelligence (Blacks outscore all races on verbal memory – think rappers), musical or artistic skills, “common sense”, “street skills”, etc.
As I noted in another post, the Flynn Effect has shown that IQ’s have been rising in the West, and even in some parts of the 3rd World, for about 50 years now. There is no way that genes operate that fast in the human race in the way it is currently structured.
So the notion that IQ is all or almost all genetic can be safely tossed aside – otherwise we would not be seeing this huge rise in IQ scores. All IQ’s in the West have been going up about 3 points per decade from the early 1940’s to the early 1990’s at least. So that means that if White IQ’s had stayed the same during that period, Blacks and Whites would currently be tied for IQ.
Since Black IQ’s have risen 15 points over the past 60 years, it becomes increasingly difficult to call Blacks “stupid”. Furthermore, an 85 score (the Black average) now is a full 15 points higher than an 85 score 60 years ago. F & D’s paper discusses various reasons why IQ’s might be rising.
What does the F & D’s paper mean? It means that even while both Black and White IQ’s have been rising, Black IQ’s have been rising faster than White IQ’s. The main difference in F & D’s work and that of their detractors is that F & D only used standardized samples, which have become more available and of better quality in recent years.
Even including the nonstandardized results that they excluded yields a Black score of about 90.5, which is about what they found in the standardized tests.
Bottom line, F & D found that young Blacks gained 5-6 IQ points over young Whites during the last 30 years. Even including less quality tests gives the same result.
Black-White gaps differ by age for unknown reasons. According to F & D, Black IQ is 98.4 at age 4, 92.5 at age 12, 92.4 at age 14, 90.0 at age 18 and 86.4 for 24 yr olds. By age 24, the familiar 15 t gap is back with us.
F & D’s paper has been criticized by J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen (R & J henceforth), two authors who have long argued that the gap is immutable. Both have taken money from The Pioneer Fund, which is an openly racist eugenics organization founded by a US Nazi sympathizer. Not that that matters. We need to look at their science.
Even R & J argue that Blacks have closed the gap by 3.44 points, so I am not sure what they are arguing with the authors about. In a response to R & J, the authors use Jensen’s own data to point out that R & J’s own data shows a Black rise of 5.25 IQ points for young Blacks. They also note why they did not use several tests, an argument that has been used to say that the authors cherry-picked their results.
The 1983 K-ABC data was rejected due to too great a variance in the scores. The original author of that notion was none other than Jensen himself. The authors excluded Woodcock-Johnson results; they quote an expert saying that the sample was not representative of the US population, and the subsample even more nonrandom.
The authors analyze R & J’s rejoinder to the paper and find that R & J found an IQ of 89.88 for Black 15 yr olds. This is even higher that what the authors themselves found. It is hard to understand what R & J are arguing about, as their data tends to confirm and not disconfirm the authors’ paper.
Bottom line: Black children have gained 5-6 IQ’s over Whites in the Black-White gap over a 30 yr period. The 15 pt Black White IQ gap is neither fact nor immutable. Nevertheless, by adulthood, Blacks have lost all of their gains and have reverted to the 15 pt gap again. Black adults are not maintaining the gains that Black children made.
There are many reasons why this might be so. Perhaps Black children are being challenged more and this is stimulating their IQ’s. As they leave school, many fall into an anti-intellectual Black culture that derides education and learning. Hence, their IQ drops. But Black children, at least, are closing the gap, and Blacks of all ages are experiencing dramatic IQ gains.
For a ferocious look at the angry White nationalist community and its rage towards Blacks and Asians, see this American Renaissance paper. AmRen is, frankly, an openly racist White Nationalist publication, but they are pretty polite about it.
Curiously, AmRen is hardly anti-Semitic at all. Perhaps this is due to the influence of White Nationalist Jared Taylor. Taylor takes the perfectly reasonable line that Jews are White. Well, of course they are. What other major race could they possibly fall into?
Consider that there are 12 major races: White, Black, Asian, Amerindian, East Indian, Polynesian, Melanesian, Micronesian, Negrito, Hottentot, Pygmy and Aborigine. Now exactly where do we put Jews? They can only go into White.
Some White Nationalist Jews show up in the comments now and again, and they are welcomed with open arms. I am not a fan of White Nationalism, but promoting the notion that Jews are White seems reasonable enough.
Look for the comments at the end for the ferocity and naked racism mentioned above.
The comments of the parole officer (the first comment) commenting about how almost all of his Black criminals scored below 80, however, are most interesting. It underscores what we said on this blog earlier, that those scoring at the lowest end of the IQ chart cause the most problems, including crime, as a group.
