The IQ gap between countries is no evidence of an alleged IQ gap between races

Thanks for your post.
As I always say "Reality check on Race and IQ."
Does your view fit the way the country and world actually look/exist, or do you have 10,000 excuses.
I have some issues with your post, but you basically acknowledge the obvious, as well as noting what I did earlier, that whites aren't having a **** fit/throwing in the towel on life because Ashkenazi Jews and NE Asians having higher IQs.

Of course, the problem also lies at the Bottom/anti-genius end of the curve, which you tactfully didn't take on.
BTW, Charles Murray has summarized his book, "the Bell Curve," as being about the people at the ends of the curve.
Welcome.

I think your Common Sense 'noncombatant' post (along with other refutation throughout) sent someone into worse Frustration than usual.

So we see 5 consecutive LARGE posts, in an attempt to Blot Out/Bury/"win" the discussion.
(5 Youtubes, 10 graphics, including Pictures of article authors! and book covers)
The equivalent of 1000 lines/more than a whole 'normal page' of debate here, replete with pictures, charts, graphs, extra large s p a c i n g, just Nonresponsively Dumping 10% of someone's vast Race Denial hard drive files at no one/nothing in particular.
Usually it's 'only' 2 or 3 in a row.

Just a Huge BORG-like Link DUMP/Bury-em-with-Volume.
A Bullying tactic, not measured or responsive in any way.

`

 

The bottom of the curve is almost completely irrelevant. Like the top end you are going to have a higher percentage base on the averages but the number is still very small. Most people fall in the middle.

Before Islam the Middle East was leading in science and medicine, certainly doing better than the Europeans. After Islam the Middle East is probably the stupidest part of the world with the highest percentage of idiots and morons. Clearly Islam is THE determining factor and not genetics. Just as with Jews and Asians while they do have the slight genetic edge most of it comes down to their habits and the fact they they are far better parents than black parents currently could dream of being. I dated an Asian girl who was grounded for a month for getting a B-. How many black parents in the inner city especially even bother to look at their kids report cards at all between banging some random stranger and huffing crack.

Now admittedly the problem with my view is that they HAVE taken students from different ethnicities but the same socio-economic backgrounds (two parent families, both employeed, same income, same school even) and still the gap persists. I just don't think that the gap is the primary problem for society in general. Both my statistics and macro econ professors were black, but they were from Africa and at my uni with a few exceptions if you wanted an intelligent conversation the best ones were with blacks that emigrated from Africa. There is a reason that immigrant blacks look down on African Americans.

 

The Curves are symmetrical.
There are as many people as far away from the average at the bottom as at the top!
If a Group's (USA 'hybrid' blacks) average IQ is 85, 15% of them are going to be at 70 or below.
That is borderline retarded, a disaster for the economy.
And only 15% of them will be at or above the white 100 average.

If people don't know those numbers, they cry "Racism" for different achievement in work and wealth.
But if you do know them, it all makes perfect sense.
Reality Check.

16% of USA 'Whites', but 40% of Blacks can't pass the ASVAB to get into the military.
A really easy exam.
That's probably/app IQ 80.
That's a Big problem for school children, our society, an our economy.
So YES, it does matter. And it matters as much as the top.
Those are huge drains on society, only trainable for the most rudimentary, if any work.
Welfare, prison, unwed mothers, etc.

You have some feel, but you are beginner in truly researching the topic.

I am harsh critic of Islam.
It inhibits their societies, but it doesn't affect their IQ's.
Though the huge portion of familial intermarriage (cousins etc) for 1000 years has no doubt dented it.

OTOH, and even worse from an IQ (and Running a country) sub-Saharan Africa has an average IQ of 70.
They lived in 1900 (and many today) the same way they did 60,000 years ago :
Hunter gatherers. Merely the top predator.
Sub-Sahara is a basket case that can't govern itself.
Completely predictable only by their 70 IQs.

