The wealth of nations is mapped by their IQ [Archive]

jerryel

Dec20-03, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Evo
"A highly motivated person with a normal IQ may have to put more time and effort into learning, but they can still achieve as much or more than a person with a high IQ that is NOT MOTIVATED."

It is motivation in addition to IQ that determines how successful a person becomes. I am saying that there are other factors in addition to IQ that will determine what a person accomplishes. Just having a high IQ doesn’t mean much unless you use it. I know of a lot of people with high IQ’s that wasted their lives.

I don't want to get into a semantics war but "on the average" those with a higher IQ will be more economically successful. That is a fact.

But to measure "success" is impossible because you would have to define success. IMO success means happiness not the amount of money you earn. The poster in general is right about very high IQ folks having difficulties being successful economically, socially, or politically. Many of these people are utopian dreamers and lack the ability to accept the reality of human nature. They can’t lead because they can’t equate with the common man. The last I heard the highest IQ scoring individual in the US is a bouncer in a bar in California. He is a loner and reads every science type book he can get his hands on but how do we judge his "success"? He seems to be happy in his own way, has little use for socialization, lives decently, and although "odd" to most of us he may be happier than most us.

I know someone with a very high IQ who was a go-getter, succeeded early in life economically, sold his business at 41 and then just “quit” the BS world and became a campaigner for a return to the family values of old with public speaking and conservative political activism. He decided that money didn’t buy happiness but personal values did.

The attack on the validity of IQ scores is very evident on this forum by people who want to talk about exceptions instead of “on average”. IQ testing is probably the best way to foresee a young teen’s future success, a nation’s success, and cultural success. It may not be PC but it is fact and unless genetic engineering can come up with a better way it’s the only way we now have.

Evo

Dec20-03, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
"Wasted their lives"? I think this exhibits a narrow view of why we live. Terman studied people who had scored extra high on IQ tests as teens. None of them was "successful" in the sense of being famous or important, or even rich. But they were ALL happy and satisfied with their lives. Based on that, maybe the "optimal" IQ 130 is just not smart enough to figure out what really counts.

SelfAdjoint, I agree with all that you say, so I probably am not making my meaning clear.

Yes, from my personal experience, I've seen too many brilliant minds wasted. One is serving a life sentence for dealing heroin, he was class president, voted "most likely to succeed", several others became drug addicts and last I heard were in pretty bad shape, unable to hold steady jobs. Another commited suicide.

I have issues with what Carlos Hernandez and some others have been posting, implying that selective breeding to attain a larger population of individuals with high IQ's in the hopes of diminishing the ratio of "low IQ" people is the hope for the world.

I say that IQ alone doesn't guarantee anything. Does someone with a high IQ statistically have an advantage over someone with a low IQ? Of course.

Does a high IQ statistically result in a higher academic level and higher social & economic status? Of course.

Does this mean that a person of AVERAGE intelligence through perserverance, studying hard, and a will to learn and understand is incapable of achieving more than what would be expected of them? I don't think so. Obviously, they will not be able to attain the levels that a person with a higher IQ can achieve, but I do not think we need to selectively breed these people out of extinction.

This is what I have a problem with.

jerryel

Dec20-03, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Evo
I do not think we need to selectively breed these people out of extinction.
This is what I have a problem with.

In a democratic society which most of us believe in, it would be a voluntary eugenics program. Do you have a problem with that?

Nature's own eugenics program works well as long as society lets it work on its own. In every society on Earth, the most intelligent group rules in the long term, some democratically, most unfortunately not. Legalized abortion is a eugenics program created by society, which may or may not accomplish this goal but it does appear to be lessening the numbers of leftists in the future. [:)]

Nachtwolf

Dec20-03, 08:25 PM

Legalized abortion is a eugenics program created by society, which may or may not accomplish this goal but it does appear to be lessening the numbers of leftists in the future. [:)]
Careful - "conservatism of social views" has been found to correlate inversely with psychometric g. I think it's clear that eugenics on a humane or even a purely voluntary scale is a good thing, but if eugenics successfully increases intelligence, it will increase the number of liberals, the number of small business owners, and the number of physics majors.

--Mark

jerryel

Dec20-03, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Careful - if eugenics successfully increases intelligence, it will increase the number of liberals

--Mark

Oh my...Then society is doomed. [g)]

Carlos Hernandez

Dec20-03, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Careful - "conservatism of social views" has been found to correlate inversely with psychometric g. I think it's clear that eugenics on a humane or even a purely voluntary scale is a good thing, but if eugenics successfully increases intelligence, it will increase the number of liberals, the number of small business owners, and the number of physics majors.

--Mark

Does the research take "Agreeableness" into account? I would think the more agreeable, the more Liberal.

selfAdjoint

Dec21-03, 11:29 AM

I would think the more agreeable, the more Liberal.

But not, alas, the converse.

BTW, the usual disclaimers for The Rest of the World; liberal in the US means mildly leftist.

Nachtwolf

Dec21-03, 02:41 PM

Oh my...Then society is doomed
Do you not know that eugenics was once a liberal concept? What could be more liberal that a push for social change and progress? It was only when the Marxist perversion made its way into the West that liberalism was corrupted.

Does the research take "Agreeableness" into account? I would think the more agreeable, the more Liberal.
That was originally my suspicion. However I have seen research demonstrating that while political conservatism is correlated at 10% with Conscientiousness, and political liberalism correlates at 30% with Openness, there is no significant relationship between liberalism and Agreeableness. Certainly I have (many times) been screamed at by a horde of deindividuated liberals for daring to question their sacred cows.

--Mark

jerryel

Dec21-03, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Do you not know that eugenics was once a liberal concept? What could be more liberal that a push for social change and progress?

--Mark

Maybe so but today's social programs are dysgenics at its worse, other than abortion of course. Feeding people in areas where nature's eugenic program would otherwise let them die only gives them the energy to create more children that will increase the need for more and more food to keep them alive. If the do-gooders really wanted to help they should relocate these people to areas where they can help produce the food they desparately need and provide abortion and birth control services.

It seems it is the most intellectually challenged folks of the world who are the most prolific breeders. Personally, I can't stand to see someone go hungry but there are limits to the world's food resources and capital.

TENYEARS

Dec21-03, 07:49 PM

The ability to recognize more ways to to irresponsibly ravage the planet would definately come under "so called" high IQ. Personally it is the state of the greatest unbalance. IQ is meaningless. All human beings have equal intelligence. This is reality. What is recoginzed as IQ is not a measure of intelligence. This I know and do not believe. I laugh at the scientific community. Sometimes quite often and especially when one reads the news and magazine headlines sometimes. What utter dopes. It makes me sick. Use your minds and act like there is no tomarrow. You will see them work properly then.

selfAdjoint

Dec21-03, 08:49 PM

Nice for you to always be so sure in your mind and never have to change it because you have been wrong. Be happy.

Nachtwolf

Dec21-03, 09:02 PM

Carlos Hernandez

Dec22-03, 02:16 AM

Another article on national IQ average and wealth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/message/28149

TENYEARS

Dec22-03, 03:29 PM

My responses and questions are whatever you want or need them to be. That is what they will always be and nothing more. We have all been wrong at sometimes or another, some more than others. The question is when you were wrong what were you really doing? Don't challange me, challange yourself or else you may end up knocking youself out. After doing that enough you will eventually learn. That is the way of life.

Vosh

Dec23-03, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
November 10, 2003

The wealth of nations is mapped by their IQ
By Glen Owen
Research says that intelligence is the largest factor behind economic success

A COUNTRY’S prosperity is closely related to the average IQ of its population, according to research that has mapped global intelligence levels.

The study of 60 countries identified a clear correlation between assessments of national mental ability and real gross domestic product, or GDP.

Complete text at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-888798,00.html

Here is the problem: We are not better off in the west because we have a larger economy. We are better off because we have human rights and liberty. People are in the habit of giving Capitalism the credit; but it is the idea put forth by blokes like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, notions concerning a free democracy and the ability of ppl. to make things better instead of waiting for the King to do it for them. Indeed, Capitalism can be credited with chipping away at these ideals, not creating them. IQ tests aren't required for us to *find* ppl. like Ben Franklin in order to benefit from them. Otherwise we wouldn't have seen the worlds first free democracy, which was America in 1776 and today is Canada... ;) Whatever the average IQ of a group; they are not in trouble because they're too stupid, they're in trouble because they are oppressed. Oppress Americans to the level that Rwandans and others in Africa are oppressed and Americans would look like a load of savages, too!

jerryel

Dec23-03, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Vosh
Here is the problem: We are not better off in the west because we have a larger economy...IQ tests aren't required for us to *find* ppl. like Ben Franklin in order to benefit from them...Whatever the average IQ of a group; they are not in trouble because they're too stupid, they're in trouble because they are oppressed. Oppress Americans to the level that Rwandans and others in Africa are oppressed and Americans would look like a load of savages, too!

So you don't think that high IQ and democracy go together along with the large economy? I don't think you can have one without the other. A population of high IQ people will demand democracy and produce martyrs to obtain it.

Rwanda has been ruled by a "tribe" which makes up only 14% of the population for centuries (except for short periods). Is it any wonder that that tribe has distinct physical and mental differences? Regardless, in the long run the people of superior intellect will always rule no matter where. That's why Stalin killed off the intellectuals to temporarily stave off nature's own devices.

Vosh

Dec23-03, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by jerryel
A population of high IQ people will demand democracy and produce martyrs to obtain it.

It depends one what you mean by high IQ. Some high IQ's are conformist nazis (however unaware of it they are, and they usually are until history points them out). But if a way were found to guarantee that from now on all new borns would not have less than an IQ of 130 with that average being the convergance of all kinds of thinking, not just a freakish faculty for math while completely incompetent in other areas (verbal, interpersonal...); it's nice to imagine that the problem of the rank and file being so easily suckered by their more clever peers (the novel, "Animal Farm" describes this process very eloquently!) would be solved. However, right now there are plenty of folks with relatively high IQ's and no imagination at all thanks to their schooling and/or aptitudes and a slavish sense of dumb conformity.

Rwanda has been ruled by a "tribe" which makes up only 14% of the population for centuries (except for short periods). Is it any wonder that that tribe has distinct physical and mental differences?

Right. Give them everything the first Americans had, personal liberty and access to lending libraries (invented by Ben Franklin and a gang he was running around with in those days in 1731 -- read about it in his autobiography!) and the rest would take care of itself. But ppl. today don't know where they came from so when they try to fix places like Rwanda or the Middle East they try to apply todays values and todays values are NOT how America got started.

Nachtwolf

Dec23-03, 09:01 PM

However, right now there are plenty of folks with relatively high IQ's and no imagination at all thanks to their schooling and/or aptitudes and a slavish sense of dumb conformity.No, there aren't. IQ correlates at 30% with Openness to Experience and with some measures of Field Independence at almost 50%. Openness to Experience and Field Dependence both predispose a person towards challenging accepted wisdom, towards individualism, and towards free thinking.

Right. Give them everything the first Americans had, personal liberty and access to lending libraries (invented by Ben Franklin and a gang he was running around with in those days in 1731 -- read about it in his autobiography!) and the rest would take care of itself. But ppl. today don't know where they came from so when they try to fix places like Rwanda or the Middle East they try to apply todays values and todays values are NOT how America got started.THE AVERAGE IQ IN AFRICA IS 70.

Do you seriously imagine that a group of borderline retarded people can institute democracy and attain a state of civilization? Can you name a single stable, civilized nation with an average IQ above 80? I repeat:

THE AVERAGE IQ IN AFRICA IS 70.

--Mark

Vosh

Dec23-03, 09:52 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nachtwolf
No, there aren't. IQ correlates at 30% with Openness to Experience and with some measures of Field Independence at almost 50%. Openness to Experience and Field Dependence both predispose a person towards challenging accepted wisdom, towards individualism, and towards free thinking.

You should know that I don't speak your jargon, so I can't speak to it unless you translate. Also, this means that Bill Clinton was an average bear, after all. Wonder why folks thought he was so brilliant?

THE AVERAGE IQ IN AFRICA IS 70.

Why do you think that?

Do you seriously imagine that a group of borderline retarded people can institute democracy and attain a state of civilization?

Not when they are oppressed by those who are a little more clever. Those clever ones who know better are either out numbered or are not in charge of the army and the rank and file are too stupid to tell the difference. That must be why the electorate chose a college cheerleader over someone who has dedicated his life to protecting the consumer (Ralph Nader) for U.S. President. Early Americans had to be manipulated and cajoled by the "founding fathers" into fighting the war for independence. If America fell under thug rule, folks wouldn't resist. They'd be just as confused as the rank and file in the east. There would just be more geniuses involved in the west. There may be a higher number of geniuses in the west than the east, but this doesn't account for the west being a nicer place to live. The west being a nicer place to live is why smart ppl. leave places like the Middle East and come here (and produce the illusion that foreigners are better at math -- no, it's just that we are seeing all the smart foreigners). As I say, if you're talking about *everyone* having an above average IQ, then they might be less likely to be manipulated by the smart pigs (see, "Animal Farm") but we don't know since this situation has never existed on Earth...

jerryel

Dec23-03, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Vosh
That must be why the electorate chose a college cheerleader over someone who has dedicated his life to protecting the consumer (Ralph Nader) for U.S. President. [/B]

Thanks, that helps me to refrain from debating with you. This isn't a politics forum and if you think an avowed socialist (a neo-com) would make a good president then I have nothing to discuss with you.

If you would like to discuss IQ and it's importance (or non-importance) to human society then leave out the political comments.

Nachtwolf

Dec23-03, 11:23 PM

You should know that I don't speak your jargon
I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's not "my jargon;" it's the science of psychology. I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt any more and will simply spell things out for you neatly:

High IQ predisposes a person towards individualism and away from groupthink.

THE AVERAGE IQ IN AFRICA IS 70.

Why do you think that?
Because multiple studies found it to be true.

Not when they are oppressed by those who are a little more clever.
They aren't oppressed. But they are unintelligent.

If you would like to discuss IQ and it's importance (or non-importance) to human society then leave out the political comments.
Vosh doesn't understand those things, Jerry. He understands politics.

--Mark

Nephtys

Dec24-03, 01:43 AM

Intelliegence determining the prosperity of a nation? That's a rich thought. It seems to me that that idea is out to badmouth our international neighbors.

Besides, that can't be true for every scenario. What is the average IQ in the United States, ranged in the 90's? And the U.S.'s wealth is one of the greatest in the world.

Nephtys

Dec24-03, 01:44 AM

Wait. Does this guy mean the people in charge or the average of the entire populace?

Vosh

Dec24-03, 02:13 AM

Well, one person replied with a rhetorical (an assertion was made with zero supporting statements) political statement by way of telling me not to make political statement and another person suggested that the ppl. who live under thugocracies in Africa and the Middle East aren't oppressed. Some things one can say about the unintelligent come to mind: 1) They can't hear themselves. 2) Their feelings get hurt taking things personally and their egos get easily drawn into battles of will instead of constructive exchanges. 3) They see what they want to see (a life long consumer activist, someone who takes no contributions as a politician, trained in the law, self taught in chinese language, is the reason you can get into a minor auto accident and not get impaled on your steering column or torn to shreds by ordinary glass windshields, etc. etc. is probably just trying to turn America into the next Soviet Union but a self satisfied simian college cheerleader will save you and me from the baddies -- if only more ppl. would vote instead of just Homer Simpson and Fred Flintstone)

Vosh

Dec24-03, 02:21 AM

And don't say, "this guy". It's a phrase "dumb guys" use when they're trying to engage in mean spirited psychological warfare.

*

I can't believe someone on a physics forum thinks ppl. in third world countries aren't oppressed. This is going to interrupt me in mid thought for a few days...

Nachtwolf

Dec25-03, 08:21 PM

Intelliegence determining the prosperity of a nation? That's a rich thought. It seems to me that that idea is out to badmouth our international neighbors.
What purpose would that serve?

Lynn and Vanhanen's research investigates the question of why some nations are rich and others poor. Since high IQ individuals usually do better economically than other individuals in the same society, we might expect the same pattern to emerge internationally comparing nations to one another. And, research verifies this - the average IQ is correlated with per capita GDP at around 40%.

Besides, that can't be true for every scenario.
It isn't; that's why the correlation is 40% rather than 100%. The authors of the study point out a variety of other factors which seem to influence national wealth, such as natural resources, communism, and so forth.

What is the average IQ in the United States, ranged in the 90's? And the U.S.'s wealth is one of the greatest in the world.
America's IQ is 98, compared to a British mean of 100. This is, sadly, eight points above the average IQ in the world, which is 90. And of course the United States is a highly capitalistic society with a wealth of natural resources.

Wait. Does this guy mean the people in charge or the average of the entire populace?
The book gives average IQs for the entire populace. It is worth noting that a high-IQ elite can do wonders for a nation, however.

_______

if only more ppl. would vote instead of just Homer Simpson and Fred Flintstone
In a democracy, the majority will rule. The majority is roughly 100 IQ throughout 1st world nations, and 100 IQ individuals are easily swayed by appeals to emotion and connect more readily with people in the 100-120 IQ range than in the 140 IQ range.

I can't believe someone on a physics forum thinks ppl. in third world countries aren't oppressed. This is going to interrupt me in mid thought for a few days...
Who thinks people in third world countries aren't oppressed? Of course they are oppressed. You're the one who won't admit to one of the causes of third world problems - namely, a lack of intelligence. Or hasn't it ever occurred to you to wonder why they are oppressed?

--Mark

Vosh

Dec25-03, 09:35 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nachtwolf
What purpose would that serve?

Lynn and Vanhanen's research investigates the question of why some nations are rich and others poor. Since high IQ individuals usually do better economically than other individuals in the same society, we might expect the same pattern to emerge internationally comparing nations to one another. And, research verifies this - the average IQ is correlated with per capita GDP at around 40%.

Intriguing. Have you ever read anything about how one group (whether a nation or just a neighborhood) will suffer because the smarter ones will leave and go to live with another group where life is nice and as a consequence leave the old group even worse off?

America's IQ is 98, compared to a British mean of 100.

A theory I've had about that is that Britain is simply less oriented toward the lowest common denominator -- it's simply a smaller place (economically). What do you think?

This is, sadly, eight points above the average IQ in the world, which is 90. And of course the United States is a highly capitalistic society with a wealth of natural resources.

Yeah.

In a democracy, the majority will rule. The majority is roughly 100 IQ throughout 1st world nations, and 100 IQ individuals are easily swayed by appeals to emotion and connect more readily with people in the 100-120 IQ range than in the 140 IQ range.

Unfortunately, that rings very true!

Who thinks people in third world countries aren't oppressed? Of course they are oppressed. You're the one who won't admit to one of the causes of third world problems - namely, a lack of intelligence. Or hasn't it ever occurred to you to wonder why they are oppressed?

Ok. I thought you said, "no they aren't". No worries. It occured to me to wonder once if those in authority (right now called "the Bush administration"; giving the impression that Shrub is calling the shots -- of whiskey, perhaps!) realize that America didn't get started by setting up schools and business ventures and basically doing what we try to do now; setting up present day America wholesale, as 'twere: installing schools, restaurants, businesses, banks and all this and they also realize that these backward places in the world will never just start from scratch armed with the same principles as those given us (which we are thankfully still living off though some work around the clock to replace them with laissez faire capitalism...) and so they conclude, behind closed doors so that ppl. won't hear and become hysterical, that these places have to be forced out of their grinding backwardness. As a consequence, we have the difficult, controversial violent drama of the war in Iraq... Someone called that notion reactionary; but maybe it's what some folks in the right offices are thinking and thinking it's right and for the best even if they could never come right out and try to explain it to the masses. The flaw here as far as I can see is that after forcing things they're still clumsily going in and installing present day America thinking that this is how a thing like America was born in the first place. Anyway; just trying to imagine what they must be thinking making the decisions they seem to be making... It could be that I've been up too long... What do you think?

TENYEARS

Dec25-03, 11:34 PM

The amount of money amassed has little to do with intelligence anywhere. Anyone who belives this is obviously a beliver and not a thinker since it is contrary to reality. One of you quoted something of the nature somewhere about a country of retarded people. Interesting. You have no clue of absolutes, and it is because you do not, that the unconcious battering ram of human motion will decimate the planet. I am a thinker, at times I am far beyond it. Human kind will pay by it's own hand. Mark my words. It's physics, even if you don't understand it quite yet. Merry christmas.

