Subsaharan African Average IQ - a global, undeniable phenomenon

The bigger picture is why some populations kicked on and some didn't. After all, we all started in Africa 100K to 200K years ago. ME, Europe and Asia developed civilisations, stone buildings, technology, society, sophisticated language, science etc, but sub-saharan Africa never did, along with the indigenous peoples of Australia, NZ and the PI's, and N America, basically stone age hunter gatherers - although in NA they domesticated the horse, at least. The people of central and south America had stone buildings.
Why the difference?

 

the President's son's are merely curious and want to learn more about these primitive cultures.

they are not fixing to steal the land like what happened in south africa.

 

Yes it is.

No, that is not why so many places ban them. So many places ban them because they either can't be bothered to administer them properly, or because they yield results that are considered politically unacceptable.

If you assume that the definition of intelligence is itself a cultural bias. Examples of cultural bias in tests constructed 100 years ago are not relevant to the best modern instruments.

Then the test was incompetently administered, probably because the school did not want to spend the money to get valid results. That is almost always the reason for inaccurate school IQ test results: the school shoves hundreds of very young kids into desks, then administers the same photocopied paper test to all of them en masse without taking the most basic precautions to ensure test validity. A professional psychologist trained in IQ test administration would have known immediately that the immigrant's test score would not be valid, and chosen a better instrument, arranged for a translator, etc. Moreover, a school that was interested in using valid psychometric methods would have noted the discrepancy between his test score and his grades, and arranged to re-test him. There is a difference between an invalid measure and incompetent use thereof.

That is an anecdote, not data. There are many such anecdotes. In the past, many tests were culturally biased, poorly constructed, or incompetently administered, and invalid results were accepted as not only valid but immutable. Testing methodology has improved a lot, although the false economy of incompetent administration to save money is still an issue: to save the ~$100 needed to get a valid test result for a student, schools will risk invalid results that waste many thousands of dollars in misallocated resources. So his crusade against IQ testing is misguided. He should be crusading to improve the administration and use of such tests, not crusading to ban them.

Problem is, schools refuse to spend the money to get valid results, then complain the results are invalid. Invalid results are almost entirely eliminated when tests are competently administered and the results checked and periodically revisited by trained professionals.

 

'unused potential' suggests inferiority.

there are people who prefer to be unintelligent and/or slothful, they are often socially constrained and further victimised by superior people with used potential.

 

So the Occidental and Oriental worlds are very much alike? So much alike that Asians beat us on our own tests? That doesn't sound probable at all. I think you need to pack up your "culturally biased tests" idea and rework it some.

And as an aside, I never argued that IQ testing results was a "measurement of genetic ability." I'm agnostic on the why, but I do think that IQ measures something that we think of as intelligence.

 

most of that happened because the civilised countries violated the sovereignty of the primitive countries.

specifically the white man forced the darker races to become part of his civiilsation.

 

Really? The colonists didn't arrive until much later?

 

I don't know how much environment is to blame. My family was poor, I grew up in a terraced house in Essex (a poor area in England), my parents paid little attention, but I got a degree in Maths and did very well in my career. My father was quite intelligent, though......

 

Well yes, the tests are oriented towards academic and economic achievement. Clearly we wouldn't have any interest in them if they didn't.

 

lol Africans robbed and pillaged other Africans for many many millenia.

Further if Africa is the cradle of life then it belongs to all the people in the world. That is our homeland.

 

Typically due to legal reasons. Who's African hunts are a charity where you buy a license for hundreds and thousands of dollars and they let you shoot one of the animals that is ill-will or unable to reproduce anymore and take the money you spent to help preserve the species. The African guides are there to make sure that first you shoot the right animal, because some of these animals are critically endangered and they can't risk losing a breeding member of the species. And second to make sure you get your money's worth. Maybe you'll be repeat business and they can earn some more money to help preserve the wildlife.

Further its typically stated by law that you have to have someone who works wildlife preserve.

So to answer your question why they need African safari guides, simply put because they're legally required to. Should they show off their superiority by poaching?

 

Because they don't know how to read and write

The only reason we have things like colleges and medical advancements is because of the centuries of people that came before us.

Take for instance the South American tribe that has some land that they defend from loggers. And they as a tribe attack illegal loggers. If you look at a satellite image it's very clear where the border of their land is because they use satellite phones to determine it. We can tell who's logging and where in their property. They're using phones that can be traced back to Alexander Graham Bell, Motorola up in a bunch of American Western companies that created all of the technologies that made those phones.

If they shunned anything from the West they wouldn't be able to do that.

This is a good thing. It's called cultural appropriation and it helps them better defend their property which is important to them.

So this tried that was in South America for eons now stands on the shoulders of giants for their future. They get to preserve their culture not because we obliged to leave them alone but because they defended it. They don't exist at our Mercy. They exist because of their fierceness. Cultures that require our Mercy to exist are vassals.

 

Sure it is.

 

So what did Europeans just sprout up out of the dirt in Europe? Or did they evolve from a different ancestor than Cro-Magnon man?

 

I don't know. I've not studied this part of history. But, I think I heard that Whites have traces of Neanderthal in their genes and Blacks do not.
Had you ever heard that?

 

Yeah, other people have and they seem to indicate with a strong amount of evidence that the human species began in Africa.

So if you are going to deny science because you personally didn't do it don't be coy about it. Just state that you think evolution is a conspiracy theory.

No I haven't heard that. Considered Europeans have traces of african in their genes I'm not sure why it matters.

Unless of course you are suggesting white people are a different species.

 

I'm sure Whites are of the human species.

 

So then they originated from Africa unless you deny evolutionary science.

 

Of course, Polydectes. Are you spoiling for a fight?

 

No just confused about your dismissal of my initial statement.

We all have African heritage. So why is it that the people that live there now get to have supremacy over it?

Are you an ethno-nationalist?

 

The only 'glaring fact' is that IQ tests measure something which is neither fixed, nor genetic.

Intelligence is primarily a result of environment. When you understand how intelligence is built and strengthened, you'll find it much easier to accept that reality.

 

Yes, and? That is the point of them, after all.

 

Who has supremacy over Europe, the American continent and Australia?

 

Here we go again! Every so often some "educated" yahoo runs the IQ game to "conclusively" prove that Caucasians are naturally superior to Negroes (forgive the tech terms, just trying to stay true to the narrative). And every so often you have this effort trounced by a plethora of academics, mathematicians, anthropologists, and anyone who can read carefully and comprehensively with a basic understanding of world history.

Since the 1990's when the NY Times printed that white folk are a minority in the global population and will be the same in 2040 America, a lot of folk just ain't been right. Hence the regurgitated drivel in the OP. Here's how it's precursor, The Bell Curve, was deconstructed for the layman:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ukwise.htm

As for the OP

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2...-science-and-the-myth-of-african-national-iq/