The superb anthropology blog Dienekes notes that the Black White gap in the US cannot possibly be totally genetic. This is because US Blacks score 50% higher than African Blacks, while they only have 17.5% White genes on average. Hence, the superior environment here in the US is raising the Black IQ, not genetics. There are many comments at the end of this post, and some are pretty interesting.
Hopefully, in this post, and in F & D’s paper and response to R & J linked above, we have demolished the rejoinders of “Uncomfortable Truth” in the comments on Dienekes’ blog. I print them here so you can see what he is complaining about. Evaluate for yourself whether or not we have effectively dealt with his complaints:
Well, the paper that egalitarians are hoping will save them has been thoroughly debunked by now. They cherry picked their data.On the whole, the IQ gap remains and American blacks still find themselves with an average IQ of 90. To claim a 4- to 7-point gain for Blacks, Dickens and Flynn chose three independent tests showing medium gains (the Wechsler, Stanford-Binet, and Armed Forces qualification tests)and relegated to their Appendix B four or more tests showing lesser gains.
They excluded the Wonderlic Personnel Test, which they acknowledge showed a gain of only 2.4 points for Blacks between 1970 and 2001. (Dickens and Flynn suggest that more ‘‘high quality’’ Whites than Blacks had taken the test.)
They excluded the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), which Murray (2005) described as showing a loss of 1 IQ point for Blacks between 1983 and 2004. (Dickens and Flynn say the data contained an inflated standard deviation.)
They excluded the very g-loaded Woodcock-Johnson test, which Murray (2005; whom they cite) described as showing the conventional gap of 1.05 standard deviations for the third (2001) standardization sample. (Dickens and Flynn say the Blacks were an unrepresentative “subsubsample.”)
They also excluded the Differential Ability Scale, which in Lynn’s (1996) analysis (which they cite) showed a maximum gain of 1.83 IQ points for Blacks between 1972 and 1986. (Dickens and Flynn say the sample lacked “quality.”) To be compelling, however, researchers must take the totality of available evidence into account. A strong adherence to an egalitarian dream made them unwilling to.
See the post above for arguments against Uncomfortable Truth’s comments. The K-ABC test has been rejected by none other than Jensen himself. The Woodcock-Johnson sample has also been rejected by a top expert in the field as unrepresentative of the US population and the subsample used was even less representative. As we can see above, using R & J’s own figures, F & J arrived at a recent IQ of about 90 for 15 yr old Blacks. This alone should effectively deal with Uncomfortable Truth’s argument above.
The always interesting but frustrating and frankly somewhat racist and sexist Steve Sailer agrees with this post that Blacks have gained 5-6 IQ points on Whites, but also backs up my notion that as Blacks age, they are not being challenged enough intellectually. He blames rap culture. I’ll stay quiet on that one.
Steve is a good writer and I read his site often; many times, he makes some excellent points. But he makes his biases quite clear – he feels that males are superior to females and that Whites are superior to Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, etc. And he is, sadly, quite happy to report studies which back up these notions, while I feel pained, as it is the last thing in the world that I want to believe.
Repost from the old site.
Note: This post has been accused of racism. See here for my position statement on racism.
Black crime is a real thing; let’s not gloss it over, and the Black crime wave is a relatively recent occurrence, mostly since about 1960 or so, which just so happens to coincide with sky-high rates of Black illegitimacy, Black males being raised without fathers, etc. Around this time many Blacks moved from the South to the North. But many more Black females moved north than Black males.
So there were more females than males. In such a situation, many males will tend not to marry and instead will just play the various women, father children, not support them, etc. In the opposite situation, more males than females, males will compete aggressively for females, quickly marry any available females and tend not to leave them.
Since the 1960’s, there has been a massive loss of manufacturing jobs in the North. All of this has pretty much wreaked havoc on the Black family. It’s clear that those Black males frequently being raised by poorly socialized Black females, without fathers, have a higher rate of sociopathy. In fact, this formula may produce sociopathy in any race.
Much of the analysis in the preceding three paragraphs comes from The Antisocial Personalities by David Lykken. While heavy on the psychological jargon, I found it a great read. It’s one of the best books ever written on sociopathy.
Robert Hare, one of the world’s top experts on psychopaths, also has a great book on sociopathy, Without Conscience, The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. Hare’s book is much easier to read and is a must for anyone interested in the subject.