TENYEARS

Dec25-03, 11:48 PM

Vosh, have a big glass of milk have a cookie and go to bed. Your idea of other countries being backward because of what they do not have is off the wall. Don't blame yourself, it is a belief used for a thousand years in order to extract riches from other countries with some attempt of a morality overlay for the general public. Most of these countries were far better off without us. China had zero percent overwieght children, with the advent of western fast food in less than 10 years they are over 10% and growing fast. Just a pebble in a pile of pebbles. When your in school in and learning structured learning, there is sometimes not a lot of time to break down things and think of the conective nature of things.

Nachtwolf

Dec26-03, 01:36 AM

Have you ever read anything about how one group (whether a nation or just a neighborhood) will suffer because the smarter ones will leave and go to live with another group where life is nice and as a consequence leave the old group even worse off?
As a matter of fact, that's the common explanation for Ireland's IQ, which is under 95.

A theory I've had about that is that Britain is simply less oriented toward the lowest common denominator -- it's simply a smaller place (economically). What do you think?
I think that 2 IQ points isn't enough to write home about. Your idea may be true; I don't know much about England. I do know, however, that the 2 point disparity between America and England could just be a fluke.

"the Bush administration"... capitalism... war in Iraq... What do you think?
I think I am a dour individual who has learned that every possible problem or complaint which could be raised about society always ends with "because everyone is so stupid." There are other causes for the Iraq war which we could name, none of which truly justify it to my thinking, but in the end they probably come down to human stupidity as well.

The amount of money amassed has little to do with intelligence anywhere. Anyone who belives this is obviously a beliver and not a thinker since it is contrary to reality.
Yes, TenYears, tell us all how the findings of science are contrary to reality!

You have no clue of absolutes, and it is because you do not, that the unconcious battering ram of human motion will decimate the planet.
Hahaha tell us all how to think in black and white, TenYears!

I am a thinker, at times I am far beyond it.
Oh, indeed!

Human kind will pay by it's own hand. Mark my words. It's physics, even if you don't understand it quite yet.
Eerything is physics. And no, this doesn't support your statements.

Vosh, have a big glass of milk have a cookie and go to bed. Your idea
Hahaha! This isn't Vosh's idea; it isn't even Jerry's or mine. It's Lynn's and Vanhanen's idea, which they supported with - get this - evidence. But why am I telling you this? You're a "thinker."

Thank you for bringing joy to my existence! Merry Christmas to you too!

--Mark

jerryel

Dec26-03, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Hahaha! This isn't Vosh's idea; it isn't even Jerry's or mine. It's Lynn's and Vanhanen's idea, which they supported with - get this - evidence. But why am I telling you this? You're a "thinker."

--Mark

Why do you bother? There are always clowns on sauce or sumtin' to disrupt good discussions.

It seems the term "IQ" has acquired the PC definition of a "dirty word" and racist at that. Any hint of IQ relating to any racial (they call it "culture" now) group now is attacked as being un-scientific and subjective and being promulgated by neo-nazis.

You can post peer reviewed studies until your fingers bleed and you will not change these peoples opinion. I quit trying.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4c610569be.htm

Vosh

Dec26-03, 04:15 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TENYEARS
Vosh, have a big glass of milk have a cookie and go to bed.

No, thanks. See www.milksucks.com.

Your idea of other countries being backward because of what they do not have is off the wall.

Never meant to give that impression. The Middle East, for example, sufferes from a stifling sense of backwardness and grinding poverty. Desperate people are easy to take advantage of. Rulers tend (heh) to want to perpetuate themselves and an unfortunate trap in the Middle East is that if you don't give (or promise) immediate results, which often translates to userping the current rulers, then you find yourself quickly out of a job. So what it takes to govern there is to behave like a thug. It's a job that attracts thugs and it's a vicious cycle. They don't like America because the only time the west comes around is to make shady deal with shady rulers. You won't hear that on the commercial news...

China had zero percent overwieght children, with the advent of western fast food in less than 10 years they are over 10% and growing fast.

Yeah, it's very easy to get and consume too much sugar. You're body craves it all the time so that in the wild you will get at least the minimum amount; but in civilization you can get all the sugar you want and humans naturally want it all the time. I'll bet sugar merchants watch their intake of sugar more than anyone else!

When your in school in and learning structured learning,

School isn't about learning. Learning is as natural as breathing; it can't be stopped, only perverted. School is a jobs creation project. It wasn't a thing to provide growth and learning that has gone wrong and needs reform. It was a bad idea from the get go. Simply; there is no reason for coerced instruction of any kind. Ponder that and then you'll begin to get an idea of why future generations will wonder how we could live like this the same way we look at the Middle Ages and think those ppl. had to be savages to live like that!

"As intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down." --Lisa Simpson

Monique

Dec27-03, 04:52 PM

Calling names does not fall under intelligent behaviour, please refrain from that in the future, OK? [t)]

Monique

Dec27-03, 04:57 PM

Did anyone already wonder about the validity of the IQ tests and whether people in some countries are 'conditioned' to do well on those tests?

So yeah, maybe developed countries perform more of those tests, and the people will thus become better at it and get higher scores, just by knowing the drill.

Vosh

Dec28-03, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Monique
Did anyone already wonder about the validity of the IQ tests and whether people in some countries are 'conditioned' to do well on those tests?

So yeah, maybe developed countries perform more of those tests, and the people will thus become better at it and get higher scores, just by knowing the drill.

I don't know anything about Lynn and Vanhanen (sp?) or their methods. I tend to agree that the only thing tests measure is your ability to take a test. Performance on a test can be significantly effected by a persons expectation of how they will score compared to someone else. In experiments, a black male of known superior IQ and a male Asian of known lesser IQ are put in a room where they take a test. Because the black male assumes that the Asian is terrific at Math etc. his performance on the test is very poor compared to the Asian subject who in turn scores very high because he expects himself to be smarter than his peer. I saw this on PBS once. Where else!? I forget what they named the phenomenon; but it's very interesting.

One thing I do believe is that smart ppl. tend to leave bad places to go and live in good places and that this causes a brain drain. I can believe it happens to entire countries and regions just as it happens in neighborhoods.

I once heard a black activist argue that while there may be something to research into whether blacks, on average, are less intelligent, society isn't ready to deal with it in a way that would be anything other than destructive. So books like the one in question tend to bolster, for example, white supremecists, even if that wasn't the intention.

Personally, I don't know why they bothered to write such a book. Psychologists, ppl. who run ad campaigns, captains of industry, politicians already understand that "most people are stupid". So who is the book for? The stupid ppl. won't get it, so it's not for them. Those who profit from the lowest common denominator already know, so it's not for them. I don't know who that leaves except the KKK.

Nachtwolf

Dec28-03, 02:42 PM

Did anyone already wonder about the validity of the IQ tests and whether people in some countries are 'conditioned' to do well on those tests?
Actually that's what just about everyone already wondered. The short answer is yes, the IQ tests are valid. The long answer is that Lynn and Vanhanen used Raven's Progrssive Matrices to test their hypothesis, which even with coaching for the testees give low scores for people living in third world nations. Part of administering an IQ test involves making sure the testee knows the drill.

It's possible (indeed almost certain) that environmental influces are partly responsible for low scores obtained in those countries, but it seems that the scores accurately reflect intelligence and thus it is intelligence itself which is being slightly depressed. A prime example of this is the fact that African blacks consistently score ~15 IQ points lower than American blacks. Nutrition and various other factors are probably partly responsible for the ~15 point gap (although it's also worth noting that American blacks are approximately 20% caucasian).

Vanhanen (sp?)
Haha! Yeah I can never get that name right. I think it's Vanhanen, but my connection is really bad right now so I can't conveniently check.

smart ppl. tend to leave bad places to go and live in good places and that this causes a brain drain
Yep; this is the standard GxE phenomenon. It turns out that smart people seek out cognitively stimulating environments which probably further their intellectual development.

I once heard a black activist argue that while there may be something to research into whether blacks, on average, are less intelligent, society isn't ready to deal with it in a way that would be anything other than destructive. So books like the one in question tend to bolster, for example, white supremecists, even if that wasn't the intention.
That black activist was a smart guy. The trouble is exactly that society isn't read for it - since the facts have been known for around 100 years (and pretty much became settled science 50 years ago) it's only the fact that this is unpopular that makes it generally disbelieved.

I don't know who that leaves except the KKK.
It leaves Eugenists. Lynn is a big time eugenist who wrote two books titled Eugenics and Dysgenics, and the book we're discussing here, IQ and the wealth of Nations does a great deal to support his position.

--Mark

Nereid

Jan30-04, 11:28 AM

Nachtwolf

Jan30-04, 07:14 PM

So, some research appears to show there is a correlation between 'the wealth of nations' and IQ (or similar). Other research shows that IQ (or similar) is primarily (or predominently) hereditary. Conclusion: since you can't change folks' IQ, most people living in Africa had just better get used to being poor?
Why put words into my posts which aren't there? Don't you find these preconceptions you have about my views to be encumbering?

1) The research doesn't appear to show a correlation. It does show a 40% correlation. Further research is in order to test whether this is accurate, and better understand where it comes from and how it "works."

2) The fact that IQ is heritable within a group does not by itself show that the IQ difference between two groups must be heritable to the same degree. Even pretending for the moment that the American B/W IQ gap were 100% genetic (something no one believes) some quick calculations would lead us to expect that the average IQ of native, fully black Africans should be 80, not 70. Thus, at bare minimum the IQ of these third-worlders is environmentally depressed by around 10 points.

3) Whether the low average IQ of any given group is caused by genetic or environmental factors, it is not irremediable. Since within-group heritabilities are high, eugenic efforts can fairly easily boost their intelligence in the long term. It is my wish to bring about such positive eugenic change throughout the globe.

Consider: some research has shown there is a correlation between economic growth and degree of openness to free international trade ... and universal primary education ... and sanitation and universal access to clean drinking water ... and stable government ... and corruption (negative correlation) ... and sound fiscal policies ... and good regulatory regimes ... and (it's a long list).
Lynn's research actually further demonstrates most of this. The trouble is that we can't say that these things themselves are independent of IQ - and, in fact, other findings suggest to contrary. More intelligent people (compared to their peers in the same society) are more educable and more productive workers. They are less crime prone, healther, and longer-lived. They are more likely to take an active interest in government and politics, and tend away from rigid, authoritarian views.

Maybe this eugenics idea is a waste of time and energy, if what you want to do is increase the wealth of your nation?
Hahahaha!

--Mark

Nereid

Jan31-04, 05:17 AM

Nereid: "Conclusion: since you can't change folks' IQ, most people living in Africa had just better get used to being poor?" {note the question mark}
Nachtwolf: "Why put words into my posts which aren't there? Don't you find these preconceptions you have about my views to be encumbering?"
Nereid: (quoting Nachtwolf) Hahahaha!1) The research doesn't appear to show a correlation. It does show a 40% correlation. Further research is in order to test whether this is accurate, and better understand where it comes from and how it "works." Clearly I have to spend some more time analysing Lynn's work. However, as I noted in another thread, "Lynn seems to have merely collected studies done between 1952 and 2000, on subjects whose ages ranged from 3 to 'Adults', with sample sizes ranging from 88 to over 43,000, by a number of different authors." He did NOT do the work himself. (BTW, the other posters on that thread - including Nachtwolf - haven't yet given answers to very basic questions about the data).

Let's talk about the data which shows "IQ difference[s] between groups" (i.e. Lynn)hitssquad wrote: For other nations used in the final regression analysis, [Lynn's] national IQs were estimated by such methods as taking an average of neighboring nations, and using IQ data from racially similar populations (correcting for racial proportion in the latter case). Again, I need to study the work done by Lynn. For now I merely note that repeated questions - to Nachtwolf and others - have yet to yield even a list of 'sub-Saharan' races (or east Asian ones for that matter).

hitssquad

Jan31-04, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
"Lynn seems to have merely collected studies done between 1952 and 2000, on subjects whose ages ranged from 3 to 'Adults', with sample sizes ranging from 88 to over 43,000, by a number of different authors." He did NOT do the work himself.
If the authors had merely collected studies, in the final report there would have been no corrections for known bias, no regression analyses, no comparisons with other IQ-related factors, or the results of any of the other work the authors did.

In the digest version of his analysis posted online at his website in the form of the article Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations, nine of the IQ-collection-article citations are of papers published by Lynn himself:
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/7-a1.htm

Nation ages test N mean author date

Ethiopia 15-16 SPM 250 67 Lynn, 1994
Hong Kong 3-13 SPM 13,822 103 Lynn et al., 1988
Hong Kong 6-15 SPM 4,500 110 Lynn et al., 1988
Hong Kong 6 CPM 4,858 109 Chan & Lynn, 1989
Israel 9-15 SPM 250 90 Lynn, 1994
Japan 9 SPM 444 110 Shigehisa & Lynn, 1991
Korea, South 9 SPM 107 106 Lynn & Song, 1994
Singapore 13 SPM 147 103 Lynn, 1977
Taiwan 9-12 SPM 2,496 105 Lynn, 1997

SPM and CPM stand for the Raven tests "Standard Progressive Matrices" and "Coloured Progressive Matrices". As you can see, the only test he used was Raven's Matrices, a family of non-verbal tests.

Here are the references:
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/9.htm

Chan, J. and Lynn, R. (1989) The intelligence of six year olds in Hong Kong. Journal of Biosocial Science, 21, 461-464.

Lynn, R. (1977) The intelligence of the Chinese and Malays in Singapore. Mankind Quarterly, 18, 125-128.

Lynn, R. (1980) The social ecology of intelligence in France. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 325-331.

Lynn, R. (1981) The social ecology of intelligence in the British Isles, France and Spain. In M.P.Friedman, J.P.Das and N. O'Connor (eds) Intelligence and Learning. New York: Plenum.

Lynn, R. (1991) Race differences in intelligence: a global perspective. Mankind Quarterly, 31, 255-294.

Lynn, R. (1994) The intelligence of Ethiopian immigrant and Israeli adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 55-56.

Lynn, R. (1997) Intelligence in Taiwan. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 585-586.

Lynn, R., Pagliari, C. and Chan, J. (1988) Intelligence in Hong Kong measured for Spearman's g and the visuospatial and verbal primaries. Intelligence, 12, 423-433.

Lynn, R. and Song, M.J. (1994) General intelligence, visuospatial and verbal abilities of Korean children. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 363-364.

Shigehisa, T. and Lynn, R. (1991) Reaction times and intelligence in Japanese children. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 195-202.

Additionally, in the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Lynn and Vanhanen cite several other of Lynn's primary-research nation-IQ-testing papers:

Lynn, R. 1997b. Intelligence in Taiwan. Personality and Individual Differences, 22: 585-586.

Lynn, R., and J. Dziobon. 1980. On the intelligence of the Japanese and other Mongoloid peoples. Personality and Individual Differences, 1: 95-96.

Lynn, R., and S. Hampson. 1986a. The structure of Japanese abilities: An analysis in terms of the hierarchical model of intelligence. Current Psychological Research and Reviews, 4: 309-322.

Lynn, R., and S. Hampson. 1986b. Intellectual abilities of Japanese Children: An assessment of 2-8 year olds derived from the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. Intelligence, 10: 41-58.

Lynn, R., and S. Hampson. 1987. Further evidence on the cognitive abilities of the Japanese: Data from the WPPSI. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10: 23-36.

Lynn, R., S. Hampson, and M. Lee. 1988. The intelligence of Chinese children in Hong Kong. School Psychology International, 9: 29-32.

Lynn, R., and M. Holmshaw. 1990. Black-white differences in reaction times and intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality, 18: 299-308.

Lynn, R., E. Paspalanova, D. Stetinsky, and B. Tzenova. 1998. Intelligence in Bulgaria. Psychological Reports, 82: 912-914.

-Chris

Nachtwolf

Feb1-04, 01:29 AM

(BTW, the other posters on that thread - including Nachtwolf - haven't yet given answers to very basic questions about the data).
I think Hitsquad is smarter than I am. I know he has a better information database from his college. Most importantly, he's far more patient. And I just spotted a mistake (I accidentally typed that IQ and per capita GDP correlate near 40%, when it's actually around 75%) so I'm letting him take this one. He's not saying anything I wouldn't have said.

For now I merely note that repeated questions - to Nachtwolf and others - have yet to yield even a list of 'sub-Saharan' races (or east Asian ones for that matter).
Well, Hitsquad's already asked you (exactly I would have asked) what races are you referring to?

--Mark

selfAdjoint

Feb1-04, 09:23 AM

If the authors had merely collected studies, in the final report there would have been no corrections for known bias, no regression analyses, no comparisons with other IQ-related factors, or the results of any of the other work the authors did.

Of course there could. It's common, if bad statistics, to do regressions on miscellaneous data sources collected by others. And your evidence of Lynn's own papers shows that he only studied oriental nations plus Israel. Not Africa. And it's the attributed IQ of ~70 for the subsaharan African nations that's the big news, and that carries a lot of the "correlation".

Nereid

Feb1-04, 11:04 AM

Apollo (emphasis added): "Average racial intelligences range from East Asians at about 106 ..."

Nacthwolf (emphasis added): "'East Asian' is a technical term referring to a specific group of Asians (also called "Pacific Rim Asians"). China does indeed have a mix of non "East Asian" ethnicities, and this may account for the fact that the average IQ in China is 100, while the average IQ in Japan (a far more homogeneous nation) is 105."

hitssquad (emphasis added): "For other nations used in the final regression analysis, [Lynn's] national IQs were estimated by such methods as taking an average of neighboring nations, and using IQ data from racially similar populations (correcting for racial proportion in the latter case)."

Nereid (emphasis added): "For now I merely note that repeated questions - to Nachtwolf and others - have yet to yield even a list of 'sub-Saharan' races (or east Asian ones for that matter)."

Nacthwolf (emphasis added): "Well, Hitsquad's already asked you (exactly I would have asked) what races are you referring to?"

Nereid, in answer to Nachtwolf's question: the ones you and hitssquad refer to in your own posts! [g)]

Hitssquad also copied pages and pages of material about race and races, but has yet to give a list of these; Apollo made some remarks about IQ (or similar) varying markedly by race, but every time I've asked for something as simple as a list, I get no response.

Note to Monique: at what point does the proposers' continued inability to answer basic questions about their proprosal constitute grounds for moving this thread to S&D?

Nachtwolf

Feb2-04, 01:43 AM

OK I can see this isn't going to go away on its own. Unfortunately my connection is too slow for me to locate Chris' quotation of Jensen's The g factor so I'll just answer you directly.

Racially speaking, Sub Saharan Africans are simply termed "Africans."

Race doesn't mean what lots of people think it means. Races aren't platonic categories, but instead they are large, mostly endogamous breeding populations, like giant families. How you want to split up humans by race is a matter largely of opinion. (The same goes for other creatures; dogs, wolves, and coyotes are called different "species" yet they can all interbreed!)

Sub Saharan Africa has a number of African populations. You'll hear names like Bantu and Bushman or West African and East African, but largely it's a bunch of fuzzy boundaries. Genes flow from east to west, north to south, and the entire country has a blending of ethnic characteristics. The same thing goes for populations in Eastern Europe; I recently saw a family of Russians with blond hair and epicanthic eyefolds (Asian eyes). And even Western Europe, which is generally considered "White" or "European" has racial differences - Northern Europeans tend towards Introversion and Field Independence while Southern Europeans tend towards Extroversion and Field Dependence. This difference seems to be racial, but Europeans are all classified as "European." (I personally think Northern and Southern Euros are different enough to be classified as such, but this is rarely ever done in the literature.)

When one group differs significantly from others on a given trait or traits (IQ for these discussions) then it is given a specific name; this is why East Asians and South Asians have different names. East Asians have 20 extra IQ points and a pronounced visuospatial/verbal disparity absent from South Asian IQ scores. To my understanding - and I don't have Lynn's book in front of me - the various African tribes differ radically on IQ but not for any racially identifiable reason. This is in stark contrast to the 15 point black/white IQ gap, which is so stable as to have been dubbed a "fundamental sociological constant." (See this page (http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retard.htm)) This is probably possible only because the two groups are so distinct that they have maintained much of their integrity - they haven't blended yet.

--Mark

hitssquad

Feb2-04, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Sub Saharan Africa has a number of African populations. You'll hear names like Bantu and Bushman or West African and East African, but largely it's a bunch of fuzzy boundaries. Genes flow from east to west, north to south, and the entire country has a blending of ethnic characteristics.