No comparison to the high society/achievement of the Early Islamic World
who conquered and educated a good part of the planet by 800 years ago.
Now it's an outdated system.
But a huge complex winning system while it lasted, and infinitely more IQ-sophisticated
than sub-Saharans (who didn't have a written language or wheel) ever achieved.

Differing expectations is certainly true, but how/why did their Cultures develop that way.
A group doesn't win their culture in a lottery, they create it BECAUSE they were innately smarter.


NOTE the SPAMMING BELOW. (and in his last above)
He just keeps repeating the SAME Links/Graphs on every page.
Trying to BURY any Real discussion with juvenile pictures, YOtubes, and large blocks of text. The Same ones ones every page.
He's given up on everything but 'shouting down' everyone else.
`

 

If you took any history classes you would know that the Arab world was ascendant UNTIL Wahabiism took over and that is when they began to decline. In the 1500s the Europeans not only caught up but surpassed them and the Middle East has only gone downhill every since then. This is ENTIRELY the fault of Islam.

Neil de Grasse agrees with me by the way thanks for supporting my argument.

 

Wahhabism is a radical Islamic doctrine that developed after World War I following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Golden Age of Islam spanned from around the 8th century to the 14th century (about 600 years). You said Islam was the downfall of the Arab World when it was during the early Islamic period that Middle Eastern culture was at its peak. Muslim travelers from Arabia and Africa actually went to Europe during the Middle Ages and wrote about how culturally backward they were speculating that this was due to their Christian cultural traditions.

What he said in the video is that American society has made it harder for Blacks to succeed because of anti-Black racism including racist discrimination in academia and media influences that promote racist stereotypes about Black people influencing the minds of Black youth and the perception of them by other groups. The questions about genetic influence on racial disparities in standard of living are not worth consideration to him until there has been a serious effort to eradicate racism and promote equal opportunity.

He agrees with me and my sources except that he doesn't even bother with arguing about genetics because the impact of racism on environment is real. He's saying the same thing as Graves coming from the position of an African-American who has beat the odds and succeeded.

Even conservatives like Ben Carson agree with this:



The only difference between them is Graves is an actual expert on evolutionary genetics so he can speak from a position of authority as can my other sources (and remember I've cited over 40 scholars from different disciplines relevant to the discussion). If you agree that having good cultural and ethical values in addition to working hard is the key to success then we are on the same page. But stop acting like Whites, Asians or Jews have a monopoly on these characteristics and only African immigrants from educated families represent intelligent Black people in the United States and Western society. Stop listening to people like Taxonomy26 and actually have a look at my sources. You might learn something.

 

Then that is a different video that you posted. There is a video of him expressly blaming Islam for being anti science.

I stand corrected on Wahabism.

We agree on genetics versus environment. Environment has a larger role. I just get annoyed with people that make idiotic blanket statements that the can't possibly be any differences in IQ between the races just because someone's feelings might get hurt. That is NOT how science works.

If its the video he talks about his first call up on a news network he also explicitly states that blacks said he was to valuable to go into science. That is NOT a white racist problem that is a problem with black society itself and one of the reasons that African American society is so ****ing awful and pathetic. At least Neil was smart enough to ignore his fellow black losers and continue on in his education. He wants to change the view that blacks are anti-science and more power to him. He just has to deal with many other black politicians and "voices" who are ignorant morons and don't want black people to "act white".

 

You also stand corrected/pre-corrected on the Genetic vs environment by my post on the last page.
You obviously have done NO research on this, just going on feel, and in fact Contradicting your own previous statement on Asians and Jews.

You also could NOT answer my previous post to you, with the implications of the bottom of the curves you were absolutely ignorant of/dismissed, as well as things like the IQ of different groups beside the "110" of Jews.
Very disappointing.

IAC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates

Estimates

Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States.[17][21][22] It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[9] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[17] The brain undergoes morphological changes in development which suggests that age-related physical changes could also contribute to this effect.[23]

A 1994 article in Behavior Genetics based on a study of Swedish monozygotic and dizygotic twins found the heritability of the sample to be as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability; however, it also varies by trait, with 0.60 for verbal tests, 0.50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and 0.40 for memory tests. In contrast, studies of other populations estimate an average heritability of 0.50 for general cognitive ability.[21]

In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[24]
​

`

 

Eric Turdheimer's video interview with Stefan Molyneux:



The video has a link to a Turdheimer study from 2003 titled, Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children.