The recent explosion of Black crime shows that it is not just Black genes that cause Black crime, which itself is real: Blacks have a 9 times higher crime rate than Whites.
I admit that the town I just moved to has a reputation for a fairly low crime rate. The reason given to me in whispers is that, while heavily Hispanic, the town also has few Blacks. Hence less crime.
Demographics trumps all for many Americans when deciding on a place to live, or especially to buy a house. For decades now, Whites have been fleeing areas, particularly inner cities and exurbs, as they turned Black.
Now they are fleeing Hispanics, and in towns in the South San Fransisco Bay Area, namely Cupertino, they are even fleeing Asians! There, White parents complain about heavily Asian schools where the Asians out-compete their kids, where sports, arts and music and either poorly funded or simply not supported at all, where all the emphasis is on math and science.
For their part, Asian parents have decried the over 90% Asian demographic there as not representative of the reality of US society, in that Cupertino does not prepare Asian students for the real world.
The Whites flee and flee and run and run. One gets the impression that at some point there will be nowhere left to run.
Yet we now have something called “Black Flight.”
To understand this, first realize that Black society has become two-tiered with the liberation Blacks experienced since the 1960’s. Increasingly, a Black professional, middle and upper class reaps the fruits of American society, while a Black underclass continues to fester in the worst pathology.
In places like northeastern New Orleans, middle and upper middle class Blacks are fleeing the pathology of the Black Inner City in New Orleans to create a relatively upscale Black neighborhood, which undoubtedly has less pathology than the danger zone they are fleeing. Labeling middle class Blacks with the problems of the Black underclass is immoral, irrational, rude and just stupid.
Yet this is what the Hal Turners do.
Nor should we decry all “flight” from blighted neighborhoods as “racist,” as the Left is wont to do. Since Blacks themselves are engaging in “flight” from blighted Black neighborhoods, it seems silly to regard flight from blight as a racist move.
Even with that reality of high Black crime, why be racist? Any given individual Black person may quite possibly, and often does, possess the moral character and decency that one wants in a friend or acquaintance. Therefore, Blacks in general should be treated respectfully as individuals as long as one feels they are good people and lacks evidence that they are not.
The White racists also say that Blacks are stupid. There is a White-Black variance in IQ that has lasted for some time now. I will not go into the debate around that variance except to say that I think it is real.
But it is not so devastating as one thinks. First of all, we are not taking into account the Flynn Effect, whereby the IQ’s of all people in the Western World have been rising for decades now. A couple of recent studies have also found the Flynn Effect in Belo Horizonte, Brazil and rural Kenya, of all places.
There is much debate about the cause of the rise, but it is real, although there is evidence that it is petering out.
Flynn is also the author a study showing young Blacks reducing the Black-White IQ gap in the US by about 5-6 points since 1970.
Since IQ is always renormed around an average of 100 for Whites, the rise is not noticeable. That is, a 100 nowadays is a considerably higher score than a 100 a few decades ago, since IQ’s continue to climb while the scale is constantly renormed to mask the changes. So, Blacks have been getting smarter for decades now in America (and in Brazil and Kenya at least, also) along with other races.
At some point, if the trend continues, we can hope for various groups in (at least) the West: brightest, brighter and bright. If different races compare differently along that scale, it should not be a tremendous matter. Further, as Black IQ continues to rise with every decade, it becomes more and more difficult to call Blacks “dumb” in the face of rising Black IQ.
Nutrition is the main reason given for the Flynn Effect; technology, video games and an increasingly intellectually stimulating modern environment are others. Blacks probably still do not eat as good a diet in the West as Whites, so there is probably room for more improvement here. If Blacks follow Whites in enthusiasm for video games and personal computers, there is probably room for further improvement.
As is, video games are probably played by Whites more than Blacks and many poorer Blacks still do not own a PC or have internet access.
Furthermore, as IQ’s have risen for decades now, the rationale for setting mental retardation at 70 IQ becomes harder to sustain. After all, an 85 IQ today is higher than an 85 IQ 30 years ago.
Racists conflate Black IQ with Black crime, and do the same with Hispanics. This argument is interesting and not entirely without merit.
However, there are some problems with the analysis, yet, at the same time, if true, it offers some hope.
First of all, as noted, Black IQ, along with all other IQ’s in the West, has been rising for decades.
The low IQ-crime link is especially seen at the lower end of the IQ range, which is where the Flynn Effect is having its greatest effect. I.e., the average rise noted by Flynn is mainly accounted for by reduced numbers of scores in the lowest range of IQ’s. As the number of persons scoring at the lowest end of the scale becomes fewer and fewer, if there is a good IQ-crime link, then we would expect crime to fall in tandem.