Here are some graphics to go with the text:

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hitssquad/detail?.dir=/ee6c&.dnm=1e3e.jpg
http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hitssquad/detail?.dir=/ee6c&.dnm=7370.jpg
Figure 12.1. The genetic linkage tree for forty-two populations. The genetic distance between any two groups is represented by the total length of the line separating them. (Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Menozzi P. & Piazza A., The history and geography of human genes. Copyright © 1994 by Princeton University Press.)

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hitssquad/detail?.dir=/ee6c&.dnm=25d6.jpg
Figure 12.2. A linkage tree based on the average genetic distances between the major clusters among the groups shown in Figure 12.1 . (Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Menozzi P. & Piazza A., The history and geography of human genes. Copyright © 1994 by Princeton University Press.)

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hitssquad/detail?.dir=/ee6c&.dnm=6e0b.jpg
Figure 12.3. A principal components (PC) analysis of the forty-two populations in the Cavalli-Sforza et al. study, showing the bivariate location of each with respect to the coordinates of the first two PCs. The orthogonal dashed lines indicate the mean of each PC. (Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Menozzi P. & Piazza A., The history and geography of human genes. Copyright © 1994 by Princeton University Press.)

Graphics and captions are from Chapter 12 of The g Factor, pp429-431.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

*edit: fixed links*

-Chris

Nereid

Feb3-04, 06:55 PM

I have done a short study of three of the key webpages of Lynn’s “Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations”. Note that Lynn claims “If we adopt a one way causal model that national IQs are a determinant of national per capita incomes […] the results [of his research] show that national IQ explains 57 percent of the variance of real GDP per capita 1998”

Here are some conclusions from my short study:
1) His study does not present “National IQ”; rather, average IQs from some tests done mostly on children; a study in China comes closest to a national average (ages of subjects “6 to 79”) ... the IQ stated is 98.

2) There are at least two quite obvious systematic trends in the data which Lynn does not appear to have considered. When a crude adjustment is made for these obvious trends, Lynn’s “strong correlation” becomes much weaker (~0.57 to ~0.22), and the standard deviation of “National IQs” dataset drops by ~30%.

3) There is good data in Lynn’s paper to contradict Apollo’s and Nachtwolf’s assertions about the fixed, inherent IQ of races.

4) Lynn seems to have made a very simple mistake – extrapolating the results of individual research work beyond the scope of the work’s validity; or perhaps he simply didn’t address potential sources of systematic error.

This is well illustrated in his own words: “There are two reasons why we consider that a causal effect of national IQ on per capita incomes and rates of economic growth is the most reasonable theory to explain the correlations. First, this theory is a corollary of an already established body of theory and data showing that IQ is a determinant of income among individuals, the evidence for which has been reviewed in the introduction. IQs measured in childhood are strong predictors of IQs in adolescence and these are predictors of earnings in adulthood. The most reasonable interpretation of these associations is that IQ is a determinant of earnings. From this it follows that groups with high IQs would have higher average incomes than groups with low IQs because groups are aggregates of individuals. This prediction has already been confirmed in the studies of the positive relationship between IQs and per capita incomes among the American states and among the regions of the British Isles, France and Spain, as noted in the introduction. The positive relation between IQ and income is so well established that it can be designated a law, of which the finding that national IQs are positively related to national per capita incomes is a further instance.” Note the leap from studies done in individual countries to the assumption that cross-country comparisons can be made without worrying about possible biases and systematic errors. As I said earlier in this post, there are at least two obvious trends in the data which point to possible sources of systematic error.

If you were already convinced that a nation’s wealth (or poverty) is largely due to how bright or dim the people in the country are, Lynn’s work will be comforting.

If you had doubts about the rigour of the scientific case for significant variation in IQ between economies, you will find plenty of observations on Lynn’s webpages to confirm your doubts.

Some other comments:
a) The five studies in Lynn’s dataset where the subjects’ ages are listed as “Adults” are all from sub-Saharan African counties; 4 of the 5 are among the 8 lowest mean IQs in Lynn’s entire dataset (and two others are Lynn’s own Ethiopian work, and a 1959 study). Curious that Lynn himself implicitly acknowledges that the inclusion of such data will distort the analysis (see point c below), yet he chooses to include all five data points.

b) Lynn states: “While we consider that a causal effect of national intelligence on per capita income and rates of economic growth is the most reasonable model for an explanation of the data, there are two other possible explanations that deserve consideration. The first of these is that there is no direct causal relation between national IQs and per capita incomes and growth rates and the correlation between them is due to some third factor affecting all three. Although this is a theoretical possibility and needs to be mentioned, we do not think it is possible to formulate a plausible theory of this kind.”

Perhaps PF members and guests could help?

c) There is ample support for the hypothesis “that national per capita incomes are a cause of national differences in IQs” in Lynn’s own data. Yet Lynn writes: “[…] it might be argued that national per capita incomes are a cause of national differences in IQs. This argument would state that rich nations provide advantageous environments to nurture the intelligence of their children in so far as they are able to provide their children with better nutrition, health care, education and whatever other environmental factors have an impact on intelligence, the nature of which is discussed in Neisser (1998). Intelligence has increased considerably in many nations during the twentieth century and there is little doubt that these increases have been brought about by environmental improvements, which have themselves occurred largely as a result of increases in per capita incomes that have enabled people to give their children better nutrition, health care, education and the like. Such a theory has some plausibility but it cannot explain the totality of the data. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore had high IQs in the 1960s when they had quite low per capita incomes and the same is true of China today.”

As to “Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore”, guess which researcher did the work to find the “high IQs”? (no prizes for the correct answer)

d) Lynn and Raven – either alone or as lead author - account for just under half the studies Lynn presents; can any PF members give an example of an active area of modern scientific research where just two principals so dominate? The period spans over 50 years.

e) Lynn’s own work stands out quite strongly – he is sole or lead author of 7 of the works reporting the top 10 mean IQs ranked by mean IQ (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong (3), Singapore, Taiwan), … and of the second lowest (Ethiopia).

f) An elementary statistics question for hitssquad: here are the reported results from two studies, done using the same instrument, on samples purporting to be randomly drawn from the same population:
A: mean 103, sample size 43,825
B: mean 105, sample size 2,496

It is claimed that the difference in the population mean, inferred from these two studies, is not statistically significant. Do you agree? Explain your answer.

[Edit: fixed typo]

Nereid

Feb3-04, 07:00 PM

hitssquad: there are no pictures on the links you posted.

Nereid

Feb3-04, 07:15 PM

Nacthwolf wrote: When one group differs significantly from others on a given trait or traits (IQ for these discussions) then it is given a specific name; this is why East Asians and South Asians have different names. East Asians have 20 extra IQ points and a pronounced visuospatial/verbal disparity absent from South Asian IQ scores. To my understanding - and I don't have Lynn's book in front of me - the various African tribes differ radically on IQ but not for any racially identifiable reason. So, let me see if I understand what you have written:

1) there are radical differences in reported IQ among the "African" race

2) there is a reported ~20 point IQ difference between two groups of "Asians"

In the former case, the radical difference leads you to call the groups who differ by IQ "tribes", but within one "race"; in the latter, you call the groups "races".

IMHO, inconsistent terminology is a sure sign of sloppy thinking; what did you say your IQ was?

BTW, when you do get your copy of Lynn, please present for us the "National IQ" data he uses, for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Considering that the total non-Han ("Chinese" to you, I guess) population of greater China accounts for ~6% of the total population, please use Lynn's data to give a consistent, statistically sound number for the IQ of the Han "race". Please draw our attention to any obvious, systematic trends in the data.

jerryel

Feb3-04, 11:19 PM

Mainstream Science Statement On Intelligence

Since the publication of The Bell Curve, many commentators have offered
opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific
evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are
actually firmly supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among
researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and
practical consequences of individual and group differences in
intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the
vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The
following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks,
professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other
things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think
abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from
experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or
test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability
for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of
things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests
measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms,
reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do
not measure creativity, character personality, or other important
differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all
measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require
specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and
instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple,
universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

4. The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can
be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the
"normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few
are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above
IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about
the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the
threshold for mental retardation).

5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks
or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ
scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of
race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well
can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.

6. The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little
understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural
transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the
brain, uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

Group Differences

7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level.
The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups
often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line.
The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered
somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and
Hispanics) ale centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the
bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for
different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for
whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where
above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered.

Practical Importance

9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single
measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational,
economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and
performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life
(education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social
competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness).
Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social
importance.

10. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities
require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is
often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of
course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees
failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in
our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

11. The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life
settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing,
unpredictable, or multifaceted). For example, a high IQ is generally
necessary to perform well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the
professions, management): it is a considerable advantage in moderately
complex jobs (crafts, clerical and police work); but it provides less
advantage in settings that require only routine decision making or
simple problem solving (unskilled work).

Con't.....

jerryel

Feb3-04, 11:20 PM

Con't....

12. Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor
affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs
(no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important.
When individuals have already been selected for high (or low)
intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school
(or special education), other influences on performance loom larger in
comparison.

13. Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical
capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes
essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have
narrower (or unknown) applicability or "transferability" across tasks
and settings compared with general intelligence. Some scholars choose
to refer to these other human traits as other "intelligences."

Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences

14. Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their
environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from
0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that
genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ
differences among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation
of phenotype with genotype.) If all environments were to become equal
for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining
differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin.

15. Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in
intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and
environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological
brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent
and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ
because they experience different environments within the same family.

16. That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not
affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed,
unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do
gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change
little thereafter.

17. Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences,
we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently.
Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable
scientific debate.

18. Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable
(consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenal keton uria), nor are
environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider injuries,
poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may be preventable to
some extent.

Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences

19. There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for
different racial-ethnic groups are converging. Surveys in some years
show that gaps in academic achievement have narrowed a bit for some
races, ages, school subjects and skill levels, but this picture seems
too mixed to reflect a general shift in IQ levels themselves.

20. Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the
same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade.
However, because bright youngsters learn faster than slow learners,
these same IQ differences lead to growing disparities in amount learned
as youngsters progress from grades one to 12. As large national surveys
continue to show, black 17- year-olds perform, on the average, more
like white 13-year-olds in reading, math, and science, with Hispanics
in between.

21. The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence
appear to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians or
Hispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and genetic
heredity are involved.

22. There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across
racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between
groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals
differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks
or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason
why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low
IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high
(or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that
environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that
genetics could be involved too.

23. Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still
substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds. To
illustrate, black students from prosperous families tend to score
higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher,
on average, than whites from poor families.

24. Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white
ancestors-the white admixture is about 20%, on average--and many
self-designated whites, Hispanics, and others likewise have mixed
ancestry. Because research on intelligence relies on self-
classification into distinct racial categories, as does most other
social-science research, its findings likewise relate to some unclear
mixture of social and biological distinctions among groups (no one
claims otherwise).

Implications for Social Policy

25. The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular
social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can,
however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of
pursuing those goals via different means.

* * * * * * *

The following professors-all experts in intelligence an allied
fields-have signed this statement:

Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota
Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
John B. Carroll, U.N.C. at Chapel Hill
Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii
David B. Cohen, U.T. at Austin
Rene W. Dawis, University of Minnesota
Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve U.
Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota
Hans Eysenck, University of London
Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology
Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University
Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve U.
Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University
Linda S. Gottfredsen, University of Delaware
Richard J. Haier, U.C. Irvine
Garrett Hardin, U.C. Berkeley
Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa
Joseph M. Horn, U.T. at Austin
Lloyd G. Humphreys, U.Ill. at Champaign-Urbana
John E. Hunter, Michigan State University
Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College
Douglas N. Jackson, U. of Western Ontario
James J. Jenkins, U. of South Florida
Arthur R. Jensen, U.C. Berkeley
Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama
Nadeen L. Kaufman, Cal. School of Prof. Pshch., S.D.
Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University
Nadine Lambert, U.C. Berkeley
John C. Loehlin, U.T. at Austin
David Lubinski, Iowa State University
David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota
Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine
Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota
R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia
Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburg
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A&M University
David C. Rowe, University of Arizona
J. Philippe, Rushton U. of Western Ontario
Vincent Sarich, U.C. Berkeley
Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia
Frank L. Schmidt University of Iowa
Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A&M University
James C. Sharf, George Washington University
Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
Del Theissen, U.T. at Austin
Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve U.
Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington University
Philip Anthony Vernon, U. of Western Ontario
Lee Willerman, U.T. at Austin

Nereid

Feb4-04, 03:07 AM

Jerry,

When was this statement made?

What is "The Bell Curve"? If it is a book, when was it published?

All but four of the signatories are (were?) in US universities - there are two from institutions in London, and two from the U of Western Ontario - why?

Is this statement intended to refer to "individual and group differences in intelligence" throughout the world, or just in the US?

- - - - - - - -
I note that Richard Lynn is a signatory.

Here is a quote from Lynn, from one of the links that hitssquad supplied: "Intelligence has increased considerably in many nations during the twentieth century and there is little doubt that these increases have been brought about by environmental improvements, which have themselves occurred largely as a result of increases in per capita incomes that have enabled people to give their children better nutrition, health care, education and the like."

The statements 14 through 24 seem to be mildly in conflict with the above quote; do you agree?

Nereid

Feb4-04, 04:38 AM

Nereid wrote: d) Lynn and Raven – either alone or as lead author - account for just under half the studies Lynn presents; can any PF members give an example of an active area of modern scientific research where just two principals so dominate? The period spans over 50 years. There are ~50 separate authors mentioned in the 81 studies quoted by Lynn. There are ~50 signatories to the document jerryel quoted. There are ONLY TWO names on both (and even one of those may be a coincidence) - Lynn and Gilmore. What is going on in this field???

hitssquad

Feb4-04, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
When was this statement made?
The Wall Street Journal
December 13, 1994
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Almost+all+Americans+who+identify+them selves+as+black+have+white%22

What is "The Bell Curve"?
It is a "controversial" and very popular book by Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein (who died shortly before it was published) and American Enterprise Institute economist Charles Murray. Herrnstein had previously made himself famous by being one of the "Head Start Wars" academics in the early 1970s and for writing an article (later published as a fleshed-out book of the same name) called IQ in the Meritocracy. I personally consider The Bell Curve to be part II of IQ in the Meritocracy -- sort of like Sylvester Stallone's Rambo was to his earlier First Blood -- Bigger, flashier and much more famous.
http://images.google.com/images?q=rambo

The Bell Curve presents a case for "the relationship between low cognitive ability and many variables in the g nexus, including poverty, employment and unemployment, crime, welfare dependency, illegitimacy, low-birth-weight babies, deprived home environments, and developmental problems. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY), they present simple graphs which show the relationship of each of these variables to IQ," as Arthur Jensen wrote in his 1998 The g Factor (p580).

If it is a book, when was it published?
1994.
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Murray/bc-crit.html

All but four of the signatories are (were?) in US universities - there are two from institutions in London,
In England, there is an abstract institution referred to as "the London school" of psychology, which in use generally implies the intellectual core group of the hereditarian school of psychology. It traces its roots back to Sir Francis Galton FRS, Charles Spearman, Sir Cyril Burt, and Hans Eysenck (the latest also signatory to the document we are discussing). Eysenck played mentor to Arthur Jensen (the world's most influencial hereditarian psychologist, one of the most prolific and frequently-cited scientists of all time, and also a signer to the document presently under discussion) when Jensen (an American) was doing his postdoctoral work overseas on a scholarship. Jensen kicked off the nature/nuture debate in 1969 with an article published in the Harvard Educational Review raising the heterodox question, "How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?" Immediately thereafter, the word "Jensenism" was coined by the media to refer to the hereditarian position in the "nature/nurture" debate.

Jensen followed that up in 1973 with Educability and group differences; in 1980 with his massive -- and to this day critically bulletproof -- tome Bias in Mental Testing which concluded that there is no systematic bias in IQ testing in America; and in 1998 with his magnum opus The g Factor.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

Signatory Robert Plomin, also located in London, was originally based in the United States but later moved his research operations to Britain reportedly to escape political persecution in the United States).

and two from the U of Western Ontario - why?
J. Philippe Rushton, of the U of Western Ontario, is a member -- along with Eysenck, Herrnstein (both of these first two posthumously), Rushton, Brand, Lynn, and Jensen -- of the g factor brat pack. He made himself famous in the late eighties with his work documenting consistent rank differences on over 60 variables from aboriginal sub-Saharan Africans on one end to East Asians on the other, and with Caucasians somewhere in between (though usually closer to the asians than the Africans). This work culminated in the 1996 publishing of the book Race, Evolution and Behavior.
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html

Is this statement intended to refer to "individual and group differences in intelligence" throughout the world, or just in the US?
As far as I know, Jensen, as a rule, limits his conclusions about g heritability strictly to the United States.

*edit: fixed url*

-Chris

Nereid

Feb4-04, 04:52 AM

jerryel quoted: The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation). Here are two of the datapoints in Lynn's work ("National IQ" and sample size; note that he did not do the research in either case):
South Africa 72 3,993
Ghana 62 1,639

Assuming the same normal curve, with a standard deviation that scales according to the average, the low end tail of the above studies would look something like this:
IQ below 40: 6 (South Africa); 15 (Ghana)
IQ below 50: 83 (South Africa); 161 (Ghana).

If "IQ 70-75 [is] often [...] considered the threshold for mental retardation", I would guess that 40-50 would be the threshold for severe retardation. Would people with such low IQs be able to do CPM or SPM? Would the test protocol have to be changed to administer either test to such people? What sort of sampling technique was used to ensure that such severely retarded people (if indeed they were) could be included as test subjects?

Whatever the answers, these two items taken together further suggest that there are systematic errors in Lynn's work.

Nereid

Feb4-04, 05:21 AM

Nachtwolf wrote: The minimum IQ needed to graduate from a 4 year university is 100. The average IQ of college graduates is 115, *SNIP Somewhere (I can't find it just now) hitssquad said that an IQ of 130 (97th percentile) would get you into Mensa (AFAIK, Mensa takes the top 2%, which if we take the 50 profs that jerryel quotes at their word, would be ~131; and 130 is the 97.7th percentile; mere quibbles).

Assuming the same normal curve as jerryel's 50 profs, with a standard deviation that scales according to the average, the high end tail of the total populations in Ghana and Sierra Leone (based on the respective studies quoted by Lynn) would look something like this:
IQ above 100: 6,700 (Sierra Leone); 400 (Ghana)
IQ above 130: 0 (Sierra Leone); 0 (Ghana).

I took the current populations from the US Census Dept's website (18.4m Ghana; 13.1m Sierra Leone).

According to this website (http://www.isep.org/nus/ghana/), "The University of Ghana is the largest of the four universities in Ghana and currently enrolls nearly 7,000 students." This would appear to be further prima facie evidence of systematic errors in the work used by Lynn (or that Nachtwolf has got it quite wrong).

I wonder how many pilots, surgeons, accountants, university academics, etc - people employed in positions which Nachtwolf (and hitssquad?) believe an above average IQ is an essential pre-requisite for - have parents born in Ghana or Sierra Leone?

Further, if there is just one member of Mensa in Ghana or Sierra Leone (or who is a first generation migrant in another country), we would have even more evidence of systematic errors or bias.

Just so that the point here is clear:
- in the US the IQ distribution curve is the normal Gaussian, with an SD of 15
- Lynn (or was it hitssquad?) claims that IQ measures between groups can be compared, and used without needing to be corrected for any systematic differences, whether arising from the tests themselves, the test protocols, the sampling methods, time, age distribution of the sample, or anything else.
- there is evidence that the IQ distribution curve is not Gaussian, for at least two African countries
- unless and until it can be clearly shown that this difference does not have a systematic effect on the analysis, we must regard Lynn's conclusions as tentative at best, and quite likely flawed.

Nereid

Feb4-04, 05:27 AM

"Sir Cyril Burt", part of the "the intellectual core group of the hereditarian school of psychology" ... isn't he the guy whose work on the IQ differences among twins - especially those raised apart from birth - was later shown to be almost entirely fraudulent? To what extent has that fraudulent work (if that's what it was) continued to be used (knowingly or unknowingly; directly or indirectly) in conclusions about the hereditability of intelligence?

Nereid

Feb4-04, 05:42 AM

hitssquad wrote: As far as I know, Jensen, as a rule, limits his conclusions about g heritability strictly to the United States.That's nice, but I wasn't asking about Jensen, I want to know whether the 50 profs (Jensen is just one) are referring to just the US or the whole world. If it's just the US, why should we pay any attention to what 4 people not in the US say? If it's the whole world, why are all but 4 signatories based in US institutions?