Again, these studies all revolve around young children who are shown in general to have cognitive ability that is more impacted by environment than older children and adults.

To quote Turdheimer from the interview:

"If I had to guess, I would say, and this is a bit of a guess, good schools are really an important factor. But like I say, that's a bit of a guess from reading between the lines, but yes things like that you know...

We don't have a lot of detail about what was going on in these families. You know, we know how much money they have basically, and how much education the parents have. And I think it's the nature of the beast that these kind of environmental effects are very divided-up among a million diff--- I don't think we're going to find the special sauce you know that ah! it's nutrition or it's reading to your kids. I think it's the small effects of all these things combined together into this big thing that we call poverty, um and what the word poverty means is being impoverished in a million small ways and my own suspicion is that in the long run is what's going to make the difference and the other thing is that - and I think this is more data-based: this is an effect that happens much more in severely deprived environments than it does in modestly deprived environments so when you mention the single mother that doesn't have as much time to read to her kids, I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about you know where the parents are - that things are so disorderly that they don't have any time to spend with their kids - I think that's where the real difference lies...

It's not easy for a lot of reasons to that say that 'here's the study that just shows that if you ended racism in this country the IQ difference would go away in 2 years.' You know that those are not easy data to obtain and that as a result of that, that other hypothesis is always out there and it's hard to make that other hypothesis go away."​

Note Turdheimer mixed personal opinion with data-based fact.

When asked directly about malleability and what parents can do to help their kids (and the context remains small children),

"I don't know that my research speaks to that. A complicated thing that my research suggests is that in fact that there aren't going to be systematic answers to that question, that if you do x your kids will do better in school because if that were true, there would be bigger family environment effects on IQ than there actually are because families who did those things would produce smarter kids and that would produce family environmental effects and one of the mysteries of behavior genetics is that those effects don't happen... It's very hard to find a systematic effect that reading for an hour every night to your kid is going to produce an increase of 3 or 4 IQ points. It just doesn't work that way and so I think what my research shows is A - and it's sort of obvious - avoid extremity. And when you were talking about corporal punishment before... we found if one twin was a beater and the other twin wasn't, that had a really negative effect on kids, not on their IQ so much but on their mental health..."​

The question is how anyone can posit that "discrimination" can have a marked effect on IQ of someone of any age (especially as young kids who aren't even aware of what's going on) when child beating by abusive parents isn't even having that much an effect of IQ.

So in other words, to present that anything of the sort that alleged ongoing of white mistreatment of blacks has caused or is having any relevant impact on IQ inequality - especially to the extent of 1 SD - "has been proven" and is "settled fact" is well short of the truth. It also well short of the truth to intimate that studies that are all based on environmental influences in early childhood are comparable to adults where environment has a markedly lower effect on an individual's IQ as a person ages.

Numerous existing studies exist stating the high genetic/low environmental impact on adult IQ:

This shows a common phenomena in psychology which I was taught as "person/environment fit," that people tend to mold environments around them based on their genetic proclivities as opposed to the environments molding them.

Therefore, as shown above, adult IQ cannot possibly be reliant upon childhood environment. There are zero studies that show high environmental influence is retained as genetic influences increase. One necessarily recedes as the other increases.

Furthermore,

Again as I've previously noted, SES does not impact a person equally throughout their lifespan. Genetic influences are the main driving force in adult cognitive ability and are not "dependent on childhood environment."

Further, the claimed SES effects in childhood are not showing consistently in studies:

Similar demographic results have been seen in places like Canada that lack a history of slavery or Jim Crow:



Source: Intelligence of Negroes of Mixed Blood in Canada, H. A. Tanser, The Journal of Negro Education, Vol 10, No 4 (Oct 1941), pp. 650-652



On a side note, GOD I hope Molyneux interviews Nisbett.

