Originally posted by selfAdjoint Here's a comment from a site that is pretty fanatical about genes and g: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001463.html .
Thanks SelfAdjoint.
One of the contributors to the page made a technical critique of Lynn et al's work (http://www.suz.unizh.ch/volken/pdfs/IQWealthNation.pdf );
(Note that Volken looked at only one aspect; this footnote suggests other aspects would be worth examining: "For the authors the concept of race seems to be so clear that they see no need to make it explicit at all.")
To quote from Volken's conclusion:
"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.
Furthermore, Lynn and Vanhanen confuse IQ with human capital. Once one controls for the educational opportunity structure, the link between IQ and income disappears.
Also, their case for economic growth and IQ is not supported by the empirical evidence presented for the two growth periods 1976-1998 and 1983-1996. Once control variables are entered, and a more theoretically adequate growth model is specified, the effect of national IQ levels on growth cannot be substantiated. Therefore the correlation between IQ and growth which has been found by Lynn and Vanhanen must be considered as spurious. In short, the simple message is that national IQ has neither an effect on income nor on economic growth.
In the light of these findings, it is hardly worthwhile for any researcher to further consider national IQs as an engine of economic development and growth. If the IQ effect is spurious, why should we still bother? Firstly, the answer of course has to do with the questionable research methods applied by Lynn and Vanhanen. Secondly, part one of Lynn and Vanhanen s argument however weak its methodological fundament may be must be subject to strict scientific tests.
Polemics alone will not advance the knowledge of the scientific community."