Much as I am interested in a debate about IQ differences in the US, this thread is about "the wealth of nations [...] mapped by their IQ". And, to be frank, apart from being very helpful about the population distribution of IQ about the mean (and its SD; why couldn't hitssquad have provided this info??), jerryel's lengthy post seems irrelevant to this thread.

BTW, was Raven still an active academic in 1994? If so, why didn't he sign too?

Nereid

Feb4-04, 06:16 AM

One of the datapoints Lynn uses in his analysis is his own study, of Ethiopia (1994, 250 subjects, ages 15 and 16, IQ 67; no collaborators). He does not appear to considered any systematic effects that may have contributed to such a low IQ, and has used it as a datum in reaching his conclusion about National IQ being a leading cause of per captita GDP differences.

There was a famine in Ethiopia in 1984/5; 10 years before Lynn did his work. His subjects would have been ~5 at the time of the famine. Lynn elsewhere makes it quite clear that such severe environmental factors as famine will certainly impact IQ; hitssquad and others have also quoted results showing that early childhood is a critical time.

Is Lynn being disingenuous in including a datapoint he clearly knows is anomolous? One's suspicion is heightened by reading further in Lynn's discussion; South Korea, Singapore, South Africa are called out for special attention (it's not clear that those datapoints are anomolous), yet Ethiopia is not.

A final comment: Lynn states "Intelligence has increased considerably in many nations during the twentieth century and there is little doubt that these increases have been brought about by environmental improvements, which have themselves occurred largely as a result of increases in per capita incomes that have enabled people to give their children better nutrition, health care, education and the like." Yet he uses data from many pre-1978 IQ studies (20 years before his normalised GDP per capita figures), without correcting for an effect he himself acknowledges! Further, most of the pre-1977 studies are of African children, or otherwise yeilded low IQs!!

What do other PF members think? Is there enough evidence - from Lynn's own writing - to conclude that his conclusions are seriously flawed, not least by many separate inconsistencies, and an apparent failure to address obvious systematic effects?

hitssquad

Feb4-04, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
According to this website (http://www.isep.org/nus/ghana/), "The University of Ghana is the largest of the four universities in Ghana and currently enrolls nearly 7,000 students." This would appear to be further prima facie evidence of systematic errors in the work used by Lynn (or that Nachtwolf has got it quite wrong).
How would the presence of a university in Ghana serve as prima facie evidence of systematic errors in the work used by Lynn?

I wonder how many pilots, surgeons, accountants, university academics, etc - people employed in positions which Nachtwolf (and hitssquad?) believe an above average IQ is an essential pre-requisite for - have parents born in Ghana or Sierra Leone?
If they are competitive in first world nations -- and if IQ is largely a prerequisite for successful competition in these fields in first world nations -- it would imply brain drain. If they are competitive in third world nations, we might surmise that one possibility is that they really do have low IQs and that third world nations have lower standards in these fields.

- there is evidence that the IQ distribution curve is not Gaussian, for at least two African countries
What evidence is that?

-Chris

hitssquad

Feb4-04, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
Lynn states "Intelligence has increased considerably in many nations during the twentieth century and there is little doubt that these increases have been brought about by environmental improvements, which have themselves occurred largely as a result of increases in per capita incomes that have enabled people to give their children better nutrition, health care, education and the like." Yet he uses data from many pre-1978 IQ studies (20 years before his normalised GDP per capita figures), without correcting for an effect he himself acknowledges!
If you mean the Flynn Effect, the scores are corrected for time between IQ-test standardizations. Some are corrected up. Some are corrected down.

Is there enough evidence - from Lynn's own writing - to conclude that his conclusions are seriously flawed, not least by many separate inconsistencies, and an apparent failure to address obvious systematic effects?
What evidence might there be of inconsistencies and an apparent failure to address systematic effects?

-Chris

Nereid

Feb4-04, 08:02 AM

What evidence might there be of inconsistencies and an apparent failure to address systematic effects? Please read all my recent posts on this thread: age effect, PI effect, time effect, Ethiopia, distribution of intelligence about the mean (non-Gaussian) effect (both high and low tails), even the Taiwan data (have you done the Stats-101 analysis yet?) ... I'll be happy to address each for you, once you've replied to my posts.

(I will need to read up on the 'Flynn effect' though)

selfAdjoint

Feb4-04, 09:48 AM

There is a lot of work on the various effects that compete with g. The Bell Curve did some detailed comparisons. The book the g-factor does more.

Age and g have a complex interelationship. Childhood g is less dependent on heredity than adult g is, for example. This could be the basis for the head start results where good results were obtained with children, but they didn't last into adolescence.

I am sure your mention of age is due to the thought that the subsaharan demographics are skewed to youth, so that could account for the lower g values. And that's right. As you know, I am no fan of Lynn's, and he doesn't really control at all. But that doesn't mean there aren't controlled cross-population studies out there.

Nereid

Feb4-04, 09:53 AM

How would the presence of a university in Ghana serve as prima facie evidence of systematic errors in the work used by Lynn?Lynn assumption: National IQ (Ghana) is 62, SD 9.3, population distribution of IQ about the mean is Gaussian.
Consequence of this: there CANNOT be 7,000 people in university in Ghana (unless they are predominantly not from Ghana, or the minimum IQ to study there is considerably less than 100)
Possible ways out:
a) the SD is 15 (as it is in the US). This CAN'T work, because then the 1992 study would have had to have tested ~116 people with IQs <40.
b) the population mean 1992 was higher than 62. To account for the number of uni students in Ghana, the mean would have to be at least 75 (cet par); if that were true, then there's prima facie evidence of significant error in Lynn's work
c) the distribution is non-Gaussian. The most likely explanation; however this immediately invalidates cross-country comparisons.

Evidence of significant, unexplained differences in distributions is often a strong indication that there are unaccounted for systematic errors.

BTW, your 'brain drain' idea - which I'm sure we can all accept as possible or even likely - only strengthens the evidence that there are systematic errors; Glenwwe and Jacoby's sample was 15-year olds. (It would also be another nail in the coffin for Apollo's and Nachtwolf's assertions).

Nereid

Feb4-04, 11:32 AM

SelfAdjoint wrote: [b]I am sure your mention of age is due to the thought that the subsaharan demographics are skewed to youth, so that could account for the lower g values. And that's right. As you know, I am no fan of Lynn's, and he doesn't really control at all. But that doesn't mean there aren't controlled cross-population studies out there.There are several apparent 'age' effects in the data which Lynn appears to have used (see other posts for indications that he may have been sloppy, or didn't describe his study accurately), though the effect of the age structure of the populations on his "National IQs" is one that I hadn't looked for as it would involve going outside Lynn's own data (I tried to stick with internal inconsistencies and contradictions).

Now that you've mentioned it, there would seem to be exactly this kind of bias in Lynn's work; at least from a cursory glance.

Nereid

Feb4-04, 11:43 AM

hitssquad wrote: If they are competitive in third world nations, we might surmise that one possibility is that they really do have low IQs and that third world nations have lower standards in these fields.That's why international pilots are such a good example! AFAIK, there is an international standard which all pilots must meet before they're allowed to take off from, and land at, 'international airports'. Are there others? Yes; there are all kinds of tests and barriers that professionals need to take and hurdle if they wish to work in another country. In some professions, a degree, or accreditation, from selected institutions is enough; in others, exams must be taken.

I think this 'brain drain' aspect may provide excellent ammunition against the 'sub-Saharan Africans have a mean IQ of 70' hypothesis. Perhaps jimmy p, or Njorl, can provide us with links to data on (for example) the number of African (or Indian, or Thai) surgeons practising in the UK; and Monique similar data re the Netherlands.

The key point is that IF the population distribution is Gaussian, and IF the mean is as low as 70, THEN there will be very few people with IQs above 100, and (as SelfAdjoint noted) most of those will be too young to be practicing as surgeons or international pilots. Any way you look at it, Lynn's conclusions are built on flawed analyses, flawed data (or both).

hitssquad

Feb4-04, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
One of the datapoints Lynn uses in his analysis is his own study, of Ethiopia (1994, 250 subjects, ages 15 and 16, IQ 67
Lynn used a different study in his book IQ and the Wealth of Nations:

--
Around 1989, data for a sample of 250 15-year-old Ethiopian immigrants to Israel tested with the Standard Progressive Matrices have been reported by Kaniel and Fisherman (1991). In relation to the 1979 British standardization, their mean IQ was 65. Because of the 10-year interval between the two collections of data, this need to be reduced to 63.
--
Lynn and Vanhanen. IQ and the Wealth of Nations. p204.

FYI, here are the PsycINFO hits returned by the query <ethiopian AND matrices>:

--
Author
Kaniel, Shlomo; Fisherman, Shraga.
Title
Level of performance and distribution of errors in the Progressive Matrices test: A comparison of Ethiopian immigrant and native Israeli adolescents.
Source
International Journal of Psychology. Vol 26(1) 1991, 25-33.
Taylor & Francis/Psychology Press, United Kingdom

Abstract
Compared the performance of 250 Ethiopian Jews (average age 14.7 yrs) on the Progressive Matrices test to that of 1,740 Israeli Jews (aged 9-15 yrs). The Ethiopians" level of performance was similar to that of the young Israeli children"s group (aged 9-10 yrs). Moreover, the distribution of errors found for the Ethiopian immigrant adolescents was not similar to that found for Israelis of the same age. It resembled the distribution of errors found for Israeli 9- and 10-yr-olds. It is suggested that the low performance of the Ethiopian immigrants reflects cognitive delay rather than cognitive difference.
--

--
Author
Aboud, Frances; Samuel, Mesfin; Hadera, Alem; Addus, Abdulaziz.
Title
Intellectual, social and nutritional status of children in an Ethiopian orphanage.
Source
Social Science & Medicine. Vol 33(11) 1991, 1275-1280.
Elsevier Science, US

Abstract
Assessed the intellectual, social, and nutritional well-being of 81 children (aged 5-14 yrs) at a community orphanage relative to a group of family-reared controls. On 2 tests of intellectual ability, the Progressive Matrices and a conservation test, the orphanage Ss performed as well as the family Ss. Ss who entered the orphanage at an early age scored higher than those who entered later. On social-emotional measures of self-esteem, the orphanage Ss scored higher than or similar to the controls. The orphanage Ss reported fewer interactions and weaker attachments to adults and were more likely to be stunted but not more likely to be wasted than the family Ss. The favorable status of the orphanage children can largely be attributed to the noninstitutional orphanage rather than to their pre-orphanage family life. This raises disturbing questions about family life under conditions of economic stress.
--

--
Author
Lynn, Richard.
Title
The intelligence of Ethiopian immigrant and Israeli adolescents: A comment on Kaniel and Fisherman.
Source
International Journal of Psychology. Vol 29(1) Feb 1994, 55-56.
Taylor & Francis/Psychology Press, United Kingdom

Abstract
Reports an error in the original article by S. Kaniel and S. Fisherman (International Journal of Psychology, 1991, Vol 26[1], 25-33). Table 1 of the original article gives some incorrect percentile equivalents as well as an incorrect reference for the British norms from the Progressive Matrices for 1979.
--

--
Author
Kozulin, Alex.
Title
Profiles of immigrant students' cognitive performance on Raven's Progressive Matrices.
Source
Perceptual & Motor Skills. Vol 87(3, Pt 2) Dec 1998, 1311-1314.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, US

Abstract
Four groups of 46 new immigrant students (aged 14-16 yrs) from Ethiopia in Israel participated. They were tested using the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices and received cognitive intervention in the form of the Learning Potential Assessment Device procedure. The intervention included teaching problem-solving strategies using material similar but not identical to Raven's Matrices. A profile of students' responses was estimated. The results suggest that the new immigrant students initially had a cognitive profile different from that of native Israeli students. The intervention appeared to be effective not only in improving the absolute score on the Matrices but also in changing the students' cognitive profile.
--

--
Author
Tzuriel, David; Kaufman, Ruth.
Title
Mediated learning and cognitive modifiability: Dynamic assessment of young Ethiopian immigrant children to Israel.
Source
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Vol 30(3) May 1999, 359-380.
Sage Publications, US

Abstract
Examined the relationship between mediated learning experience (MLE) and cognitive modifiability among Ethiopian immigrant children in Israel. Based on Vygotsky's (1978) zone of proximal development concept and R. Feuerstein's (1991) MLE theory, the authors explored whether the immigrant children would reveal cultural difference, but not cultural deprivation. 29 Ethiopian immigrant children (aged 6-7.6 yrs) were compared with 23 Israeli-born children (mean age 7.2 yrs) using a dynamic assessment (DA) approach. The 2 groups were tested with the Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM) (J. C. Raven, 1956), the Children's Analogical Cognitive Modifiability test (CATM) (D. Tzuriel & P. S. Klein, 1985, 1991), and the Children's Inferential Thinking Modifiability test (CITM) (D. Tzuriel, 1989, 1992b). Significant group differences were found on the CPM and on the Preteaching scores of the DA measures (CATM, CITM), indicating better cognitive ability performance of the Israeli-born comparison group. The Ethiopian immigrant children narrowed the gaps and performed at about the same level on the Postteaching and Transfer tasks after a short, but intensive teaching process.
--

There was a famine in Ethiopia in 1984/5; 10 years before Lynn did his work. His subjects would have been ~5 at the time of the famine. Lynn elsewhere makes it quite clear that such severe environmental factors as famine will certainly impact IQ;
In the first of the following studies apropos to Ethiopia and cognitive development, it was found that "early malnutrition does not have specific adverse effect beyond the contribution that it makes to enduring malnutrition over the first 2 years."

--
Author
Drewett, Robert; Wolke, Dieter; Asefa, Makonnen; Kaba, Mirgissa; Tessema, Fasil.
Title
Malnutrition and mental development: Is there a sensitive period? A nested case-control study.
Source
Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines. Vol 42(2) Feb 2001, 181-187.
Blackwell Publishers, United Kingdom

Abstract
To examine the possibility that there is an early sensitive period for the effects of malnutrition on cognitive development, 3 groups of 197 children (aged 22-24 mos) were recruited from a birth cohort with known growth characteristics in south-west Ethiopia. Early growth falterers dropped in weight below the third centile of the reference population in the first 4 months. Late growth falterers were children not in the first group whose weights were below the third centile at 10 and 12 months. All children were tested blind at 2 years using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. Mean scores (SD) on the psychomotor scale were 10.2 (3.7) in the controls, 6.6 (4.2) in the early growth falterers, and 8.5 (4.3) in the late growth falterers. For the mental scale they were 28.9 (5.8), 22.6 (6.2), and 26.6 (6.1) respectively. Both overall differences were statistically significant, and planned comparisons between the control and the combined growth faltering groups, and between the early and later growth faltering groups, showed that each difference was statistically significant for both scales. In this population, therefore, early malnutrition does not have specific adverse effect beyond the contribution that it makes to enduring malnutrition over the first 2 years.
--

--
Author
Aboud, Frances E; Alemu, Tadesse.
Title
Nutrition, maternal responsiveness and mental development of Ethiopian children.
Source
Social Science & Medicine. Vol 41(5) Sep 1995, 725-732.
Elsevier Science, US

Abstract
Examined the mental development of 40 Ethiopian children (16-42 mo old) in relation to nutritional status and mother-child interaction. The Bayley Mental Scale was used to assess the mental development, and nutritional status was measured by weight, height, and arm circumference of the Ss. Mother-child interaction was assessed through an observation of the pair in a naturalistic setting. Results show that the Ss' weight for age was significantly related to scale scores. Mother's verbal response rate to the child positively predicted the child's verbal score. In contrast, her spontaneous motor actions toward the child were negatively correlated with the child's performance score. Responsiveness of the mother was predicted by a fussing/crying child and by her expectations about the ages when specific social-cognitive abilities would be acquired. This was, however, not determined by the child's nutritional status, age or sex.
--

*edit: deleted redundant material*

-Chris

hitssquad

Feb4-04, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
I think this 'brain drain' aspect may provide excellent ammunition against the 'sub-Saharan Africans have a mean IQ of 70' hypothesis. Perhaps jimmy p, or Njorl, can provide us with links to data on (for example) the number of African (or Indian, or Thai) surgeons practising in the UK; and Monique similar data re the Netherlands.
Are you suggesting that, in spite of the adverse conditions in which they are gestated and raised, the mean IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is higher than 70?

-Chris

Nereid

Feb4-04, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by hitssquad
Are you suggesting that, in spite of the adverse conditions in which they are gestated and raised, the mean IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is higher than 70?Not directly. Rather that a) the stated results appear to contradict reality (so use of the studies to support conclusions such as Lynn's is contraindicated), b) until the source of the contradictions is identified and understood, the studies should be sent to purgatory, and c) the Jensen crowd (hereditarian intelligence) have a much weaker case than their supporters and acolytes state, at least when it comes to non-US countries (so it shouldn't have taken 7 pages of this thread to conclude that Lynn's work is flawed; we could have done it in one).

BTW, I notice that you've not responded to any of the many points I made about the internal and external flaws in Lynn's work (except for the Ethiopia data, thanks for that). May I conclude that you now accept that Lynn's work fails to support his hypothesis?

Nereid

Feb5-04, 12:46 AM

hitssquad wrote: Lynn used a different study in his book IQ and the Wealth of Nations:
--
Around 1989, data for a sample of 250 15-year-old Ethiopian immigrants to Israel tested with the Standard Progressive Matrices have been reported by Kaniel and Fisherman (1991). In relation to the 1979 British standardization, their mean IQ was 65. Because of the 10-year interval between the two collections of data, this need to be reduced to 63.
--
Lynn and Vanhanen. IQ and the Wealth of Nations. p204.

And earlier:
If you mean the Flynn Effect, the scores are corrected for time between IQ-test standardizations. Some are corrected up. Some are corrected down.

And still earlier:
5) Where are the tests and detailed test results published (not summaries)? for each of the races
For the national IQ data used in IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Lynn has the sources for 80 nations listed here...
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/articl...igence/7-a1.htm
Yet it appears that the data which Lynn used to derive his "National IQ" and real per capita GDP relationship does NOT correct the data listed in (7-a1) for the Flynn effect, nor does it use 63 for Ethiopia. This table: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t3.htm
("The Results of Regression Analysis of Real GDP Per Capita 1998 on IQ for 58 Countries") gives 67 for Ethiopia, 62 for Ghana, etc.

Earlier in this thread hitssquad quoted from Jensen as follows: "Nowadays one often reads in the popular press (and in some anthropology textbooks) that the concept of human races is a fiction (or, as one well-known anthropologist termed it, a “dangerous myth”), that races do not exist in reality, but are social constructions of politically and economically dominant groups for the purpose of maintaining their own status and power in a society. It naturally follows from this premise that, since races do not exist in any real, or biological, sense, it is meaningless even to inquire about the biological basis of any racial differences. I believe this line of argument has five main sources, none of them scientific:"

Yet as we have learned:
a) Jensen has limited himself to just the US.
b) Lynn's work (which Apollo, hitssquad and Nachtwolf quote from extensively to make their cases) is riddled with systematic errors, contradictions, and flawed analyses.

I am looking forward to being able to check the race pages hitssquad has posted; then the second half of the race-intelligence assertions will become clear (hopefully).

hitssquad

Feb5-04, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
the data which Lynn used to derive his "National IQ" does NOT correct the data listed in (7-a1) for the Flynn effect

This is from page three of the article on Lynn's website you are referring to:

---
This IQ is then adjusted for the secular rise of the IQ which has been 2 IQ points per decade for the Standard Progressive Matrices in Britain over the period 1938-1979 (Lynn and Hampson, 1986).
---
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/3.htm

"Secular rise" of IQ scores is a common way of referring to the Flynn Effect.

Since there is no documentation of the individual corrections in the online article, the IQ data in 7-a1 might be surmised to be already corrected. The methodology is clearer in the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

Nereid wrote:
hitssquad wrote
Lynn used a different study in his book IQ and the Wealth of Nations:

--
Around 1989, data for a sample of 250 15-year-old Ethiopian immigrants to Israel tested with the Standard Progressive Matrices have been reported by Kaniel and Fisherman (1991). In relation to the 1979 British standardization, their mean IQ was 65. Because of the 10-year interval between the two collections of data, this need to be reduced to 63.
--
Lynn and Vanhanen. IQ and the Wealth of Nations. p204.

nor does it use 63 for Ethiopia.
The article cited as the source for the Ethiopian IQ datum on Lynn's website is different from that in his book. However, it uses the same data set, as it is an article correcting the Kaniel and Fisherman article cited above and in the IQ and the Wealth of Nations book. I cut-and-pasted the abstract to that 1994 article of Lynn's in amother message. Here it is again:

---
Author
Lynn, Richard.