 

Sorry, it's not true that Canada doesn't have a history of systemic racism against its African-descended citizens.

---Prejudice and Discrimination in Canada

 

I specifically referred to the slavery and Jim Crow previously invoked by another poster. Regarding "systemic discrimination," In what you describe, Irish immigrants, Jews, and Chinese have been treated similarly. As Eric Turdheimer already stated, only severe environmental issues can have any real effect on IQ. Even growing up with physical beatings isn't producing the type of large IQ impacts that is being claimed.

You may want to read through the whole post before commenting on it.

 

All Turkheimer is saying is that psychologists don't have all the answers to how to boost IQ to the level that represents the maximum potential for a child because there are a lot of environmental variables that come into play and children react differently to different environmental stimuli. The research I posted indicates that there are many environmental factors that impact IQ including epigenetic effects.

To quote a previous post:

But the fundamental point is that there is no scientific basis to the claim that there is a genetic component to group differences in IQ. The reported gaps can 100% be explained environmentally, environmental inequality exists of which there are many, many variables (ex. social discrimination (stereotype threat), environmental toxicity (pollution), malnutrition, education, diet, stress, parenting, national culture, trouble sleeping, mental illness, diseases (ex. Multiple Sclerosis and Malaria) etc.).

The degree to which each variable impacts intelligence is unknown and impossible to determine since there are too many factors to consider. What matters is that genetics can be ruled out based on sound genetic reasoning and recent research on genome-wide association studies also support this position. Asking why Group X has higher IQ than Group Y when both have been discriminated against historically is also completely meaningless as not all groups have been discriminated against in the same way and to the same extent and cultures can change over time allowing a formally oppressed group to rise in Socioeconomic Status which can also be reflected in IQ score. - EgalitarianJay02

"The fact that African-Americans or any other group may score differently from another doesn't tell you about the nature. The environmental difference, you simply can't compare the genetic basis, it's pure and simple quantitative genetics. You don't even have to know the nature of the environment. It's simply the fact the two groups are not comparably the same in environmental conditions that make any apportions in the genetic variance of a trait impossible. So you can find that in Falconer's Introduction to Quantitative Genetics." - Joseph Graves

A lot of Black Canadians are descended from African-Americans who escaped slavery or immigrants from the Caribbean who are descended from slaves. So they have the environmental effects of slavery in their ancestry. Jabrosky's point about discrimination in Canada is relevant. Black Canadians faced similar forms of racial discrimination to Jim Crow laws, institutional discrimination and racism from ordinary White people common to the time period. You can not measure the psychological effect of racism a person experiences throughout their lifetime never mind many of the environmental effects of growing up in poverty.

As for your source for Black intelligence positively correlating with degree of White ancestry it is severely outdated. There are even inconsistencies in the study itself:

The author acknowledges the same low correlation coefficients reported by Nisbett in similar racial admixture studies from previous decades as well as the fact that reports of mixed ancestry are a crude measure of actual genetic composition, especially considering the generations of intermingling Whites and Blacks have done. Studies like this have been superseded by Genome-wide Association studies which do not show that intelligence is genetically differentiated across racial groups.

Source: Genome-wide quantitative trait locus association scan of general cognitive ability using pooled DNA and 500K single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays Genes, Brains and Behavior, 7, 435–446 (2008 )

I would also like to see that. In the meantime anyone interested can listen to Nisbett speak on the subject in others videos such as the documentary Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo.

 

You're leaving out half the picture. Any "IQ boost" that may be shown in three year olds vanishes by the approximate age of five. There is no evidence of any "boost" that is retained, and indeed Lee found it "inexplicable" why Nisbutt left out mention of that in his book. Lee referred to it as the "longitudinal wipeout" more commonly known as "washout" : these effects vanish by about the age of five as genetic influence on IQ becomes more predominant.

Definition of egregious

1 archaic :distinguished
2: conspicuous; especially :conspicuously bad :flagrant
egregious errors
egregious padding of the evidence


Nisbutt's egalitarian thesis is based on data that isn't replicating.