Looking at average crime rates between Blacks, Hispanics and Whites, we can see that more than IQ is accounting for the differences.
Hispanics have a crime rate three times that of Whites, and Blacks, as noted, have a crime rate nine times as high. Average Black IQ is about 89.8, Hispanic IQ is about 92 and White IQ is 103. The IQ-crime link is quite imperfect.
If IQ alone accounted for the differences (going by the White-Black spread), Hispanic crime would be 6-7 times the White rate, not 3 times higher. So Hispanics are committing crimes at a much lower rate than would be expected by IQ – 50% lower. Something about Hispanics, possibly Hispanic culture, is lowering the Hispanic crime rate.
If we take the White-Hispanic IQ spread instead, the Black crime rate would be about 4-5 times the White rate, not 9 times higher. So Blacks are committing crimes at double the rate expected by IQ. Something about Blacks besides IQ, possibly Black culture, is inflating the Black crime rate.
Clearly, while there is some IQ-crime correlation among groups, there is a heck of a lot more going on with crime than merely IQ.
It is here that we probably enter into the wilds of a place called culture.
Racists like to say that Black pathology is due to Black genes, and as such is hopeless. Blacks are stupid and crime-prone, it is in their genes, and nothing can be done about it. It is important to take this on in a logical manner instead of just hurling the racist moniker at those voicing this argument.
Let us look at Cuba for instance. Cuba is a state that is about 63% Black and mulatto – 11% Black and 52% Mulatto. Also there is a significant percentage of Amerindian genes in Cubans along with small portion of Chinese mixture.
A fascinating look at the variety of lineages visible in the Cuban people is here – it seems they have every possible mixture you could think of. Considering the 63% Black and mulatto population, we should expect to see high levels of pathology, since we are told that all Black/mulatto nations produce high levels of crime and pathology.
What do we see instead? In Latin America, Cubans have the second longest life expectancy, are the best educated, have the lowest infant mortality, and have the highest standardized test scores in the region. Cuba, with 2% of the population of the region, has 10% of the region’s scientists. The nation is a world leader in biotechnology and medical research.
They have the highest percentage of agronomists per capita of any country on Earth and the highest doctor-patient ratio (1 doctor for every 169 patients). Cubans, far from starving as capitalist propaganda says, are among the top 5 nations in Latin America in terms of caloric and protein intake. The rate of malnutrition is so low – 2% – that the UN recently declared that Cuba has wiped out malnutrition.
Further, the rate of street crime, especially violent crime, is quite low. Opponents of the regime quickly retort that “there is nothing to steal in Cuba.” Surely there is plenty to steal, and if not, there are always other humans to commit violent crimes against.
Haiti is vastly poorer than Cuba, surely has much less in the way of stuff to steal, and has an out of control crime rate. Racists quickly point out that Haiti is all Black, hence ridden with crime. Yet Cuba is also majority Black and mulatto.
Havana is often regarded as the safest large city in the Western Hemisphere, and Cuba is regarded by many travelers as one of the safest countries in Latin America. A majority-black and mulatto country and big city the safest in an entire hemisphere – imagine that!
A typical rejoinder is that Cuba is a dictatorship and therefore there is little crime. Hey, if it takes a cop on every corner to control crime, I say go for it.
Furthermore, the penalties for breaking the law are really far worse in other Latin American countries such as Venezuela, Peru, Brazil and Colombia, where the prisons are utterly Hellish and where police death squads roam the streets slaughtering petty criminals and street kids at an astonishing rate.
Where there are a lot of Blacks, there is often quite a bit of social pathology, low educational achievement, crime, especially violent crime, etc. Some racists have also implied an association between Blacks and rape. The more Blacks, the more rape. All of these statistics are interesting, but taken to their racist logic, lead to discrimination.
For instance, many Blacks are upstanding folks who play no role in any of this pathology or crime. By associating them with their brethren who do, and discriminating against them, you commit an immoral act.
Further, as the Cuban example shows, majority-Black and mulatto nations are capable of amazing achievements, in the Cuban case beating many majority Mestizo and even some majority White nations on a variety of metrics.
One way of ameliorating of the problems of Black pathology laid out above could involve looking at those nations and locales that seem to have the highest rates of Black achievement and the lowest rates of Black pathology. This could be seen as an environment to “bring out the best in Blacks”. The Cuban example shows that Black genes are not destiny and there is a way forward, out of the cave of genetic determinism.