Title
The intelligence of Ethiopian immigrant and Israeli adolescents: A comment on Kaniel and Fisherman.

Source
International Journal of Psychology. Vol 29(1) Feb 1994, 55-56.
Taylor & Francis/Psychology Press, United Kingdom

Abstract
Reports an error in the original article by S. Kaniel and S. Fisherman (International Journal of Psychology, 1991, Vol 26[1], 25-33). Table 1 of the original article gives some incorrect percentile equivalents as well as an incorrect reference for the British norms from the Progressive Matrices for 1979.
---

One might surmise, since Lynn had published a correction to the Kaniel and Fisherman article in 1994, that perhaps the correct mapping of raw scores to the 1979 British standardization was still in dispute and therefore resulted in a score of 67 on Lynn's website and a score of 63 (corrected down from a British-relative score of 65 to account Flynn-effect-wise for the 10-year interval between when the samples were taken and the 1979 British standardization) in Lynn and Vanhanen's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

One might also surmise that one of the numbers may appear in its respective study as a clerical error. It's not clear who, if anyone, checked for errors in the online article. However, the book features a second author in addition to an editor and publisher (Seymour W. Itzkoff of Praeger Publishers and Praeger Publishers itself), there are many more parties who bear some responsibility for the accuracy of the contents. We might, therefore, expect the book to be the item more likely to have the accurate figure, if one and only one of them is accurate. Additionally, we might expect this since the figure 63, for the IQ of Ethiopia, appears repeatedly throughout the book IQ and te Wealth of Nations.

Earlier in this thread hitssquad quoted from Jensen

It naturally follows from this premise that, since races do not exist in any real, or biological, sense, it is meaningless even to inquire about the biological basis of any racial differences. I believe this line of argument has five main sources, none of them scientific:".

Yet as we have learned:
a) Jensen has limited himself to just the US..
This is not a categorical limitation. Jensen's Bias in Mental Testing only draws its overall conclusion of lack of bias in mental testing in terms of mental testing in the United States. Jensen's The g Factor only draws its conclusions of a 1.2 sigma difference between black and white scores and a substantial heritability both within and between races again in terms of the human population residing in United States. However, in the latter book, Jensen does take the reader with him outside of the United States to visit explanatory theories -- such as the Out of Africa theory -- for the rise of races and racial differences in IQ, to draw some insight from IQ testing experiences in various non-U.S. nations, and to establish the . The latter may be instanced by this example:

---
Spearman's Hypothesis Tested with South Africans. The very same variables and apparatuses designed to be as much like those used in the previously described study were used by Lynn and Holmshaw [58] to test Spearman's hypothesis on samples consisting of nine-year-old black schoolchildren in South Africa (N = 350) and white schoolchildren of comparable age in Britain (N = 239). The testing procedures were virtually identical to those in the American study based on children averaging about eleven years of age. Because of the difference in subjects' ages in the South African and American studies, a direct comparison on the actual time measurements of RT and MT would not be relevant here. However, the Lynn and Holmshaw study showed much the same pattern of B-W differences (in ó units) across the twelve ECT variables as was found in Jensen's American study, the main difference being in the size of the differences, which are generally much larger in the South African study. The South African blacks were markedly slower than the British whites in RT and also markedly faster in MT. But note that the same phenomenon was present in both studies; that is, whites outperformed blacks on the RT component of the task (which is correlated with g) while blacks outperformed whites on the MT component.

The greater B-W differences on the RT and RTSD components of the ECTs in the South African study is best explained by the fact that this group of South African blacks scored, on average, about 2ó below British (or South African) whites, while there is only about 1ó difference between American blacks and whites. 59 In the Lynn and Holmshaw study, the W-B difference on Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) was about 2.5ó. But we cannot be very confident of this value, because the SPM appeared to be too difficult for the African blacks. Their mean raw score on the SPM was only about three points above the chance guessing score, which casts doubt on the reliability and validity of the SPM as a measure of individual differences in g for this sample.
---
p398
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

-Chris

hitssquad

Feb6-04, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
Lynn assumption: National IQ (Ghana) is 62, SD 9.3, population distribution of IQ about the mean is Gaussian.
Consequence of this: there CANNOT be 7,000 people in university in Ghana (unless they are predominantly not from Ghana, or the minimum IQ to study there is considerably less than 100)
It would seem to be a good guess that the minimum IQ to study there is considerably less than 100. A college education is a normal thing to have for most people living in Saudi Arabia, if we can believe American newspaper accounts (apparently college is free in Saudi Arabia?), and if I recall that fact correctly. Yet Saudi Arabians as a group have average IQ even a little lower than that of American blacks. Not even all American whites can make it through college, yet somehow all (or most) Saudi Arabians can. One might imagine that Saudi Arabian colleges are not as difficult, and the corresponding degrees do not mean as much, as those in America. Certainly, since the post-WWII democratization in higher education occurred, not all colleges in America are at the same difficulty level. We have roughly four tiers of 4-year-school rankings now, plus the junior colleges below that. We might expect that as a college education becomes more of a thing associated with the American middle class, and as more Americans come to want to believe they are in the middle class, we might see more and more higher-education institutions open specifically for middle-of-the-bell-curve folks and even below that.

It can certainly be done. If someone has an IQ way down at the 14th percentile, the institution that wants to cater to him need only keep the material at a very simple level. This seems to be what they do in South Africa, where evidence indicates that the black engineering students (and normally engineering students in the first world are part of an intellectually elite group) are, as a group, just below the average in general cognitive ability for black Americans:

--
Author
Rushton, J. Philippe; Skuy, Mervyn.

Title
Performance on Raven's Matrices by African and White university students in South Africa.

Source
Intelligence. Vol 28(4) 2000, 251-265.
Elsevier/JAI Press Inc, US

Abstract
Untimed Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) were administered to 309 students (aged 17-23 yrs) at the University of the Witwatersrand and the Rand Afrikaans University in Johannesburg, South Africa (173 Africans, 136 Whites; 205 women, 104 men). African Ss solved an average of 44 of the 60 problems whereas White Ss solved an average of 54 of the problems. By the standards of the 1993 US normative sample, the African Ss scored at the 14th percentile and the White Ss scored at the 61st percentile (IQ equivalents of 84 and 104, respectively). The African-White differences were found to be greater on those items of the SPM with the highest item-total correlations, indicating a difference in g, or the general factor of intelligence. A small sex difference favoring males was found in both the African and the White samples, but unrelated to g.
--

Given that IQ can theoretically be thought of as mental age, and given that an institution could theoretically be designed to be just challenging for a small child of any age and still be able to get away with being called a university -- and further, this especially being plausible in a nation where a vastly-lower-than-typical-American IQ is considered perfectly normal to the people living there -- the existence of four universities in Ghana doesn't present as prima facie evidence that there might be something wrong with the IQ statistics coming out of that nation.

-Chris

Nereid

Feb6-04, 06:48 PM

hitssquad wrote: This is from page three of the article on Lynn's website you are referring to:
---
This IQ is then adjusted for the secular rise of the IQ which has been 2 IQ points per decade for the Standard Progressive Matrices in Britain over the period 1938-1979 (Lynn and Hampson, 1986).
---
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/3.htm"

Secular rise" of IQ scores is a common way of referring to the Flynn Effect.

Since there is no documentation of the individual corrections in the online article, the IQ data in 7-a1 might be surmised to be already corrected. The methodology is clearer in the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

but originally he (she?) wrote: 5) Where are the tests and detailed test results published (not summaries)? for each of the races[quote]
For the national IQ data used in IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Lynn has the sources for 80 nations listed here...
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/articl...igence/7-a1.htmSo, to be charitable, hitssquad has misunderstood Lynn's work, especially the data he (she?) said was the basis of the Lynn claims he (she?) appeared to take pride in asserting and repeating. I shall leave uncharitable interpretations to readers' own imaginations.

Nereid

Feb6-04, 06:52 PM

hitssquad wrote: One might also surmise that one of the numbers may appear in its respective study as a clerical error. It's not clear who, if anyone, checked for errors in the online article. However, the book features a second author in addition to an editor and publisher (Seymour W. Itzkoff of Praeger Publishers and Praeger Publishers itself), there are many more parties who bear some responsibility for the accuracy of the contents. We might, therefore, expect the book to be the item more likely to have the accurate figure, if one and only one of them is accurate. Additionally, we might expect this since the figure 63, for the IQ of Ethiopia, appears repeatedly throughout the book IQ and te Wealth of Nations.Indeed, we might.

We would then be left with the following puzzle: why did hitssquad direct us to the online material (and not the book), knowing it to be inaccurate?

Nereid

Feb6-04, 07:05 PM

hitssquad wrote, quoting Jensen (?) :*SNIP In the Lynn and Holmshaw study, the W-B difference on Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) was about 2.5ó. But we cannot be very confident of this value, because the SPM appeared to be too difficult for the African blacks. Their mean raw score on the SPM was only about three points above the chance guessing score, which casts doubt on the reliability and validity of the SPM as a measure of individual differences in g for this sample.Yet we read, from the sources which hitssquad has provides us, that the "National IQ" of the following countries have been determined by SPM tests (from the links which hitssquad has provided us; IQ determined from study - or is it "National IQ"? - in brackets)):
Ethiopia (67)
Congo (Zaire) (68)
Nigeria (69)
Guinea (70)
Zimbabwe (70)
Congo (Br) (72)
South Africa (72)
Sudan (72)
Congo (Br) (73)
Zambia (75)
Qatar (75)
...

So, despite your claims hitssquad, tests based on SPM (which Lynn used extensively, and which hitssquad and Nachtwolf stridently insisted are a neutral instrument) are neither reliable nor valid?

Nereid

Feb6-04, 07:15 PM

hitssquad wrote: It would seem to be a good guess that the minimum IQ to study there [the leading university in Ghana] is considerably less than 100. OK; then the onus is on you to use publicly available data to estimate the minimum IQ needed to get into the leading university in Ghana, and to show that it's consistent with a "National IQ" of 67. Further, as an independent test, you should compile data on the number of Ghanans who are employed as pilots by international airlines, academics in the US/EU/Japan/Australia (etc), and other professions in countries where a priori you would expect an IQ of 100 essential to be employed. Then we can calculate the expected number of such folk, based on Ghanan demographic data you will supply , and Lynn's assertion that the "National IQ" is 67.

Separately we shall expect Nachtwolf to retract his assertion about the minimum IQ necessary to get into university. To be clear about what will come next, we will use Nachtwolf's retraction to further challenge the basis for his claim that a eugenics program is the most critical thing for world civilization (I'm paraphrasing, from memory).

hitssquad

Feb7-04, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
he (she?) wrote: 5) Where are the tests and detailed test results published (not summaries)? for each of the races
For the national IQ data used in IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Lynn has the sources for 80 nations listed here...
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/articl...igence/7-a1.htm
Unfortunately, it appears that the article online at Richard Lynn's website does not use the same reference list as does Lynn and Vanhanen's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, and therefore cannot act as a surrogate for reference information for the latter. To find where are the tests and detailed test results published (not summaries), I refer you to that book's Appendix 1 and Bibliography.

Unfortunately, these items are not published online at this time. I regret any confusion this might have caused.

-Chris

hitssquad

Feb7-04, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
why did hitssquad direct us to the online material (and not the book)
Hitssquad was under the impression that the online material was an abridgement of the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations and that it contained reference data that might be sufficiently close to that of the book that it might serve scholastically-minded parties as a convenient surrogate for the latter.

Hitssquad still feels the online article can function as a convenient resource for those who would like (and who don't have time to wait for the book to arrive in the mail) a brief overview of the premises upon which the book is based, the methods, the corrections for systematic bias (corrections for IQ-test-score secular rise based on chronological directions and distances from respective IQ-test standardizations), the overall conclusions, and on what overall reasonings those conclusions are based.

That it is in fact the case that the online article can serve a useful purpose, though it does not, apparently, contain the same reference data as the book (though, the totalities of the differences remain to be investigated by the present author to his personal satisfaction) is demonstrated by the fact that many objections that are posted to this forum could have simply been answered by reading the online article wherein are presented justification for methods that otherwise might seem unscientific. There might be an objection raised, for example, to the use of African data at all, with the reasoning given that such data is necessary to make the case for the IQ and the Wealth of Nations causality hypothesis and therefore constitutes a conflict of interest for the researcher. Lynn answers:

---
to meet this point more fully we have excluded the 15 African countries and rerun the calculations. The results are that the correlation of IQ and per capita GNP 1998 falls from .706 to .625; the correlation of IQ and real GDP per capita falls from .757 to .586; the correlation of IQ and economic growth per capita GDP 1950-90 falls from .605 to .600; and the correlation of IQ and economic growth per capita GNP 1976-98 falls from .643 to .513. Thus the exclusion of the 15 African countries reduces the correlations to some degree, as would be expected with the reduction of variance in the reduced sample, but all four correlations remain substantial and statistically significant at p<.001. We are forced to conclude that the exclusion of the 15 countries of sub-Saharan Africa makes no significant difference to the associations between national IQs and economic growth.
---
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/5.htm

Scholastically-minded persons, however, are cautioned not take the online article...
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/articles.htm

...as an adequate substitute for the book...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/027597510X

...if it is of the book that they which to discuss the details.

*edit: format*

-Chris

Nereid

Feb7-04, 06:38 PM

So where does that leave this thread?

My POV:
1) when the race links which hitssquad posted take you to a real webpage, let's discuss the 'race' aspects of the claims made by folk such as Nachtwolf. To avoid a repeat of the Lynn silliness, perhaps hitssquad would like to re-state the (Jensen?) case?
2) a lot of unanswered questions about Lynn's methods etc, as summarised by hitssquad et al on PF. Maybe I'll summarise some which seem particularly sharp and see if someone from the Jensen camp will address them (no, I'm not going to buy Lynn's book)
3) explanations for the differences between countries, other than "National IQ". I'm curious as to why economic factors apparently weren't examined
4) what was the reception to Lynn's work among the hundreds of US profs who didn't sign the 1994 newspaper ad?

Nereid

Feb7-04, 10:39 PM

Nereid wrote: 3) explanations for the differences between countries, other than "National IQ". I'm curious as to why economic factors apparently weren't examined On the other thread on this topic (here in Social Sciences), SelfAdjoint gave a link which included a short technical analysis of Lynn et al's work, from an economics perspective. Volken's conclusion? "In short, the simple message is that
national IQ has neither an effect on income nor on economic growth."

Nachtwolf

Feb8-04, 01:09 AM

Hahaha!

Pray tell, why do you think he says such a fascinating thing? Especially when IQ and SES correlate for individuals, and when the correlation between per capita GDP and IQ for countries is 70%? Correlations over 50% don't just drop out of the sky.

Should we seriously believe that groups of people who are more intelligent, and therefore more educable, less likely to commit crimes, and better able to perform on the job (speaking of other threads, IQ is an excellent predictor of job performance (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12454)) are somehow no better suited to generating wealth than their less intelligent peers? Maybe not - but if not, then why not?

--Mark

Nereid

Feb8-04, 06:50 AM

Nactwolf wrote: Pray tell, why do you think he says such a fascinating thing? Because he did the analysis, from Lynn's own book.Nactwolf wrote: *SNIP and when the correlation between per capita GDP and IQ for countries is 70%? Correlations over 50% don't just drop out of the sky. Not even Lynn claimed that! ("national IQ explains 57 percent of the variance of real GDP per capita 1998 and 50 percent of the variance of GNP per capita 1998") ... and that's why we employ the scientific method to investigate assertions.

Let's look a little further at Volken's analysis (note that he made no changes to Lynn's data, merely showed that his stated conclusion didn't match the data).

Volken: "In this paper I have explored the influence of national IQ on income and growth. In contrast to Lynn and Vanhanen, I find no empirical and statistically significant support for their claim that IQ is the most relevant factor explaining cross-country variations in income and growth. In the case of income, the authors simply fail to consider the influence structure of the explanatory variables, leading them to the wrong conclusion that economic freedom and the level of democracy account for only a small amount of the variance explained."

You will recall that Lynn stated that both economic freedom and level of democracy may be important factors in accounting for differences in income and growth. What Volken did was apply unbiased regression analysis to the data (he did not assume, a priori that "National IQ" was the most important variable). AFAIK, this is a standard approach in the social sciences, widely used because we all recognise that there are many different factors which influence humans and their interactions. The curious thing is why Lynn and Vanhanen felt an explicitly biased analysis would be accepted without challenge.Nachtwolf again: Should we seriously believe that groups of people who are more intelligent, and therefore more educable, less likely to commit crimes, and better able to perform on the job (speaking of other threads, IQ is an excellent predictor of job performance) are somehow no better suited to generating wealth than their less intelligent peers? Maybe not - but if not, then why not?We should insist that all assertions be tested rigourously; we should be particularly wary of:
a) extrapolations beyond the scope of a study's data (e.g. Lynn)
b) sweeping claims of universal applicability (from limited work), e.g. Nachtwolf's repeated
c) continued confusion between relative statements ("more educable, less likely ... better able") and absolute ones.

hitssquad

Feb8-04, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
Nachtwolf wrote
and when the correlation between per capita GDP and IQ for countries is 70%?
Not even Lynn claimed that! ("national IQ explains 57 percent of the variance of real GDP per capita 1998 and 50 percent of the variance of GNP per capita 1998")
Those figures are for percents of explained variance. Lynn also claimed a correlation of .70 between per capita national income and IQ (over the period 1820 to 1998, he claimed a correlation range of .50 to .70 {IQ and the Wealth of Nation p159}).

Let's look a little further at Volken's analysis (note that he made no changes to Lynn's data, merely showed that his stated conclusion didn't match the data).
http://www.suz.unizh.ch/volken/pdfs/IQWealthNation.pdf

Actually, Volken confirmed Lynn's and Vanhanen's conclusions about size of correlations. What he took issue with was Lynn's and Vanhanen's assumption that IQ -- and not education credentials -- can be equated with human capital. Assuming this does not cause the correlations to pop up out of the data. It merely offers an explanation for them. What Volker subsequently did to get very low correlations for IQ was to introduce a factor of educational opportunity.

So Volker did the same thing that Lynn and Vanhanen did, which was to assume that a single particular factor equated with human capital. It might be shown, however, that educational opportunity is a functional effect of national IQ, and neither the other way around, nor independent of IQ. For example, would you go door to door selling air conditioners to people living in Anchorage Alaska? And does the fact that no one would do this explain why there are no air conditioners in Anchorage? Similarly, are world-leading universities going to sprout up in areas of the world where the average twenty-something adult has a mental age equivalent to that of an eleven-year-old British child?

Arthur Jensen makes the case in his book The g Factor that, throughout America at least, education is dependent upon g to the point that credentials are largely irrelevant to job performance -- and the more so the longer a person has been on the job. I.e., it tends to be that two people having just earned the same academic degree will not have learned the same amount when their levels of g are different; it tends to be that a person with no degree, but a high IQ, will nonetheless have wide-ranging knowledge of the world, even without ever having set foot in a school in his life; and a worker with lesser credentials and/or training, but a higher level of g, will ceteris paribus quickly advance beyond the skill level of the greater-trained co-worker simply by learning on the job. One may take issue with generalizing Jensen's America-restricted conclusions to the entire world, but that would be the very point -- that this generalization itself constitutes a contingency upon which Lynn and Vanhanen's argument rests. Whether it is a sustainable contingency is up to the reader to decide.

Volken restates his assumption, over and over many times throughout his essay, that humans need education to "be adequately trained in order to fulfill complex tasks" (p11); that "while IQ needs to be considered as the potential to acquire skills, human capital is the trained capacity and ability to productively use skills. And only through the use of skills can growth be achieved" (p16); and that "average IQ in a context cannot be regarded as the transmission belt which converts cognitive capacity into wealth and growth. Rather it is cognitive capacity which has been trained which enables this conversion." (p3) In fact his entire essay is about this one point, not about Lynn and Vanhanen possibily getting computations wrong.