Mind you, Turdheimer's interview contradicted Nisbutt's claim of "propitious circumstances" causing "substantial boost in a child's IQ" as I showed above.

And Nisbutt made the same error such as Graves has done -

And

You continue to respond as if I was citing "group difference" arguments by Rushton, Shockley, or whoever else, adding in text-pasting from Graves in response to those issues. I am not familiar with their research nor am I invoking it. You are replying to a post I made with regard to the contents of the Turdheimer interview with Stefan Molyneux with tangential arguments about writers nobody on this thread except you are discussing or citing.

The core of your posts on the IQ subject have been related to an exaggerated, sustained impact on intelligence throughout the lifespan by environment - specifically of the type that white people are held at fault as the causative factor - without regard not only to the age of the subjects and the relative heritability of IQ of that age group, but also without regard to the type and severity of environmental influence required to have any real effect. Simply and vaguely stating that "environment matters" doesn't bolster the specifics you're arguing.

It is that premise that I am objecting to. No more, no less. I am pointing the deep and vast numbers of flaws in such a thesis as they are indeed built on junk scholarship from the likes of Richard Nisbutt, et al.

Please explain how SES in a group, through generations, can influence their IQ when SES specifically loses it's impact on IQ past toddlerhood, and even in that time frame the studies aren't necessarily in agreement with each other.

The importance of family SES in the lifespan is grossly exaggerated.

As Turdheimer has stated and I've pointed out before, it takes severe environmental deficits to have any meaningful impact on IQ thus any claim of "discrimination" or "relative SES" in comparison to white people being any relevant factor is moot. If regular home beatings isn't going to do it, neither is social shunning or having a smaller wad in one's pants pocket.

I won't even bother with the sweeping generalization here that equates having less money in one's pocket to necessarily being caused by outside oppression.

Simple ethnic discrimination such as in Canada has also taken place in the US with regard to Jews and Irish, yet their IQ scores aren't showing an effect expected if multigenerational discrimination were a real factor, and none of your sources have shown discrimination of any kind has been shown anywhere, any time to be a factor, let alone a sizable one.

You've not shown that environmental differences of the type you keep invoking as having any real impact on anyone, at any age group, over the age of three, let alone that "adult IQ is dependent on childhood environment" in light of that it takes severe environmental deficits to produce a marked effect on human IQ.

To make such a vague and generalized statement such as "childhood environment causes IQ" is to falsely equate children born and raised in a war zone of extreme ongoing nutritional deprivation during cognitive development to a kid that is perceived to have experienced microaggressions in the United States where he is adequately nourished in spite of that even a childhood of repeated acts of physical abuse do not impact IQ as you are citing with regard to "discrimination," thus to claim discrimination has any - let alone substantial - impact on lifespan, multigenerational IQ is invalid.

Since quite obviously the psychological impact of growing up and having the crap kicked out of you isn't causing much effect on one's IQ, then it suffices to say that "racism" isn't qualified - nor is it mentioned in any scientific literature anywhere on the topic - as being a listed, measurable - let alone severe-enough - impact on anyone, of any age, of any range of heritability (and inherited for that matter) of the type required per Turdheimer to have a noted effect on IQ.

Not relevant. The point was to show that testing showing IQ differences was showing up in countries without a history of slavery or Jim Crow, especially because the OP asked for one.



And if anyone's interested in the scientific untenability and intellectual bankruptcy of the theories of one career *********** Richard J Nisbett (aka Nisbutt), feel free to read a critical review of Nisbutt's mASS market paperback titled, "Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count" by PhD psychologist James J. Lee HERE.

 

Speaking of Molyneux, am I the only one who is sick of his repetetive and predictable yabbing? I think he is becoming increasingly boring for each video he releases and there has been no upload where I already know what he will bring up ("Feminism wants to kill White men and destroy The West", "Muh, muh, low IQ populations", "immigration is bad because Feminism, women and IQ!")

 

It's his only source of income. I basically never watch him.