Causality by IQ or educational opportunity, or neither, must at some point be established. Volken makes his case for educational opportunity with an emotional bludgeon. Lynn and Vanhanen make their case for IQ not only equaling education potential but also largely effecting education opportunity and outcome itself in addition to positively accounting for variance in competence in choosing non-corrupt democratic leaders, competence in business enterprise, competence in scientific enterprise, and competence in public administration based on the fact of preponderance of evidence (and of which is largely assembled for easy reference in Arthur Jensen's The g Factor).
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

Volken: "In this paper I have explored the influence of national IQ on income and growth. In contrast to Lynn and Vanhanen, I find no empirical and statistically significant support for their claim that IQ is the most relevant factor explaining cross-country variations in income and growth.
I.e., he got the same numbers, but he does not accept the evidence of The g Factor for causality of g over wide-ranging SES variables.

In the case of income, the authors simply fail to consider the influence structure of the explanatory variables,
I.e., they chose the politically-incorrect one as the most likely to be causative.

leading them to the wrong conclusion
I.e., ...leading them to the conclusion about IQ and education that Volken doesn't like.

that economic freedom and the level of democracy account for only a small amount of the variance explained."
Here Volken assumes that EF and DI -- as he assumed with educational opportunity -- are not functional effects of IQ, as opposed to the conclusion that they are, as Lynn and Vanhanen explicitly presented a case for.

You will recall that Lynn stated that both economic freedom and level of democracy may be important factors in accounting for differences in income and growth. What Volken did was apply unbiased regression analysis to the data (he did not assume, a priori that "National IQ" was the most important variable).
That is true. What Volken assumed a priori instead was that educational opportunity was the most important variable. When he plugged it in, IQ virtually disappeared as a correlative factor. This might seem like poison for the IQ-causative argument, but the very fact that IQ disappears when educational opportunity is plugged in is evidence of the power of IQ over economic consequences, on the contingency that national IQ exerts substantial causative influence on variance in educational opportunity throughout a society. And Lynn and Vanhanen's case is that IQ does exert influence over educational opportunity. A society of eleven-year-old children is not going to build universities (and even if they did, as far as we can take Jensen's The g Factor as a sufficient argument, the eleven-year-old students of that university would gain little by attending). Yet, what we have in Africa is a society -- in the bodies of adults -- of eleven-year-old children.

Further, Volken assumed a priori that established individual IQ-income correlations can be assumed to be not any more powerful in the case of nations. However, visited many times over in the history of IQ testing and social analysis is the fact that high-IQ individuals often choose the not-most financially-rewarding careers that their IQs can handle -- not-most financially-rewarding for themselves, that is. What Volken ignores is that these self-sacrificing individuals tend to go instead into the very careers that make their nations rich and powerful.

And those careers are, of course, science careers.

-Chris

Nachtwolf

Feb8-04, 08:42 PM

Those figures are for percents of explained variance. Lynn also claimed a correlation of .70 between per capita national income and IQ (over the period 1820 to 1998, he claimed a correlation range of .50 to .70 {IQ and the Wealth of Nation p159}).
Hahaha! Hey Chris, have you noticed how Nereid consistently blames us for lack of knowledge on the subject? This is priceless.

"Lynn didn't correct for the Flynn Effect, just for some 'secular trend!"

"Um, 'the secular trend' is another name for 'The Flynn Effect.'"

"You say there's a 70% correlation, but Lynn only claims that IQ explains 57% of the variance!"

"Yeah, that's because you square the correlation to get the explained variance. Go take a stats course."

But now watch! Already Nereid is whipping out a calculator and getting ready to shriek "The square root of 57% is 75%, not 70%!"

Well, that's correct; after all, Lynn actally says "It was found that national IQs are correlated at 0.757 with real GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita 1998" and I just wrote 70% to be conservative.

I can't wait to see what Nereid is going to post next!

--Mark

Nereid

Feb8-04, 09:19 PM

From the links which hitssquad posted (edits to his 2 Feb one), we may conclude:
a) this particular classification of races is L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi P. & A. Piazza's, per their 1994 book "The history and geography of human genes"
b) they do not call them races, rather 'groups within populations'
c) the "east Asian" races are (reading down the tree) Mongol, Tibetan, Korean, Japanese, Ainu, [gap], S. Chinese, Mon Khmer, Thai, Indonesian, Philippine, Malaysian
d) apart from small representations of groups such as Russian and Polynesian, the >50 ethnic groups in China ("nationalities" as they refer to themselves) are various mixtures of Mongol, Tibetan, Korean, S. Chinese, Mon Khmer (maybe), and Thai (maybe).

Assuming that Nachtwolf and Apollo remain firm in their belief that the average g/IQ of a population is entirely determined by its racial composition, and assuming that they concur with hitssquad's (actually Cavalli-Sforza et al's) list of races of the world, and assuming they are OK with my characterisation of the races living in China, then we may confidently state that Lynn's data is inconsistent with their belief. (the demonstration is left as an exercise for the reader; I had asked Nachtwolf a related question earlier - which he ignored - it's a simple exercise in arithmetic, using Stats-101 concepts).

Of course, any one of these assumptions may be incorrect ....

Also, hitssquad and Lynn's ideas aren't contradicted by Lynn's data and Cavalli-Sforza et al's race list, because they acknowledge that factors in addition to race may determine the g/IQ of a population.

Lastly, a question or three to hitssquad - why use work that is now >10 years old to define races? How do Cavalli-Sforza et al's population groups correlate with the results from the many studies into variation within the human genome? Could you please briefly summarise the research technique that Jensen used to determine a) the extent to which each of Cavalli-Sforza's population groups ('races') was a 'breeding population', and b) the fuzziness of the boundaries?

[Edit: as SelfAdjoint points out, Cavalli-Sforza didn't use the concept of 'race', so asking about how the groups he identified match hitssquad's definition of race is silly; my question should have been about Jensen, and I've edited my post accordingly]

Nereid

Feb8-04, 09:35 PM

Could someone please give us a simple summary of the steps Lynn et al used to get from the results of a test administered to x people in country y in year t to a "National IQ" figure? I'm particularly interested in the following:
- initial sample selection
- test protocol
- analysis of test results (esp distribution about the observed mean)
- key stages in analyses of data, to get to "National IQ", especially external assumptions and inputs.

It would also be interesting to know the extent to which the races used by Lynn et al in their work correspond to the Cavalli-Sforza et al list which hitssquad posted.

selfAdjoint

Feb8-04, 09:38 PM

Nereid, you should maybe look up Cavalli-Sforza yourself. He is about the most respected scientist in the world in this area of human population genetics, and his papers and books are classics. Anyone with an interest in human biology needs to know about him. As you note (I pointed it out before too) he does not use the concept of race and sticks closely to the science.

Nereid

Feb8-04, 10:14 PM

hitssquad wrote: It might be shown, however, that educational opportunity is a functional effect of national IQ, and neither the other way around, nor independent of IQ.

and

Arthur Jensen makes the case in his book The g Factor that, throughout America at least, education is dependent upon g *SNIP One may take issue with generalizing Jensen's America-restricted conclusions to the entire world, but that would be the very point -- that this generalization itself constitutes a contingency upon which Lynn and Vanhanen's argument rests. Whether it is a sustainable contingency is up to the reader to decide.Yes, some hard data would be helpful.hitssqad again: That is true. What Volken assumed a priori instead was that educational opportunity was the most important variable. When he plugged it in, IQ virtually disappeared as a correlative factor. Perhaps we don't have the same Volken paper? In the first part, Volken looks at the relative strength of three factors, assumed to be independent (i.e. an unbiased starting point), and finds: "While the total amount of variance explained by all three variables amounts to 63 percent, only 23 percent is due to the independent influence of national IQ. The remaining 40 percent, or roughly two thirds of the total variance, comes into existence due to the independent effects of economic freedom (29 percent of explained variance) and the level of democratization (11 percent of explained variance)."more hitssquad (my emphasis): This might seem like poison for the IQ-causative argument, but the very fact that IQ disappears when educational opportunity is plugged in is evidence of the power of IQ over economic consequences, on the contingency that national IQ exerts substantial causative influence on variance in educational opportunity throughout a society. And Lynn and Vanhanen's case is that IQ does exert influence over educational opportunity. A society of eleven-year-old children is not going to build universities (and even if they did, as far as we can take Jensen's The g Factor as a sufficient argument, the eleven-year-old students of that university would gain little by attending). Yet, what we have in Africa is a society -- in the bodies of adults -- of eleven-year-old children.[/b]Precisely. AFAIK - and repeated questions to hitssquad and Nachtwolf have failed to get answers - Lynn and Vanhansen did not present any research results which demonstrate that Jensen's g factor etc has absolute validity outside the US.

Volken's sin, in hitssquad's eyes, appears to be that he did not accept the universal applicability of Jensen's g factor.

Further, it is unsubstantiated assertions about the racial basis and universal applicability of Jensen's g factor - which Nachtwolf's and Apollo accept blindly - which seem to lie at the heart of Lynn and Vanhansen's case.

Nereid

Feb8-04, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Nereid, you should maybe look up Cavalli-Sforza yourself. He is about the most respected scientist in the world in this area of human population genetics, and his papers and books are classics. Anyone with an interest in human biology needs to know about him. As you note (I pointed it out before too) he does not use the concept of race and sticks closely to the science. Thanks SelfAdjoint, I will.

However my principal interest is in the other direction - to what extent did Lynn and Vanhansen use the population groups of Cavalli-Sforza in their analysis?

It would seem that Jensen didn't - AFAIK, he and his followers looked at only two groups (who calls them 'races', apart from Nachtwolf?), US 'blacks' and US 'whites', neither of which appears in Cavalli-Sforza's list (as posted by hitssquad).

hitssquad

Feb9-04, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
hitssquad wrote
on the contingency that national IQ exerts substantial causative influence on variance in educational opportunity throughout a society. And Lynn and Vanhanen's case is that IQ does exert influence over educational opportunity. A society of eleven-year-old children is not going to build universities (and even if they did, as far as we can take Jensen's The g Factor as a sufficient argument
Precisely. AFAIK - and repeated questions to hitssquad and Nachtwolf have failed to get answers - Lynn and Vanhansen did not present any research results which demonstrate that Jensen's g factor etc has absolute validity outside the US.
If they had demonstrated absolute validity, then their theory would be ipso-facto illegitimate from the standpoint of a statistical worldview. Absolute validity means that a theory fails the crucial test of falsifiability.

Volken's sin, in hitssquad's eyes, appears to be that he did not accept the universal applicability of Jensen's g factor.
Volken's conclusion rests upon a single major contingency. Lynn's and Vanhanen's conclusion rests upon a single major contingency. The question, within a statistical worldview, is which contingency is more consistent.

In a statistical worldview, picking the most consistent contingency is at first arbitrary, but later, as statistical power increases through continued tests of the contingency, becomes less arbitrary and more consistent. Picking the wrong contingency will likely (increasingly, with wider application) -- but not absolutely -- result in failure of the explanatory theory to explain empirical data.

Further, it is unsubstantiated assertions about the racial basis and universal applicability of Jensen's g factor ... which seem to lie at the heart of Lynn and Vanhansen's case.
Yes, the IQ and the Wealth of Nations theory is contingent upon generalizability of the Jensen effect of racial differences in g, and upon generalizability of the g nexus (See Chapter 14 of Jensen's The g Factor for an explanation of the g nexus).
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

It is elementary, from within a statistical worldview, that theories, in order to be legitimate, have to be falsifiable -- that is to say, have to rest upon contingencies. The Lynn-Vanhanen case rests partly upon the contingency that the Jensen effect and the g-nexus effect is established as consistent within the United States. Their case rests upon the further contingency that there is a lack of evidence of competing forces sufficient to prevent the Jensen/g-nexus effect from consistently doing outside the United States what it is already established as consistently doing within the United States.

The buoyancy effect depends upon an atmosphere. That very dependency shows us why buoyancy does not take place in deep space. The Jensen/g nexus effects that have been established as consistently operating within the United States depend upon the presence of certain environmental and cultural conditions in order to work. If they are to work outside of the United States, then there needs to be an attending lack of a veritable environmental-cultural vacuum outside of the United States. The Lynn-Vanhanen case of generalizability of the Jensen/g-factor effects rests

1. upon a lack of consistent evidence that environmental and cultural conditions sufficient to sustain the Jensen/g-nexus effects do not generally pertain throughout the populated regions of the world;

2. upon the presence of consistent evidence that sufficient co-factors do exist such as to consistently explain anomalies found when the Jensen/g-nexus theory is generalized outside of the United States;

and

3. upon the presence of consistent evidence that these co-factors do not overwhelm the explanatory power of the Jensen/g-nexus theory when it is generalized outside of the United States.

New evidence and/or more-sophisticated analyses, could, of course, disprove the IQ and the Wealth of Nations theory. But then, that falsifiablity is partially what makes it a legitimate (from within a statistical worldview) theory.

-Chris

*edit: format fixed*

hitssquad

Feb9-04, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
Perhaps we don't have the same Volken paper? In the first part, Volken looks at the relative strength of three factors, assumed to be independent (i.e. an unbiased starting point), and finds: "While the total amount of variance explained by all three variables amounts to 63 percent, only 23 percent is due to the independent influence of national IQ. The remaining 40 percent, or roughly two thirds of the total variance, comes into existence due to the independent effects of economic freedom (29 percent of explained variance) and the level of democratization (11 percent of explained variance)."
The key phrase here is "the independent effects of [EF and ID]." This calculation doesn't work the way Volken says it works unless he qualifies his methods by assuming that EF and ID are not broadly influenced by national IQ (e.g., calls EF and ID "independent effects"). A major theme in Lynn's and Vanhanen's work is that a massively broad influence of national IQ -- or anything else -- will not be visible unless factors that might otherwise be assumed to be independent are put to the test as possibly non-independent factors. So, again, the Lynn/Vanhanen thesis is contingent upon the g-nexus effect generalizing from within the United States to outside the United States and therefore contributing broadly to variance in social factors outside the United States. And the fact that Volken takes issue with the generalizability of the g-nexus is not contested. Volken clearly takes issue with it -- as instanced by his assumption above of independence of factors -- and that one thing is the major point of his paper.

Volken's conclusion of "only 23 percent is due to the independent influence of national IQ" is a qualified conclusion. It would be like assuming that the 130-point average IQ of lawyers is largely independent of their positions as lawyers and therefore explains very little -- perhaps in the way of their lifestyle prudence or their investment savvy -- in terms of their incomes, when in fact factor analysis shows that lawyers do not become lawyers in the first place unless their IQs are high enough to allow them to pass the barrister's exams. Again, Volken is simply saying he takes issue with the generalizability of the g-nexus as a force of broad influence upon other factors such as EF and ID. He even states, point blank, his bias at the end of the section quoted above with the loaded phrase neglects the influence structure: "The conclusion of Lynn/Vanhanen ... is therefore fundamentally wrong, since it completely neglects the influence structure of the variables involved."

What is wrong with what Volken is saying here is that just because it is a demonstrable fact that factors can be rotated -- and, yes, they always can be rotated, depending upon the whim of the researcher or his assumption of direction of influence ("influence structure" in Volken's lexiphanicism) -- in such ways so as to make general factors appear very small, neither ipso-facto makes general factors irrelevant in specific cases, nor in general. If that were the case, then at some times a given factor would be relevant and at other times it wouldn't, depending upon who performed the latest factor rotation and why. But that is not the case. General factors are relevant to the degree that they can be maximized by factor rotation, and there is only one number (give or take a few thousandths of a degree of coefficient of congruence) in any given data set that can result when this is done. IOW, general factors are always there. You oftentimes must rotate the factors, however, in order to mathematically see them.

Jensen explains factor rotation in The g Factor.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

---
HOW INVARIANT IS g ACROSS DIFFERENT METHODS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS?

This is one of the crucially important questions in our present inquiry. Obviously the simplest way to answer it is to simulate a variety of correlation matrices that are similar to those found for actual mental test data but for which we already know the true factor structure exactly, and then see how accurately different factor analytic models and methods can estimate 7 the "true" factors known to exist in these artificial matrices.

This is just what I did, in collaboration with Dr. Li-Jen Weng, at that time a postdoctoral research scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, and a specialist in factor analysis and mathematical statistics....

Of course, we used no type of factor analysis that is expressly designed to preclude the appearance of a general factor (such as orthogonal rotation of the primary factors). We were concerned here exclusively with the amount of variation in the g factor when it is extracted by the various methods most commonly described in modern textbooks of factor analysis....

The result of this analysis was that every one of the methods of factor analysis estimated the true g so closely that there was hardly any basis for choosing between them. The congruence coefficients between the true g factor and the g factor obtained by the various methods ranged from +997 to +.999, with an average of +.998. This is especially remarkable because some of the artificial matrices were specifically designed to "trick" particular methods into yielding estimates that would deviate markedly from the true values, for example by simulating tests of highly mixed factor composition (e.g., each test having substantial loadings on all of the primary factors)....
---
(The g Factor. p81-82)

---
This orthogonal simple structure model, it turns out, has proved inappropriate in the abilities domain, and in fact Thurstone (1931) himself early on used oblique rotation of the factor axes to achieve the best possible approximation to simple structure. (Oblique factors are correlated with each other.) He only subsequently advanced orthogonal rotation to avoid some of the complications associated with oblique rotation. But it was apparent that, in the abilities domain, a good fit of the data to a simple structure model could not be achieved with orthogonal rotation, because a general factor permeates all of the primary abilities. Orthogonal rotation would achieve simple structure only if Thurstone's original theory were true. (That is the theory that mental ability consists of a number of distinct, uncorrelated abilities represented by the primary factors, and that there is no general factor in the abilities domain.) But that theory has long since been proven false. Thurstone assiduously attempted to devise tests that would provide factor-pure measures of what he called the primary mental abilities revealed by his method of multiple factor analysis. 3 But it proved impossible to devise a test that was a pure measure of any primary factor.
---
(The g Factor. p76-77)

We might note that this second instance is analogous to the Volken instance. Substitute mental ability in the above with sociological outcome, and abilities with sociological factors and we have, "That is the theory that sociological outcome consists of a number of distinct, uncorrelated sociological factors represented by the primary factors, and that there is no general factor in the sociological factors domain."

---
Any form of factor analysis that allows the extraction of a general factor has no trouble finding a very robust g in any sizable collection of Guilford's tests despite their assignment to distinct cells of the SOI. Guilford nonetheless argued that the 150 cells were orthogonal, or uncorrelated, primary factors. His empirical demonstration of so many orthogonal factors, however, relied on a technique known as targeted orthogonal rotation. Aptly named Procrustes, this method literally forces tests that were specifically selected or designed to measure the
SOI abilities to have significant loadings only on particular factors, the number and definitions of which are predetermined by the SOI model. This cannot be accepted as evidence that the 150 abilities in different cells of the SOI are not intercorrelated, since Guilford's Procrustes method of orthogonal rotation foreordains uncorrelated factors. In brief, Guilford simply assumed a priori that g does not exist, and he eschewed any type of factor analysis that would allow g to appear.
---
(The g Factor. p117)

This third instance is, again, analogous to what Volken did in his respective factor analysis of sociological factors, especially the last sentence wherein it might be instructive to simply replace Guilford's name with Volken's.

In brief, Volken simply assumed a priori that g does not exist, and he eschewed any type of factor analysis that would allow g to appear.

-Chris

selfAdjoint

Feb9-04, 03:05 PM

Jensen's absolutely correct strictures against captious rotations have nothing to do with the selection of an explanatory model. We are not then explaining the same data by some labored trick, but rather introducing new data. Or at least unconsidered data.

There is an established procedure for establishing how much influence each of several correlates contribute, and IMHO Volken has applied it. If he had more data he could perhaps do what Herrnstein did in the Bell Curve and control for the variables separately. But his procedure here is not just obfuscation, as Gardner's was, but good statistics.

hitssquad

Feb9-04, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
We are not then explaining the same data by some labored trick, but rather introducing new data. Or at least unconsidered data.
Whether or not the Volken-introduced data should be considered as appropriate in this particular causal model is the whole point. Volken says over and over again that:

educational attainment and the education completed are not determined by IQ alone. Instead they are heavily dependent on motivation and the opportunity structure.
http://www.suz.unizh.ch/volken/pdfs/IQWealthNation.pdf
(p11)

His thesis is that opportunity structure overall, and educational opportunity in particular, is more of a factor and less of an effect. In order to be able to legitimately add educational opportunity to the Lynn/Vanhanen analysis, he has to make this case that educational opportunity is more of a factor, because by testing for any highly-loaded effect of a major factor (such as national IQ is aaumed by Lynn and Vanhanen to be), you can make that major factor appear to disappear as a causal agent -- to the degree that the effect is loaded on that major factor. The only thing Volken really accomplished was to demonstrate that IQ and educational opportunity are highly correlated. Since this very assertion of IQ/opportunity-structure linkage was itself part of Lynn and Vanhanen's thesis, Volken has brought nothing new to the table except multiple arguments about why national-IQ might not educational opportunity.

Throughout his essay Volken consistently and repeatedly commits the equivocation fallacy by equivocating national-IQ effects on education attainment with individual effects on education attainment. These two things are not necessarily equivocable because a nation providing or not providing education structure for an individual with a given IQ might make a large difference whether that person actually attains education. But to back up his decision to assume educational opportunity is an independent factor and therefore OK to include as an effector in an analysis of effects on national SES that includes IQ, Volken cites studies of documenting the influence of IQ on individuals' education attainment:

Sauer and Gattringer (1985) find that variations in educational attainment are equally determined by the child's cognitive capacity and the parent's educational aspiration for the child.
(p11)

In addition, and appropos to the last part of the above excerpt, parents' educational aspirations for the child may vary by variance in both or either the parents' IQ and the community's IQ. This is a negative contingency upon which Volken's analysis rests. Volken's calculations do not by themselves carry his case of low influence of national IQ, and Volken has to show that this assumption of his is consistent in order to justify his inclusion of educational opportunity as a factor, rather than as an effect.

And Bornschier (1988) is able to 11 demonstrate fundamental shifts in the educational opportunity structure, which promoted mass education and increasing levels of schooling.
(p11)

Variance in this educational opportunity structure may itself be largely effected by variance in national IQ. In fact, the Lynn and Vanhanen thesis rests partly upon the contingency that this is so. Therefore, Volken's thesis rests partly upon the opposite contingency that variance in IQ does not have a larger effect on educational opportunity than educational opportunity has on national income.

Volken has to show this in order to substantiate his decision to use in his analysis educational opportunity as an independent variable and not an effect. His calculations are not sufficient to justify inclusion in them of what may be a highly correlated effect of one of the major causal factors. To justify this decision, Volken uses arguments such as:

The latter is especially important, since high levels of IQ are by no means sufficient to unleash economically productive potentials. People must be adequately trained in order to fulfill complex tasks. Thus the presence of an educational system, which acts as an opportunity structure for individuals, is a necessary condition for economic development and growth. Only then can the potential of high IQ be transformed into human capital.

These are simply unsubtantiated assertions, and they fly in the face of the opposite conclusions of minimal importance to economic production of education credentials compared with IQ reached in Arthur Jensen's The g Factor.

---
Residual Validity of Amount of Education. Some employers use number of years of education or other educational credentials as a basis for selecting workers. These measures are usually valid predictors, though seldom as valid as tests of general ability, except for a specialized job where specific educational qualifications are intrinsic and essential. Educational credentials derive almost all of their predictive validity from their substantial correlation with g.
---
(p291)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

---
Lloyd Humphreys [10a] coined the term inadequate learning syndrome (ILS) to describe deficits in basic intellectual skills and information. He believes ILS is a social epidemic "as serious in its way as the AIDS epidemic." ILS is primarily a result of an insufficient level of g and is seen in the presence of adequate educational opportunity. This is what makes ILS so visible. The adverse consequence of ILS in the nation's work force is not a result of any marked change in the total population distribution of g. It is a product of the increasing demand for formal educational credentials in today's job market. As such credentials and diplomas have become spread over a greatly increased range of individual differences in actual educational achievements and qualifications, many employers have found today's high school diploma, or even a college degree, of little value
---
(p555)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

So, as I said before, what we are ultimately left with is a contingency on the Lynn/Vanhanen side that the Jensen/g-nexus effects can be generalized beyond the borders of the United States, and on Volken's side that they cannot. Lynn/Vanhanen's is the g-nexus side, and Volken's is the credentialism side. Volken has to make his case for credentialism weilding substantial economic power outside the United States, though it has already been shown not to wield substantial economic power within the United States, or his paper, for being inconsistent, is disqualified as potentially sustainable.

-Chris

Nereid

Feb10-04, 03:04 AM

Nachtwolf: "Lynn didn't correct for the Flynn Effect, just for some 'secular trend!"
"Um, 'the secular trend' is another name for 'The Flynn Effect.'" So the Flynn effect is the only secular trend? All observed secular trends are 'the Flynn effect'? Any new secular trend discovered will also be the Flynn effect?Nachtwolf: I just wrote 70% to be conservative.So, just like hitssquad, you occasionally mis-state something; I'll try to keep that in mind.Nachtwolf: I can't wait to see what Nereid is going to post next!No gold stars for Mark's performance in class today - she'll probably keep banging on about all the questions she posted on their own assertions which hitssquad (and Nachtwolf) have yet to answer, and follow through on flaws, inconsistencies, and irrelevancies in hitssquad's (and Nachtwolf's) proposals - i.e. more places where Nachtwolf is wrong (again), irrelevant (again), or makes unsubstantiated claims dressed up as 'facts' (again).

Nereid

Feb10-04, 04:26 AM

hitssquad wrote: The Jensen/g nexus effects that have been established as consistently operating within the United States depend upon the presence of certain environmental and cultural conditions in order to work. If they are to work outside of the United States, then there needs to be an attending lack of a veritable environmental-cultural vacuum outside of the United States. The Lynn-Vanhanen case of generalizability of the Jensen/g-factor effects rests

1. upon a lack of consistent evidence that environmental and cultural conditions sufficient to sustain the Jensen/g-nexus effects do not generally pertain throughout the populated regions of the world;

2. upon the presence of consistent evidence that sufficient co-factors do exist such as to consistently explain anomalies found when the Jensen/g-nexus theory is generalized outside of the United States;

and

3. upon the presence of consistent evidence that these co-factors do not overwhelm the explanatory power of the Jensen/g-nexus theory when it is generalized outside of the United States.

New evidence and/or more-sophisticated analyses, could, of course, disprove the IQ and the Wealth of Nations theory. But then, that falsifiablity is partially what makes it a legitimate (from within a statistical worldview) theory.hitssquad's summary speaks to accounting for Lynn and Vanhansen's results with explanations other than Jensen's g-nexus theory.

A simpler approach to determining its generalisability would be to first see if the L+V results themselves are consistent with Jensen's idea.

It would appear that Lynn and Vanhansen's work falsifies the Jensen idea. How?

First, an over-simplified summary of Jensen: in the US, blacks and whites have different mean IQs; the mean IQ difference is due to the different genetic makeup of blacks and whites.

Next, Jensen's own generalisation, also likely oversimplified: the mean IQ of any group is simply the weighted mean of the mean IQs of the races which comprise the group.

Third, the races of the world are the population groups identified by Cavalli-Sforza (Jensen again, also over-simplified).

Fourth, genetic distance between the races is well illustrated by the Cavalli-Sforza 2D 1st vs 2nd PC diagram (is this also Jensen? or just hitssquad?).

Conclusions consistent with the four points above:
1) the mean IQs of groups of sub-Saharan Africans will be very similar, if not the same. Why? They're all blacks, and the constituent population groups are tightly clustered.
2) the mean IQs of groups of 'Chinese' will be very similar, if not the same. Why? All 'Chinese' belong to a single population group
3) the mean IQs of groups of Europeans will very similar, if not the same. Why? They're overwhelmingly whites, and the constituent population groups are tightly clustered.

Accepting for the moment Lynn and Vanhansen's "National IQs", we see that:
1) the mean IQs are not similar; they range from 62 to 78
2) the mean IQs are not similar; they range from 98 to 110
3) the mean IQs are not similar; they range from 87 (84 including Iran) to 105.
Further, Lynn and Vanhansen claim there's little 'noise' in their data (although they don't seem to have given figures for relative or absolute accuracy); +/- 2 would seem reasonable.

Conclusion: data inconsistent with hypothesis; hypothesis falsified.

hitssquad

Feb10-04, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
Flynn effect is the only secular trend?
No. The Flynn effect is the secular trend of rising population IQ-test scores over time, or "the increase in raw scores on various IQ tests in many populations over the last sixty years or so," as Jensen says below.

---
THE SECULAR INCREASE IN IQ

One of the most puzzling phenomena is the increase in raw scores on various IQ tests in many populations over the last sixty years or so. This phenomenon has been under investigation since the mid-1980s. Most of the evidence for the upward trend comes from the many past studies where various tests that were originally normed at one time on a representative population sample were renormed many years later on a different, but supposedly equivalent, population sample.

This upward trend in the population's mean test scores has been aptly dubbed the "Flynn effect," after James R. Flynn, a professor of political science at the Otago University in New Zealand, who was responsible for amassing most of the evidence for what he has referred to as "massive IQ gains."[ 11 ] The bulk of this evidence comes from the period between 1930 and 1980.

Before summarizing this evidence, it should be noted that when a test is normed or renormed, the IQ (which is a standardized score) is always scaled such that the population mean is 100 and the standard deviation is fifteen. Population trends in actual test performance, as indicated by raw scores (number right), therefore, are not reflected by the IQ, except to some degree as the trend proceeds between the original norming and the renorming of the same test. Actual gains in test performance over long periods are adequately measured only by raw scores.

In measuring these raw-score gains two problems must be considered: (1) The change in raw scores must be demonstrated on the identical test administered on both occasions. Changes in test items (e.g., dropping some old items and substituting new ones) may alter the overall difficulty level of the test, causing a spurious rise (or fall) in the mean raw score of the more recently tested sample; (2) a much more problematic condition in renorming tests (or in comparing the same test on different samples that were tested at widely separated times) is the assumption that the two norm samples are truly equivalent. A number of factors militate against obtaining equivalent and representative samples of a population. The most obvious are population changes over decades or generations, due to changing demographics, such as birth rates in different socioeconomic segments of the population, rates of immigration and emigration, regional changes in the types of employment available, and the like.

Although the supposed equivalence of samples taken at different times is often open to doubt, changing demographics should not cause changes in test scores that are consistently in one direction for every test in every study conducted with many different population samples. Flynn's compilations of changes in test scores over decades and generations were drawn from fifteen economically advanced nations in North America, Europe, and Asia. In addition, since the publication of Flynn's major reviews, other investigators have reported highly similar results based on data from other countries and on tests not included in Flynn's reviews. The overwhelming consistency of virtually all of the data with respect to the direction of the trend in test scores leaves little doubt of the reality of the "Flynn effect." Whatever inconsistencies exist are all in the details.

11. Flynn, 1984, 1987a, 1994.

Flynn J. R. ( 1980). Race, IQ and Jensen. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Flynn J. R. ( 1984). "The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978". Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51.

Flynn J. R. ( 1987a). "Massive gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure". Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171-191.

Flynn J. R. ( 1987b). Race and IQ: Jensen's case refuted. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Arthur Jensen: Consensus and controversy (pp. 221-232). New York: Falmer.

Flynn J. R. ( 1987c). "The ontology of intelligence". In J. Forge (Ed.), Measurement, realism and objectivity (pp. 1-40). New York: D. Reidel.

Flynn J. R. ( 1990). "Massive IQ gains on the Scottish WISC: Evidence against Brand et al.'s hypothesis". Irish Journal of Psychology, 11, 41-51.

Flynn J. R. ( 1991). Asian Americans: Achievement beyond IQ. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flynn J. R. ( 1993). "Skodak and Skeels: The inflated mother-child gap". Intelligence, 17, 557-561.

Flynn J. R. ( 1994). "IQ gains over time". In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 617-623). New York: Macmillan.

Flynn J. R. ( 1996). "What environmental factors affect intelligence: The relevance of IQ gains over time"
---
(AR Jensen. The g Factor. p318-319.)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

-Chris

Nereid

Feb10-04, 09:28 PM

This website has nice pop-up tables, in bite-sized chunks, suitable for toy researchers and others:
http://www.carleton.ca/cifp/rank.htm

One of the tables you can pull up is the 'urbanisation rank score' of ~180 countries, which is a handy little demographic indicator of the extent to which a country's population is concentrated in urban centres.

If you do a simple regression analysis of these rank scores against the real per capita GDP which L+V used, you find there's a nice correlation, of ~73%. Now as Nachtwolf has so kindly informed us, "Correlations over 50% don't just drop out of the sky". If you then wonder how much variation is left over for L+V's "National IQ", well some, but not much; it has a ~38% correlation. (I didn't run a multiple regression analysis). And this is only a rank score! (mostly integers, ranging from 1 to 9) Imagine if there were some more nuanced metric.

And the outliers? Well, the US and Iraq - the former is too wealthy for its urbanisation rank score of 8, and Iraq is far too poor. Interestingly, South Korea isn't really exceptional this time, and Singapore's and Hong Kong's smarts are all down to them being all city.

So, what can we conclude? That as a country becomes more urbanised its "National IQ" rises? Well, gee whizz, that sounds like it might explain the Flynn effect too [;)]

Seriously folks, how many other high-correlation, non-IQ factors are lurking out there? Maybe geography and economics are all you need. [:D]

hitssquad

Feb10-04, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
a) this particular classification of races is L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi P. & A. Piazza's, per their 1994 book "The history and geography of human genes"

c) the "east Asian" races are (reading down the tree) Mongol, Tibetan, Korean, Japanese, Ainu, [gap], S. Chinese, Mon Khmer, Thai, Indonesian, Philippine, Malaysian
No. Generally, there is a distinction drawn between Northeast Asians (mongoloids; Han) such as Han Chinese, Korean and Japanese and South Asians/Pacific Islanders such as Thai and Philippine. As can be seen on the genetic linkage tree, caucasians are more-closely related to Northeast Asians than Northeast Asians are related to South Asians/Pacific Islanders.

--

|---------------------San (Bushmen)
__________________________| |----------------Mbuti Pygmy
| |____| __|---Bantu
| | | |---Nilotic
| | |------W. African
| |----------------Ethiopian
|
| |------------S.E. Indian
| |-----------| |----------Lapp
| | |-||---------Berber, N. African
| | | |-------Sardinian
| | |_||------Indian
| | ||
| | || _|---S.W. Asian
| | ¯|| |_|-Iranian
| ____| -| |-Greek
| | | |-|---Basque
| | | ¯|--Italian
| | | ¯|-Danish
| | | |-English
| | |
| | | _____|-----Samoyed
| |----| | | |-----Mongol
| | | | |----| __|------Tibetan
| | | | | | | |__|---Korean
| | | | | |-| |---Japanese
| | | | |----| |---------Ainu
| | | | | |
|-------------| | | | |--|-------------N. Turkic
| | | | |____|--------Eskimo
| | | | |--------Chukchi
| | |--| __|--S. Amerind
| | | |----| |--C. Amerind
| | |----------| |-----N. Amerind
| | |----------N.W. American
| |
| | _____|-----S. Chinese
| | _| |__|--Mon Khmer
| | | | |--Thai
| | _____| |_|---------Indonesian
| | | | |---------Philippine
| |---------| |-------------Malaysian
| |___|---------------Polynesian
| |__|------------Micronesian
| |------------Melanesian
|________|-------------------------New Guinian
| |-------------------------Australian

--
http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hitssquad/album?.dir=/ee6c

d) apart from small representations of groups such as Russian and Polynesian, the >50 ethnic groups in China ("nationalities" as they refer to themselves) are various mixtures of Mongol, Tibetan, Korean, S. Chinese, Mon Khmer (maybe), and Thai (maybe).
China's population is mostly Han, especially in the Northeast. This site says China is 92% Han:
http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/nationality/

And reiterates that non-Han Chinese do not tend to live in the Northeast:

--
Minority Ethnic Groups

Most of these 7 percent live in the vast areas of the West, Southwest and Northwest.
--

How do Cavalli-Sforza et al's population groups correlate with the results from the many studies into variation within the human genome?
Jensen says Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994) is "so highly correlated" with Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) "as to be virtually equivalent for most purposes."

Could you please briefly summarise the research technique that Jensen used to determine a) the extent to which each of Cavalli-Sforza's population groups ('races') was a 'breeding population'
AFAIK, Jensen did not confirm that they were actually having sex. He did confirm Cavalli-Sforza's results of analysis of distributions of genetic markers, and his results were...

--
(1) Mongoloids, (2) Caucasoids, (3) South Asians and Pacific Islanders, (4) Negroids, (5) North and South Amerindians and Eskimos, (6) aboriginal Australians and Papuan New Guineans.
--
(p518)

...which are essentially the same as Cavalli-Sforza's results:
http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hitssquad/detail?.dir=/ee6c&.dnm=25d6.jpg

fuzziness of the boundaries?
IIRC Jensen did not quantify the fuzziness of the boundaries. He did, however, quantify population mean variances. He did this by computing the variance ratio of the population's phenotypic characteristics, which is the variance in phenotypic characteristics between populations divided by the variance in characteristics within populations:

--
4. One often hears it said that the genetic differences within racial groups (defined as statistically different breeding populations) is much greater than the differences between racial groups. This is true, however, only if one is comparing the range of individual differences on a given characteristic (or on a number of characteristics) within each population with the range of the differences that exist between the means of each of the separate populations on the given characteristic. In fact, if the differences between the means of the various populations were not larger than the mean difference between individuals within each population, it would be impossible to distinguish different populations statistically. Thinking statistically in terms of the analysis of variance, if we obtained a very large random sample of the world's population and computed the total variance (i.e., the total sum of squares based on individuals) of a given genetic character, we would find that about 85 percent of the total genetic variance exists within the several major racial populations and 15 percent exists between these populations. But when we then divide the sum of squares (SS) between populations by its degrees of freedom to obtain the mean square (MS) and we do the same for the sum of squares within populations, the ratio of the two mean squares, i.e., Between MS/Within MS, (known as the variance ratio, or F ratio, named for its inventor, R. A. Fisher) would be an extremely large value and, of course, would be highly significant statistically, thus confirming the population differences as an objective reality.
--
(p516-517)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

Here are some of the phenotypic characteristics he used to quantify population mean variances:

--
5. Among the genetically conditioned physical differences in central tendency, nearly all attributable to natural selection, that exist between various contemporary breeding populations in the world are: pigmentation of skin, hair, and eyes, body size and proportions, endocranial capacity, brain size, cephalic index (100 × head-width/head-length), number of vertebrae and many other skeletal features, bone density, hair form and distribution, size and shape of genitalia and breasts, testosterone level, various facial features, interpupillary distance, visual and auditory acuity, color blindness, myopia (nearsightedness), number and shape of teeth, fissural patterns on the surfaces of teeth, age at eruption of permanent teeth, consistency of ear wax, blood groups, blood pressure, basal metabolic rate, finger and palm prints, number and distribution of sweat glands, galvanic skin resistance, body odor, body temperature, heat and cold tolerance, length of gestation period, male/female birth ratio, frequency of dizygotic twin births, degree of physical maturity at birth, physical maturation rate, rate of development of alpha (brain) waves in infancy, congenital anomalies, milk intolerance (after childhood), chronic and genetic diseases, resistance to infectious diseases ( Baker, 1974; Harrison et al., 1964; Rushton, 1995). Modern medicine has recognized the importance of racial differences in many physical characteristics and in susceptibilities to various diseases, chronic disorders, birth defects, and the effective dosage for specific drugs. There are textbooks that deal entirely with the implications of racial differences for medical practice ( Lin et al., 1993; Nesse & Williams, 1994; Polednak, 1989). Forensic pathologists also make extensive use of racial characteristics for identifying skeletal remains, body parts, hair, blood stains, etc.
--
(p517)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

[Edit: as SelfAdjoint points out, Cavalli-Sforza didn't use the concept of 'race', so asking about how the groups he identified match hitssquad's definition of race is silly
Using a word and using a concept are different things. Cavalli-Sforza used the concept of race.

-Chris

Nereid

Feb10-04, 10:37 PM

hitssquad: Generally, there is a distinction drawn between Northeast Asians (mongoloids; Han) such as Han Chinese, Korean and Japanese and South Asians/Pacific Islanders such as Thai and Philippine. As can be seen on the genetic linkage tree, caucasians are more-closely related to Northeast Asians than Northeast Asians are related to South Asians/Pacific Islanders.I'm having trouble finding 'Han Chinese' in the diagram; the NE Asians are Samoyed (who live primarily in Russian's far east?), Mongol, Tibetan (there are a lot of both groups in China's west and north-west, particularly the Tibetan Autonomous Region, the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, and Qinghai), Korean (some of whom live in China's north east), Japanese, and Ainu (who are a repressed minority in Japan?). The few hundred 'Russians' in China tend to live in the northeast, esp in Harbin.

As the travel guide says, the Zhuang are the biggest non-Han group, and they have their own Autonomous Region too - Guangxi, which is next door to Guangdong, whose capital used to be called Canton (now Guangzhou).hitssquad: Jensen says Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994) is "so highly correlated" with Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) "as to be virtually equivalent for most purposes." Curious that the biggest single population group by far on this planet isn't in C-S's diagram (at least, I can't see it). But then, Burma/Myanmar also has >50 ethnic groups, and since C-S's diagram has only 42 groups in total, I guess there's plenty of work for young PhDs.

AFAIK, detailed studies of variation in the human genome are being undertaken with a view to being able to more confidently prescribe medicines and get a 'heads up' on possible side-effects (among other things), e.g. the studies being funded/coordinated by the Wellcome Trust. The early results have been quite interesting, and produced not a few surprises (it would seem there's been an awful lot more inter-breeding going on than Jensen et al had supposed), and exploded many a myth (e.g. lactose intolerance of Han Chinese; guess which large market for yoghurt products is growing the fastest?). Maybe the g-nexus ideas too will be shown to be hopelessly simplistic before long?

hitssquad

Feb10-04, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
how many other high-correlation, non-IQ factors are lurking out there?
The entire g nexus.

And I already answered this, in another way, here:
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=144471#post144471

In addition, Lynn answered it, here:

--
It has been pointed out that correlation analysis does not establish causality because of the fact that correlations merely measure covariation. Let us consider what causality presupposes. Manheim and Rich (1986: 21-22) say that it is justified to postulate causal relationships only when four conditions are simultaneously met: First, the postulated cause and effect must change together, or covary. Second, the cause must precede the effect. Third, we must be able to identify a causal linkage between the supposed cause and effect. Fourth, the covariance of the cause and effect phenomena must not be due to their simultaneous relationship to some other third factor. We think that the relationship between national IQ and the measures of per capita income and economic growth meets these requirements quite well. First, correlations indicate that the postulated cause and effect change together. Second, because differences in national IQs are partly genetic, they have certainly preceded contemporary differences in economic conditions. Third, the causal linkage between the hypothesized cause and effect will be discussed and explained in the next section. Fourth, it is highly improbable that the observed covariance between cause and effect could be due to any third factor. This last requirement will be discussed in greater detail in the next section. Consequently, we are quite confident that the relationship is causal.

--
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/5.htm

--
There are two reasons why we consider that a causal effect of national IQ on per capita incomes and rates of economic growth is the most reasonable theory to explain the correlations. First, this theory is a corollary of an already established body of theory and data showing that IQ is a determinant of income among individuals, the evidence for which has been reviewed in the introduction. IQs measured in childhood are strong predictors of IQs in adolescence and these are predictors of earnings in adulthood. The most reasonable interpretation of these associations is that IQ is a determinant of earnings. From this it follows that groups with high IQs would have higher average incomes than groups with low IQs because groups are aggregates of individuals. This prediction has already been confirmed in the studies of the positive relationship between IQs and per capita incomes among the American states and among the regions of the British Isles, France and Spain, as noted in the introduction. The positive relation between IQ and income is so well established that it can be designated a law, of which the finding that national IQs are positively related to national per capita incomes is a further instance.

Second, there is a straightforward explanation for the positive association between IQ and incomes at both the individual and population level. The major reason for this association is that people with high IQs can acquire complex skills that command high earnings and that cannot be acquired by those with low IQs. Nations whose populations have high IQs tend to have efficient economies at all levels from top and middle management through skilled and semi-skilled workers. These nations are able to produce competitively goods and services for which there is a strong international demand and for which there is therefore a high value, and that cannot be produced by nations whose populations have low IQs. In addition, nations whose populations have high IQs will have intelligent and efficient personnel in services and public sector employment that contributes indirectly to the strength of the economy such as teachers, doctors, scientists and a variety of public servants responsible for the running of telephones, railroads, electricity supplies and other public utilities. Finally, nations whose populations have high IQs are likely to have intelligent political leaders who manage their economies effectively. Skilled economic management is required to produce the right conditions for economic growth, such as keeping interest rates at the optimum level to produce full employment with minimum inflation, maintaining competition, preventing the growth of monopolies, controlling crime and corruption, and promoting education, literacy and numeracy and vocational training.

...it might be argued that national per capita incomes are a cause of national differences in IQs. This argument would state that rich nations provide advantageous environments to nurture the intelligence of their children in so far as they are able to provide their children with better nutrition, health care, education and whatever other environmental factors have an impact on intelligence, the nature of which is discussed in Neisser (1998). Intelligence has increased considerably in many nations during the twentieth century and there is little doubt that these increases have been brought about by environmental improvements, which have themselves occurred largely as a result of increases in per capita incomes that have enabled people to give their children better nutrition, health care, education and the like. Such a theory has some plausibility but it cannot explain the totality of the data. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore had high IQs in the 1960s when they had quite low per capita incomes and the same is true of China today. Nevertheless, the model of national differences in IQ as a major determinant of economic growth and per capita incomes should probably be supplemented by the postulation of a small positive feedback in which national per capita income has some impact on the population's IQ.

Our results are based on a sample of 60 nations out of approximately 185 nations of significant size in the world. We believe that the sample can be regarded as relatively well representative of the totality of nations because all categories of nations are well represented including the economically developed "First World" market economies of North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand; the "Second World" former communist nations of Russia and Eastern Europe; the "Third World" economically developing but impoverished nations of South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean; and the residual categories of Latin America and East Asia. If the representativeness of our sample is accepted, our results indicate that slightly over half the variance in national per capita income in the contemporary world is attributable to national differences in IQ. However, it should be noted that correlations are somewhat lower in the total group of 185 countries (see Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002). The difference in correlations implies that this sample of 60 nations is probably slightly biased.

The regression analysis suggests that a major additional factor is the economic form of organisation consisting of whether countries have market or socialist economies. The countries that have the largest positive residuals and therefore have higher per capita income than would be predicted from their IQs are Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland, Israel, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland and the United States. With the exception of Qatar and South Africa, all of these are technologically highly developed market economy countries and their higher than predicted per capita incomes can be attributed principally to this form of economic organisation. Qatar's exceptionally high level of per capita national income is principally due to its oil production industries. South Africa's much higher than expected level of per capita income should probably be attributed principally to the cognitive skills of its European minority who comprise 14 per cent of the population.

The countries that have the largest negative residuals are China, Iraq, South Korea, the Philippines, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Thailand and Uruguay. Four of these countries (China, Romania, Russia and Slovakia) are present or former socialist countries whose economic development has been hampered by their socialist economic and political systems. After the collapse of the Soviet communist systems in 1991 and the introduction of market economies in these countries and in China, the prospects for rapid economic development for these countries are good, although it takes time to establish effective market economies. Of the remaining five countries with large negative residuals, Iraq's low level of per capita national income is due principally to the destruction inflicted in 1990 war and the UN sanctions imposed in 1990. South Korea's Real GDP per capita is also considerably lower than expected on the basis of the country's exceptionally high level of national IQ (106). The principal explanation for this is probably that South Korea had a very low per capita income at the end of World War Two as a result of military defeat and occupation by the Japanese and that it has not yet had sufficient time to achieve the predicted level of per capita income, although economic growth in South Korea since 1950 has been extremely high (see Appendix 2). The Asian economic crisis in 1998 may have increased the negative residuals of the Philippines and Thailand temporarily. Economic growth in Uruguay has been strong since the 1970s, although the country has not yet achieved the per capita income level expected on the basis of its relatively high national IQ.
--
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/6.htm

-Chris

hitssquad

Feb11-04, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
Burma/Myanmar also has >50 ethnic groups

--
Of course, any rule concerning the number of gene loci that must show differences in allele frequencies (or any rule concerning the average size of differences in frequency) between different breeding populations for them to be considered races is necessarily arbitrary, because the distribution of average absolute differences in allele frequencies in the world's total population is a perfectly continuous variable. Therefore, the number of different categories, or races, into which this continuum can be divided is, in principle, wholly arbitrary, depending on the degree of genetic difference a particular investigator chooses as the criterion for classification or the degree of confidence one is willing to accept with respect to correctly identifying the area of origin of one's ancestors.

Some scientists have embraced all of Homo sapiens in as few as two racial categories, while others have claimed as many as seventy. These probably represent the most extreme positions in the "lumper" and "splitter" spectrum. Logically, we could go on splitting up groups of individuals on the basis of their genetic differences until we reach each pair of monozygotic twins, which are genetically identical. But as any pair of MZ twins are always of the same sex, they of course cannot constitute a breeding population. (If hypothetically they could, the average genetic correlation between all of the offspring of any pair of MZ twins would be 2/3; the average genetic correlation between the offspring of individuals paired at random in the total population is ½; the offspring of various forms of genetic relatedness, such as cousins [a preferred match in some parts of the world], falls somewhere between 2/3 and ½.) However, as I will explain shortly, certain multivariate statistical methods can provide objective criteria for deciding on the number and composition of different racial groups that can be reliably determined by the given genetic data or that may be useful for a particular scientific purpose.
--
(p425-426)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

it would seem there's been an awful lot more inter-breeding going on than Jensen et al had supposed
In 1998, Jensen put the typical european component in American blacks at 25%.
(p432)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

Lately, there have been indications that he overestimated inter-breeding:

--
Shriver's study shows that they are less European that was previously believed.

Earlier, cruder studies, done before direct genetic testing was feasible, suggested that African-Americans were 25 or even 30 percent white. Shriver's project is not complete, but with data from 25 sites already in, he is coming up with 17-18 percent white ancestry among African-Americans. That's the equivalent of 106 of those 128 of your ancestors from seven generations ago having been Africans and 22 Europeans.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/e-l/message/9213

-Chris

Nereid

Feb12-04, 08:38 PM

Some interesting things about Lynn's dataset (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t3.htm):

If you divide the 'nations' into three - sub-Saharan, 1998 per capita real GDP >16k, and the rest, what do you find (in terms of the relationship between "National IQ" and wealth and its growth)?

1) there are no meaningful correlations between the two variables within the first and second groups (with one exception - see 4 below)

2) only one of the three correlations in the 'rest' group is all that noticable (1998 real per capita GDP and "National IQ", R2 ~0.43)

3) South Korea is an outlier; if this single data point is removed, growth correlations in the 'rest' group all but disappear

4) Japan causes almost all the correlation in the 'rich' group.

In simple English:
1) the differences between the wealth of 'rich' countries have nothing to do with the mean IQ of their inhabitants
2) as a country gets richer, the mean IQ of its inhabitants goes up.

So what about the sub-Saharan countries? Perhaps hitssquad would be kind enough to tell us how, in detail, L+V processed the data found in the original reports they list here (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/7-a1.htm) to obtain the "National IQ" numbers they use in their analyses? Such information is absent from Lynn's webpage. In particular:
a) what secular trends (Flynn effect or other) have been included?
b) how they assured themselves that the sampling done by the original authors was unbiased, that the testing protocol was uniformly equal and unbiased, and of the validity of including IQ scores of below 50 (60? 65?)* from SPM test?

What about L+V's four tests (does correlation mean causation; hitssquad provided a quote earlier)?

"First, the postulated cause and effect must change together, or covary." L+V 1/9 (covariance is confined to one subset of the data, and only in one of the three relationships).

"Second, the cause must precede the effect." L+V 0. Without good data on the secular trends in "National IQ" in the 19 (20) countries comprising the 'rest', precedence remains to be established.

"Third, we must be able to identify a causal linkage between the supposed cause and effect." L+V 0.
As I've said in earlier posts, L+V's proposed cause (some races have smarter genes than others) may have been established in the US, but as Jensen himself freely admits, this hasn't been established elsewhere. Further, Lynn himself admits of the possibility of the wealth causing changes in IQ: "... the model of national differences in IQ as a major determinant of economic growth and per capita incomes should probably be supplemented by the postulation of a small positive feedback in which national per capita income has some impact on the population's IQ." Finally, there's ample evidence - at a 'country' llevel - to cast serious doubt on L+V's proposed 'causal link'.

"Fourth, it is highly improbable that the observed covariance between cause and effect could be due to any third factor." L+V 0.
Since there is, in fact, very little 'observed covariance', it's very probable that any that there is could be due to a third (or fourth) factor. Any number of geographic or economic factors might be responsible.

So what's the real story on sub-Saharan countries? Perhaps Paleo would like to address this question?

*L+V: "It has been suggested by a referee that the mean IQs of sub-Saharan African countries are so low that they cannot be valid and that they spuriously inflate the correlations between the national IQs and the measures of per capita income and economic growth."
from a quote in an earlier hitssquad post (my emphasis): "The greater B-W differences on the RT and RTSD components of the ECTs in the South African study is best explained by the fact that this group of South African blacks scored, on average, about 2ó below British (or South African) whites, while there is only about 1ó difference between American blacks and whites. 59 In the Lynn and Holmshaw study, the W-B difference on Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) was about 2.5ó. But we cannot be very confident of this value, because the SPM appeared to be too difficult for the African blacks. Their mean raw score on the SPM was only about three points above the chance guessing score, which casts doubt on the reliability and validity of the SPM as a measure of individual differences in g for this sample."

[Edit: fixed formats, some typos]

Nereid

Feb12-04, 09:05 PM

... has a "National IQ" of 87 (according to L+V), the lowest of the 16 (18) 'rich' countries. And yet ... its long term growth (1976-1998) is the second highest in this group of countries!

Lynn: "there is a straightforward explanation for the positive association between IQ and incomes at both the individual and population level. The major reason for this association is that people with high IQs can acquire complex skills that command high earnings and that cannot be acquired by those with low IQs. Nations whose populations have high IQs tend to have efficient economies at all levels from top and middle management through skilled and semi-skilled workers. These nations are able to produce competitively goods and services for which there is a strong international demand and for which there is therefore a high value, and that cannot be produced by nations whose populations have low IQs. In addition, nations whose populations have high IQs will have intelligent and efficient personnel in services and public sector employment that contributes indirectly to the strength of the economy such as teachers, doctors, scientists and a variety of public servants responsible for the running of telephones, railroads, electricity supplies and other public utilities. Finally, nations whose populations have high IQs are likely to have intelligent political leaders who manage their economies effectively. Skilled economic management is required to produce the right conditions for economic growth, such as keeping interest rates at the optimum level to produce full employment with minimum inflation, maintaining competition, preventing the growth of monopolies, controlling crime and corruption, and promoting education, literacy and numeracy and vocational training."

Not only has Ireland managed to do all the things which Lynn implies it can't (the Irish aren't smart enough), but it has developed an enviable leadership position in telecoms software development.

If the Irish can succeed so well with a mean IQ of 87, then 'the blacks' in the US (with a mean IQ of 85) should be able to do just as well, surely?

Ireland today, India (82), Iran (84), Cuba (85), Egypt (83), ... tomorrow?

Evidence? CMM (Capability Maturity Model) is a widely used benchmark for software development companies; level 5 is the highest. Very few companies are CMM Level 5; among them ... Wipro, an Indian company. Just in case you haven't been following: "*SNIP These nations [ones with high IQs] are able to produce competitively goods and services for which there is a strong international demand and for which there is therefore a high value, and that cannot be produced by nations whose populations have low IQs." (Lynn, my emphasis)

Nereid

Feb13-04, 08:50 PM

Earlier in this thread hitssquad posted links to diagrams used in Jensen's "The g Factor", which in turn were taken from Cavalli-Sforza et al. The diagrams list C-S's estimated 42 pre-1492 population groups and the genetic distances between them.

L+V also use non-national groups of people, which they usually (but not always) call 'races'. However, they do not list them on their website, and it's difficult to determine how important a role they play in their work.

Here is a list of such groups, from the Lynn website, in alphabetical order (from the context it's clear that sometimes L+V are quoting others; other times it's their own terminology):

African (black)
Arab
Blacks
Chinese
Colored
Creole (black-white hybrids)
Indians
Malagasy
Malayan-Polynesian
Malays
Mixed black-white
Negroid
Whites

What is the correspondence with C-S's list? Only those in blue are C-S population groups (note that "Malays" may not be the same as "Malaysians"). Those in green are higher-level groups.

And Jensen? After a lengthy introduction (hitssquad has posted the links), states: "Since far more empirical research relevant to the examination of the default hypothesis with respect to g has been done on the black-white difference, particularly within the United States, than on any other populations, I will focus exclusively on the causal basis of the mean black-white difference in the level of g."

Interestingly, Jensen appears to make no attempt to relate "Whites" to the ~>5 C-S population groups which may be 'white' (other than that they're 'European'). Wrt 'blacks', he mentions their predominant west African ancestry without identifying which of the C-S population groups they may have come from. He also points out that there is a significant 'white' component in their ancestry, ranging from ~4% to >40%.

Nereid

Feb14-04, 06:24 PM

(other than to rip more holes in it, use it as a textbook study of how NOT to do science, ...); and to Nachtwolf, hitssquad, Carlos, Apollo and any others who've been keen to blow Lynn's trumpet.

Summary of questions I have asked and which have not yet been answered by Lynn's defenders:

Research and analysis:
Would someone please give us a simple summary of the steps Lynn and Vanhanen used to get from the results of a test administered to x people in country y in year t to a "National IQ" figure? I'm particularly interested in the following:
- initial sample selection
- test protocol
- analysis of test results (esp distribution about the observed mean)
- key stages in analyses of data, to get to "National IQ", especially external assumptions and inputs.

In particular:
a) what secular trends (Flynn effect or other) have been included?
b) how they assured themselves that the sampling done by the original authors was unbiased, that the testing protocol was uniformly equal and unbiased, and of the validity of including IQ scores of below 50 (60? 65?) from SPM test?

Ghana:
L+V assert that the "National IQ" of Ghana is 62.
If "IQ 70-75 [is] often [...] considered the threshold for mental retardation", I would guess that 40-50 would be the threshold for severe retardation, perhaps those with Down’s Syndrome have IQs in this range? Would people with such low IQs – of whom there must have been at least 100 in the sample which lead L+V to their determination - to be able to do CPM or SPM? Would the test protocol have to be changed to administer either test to such people? What sort of sampling technique was used to ensure that such severely retarded people (if indeed they were) could be included as test subjects?

Then the onus is on those using or defending L+V’s results support to use publicly available data to estimate the minimum IQ needed to get into the leading university in Ghana, and to show that it's consistent with a "National IQ" of 62. Further, as an independent test, such defenders should compile data on the number of Ghanans who are employed as pilots by international airlines, academics in the US/EU/Japan/Australia (etc), and other professions in countries where a priori you would expect an IQ of 100 essential to be employed. Then we can calculate the expected number of such folk, based on Ghanan demographic data, and Lynn's assertion that the "National IQ" is 62.

Statistical consistency:
1) Here are the reported results from two studies used by Lynn and Vanhanen, done using the same instrument, on samples purporting to be randomly drawn from the same population:
A: mean 103, sample size 43,825
B: mean 105, sample size 2,496

It is claimed that the difference in the population mean, inferred from these two studies, is not statistically significant. Do you agree? Explain your answer.

2) Please present for us the "National IQ" data Lynn and Vanhanen use, for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Considering that the total non-Han ("Chinese" to you, I guess) population of greater China accounts for ~8% of the total population, please use L+V's data to give a consistent, statistically sound number for the IQ of the Han "race". Please draw our attention to any obvious, systematic trends in the data.

The 1984 Wall Street Journal ad, researchers in this field, etc:
1) Is this Wall Street Journal statement intended to refer to "individual and group differences in intelligence" throughout the world, or just in the US?

2) There are ~50 separate authors mentioned in the 81 studies quoted by Lynn. There are ~50 signatories to the document jerryel quoted. There are ONLY TWO names on both (and even one of those may be a coincidence) - Lynn and Gilmore. What is going on in this field???

3) Was Raven still an active academic in 1994? If so, why didn't he sign too?

4) What was the reception to Lynn's work among the hundreds of US profs who didn't sign the 1994 newspaper ad?

5) "Sir Cyril Burt", part of the "the intellectual core group of the hereditarian school of psychology" ... isn't he the guy whose work on the IQ differences among twins - especially those raised apart from birth - was later shown to be almost entirely fraudulent? To what extent has that fraudulent work (if that's what it was) continued to be used (knowingly or unknowingly; directly or indirectly) in conclusions about the hereditability of intelligence?